Implied Question: The Gemara did not want to say that the case was where a mute brought the Get, or someone who did not see the Get written brought the Get. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: If this was the case, the Mishnah should have said, "and he didn't say" (not "and he couldn't say"). (Note: The Maharam explains that, "and he couldn't say," implies that he was able to say this originally, but when it came to giving the Get he could not say this. This is because he was originally sane, and only after he became a messenger did he become insane. However, someone who couldn't talk or never saw the writing of the Get was never eligible to be a messenger for this Get. Accordingly, the Mishnah should have used the words, "and he didn't say," implying that he never was able to say this.)

Explanation: This means that even if he could say b'Fanay Nechtav he should not have to, as it should be sufficient to verify the signatures on the document.

Question: Why is the Gemara asking a question on Rabah? Just as there is no question on Rava who says that if the messenger cannot say b'Fanay Nechtav etc, the document must be verified, but if the messenger does say this there is no need without having two witnesses verify the signatures, this can also be the position of Rabah. This is because once the Gemara already stated that this was "after they learned" (and there was therefore no longer an issue of Lishmah), Rabah and Rava essentially share the same opinion.

Answer #1 (Rabeinu Tam): Rabeinu Tam answered that according to Rava there is no question. The Mishnah taught the case where the messenger could no longer say b'Fanay Nechtav in order to teach that verification is needed to validate the document. When he can say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., that is valid even though it is obviously not the same to Rava as an actual validation of the document.

However, according to Rabah, b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is better than validation of the document, as this imparts that the document was written Lishmah. Accordingly, it is understandable that the Mishnah would teach us that even if b'Fanay Nechtav etc. cannot be said the document can be verified, as there was no longer a big problem of Lishmah. However, once the case is after there is no problem of Lishmah, why couldn't the document be verified even when the witness could say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.?

Later the Gemara asks, "If so, one messenger should also (not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav)." The Gemara is asking, Shmuel should ask from Rav Huna if verifying the document is good enough, as there is no suspicion (of Lishmah). Or perhaps the verification should not be valid, as they did not differentiate between before and after the awareness of Lishmah? The Gemara answers, it is obvious that one messenger must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., as a decree lest the status quo go back to the way it was (when there was not enough awareness regarding Lishmah).

Answer #2 (Ri): The Ri explains that our Gemara's question is as follows. Where verifying the document is unnecessary, according to Rabah there will be no need to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., as people have already learned to write a Get Lishmah. Earlier, the Gemara said that if two people bring the Get within the same country overseas, Rabah would still say that b'Fanay Nechtav etc. must be said. (Note: This is even after people learned to write a Get Lishmah, as explained immediately below.)

The entire Mishnah can be established to be discussing where everyone already learned to write a Get Lishmah. This is apparent from the Gemara's question from our Mishnah, that a woman can bring her Get herself (see Maharam at length as to why this supports Tosfos' point). Therefore, the first part of the Mishnah is also discussing where everyone had already learned to write a Get Lishmah.

Similarly, one can explain the question discussed above, "If so, one should also." (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that once the Mishnah has been established as discussing after everyone has learned to write a Get Lishmah (as stated above according to the Ri), even one person should no longer have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. Why, then, does the Mishnah say otherwise?)

Answer #3 (Rashi): Rashi originally wrote in his handwritten commentary that these questions of the Gemara are according to the original premise that Rabah does not agree with Rava. This is the way of the Gemara, that after it asks a question from one angle it will go back and ask from another source (even though the first question seemed valid by itself). However, Rashi then erased that explanation.

Implied Question: We cannot explain the question that "even when he can say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. he should not have to," that Rabah should not need b'Fanay Nechtav etc. because there is no longer a problem of Lishmah. (Note: The question would be explained in the following manner.) It is understandable according to Rava who suspects that this will be mixed up with the regular validation of documents. However, according to Rabah where verification does not help and we therefore have no suspicion of mixing up this process with regular validation, why do we need b'Fanay Nechtav etc.? (Note: Why isn't this a valid explanation?)

Answer: (Note: This explanation is not adequate for the following reason.) The Gemara later (16b) implies that because b'Fanay Nechtav etc. was originally decreed to be said because of Lishmah, Rabah admits that it should have to be said even after people learned to write Gitin Lishmah. This is because Rabah agrees that now there is a suspicion (as Rava said earlier) of confusing this process with the regular verification of documents.

Explanation: There should be no difference regarding messengers who are able to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. (even when the case is uncommon).

Explanation: The Gemara's question is that according to Rava this is understandable. When the husband brings the Get there is no suspicion of forgery, as he is not suspected to intentionally make his wife stumble (by apparently giving a kosher Get leading to her remarriage, when the Get will actually be invalid). However, according to Rabah we should suspect that the husband will not complain, as he originally did not know that Lishmah was needed.

The Gemara answers that if the husband himself is bringing the Get there is no problem. Being that even if he does complain it only serves to spread rumors about the Get (not to make it unfit, see Tosfos 3a, DH "Chad"), there is no suspicion that he will complain when he himself brings the Get.

Observation: At this stage of the Gemara, there is no difference between Rabah and Rava after everyone already learned to write a Get Lishmah in a case where two people bring a Get. However, there is still a difference between them in a case where the Get is verified.

(Later, the Gemara (16b) says that there is an opinion that two messengers do have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. even after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. This is because the Gemara there does not continue two messengers bearing a Get to be an uncommon occurrence (which would not be included in the decree of the Rabbanan to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.).

Implied Question: Assuming this is considered a common occurrence, Rabah deduces from the Mishnah later (15a) that when two people say they saw the signature the Get is kosher, but if they would merely recognize the signature it would not be kosher. This is despite the fact that this is after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. (Note: We stated above that there is no difference between Rabah and Rava after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. They both agree that verification would be sufficient. Accordingly, why would the Mishnah say that the witnesses would have to say that they personally saw the signatures?)

Answer: The Mishnah still stated "in front of us," as the law was that they had to have seen this personally before everyone knew to write Gitin Lishmah.

Explanation: The Gemara's answer is that we decree that even in an uncommon type of case where one person is bringing the Get, b'Fanay Nechtav etc. must be said. However, in an uncommon case where two people bring the Get it is not necessary, as we do not include a case where two people bring the Get because of a case where one person brings a Get. (Note: Being that it is both different in the amount of people discussed in the original decree and uncommon, it is far removed from the original decree regarding one messenger who brings a Get.)

Implied Question: The Beraisa later states that if one did not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. the resulting child from such a marriage (using this Get) is a Mamzer. (Note: How can this be when our Gemara implies that such a child is kosher b'Dieved?)

Answer: This (the Beraisa later) is when the signatures in the Get were not verified.

Question: Why don't we include this in the list (86a) of three Gitin that are unfit, but if a woman remarries based on these Gitin her resulting children are kosher b'Dieved?

Answer: This is because Rabah holds that in the cases on the list of the three Gitin she must get divorced, but in this case she does not even have to get divorced.

Question: According to the text later (17a) that Rebbi Yochanan holds that if two people bring a Get from overseas they must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., the implication is that this is because people overseas do not always know to write a Get Lishmah. If so, how can we answer our Beraisa here?

If we will give the answer that the case is when she already remarried, it should be considered one of the three Gitin that are unfit. This is because Rebbi Yochanan (86a) holds that these three Gitin do not mandate that she get divorced (this would therefore have fit neatly into that list).

Additionally, we cannot answer that this list of three Gitin is only a list of Gitin that have something wrong with the Get itself (not an external problem such as a messenger not saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc., which is why this Get is not on the list). This is because we say (86a) that the number of Gitin listed in the second half of the Beraisa excludes a case where the Get was given to her and the messenger did not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. In such a case she should get divorced, and any children she had while relying on this Get are deemed Mamzerim. (Note: This shows that the Beraisa is addressing external problems in a Get as well.)

Answer: The Ri answers that Rebbi Yochanan's statement (86a) that these three Gitin do not mandate that she should get divorced is according to the first version of the Gemara (16b). According to that version of the Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan understands that the reasoning is like Rava, that there are no witnesses to verify the document, as our Gemara indeed concludes.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): Rashi does not have the text "Ee Ba'is Aima," as this is the end of a statement (not a separate answer).

Opinion #2 (Ri): The Ri understands that this phrase indeed fits in our text.

He explains that the answer is referring to a time before everyone knew to write a get Lishmah. Once she was already married she should not get divorced. There is no reason to suspect a forgery as the document is verified. There is only the possible rumor that the Get was not written Lishmah even if the husband will come and complain that it was not, as explained earlier (Tosfos 5a, DH "Ee Hachi Ba'al"). Accordingly, the Get is kosher b'Dieved (once she has married).

Observation: We do not have the text "v'Tisbara," as explained by Rashi.

Observation: Nearby (in the Gemara), where the Gemara says, "Ela" - "Rather" Rebbi Shimon bar Aba had a different person with him," we do not have the text "Ela." This is because the Gemara is not coming to refute the proof brought earlier.

Nearby the Gemara also proves this from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who holds that people were not learned in writing Gitin Lishmah etc. (Note: This shows that the Gemara is staying with the same train of thought.)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to answer that he holds like the other text that appears later (17a, that two witnesses who bring a Get from overseas must still say b'Fanay Nechtav etc). (Note: Why not?)

Answer #1: The text there that says that two people do not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is the main text. The Gemara there says about that text, "It is a peg that will not fall."

Answer #2: Additionally, according to that answer we would not be able to answer our Gemara's question that Rabah holds of Rava.

Observation: Rashi does not have this text.

Proof: He is correct. Being that it is obvious that we do say a witness can become a judge in Rabbinic matters as we asked later, how can the Gemara at this stage have the opposite assumption that a witness cannot become a judge? It is obvious that here the Gemara does not merely assume that a witness cannot become a judge only in Torah matters (which would reconcile both opinions.)

However, in Kesuvos (11a) there is somewhat of a precedent for this type of "contradictory" questioning. Regarding a convert who is a minor that Beis Din instructs for him to be dip in a Mikvah on their authority, the Gemara asks that this is an obvious law, as we know that a person can acquire for something for someone else when he is not present! (Note: Similarly, even though this minor has no Halachic knowledge until he gets older and knowingly chooses to be Jewish, the Gemara asks that Beis Din's conversion should work because this is like acquiring a good thing for someone else when he is not present.)

Yet the Gemara later asks, don't we hold that a servant likes to be ownerless (and not have so many mitzvos)? (Note: The Gemara here introduces a contradictory assumption, unlike Tosfos's proof which hinged on the fact that it is not normal for the Gemara to have contradictory assumptions.)

Observation: Rabeinu Tam has the following text. "Being that a woman is fit to bring a Get, sometimes a woman will bring the Get."

Rabeinu Chananel also had this text.

The Gemara could have also said, "Sometimes a relative will bring a Get."

Implied Question: To whom is the Beraisa addressing the question, "What should he do?" The Rabbanan said the child is not a Mamzer, so presumably there is nothing to do!

Answer: The Beraisa is asking, what should be done according to the Rabbanan in order that the woman can marry Lechatchilah or at least that she will not have to get divorced. However, the Rabbanan do not hold that anything has to be done for the child, as the child is not a Mamzer because they do hold of Rebbi Meir's rule that (the resulting children from) whoever changes (from the standard form of a Get established by the Rabbanan are Mamzerim).

According to Rebbi Meir the question is how should this be taken care of before the marriage. However, after marriage, Rebbi seemingly holds that there is nothing to do. Being that the child is a Mamzer, all of these ways apply to her and she should be divorced from both husbands, and all of those stated later (80a.). (Note: This last sentence "Kol ha'Derachim etc.") is a quote from the Mishnah later on (80a), referring to the Mishnah's listing at length of the ramifications of this type of Get that is unfit.)

Observation: The Gemara implies that when the Get is given the messenger must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. This is apparent from the statement, "he should take it from her (and give it back to her again in front of two witnesses while saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc)." This also works if it is done within Kdei Dibur (about a couple of seconds) of the giving of the Get. This is apparent from the Gemara's statement earlier that he gave her the Get when he was sane, and he wasn't able to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc, until he went insane.

However, after Kdei Dibur the Ri is unsure if b'Fanay Nechtav is still valid as long as they are still dealing with the giving of the Get or not. The Ri is similarly unsure if b'Fanay Nechtav etc. works before the giving of the Get.

Implied Question: There is no proof from the Mishnah later (29b) that says that "if someone brought a Get from overseas and fell sick, Beis Din appoints a messenger etc." (Note: The continuation of the Mishnah is that the first messenger says before Beis Din "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." and the second messenger does not have to say it when he gives the Get. This seemingly proves that stating "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." is valid before the giving of the Get. Why isn't this a proof?)

Answer: This is not a proof because the Mishnah very well means that he says b'Fanay Nechtav etc. when the Get leaves his hands and is passed on to the second messenger.

Implied Question: How can Rebbi Eliezer say that "even if he only wrote the first line Lishmah it is enough?" Doesn't the whole Get have to be written Lishmah?

Explanation: Rebbi Eliezer means that he only saw the first line written Lishmah, indicating that he probably finished the Get Lishmah.