1)

(a)The basis for our Mishnah, which rules that when a Shali'ach brings a Get on behalf of a man who is old or sick, we presume the husband to be in the same state that he left him, and the woman is divorced is 'Chazakah' (we assume a person or situation to remain unchanged, until we hear to the contrary.

(b)For the same reason a bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband went overseas may continue to eat Terumah.

(c)Similarly, the Kohanim are permitted to bring the Chatas of a man who sent it from overseas, on the assumption that he is still alive. If they know that the owner is no longer alive they will have to let the Chatas die, and bury it.

2)

(a)According to Rava, the above Chazakah will not apply in the case of a man who is ...

1. ... old once he reaches the age of eighty.

2. ... sick once he becomes a Goses (a man on his death-bed), because the majority of Gosesin die..

(b)The Beraisa says that if a man of a hundred sends his wife a Get, the Shali'ach nevertheless hands her the Get to his wife on the assumption that her husband is still alive.

(c)We nevertheless resolve Rava with the Beraisa with the Sevara 'Ho'il v'Iflig, Iflig' (a person who survives till eighty is obviously very strong and is no longer considered on the brink of death).

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that a woman whose husband gives her a Get which is due to be valid only one hour before his death is forbidden to eat Terumah immediately.

(b)When Rami bar Chama pointed out this discrepancy to Rabah, he drew a distinction between Terumah and Get inasmuch as in the case of Terumah, the woman has the option of eating Chulin (so we are strict), whereas in the case of Get, if we contend with the husband's death, it will never be possible to send a Get through a Shali'ach.

(c)This answer is unacceptable however, on the basis of another Mishnah in Sukah, which rules that a bas Yisrael whose Kohen husband traveled overseas is permitted to eat Terumah on the assumption that her husband is still alive.

(d)Rav Ada Brei d'Rav Yitzchak therefore draws a different distinction. Really the Tana is not worried that her husband may have died. The case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Miysasi' however, is different because she is forbidden to eat Terumah one hour before her husband dies, and, since that time is bound to arrive, we have to consider every moment of being part of that hour.

4)

(a)Rav Papa refutes Rav Ada Brei d'Rav Yitzchak's answer on the grounds that it is in no way certain, even in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Miysasi', that the woman will be forbidden to eat Terumah since it is possible that her husband will die first and she will not be divorced at all.

(b)So Abaye makes a Machlokes Tana'im between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kusim ... ' (which we discussed earlier, in the first Perek) rules 'Meichal v'Shoseh Miyad'. Rebbi Yehudah forbids this (because the flask might break).

(c)The Machlokes there, says Abaye, is the same as the Machlokes here: Rebbi Meir, who is not afraid that the flask might break is not afraid that a person might die; whereas Rebbi Yehudah, who is afraid of the one, is also afraid of the other.

5)

(a)To explain the discrepancy between the Beraisa ('Harei Zeh Gitech Sha'ah Achas Kodem Misasi ... ') on the one hand, and our Mishnah (ha'Meivi Get v'Hinicho Zaken O Choleh ... ') and the Mishnah in Sukah (Bas Yisrael ha'Nesu'ah l'Kohen, v'Halach Ba'alah li'Medinas ha'Yam ... ) on the other Rava draws a distinction between 'Shema Mes' (which we do not contend with) and Shema Yamus (which we do since everyone is destined to die eventually).

(b)Rava makes his statement as if it was unanimous. Rav Yehudah from Diskarta explains that in the Beraisa of 'ha'Loke'ach Yayin', which belongs to the category of 'Shema Yamus', Rebbi Meir nevertheless holds 'Meichal v'Shoseh', and is not concerned that the jar may break because it is possible to hand the jar of wine to someone to look after (guaranteeing that it will not break).

(c)When Rav Mesharshaya exclaimed 'Arvech Arva Ba'i', he meant that the Shomer himself will require a guarantee that he will not be careless, and allow the jar to break).

(d)In light of this Beraisa, Rava finally explains that nobody contends with the possibility of 'Shema Mes', whereas 'Shema Yamus' is a Machlokes, Rebbi Yehudah contends with it, and Rebbi Meir does not.

6)

(a)The problem with sending a Korban with a Shali'ach is the Semichah on the head of the Korban, which, as we learn from the Pasuk "v'Samach Yado", only the owner can perform, and not his son or his Shali'ach.

(b)Rav Yosef therefore establishes our Mishnah, which talks about someone sending his Chatas with a Shali'ach, by the Chatas of a woman whose Korban does not require Semichah ...

(c)... as the Torah writes "Daber El Bnei Yisrael v'Samach" ("Bnei Yisrael v'Samach", 've'Lo Benos Yisrael v'Samach').

(d)Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah even by the Chatas of a man and the Chatas referred to by the Tana, is a Chatas ha'Of, which does not require Semichah.

7)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah has listed three cases which all teach us a living man has a Chezkas Chai). Having told us this by ...

1. ... Get, he nevertheless needs to repeat it by Terumah - because whereas Get has no alternative, Terumah does (his wife can eat Chulin), as we explained earlier.

2. ... Terumah, he needs to repeat it by Chatas because on the one hand, there are times when even in the case of Terumah, there is no alternative (when his wife is poor and needs to be fed by taking Terumah in the granaries), and on the other, we will not allow Chulin to be brought into the Azarah when there is a Safek.

(b)The combination of all three cases teaches us that the Chezkas Chai is not a Safek, but a Vadai.

8)

(a)Rebbi Elazar ben Prata in our Mishnah teaches the Din of Chezkas Chai with regard to a case of a city that has been besieged by the enemy and in the case of a ship that is floundering in the sea. The third case he includes in his list is that of a man who is on his way to be judged for the death-sentence.

(b)The Chachamim accept his teachings.

(c)However, Rebbi Elazar ben Prata adds, in the case of a city that has fallen to the enemy, a ship that has sunk and someone who is being taken out to be killed, we apply Chumrei Chayim v'Chumrei Meisim. The ramifications of ...

1. ... 'Chumrei Meisim' are in the case a bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen (who is considered dead, forbidding her to eat Terumah on his merit).

2. ... 'Chumrei Chayim' are in the case of a bas Kohen who is married to a Yisrael (who is considered alive, preventing her from returning to her father's house to eat Terumah).

9)

(a)Rav Yosef restricts the Din in our Mishnah (of placing on a man who is being taken out to be killed the stringencies of a live man) to a Beis-Din Shel Yisrael who are liable to find a merit for the sentenced man and to declare him innocent even after the death-sentence has been passed.

(b)In the equivalent case by a Beis-Din Shel Akum the sentenced man will have a Chezkas Mes only, because once they have sentenced him to death, under no circumstances will they bring him back to re-judge his case.

(c)Abaye queried Rav Yosef on the grounds that Nochri judges are likely to change their minds when they are offered bribes, to which Rav Yosef replied that this is only before the sentence has been passed, but not afterwards.

10)

(a)The Beraisa rules that, if a man fled after Beis-Din had sentenced him to death, and witnesses subsequently testified in front of another Beis-Din that a previous Beis-Din had passed sentence the second Beis-Din will carry out the death-sentence on the basis of their testimony.

(b)Rav Yosef reconciles his own opinion, where he contends with the likelihood that in a Beis-Din of Yisrael, a sentenced man might still be acquitted, with this Beraisa by differentiating between a regular case and someone who flees from Beis-Din, who stands no chance of being acquitted.

11)

(a)Another Beraisa believes a Beis-Din Yisrael who declares 'Ish Ploni Mes, Ish Ploni Neherag', allowing his wife to remarry but not a Nochri executioner.

(b)'Ish Ploni Neherag' means that he was executed by Beis-Din; 'Ish Ploni Mes' that after twice transgressing a Lav which is subject to Malkus, he was placed in a narrow room and fed raw barley until he died.

(c)We prefer not to take 'Ish Ploni Mes, Ish Ploni Neherag' literally because then even the Nochri executioners would be believed to say that so-and-so was executed, seeing as they did not testify in an official capacity, only 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' (and we have a principle that in cases where two official witnesses are not required, 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' is believed).

(d)We therefore suggest that the Tana must mean, not that he had actually been executed, but that he had been taken out to be executed (a Kashya on Rav Yosef, according to whom this would be no proof that he had actually been executed).

12)

(a)So we accept the literal explanation (that we just rejected) to explain 'Ish Ploni Mes, Ish Peloni Neherag', and this case is different than other cases where a Nochri is believed 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' inasmuch as here, where the executioners are personally involved, they are liable to lie, in order to boast of their judicial integrity.