Implied Question: In fact, the Gemara could have stated that the case is where the pot and seedlings belong to one person. (Note: Why didn't it do that?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara wanted to include a case where even though the owner of the pot is acquiring he does not acquire the seedlings, even though they are in his pot.

Question: It requires inquiry whether or not the seller must say "Agav u'Kni" -- "on the side (of the land) and acquire," as is usually done, as stated in Kidushin (27a). Or, perhaps here this is not necessary, as being that the pot is required for the seedlings, it is as if it is secondary to the seedlings.

Similarly, regarding a document, we say that once the buyer holds onto the land, he acquires the document wherever it is (without having to say "Agav u'Kni").

Perhaps there we do not require a term "Agav" because the document is the "reigns of the land" (see Bava Basra 53b).

Implied Question: In Chulin (128a), there is an opinion that a gourd that is planted in a pot that does not have a hole and (some of) it went outside the pot, the part that is impure (and is in the pot) stays impure, and the part that is pure (hanging outside the pot and therefore considered connected to the ground) is pure.

Similarly (according to this opinion), if the pot is outside Eretz Yisrael and the branches (or leafs etc.) are hanging over the ground, the branches that are hanging over the ground themselves are obligated in Ma'aser. (Note: The Maharsha explains that Tosfos is implying the following question. Abaye says that being that the part of the plant over the hole is being nurtured from Eretz Yisrael, the entire plant is obligated in Ma'aser. If this is so, why doesn't the Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) say that the pot without a hole should be entirely judged based on the branches that are being nurtured from the ground? If the sole source of its being nurtured is from the branches, the entire plant should be deemed pure!)

Answer: The fact that the branches gain nourishment from the ground underneath them is not the same as the roots gaining nourishment from the ground. This is apparent from the fact that the purity of the branches do not make what is in the pot pure (in the case in Chulin ibid.). Here, the branches are obligated because of the nourishment of the main part of the plant.

Explanation: The Gemara thinks at this point that when the second part of the Mishnah quotes Rebbi Meir as stating, "If the top person etc." it is not his main reasoning. This is evident from the Mishnah's statement, "Being that each can protest each other's actions, we have to analyze the source of its roots (which is the floor of the top person's garden)." This implies that they argue how to logically determine which is the main one (garden). (Note: This second reason is pertinent to our Gemara's argument regarding whether we look at the branches or hole as the main source of the plant.)

The Gemara in Bava Metzia (118b) states that this argument is based on another of their arguments regarding a tree that come out of roots etc., with a similar argument regarding Orlah.

Question: It is indeed difficult to understand why our Gemara does not quote the Mishnah in Orlah as relevant to our Gemara. (Note: This is a better match, as the first reason "If the top person etc." is not even applicable in that case.)

Explanation: The case that is invalid is where the body of the Get is on a part of the paper where nothing was ever erased, and the signature of the witnesses is on the part where something was erased. However, if both the body of the Get and the signatures are on an erased area, the Get is valid. This is as the Gemara in Bava Basra (164a) states that a Get with one erasure is not similar to something that has two erasures (as the two erasures match, and it is clear there is no forgery). (Note: The Maharam Shif points out that Tosfos is arguing on Rashi's explanation in the Mishnah.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that finished parchment was not counted as it is not called "skin."

Explanation: The Ri adds that parchment is not included because the Mishnah explicitly says that the amount of parchment that must be used is the minimum amount used to write a small Parshah of Tefilin (and Ula does not have to tell us its measurement).

Implied Question: The amount of Chifah, which is enough to make an amulet, is also stated in a Mishnah. (Note: Why, then, would Ula list Chifah but not Klaf according to the Ri?)

Answer: The Mishnah there did not explicitly state it was discussing Chifah.

Observation: This is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbanan who say that a Get can be written on Diftara. This is why this statement is brought here.

These amounts do not correspond to the importance of the leather, as there are types that are important but yet their amounts are bigger than a lesser quality skin. Rather, each amount corresponds to its purpose for which it is normally used.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara is inquiring into who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the Get cause the Get to take effect, and that a woman who wants to get married must bring these witnesses to permit her to marry.

Only here, regarding a Get written on something that can be forged, does Rashi hold that she requires witnesses for the giving of the Get when she wants to remarry. However, Gitin that are written with something which cannot be forged can permit a woman to remarry based on the signed witnesses alone, even according to Rebbi Eliezer (who holds that the witnesses for the giving of the Get cause the Get to take effect).

This is as the Mishnah states later (86a), and it is quoted in the beginning of the Mesechta, that the only reason witnesses are signed on a Get is because of Tikun ha'Olam.

Explanation: However, Rashi's explains that according to Rebbi Meir, if a woman comes to get married with a Get that is written on something that can be forged does not need witnesses that the Get was given over. She does not have to bring the witnesses who signed themselves as long as there are people who recognize their signatures. If there was a condition in the Get and he forged it, nobody will know. This implies that if the witnesses (see Maharsha and Maharam Shif that Tosfos is referring to the witnesses of the giving of the Get) were before us, it would be kosher.

Question: This is impossible. According to Rebbi Meir, the Get has to be clearly correct (based on the body of the Get itself), as is implied later (24b). If it is possible that it can be forged, it is not clearly correct.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that a document is used to collect with, and the person might not collect for a long time during which the witnesses of the giving of the document might forget what happened. We would then rely on the witnesses who are signed on the document. The owner of the document might then proceed to forge what is written in the document, and he will leave the signature of the witnesses intact (as if they signed on what he forged above). (Note: This is why we do not rely on this for regular documents.)

Implied Question: His explanation is difficult. Why would we think that we should rely on signed witnesses when the document could be forged?

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Yitzchak explains that the reason is because the Pasuk states that this is invalid for regular documents (which have erasures) even if used right away, because it has to be able to stay for a long time.

Rebbi Yochanan who says that this verification can even be used with regular documents holds that a person remembers these things, even for ten days.

Implied Question: The Gemara asks (on Rebbi Yochanan), "doesn't the Pasuk say "in order that it should stay for many days?" (Note: Why is the Gemara asking this question on Rebbi Yochanan who indeed says that it works, even for ten days?)

Answer#1: This is because the Gemara thinks at this point that this Pasuk must be teaching us that regular documents are excluded from being proof after a long time. Otherwise, why would the Pasuk mention this? The Gemara concludes that this is simply good advice (to put away the documents for future proof).

Answer#2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that Rebbi Yochanan only said that a person remembers regarding Gitin. However, regarding documents that have a lot of conditions he will not remember. Rebbi Yochanan therefore only permits this right away.

The Gemara's question is now understandable. "Don't we require "it should be fit to stay for many days?" This means that it should not even be valid right away!

Question: According to Rebbi Elazar who says that this method cannot be used for regular documents, how is it different from a case where there are no witnesses? The Mishnah states (86a) that according to Rebbi Elazar one can collect from property with a lien, meaning he can collect with a document that doesn't have witnesses, as explained by Rashi.

Answer: The case where there are no witnesses is different. It is written on something that cannot be forged. Witnesses recognize a document that is given over to them to inspect (and to testify that it was given over). If it would be forged, it would be apparent.

Question: However, there is another difficulty. The Beraisa clearly states in Kidushin (26a) that if someone writes on paper or earthenware, "My field is sold/given to you," it is sold/given. This implies that Rebbi Elazar holds that even a regular document that can be forged is valid.

Answer: When the Gemara here says that Rebbi Elazar holds such documents cannot be used, it merely refers to documents that are used for proof. Documents used to sell/give for the moment (just to enact the transaction) have the same law as a Get.

Opinion: Some say that there is no difference between something that can be forged and something that cannot be forged, as long as there are witnesses that the document was given over according to Rebbi Elazar. Here, when the Gemara says that "Rebbi Elazar only verified as kosher etc.," it means that Rebbi Eliezer who is quoting Rebbi Elazar only holds that he is correct regarding Gitin, not regarding other documents. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rav (86b) who says that the law follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin. The Gemara there indeed explains that Rebbi Elazar holds this is even applicable to documents. Rav holds like Rebbi Elazar in one thing (Gitin) and argues regarding another (regular documents).

Question#1: This does not appear to be correct. If this were true, it should have said in our Gemara the same thing that it says later (ibid.), namely that "the law follows Rebbi Elazar regarding Gitin." This would be expected, as our Gemara and the Gemara there are regarding the same topic.

Question#2: Additionally, the Gemara there should have quoted the argument quoted here between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Eliezer.

Question#3: Additionally, why does the Gemara ask a question on Rebbi Yochanan that the Pasuk says "in order that it should stay for many days?" This question is according to everyone, as everyone agrees (according to this opinion) that Rebbi Elazar himself does not differentiate between Gitin and regular documents.

Opinion#1: The Gemara is asking its question according to Rebbi Elazar, as Rebbi Meir does not require that the Get be written Lishmah. The Gemara answers that when an adult is standing over him it is kosher.

Implied Question: The Mishnah states in Chulin that if anyone slaughters and others see them etc. The Gemara there (12b) explains that who is the Tana who says that intent is not required for slaughtering etc.? (Note: This implies that an adult standing over him does not turn him into someone who acts with proper intent. The slaughtering is seemingly kosher because intent is not necessary!)

Answer: The Gemara there is discussing a case where he only sees him slaughtering, not where he teaches him to slaughter. However, here the Gemara is referring to a case where an adult is overseeing him and teaching him and ensuring that he writes the Get Lishmah.

This is also why the Gemara in Yevamos (104b) excludes a deaf man or woman from performing Chalitzah, as they cannot read. A minor is excluded because it says "A man" in the Pesukim regarding Chalitzah. However, the reason that they do not have intent is not a reason to invalidate them, despite the fact that the Gemara says there that the Chalitzah is invalid unless they both have intent. This is because Beis Din warns them to do the Chalitzah Lishmah, and it is like an adult is standing over them.

However, regarding Gitin it is enough for an adult to oversee his writing of the Get, even if he is insane. This is because it is obvious that he is writing Lishmah, as he writes the name of the person, his wife, and the names of their cities. However, regarding Chalitzah the Tosefta says in Yevamos (11:9) that a person who is insane is not a candidate for Chalitzah. Even though Beis Din could teach him how to do Chalitzah, it is not as apparent that he is doing so Lishmah as by the writing of a Get.

Question: Even so, they are not people who can be used as a messenger. How, then, can it help if an adult is standing over him?

Answer: It is not necessary to have a halachic messenger for the writing of the Get. This is because the Pasuk "v'Kasav" -- "and he wrote" is not regarding the husband, but rather regarding the scribe.

Implied Question: The Gemara later says (71b) that the husband must tell the scribe to write the Get and tell the witnesses to sign. (Note: This implies that the scribe indeed must be the halachic messenger of the husband!)

Answer: This is not because they need to be halachic messengers. Rather, when the husband does not command the scribe to write the Get it is not considered as if it was written Lishmah, but rather that it was written without any specific intent. It is therefore invalid, as a woman is not normally designated for divorce, as stated in Zevachim (2b).

Implied Question: The Gemara later (24b) states that if the Gemara would have said "v'Kasav" -- "and he wrote" I would have thought it excludes "this." "This" means that if a person wrote a Get to divorce his wife and changed his mind (the Get is invalid, and cannot be used for someone else's divorce). (Note: This implies that it is invalid because the husband who wants to use it never appointed the scribe to write the Get. It therefore seems that the scribe must be a halachic messenger of the husband!)

Answer: It is not invalid because the husband has to write the Get. Rather, it is invalid because the Get was not written for his divorce, but rather for a different potential divorce.

Implied Question: Rav Chisda said earlier (20a), "I can make all Gitin invalid." The Gemara asked how he could do this. The Gemara said, if it is because it says "v'Kasav," and she is the one who really writes the Get etc. (Note: She pays for the scribe, as instituted in Bava Basra (168a).)

Answer: The Gemara there relies on the Pasuk of "(v'Kasav) v'Nasan," meaning that the Get has to be written because he commanded that it should be written, and he should give the Get. The Gemara is therefore entertaining that even if it is written because he commanded that it should be written, he cannot give her a valid Get as it belongs to her.

Question: They (insane, minors, etc) are not people who can effect Krisus!

Answer: They are considered people who effect Krisus, being that if the minor grows up and the insane person becomes sane they can effect Krisus.

Question: This is difficult. This implies that a Nochri is only invalid because he is writing because of himself. We should understand that he is invalid because he cannot effect Krisus! Why do we need to quote a Beraisa showing a Nochri is invalid? (Note: It is obvious!)

Answer: It appears that we cannot invalidate (Nochrim) because they cannot effect Krisus, as Gitin do not require a messenger or testimony (Nochrim cannot halachically be a messenger or testify).

The Gemara later says that a slave cannot be made into a messenger etc. and cannot sign a Get, which according to Rebbi Meir is for the sake of testimony. The Gemara earlier (10b) indeed asks regarding Gitin whose signatories are Nochrim, "but they are not people who can effect Krisus?" However, Nochrim merely writing the Get according to Rebbi Elazar, which does not involve testimony or being a messenger, cannot be deemed invalid by saying that they cannot effect Krisus.

This is similar to the fact that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (27a) does not say that a Nochri cannot perform a Bris because they are not included in Bris.

Opinion#2: Additionally, Rabeinu Yitzchak says that we could say that this Gemara is according to Rebbi Meir.

One might think that according to Rebbi Meir the Get must be written Lishmah according to Rabbinic law. This would be because we would decree that the writing must be Lishmah, lest people will not even sign a Get Lishmah. Rav Huna establishes that this case is where an adult is standing over him, and it is therefore effective even (when written) by someone who is (halachically) insane, more than it is by Chalitzah, as this is only a Rabbinic law.

However, according to Rebbi Elazar who requires that the writing of the Get be done Lishmah according to Torah law, it will not help to have an adult standing over an insane person writing a Get like it will by Chalitzah.

(Note: In our Gemara) Rav Nachman asks from a Beraisa that says that a Nochri cannot write a Get. This implies that he holds like Rebbi Meir, as he only said that a Nochri should be invalid. The Gemara answers that a Nochri writes the Get for his own reasons and it is therefore invalid. This is even if an adult is standing over him and watching, and even according to Rebbi Meir.

Rav Nachman then retracted. He said that the Beraisa which states that a Nochri is invalid is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. It states that a Nochri is invalid to tell us that even though he has more knowledge (than a minor etc., he cannot write a Get). Similarly, a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor cannot write a Get, as they are invalid if we require a halachic messenger to write a Get.

If we would say that we do not need a halachic messenger to write a Get, the Beraisa would specifically be saying that a Nochri is always invalid. This is unlike a person who is a deaf, dumb, or minor who can write a Get when an adult is standing over them.

However, a dumb (halachically insane) person is certainly invalid, just as he is invalid to perform Chalitzah. It is also implied that this would even be correct according to Rebbi Meir. One would think that the writing of the Get must be Lishmah mid'Rabbanan, as after we establish that the Mishnah is like Rebbi Meir, the Gemara asks, "A Nochri certainly acts with his own mindset!"

Opinion#3: Additionally (another possible explanation, see MAHARAM SHIF), it seems that the Gemara at this point thinks that even Rebbi Meir requires that the Get be written Lishmah mid'Oraisa. The only argument is regarding the signatures. Rebbi Meir understands that the Pasuk "v'Kasav" refers also to the signing. Rebbi Elazar holds that it refers only to the writing of the Get.

This is apparent from Rava's question to Rav Nachman that the verse, "And he will write for her," must be indicating that the Get should be written Lishmah. This implies that Rava wanted to say that Rav Huna held that Rebbi Meir requires that even the writing of the Get (must be Lishmah) from the word "v'Kasav." According to this, writing a Get on something attached to the ground would also be invalid.

Implied Question: The Mishnah earlier said that if someone detached it (a Get that was written when it was still attached to the ground), had it signed, and gave it to her, it is kosher. (Note: We just said that Rebbi Meir would hold this is invalid.)

Answer: This is referring to a case where the main part of the Get had been left blank (and only filled in after it was detached).

The Gemara now asks, "They are not people who have knowledge according to all opinions!" Rav Nachman concludes that the Beraisa which says that a Nochri cannot write a Get is according to the opinion of Rebbi Elazar. However, our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir who does not require that the writing be done Lishmah. Accordingly, our Mishnah said that the Get can be written by a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor, and similarly it can be written by a Nochri.

Alternatively, the Mishnah did not state a Nochri (explicitly) because the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar as well. According to him, specifically a person who is deaf, dumb, or a minor can write a Get when an adult is standing over him. However, from the end of the Mishnah we can deduce that if it is explicitly stated that a Nochri cannot bring a Get, this implies that he can write a Get according to Rebbi Meir.

It is now understandable why one should not ask the following question: Rav Nachman deduces that if the Mishnah said a Nochri cannot bring a Get, this implies that he can write one (as it did not say anything about him in the first part of he Mishnah). On the contrary, we should deduce from the fact that (the first part of) the Mishnah did not include him as one of the people who can write a Get, that if he does it is invalid!

Rather (based on the explanation above this is understandable), it is because the first part of the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Elazar as well, just as it is according to Rebbi Meir. (Note: Being that the first part of the Mishnah is according to him as well, we cannot deduce that a Nochri cannot write a Get because he wasn't mentioned as one of the people who can. The Mishnah did not take a side in that argument, as it is according to both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar.)

The Gemara continues, a Nochri certainly writes based on his own knowledge. Accordingly, Rebbi Meir should say that such writing of a Get should be invalid, at least according to Rabbinic law, when an adult is standing over him.