Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked a question without saying, "If it were the opposite, it would be understandable." It could have said that it would be understandable if Rav Nachman had said that when she receives the Get she is divorced. This would teach us that we are relying on her words (not those of the messenger). (Note: Why didn't the Gemara just say this, instead of saying a more complicated question that it would be understandable if it were the opposite?)

Answer: Rather, the reason why it asks the question in this fashion is to show that there are two possible laws that emerge from this question. (Note: This is as the Gemara states, that if Rav Nachman would have said when it gets to his hand she is divorced, it shows we rely on her word. If it would have said when it gets to her hand she is divorced, it would have shown we rely on his word.)

Explanation: This is because Rebbi holds "take" is like "acquire."

Implied Question: At the end of the first chapter (14b), Rebbi Yehuda ha'Nasi, who is Rebbi, holds explicitly that "take" is unlike "acquire" when he discusses the case of "take a Manah to Ploni." (Note: How, then, can Rebbi in our Gemara say that "take" is like saying "acquire?")

Answer: Our case is different. Being that the messenger said to him that his wife said that the messenger should accept the Get, it must be that when he gave the messenger the Get, he did so in order that the messenger should accept it and she should immediately be divorced.

Observation: It could have said that the difference between them is where the husband is not Makpid. (Note: In such a case, there is no denigration of the husband.)

Opinion: The Ri understands that if the Get was not lost, but there is a doubt whether or not it was done in a valid manner, the messengers have no ability to make another Get, as the messengers did their job for which they were sent if the first Get is indeed valid. Therefore, it is good to teach the husband that he should instruct the messengers to do whatever they need to do until there is no doubt. (Note: See the notes on the Tosfos Ha'Rosh (#17) regarding an answer to the obvious question that if the Get is valid, there is no problem. If it is not, they should be able to write another Get.)

Question: What does the Mishna mean when it says, "Even etc.?" On the contrary, it is best this way, as this means that when the witnesses testify they are not stating only half of the testimony (but rather they can testify to the entire divorce).

Answer: If there is only one group, it appears to be a lie. How could it be that they were there both when the husband said this and when she accepted the Get? Regarding the Get, it is possible we should suspect that perhaps the woman hired them, as we find at the end of the chapter when the Gemara says, "perhaps she will hire witnesses."

The Mishnah then continues that if one of the first group and another from the second group have a third person join them in each aspect of the testimony, we do not suspect that she hired that third witness.

Question: According to Rebbi Akiva who says in Bava Kama (70a) and in Bava Basra (56b) that valid testimony is only if it is of an entire event, not half of an event, how can we validate this Get when we need to put together the testimony of two separate groups of witnesses to make it valid?

Answer: According to the opinion in the Gemara (64a) that a third party is believed (more than the husband as to the nature of the Shelichus), we do not require witnesses that she appointed the witnesses who received the Get. The witnesses who received the Get are therefore considered to know one full event on their own.

Even according to the opinion (64a) that the husband is believed over the third party, that is only if all three, the husband, wife, and third party (messenger) were in the same city, as I will explain later in the Gemara. Being that if they were not in the city we do not require witnesses that she appointed the witnesses who received the Get, these witnesses are considered to know one full event on their own.

Implied Question: The Gemara did not state a case where the husband says that he gave the Get to be taken to his wife (and only valid when she receives it), while the messenger claims he was a messenger to accept the Get. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: This is because the reasoning given that if he had wanted to divorce her he would have given it to her is not only applicable when the husband says that he gave it to the messenger as a deposit.

Explanation: This means that the messenger says that the wife made him a "Sheliach l'Kabalah" -- "messenger to accept the Get" (and his acceptance would cause the divorce to take effect).

The case is where there are two witnesses testifying that the woman made this messenger a Sheliach l'Kabalah in front of us, as stated in the Mishnah.