1)

(a)We just cited the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Chachamim, who argue over whether a Shechiv-Mera requires a Kinyan (Rebbi Elazar) or not (the Chachamim, who hold Divrei Shechiv-Mera Ki'Chesuvin v'chi'Mesurin Dami'). Like whom do the Tana Kama ('Biksho v'Lo Matz'o, Yachz'ro li'Meshale'ach') on the one hand, and Rebbi Nasan and Rebbi Yakov ('Mes Meshale'ach, Yachz'ro l'Yorshei Meshale'ach) on the other, as well as Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi Mishum Rebbi Meir ('Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes') all hold?

(b)How do we know that Rebbi Meir holds like Rebbi Elazar?

(c)Yesh Omrim ('le'Yorshei Mi she'Nishtalchu Elav') clearly holds like the Chachamim (of Rebbi Elazar). What is the reason of the Chachamim (who say 'Yachloku')?

(d)What if the Shechiv Mera recovers? Is he entitled to retract?

2)

(a)Like which of the above Tana'im does Rav Yosef rule?

(b)Was Rebbi Shimon ha'Nasi actually a Nasi or was he just quoting the Nasi?

(c)How do we reconcile Rav Yosef's ruling with the established Halachah 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera Ki'Chesuvin v'chi'Mesurin Damu'?

(d)On what grounds must Rav Yosef then change the text of Rebbi Shimon from 'Yachz'ru l'Yorshei Meshale'ach' to 'Yachz'ru li'Meshale'ach' (who did not die after all)?

HADRAN ALACH 'HA'MEIVI KAMA'

PEREK HA'MEIVI GET (TINYANA)

3)

(a)What if the Shali'ach who brings a Get declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam', or vice-versa? Will the Get be Kosher?

(b)The same will apply if he declares that the Get was written in his presence but only half signed, or vice-versa. What does half signed mean?

(c)Neither will the Get be Kosher if one person declares 'be'Fanai Nichtav' and another 'be'Fanai Nichtam'. Is this necessarily because one of the two is not a Shali'ach? Would it be any different if he was?

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, if two witnesses declare 'be'Faneinu Nichtav and a third witness, b'Fanai Nichtam, the Get is Pasul. Rebbi Yehudah disagrees. Why is that?

(b)What will Rebbi Yehudah hold in the previous cases in the Mishnah?

5)

(a)In light of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta 'ha'Meivi Get ... Tzarich Lomar b'Fanai Nichtav u'be'Fanai Nichtam', why does the Tana here find it necessary to invalidate the Get, should the Shali'ach fail to make the full declaration?

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that 'be'Fanai Nichtav Chetzyo' is Pasul. Does it make any difference which half?

(c)What is the significance of the first line of the Get?

6)

(a)What does Rav Chisda say in a case 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo u'be'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul', in the event that two witnesses then corroborate the signature of the second witness?

(b)Why is that?

(c)What did we learn in the first Perek regarding a Shali'ach who testifies on the witnesses signatures (instead of saying 'be'Fanai Nichtam)?

(d)Based on this, how does Rava reject Rav Chisda's ruling?

15b----------------------------------------15b

7)

(a)Rava concedes however, that if the Shali'ach himself testifies on the second signature together with someone else, it is Pasul. Why is that?

(b)What is the case of Kiyum Shtaros to which Rava just referred?

(c)Why is it Pasul?

(d)How does Rav Ashi reject this ruling of Rava's?

(e)Which case is Pasul according to Rav Ashi, for the same reason that Rava invalidated his?

8)

(a)In the case in our Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, b'Fanai Nichtam Chetzyo, Pasul', why can the Tana not be speaking when no-one testified on the second witness?

(b)Then what is the Tana coming to teach us? On whom does this present a problem?

(c)Why can the Tana not be coming to preclude the cases of Rava and Rav Ashi as well?

(d)Then on what grounds do we incorporate both the cases of Rava and of Rav Ashi. Why do we not then confine the implication to Rav Ashi's case, which seems to be the smallest Chidush (leaving us with a Kashya on Rava as well as on Rav Chisda)?

9)

(a)Rav Chisda will answer the Kashya by referring to the case in the Mishnah 'be'Fanai Nichtav Aval Lo b'Fanai Nichtam'. What does he comment on that case?

(b)What does he then extrapolate with regard to 'be'Fanai Nichtav Kulo, u'be'Fanav Nichtam Chetzyo' (to answer the above Kashya)?

10)

(a)Rav Chisda now discusses 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah' (in connection with Shabbos). What does that mean?

(b)What ruling does he issue with regard to 'Gidud Chamishah u'Mechitzah Chamishah'?

(c)What is Rav Chisda's reason?

(d)Mereimar disagrees. What is the Halachah?

11)

(a)Ilfa asked whether hands can be Tahor in halves. Why can he not be referring to ...

1. ... two people washing from (the minimum Shi'ur of) one Revi'is of water?

2. ... one person washing first one hand, and then, the other?

3. ... someone washing first one half of his hand, and then, the other half?

(b)What do we mean when we refute the third Pircha with the words 'Lo Tzericha d'Ika Mashkeh Tofe'ach'?

(c)We query that however, from a Mishnah in Taharos. What does the Mishnah in Taharos say about 'Tofe'ach'?

(d)How do we reconcile our answer with the Mishnah in Taharos?