Why did Rava rule that when the slave brings his own emancipation document where he is also awarded money, he receives his freedom but not the money (until the signatures are verified), if Rav Nachman ruled like Rabbi Meir that we do not split a statement (palginan diburei)? The conclusion is that Rav Nachman held like Rabbi Meir for a different reason, not because we don't split his words) and a different ruling of his is brought where it is clear that he holds we can split someone's words. The Mishna had ruled that, in Israel, if there are those who raise doubt regarding the document's veracity, we verify the signatures of the witnesses. How many people are necessary to raise a doubt in order for us to take it seriously? The conclusion is that we are referring to the husband himself. If one brings a get from abroad and cannot say "in front of me..." we verify the signatures. "One who cannot say" refers to a person who brought the get, but before making the declaration became a deaf-mute. The Mishna mentions one similarity between a get of a woman and an emancipation document of a slave - that if one brings it from abroad to Israel or the reverse, one needs to say "in front of me it was written..." The Gemara brings a braita with three or four (according to Rabbi Meir) similarities. Why did Tanna Kama and Rabbi Meir give a number? Each was to exclude it from an additional case. What case was Rabbi Meir excluding? Aren't there other issues that are the same for a get and an emancipation document, like they can't be given after death of the husband/master, and li'shma?