Rejection (Rav Sheshes): The Tana is not a peddler, who announces everything that he has! (The Tana did not bother to allude to the third judge.)

Support (Rav Nachman - Mishnah): The judges sign below, or the witnesses.

Suggestion: The Mishnah equates the judges to the witnesses. Just like two witnesses suffice, also two judges suffice.

Rejection (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah does not equate them. The law of each is different.

Question: Why does the Mishnah mention both witnesses and judges?

Answer: This teaches that that even if the text of the Pruzbul mentions judges, and they sign below like witnesses, or vice-versa, it is valid.

(Mishnah): For Tikun ha'Olam...

Question: What does this mean?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It is so Mamzerim will not result.

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): It is so women will not be Agunos (unable to remarry, if the husband can easily nullify a Get he sent).

R. Yochanan holds like Rav Nachman, that he nullifies in front of two. Therefore, news of the Bitul does not spread. She will remarry, unaware that her Get was void, and her children will be Mamzerim.

Reish Lakish holds like Rav Sheshes, that he nullifies in front of three. Therefore, word of the Bitul spreads, and she will not remarry. The only problem is Igun.

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If the husband nullified the Get in front of a Beis Din, it is void;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he cannot nullify it or make new Tanayim. If he could, Beis Din's enactments would be weak!

Question: Can it be that mid'Oraisa she is married, and we permit her to remarry because we are concerned for the strength of Beis Din?!

Answer: Yes! Anyone who is Mekadesh a woman does so according to the will of Chachamim. Chachamim said that if one annuls a Get in front of Beis Din, the Kidushin is void!

Question (Ravina): This is reasonable if he was Mekadesh her with money. (It turns out that the money was a gift.) If he Mekudeshes her through Bi'ah, how can Chachamim say that she is not Mekudeshes?

Answer (Rav Ashi): The Bi'ah was Zenus (extramarital relations).

(Beraisa - Rebbi): If Reuven told 10 people to write a Get to his wife, he can cancel the appointment of any of them individually;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can only cancel their appointment when they are all together.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1: They argue about whether or not a testimony (in our case - appointment) that is partially cancelled is totally cancelled.

Rebbi says, the remainder of the testimony stands. If the other Sheluchim (whom he did not cancel) write and give a Get, it is valid;

R. Shimon says, the entire testimony is void. If the other Sheluchim write and give a Get, they and she will not know that it is Pasul.

Answer #2: All agree that if part is cancelled, the remainder stands;

R. Shimon holds that any matter done in front of 10 people can be undone only in front of 10.

Question: If he says 'all of you (write and give a Get to my wife)', what is the law? (Does R. Shimon hold that he can cancel this in front of one of them?)

If R. Shimon holds that if a part of a testimony is cancelled, all is cancelled, there is no concern. The other Sheluchim know that they cannot give the Get themselves.

If he holds that a matter done in front of 10 people can be undone only in front of 10, he can cancel the Shelichus only when all are together.

Answer (Beraisa - Rebbi): If he told two people 'give a Get to my wife,' he can cancel either individually;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, he can cancel them only together.

Since both must sign the Get, it is as if he said 'all (i.e. both) of you', and R. Shimon argues even in this case!

Rejection (Rav Ashi): If the Beraisa discussed writing the Get, this reasoning would be correct. However, the Beraisa discusses giving the Get, which even one person can do.

Support (Seifa): If he appointed each Shali'ach individually, he can cancel either individually.

We understand this if it discusses Sheluchim to give a Get.

But if it discusses Sheluchim to write a Get, their testimonies do not combine!

(Beraisa): Testimonies of witnesses combine only if they saw the matter together.

Rejection: Perhaps R. Shimon rules like R. Yehoshua ben Korchah (who says that testimonies combine even if they did not see the matter together).

(R. Shmuel bar Yehudah): In these two arguments of Rebbi and R. Shimon, R. Aba ruled in one like Rebbi, and in the other, like R. Shimon. I do not know which was which.

(Rav Yosef): We can determine which one from the following.

A case occurred in which Rebbi ruled like Chachamim (who are not concerned for the strength of Beis Din).

R. Parta: If you rule this way, Beis Din has no strength!

Rebbi reversed his decision.

Since even Rebbi agreed that we are concerned for the strength of Beis Din, regarding annulment of a Get in front of Beis Din, surely R. Aba ruled like R. Shimon;

Regarding 10 who were appointed to write and give a Get, he must have ruled like Rebbi.

R. Oshaya of Usha also rules like Rebbi in one case, like R. Shimon in the other.

(Rabah bar bar Chanah): There were five elders in front of R. Oshaya. A man came, and R. Oshaya ruled that he must divorce his wife. The man authorized the elders to write and give a Get.

R. Oshaya told the elders to hide, so the man would not be able to cancel their mission.

If R. Oshaya held like Rebbi (about canceling a Get in front of a Beis Din), even if the elders hid, the man could cancel the Get!

If R. Oshaya held like R. Shimon (that one who appointed 10 Sheluchim can cancel them only together), why did he tell the elders to hide? It suffices that they separate!

Conclusion: He holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel about the former law, and like Rebbi about the latter.

(Rav Nachman): The Halachah follows Rebbi in both cases.