1)

(a)Rav Nachman, who holds that, before Raban Gamliel's Takanah, one could nullify the Shelichus of a Get in front of a Beis-Din consisting of two people. He cites as a source the Mishnah in Shevi'is (concerning a Pruzbul) ...

1. ... 'Mosrani Lifneichem Ploni u'Ploni ha'Dayanim she'be'Makom Ploni', implying that there were two Dayanim and not three. Rav Sheshes refutes this proof however on the grounds that the Tana is not a peddler, who needs to show all his wares. When he says 'Ploni u'Ploni', he takes the third 'Ploni' for granted.

2. ... 'ha'Dayanim Chosmin l'Matah O ha'Edim' implying that the Tana is comparing the one to the other, in which case, just as one requires only two witnesses, so too will two Dayanim suffice.

(b)According to Rav Sheshes, the rule comparing two items pertains to the Chumash, where two things in the same Pasuk are usually compared, but in a Mishnah, we can say 'Ha k'de'Isa, v'Ha k'de'Isa' (one speaks like this, and the other, like that).

(c)The Tana finds it necessary to inform us that either the Dayanim or the Edim sign at the foot of a Pruzbul to teach us that it makes no difference whether they employed the formal text used by Dayanim ('Bei-Dina Havina ... ', or that used by witnesses 'Duchrin Sahadusa d'Havah b'Anpana ... '. Either way, the Bitul is valid.

2)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Raban Gamliel instituted this Takanah, because he was worried that the Shali'ach, unaware of the cancellation, will hand the Get to the woman, who, not knowing about it either, will then use it to remarry (when in fact, she is still married), and all the children from her second husband will be Mamzerim. This is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan. According to Reish Lakish we are worried that she will get to hear about it, and remain an Agunah (i.e. meaning, now that he has sent the Get, we need to encourage him not to cancel it, so that his wife, who is alone overseas, should not remain an Agunah).

(b)This Machlokes is interdependent with that of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes because Rebbi Yochanan, who is concerned that the woman will not hear about the cancellation, holds like Rav Nachman, who requires two people on the Beis-Din (and two people do not have a Kol see Tosfos), whereas Reish Lakish, who is concerned that she will, requires three people, like Rav Sheshes, in which case, there is a Kol.

3)

(a)If, in spite of Raban Gamliel's Takanah, the husband did cancel the Get, Rebbi upholds the cancellation. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disputes this because of the Sevara 'Im Kein, Mah Ko'ach Beis Din Yafeh' (to allow the cancellation to stand, would be making a mockery of Beis-Din).

(b)Neither, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is the husband permitted to add to any conditions that the Get may already contain, once he has sent it.

(c)Despite the fact that min ha'Torah, the Shelichus is Batel, and they are still married, the Rabanan have the authority to release the marriage and allow the woman to remarry on the basis of the principle 'Kol d'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata d'Rabanan Mekadesh' (when someone betroths a woman, he does so on the understanding that the continued validity of the Kidushin is dependent upon the decision of the Rabanan.

(d)To do this technically, it is understandable with regard to Kidushei Kesef, where the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' readily applies; as far as Kidushei Bi'ah is concerned we will apply the principle 'Shavyuhah Rabanan li'Be'ilaso Be'ilas Znus' (they simply withdrew the Halachic ramifications of the Bi'ah, rendering the actual Bi'ah an immoral act), in conjunction with that of 'Ma'an d'Mekadesh ... '.

4)

(a)We cannot explain ...

1. ... in the Havah Amina that Kidushei Bi'ah is min ha'Torah because we learn it from the Pasuk "u'Ba'alah", whereas Kidushei Kesef, which is learned from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kichah" "Kichah", is only mid'Rabanan because whatever is learned from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is considered min ha'Torah.

2. ... in the answer, that they canceled Kidushei Bi'ah on account of Rav, who forbade betrothal in this way because since Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraisa, who authorized the Rabanan to cancel it.

(b)On the various occasions that the Rabanan do cancel the Kidushin (such as here, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), they do so based on the Sevara of 'Ma'an d'Mekadesh, a'Da'ata d'Rabanan Mekadesh' (as we explained).

5)

(a)If someone appoints ten people to write a Get on behalf of his wife without using the Lashon 'Kulchem' one of them writes the Get and two of the others sign it.

(b)According to Rebbi, the husband is permitted to cancel the Shelichus of two of them even not in the presence of the others. According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel he is not.

(c)Assuming that their dispute concerns Raban Gamliel's Takanah, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it because he holds 'Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah Batlah Kulah'. Consequently, we are afraid that the remaining witnesses, not aware of the cancellation, will write the Get and hand it to the woman, who in fact, will not be divorced (though she will be unaware of that), as we explained earlier. Whereas Rebbi holds 'Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Lo Batlah Kulah', and the Shelichus remains intact even l'Chatchilah.

6)

(a)According to the second Lashon, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that 'Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Lo Batlah Kulah', and the reason that he forbids the husband to cancel the Shelichus of two of them not in the presence of the others is because it is intrinsically forbidden to cancel part of a Shelichus. Consequently, having appointed ten people to be Sheluchim, he cannot cancel five of them.

(b)We ask whether, if the husband used the Lashon 'Kulchem', he is permitted to cancel two of them not in the presence of the others. The two sides of the She'eilah are the very two Leshonos that we just cited. If Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason is because of Rebbi's Takanah, then it will be permitted, seeing as none of the witnesses may fulfill their Shelichus without the others, there is nothing of which to be afraid; whereas the reason that one cannot negate half the Sheluchim without the others, will apply equally to where he said 'Kulchem'.

(c)We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa which presents the Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel by a case where there are only two witnesses and he cancels one not in the presence of the other on the grounds that two witnesses, who can only sign the Shelichus together, are like 'Kulchem', and yet Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it there too, proving the second side of the She'eilah.

(d)To resolve this Kashya Rav Ashi establishes this Beraisa by Eidei Holachah (where both of them are not required to take the Get to his wife), and not to Eidei Kesivah, where both of them would need to sign simultaneously.

7)

(a)We try to prove that the Beraisa must be speaking by Eidei Holachah from the Seifa 'Amar la'Zeh bi'Fenei Atzmo, v'la'Zeh bi'Fenei Atzmo, Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo bi'Fenei Zeh' which must be speaking about Eidei Holachah, because the two Eidei Kesivah are obligated to sign in front of each other, as we learned in Kesuvos.

(b)We refute this proof however, on the grounds that the Tana might hold like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah who validates a Shtar whose signatories sign independently.

(c)Assuming that we uphold this disproof of Rav Ashi, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason for forbidding the cancellation of two of the witnesses not in the presence of the others will be because of Raban Gamliel's Takanah (based on the fact that he holds 'Edus she'Batlah Miktzasah, Batlah Kulah').

8)

(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah heard two rulings from Rebbi Aba, one like Rebbi and the other, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. We are talking about the cases of 'Bitlo Mevutal' and 'Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo bi'Fenei Zeh'.

(b)Rav Yosef resolves which ruling is which from the episode cited by Rav Dimi, where Rebbi ruled in a case where Beis-Din assessed someone's property at a price that was one sixth too little or one sixth too much that b'Di'eved 'Mah she'Asuy Asuy'.

(c)When Rebbi Prata asked Rebbi 'Im Kein, Mah Ko'ach Shel Beis Din Yafeh' (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) the latter relented.

(d)Rav Yosef proves from there that, if, as Rebbi Aba maintains, we hold like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding 'Bitlo Mevutal' (seeing as Rebbi himself concedes that), then we have no option other than to hold like Rebbi with regard to 'Yachol Levatel Zeh she'Lo bi'Fenei Zeh'.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yoshiyah from Usha agrees with Rebbi Aba, who ruled in one of the above issues like Rebbi and in the other, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. After forcing a man to agree to divorce his wife, Rebbi Yoshiyah from Usha instructed the witnesses to go and hide and write the Get, in order to prevent the man from canceling their Shelichus.

(b)We prove from the fact that ...

1. ... Rebbi Yoshiyah from Usha considered hiding effective that if the husband cancelled the witnesses not in their presence, his cancellation would be void (like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

2. ... he instructed them to hide rather than to scatter that if they would scatter the husband would nevertheless be permitted to cancel the one not in front of the other (like Rebbi).

(c)Rava Amar Rav Nachman disagrees with Rebbi Aba and Rebbi Yoshiyah from Usha inasmuch as he rules like Rebbi in both cases.