Explanation#1: This is as is stated in a Pruzbul, "I, Ploni the son of Ploni was in a Beis Din," and the names of the judges are stated in the main body of the document, and underneath the witnesses sign to testify that the Pruzbul is true. This teaches that the Pruzbul is valid even though the judges themselves do not sign it.

It does not matter (it is valid) even if the witnesses are the ones who seem to be writing the Pruzbul, and the judges are not mentioned at all in the body of the document. (For example if) It says, "We were in a Beis Din and Ploni came and said to us, "I give to you any debt that I am able to collect from Ploni, and Ploni and Ploni are my witnesses," and the judges signatures are underneath.

Explanation#2: Rashi gives a different explanation.

Question: Why didn't they institute that he can nullify the Get before three people?

Answer: In order to ensure that women are not left as Agunos (which will happen if she already traveled to a far away place and only then finds out that her Get is invalid).

Implied Question: An oral loan does not entitle the lender to collect from the borrower's possessions that have a lien on them, even if he borrowed the money in front of many witnesses. (Note: If the problem with an oral loan is that people do not find out, even if there are many witnesses, how can our Gemara say that three people make something very known?)

Answer: This is because when people borrow money they generally do so privately, as is stated in Bava Basra (42a). People don't generally admit that they took loans, but rather deny it to those who ask about it.

Implied Question: Our Gemara states that two people do not make something very known. However, regarding selling one's field with witnesses, we say in Bava Basra (41b) that one can collect from property that has a lien. (Note: What is the difference between the two cases?)

Answer: In our case we require that it should become more well known than in the case of the field.

Explanation: Even though she certainly cannot get married (according to Halachah), this is still called "Igun" (her being an Agunah). (Note: Tosfos is coming to dispel the notion that the term "Agunah" is only used regarding a woman who is unsure whether or not her husband is alive.) We similarly say earlier (26b) that it would be understandable if we would not allow writing a form for Gitin. However, there are times when a person must go overseas and he will not find a scribe to write a Get. He will end up leaving her and she will become an "Agunah" and she will sit (and be unable to remarry).

Observation: This is why we say during Kidushin "like the law of Moshe and Yisrael" (to show that the Kidushin is based on the Rabbanan's laws and understanding).

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel asked that if this is so (that the Rabbanan will nullify retroactively such a Kidushin), a person will protect his sister's daughter (to whom he was married)! When witnesses will testify that she was unfaithful, he will send her a Get and then proceed to nullify it when the messenger is not present. In this way the Kidushin will be retroactively nullified, and she will end up retroactively having been a single girl (when she was unfaithful).

Answer: The Ri answers that this is not difficult, as we are only worried about him covering up for her when it is incorrect (such as faking when a Get was given, see 17a). However, here he is covering up for her in a permitted fashion, and she is indeed (somewhat) innocent according to Torah law.

Question#1: Rabeinu Shmuel further asked, how can we ever rule that a married woman who had an affair should be killed? The warning that the witnesses give her is always deemed a doubtful warning, as perhaps her husband will send her a Get and nullify it.

Question#2: Additionally, according to this solution, any Mamzerim could always become regular Jews again (we should just have their mother's husband send her a Get with a messenger and then nullify it)!

Answer#1: Rabeinu Tam says that such a case is not a case of a doubtful warning, as we judge the warning by most people who do not divorce their wives, and if they send them a Get they do not nullify the Get.

Answer#2: Additionally, we look at her current status, which is that she is married. If not, how could we give lashes to a Nazir who drank wine or became impure to dead people? We know that he does receive lashes, as if they (the witnesses) said to him, "Do not drink, do not drink," the Mishnah says that he is liable for each time he drinks. Why isn't this deemed a doubtful warning, as he might ask that his vow of Nazirus should be permitted (and retroactively he would have merely been a regular person drinking wine)? (Note: It must therefore be that this is not called a doubtful warning as we view the person based on their current status.)

Answer (to a/d): His question that a person will cover up for his niece and that Mamzerim could become regular Jews (Note: can be answered in the following manner). If we know that his intent when he nullifies the Get is to do these things, we do not remove the Kidushin retroactively. This is because the Chachamim made this decree in order to help, not to cause people to stumble. If this would work, it would cause Jewish girls to be promiscuous (as they could always rectify their promiscuous actions). However, if it is clear to us that the husband did not mean to get his niece out of trouble or purify a Mamzer when he nullified the Get, we do not worry if they indeed do become purified because of his nullification.

Question: How does the Gemara know that Rebbi holds that the entire testimony is not invalidated, and that when Rebbi says that he can nullify some of the people from being his messenger that he means that he can even do so Lechatchilah?

Perhaps Rebbi holds that the entire testimony is indeed invalidated, and even so the nullification is b'Dieved. This is supported by his earlier statement that "if he nullified it, it is indeed null (implying b'Dieved)." Just because he uses the terminology "He can," one cannot deduce that he is saying this is permitted Lechatchilah.

This is apparent from the Gemara in Bava Metzia (49a), where he says that if someone says to his friend, "I am giving you a present," "Yachol" -- "he can" retract his decision to give the present. The Gemara asks, it is obvious that he can do this! Rather, the Gemara answers, he must mean that is permitted to do so. (Note: This shows that the term "He can" is not presumed to mean that it is permitted.)

Answer#1: The Gemara understands that Rebbi's statement that "he can nullify" implies that he may even do so in front of one person. Even though we normally say that nothing takes effect regarding Arayos with less than two people, being that he tells (one of) the messenger himself that he is nullifying the Get, it is null.

Answer#2: Alternatively, even if (Rebbi holds) it will not help without him telling two people, (the Gemara understands that Rebbi holds) he can nullify the Get in front of two people, even if he does so one after the other. If the entire testimony is invalid, even Rebbi would agree that it is not even nullified b'Dieved. This is as we explained earlier, that (Rebbi's statement "if he nullified it, it is nullified" is) only in front of three people according to Rav Sheshes, or in front of two people who are together according to Rav Nachman, can a Get be nullified. (Note: Rebbi's statement here implies that as long as it is in front of two people, even not in front of each other, it is valid.)

Answer#3: Alternatively, even though if he nullified it in Beis Din Rebbi says that it is nullified, this is because there is not such a strong suspicion for resulting Mamzerus. This is because if the messenger finds out about this before he gives the Get, he will not proceed to give it to her. Similarly, if a woman finds out about this before she gets remarried, she will not remarry. However, in this case even if everyone finds out, including his wife, that her husband nullified some of the people from being witnesses, they will sometimes make a mistake and think that being that the other witnesses were not nullified she can get married because of this Get.

Therefore, if he held that all of the witnesses are negated he would agree that it is not nullified (yet he says that it is, proving he holds all of the witnesses are not negated).

Accordingly, the Gemara's doubt (33b) regarding which case is ruled according to Rebbi and which case is ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, is understandable even according to the Gemara's understanding that their argument is dependent on whether or not testimony that is partially nullified is totally nullified. (Note: The cases being discussed are the two arguments between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on our Amud. The Gemara later states that Rebbi Aba ruled in one case like Rebbi and in one like Rabban Shimon. )

Even if we hold like Rebbi in the case where he rules, "if he nullified it, it is null," we can still rule in a case where he nullified it in front of each separately like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that it is not nullified. Even Rebbi, if he held that the entire testimony is nullified, would agree that when he said to ten people (and nullified two) that it is not nullified.

Opinion: However, from Rashi it is apparent that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that the entire testimony is invalidated, this is part of the decree of Rabban Gamliel. It therefore must be that the opinion that the (original decree of Rabban Shimon is that) nullification is invalid because of the woman being unable to remarry (as she is far away, see Tosfos #4) is not similar to the decree in this case. (Note: The decree in this case seems to be because she will end up having Mamzerim, see Maharam Shif.)

According to his (Rashi's) explanation that these are similar, the Gemara's question of which case is ruled according to Rebbi and which case is ruled like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is only according to the Gemara's answer that Rabban Shimon's reasoning is not because of a decree, but rather because all ten have to be nullified. However, according to the understanding that they are arguing regarding whether testimony that is partially nullified is completely nullified, there is no room for doubt.

If we rule that "if he nullified it, it is nullified," like Rebbi, we cannot possibly rule in the case of him telling ten people (to write a Get for his wife) completely like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Even if we hold like Rabban Shimon that the entire testimony is nullified, we do not rule like his opinion that the nullification does not even work b'Dieved.

However, if the indication of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's statement of "He cannot" is not even b'Dieved, and is only coming to oppose Rebbi's position that this is even Lechatchilah, this is understandable. The Gemara's doubt (who to rule like in which case) would even be applicable according to the opinion that Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argue about testimony which was partially nullified.

In any event (this cannot be as), according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Get is not even nullified b'Dieved, as Rashi explains, because of the earlier reason that this would mean that his decree does not have any power.

Explanation: Accordingly, even the two that he nullified can write the Get.

Question: Being that according to Torah law he can nullify the Get, even if he does so when he is not in the presence of the messengers, why did the Chachamim decree that the nullification should not even help for these two (whom he told)?

Answer: Once they had to institute that the nullification does not help for the others, they also instituted that the husband should have no ability at all to nullify this Get (unless he nullifies everyone in their presence).

Implied Question: Although Rav Yosef holds here that if he nullified the Get it is not nullified, he still says in Kidushin (12a) that Rav gave lashes (Makas Mardus) to someone who would nullify a Get, even though it is not considered nullified. (Note: If what he did is invalid, why should he receive lashes?)

Answer: Even so, he causes rumors to abound about the Get (and therefore receives lashes). This is similar to his giving lashes to someone who did Kidushin in the marketplace or with marital relations, even though there is no prohibition against doing so.

Question: How do we know that because he retracted his opinion there (regarding the estimation of the judges), that he would also retract his opinion that if he nullified the Get it is indeed nullified? Perhaps the case of an evaluation by Beis Din is more similar to nullifying a Get when one is not in Beis Din? Indeed, Rebbi agrees that in such a case the Get is not nullified, as we say that otherwise Rabban Gamliel's decree would not be valid, as the Gemara explains earlier (33a).

Answer: Rav Yosef compares them because Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only argued regarding these two things, namely that Beis Din's character will be weakened if the estimation is easily overturned, and nullifying a Get in Beis Din. This is why he compared them to each other, and assumed that if Rebbi retracted his ruling in one case, he retracted it in the other case as well. (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that in each of these cases Beis Din is potentially overruled by circumstances (their estimation was too much/little, or the husband's nullification). This is unlike a case where he nullifies the Get in Beis Din, as then another Beis Din is involved. When another Beis Din is involved, the logic of "making Beis Din weak" is not as applicable.)

Implied Question: Even according to the opinion that understands that their argument hinges on whether nullification of some of the witnesses nullifies all of the witnesses, this is a good deduction. (Note: Why?)

Answer: We hold like Rebbi who does not see any purpose in their separating. Being that he can nullify the witnesses when one is not in front of the other, it will not help for them to separate, as he will merely nullify each wherever he finds them until he nullifies all of them.

However, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that he cannot nullify each witness when they are not in front of the other witnesses, the nullification is invalid, even if he nullifies each separately. Even though there is no longer a suspicion that some of them who do not know the Get was nullified will go and write the Get (as they were all nullified), it is not invalid until he invalidates each of them in front of each other.