1) A woman is allowed to send a man as an agent to accept her Get [Tosfos: even though it's not applicable to men to accept Gitten for themselves.] Not only that, where men, at least, are applicable to accept Gitten on behalf of their daughters, but even a husband can appoint a woman to be his agent to give a Get even though a woman never gives a Get.

2) There's an unresolved inquiry if a husband says to the wife's agent "bring the Get" is as if he said to accept it on her behalf or not.

3) There's an unresolved inquiry if the agent changes from what the wife told him to do. Let say, if the wife says to accept her Get, and he tells the husband that she told him to bring the Get to her, and the husband says: "take it as she says." Do we say that he relies on his words that the wife said to bring it to her, (so he sends it through him as his agent) and she's not divorced until he brings the Get to her. Or do we say that the husband suspects that, perhaps, the wife made him into a accepting agent, and he gives it for that, and she's divorced right away.

4) It's only if he says explicitly to take it as she said; but without qualifying it, he's giving it for him to bring it to her.

5) If the woman wants him to bring the Get, and he tells the husband that he was sent to accept the Get, and the husband says: "take it as she says;" she's not divorced even after the Get comes to her hand even if he relies on her words, (as if he relies on the agent's words, it's definitely a invalid Get since he only gave it as a accepting agent, which he's not). After all, since the agent cancels his job of being an agent to bring it, since he was saying that he can't be bothered to bring the Get to her.

6) This is only when the agent fools him claiming to be an accepting agent, but if he never claimed to be an accepting agent, and the husband says to a person "accept the Get to my wife," since he understands that he can't make an accepting agent himself, he means to send it as his agent. The same when a minor wife makes an agent to accept her Get; we assume everyone knows that she can't appoint an agent, and it's given to the agent to bring the Get to his wife.

7) If the husband tells the agent to "accept the Get" or "acquire the Get," everyone agrees that he's agreeing for him to be an accepting agent and she's divorced right away. However, if he said 'Holech,' i.e., "bring this Get;" Rebbi says that it's like him saying to acquire it, and she's divorced right away, and R' Nosson says it's not like him saying to acquire it, and she's divorced when the Get comes to her. [Tosfos says: only here, Rebbi says 'bring this" is like saying to acquire it, since the agent claims to be appointed a accepting agent, so saying 'bring' is the husband agreeing to giving it like he said. However, in the first Perek, Rebbi held that saying "bring a Manah to someone" it's not like saying to acquire it.]

8) R' Nosson agrees if he says "Hiluch," i.e., take the Get and bring it, that it's like saying to acquire it.

9) Rav holds: if the husband says to the accepting agent 'Holech,' i.e., "bring this Get;" it's a Safeik if it's like he said to acquire it , therefore, if the husband dies before it gets to her hand (and there's a question if she falls to Yibum); she needs Chalitza. Although Rav holds that, if someone says 'Holech,' i.e., "bring this Manah that I owe," once he gives the money over, he can't renege (implying that he definitely acquires it), it's really a Safeik, but to take it out of the hands of the agent, you need to prove it's still yours. However, here, by a prohibition, we need to be stringent by a Safeik.

10) Rav holds a woman can't appoint an agent to accept a Get from the husband’s agent, and R' Chanina permits.

11) The reason for Rav is either because it’s an insult to the husband and he didn’t send it with intention that the woman’s agent will accept it. Or, they decreed not to allow it because of a courtyard that comes to her hand afterwards. (I.e., she acquires it from a third party after the Get was put in it.) The practical difference is if she made her agent first since it's no longer similar to a courtyard that comes to her hand afterwards. [Tosfos says: another practical difference is if the husband doesn't mind, we don't need to worry about the man's disgrace.]

12) According to R' Chanina, we can have an inquiry whether the agent of the husband can be appointed by the wife to accept the Get. Is one of the requirements of an agent, that he could return to the one who send him to say he did his task before taking on another task as an agent, and he doesn’t return to her husband since he immediately takes on to be the agent of the opposite party. Therefore, if the husband dies, the wife would need Chalitza.

13) If someone was made into an agent to write and give a Get to a wife; if he wrote a Pasul Get, or the Kosher Get got lost before he gave it, the agency wasn't canceled (to say that he already did his agency) and he can rewrite the Get. After all, the agency was to give a Get Kosher, and he hadn't done it yet. Therefore, it's still upon him to give her a Get Kosher. [Tosfos says: the Ri held that we should teach husbands to command to write a Get according to the agent's discretion, or else he might write a Get that has a question to its validity, and we'll have a question if he canceled the agency.]

14) We are in doubt if he said to agents to write a Get and give it to other agents to give it; if after the writing, the agency is canceled and they can't write another Get if it gets lost; or, they only ordered for others to give not to bother the writer to deliver it too, but he doesn't cancel the agency until the Get is given. Even if you want to say that, in that case, the agency is canceled; what would be in a case if the husband adds the words "and the other agent will bring it to her?" Does this addition hints that the agency is not over until it's handed to her, or not? Even this case, the Gemara says it's a Safeik.

15) R' Shimon b. Gamliel says: if the husband says "take a Get," or "carry this Get" or "it should be in your hands this Get;" there are all terms to accept the Get for her.

16) When a woman makes an agent to receive a Get, she needs to have two pairs of witnesses. One pair who witness her appointing him as her agent, and one to witness the giving over the Get (and that it was ripped at the time of a government decree not to give Gets). Even if one pair of witnesses testifies on both acts, it's Kosher. [Tosfos explains the Chiddush: and we don't suspect that the woman hired them to say these testimonies.]

17) If the husband says that he gave the Get to a third party to hold onto, but that third party claims that it was given to him to accept it on behalf of his wife [Tosfos adds: and there are witnesses who say that the wife appointed him as her agent]; R' Huna says: the husband is believed since, if he really gave the Get to divorce his wife, he would have given it to her directly. [Tosfos says: this is only if all three of them are in the same city, but if the wife isn't in town, we can't say the logic if he wanted to divorce, he would have given it to her directly since she's not in town. After all, if the third party wouldn't be believed in this case, then, how do we believe an agent to say "it was written and signed before him" if the husband can claim he only gave it to him to hold. Although we say that the agent says in Mechuza "it was written and signed before him" if it's given outside the neighborhood even though they're all in the same town; we must say that it's only according to R' Chisda who says later that we believe the third party. Alternatively, it refers to a case where the husband commanded to write and give the Get and he left town right away, so he couldn't have given it himself.] R' Chisda says: the third party is believed since the husband believed him. [Tosfos says: even if the husband claims that he gave it before witnesses and said explicitly it's only for safekeeping; but since he knows that the witnesses may not always be available, like when they die or leave to over seas; so it's still given it into his trust. The reason the third party is believed is not because of a Migo since he could have given it to the wife, like Rashi says; since the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that the third party is believed even when Beis Din is aware of a document in his hands (that he and the borrower claims to be paid) and doesn't have a Migo anymore that he could have burnt it. After all, we say later that R' Huna agrees when the Get is in the woman's hands with a Migo. Also, over here, there's no Migo since, perhaps, the wife won't accept it from him after she hears that the husband claimed that he only gave it for safekeeping. Rather, we assess the mindset of the husband that it would be given to divorce if the third party claims so. Therefore, a third party is believed on utensils that are usually lent out (and someone is not believed he owns it because he's holding onto it) if the owner admits it was given to the third party for safekeeping, and not to be lent out for his own use.]

18) The reason according to R' Chisda that you need two witnesses on the acceptance of the Get even when it was ripped [Tosfos: even though the ripped Get is not a proof that it was given, since she might have found it in the garbage, but we need to explain why it wasn't enough for them to see the Get intact in her hand] since that Mishna was like R' Eliezer who says that the witnesses handing over the Get validates the Get [Tosfos says: they only need to produce those witnesses if the Get doesn't have signatures on it, but if there's signed witnesses, we can assume that it was validly given to the wife in front of witnesses.]

19) R' Huna admits that a third party is believed by money cases, since it can be forgiven. [Tosfos explains: therefore, we say that he gave it on condition that he'll forgive it if the third party says so, even if he lies; but, he doesn't have the ability to believe him by prohibitions. However, R' Chisda holds that it was given to be a divorce if the third party says so, as we said earlier.]

20) R' Huna also admits that, if it's already in the woman's hands, she's believed that the third party gave it to her as a divorce, and she heard the husband say that he's giving it to the third party to divorce her; since she has a Migo to say that the husband gave it to her directly.

21) If the husband says that he gave it to a third party to divorce her; the third party agrees, and the woman said that she received the Get, but she lost it; she's not believed, since no one's believed by Ervah related things without two witnesses. The third party is not believed since he's not holding onto the Get, and the husband is not believed, even though he's believed to say that he divorced his wife, but here he never claimed to divorce her, but he claims that he gave it over to his agent. We don't believe that she was divorced because we have a Chazaka that an agent does his agency, like we say that if someone made an agent to Mekadesh any woman, he's forbidden to all the women in the world since we have a Chazaka that an agent does his agency, so all women are a Safeik whether they're a relative of his unknown wife. [Tosfos says: this is definitely a fine; therefore, everyone allows to Mekadesh women and they don't need to worry that they were the one that was Mekudash since most women aren't that girl. Also, this is not a complete Chazaka of his agency since he doesn't have the power to definitely find a girl who's willing to take Kiddushin.] After all, we only say this Chazaka by a stringency, and not by a leniency. [Tosfos says: this is only when there's no sin done if the agent doesn't do it, since you're not relying on him. However, when you're relying on him, and you'll transgress something if he doesn't come through, there's an argument in Eiruvin if we can rely on this Chazaka for Torah laws.] Also, we don't say that the woman is believed, even if a woman is usually believed to say she got divorced, since she wouldn't usually be brazen to lie before her husband to say that she was divorced, but here, where she's supported by her husband and the third party, she would lie.

22) A Naarah who only received Kiddushin, she and her father can receive her Get. [Tosfos says: the same by a minor, both can receive her Get, and not like Rashi who says that only her father can, and he even reverses his position in Kiddushin.] This is because the Torah gives them an extra hand to acquire. [Tosfos explains: the father is added onto her, since she always has a hand to acquire, even after she's a Bogeres.] R' Yehuda says that only her father can accept the Get, since her hand is nothing when she has a father [Tosfos: since the Torah cancels her hand in this case.]

23) Any minor who can guard her Get, she can be divorced; thus, a minor can receive her Get as long as she can differentiate between her Get and other objects [Tosfos: this is like when they reach Pe'utos, as we'll say later.] However, if she loses her Get, she'll just guard a different unrelated object in its place, she can't receive her own Get. [Rashi says that she can't be divorced through her father since you can only divorce a wife that's sent away and won't return. R' Tam holds that the father could accept the Get on her behalf, since he has a 'hand' to acquire the Get, and the father can guard her from returning to her husband. The Yerushalmi also implies that, even for the reason that she will return to him, you can divorce her if she has a father. A proof to this: if he can't accept her Get, he wouldn't be able to accept Kiddushin for her either, since we have a Hekish between Kiddushin and Get.]

24) R' Chisda says: if a child is old enough to be able to pick out good food (from bad), that if he receives a pebble, he throws it away, and if he receives a nut, he takes it; he can acquire items for himself, but not for others. If you give him something, and returns it later when it's claimed, he can acquire for others. Shmuel says that both cases can only acquire for himself and not for others.

25) According to Shmuel; the reason you can make a Shituf by having a Jewish maid, who's still a minor, to pick up the barrel and say that it's for all the people in the alley; since it's only rabbinically obligated. [Tosfos says: but their minor children, since they're the same pocket as their fathers. R' Yochanan says that it's not literal, but any child that doesn't support himself, but is supported by his father, he is considered as "a minor child' in this aspect and can't acquire. However, a Jewish slave or maid, despite being supported by the master, they have their own hand to acquire since they're only being supported as part of their wages for working. The Ri goes a step further that, even if he's supporting someone who is not his child, the supporter doesn't acquire all what that supported minor acquires. After all, they only decreed that by a son who he's constantly supporting, because only in that case will there be animosity for constantly supporting them and not getting anything in return. However, you acquire what your daughter (that's not a Bogeres) acquires even if you don't support her, since we don't want him to have any animosity with her, since he has the ability to marry her off to a disgusting person. However, Shmuel holds that a minor is literal, and it all depends on the age of the child since he always gives what he finds to his father, which is not applicable to a maid. Although, in Eiruvin, Shmuel says that an Eiruv works as an acquisition (that by giving the bread, you're getting a share of the house as an exchange); so a minor can't make an Eiruv; it doesn't mean a minor made the acquisition of making the Eiruv for others, since our Gemara permits it. Rather, Tosfos explains: if a minor has a house in the courtyard, can he give towards the Eiruv (since he can't give over through an acquisition, but he can symbolize his living in the other house by contributing bread).] R' Chisda holds: even though it's rabbinical, they enacted to parallel Torah laws, so if minors don't acquire for others from the Torah, they couldn't acquire the Eiruv either. Shmuel held they only enacted to parallel Torah laws when it's a rabbinical manifestation of Torah law, but not if it's totally rabbinic. [Tosfos says: according to R' Chisda: this that you only need to lift the barrel a Tefach from the ground to acquire it for everyone, even if usually, you need to lift items three Tefachim to acquire them, since you're lifting it somewhat, it parallels the Torah law of lifting.]

26) [Tosfos says: although it's forbidden to take what a minor found only because it's "the way of peace" not to take it from him, and even R' Yossi held it's only rabbinical stealing; R' Chisda holds that here is different where you have someone helping the minor to acquire it by giving it to him. Although having someone acquire money for you is only a manifestation of agency, and minors don't have agency, as the Torah excludes them from the word 'you,' that only for those similar to you, and not minors; the reason R' Chisda holds they can acquire for others since the exclusion is only regarding Trumah that the minor doesn't have any applicability to separating Trumah, but not regarding acquiring money, since the minor has applicability to acquire for himself.]

27) Although we see that a minor can redeem Maasar Sheini; we must say that it's only by rabbinical ones, like when it grew in a unperforated flowerpot. [Tosfos: it's only if he became close to becoming an adult that he can make vows according the opinion that they can separate Trumah, so they can redeem Maasar Sheini too. Although, there is no other person helping the redeeming like by acquiring for others, the Gemara compares them since they held that they're equal, redeeming without anyone's help, and acquiring with others with someone's help.]

28) Rava says: there are three levels of minors: if a child is old enough to be able to pick out good food (from bad), that if he receives a pebble, he throws it away, if he receives a nut, he takes it; he can acquire items for himself, but not for others. [Tosfos says: although we see an opinion in Bava Basra that they only enacted that someone can acquire for another person by a minor who can't acquire themselves; that's referring to minors that are younger than this and will keep a pebble. Alternatively, they're referring to Chalifin, where even an older child won't understand.] As a parallel, a female minor at that age that's an orphan, her mother and brother can marry her off with her consent that she would need Mi'un to get out of it. The second level is Pe'utos who can sell and buy moveable objects. As a parallel, a female minor at that age can accept a Get on a marriage that her father accepted the Kiddushin. The third level, that they got to the time that their vows are binding, and they can make items Hekdesh. As a parallel, a female minor can perform Chalitza. [Rashi says : i.e., if she gets two pubic hairs, it makes her an adult and it's not just unsightly growth like a wart. Tosfos disagrees since Rava himself said in Nidda that, if the hairs come at that time, it's nothing. Rather, it's like R' Yossi who says she can make Chalitza at this time. However, Rava himself Paskins that she needs to be twelve years old to make a Chalitza.] He can't sell his father's land until he's twenty years old.

29) A minor can't make an agent to accept her Get. Therefore, if the husband gives the agent the Get, she's not divorced until the Get goes into the minor's hands. However, her father can make an agent to accept her Get, and she's divorced immediately when the Get goes into the agent's hand.

30) If a husband says to an agent to bring a Get to my wife in a certain place, she's not divorced unless she was given the Get in that place. (After all, since the divorce is dependant on his will, everyone agrees that he cares that it should be done exactly as he says.) However, if he says "give my wife a Get and she's in a certain place," it's only showing him the place where she's probably found, and she's divorced even if the Get was given in a different place.

31) If a wife says to an agent to accept a Get in a certain place, the Tanna Kama says she's not divorced unless the agent was given the Get in that place. R' Elazar says: since the divorce isn't dependant on her will, since she can be divorced against her will, she doesn't care that it's given only there, but it's only showing him the place where she's probably found, and she's divorced even if the Get was given in a different place.

32) If a wife tells the agent "bring me my Get" if she's a Kohein's wife, she may eat Trumah until the Get comes to her hand. If she says "accept my Get," she's forbidden to eat Trumah immediately, since the agent might have found the husband right away. [Tosfos says: even though she has a Chazaka of being married, and the Chazaka that an agent does his agency is faulty, since he can't force the husband to give her a Get; but they enacted to forbid just like they enacted to forbid when someone made an agent to Mekadesh any woman, he's forbidden to all the women in the world since we have a Chazaka that an agent does his agency, so all women are a Safeik whether they're a relative of his unknown wife, despite that they all have a Chazaka of being permitted and it's not a complete Chazaka of his agency since he doesn't have the power to definitely find a girl who's willing to take Kiddushin.]

33) If she says to her agent "accept my Get in this place, but she's sometimes found in another place;" the agent can accept the Get in the other place, but she's only divorced when he gets to the first place where she said to accept her Get. [Rashi explains: since she expressed that he's in the other place, she's just showing him the place where he's probably found to accept the Get there as long as the transaction of the divorce doesn't take effect until he gets to the second area. Tosfos says: although he's the husband's agent to bring the Get until he gets to the second area, and one of the requirements of an agent, that he could return to the one who send him to say he did his task before taking on another task as an agent, and the agent can’t return to the husband since he immediately takes on to be the agent of the opposite party; we refer to a case where he tells her to be his agent to bring a Get until you get there, and when you get there, you make an agent to continue this task of bringing the Get, and then you may accept the Get from him. Alternatively, Tosfos says: he was always the wife's agent, and it's like the husband who gave a Get to his wife to accept it now until thirty days, so here too, it's "until you get to the second place."] Therefore, she may eat Trumah until the Get can reach the place where she said to accept it.

34) R' Elazar says that she can't eat Trumah right away, since he's consistent to his opinion that since the divorce isn't dependant on her will, since she can be divorced against her will, she doesn't care that it's given only there, but it's only showing him the place where she's probably found, and she's divorced even if the Get was given in a different place. Even if the husband was heading west, and the agent left to the east, we still need to worry that they might have bumped into each other.

35) If a man says to make an Eiruv for me with dried figs, and the agent made the Eiruv with dates; one Braisa says that it's a valid Eiruv and the other held it's an invalid Eiruv. the Gemara reconciles: it's an Eiruv to R' Elazar who holds it's only showing him the food that you'll probably find, and it's not an Eiruv to the Rabanan who says he cares about it. Alternatively, they're both like the Rabanan (and they only hold that he cares about it by Get, and not by an Eiruv), and it's an Eiruv if he uses someone else's food, but not his own food. [Rashi explains: since the agent only has permission to use his dry figs. Tosfos disagrees that we disagree with our assumption that the person cares about the Eiruv, but we're just differentiating between his and other people's food. Rather, he only cares when it's taken from his fruits, but he doesn't care about what other people donate from their fruits. Although we see that the Gemara in Bava Metzia says that, if he tells his worker to take a certain pile of hops in one area, and he takes another pile of hops from there, we don't consider it as he cared only taking the first pile; that's because it's the same type of food from the same place, and it doesn't need to dawn on you that there's a reason not to take the other pile. However, here, it's two types of food, and it's not like the case of Meila when the person said to take from the window, and he takes from the bag, that the agent did Meila and it's not considered doing the person's agency since it's from two places.]

36) If the husband says to write a Get, a letter, or 'divorce her;' they’re definitely terms for a Get, so you write one. However, other terms that might not be so clear that he means a Get, you can't write a Get.

37) Originally they said, a person going to be executed tells an agent to write a Get and he didn't say to also give it, we assess his thoughts that he wants it to be given too, but he was too distressed to remember to say it. They then extended it to someone embarking on a ship or to travel with a caravan. R' Shimon Shezuri extends it to a sick person.

38) [Tosfos says: if someone's being led to execution, he has the same status as a deathly ill person, so he can give out his whole estate without making a Kinyan, and you also need to keep the words of the dead.] Therefore, the one being led to being executed doesn't need to say also 'give' by a gift like he doesn't need to say it by a Get.

39) If someone says to give another four hundred Zuz from his wine, although he didn't say give him wine of four hundred Zuz, nor did he say to give him money from the sale of this wine; but it's written to give him extra power to collect the money that all the wine has a lien on the loan [Rashi: or else, if any of the wine is lost, they can claim that it's the wine obligated to your loan. Tosfos says that they could only deduct the ratio of how much of the wine he would have owned for that four hundred Zuz]. However, now, he would collect the whole four hundred Zuz from the rest of the wine.

39a) [Tosfos says: however, it implies that he would acquire the four hundred Zuz if he said "give him money from the sale of this wine" even though the money is not around yet like we say in Eiruchin by donating to Hekdesh the money you would get for your ox; since here he's saying that he should own the wine for the money it would produce when it's sold similar to selling a date tree for its fruits. Alternatively, our case refers to having some of the wine sold already, so there is in existence money from the wine sale.]

40) If someone was thrown into a pit and says "all who hear my voice, write a Get for my wife," you write it and give it. [Tosfos says: we consider this as if he appointed him as an agent. Although the Gemara in Nedarim says that, if you hear a friend say "anyone who wants to separate Trumah from my produce may," someone he vowed not to have pleasure from may separate the Trumah; even so, we must say that he's acting as his agent. After all, we say that someone can't separate Trumah if he's not the agent of the owner. Rather, since he didn't specify this offer to this person, it's not considered as giving him pleasure by doing his agency. Alternatively, when he says "anyone who hears me," he's specifying a person more than by saying "all who want to."]

41) They weren't worried that it was a Sheid, since he noticed that the source of the voice produced a double shadow. [Tosfos says: we only need to worry about a Sheid in the fields or in a pit, but not in the city since they're not commonly found there.] We aren't concerned that the voice came from a sister-wife who's trying to cause trouble for her, because in a time of danger, we write a Get for a wife, even if we don't recognize the voice, we write it so that she shouldn't be left as an Aguna, so too here.

42) A well person who says to write a Get to his wife, you can't give the Get until he also tells you to give it. R' Shimon b. Gamliel says: if afterwards, he goes to the roof and jumps, his end shows that, in the beginning, he was contemplating suicide and he's like a person going to be executed and tells an agent to write a Get and he didn't say to also give it, we assess his thoughts that he wants it to be given too, but he was too distressed to say it. However, if the wind blows him off, it's not a Get.

43) If there's three people in Shul, and two of them are father and son; and someone came in and said that two of you should write a Get to my wife, and then the father dies; there's an argument whether someone would appoint the son to be an agent when his father's there. We conclude that the Halacha is that people will appoint him to be an agent even when his father is there.

44) If someone tells two people to give a Get to his wife, (implying that they should also write a Get, so they'll have one to give); or to three people to write and give a Get; they must do it themselves, and they can't give it over to others. However, if you say 'give' to three; R' Meir and R' Chanina say that they form a Beis Din and could appoint someone else to write it. R' Yossi says that even the agent of the great Beis Din in Yerushalayim can't make another agent since words (i.e., commands) are not given to agency.

45) Shmuel was in doubt whether this writing refers to the text of the Get, and the agents must write it themselves [Tosfos: and the signing can be done by others.] Or, do we say that it refers to the signatures, but the text of the Get can be written by others. [Tosfos says: according to this second side, R' Meir will hold that, when someone tells two people to give a Get to his wife, it's Kosher if someone else writes it, as long as they sign it; since the reason he would Pasul by the signatures is because of the husband's embarrassment for not writing it himself, and it's not so public when it's written before signing it, the husband doesn't care as much.]

46) Although Shmuel holds like R' Yossi that words (i.e., commands) are not given to agency; it's only if he tells them to do an action, but not if they tell them to tell others to do an action. Since he only told them to personally sign the Get, and not to write the Get, it's as if they told them to tell others to write the Get.

47) [Tosfos says: either Shmuel holds like R' Elazar who holds that the writing the Get needs to be L'shma, so you need the command of the husband to write it, since R' Meir who holds that only the signing needs to be L'shma, you can take a practice Get from the garbage and sign it. Alternatively, even according to R' Meir, you can only sign on the practice Get if the husband commands you to, but here, the husband cares to write the Get from scratch, it's like he explicitly said to go to a Sofar to write it.]

48) That, which R' Yossi permits the Sofar to sign on the Get (with another witness) and he's not worried that a bad thing will come from it that, if we allow the Sofar to sign, maybe a husband will command others to sign, and because of the Sofar's embarrassment (that he feels that he's not considered as a trustworthy witness) they'll honor him to sign, and it will invalidate the Get. (Now, if we would say that R' Yossi holds that you can't command someone to tell someone else to sign, it wouldn't be a problem since no one can sign if he didn't hear it directly from the husband.) The Gemara answers: since, as we'll say later, we don't allow to L'chachila write this type of Get, so it's an uncommon case, which we don't enact to forbid.

49) Also, we can ask: how R' Yossi permits when he says to two people to have the Sofar write a Get and you people sign? If we say that we don't permit this L'chatchila, it fits in well, but what can we say according to the opinion that you can write it L'chatchila? According to them, you must say R' Yossi holds that words (i.e., commands) are not given to agency is even if they tell them to tell others to do an action. Granted that Shmuel permits it, we must say that, although Shmuel agrees with R' Yossi that words (i.e., commands) are not given to agency; but argues with him if they tell them to tell others to do an action.

50) [Tosfos says: according to R' Meir who says, if you say 'give' to three that they form a Beis Din and could appoint someone else to write it, assuming L'chatchila, since we're not worried that she will hire false witnesses, as we'll says soon; that's because we Pasul two who says that the husband commanded them to tell others to write and sign the Get; the Sofar won't sign unless he knows for sure that the husband made these three into a Beis Din. However, there's still a problem that a bad thing might come out, when the three agree to have the Sofar write and two other sign, and two of them might decide behind the third one's back, because of the Sofar's embarrassment, that they'll honor him to sign, we must say that R' Meir doesn't allow a Sofar to sign with another witness L'chatchila. Although when we say, when a husband tells two people to give a Get to his wife, they must do it themselves including the writing and signing; that's only B'dieved or when in a pushed situation.]

51) If the husband tells witnesses to tell the Sofar to write the Get and other witnesses to sign the Get; the Get is valid. However, you shouldn't L'chatchila do it since we need to worry that the woman might hire witnesses to do this. Although, regularly, we don't suspect witnesses who sign on documents that they were hired by the other side to lie, that's because they won't do an action [Tosfos explains: that finishes the transaction and the testimony through there hands.] However, here they're only talking [Tosfos: i.e., that they don't make any transaction or finishing testimony, but are telling others to make the transaction.]

52) [Tosfos says: the witnesses who hear the command from other witnesses are not a problem of witnesses testifying what they heard from other witnesses. After all, the whole testimony of the divorce is done by the later pair of witnesses, and the first ones are only agents of the husband to command writing a Get.]

53) There's an argument if the husband says to the witnesses that they should get a Sofar to write it and they themselves should sign it [Tosfos: and they finish the transaction themselves]; if it's forbidden L'chatchila because we need to decree it so they won't come to a case where they're told to tell others to sign, or do we not make such a decree.

54) If he says to ten people to write and give a Get to his wife; one of them writes it and two of them sign. However, if he says "all of you write and give a Get," one writes it in all of their presents and then all of them need to sign.

55) If you don't say "all of you" but he starts naming the people there, the first version held that if he only lists some of them, he's reversing his decision to want all of them there, so you only need two, but if he names all of them, it's like he said "all of you." In the second version; they hold the opposite. If he names some of them, then he cares for all the named ones to sign. However, if he names all of them, he only wants the command to be said in front of them all, but he doesn't care for all of them to sign.

56) When a husband commands the writing of the Get before many people; R' Yehuda enacted for him to say "to write, sign, and to bring; either all of you, or one or two of you" so that the husband can't claim later that he meant only for all of them to sign and bring it. However, Rava held the text was too long and the husband might leave out essential words, like only saying "all of you" and not saying "or one or two of you." Therefore, he says that the husband should only say "any one or two of you."