Answer: They all hold like R. Elazar regarding which witnesses empower a Get. They argue about a Get in which the witnesses have names that Yisre'elim are never called by. (The first Tana disqualifies it, lest the husband use the witnesses signed for Edei Mesirah.)

Question: Canceling Shelichus to give a Get disqualifies mid'Oraisa, yet it was taught (in the Beraisa and Mishnayos, according to R. Meir)!

Retraction: Rather, we count only laws that do not apply to documents of Kidushin.

Question: Canceling Shelichus applies to Kidushin, yet it was taught!

Answer: Kidushin is different, for the Shali'ach cannot give the document against her will. One can give a Get of divorce or freedom against the will of the wife or slave.

(Mishnah): Any Get with a Kusi witness on it is Pasul, except for a Get of divorce or freedom;

A case occurred in which the witnesses on a Get were Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is Kosher.

(Gemara) Question: Our Mishnah is unlike all the Tana'im of the following Beraisa!

(Beraisa): Matzah of Kusim is permitted. One who eats it on Seder night fulfills the Mitzvah;

R. Elazer forbids it, because they are not careful about the details of Mitzvos;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, Kusim are established to keep some Mitzvos, and they keep those Mitzvos more meticulously than Yisrael.

Our Mishnah is unlike the first Tana, for he would accept all documents with Kusi witnesses!

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar, for he would disqualify even a Get of divorce with a Kusi witness!

It is unlike R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for he would not distinguish between Gitei Nashim and other documents:

If Kusim are established not to bear false testimony, they should be valid for both;

If Kusim are suspected to bear false testimony, they should be Pasul for both!

Suggestion: Perhaps Kusim are established not to bear false testimony regarding divorce, but are suspected regarding other documents.

Rejection: If so, even two Kusim signed on a Get should be valid!

(R. Elazar): The Mishnah accepts only a Get with one Kusi signed on it. (This is R. Elazar ben Pedas, an Amora. It is not the Tana in the Beraisa, R. Elazar ben Shamu'a.)

Answer: Really, the Mishnah is like R. Elazar. The case is, a Yisrael signed underneath the Kusi.

A Yisrael would let a Kusi sign before him only if he knew that the Kusi is reliable.

Question: If so, if one Kusi signed (first) on other documents this should also be valid!

Answer: We must say that we are concerned lest the Kusi is unreliable. The Yisrael signed before the Kusi signed;

The Yisrael expected someone more important than himself to be the other witness, therefore he signed at the bottom (to show deference).

Question: Here also, we should be concerned lest the Yisrael signed first (at the bottom), expecting someone more important than himself to be the other witness!

Answer (Rav Papa): Since we have no such concern, this shows that witnesses on a Get must sign in front of each other.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Rav Ashi): It is a decree due to the case when the husband says 'all of you should sign this Get.' (If two, but not all, sign, the Get will appear to be valid, but really, it is Pasul!)

(R. Elazar): The Mishnah accepts only a Get with one Kusi signed on it.

Question: Why must he teach this? It is clear from the Mishnah! It says, any Get that has one Kusi like a witness is Pasul (except for a Get of divorce or freedom)!

Answer: One might have thought that a Get of divorce or freedom is valid even if both witnesses are Kusim, and the Mishnah discusses one Kusi witness, for this disqualifies other documents.

Question: Two Kusim on a Get do not disqualify it!

(Mishnah): A case occurred in which the witnesses on a Get were Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is Kosher.

Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah should say "its witness" was a Kusi.

Answer #2 (Rava): Really, R. Gamliel allows even two Kusim. He argues with the first Tana.

The Mishnah is abbreviated; it means as follows: R. Gamliel allows even both witnesses to be Kusim. A case occurred in which the witnesses on a Get were Kusim, and R. Gamliel ruled that it is Kosher.

(Mishnah): All documents written by Nochri courts, even though Nochrim signed them, are valid, except for Gitei Nashim or freedom;

R. Shimon says, even these are valid; they are only Pasul when done by commoners.

(Gemara): The Mishnah does not distinguish between documents of sale and gift.

We understand why documents of sale are valid - the giving of the money made the acquisition, the document is merely a proof.

The judges would not write a document if the money was not given, for this would damage their reputation.

Question: Why is a document of a gift valid? (If Nochri courts made it,) it has no power to transfer property!

Answer #1 (Shmuel): The law of the kingdom (that court documents transfer property) is binding.

Answer #2: The Mishnah should say 'except for documents like Gitei Nashim (i.e. that are not merely proofs, but change ownership or status).

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): Even these are Kosher...

Question: Nochrim have nothing to do with divorce. Their Gitin have no effect!

Answer (R. Zeira): R. Shimon holds like R. Elazar, that Edei Mesirah Karsei.

Question: R. Aba taught that R. Elazar admits that an intrinsic forgery (a Get in which the testimony of the signed witnesses is Pasul) is Pasul. Here, the judges are Pasul witnesses!

Answer: The case is, it is clear from the judges' names that they are Nochrim. (No one would rely on them for witnesses of divorce.)