Explanation: According to Rebbi, who says that if he nullified the Get it is indeed nullified, the Mishnah used the term "he reached" regarding the messenger, as this would be the normal case of nullifying a Get. At this point it would be permitted and normal to nullify the Get. However, to nullify it before a Beis Din and not in front of the messenger is forbidden according to Rabbinic law due to the decree of Rabban Gamliel.

Additionally, it stated "he reached" regarding the messenger as now there is no need for a Beis Din.

Alternatively, the Mishnah is specifically trying to teach that we do not say that he merely intends to cause her pain, a possibility presented in the Gemara. Additionally, we should not say that only in this situation it is null.

Question: It is obviously null! How could we say that it is not null if he is standing and screaming (in protest)?

Answer#1: One would think that because he is not bringing any witnesses, he must not really want to nullify it.

Answer#2: Alternatively, we would suspect that we should be stringent because perhaps he is just trying to cause her pain. This therefore teaches us that we do not have such suspicions.

Explanation: This implies that the previous case of him meeting his wife did not merely happen, but he had to make a special effort to meet her.

Question: This is difficult. Why didn't it say a more novel law? It could have said that if he or his messenger merely happened to bump into his wife we do not say that he is intending to pain her. It would be very difficult to say in such a case that his nullification does not work. (Note: Therefore, being that the Get should be effective in these cases and they are more novel, why didn't the Mishnah give these cases?)

Implied Question: Rava says later that knowing what someone's mindset is regarding Gitin is an important thing. (Note: Accordingly, why would he say that the Get is still valid?)

Answer: He only holds this way if this information is revealed before she receives the Get. However, if his mindset was not known until after she received the Get, it is insignificant.

For example, if he was running after a messenger to nullify the Get, and the messenger thought he was running over to him to say that he should quickly give her the Get, as Rava says later (ibid.). When he nullifies the Get after she has already received it, he does so because he thinks that the messenger still has the Get, not his wife. This makes it seem pretty clear retroactively that his intent when he was running after the messenger was to nullify the Get. Our Mishnah tells us that even so, his nullification is insignificant.

The reason is because at the time that he is running, his mindset is unknown to the messenger, his wife, or Beis Din. His thoughts are therefore "words of the heart" which are not considered significant, even though he is believed to say that this is what he was thinking.

Implied Question: Normally, as in the case in Kidushin (49b) of someone who sold land with intent that he was going to Eretz Yisrael (and then he ended up canceling his move), we say that these types of thoughts (that the deal should only be valid if he is moving) are insignificant because he did not verbalize them. This indicates that he wanted the deal to go through even if he did not end up moving. However, in this case, it is clear that he did everything in his power to nullify the Get (it just wasn't enough). (Note: Why, then, shouldn't we consider his clear intent enough to nullify the Get?)

Answer: Even so, Chazal considered his words like regular "words of the heart."

Implied Question: One should not ask, is there any Get that according to Torah law is invalid, but according to Rabbinic law is valid?

Answer: Being that it is somewhat similar to "words of the heart," it is not considered uprooting something from the Torah. Moreover, when nullification is not done in Beis Din and without the messenger or the wife's knowledge, the implication is that the Get is not nullified at all.

Question: This requires study. Perhaps nullification that is not done in Beis Din does not help to be lenient, but will help to be stringent.

Opinion: The Ri also understands that "words of the heart" are not considered words, even where we see that he did not say them due to forced circumstances. This is as the Gemara attempts to prove in Kidushin (50a) that "words of the heart" are not words, as is clear from the fact that we must force a person until he says that he wants to give a Get or bring a Korban. (Note: This is despite the fact that we understand that he really wanted to do so the entire time (see Rambam in Hilchos Geirushin 20:20).)

"Words of the heart" are only valid when without his telling us, it is clear to us that this is his mindset.

Opinions: We do not have the text "Rabah bar Avuha says in the name of Rav Sheshes."

Rabah bar Avuha was Rav Nachman's teacher, and Rav Nachman was the friend of Rav Sheshes.

Question: This is difficult. In the last chapter of Kerisus (24a), we have the opposite text. "If he says, "It is null/it should be null/I don't want it " his words are effective. If he says, "It is null" or "It is not a present" his words are invalid".

We cannot possibly change the text there to reflect our text. The Gemara there asks a question on Reish Lakish who says that if someone gives a present to his friend, and the intended recipient says that he does not want it, whoever acquires it first has acquired it. Rav Sheshes is the one who says that if someone says, "I don't want it," his words are valid. This implies that his words are valid, and therefore the present goes back to the owner.

Answer #1: However, according to the Sefarim that have the text both here and there that if the person says, "I don't want it / it is null / it is not a present" his words are upheld, this is understandable.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask from "I don't want it" like it asks regarding "it is null." (Note: Why not?)

Answer to Implied Question: This is because it was obvious to him that the reason that his words are upheld when he says that he does not want it is because it is a terminology of making something ownerless, as the Gemara itself answers for Reish Lakish in Kerisus. However, this text is not in most Sefarim.

Answer #2: The R"I answers differently, in a manner that does not necessitate changing the Girsa in Kerisus.

And he understood through a careful reading that "it is null" implies from the beginning (in the past), since we learn that if a person says "it is null/ it is not a present" his words are invalid; for if nullifying it implies in the future, his words would be effective and it would be ownerless and anyone who takes it acquires it.

However, now that it means from the beginning, it is as if he says regarding all gifts that a person gives to his friend and he acquires them that they are not gifts, for here he also acquires them, and therefore it is ineffective.

Clarification: And the statement (of the Gemara) "it has two meanings and he intended the meaning that is to his advantage" does not mean that he intended to his advantage for (acquiring) gifts, rather "to his advantage" means what is good for him, because he wishes to cancel the Get, and he wishes not to cancel the gift.

Implied Question: And that which is implied in the beginning of Perek Ha'Umanin (Bava Metzia 76b) that it is advantageous to the husband the faster the Get takes effect.

Because we say, "it is correct if it said the opposite, (his wife said) "accept for me my Get" and (the agent said) "your wife said 'bring me my Get'" and he (the husband) says "do as she said", and Rav Nachman said that she is divorced when the Get reaches the hand (of the agent)"; thus we see that it relies on what is advantageous to him.

Answer to Implied Question: There where he certainly wants to divorce her, it is considered advantageous to him, but here that he demonstrates that he wishes to cancel it, this is advantageous to him.

Answer #3: And Rashi explained in Kerisus (24a) that the correct text there is as is in our Gemara, and it does not ask from "'I don't want it' is ineffective", because Reish Lakish only said this with respect to moveable objects, since they come into his hands, the language of "I don't want it" is language of renouncing ownership; however this one (who is given a field) did not renounce ownership of the field but rather (said) 'I do not want the gift to take effect'.

Question: Rather it asks from the latter half, where it says "'it is nullified/it is not a gift' his words are effective", because it implies the past, and he agrees that she did not accept it for the sake of a gift and the admission of the contestant carries the weight of one hundred witnesses, does it not mean his words are effective and it returns to the owner- we see that when his words are effective, it returns to the owner.

Answer: And it answers, "no, his words are effective and it does not return to the owner".

And it could have similarly answered that the case of Reish Leikish is made ownerless since he already acquired it, however in the case of Rav Sheshes who agrees that he never acquired it, it belongs to the owner, for a person gives a gift with the intent that it go only to the one he is giving it to, and if not, it is not a gift, for this is how another question there is answered.

However, now it answers nicely in either event.

Implied Question: And afterword when it asks from "'I have nothing to do with this field, and my hand is removed from it' is ineffective", it asks correctly from a field to moveable objects.

Since it is referring to a field that is his, as Rashi comments 'One who says to his friend- who is his partner', where it is not possible to say that his intent is that the gift should not be effective as in the case of Rav Sheshes.

And if the language of "I don't want it" by moveable objects is considered renunciation of ownership, it follows that "my hands are removed from it" with regard to a field is also renunciation of ownership, because it is impossible to say that his intention is different, because why did he not say anything?

Implied Question: It is not possible to say that saying "take this" is not like saying "acquire" regarding a Get, as even "acquire" does not help. (Note: Why, then, is it even brought up in our Gemara?)

Answer: It was only stated as a sign (of indication), meaning that just as saying "take this" does not work for a Get, it does not work for a present.

Question: In Nedarim (34b), the Gemara implies that if someone says that a certain loaf is Hekdesh, his words are effective. If he says about a Get "Get Zeh Cheres," he has not said anything, as this is less effective than saying, "Get Zeh Cheres Hu" which is also not effective (as stated clearly in our Gemara). If he says "It is nullified," his words are valid. When he says, "This Get is nullified," but does not add the word "Hu," the Gemara is unsure and concludes Teiku. (Note: Accordingly, how can the Gemara say that "Harei Hu k'Cheres" should not be any different than "Harei Hu Hekdesh? We see that Hekdesh clearly takes effect where this phrase does not!)

Question: This is difficult. Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue in Kidushin (59a), but the Gemara there implies that they agree that words cannot nullify an action. The Gemara proves this from the Mishnah that states that vessels can become ready to accept impurity (when they are thought of as being in a finished state by their owners).

Writing a get Lishmah is certainly an action, as someone who writes a Sefer Torah Lishmah cannot retract this fact (and make it invalid).

Answer: As long as the Get did not reach the woman, it is not considered the end of the action (meaning it is not considered an action which cannot be nullified by words).

Explanation: The terminology indicates that even if he would explicitly say it is nullified, his statement is invalid. This implies that in this case it is not considered words negating words, but rather words against an action. Additionally, the statement "Is the Get itself nullified?!" implies that he has no ability to negate the Get.

However, the Gemara in Kidushin (59a) does not have this entire lengthy discussion. The Sefarim state that even if it is negated from being delivered by the messenger, it is not negated from being a Get. This implies that if he explicitly nullified it from being a Get, Rav Nachman would agree that it is nullified.

Indeed, we must say that a Get is not considered an action as long as it does not reach the hand of the woman. Otherwise, one could ask a question on Rav Sheshes as we said earlier (previous Tosfos).

The Gemara earlier (18a) says regarding a Get that was written during the day and signed at night that Rebbi Shimon did not say it was kosher if the signing was delayed for ten days (as opposed to being signed that night). This means that we suspect that he nullified the Get. However, there is no proof from here that one can nullify such a Get, as apparent from the opinion of Rabeinu Tam quoted in Tosfos earlier (18b, DH "Shema Payis").

Additionally (even if we do not give Rabeinu Tam's explanation), perhaps there that the Get has not been signed yet, it is not yet considered the end of the action.

Implied Question: (Note: What is Rav Nachman's source that two people are called a Beis Din?) We cannot say that Rav Nachman is basing himself on his reasoning in Sanhedrin (5b) in the name of Shmuel that if two people judge (instead of the normal three), their judgement is valid.

This is apparent from the fact that Rava does not hold there (3a) of Shmuel's statement. It must be that Rava holds of Rav Nachman's statement here who says that the nullification of the Get can be done before two people.

Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue later regarding the argument of Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes. Rava rules in Yevamos (36a) that in general Rebbi Yochanan is correct when he argues with Reish Lakish, besides for three cases. Rebbi Yochanan here rules like Rav Nachman. (Note: Accordingly, it seems that Rava holds like Rav Nachman.)

Additionally, the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin says that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both hold that if two people judge, their judgement is invalid. In Yevamos (46b), Rebbi Yochanan says that a convert requires three people (to form a Beis Din for conversion), as it states regarding conversion "Mishpat" -- "judgement."

Answer: It therefore must be that even though two people cannot judge, being that a Pruzbul can be done with two judges, they are called a Beis Din.

Question: In Sanhedrin (30a), the Gemara asks regarding an Odisa (admission document) that perhaps this is a "Beis Din Chatzuf" -- "a brazen Beis Din" as per the statement of Shmuel who says that two people who judge (have validly judged, but they are called a Beis Din Chatzuf). Even without Shmuel's statement a question can still be asked, as Rebbi Yochanan and Rava do not hold of Shmuel. They hold that two can be called a Beis Din. (Note: Accordingly, the fact that the document stated it was arranged by a Beis Din could mean two people, as according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rava two people are called a Beis Din.) A similar question is also asked regarding the verification of documents in Kesuvos (22a).

Answer: In the Gemara in Sanhedrin (ibid.), being that three are required for an Odisa and the verification of documents, it is not relative to the Gemara's discussion to say that two people can be called a Beis Din. (Note: In the Gemara's context, it cannot be that Beis Din means two people according to Rebbi Yochanan and Rava.) The Gemara therefore states that perhaps Beis Din refers to two and not three, as per the opinion of Shmuel.

Question: What is the practical outcome from this argument between Rav Nachman and Rav Sheshes regarding in front of how many people does one have to nullify a Get? Rabban Gamliel instituted that they should not do this!

Answer: The Ri answers that the difference is according to Rebbi, who says later that if the Get was nullified, it is indeed nullified. Rav Nachman later rules like Rebbi's opinion. Rebbi admits that if they nullified the Get in front of two people according to Rav Sheshes, or in front of one person according to Rav Nachman, the Get is not nullified.

Even before the decree of Rabban Gamliel such nullification would be invalid. According to Rav Sheshes, it would only be nullified before three people, as there is no more suspicion of resulting Mamzerus.

According to Rav Nachman, even though that before two people one would normally suspect that Mamzerus would occur, as say later, even so it is considered nullified. However, with less than two people there is a very strong concern, and it is therefore not nullified.

In such a case, even Rebbi agrees (before the decree of Rabban Gamliel and in front of two people, see Maharam Shif) that it is not nullified, as we say "What does Beis Din help?" (Note: It only helps with three (see Maharsha as well who has difficulty understanding this phrase in Tosfos).)

Question: In Yevamos (25b), regarding a woman who does Miun or Chalitzah in front of him, he is allowed to marry her, as he was part of the Beis Din. The Gemara deduces that this is because he was part of a Beis Din. This implies if he was only one of two people who witnessed this, he could not marry her. Doesn't the Gemara here say that two people are also called a Beis Din?

Answer#1: The Gemara there deduces this from the fact that the Mishnah does not say, "because they are two people." This implies that the reason is because he was part of a Beis Din, and teaches us that two would not be enough.

Answer#2: Alternatively, it could be that Miun is like Chalitzah, and a Beis Din for Chalitzah is clearly with three people. This is unlike the opinion that says Chalitzah can be done in front of one person, as one person is clearly not called a Beis Din, and (there is a risk that) people will complain.