Implied Question: This is unlike a case of one witness testifying based on the words of another witness. (Note: Why is this case different?)

Answer: The case there is when they heard from witnesses that Ploni borrowed a Manah from Ploni. The ability to testify in this case was only given to those who saw the loan (not this second set of witnesses). However, here the ability to testify about the Get was given to the second set. The first witnesses are merely the messengers of the husband, who are supposed to command the second set to write the Get.

Explanation: Rashi explains that Shmuel holds that the case of the Mishnah is when the scribe writes the Get and the two messengers sign it. This is even according to the opinion of Rebbi Meir.

Even so, even according to him it must be that this is not commonly done. This is evident from the fact that originally the Gemara only asked that it was not logical that Shmuel would argue on Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rav Chisda. (Note: It therefore must not be our working assumption that this is commonly done.)

Explanation: This is true of Rebbi Yehudah more than it is true regarding Rebbi Meir. It is possible that Rebbi Meir is sharp and asks (more) questions while Rebbi Yehudah is patient and gets to the conclusion better. A similar thing is stated in Horiyos (14a). (Note: See Teshuvos Maharlbach (#92) who concludes that "v'Dilma" here is more of an explanation than addressing a question, and explains Tosfos at length. See Zera Yitzchak for a different explanation of Tosfos.)

Explanation#1: "Meyuzenes" refers to food.

Explanation#2: Some have a text "Mezuyenes" referring to bearing arms.

Text#1: Rashi has the text "Balum" with a Mem at the end of the word, like the phrase, "His mouth and feet are "Balum" -- "short." (Note: Rashi explains that this means his knowledge was compartmentalized neatly and stored properly in his mind (see Rashi at length).)

Text#2: Some have the text "Balus" with a Samech, as in the phrase stated in Bereishis Rabah (ch.28), "It is akin to a king whose storehouses were "Belusin," meaning sealed, and its many contents were mixed up. (Note: This indicates he had many fields of Torah knowledge in one mind.)

Question: The Gemara in Yevamos (25b) states regarding a girl who did Miun or a woman who did Chalitzah before someone that he may marry her, as he is part of a Beis Din. The Gemara asks that the only reason this is permitted is because he is part of a Beis Din. This implies she cannot marry one of the witnesses. Doesn't the Beraisa say that if witnesses were signed on a purchase of a field or Get of a woman, the Chachamim did not suspect etc. (i.e. they permitted a witness to marry the woman)?

What is the Gemara's question? Let the Gemara answer that they say words, but do not do an action, as we answer in our Gemara! In the case in Yevamos (ibid.), the Beis Din merely says she that she performed Miun or did Chalitzah.

Answer: Being that the entire event is done through their words, and this (i.e. this statement that she did Chalitzah or Miun) permits her to remarry, it is considered an action. However, here (witnesses signed on a document) they do not finish this event and it is only words. (Note: The transaction is only carried out by the giving of the Get or document.)

Explanation: This is even if he says, "Write and give."

Explanation: He did this because he found that it tasted like meat that had boils on it. The Gemara did not explain this explicitly.