Gittin

since there is a possibility that he made it up with her [in the interval].  R. Johanan, however, says that even if it was signed ten days later [it is valid, because] if he had made it up with her, people would have got to know. It has been stated: If a man said to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife', according to R. Johanan, two of them sign as witnesses and the rest [simply] because he made it a condition,  while according to Resh Lakish, all of them sign as witnesses. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that he did not say to them 'all of you [write]'? [This cannot be] because we have learnt: If he says to ten persons, 'Write a Get for my wife' [without saying 'all of you'], one writes and [only] two sign!  — We suppose then that he used the words 'all of you'. What is the practical difference between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish?  — The practical difference arises where two of them signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. According to the authority [R. Johanan] who said [that the rest only sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses, [the Get is] invalid. Or again [there is a difference] where, for example, one of the persons [who signed it] was found to be a relative or in some way disqualified [from acting as witness]. According to the authority who said [that the rest sign] because he made it a condition, [the Get is] valid, but according to the authority who says [that they all sign] as witnesses [it is] invalid.  If [the relative or disqualified person] signs first, some say [that the Get is] valid and some that [it is] invalid. Some say [it is] valid because [the person thus signing may be regarded as fulfilling] the condition. Some say [it is] invalid because [otherwise] a precedent may be set for the signing of documents in general. A certain man said to ten persons, [All of you]  write a Get for my wife, and two signed on the same day and the rest ten days later. [The question of its validity] came before R. Joshua ben Levi. He said: