The Rambam writes in Laws of Gitin chapter 2 law 5 if one said to two, “write a get to my wife” they cannot tell others write and sign. In law 6 he writes if he said tell a scribe and he will write a get for my wife and they said to a scribe this get is pasul and one needs thought in this matter because this case is close to being invalid from the law of the Torah. The first law is that of R Jose words cannot be handed to a messenger in so much as to mean that if he tells two to do something they have no authority to tell others to do so. The second law is the law is "he says, 'tell'". That is if he tells to tell others to do something, they have no authority to do some even though he said to do so openly. The Rambam here is changing the language of the Mishna on page 66 for some unknown reason, however his intension is clear. (The Mishna says tell two to give a get to my wife they do so themselves. The second case is not the case of Shmuel on page 66 b but close to it where he said write and give a get to my wife and they told a scribe and he wrote and they signed.) The case of Shmuel is words cannot e handed to a messenger while the Rambam wrote a case of he said to say. The Rambam seems to equate the two separate laws. he seems to hold they are the same even though in the Gemara itself they are different. These are brought in the Gemara as being two points in which Shmuel agrees with R Jose about one point and disagrees with R Jose about the other. That is that Shmuel agrees with him about, “Words cannot be handed to a messenger,” but he disagrees with him about the law, ''he said to say”. In that case, Shmuel holds that is valid. It is hard to see why the Rambam seems to equate them. I might mention the Ramban definitely disagrees with the Rambam about this, and holds that the case of he said to tell a scribe to write a get is valid from the standpoint of the laws about messengers, but invalid in the specific case of a get because the scribe needs to hear to words from the husband directly in order for the get to be for her sake. I might mention here that this doubt of the Rambam is about if the law is like Shmuel on pages 66 and 67 or Rav Ashi on page 72. Shmuel holds he said to say is valid from the law of the Torah while R Ashi said it is not.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------The רמב’’ם writes in הלכות גירושין פרק ב' הלכה ה' if one said to two, “write a גט to my wife” they cannot tell others write and sign. In הלכה ו' he writes if he said tell a scribe and he will write a גט for my wife and they said to a scribe this גט is pasul and one needs thought in this matter because this case is close to being invalid דאורייתא. The first law is that of ר’ יוסי words cannot be handed to a messenger in so much as to mean that if he tells two to do something they have no authority to tell others to do so. The second law is the law is "he says, 'tell'". That is if he tells to tell others to do something, they have no authority to do some even though he said to do so openly. The רמב’’ם here is changing the language of the משנה on page 66 for some unknown reason, however his intension is clear. (The משנה says tell two to give a גט to my wife they do so themselves. The second case is not the case of שמואל on דף ס''ו ע''ב but close to it where he said write and give a גט to my wife and they told a scribe and he wrote and they signed.) The case of שמואל is words cannot be handed to a messenger while the רמב’’ם wrote a case of he said to say. The רמב’’ם seems to equate the two separate laws. he seems to hold they are the same even though in the גמרא itself they are different. These are brought in the גמרא as being two points in which שמואל agrees with ר’ יוסי about one point and disagrees with ר’ יוסי about the other. That is that שמואל agrees with him about, “Words cannot be handed to a messenger,” but he disagrees with him about the law, ''he said to say”. In that case, שמואל holds that is valid. It is hard to see why the רמב’’ם seems to equate them. I might mention the רמב''ן definitely disagrees with the רמב’’ם about this, and holds that the case of he said to tell a scribe to write a גט is valid from the standpoint of the laws about messengers שליחות , but invalid in the specific case of a גט because the scribe needs to hear to words from the husband directly in order for the גט to be לשמה. I might mention here that this doubt of the רמב’’ם is about if the law is like שמואל on דפים ס''ו and ס''ז or רב אשי on page ע''ב ע''א. AND שמואל holds "אומר אמרו is valid דאורייתא while אשי said it is not.