Gittin 32
כשר אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים אין צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם
it is valid. We conclude that he was of opinion that if a Get was brought by two bearers from 'foreign parts', they are not required to declare 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the reason for this declaration (which is because there may not be witnesses available to attest the signatures, v. supra 2b) does not apply where there are two bearers. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה סיפא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ורבי יהודה מכשיר
Said Abaye to him: Taking this view [as correct], let us look at the clause which follows: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE', AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID; R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT TO BE VALID. The reason, you say, why the Rabbis declare it invalid is because it was not brought by both of them as bearers. Are we to suppose then that if both of them did act as bearers, the Rabbis hold the Get to be valid? — He replied: That is so. In the case then where both do not act as bearers of the Get, what is the ground of the difference [between R. Judah and the Rabbis]? — One authority [the Rabbis] held that there is a risk of the procedure [in the case of a Get] being taken as an example for allowing one witness to confirm [signatures] of documents in general, and the other held that there is no such danger.
טעמא דאין הגט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם הא גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם מכשרי רבנן אמר ליה אין
Another version [of the above passage is as follows]. R. Samuel b. Judah said in the name of R. Johanan: Even if both witnesses have acted as bearers of the Get, it is invalid. We conclude that he was of opinion that if two persons act as joint bearers of a Get from 'foreign parts', they are required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed'. Said Abaye to him: Accepting this view [as correct], let us look at the next clause: IF TWO SAY, 'IT WAS WRITTEN IN OUR PRESENCE, AND ONE SAYS, 'IT WAS SIGNED IN MY PRESENCE', IT IS INVALID. R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, DECLARES IT VALID. Then the Rabbis declare it invalid even if both have acted as bearers? — He replied: That is so. What is the point at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis? — One authority [the Rabbis] was of opinion that the reason why the declaration is required is because [the Jews outside Palestine] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore where there are two bearers, they must make the whole declaration. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
וכי אין גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם במאי פליגי מר סבר גזרינן דלמא אתיא לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא בעד אחד ומר סבר לא גזרינן
and the other [R. Judah], because witnesses cannot easily be found to attest the signatures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore two bearers are not required. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן אפי' גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם פסול אלמא קסבר שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים צריכין שיאמרו בפנינו נכתב ובפנינו נחתם
May we infer from this that the dispute between Rabbah and Raba goes back to the Tannaim? — No. Raba adopts the first version of the passage just quoted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to which two bearers are not required. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה סיפא דקתני שנים אומרים בפנינו נכתב ואחד אומר בפני נחתם פסול ור' יהודה מכשיר אפילו גט יוצא מתחת ידי שניהם פסלי רבנן אמר ליה אין
Rabbah, [adopting the second], can maintain that both authorities require the declaration on account of the rule of 'special intention', and here we are dealing with the period when this had become generally known, and the point at issue between R. Judah and the Rabbis is whether there is a danger of a reversion to the former ignorance, one [the Rabbis] holding that there was such a danger and it was necessary to take precautions against it, and the other that it was not. But according to this, R. Judah should join issue in the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one says that it was written in his presence and one that it was signed in his presence. Since the bearers are two and he does not fear the reversion to their former ignorance. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ומר סבר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו
also? — This is in fact the case, as has been stated: 'Ulla said that R. Judah differed from the Rabbis in the first case also. R. Oshiah raised an objection to 'Ulla. [It has been taught:] R. Judah declares [the Get] valid in this case, and not in the other. Does he not mean by this, [he said,] to except the case where one says 'It was written in my presence' and one says 'it was signed in my presence'? — No. He means to except the case where one says, 'It was signed in my presence but not written in my presence'. I might think that since R. Judah does not think it necessary to guard against the danger of a recurrence of the ignorance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By declaring the Get invalid if one declares that he has seen it written and one that he has seen it signed. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
לימא דרבה ורבא תנאי היא לא רבא מתרץ כלישנא קמא
so also he does not think it necessary to guard against the danger of confusing writs of divorce with other documents through allowing confirmation by one witness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one witness is allowed to confirm the signature to the Get. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
וליפלוג נמי רבי יהודה ברישא הא אתמר עלה אמר עולא חלוק היה רבי יהודה אף בראשונה
Rabbah b. Bar Hanah was once ill, and Rab Judah and Rabbah went to inquire how he was. While with him, they put to him the question: If two bearers' bring a Get from 'foreign parts', are they required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed', or are they not required? — He replied: They are not required. For if they were to say, 'In our presence he divorced her', would we not take their word? At this point a Gueber<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A member of the fanatical sect of fire-worshippers who became powerful in the Persian Empire in the fourth century. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>