Gittin 4

לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה

It is because [the Jews in foreign parts] are [for the most part] ignorant of the rule of 'special intention'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] Lit., 'for her name': the rule that the Get must from its inception have been intended expressly for that woman. ');">¹</span>

רבא אמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו

Raba says: It is because it is not easy to find witnesses who can confirm the signatures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case the husband comes and questions the validity of the Get, and the declaration of the bearer is regarded as an authentication of the signatures by two witnesses. ');">²</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתיוהו בי תרי אי נמי ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל

What difference does it make [in practice] which reason we adopt? — [It does] in the case where the Get has been brought by two persons;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbah would still require the declaration, Raba not. ');">³</span>

אי נמי באותה מדינה במדינת הים

or again, where it has been taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here Raba would require the declaration, Rabbah not. ');">⁴</span>

ולרבה דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ליבעי תרי מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה עד אחד נאמן באיסורין

or again, from one place to another in the same foreign country.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here Rabbah would require the declaration, Raba not. ');">⁵</span>

אימור דאמרינן עד אחד נאמן באיסורין כגון חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלא איתחזק איסורא

Seeing that Rabbah's reason is that Jews abroad are ignorant of the rule of 'special intention', why does he not require that the Get should be brought by two bearers, so as to bring this case into line with the general rule of the Torah regarding evidence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the mouth of two witnesses a matter shall be established, Deut. XIX, 15. ');">⁶</span>

אבל הכא דאיתחזק איסורא דאשת איש הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים

— One witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As opposed to a pecuniary liability. ');">⁷</span>

רוב בקיאין הן ואפילו לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי ורבנן הוא דאצרוך והכא

But presumably the rule that one witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition applies for instance to the case of a piece of fat of which we do not know whether it is permitted or forbidden, there being no prima facie ground for declaring it prohibited. Here, however, since there is prima facie ground for assuming the prohibition regarding a married woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the recipient of the Get is a married woman she is prima facie (until we know that the Get is valid) forbidden to all other men. ');">⁸</span> the question becomes one of prohibited sex relationship, and for disproving such a relationship the evidence of two witnesses is required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sot. 3. ');">⁹</span> — Most [of the Jews abroad] are acquainted [with the rule of 'special intention'].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we do not suspect the husband of having broken this rule. ');">¹⁰</span> And even if, following the practice of R. Meir, we take account of the exceptions, [it will make no difference.] for most of the scribes of the <i>Beth din</i> know the law, and it was the Rabbis who [on their own authority] insisted [on this declaration], and in this case,