יג תנן וחכמים אומרים אינו צריך שיאמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם אלא המביא ממדינת הים והמוליך מכלל דתנא קמא סבר מוליך לא צריך מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה
13 whereas the other authority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> holds that the reason [why the declaration is required] is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and he [includes the Jews of] these places because here too it is not easy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is no commercial intercourse between the two places. (Rashi). ');"><sup>12</sup></span> — No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah can account for it thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because of the unfamiliarity [of the Jews outside Eretz Israel] with the rule of 'special intention', and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places on account of their proximity to Eretz Israel the Jews are familiar with the rule, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in the case of places which lay within the ambit of Eretz Israel but not in those which merely adjoined it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in the case of places which lay within the ambit, no distinction being made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'. Raba accounts for the difference thus: All the authorities are agreed that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the point of divergence between them is that the first Tanna is of opinion that in these places, on account of their proximity to the Land of Israel, it is easy to find witnesses, whereas Rabban Gamaliel held that this was so only in places which lie within the ambit of Eretz Israel, but not in those which only adjoin it, and R. Eleazar would not allow it to be so even in places lying within the ambit, as no distinction is to be made among places which belong to 'foreign parts'. Our Mishnah says: [THE SAGES SAY] THE DECLARATION, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED IS REQUIRED ONLY FROM ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM FOREIGN PARTS AND FROM ONE WHO TAKES IT THERE. We infer from this that in the opinion of the first Tanna the bearer [of a bill of divorce] to foreign parts is not required to make the declaration. May we assume that the point of divergence between the two authorities is that one holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews in foreign parts] are not familiar with the rule of 'Special intention',