Gittin 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

Rabba said:

because

the inhabitants of the Diaspora are not versed in Torah, and they are

not expert

in the halakha that the bill of divorce must be written specifically for the sake of this particular woman. For it is stated in the Torah: “And he shall write for her a scroll of severance” [Deuteronomy, chapter 24], and it is learned from this verse below [20a] that the husband must write the bill of divorce for the sake of this particular woman who is being divorced. Therefore, when the agent says, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” the judges ask him whether the bill of divorce was written for her sake, and he answers: Yes!

And Rava said: Because

the caravans traveling on the roads are not common between the Diaspora and Eretz Yisrael, and if the husband challenges this bill of divorce and says, “I did not write it; rather, it is forged,” there will be no

witnesses

from there

available

here who could recognize the signatures of the witnesses appearing on the document in order

to validate it.

Therefore, they enacted that the agent must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” and this is considered validation. And the Gemara asks:

What is the practical difference between them?

What is the practical difference between the two explanations of Rabba and Rava? The Gemara answers: There are three circumstances in which there is a difference between their reasons:

a.

There is a difference between them—

there is a difference between them in the case

where two people brought it—

where two witnesses brought the bill of divorce from overseas rather than one, and both were appointed by the husband as agents to divorce her and deliver the bill of divorce to her together. According to Rabba, the law remains as it was, and both must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” But according to Rava, whose reason for the declaration is concern that the husband might challenge the bill of divorce, now that there are two of them, and they can validate it, they need not say at the time of delivery, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.”

b.

Alternatively—

another difference between the two reasons would be if the bill of divorce was sent

from one province

in Eretz Yisrael

to another province

in Eretz Yisrael.

For example, from the province of the Galilee to the province of Judea, between which caravans are not currently common. According to Rabba, since both places are in Eretz Yisrael, and their inhabitants are versed in the law that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, the agent need not say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” According to Rava, however, since caravans are not common, the agent must say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” so that the husband will be unable to challenge it.

c.

Alternatively,

the third difference between them is in a case where the agent carries a bill of divorce

within the same province in overseas territory.

For example, it was sent from one city in the Diaspora to another city in the same province. According to Rabba, the agent will certainly have to say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” since the inhabitants are not expert concerning writing it for her sake. According to Rava, he need not say this, since caravans traveling from city to city are common.

The Gemara first discusses Rabba’s statement and afterward Rava’s statement:

According to

the method of

Rabba,

whose reason for

the declaration is that they are not expert concerning writing it for her sake,

why is one witness sufficient for this?

Let two be required—

after all, testimony by two witnesses is required!

As is the case—

as is the law with regard to all

other testimony in the Torah?

The Gemara answers:

One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions,

for the Torah deemed every individual Jew credible when he says that terumot and tithes were separated from the produce, or that the animal was slaughtered in accordance with halakha and its meat is permitted for consumption. Likewise, he is believed to say that the forbidden sinews and fats were removed from the meat. Therefore, here too the Sages enacted that the agent would be believed to testify that the bill of divorce is valid.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Perhaps

we should say:

We say “

one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions”

only where there is a doubt before us,

such as a piece

of animal fat that is

possibly forbidden fat—

which is prohibited for consumption—

or possibly permitted fat

from an animal—which is permitted for consumption—

where it has not been established

that this particular piece contains

forbidden fat

with certainty. It is specifically in such a case that the Torah deemed one witness credible to testify concerning the matter.

But here,

in our case, concerning the bill of divorce,

it has been established—

it has been established with certainty—

that there is the prohibition of

a married woman.

For until now she was married, and clear testimony is now required concerning a bill of divorce made in accordance with halakha in order to permit her—

It is

this matter, in general, a

matter involving forbidden sexual relations.

And it is not

appropriate to permit

a matter involving forbidden sexual relations

with fewer than two [

witnesses].

This is learned by means of a gezerah shavah from the laws of monetary matters, as the word “matter” is written in both. [In the laws of forbidden sexual relations it is written [Deuteronomy 24]: “Because he has found in her a matter of forbidden sexual relations.” And with regard to monetary matters it is written [Deuteronomy 19]: “By the testimony of two witnesses shall a matter be established.”]

And the Gemara distinguishes:

Here the matter is different, because

the majority of the Jewish people [

according to Rashi’s version]

are knowledgeable

about the halakha that a get must be written lishmah. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that they sent a get that was unfit. Consequently, it is sufficient for the Sages that the agent say, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence,” in order to rely on this get and permit her.

And even according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned for the minority

even when the majority is not so, here, with regard to a get, there is no reason for concern.

Because

ordinary court scribes,

the scribes of the judges, who regularly write deeds of divorce in all places,

are thoroughly learned—

they are learned and know the halakha governing the writing of a get lishmah. The Sages were concerned about this only in an exceptional case, in which a prepared get might be found that had been written for one of the city’s residents, who had written it in order to divorce his wife; the name of the husband written in the get is the same as the name of the person who found it, and the name of the woman in the get is the same as the name of his wife, but ultimately that husband changed his mind about divorcing her. The finder might then take this get and use it to divorce his wife, even though it was not written lishmah for his wife.

And it is the Rabbis who required

the testimony of the agent, which would clarify that this had not occurred, but rather that the get had been written lishmah for the woman being divorced.

And here,

in this case, where the husband is abroad and the wife is in Eretz Yisrael -