Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 2a

CHAPTER I

MISHNAH. THE BEARER OF A BILL OF DIVORCE [GET] FROM [A HUSBAND IN] FOREIGN PARTS¹  [TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL] IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE [ON PRESENTING IT TO THE WIFE]. 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS: [THIS DECLARATION IS] ALSO [REQUIRED] IF HE BRINGS IT FROM REKEM OR FROM HEGAR.²  R. ELEAZAR SAYS: EVEN IF HE BRINGS IT FROM KEFAR LUDIM TO LUD.³  THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY THAT THE DECLARATION 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED' IS REQUIRED ONLY FROM ONE WHO BRINGS A BILL OF DIVORCE [FROM FOREIGN PARTS TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL] OR WHO TAKES IT [FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL TO FOREIGN PARTS].⁴  THE BEARER [OF SUCH A DOCUMENT] FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER IN FOREIGN PARTS IS ALSO REQUIRED TO DECLARE, IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED.' RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS IT IS REQUIRED EVEN IF HE TAKES IT FROM ONE GOVERNORSHIP⁵  TO ANOTHER. R. JUDAH SAYS: [FOREIGN PARTS EXTEND] FROM REKEM EASTWARDS, REKEM BEING INCLUDED; FROM ASKELON SOUTHWARDS, ASKELON INCLUDED; AND FROM ACCO⁶  NORTHWARDS, ACCO INCLUDED. R. MEIR, [HOWEVER,] HELD THAT ACCO COUNTS AS ERETZ ISRAEL IN THE MATTER OF BILLS OF DIVORCE. THE BEARER OF A BILL OF DIVORCE [FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER] IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL IS NOT REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED;' IF ITS VALIDITY IS CHALLENGED IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SIGNATURES.⁷

GEMARA. What is the reason [for this requirement]? Rabbah Says:

1. Lit., 'province of the sea': a name given to all countries outside of Palestine and Babylonia.
2. The Biblical Kadesh and Bared (Gen. XVI, 14), on the southern border of Palestine, [v. Targum Onkelos loc. cit. Josephus (Ant. IV. 7, 1) who names the place Arekem (cf. oerv in our Mishnah) identifies it with Petra. Hegar is identified by Hildesheimer, Beitrage zur Geographie Palastinas (pp. 53 and 68) with the wilderness of Shur on the South-western Palestine border of Egypt].
3. Lydda. Two neighbouring places on opposite sides of the border. [Kefar Ludim was about two hours walking distance from Lud on the north-west, v. Kaftorhwa-Ferah (Luncz ed.) p. 128].
4. The point of this remark is discussed infra 4b.
5. [G]. V. infra 4b.
6. The modern Acre.
7. I.e., by bringing proof that the signatures are authentic.

It is because [the Jews in foreign parts] are [for the most part] ignorant of the rule of 'special intention'.¹  Raba says: It is because it is not easy to find witnesses who can confirm the signatures.²  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;³  or again, where it has been taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel;⁴  or again, from one place to another in the same foreign country.⁵  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?⁶  — One witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition.⁷  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,⁸  the question becomes one of prohibited sex relationship, and for disproving such a relationship the evidence of two witnesses is required?⁹  — Most [of the Jews abroad] are acquainted [with the rule of 'special intention'].¹⁰  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 Beth din know the law, and it was the Rabbis who [on their own authority] insisted [on this declaration], and in this case,

1. [H] Lit., 'for her name': the rule that the Get must from its inception have been intended expressly for that woman.
2. 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.
3. Rabbah would still require the declaration, Raba not.
4. Here Raba would require the declaration, Rabbah not.
5. Here Rabbah would require the declaration, Raba not.
6. By the mouth of two witnesses a matter shall be established, Deut. XIX, 15.
7. As opposed to a pecuniary liability.
8. 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.
9. V. Sot. 3.
10. Hence we do not suspect the husband of having broken this rule.