Gittin — Daf 3a

משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן

האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא דאי מצרכת ליה תרי לא אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה חד אתי בעל ומערער ופסיל ליה

כיון דאמר מר בפני כמה נותנו לה רבי יוחנן ור' חנינא חד אמר בפני ב' וחד אמר בפני ג' מעיקרא מידק דייק ולא אתי לאורועי נפשיה

ולרבא דאמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו ליבעי תרי מידי דהוה אקיום שטרות דעלמא עד א' נאמן באיסורין

אימר דאמרינן עד אחד נאמן באיסורין כגון חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלא איתחזק איסורא אבל הכא איתחזק איסורא דאשת איש הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות מב'

בדין הוא דבקיום שטרות נמי לא ליבעי כדר"ל דאמר ר"ל עדים החתומים על השטר נעשו כמי שנחקרה עדותן בב"ד ורבנן הוא דאצרוך והכא משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן

האי קולא הוא חומרא הוא דאי מצרכת ליה תרי לא אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה חד אתי בעל ומערער ופסיל ליה כיון דאמר מר בפני כמה נותנו לה רבי יוחנן ורבי חנינא חד אמר בפני שנים וחד אמר בפני ג' מעיקרא מידק דייק ולא אתי לאורועי נפשיה

ורבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבה אמר לך מי קתני בפני נכתב לשמה בפני נחתם לשמה

ורבה בדין הוא דליתני הכי אלא דאי מפשת ליה דיבורא אתי למגזייה

השתא נמי אתי למגזייה חדא מתלת גאיז חדא מתרתי לא גאיז

ורבה מ"ט לא אמר כרבא אמר לך א"כ ניתני בפני נחתם ותו לא בפני נכתב ל"ל ש"מ בעינן לשמה

ורבא בדין הוא דליתני הכי אלא דא"כ אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא בעד אחד

ורבה מי דמי התם ידעינן הכא בפני

התם אשה לא מהימנא הכא אשה מהימנא התם בעל דבר לא מהימן הכא בעל דבר מהימן

ורבא אמר לך אטו הכא כי אמרי ידעינן מי לא מהימני וכיון דכי אמרי ידעינן מהימני אתי לאיחלופי בקיום שטרות דעלמא בעד אחד

ולרבה דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה מאן האי תנא דבעי כתיבה לשמה ובעי

on account of the danger of the woman becoming a 'deserted wife', those [same] Rabbis made a concession  [by allowing one bearer to suffice]. You call this a concession? It is rather a hardship. since if you require that the Get should be brought by two [bearers], there is no danger of the husband coming and challenging it  and getting it declared invalid; but if only one is required, he will be able to do so? — No. You know what a Master has told us:  ['On the question] how many persons must be present when he [the bearer] gives [the writ] to her [the wife], there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that [at least] two were required, and the other that [at least] three.' This being so, [the bearer] will make sure [of the husband's intentions] from the first, and [the husband] will not come [and invalidate the Get] and bring himself into trouble later. Since Raba's reason is that it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, why does not he also require two [bearers]. so as to bring this document into line with all others [which may require such confirmation]? — One witness is sufficient where the question at issue is a ritual prohibition. 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, the question becomes one of prohibited sex relationship, and for disproving such a relationship the evidence of two witnesses is required? — By rights no witnesses should be required for confirming [the signature on] other documents  either, as may be inferred from the dictum of Resh Lakish, that signatures of witnesses to a document are just as reliable as if their evidence had been sifted in the Beth din. It is the Rabbis who on their own authority insisted [on two witnesses for this], and here on account of the danger of the woman becoming a 'deserted wife', these [same] Rabbis made a concession. You call this a concession? It is rather a hardship, since if you require that the Get should be brought by two bearers, there is no danger of the husband coming and challenging it and getting it declared invalid; but if only one is required, he will be able to do so? — No. You know what a certain Master has told us: ['On the question] how many persons must be present when he gives her the Get, there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that [at least] two were required and the other [at least] three.' This being so, the bearer will make sure of the husband's intentions, and [the husband] will not come [and invalidate the Get] and bring himself into trouble later. Why did not Raba give the same reason that Rabbah gave? — He will tell you: Does the Mishnah then require him to declare, 'In my presence it was written in her name, in my presence it was signed in her name'? And Rabbah? — He might retort that by rights the formula ought to run thus, and the reason why it does not is because if you give the bearer too many words to say, he will leave out some. As it is he may leave something out? — He might omit one word out of three,  he will hardly omit one word from two. Why did not Rabbah give the reason which Raba gave? — He will tell you: If this were the reason the Mishnah should require the bearer to declare simply, 'In my presence it was signed' and no more, the fact that he has also to say, 'In my presence it was written' shows that 'Special intention' is required. And Raba? — He might retort that by rights the formula should run thus, but if it did the impression might be created that the confirmation of signatures to documents in general requires only one witness. And Rabbah? — He might rejoin that the two cases  are not similar. There the formula is, 'We know [this to be So-and-so's signature],' here it is, 'In my presence etc.'; there a woman is debarred,  here a woman is not debarred;  there the party concerned  is debarred, here the party concerned is not debarred.  And Raba? — He could rejoin that here also if [the bearer] says 'I know etc.' his word is accepted, and since this is so there is a danger  of creating the impression that confirmation of signatures to documents in general requires only one witness. According to Rabbah, as we have seen, the reason [for requiring the declaration] is that [Jews outside the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention'. [Assuming that this is so,] who is the authority that requires the Get to be both written