Gittin

It is because [the Jews in foreign parts] are [for the most part] ignorant of the rule of 'special intention'.  Raba says: It is because it is not easy to find witnesses who can confirm the signatures.  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;  or again, where it has been taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel;  or again, from one place to another in the same foreign country.  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?  — 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?  — Most [of the Jews abroad] are acquainted [with the rule of 'special intention'].  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,