Gittin

and signed it and gave it to her, it is valid? Nor can you say that this ruling means 'valid as far as the Torah is concerned,' for in that case R. Nahman should have said not, 'R. Meir used to rule,' but 'It is a rule of the Torah'? — After all, we come back to the opinion that R. Eleazar was the authority, and [we say that] where he dispenses with the requirement of 'special intention' is in the case where there are no witnesses at all, but if [the Get] is signed, it must be signed with such intention. This accords with the statement of R. Abba, that R. Eleazar admitted that a Get which contains a flaw in itself  is invalid. R. Ashi said: Shall I tell you who the authority [of the Mishnah] is? It is R. Judah, as shown by the following Mishnah: R. Judah declares the Get invalid unless it has been both written and signed on something not attached to the soil.  Why did we not at the outset declare R. Judah to be the authority? — We tried if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Meir because, where a Mishnah is stated anonymously [its author is] R. Meir.  We also try if possible [to base ourselves on the authority of] R. Eleazar, because it is generally agreed that his ruling is decisive in questions of writs of divorce. Our Mishnah says: RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS, THE DECLARATION MUST ALSO BE MADE BY ONE WHO BRINGS A GET FROM REKEM AND FROM HEGAR. R. ELEAZAR SAYS, EVEN IF HE BRINGS IT FROM KEFAR LUDIM TO LUD. [Commenting on this passage,] Abaye said that it refers to places adjoining  the Land of Israel and to places within the ambit of  the Land of Israel.  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: I have myself seen that placed and am able to state that the distance  is the same as from Be Kubi to Pumbeditha. Now [from the words of the Mishnah just quoted] we infer that the first Tanna  was of opinion that in these cases the declaration was not necessary. May we assume that the point of divergence between them is that one authority  holds that the reason why the declaration is required is because [Jews outside of the Land of Israel] are not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and he excepts [the Jews of] these places because they are familiar,  whereas the other authority  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?  — 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',