Gittin

and he excepts the bearer of a Get from Eretz Israel because there they are familiar, whereas the other authority held the reason to be because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and this applies to 'foreign parts' also? — No. Rabbah can account for the difference in his way and Raba in his way. Rabbah explains thus: Both 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 where they diverge is on the question whether we extend the obligation properly meant for the bearer from foreign parts to the bearer to foreign parts, one holding that we do make this extension, the other that we do not. Raba explains thus: Both authorities agree that the reason for requiring the declaration is because it is not easy to find witnesses to confirm the signatures, and the Rabbis mentioned in the second clause merely made explicit what was in the mind of the first Tanna. Our Mishnah says: THE BEARER OF A GET FROM ONE PROVINCE TO ANOTHER IN FOREIGN PARTS IS REQUIRED TO DECLARE, 'IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS WRITTEN AND IN MY PRESENCE IT WAS SIGNED'; from which we infer that if he takes it from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts'. he need not make the declaration. This conforms with the view of Raba but conflicts with that of Rabbah, [does it not]? — No. You must not infer [that if the Get is taken] from one place to another in the same province 'in foreign parts', the declaration is not required. What you have to infer is that if it is taken from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. But this is stated distinctly in the following clause of the Mishnah: THE BEARER OF A GET [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 I had only that to go by I should say that while this omission does not invalidate the Get retroactively. It is not permissible in the first instance; now I know that this is also the case. The objection here raised is also stated in the following form: I infer that the bearer of a Get from one province to another in the Land of Israel is not required to make the declaration. This is in conformity [is it not] with the view of Rabbah but conflicts with that of Raba? — You must not infer that [if it is taken] from one province to another in the Land of Israel the declaration is not required. The proper inference to draw is that it is not required from the bearer from one part to another of the same country in foreign parts. What then? From the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel it is required? Then it would be sufficient for the Mishnah to say, 'The bearer of a Get from one province to another' [without mentioning 'foreign parts']? — The fact is that it is not necessary for the bearer from one province to another in the Land of Israel either,  since on account of the festival pilgrimages [to Jerusalem] it is always possible to find witnesses. This may have been a good reason so long as the Temple was standing, but what of the time when there is no Temple? — Since there are [Jewish law] courts regularly established, witnesses can always be found. We have learnt: Our Mishnah says: RABBAN SIMEON BEN GAMALIEL SAYS, EVEN THE BEARER FROM ONE GOVERNORSHIP TO ANOTHER, and commenting on this R. Isaac said that there was a certain city in Eretz Israel, 'Assasioth by name,  in which were two Governors at variance with each other,  and that is why the Mishnah had to put in the clause 'from governorship to governorship'. Now this ruling conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah? — Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also.  Where then does a difference arise between them in practice? — If the Get was brought by two bearers, or if it was brought from one place to another in the Same province in a 'foreign country'. We have learnt: Where the bearer of a Get from foreign parts is not able to declare, 'in my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed', if the Get has been signed by witnesses, its validity can be established through the signatures.  We were perplexed by the expression, 'is unable to say'.