Gittin

Shall we say it refers to a deaf-mute? But can a deaf-mute be the bearer of a Get, seeing that we learn, 'All persons are qualified to be bearers of a Get except a deaf-mute, a lunatic, and a minor'? And this difficulty was solved by R. Joseph, who said that we are dealing here with a case in which he gave the woman the Get while he was still in possession of his faculties, but before he could say the formula was struck deaf and dumb. Now this conforms with the view of Raba, [does it not,] but conflicts with that of Rabbah?  — [This Mishnah was formulated] after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is the case, even if the bearer is able to repeat the formula, [what need is there for him to do so]? — This was a precaution in case there is a return of the abuse. If that is the case, even if the bearer is not able to repeat the formula [it should still be required]? — For a man to be suddenly struck dumb is an exceptional occurrence, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against such exceptional cases. [Is that so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn:  The wife can act as bearer of her own Get [to a specified Beth din], and she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? — The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule [should apply to the] husband; why then has it been taught: If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed'? — The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it? Come and hear: Samuel put the following question to R. Huna: If a Get is brought from foreign parts by two bearers, are they required to declare, 'In our presence it was written and in our presence it was signed', or are they not? And [R. Huna] answered that they are not required, because should they declare, 'In our presence he divorced her,' would their word not be accepted? This conforms, [does it not,] with the view of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? — This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] had become generally known. If that is so, even if there is only one bearer, [the declaration should not be required]? — This was a precaution in case there is a recurrence of the abuse. If that is so, the same precaution should be taken when there are two bearers? — For a Get to be brought by two persons is exceptional, and the Rabbis did not take precautions against exceptional cases. [Is this so?] For a woman to be the bearer of her own Get is very exceptional, and yet we learn: The wife can act as bearer of her own Get, but she is equally required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? — The reason for this is to avoid making any distinction between bearer and bearer. If that is so, the same rule should apply to the husband; why then is it taught, If the husband brings the Get personally, he is not required to declare, 'In my presence, etc.'? — The reason why the Rabbis insisted on this declaration in the first instance was to provide against the danger of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate the Get. In this case, seeing that he brings it himself, is it conceivable that he should raise objections against it? Come and hear: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife but did not declare, 'In my presence etc.', if the genuineness of the signatures [attached to the Get] can be established, it is valid, and if not it is invalid. From this we deduce that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult.  This conforms, [does it not,] with the opinion of Raba and conflicts with that of Rabbah? — This Mishnah was formulated after the rule [of 'special intention'] became generally known. But you yourself have maintained that it is necessary to take precautions in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? — We are dealing here with the case where the woman has remarried.  If so, how can you say, 'From this we deduce that this requirement is intended to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult'? The reason why we allow the validity of the Get to be established through its signatures is because she has remarried? — We must read the passage thus: '[The Get is valid if the signatures can be confirmed.] And should you think that if she has remarried we should be more strict and force [her husband] to put her away, we must bear in mind that the purpose of requiring this declaration is to make the process of divorce easier and not more difficult. The whole reason