Gittin

why it is required is as a precaution against the risk of the husband coming to challenge and invalidate [the Get]. Seeing that here the [first] husband is raising no objection, shall we go out of our way to do so?' [An identical] difference of opinion [had already been recorded] between R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi,  one of whom held that the reason [for requiring the declaration] was because the Jews outside the Land of Israel were not familiar with the rule of 'special intention', and the other that it was because witnesses could not easily be found to confirm the signatures. We may conclude that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave the reason, 'because they are not familiar with the rule of "special intention",' from the following incident. R. Simeon b. Abba once brought a Get before R. Joshua b. Levi, and said to him: Am I required to declare, 'I was present when it was written and present when it was signed'? and he replied: You need not make the declaration. It was only required in former generations, when the rule of 'special intention' was not generally known, but not in these times when the rule is known. We may therefore conclude [that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who gave this reason]. [Was this a good ruling,] seeing that Rabbah accepts Raba's reason also, and further that, as we have said, precaution should be taken in case there is a recurrence of the abuse? — There was another man with him,  although he is not mentioned [in the passage quoted] out of respect for R. Simeon. It has been stated: [On the question] how many persons must be present when the bearer of the Get gives it to the wife there was a difference of opinion between R. Johanan and R. Haninah, one holding that a minimum of two were required and the other a minimum of three. It may be concluded that it was R. Johanan who held that two were sufficient, [from the following incident]. Rabin son of R. Hisda brought a Get before R. Johanan, and the latter said to him: Go and give it to her in the presence of two persons, and say to them, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed.' We may therefore conclude [that R. Johanan held two to be sufficient]. May we assume that the point on which R. Johanan and R. Haninah diverge is that the one who held two persons to be sufficient considered the reason for requiring the declaration to be the general ignorance of the rule of 'special intention',  while the one who insisted on three considered the reason to be the difficulty of finding witnesses?  — [Can this be so?] We have found that it is R. Joshua who assigns as the reason ignorance of the rule of 'special intention', and so it must be R. Johanan who assigns as the reason the difficulty of finding witnesses. How then can it be R. Johanan who here says that two persons are sufficient? Moreover [is it not a fact] that Rabbah also accepts Raba's reason? No. [The reason of the declaration is because] we need witnesses who should be available to validate the Get, and the point at issue here is whether it is permitted to an agent to act as a witness and a witness as a judge. The authority who says that two persons are sufficient holds that an agent may act as witness and a witness may act as judge,  whereas the one who insists on three holds that while an agent may act as witness, a witness may not act as judge. But has it not been laid down that in the case of evidence required only by the Rabbis  [but not by the Torah] a witness may act as judge? No. The real point at issue is this, that one authority held that since a woman is qualified to bring the Get there is a danger [if only two persons are required] that we may rely upon her,  while the other held that everyone knows that a woman is not qualified [to complete a Beth din], and therefore there is no danger. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: If the bearer of a Get from foreign parts gave it to the wife without declaring, 'In my presence it was written and in my presence it was signed,' if she marries again the second husband must put her away and a child born from the union is a mamzer.  This is the opinion of R. Meir. But the Rabbis say that the child is not a mamzer. What should be done [to rectify matters?] The bearer should take the Get back from the woman, and then present it to her in the presence of two persons, declaring at the same time, In my presence it was written, and in my presence it was signed. [Are we to suppose then that] according to R. Meir, because the bearer failed [in the first instance] to make this declaration, the second husband has to put away the woman, and the child is a mamzer? — Yes: R. Meir in this is quite consistent; for so R. Hamnuna has told us in the name of 'Ulla, that R. Meir used to affirm: If any variation whatever is made in the procedure laid down by the Sages for writs of divorce, the second husband has to put the woman away and the child is a mamzer. Bar Hadaya once desired to act as bearer of a Get.  Before doing so he consulted R. Ahi, who was a supervisor of writs of divorce.  Said R. Ahi to him: You must watch the writing of every letter of the document. He then consulted R. Ammi and R. Assi, who said to him: This is not necessary, and if you think to be on the safe side, you must consider that by doing so you will be discrediting previous writs of divorce.  Rabba b. Bar Hanah once acted as bearer of a Get  of which half had been written in his presence and half not. He consulted R. Eleazar, who told him that even if only one line of it had been written with 'special intention' that was sufficient. R. Ashi said: