A GET FROM ABROAD
(Mishnah): One who brings a Get (document of divorce) from abroad (Chutz la'Aretz) must say 'it was written and signed in front of me.'
R. Gamliel obligates even one who brings from Rekem or Cheger;
R. Eliezer obligates even one who brings from a village near Lud to Lud;
Chachamim say, the only one who must say 'it was written and signed in front of me' is one who brings a Get from abroad, one who takes a Get abroad (from Eretz Yisrael), or one who brings a Get from one province to another in Chutz La'aretz.
R. Shimon ben Gamliel obligates even one who brings from one county (of a governor) to another.
R. Yehudah obligates one who brings from Rekem or eastwards. Rekem itself is considered Chutz La'aretz. From Ashkelon or further south is like Chutz La'aretz. From Ako or further north is like Chutz La'aretz. Rebbi Meir does not obligate one who brings from Ako itself, since it is like Eretz Yisrael for Gitin.
R. Meir says, Ako is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin.
One who brings a Get within Eretz Yisrael need not say 'it was written and signed in front of me.' If the Get is contested, it will be verified through its signatures.
THE REASON FOR THE ENACTMENT
(Gemara) Question: Why was this enactment made?
Answer #1 (Rabah): It was because people in Chutz La'aretz do not know that a Get must be written Lishmah (with intent to divorce that woman).
Answer #2 (Rava): It was lest the Get be contested, and witnesses will not be readily available to be Mekayem it (verify the signatures).
Question: In what case(s) does it matter which is the reason?
Answer #1: Two Sheluchim (messengers) brought the Get. (They themselves could verify the signatures, but there is concern for Lishmah.)
Answer #2: The Get was brought from one province to another within Eretz Yisrael. (It is surely Lishmah, but witnesses are not available for Kiyum.)
Answer #3: The Get is brought within one province in Chutz La'aretz. (Witnesses are available for Kiyum, but we are concerned for Lishmah.)
Question: Rabah says that people in Chutz la'Aretz are ignorant about Lishmah. Why is the Shali'ach believed to say that he saw it written? We should require two witnesses, like all testimony!
Answer: One witness is believed about Isurim (what is forbidden. Monetary cases require two witnesses.)
Objection: We say so only in cases such as a piece of meat that might be Chelev (forbidden lard) or Shuman (permitted lard), since the piece was never established to be forbidden;
Here, the Get will permit a woman whom we know was married (and forbidden to all other men)!
Also, a Get permits (what was) Ervah (forbidden Bi'ah, i.e. another man's wife). Two witnesses are required for such testimony!
Answer: (Even in Chutz la'Aretz,) most people know about Lishmah. (Mid'Oraisa, we may rely on this. No testimony is needed at all);
Even R. Meir, who normally is concerned for the minority, is not concerned here, since scribes write (almost all) Gitin, and they all know the law of Lishmah.
Chachamim were stringent to require the Shali'ach to testify about it. They were not so strict to require two witnesses, lest this cause Igun (she would be unable to marry if no one else here knew that the Get was Lishmah.)