WHO IS THE TANA OF THE MISHNAH (cont.)?
Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir said only that if he told witnesses to sign it and gave it to his wife, mid'Oraisa it is valid (but mid'Rabanan it is not).
Rejection: If so, R. Meir should have said "mid'Oraisa it is valid."
Answer #2: Really, the Mishnah is like R. Elazar. He holds that a Get without signatures is Kosher, but if it has signatures, they must be Lishmah;
(R. Aba): R. Elazar agrees that an intrinsic forgery (a signed document in which it appears that we may rely on the witnesses' signatures, but in truth they are invalid) is Pasul (even if witnesses saw the document handed over).
Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah is like R. Yehudah;
(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): The Get is Pasul unless it was both written and signed when detached.
Question: Why didn't we establish the Mishnah like R. Yehudah from the beginning?
Answer: We sought to establish it like R. Meir, for we assume that an anonymous Mishnah is R. Meir. We sought to establish it is like R. Elazar, for the Halachah follows R. Elazar regarding Gitin.
THE OUTSKIRTS OF ERETZ YISRAEL
(Mishnah - R. Gamliel): He must say this even if he brings it from Rekem or Cheger. R. Eliezer obligates even if he brings it from the village near Lud to Lud;
(Abaye): The Tana'im argue about cities that are close to Eretz Yisrael and enveloped (surrounded on three sides by Eretz Yisrael);
(Rabah bar bar Chanah): These cities are as far from Eretz Yisrael as from Bei Kuvi to Pumbadisa.
The first Tana does not require a Shali'ach from such cities to make the declaration.
Suggestion: The first Tana holds like Rabah. The nearby cities also know the law of Lishmah, so no declaration is needed. The latter Tana'im hold like Rava. Since witnesses are not available for Kiyum, they require a declaration.
Rejection: No. Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im hold like him, and Rava can do similarly;
(On behalf of Rabah): The first Tana holds that nearby cities know the law of Lishmah. R. Gamliel says, only enveloped cities know. R. Eliezer says, even though enveloped cities know, also they must say the declaration, to make the law uniform in Chutz La'aretz.
(Rava): The first Tana holds that witnesses are available to be Mekayem signatures from nearby cities. R. Gamliel holds that witnesses are available only from enveloped cities. R. Eliezer obligates even from enveloped cities, to make the law uniform in Chutz La'aretz.
WHY THE TANA'IM IN THE MISHNAH REQUIRE THE DECLARATION
(Mishnah - Chachamim): One who brings a Get from abroad, or takes a Get abroad, must say...
Inference: The first Tana exempts one who takes a Get abroad from the declaration.
Suggestion: The first Tana holds like Rabah. Since the Get was written in Eretz Yisrael, where people know about Lishmah, no declaration is needed. The latter Chachamim hold like Rava. Since witnesses are not available to be Mekayem the signatures, a declaration is required.
Rejection: No. Rabah can explain that all the Tana'im learn like he does, and so can Rava:
(On behalf of Rabah): All hold that there is no concern about the Get. The latter Chachamim decree to require a declaration lest a Shali'ach with a Get from abroad not say it. The first Tana does not decree.
(On behalf of Rava): There is no argument. The latter Chachamim explain that the first Tana also requires a declaration for a Get sent abroad.
(Mishnah): One who brings a Get from one province to another in Chutz La'aretz must say 'it was written...'
Version #1 - Inference: Within the same province in Chutz La'aretz, no declaration is needed.
Question: This is like Rava, who says that the concern is Kiyum;
According to Rabah, we should be concerned that it was not Lishmah!
Answer: Rather, we infer that no declaration is needed from province to province in Eretz Yisrael.
Objection: The Reisha explicitly taught this!
Answer: If we learned only from the Reisha, one might have thought that b'Di'eved, the Get is Kosher, but l'Chatchilah, a declaration must be made. The repetition teaches that even l'Chatchilah, no declaration is needed.
Version #2 - Inference: From province to province in Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed.
Question: This is like Rabah, who says that the concern is Lishmah;
According to Rava, we should be concerned that witnesses are not available to be Mekayem the signatures!
Answer #1: Rather, we infer that within the same province in Chutz La'aretz, no declaration is needed.
Objection: If a declaration is needed (even in Eretz Yisrael) from province to province, the Mishnah should simply say so (without mentioning Chutz la'Aretz)!
Answer #2: Really, from province to province in Eretz Yisrael, no declaration is needed. Since all ascend to Yerushalayim on the festivals, witnesses can be found to be Mekayem the signatures.
Question: This applies only when the Mikdash stands. How can we answer for after the Churban?
Answer: Since Batei Dinin are fixed, people regularly travel from province to province, and witnesses are available for Kiyum.
RABAH AGREES WITH RAVA'S REASON
(Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Even from one county to another (he must say...)
(R. Yitzchak): Asasiyos was a city in Eretz Yisrael. It had two districts, each ruled by a different governor. They would not let people travel between the districts, so a declaration was required for a Get sent from one district to the other.
Question: This is like Rava, but it is unlike Rabah!
Answer: Rabah agrees that we are concerned for Kiyum. He says that we are also concerned for Lishmah.
Question: If so, (Rabah and Rava do not argue in all the cases listed above (2b);) in which cases do Rabah and Rava argue?
Answer: They argue about two Sheluchim who bring a Get, and a Get brought within one province in Chutz La'aretz. (Only Rabah requires a declaration.)