Tosafos points out that, seemingly, Rabbi Yitzchok's statement regarding the single city with two rulers being in Eretz Yisroel is redudant because if it were in Bavel it would not affect either Rava (who holds that transferring a get between any two non-connected areas would require the shliach to say Bfonai) or Rabbah (who holds that anywhere outside of Eretz Yisroel it is necessary to say Bfonai). Tosafos (seemingly) leaves the question of why this statement is needed unanswered. Are there any Meforshim who propose reasns why this statement should be, and if so what do they say?
Shmuel, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Tosfos does not say that Rebbi Yitzchak's statement is redundant. What Tosfos says is that it was unnecessary for Rebbi Yitzchak to say that the city with two Hegmoniyos was in Eretz Yisrael. This is because if this city would have been in Chutz la'Aretz, one would have to say b'Fanai even when bringing the Get in the same Hegmoniya, according to Rabah, because everywhere in Chutz la'Aretz they are not expert in knowing about Lishmah.
(It should just be pointed out that Tosfos does not mention Rava at all. In fact, Tosfos writes that it is only according to Rabah that even in the same Hegmoniya in Chutz la'Aretz one must say b'Fanai. This implies that according to Rava, in Chutz la'Aretz in the same Hegmoniya, one need not say b'Fanai because in the same Hegmoniya -- also in Chutz la'Aretz -- witnesses are available to verify the signatures. In two Hegmoniyos there is no difference, according to Rava, between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz. Since the entire intent of Tosfos is to show that there is a difference beween Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz, it folows that our Gemara cannot relate to Rava, who maintains that there is not a difference between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz.
Dovid Bloom