QUESTION: The Mishnah (23b) teaches that when a woman brings her own get from Medinas ha'Yam, she must say "b'Fanai Nichtav uv'Fanai Nechtam." The Gemara concludes that there are only two possible situations in which a woman needs to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when she brings her own Get. Both situations involve the husband giving the Get to his wife and telling her that it should not take effect until she reaches a certain place. The Gemara's first possible situation is that the husband also tells her that when she reaches that place, she should appoint another person as a Shali'ach l'Holachah to take the Get from her and to give it back to her (at which point it will take effect). The second possible situation is that the husband tells her that when she reaches the place where the Get will take effect, she should say "b'Fanai Nichtav" in front of Beis Din and have the Beis Din appoint a Shali'ach who will give her the Get.

What is the difference between these two cases? In both cases, the woman gives the Get to another Shali'ach who gives it back to her. What difference does it make if she appoints the Shali'ach or if Beis Din appoints the Shali'ach?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Eimar) explains that in the second case, the only reason why Beis Din is necessary is to witness the woman say "b'Fanai Nichtav."

According to the Gemara's first case, the woman does not need to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" when she appoints a second Shali'ach to take the Get from her, since the second Shali'ach is not required to testify about the validity of the Get.

In an ordinary case of a Shali'ach who delivers a Get, when the Shali'ach gives the Get to a second Shali'ach, he must do so in Beis Din and say "b'Fanai Nichtav," and Beis Din then appoints the second Shali'ach to deliver the Get. At the time the second Shali'ach delivers the Get, he is required to say merely, "I was appointed by Beis Din" (29b).

In the case of the Gemara here, however, if the woman who receives the Get is able to testify "b'Fanai Nichtav," there is no need for the Shali'ach who gives her the Get to testify "b'Fanai Nichtav." Rather, the woman herself may testify "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time she receives the Get. Therefore, when the woman herself serves as the original Shali'ach l'Holachah, she may appoint a second Shali'ach without Beis Din.

(b) The other Rishonim do not accept the explanation of Tosfos. They argue that the woman cannot testify "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time the second Shali'ach gives her the Get, since she is no longer the Shali'ach of the husband. The Chachamim gave only a Shali'ach the trustworthiness to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." (Tosfos apparently understands that the Chachamim accept the testimony of any participant in the act of delivery of the Get, since that participant says "b'Fanai Nichtav" in front of Beis Din and is thus careful to verify the facts which he relates. See Gemara, beginning of 3a, and Tosfos to 5b, DH v'Yitlenu.)

The other Rishonim give the opposite explanation of Tosfos. According to the first case of the Gemara, the woman does need to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" (in front of Beis Din) at the time she gives the Get to the second Shali'ach. However, the second Shali'ach does not need to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" or "I am a Shali'ach of Beis Din" when he delivers the Get to the woman. Since he does not need to be a Shali'ach of Beis Din, the woman may appoint him as a Shali'ach.

According to the second case of the Gemara, the second Shali'ach does need to say, "I am a Shali'ach of Beis Din," and therefore he must be appointed by Beis Din and not by the woman herself.

QUESTION: Abaye explains that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, one of the husbands may give a Get to his wife only with Edei Mesirah present "and according to Rebbi Elazar." Without Edei Mesirah present the Get is not valid, since we must suspect that it was written by the second husband (with the same name) and not by the husband of the wife who is holding the Get. Edei Mesirah make the Get valid because they testify that they saw this woman's husband give her the Get.

Why does the Gemara say that the Get is valid with Edei Mesirah "and according to Rebbi Elazar"? Even according to Rebbi Meir, the Get should be valid if the woman can bring Edei Mesirah or other witnesses who testify that her husband wrote the Get!

(a) TOSFOS in a number of places (DH b'Edei Mesirah; 2b, DH v'Rabanan; 22a, DH Man Chachamim; Kesuvos 94a, DH Leima) proves from the Gemara here that according to the opinion that Edei Chasimah Kartei, the proof that this woman's husband is the one who wrote the Get must come from the signatures of the Edei Chasimah themselves. Even if other witnesses are brought to testify that the husband wrote the Get, the Get is not valid since it is not "Muchach mi'Tocho"; the details about the validity of the Get cannot be proven from the signatures signed on the Get. Therefore, the Gemara maintains that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, neither man may write a Get for his wife (according to Rebbi Meir) unless the Get itself contains some indication as to which husband wrote the Get.

(b) RASHI disagrees with the assumption of Tosfos. Rashi maintains that even according to Rebbi Meir who says Edei Chasimah Kartei, other witnesses may be brought to prove which husband wrote the Get (or to testify about any of the other important details of the Get).

For this reason, Rashi earlier (2b, DH v'Rabanan) writes that when there are two couples in the same city with the same names, the husbands may divorce their wives without writing more specific identifying details in the Get.

Similarly, Rashi implies (22b, DH Rebbi Elazar) that if a Get is written on erasable paper ("Neyar Machuk," material on which erasures cannot be discerned), when the woman brings external proof (such as the Edei Mesirah, or the Edei Chasimah themselves) to testify that nothing was erased from the Get, the Get should be valid (if the Rabanan had not invalidated it due to a Gezeirah; see Insights to 22b).

Similarly, Rashi here does not quote the words of the Gemara, "v'Rebbi Elazar Hi" (the Get is valid only according to Rebbi Elazar). It seems that Rashi understands that the Gemara mentions Rebbi Elazar only because according to Rebbi Elazar there are always Edei Mesirah, and thus it will be easy to validate the Get (as Rashi writes on 20b, DH v'Rebbi Elazar Hi). Nevertheless, Rebbi Meir will agree that if the Get happens to have been given in front of Edei Mesirah and those witnesses are brought to Beis Din to testify that the husband wrote the Get, the Get is valid. (Rashi maintains that according to Rebbi Meir, Edei Mesirah are not required, in contrast to the view of Rabeinu Tam cited by Tosfos to 4a, DH d'Kaima Lan.)

Strong support may be cited for Rashi's opinion from the Gemara later (26a) which discusses at length the validity of a Get which was lost and then found. The Gemara deals with the question of whether or not there is a concern that another man in the same city with the same name wrote the Get. It is clear, however, that the man who did write the Get may use it to divorce his wife. According to Tosfos, the Sugya there follows exclusively the opinion of Rebbi Elazar, although it makes no mention of him at all (as noted by TOSFOS to 27a, DH Kan). According to Rashi, however, the Sugya there certainly follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir as well.