Objection: Being lenient (requiring only one witness) will lead to problems!

If two witnesses were required, the husband could not come later and claim that the Get was not Lishmah. Since only one witness testifies, the husband can come and disqualify the Get!

Answer: Since the Get must be given in front of others, the Shali'ach will be disgraced if it is found to be Pasul (invalid, so he will be very careful to see it written Lishmah. Therefore, the husband will not come to disqualify it (and even if he does, he will not be believed).

R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued about whether it is given in front of two or three men.

Question: Rava says that the concern is that witnesses are not available to be Mekayem the signatures. Why is the Shali'ach believed to be Mekayem the Get? We should require two witnesses, like Kiyum of any document!

Answer: One witness is believed about Isurim.

Objection: We say so only in cases like a piece of meat that may be Chelev or Shumen, since the piece was never established to be forbidden;

Here, the Get will permit a woman whom we know was married!

Also, a Get permits (what was) Ervah. Two witnesses are required for such testimony!

Answer: Letter of the law, there is no need for Kiyum at all.

(Reish Lakish): If a document is signed, it is as if the witnesses testified, and Beis Din accepted their testimony.

Chachamim were stringent to require Kiyum. They were not so strict to require two witnesses, lest this cause Igun (she would be unable to marry if no one else here recognized the signatures).

Objection: Being lenient will lead to problems!

If we required two witnesses, the husband could not come later and claim that the signatures were forged. Since only one witness testifies, the husband can come and disqualify the Get!

Answer: Since the Get must be given in front of others, the Shali'ach will be disgraced if it is found to be Pasul, so he will be very careful to see that it is signed properly. Therefore, the husband will not come to disqualify it.

R. Yochanan and R. Chanina argued about whether it is given in front of two or three men.

Question: Why doesn't Rava learn like Rabah?

Answer (and a question against Rabah): If the concern were Lishmah, the Shali'ach should be required to say 'it was written Lishmah in front of me and signed Lishmah in front of me,'

Answer (for Rabah): Letter of the law, we should require him to say this. However, if so, perhaps he will come to omit some of these words (and the Get would be Pasul).

Objection: This concern applies also to the text he must say!

Answer: The ideal text (in Hebrew, Befanai Nichtav Lishmah, Befanai Nechtam Lishmah) has two clauses of three words each. A Shali'ach might omit one of three words. In the actual text (Befanai Nichtav u'Befanai Nechtam), each clause has two words. One does not omit one of two words.

Question: Why doesn't Rabah learn like Rava?

Answer (and a question against Rava): If the concern were Kiyum, the Shali'ach should only need to say 'it was signed in front of me.' Why must he also say 'it was written in front of me'?

Answer (for Rava): Letter of the law, it should suffice to testify about the signatures. However, if so, people might come to think that in general, one witness suffices for Kiyum. Therefore, we require him to testify also about the writing, to show that this is not regular Kiyum.

Objection (on behalf of Rabah): Even without testifying about the writing, it is clear that this is not regular Kiyum!

In regular Kiyum, the witnesses say 'we recognize (the signatures).' Here, he says '(it was signed) in front of me'!

A woman cannot be a witness for regular Kiyum. Here, she can!

An involved party cannot be a witness for regular Kiyum. Here, an involved party can! (A woman can bring her Get and say Befanai Nichtav u'Befanai Nechtam.)

Answer (Rava, to the first point): Also here, Sheluchim can be Mekayem the Get by saying 'we recognize (the signatures)', so there is concern lest people think that one witness suffices for regular Kiyum.

Question: Rabah says that the concern is that people are ignorant of the law of Lishmah. The Shali'ach must testify about the writing and signing of the Get. Which Tana requires both of these to be Lishmah?

It is not R. Meir. He requires only signing Lishmah, but not writing Lishmah!

(Mishnah): A Get may not be written on something attached to the ground. If it was written on something attached, was detached and signed, it is valid. (This shows that only the signatures must be done properly!)

The Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar. He requires only writing Lishmah, but not signing Lishmah!

Suggestion: The Mishnah is like R. Elazar. Mid'Oraisa, he does not require signing Lishmah, but mid'Rabanan, he does!

Rejection: A Mishnah shows that he says that an unsigned Get is valid!

(Mishnah): There are three Gitin that should not be given. If one was given (and she married someone else), her children are Kosher.

Her husband wrote the Get himself, and no witnesses signed it;

Witnesses signed the Get, but there is no date on it;

It has a date, but only one witness signed it.

R. Elazar says, even if it no witnesses signed, but he gave it to her in front of witnesses, it is valid. Such a document may be used to collect (her Kesuvah; some explain, a loan) from land that (the husband or borrower) sold;

R. Elazar holds that witnesses sign on a document only due to an enactment, lest the witnesses who saw it given will not be around to testify.

Answer #1: Really, the Mishnah is like R. Meir. He does not require the Get to be written Lishmah mid'Oraisa, but requires this mid'Rabanan.

Objection: Rav Nachman said that R. Meir holds that if a man finds a Get in the trash (and the names match his and his wife's names), he may tell witnesses to sign it, and then give it to his wife!