Gittin 5A

אילימא חרש, חרש בר איתויי גיטא הוא?! והתנן: הכל כשרים להביא את הגט, חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן!

If we say that this is referring to a deaf-mute, is a deaf-mute fit to bring a bill of divorce? But didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (23a): Anyone is fit to serve as an agent to bring a bill of divorce to a woman except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, all of whom may not be appointed as agents at all, as they are not intellectually competent according to halakha.

ואמר רב יוסף: הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– כגון שנתנו לה כשהוא פקח, ולא הספיק לומר ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״ עד שנתחרש. לרבא ניחא, לרבה קשיא!

And Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where the agent gave the bill of divorce to her when he was halakhically competent, but he did not manage to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, before he became a deaf-mute. In other words, although at the time he was appointed he was fit to be appointed as an agent, he is currently unable to say anything. This works out well according to the opinion of Rava. However, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, as he requires testimony that the bill of divorce was written for the woman’s sake.

הכא במאי עסקינן ⁠– לאחר שלמדו. אי הכי, יכול נמי! גזירה שמא יחזור דבר לקלקולו.

The Talmud answers: With what are we dealing here? This does not refer to the main period of the decree. Rather, it is speaking of later generations, after the residents of countries overseas learned that a bill of divorce must be written for her sake, so there is no need for the declaration. The Talmud raises a difficulty: If so, meaning that this is referring to a situation where everyone is assumed to be knowledgeable, even if the agent is able to testify he should also not be required to say: It was written in my presence, as it should be sufficient to confirm the witnesses’ signatures. The Talmud explains: Nevertheless, Rabba maintains that the agent must testify, due to a rabbinic decree lest the matter return to its corrupt state, i.e., they might forget that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake.