Gittin 5B

טעמא מאי ⁠– דילמא אתי בעל מערער ופסיל ליה; השתא בעל לא קא מערער, אנן ניקום ונערער עלה?!

What is the reason that the rabbis required this testimony at all? Perhaps the husband will come to contest, and invalidate the bill of divorce. Now, in this case, where the husband is not contesting its validity, will we, the court, arise and contest it?

בפלוגתא דרבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי, חד אמר: לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה, וחד אמר: לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו.

§ The Talmud comments: Rabba and Rava disagree with regard to the dispute between R' Yoḥanan and R' Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the reason the rabbis required an agent to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. And one said that the reason is because there are no witnesses available to ratify it.

תסתיים דרבי יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה, דרבי שמעון בר אבא אייתי גיטא לקמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי, ואמר ליה: צריכנא למימר ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״, או לא?

The Talmud suggests: It may be concluded that R' Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, as R' Shimon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce before R' Yehoshua ben Levi, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or not?

אמר ליה: לא צריכת, לא אמרו אלא בדורות הראשונים, שאין בקיאין לשמה, אבל בדורות האחרונים דבקיאין לשמה ⁠– לא. תסתיים.

R' Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: You are not required to do so, as they said that one was required to state this declaration only in the earlier generations, when they were not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake. However, in the later generations, when they are experts about writing it for her sake, no, this declaration is no longer necessary. The Talmud states: It may be concluded from here that R' Yehoshua ben Levi was of this opinion.