The Gemara says that one of the practical differences between these two
opinions is a case when two Sheluchim bring the Get from Medinas ha'Yam
together. According to Rava, they do not have to say "b'Fanai Nichtav."
Why should two Sheluchim who bring a Get from Medinas ha'Yam not have to say
"b'Fanai Nichtav?" Even if it is true that they can be Mekayem the Get
themselves since they constitute two witnesses, nevertheless if they do not
say "b'Fanai Nichtav" they have *not* been Mekayem the Get, and at some
later point after they leave the town, they will not be available to be
Mekayem the Get when the need arises! (TOSFOS, DH d'Asyuhah)
In addition, the Gemara later (16a-17a) explains that the only time two
people who bring a Get do not have to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" is when they are
both Sheluchim -- they were both appointed by the husband to bring the Get.
Our Gemara, too, says that Rava does not require "b'Fanai Nichtav" to be
said only when two people were appointed as *Sheluchim* to *bring* the Get.
If, however, only one of them was appointed as the Shali'ach to bring the
Get, and the other person (or persons) who accompanied the Shali'ach just
happen to recognize the signatures on the Get, the Shali'ach still needs to
say "b'Fanai Nichtav." Why do we not say that even if *neither* of the two
people bringing the Get were appointed as Sheluchim, they nevertheless are
valid witnesses who will be available to be Mekayem the Get, and therefore
it should not be necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav?"
(a) TOSFOS and most Rishonim explain that whenever two witnesses bring a Get
and tell us that they were sent by the husband, we do not suspect that the
Get is forged, nor is Kiyum necessary. This is because two witnesses have
testified that the husband sent them with the Get and that it was not forged
by the woman, and the Torah believes the testimony of two witnesses.
We might ask, though, why should we believe the Sheluchim and why should
they be trusted to say that the husband sent them? They should be invalid
witnesses because they are testifying about a fact concerning themselves
(they are "Noge'a b'Davar")!
The Gemara later (5a, as explained by the Chasam Sofer here) explains that
they are trusted because they have a "Migu." Had they wanted, they could
have said that the husband divorced his wife in front of them (in which case
they would not testifying about themselves and would not be "Noge'a
b'Davar"); we would know that the Get itself is not forged because the two
witnesses are trusted to say that the husband gave it to his wife. Now that
they say instead that they are Sheluchim of the husband, they are believed
because of a "Migu."
The CHASAM SOFER cites the TESHUVOS HA'RE'EM who asserts that this must be
Rashi's intention as well. The witnesses are not merely *available* to be
Mekayem the Get, but they actually *have* been Mekayem the Get by saying
that the husband sent it with them (like the Gemara says on 5a).
When two people who did not bring the Get are available to be Mekayem the
Get, that does not exempt the Shali'ach from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav," since
the two people might depart the city and they will not be available later to
be Mekayem the Get in case the husband challenges it. That is why the Gemara
says that only when the two people bring the Get is it not necessary for
them to say "b'Fanai Nichtav," since the very fact that they brought the Get
to the woman is an implicit testimony that the husband sent them and that
the Get is not forged.
TOSFOS later (16a, DH Aval) writes that if a single Shali'ach brings a Get,
but he is accompanied by another person who testifies at the time that the
Shali'ach hands over the Get that the husband sent him, then it is not
necessary to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." Apparently, this is also included in the
case of "d'Asyuhah Bei Trei," since two people are testifying to the
Shelichus at the time that the Get is delivered.
TOSFOS here (2b, DH Mai) adds that if two people testify to the validity of
the signatures in the Get and are Mekayem the Get at anytime before the Get
is handed over, that also exempts the Shali'ach from saying "b'Fanai
Nichtav" (according to Rava), and that is also included in the Gemara's case
of "d'Asyuhah Bei Trei," since there is testimony to the validity of the Get
at the time that it is being delivered.
(b) The wording of Rashi (DH Asyuhah, and 16b, DH Kasher), however, implies
that it is not necessary for the Sheluchim to provide any testimony
concerning the Get at the time that they deliver it. Rather, Rashi writes,
since they are available to be Mekayem the Get if the husband challenges it,
we do not require them to say "b'Fanai Nichtav." How, then, does Rashi
answer our questions?
In addition, if -- according to Rashi -- the testimony of the two witnesses
is that they recognize the signatures, how does Rashi explain the Gemara
later (5a) that says clearly that the reason two witnesses are believed is
because they have a "Migu" that they could have said that the husband
divorced his wife in their presence? This implies that they are testifying
that the husband gave the Get to them, and not that they recognize the
signatures. (They would not need a "Migu" to testify that they recognize the
signatures.)
Also, the RASHBA asks that according to Rashi, they should be exempt from
saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" only when witnesses recognize the handwriting of
the signatures on the Get. Why does the Gemara not make any mention of this?
Moreover, how will Beis Din know to exempt the Sheluchim from saying
"b'Fanai Nichtav" because the Sheluchim recognize the handwriting without
asking them if they recognize the handwriting? Once the Sheluchim testify
that they recognize the handwriting, then it is the same as saying "b'Fanai
Nichtav," and it turns out that they *do* have to testify at the time that
they deliver the Get!
The intention of Rashi cannot be that the two Sheluchim may deliver the Get
to the woman privately and that they do not have to provide testimony at any
time. If they deliver the Get privately, how will the woman be able to prove
later that she was given the Get by two agents of her husband, and that the
testimony of "b'Fanai Nichtav" was not required, without bringing the
Sheluchim themselves to testify? Rather, Rashi might mean that it is not
necessary for the two Sheluchim to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" or any other
testimony at the time that they deliver the Get (i.e. they may deliver it
privately). Before they leave the town, though, the woman must have them
testify in Beis Din that they are Sheluchim who were appointed to deliver to
her the Get from her husband. (They are believed to say this because of the
"Migu" that they could have said that the husband divorced his wife in their
presence, as mentioned above.)
The Chachamim only instituted saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time that the
Get is handed over when there is a single Shali'ach (5b, and Tosfos there,
DH Yitleno). (The reason might be that the Shali'ach is more careful about
what he testifies ("Meidak Dayik") when he testifies at the time that he del
ivers the Get. Alternatively, the woman might not realize that the testimony
of a single witness will help her cause, and therefore the Chachamim
instituted -- for her benefit -- that the Shali'ach must testify "b'Fanai
Nichtav" at the moment he hands over the Get, for, otherwise, the woman
would not consider utilizing the Takanah that a single witness is valid for
Kiyum of a Get.) However, when two witnesses are available to be Mekayem the
Get, there was no necessity to institute, for the benefit of the woman, that
they say "b'Fanai Nichtav" at the time of the delivery of the Get, since she
can assume responsibility herself to be Mekayem the Get and prevent the
husband from claiming that it is forged.
Why is it necessary for both of them to be Sheluchim in order to be exempt
from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav?" The Shali'ach should be exempt even if there
are two people in the town who recognize the signatures of the witnesses on
the Get, since the woman can now assume responsibility for being Mekayem the
Get! Rashi later (16b, DH Kasher) explains that the Chachamim enacted their
decree to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" as a "Lo Plug," requiring a Shali'ach who
delivers a Get to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" in all cases, because people who see
a Shali'ach delivering a Get without saying "b'Fanai Nichtav" will not
realize why the Chachamim exempted him. However, when two people bring a Get
and together hand the Get to the woman (see Rashi, end of 16a), it is clear
to everyone why the Chachamim exempted them from saying "b'Fanai Nichtav"
(that is, because they are two Sheluchim), and since it is an unusual case
(5a) the Chachamim did not apply their enactment of "Lo Plug" in such a
case.
For the same reason, if the Shali'ach brings a Get that has already been
validated, perhaps he still is required to say "b'Fanai Nichtav" because,
otherwise, people will not realize why the Get was accepted as valid without
the Shali'ach saying "b'Fanai Nichtav." (M. Kornfeld)
Why does Rashi not explain like Tosfos, that when two Sheluchim deliver the
Get and say, in front of witnesses, that they were appointed by the husband,
it serves in place of saying "b'Fanai Nichtav?" Rashi was bothered by the
fact that the Gemara does not seem to require two Sheluchim to deliver the
Get in front of witnesses altogether; they can deliver it privately if they
want. We find only that a single Shali'ach must hand over the Get in front
of witnesses (3a, 5b), as the TORAS GITIN (EH 142:18) and CHEMDAS SHLOMO
point out.
(c) The TORAS GITIN (ibid.) and CHEMDAS SHLOMO suggest that even if the
Sheluchim are no longer available, the husband who sent the Get does not
know that. Therefore he will be afraid to come and challenge the Get,
because he will be under the impression that the two Sheluchim that he sent
will come and counter his claim and prove him wrong by testifying that he
sent them. Since he will not challenge the Get, it is not necessary to say
"b'Fanai Nichtav...."
If the two witnesses who recognize the signatures on the Get were not sent
by the husband, however, the husband will not fear that there are people in
that town who can counter his claim, and he will challenge the validity of
the Get. Therefore it is still necessary for the Shali'ach to say "b'Fanai
Nichtav...."
(See the RA'AVAD on the Rif who suggests another explanation for why two
Sheluchim do not have to say "b'Fanai Nichtav.")