Jerusalem Talmud Gittin 1.3

משנה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם. אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עוֹרְרִים יִתְקַיֵים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בְּפָנַי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַי נֶחְתַּם אִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים יִתְקַיֵים בְּחוֹתְמָיו. אֶחָד גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים שָׁוִין לַמּוֹלִיךְ וְלַמֵּבִיא. וְזוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁשָּׁווּ גִיטֵּי נָשִׁים לְשִׁיחֲרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים.

MISHNAH: Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel does not have to say: “It was written and signed before me.” If the document is contested, it should be confirmed by its signers. If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas and is unable to say: “it was written and signed before me,” it should be confirmed by its signers. Bills of divorce and slaves’ bills of manumission are equal in [the requirement] about those who carry and bring. This is one of the aspects in which bills of divorce, have the same rules as bills of manumission.

הלכה: הַמֵּבִיא גֵט בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כול׳. מִי עִירֵר. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר. הַבַּעַל עִירֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הַלְּקוּחוֹת עוֹרְרִין שֶׁלֹּא תִיטָּרֵף מִיָּדָן. רִבִּי יוּדָן בָּעֵי. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּעֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ תַּפְלוּגְתָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן לֹא שַׁנְיָיה. הוּא עֶרֶר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ. הִיא עֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ. עֵרֵר שֶׁחוּץ לְגוּפוֹ עֱרָרוֹ בָטֵל. וְעֶרֶר שֶׁבְּגוּפוֹ עֱרָרוֹ קַיָים.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel,” etc. Who protests? Rav Ḥisda said, the husband protests. Rebbi Yose said, the buyers protest, lest she repossess from them. Rebbi asked: So far a protest which does not concern the text of the bill. A protest which concerns the text of the bill is in dispute between Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. In the opinion of the rabbis there, there is no difference to a protest concerning or not concerning the body of the bill. A protest not concerning the text of the bill is void, a protest concerning the text of the bill is valid.

דּתַנֵּי. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְלֹא נִכְתַּב לְפָנָיו וְלֹא נֶחְתַּם לְפָנָיו. הֲרֵי מַחֲזִירוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. וְעוֹשֶׂה עָלָיו בֵּית דִּין וּמְקַיְימוֹ בְחוֹתְמָיו וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר. בְּפָנַיי נִכְתַּב וּבְפָנַיי נֶחְתַּם. אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר. שָׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין אָנִי.

As it was stated: “If somebody brings a bill of divorce from overseas which was not written and signed in his presence, he returns the bill to its place of origin, presents it to a court and has its signatures notarized. Then he does not have so say, ‘it was written and signed before me’, but he says, ‘I am deputized by the court.’ ”