Yerushalmi Gittin 1:3 ירושלמי גיטין א׳:ג׳

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 signers⁹⁶The court at the place of origin can confirm that the signatures are genuine. A document bearing two certified signatures cannot be attacked. Since courts in the Land of Israel are usually competent, a bill of divorce which is not contested does not have to be certified.. 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 bring¹⁰³They have to be written and signed before the messenger when executed or delivered outside the Land, or have to be confirmed by a court before being delivered to a messenger.. This is one of the aspects in which bills of divorce, have the same rules as bills of manumission¹⁰⁴This is an introduction to a series of Mishnaiot on the same subject. Since the slave of a Jew becomes a full member of the Jewish endogamous society upon his manumisson, strict rules are justified..

HALAKHAH: “Somebody who brings a bill of divorce from the Land of Israel,” etc. Who protests? Rav Ḥisda said, the husband protests⁹⁷It is the position of the Babli, 9a, that in the absence of witnesses to fraud only the husband has standing to question the validity of a bill of divorce. Tosaphot 9a, s.v. אלא, read R. Yose’s statement in the argument of the Babli; this does not seem to be justified.. Rebbi Yose said, the buyers protest, lest she repossess from them⁹⁸If the husband had real estate at the place of his wife which he sold and then sent a bill of divorce to his wife from far away without the payment due her upon divorce, the divorcee can reclaim any real estate sold after the date of her definitive marriage up to the value of the ketubah payment due her.. Rebbi asked: So far a protest which does not concern the text of the bill¹⁰E. g., if the husband claims that he had attached a condition to the bill not provided for in the bill and that the condition was not satisfied. Since the condition was not presented to the court which oversaw the delivery of the document, it cannot be considered.. A protest which concerns the text of the bill¹¹He claims that the entire bill is fake or that there is an intrinsic defect which makes the entire document invalid. is in dispute between Rebbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there⁹⁹Their dispute is in Yebamot 10:4 (Notes 97–102) and Ketubot 2:2. The Babylonian rabbis hold that a document whose signatures have been notarized as genuine by a court cannot be attacked.. In the opinion of the rabbis there, there is no difference to a protest concerning or not concerning the body of the bill. ¹⁰⁰A clause is missing here: “In the opinion of R. Joḥanan”. A protest not concerning the text of the bill is void, a protest concerning the text of the bill is valid¹⁰¹A claim that a document is forged must always be investigated..

As it was stated¹⁰²Tosephta 1:1.: “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.’ ”