The Raavad holds a woman or her carrier that brings her divorce has to establish its validity and it is not enough for either to say it was written and signed in front of me. Rav Shach brings a proof for this opinion comes from a version of the gemara in Gitin page 5b. The gemara brings a teaching that if a carrier brings a get outside of Israel and does not say, ''It was written and signed in front of me,'' the document is not valid, unless its validity was established by witnesses. This is a  question against Rabah who holds the reason for saying, ''It was written and signed before me'' is they do not know about the need to write the doc for the sake of that particular woman.. after all outside of Israel, they do not know about the need for her sake. One answer is this is after they learned the law.  A second version says the answer to Rabah as to the question why does it help to say that formula [or establish its validity by witnesses-if they do not know the need for writing it for her sake] is because the whole worry is maybe the husband might come and complain that the doc was forged. But if he does not come and complain about the need to write it for her sake, why should we complain for him? [To Rav Shach this proves the Raavad because the worry about Lishma we do not worry about unless the husband complain. But the worry about forgery, we do worry about regardless if the husband complains or not.   So if her carrier or she herself bring the document, we do require validation.] This shows that the Raavad was right because for the case where a woman or her carrier bring the document, we do complain and require full validation of the document. However, one can question this because the Gemara itself is saying that if the husband does not come and complain about the need to write it for her sake, why should we complain for him? That seems to imply in all cases (whether she brings her own document or her carrier or his carrier) that we depend on the saying of ''It was written and signed before me'' or we do not even need that if she or her carrier bring her own document.

However the point of Rav Shach is that we do worry about forgery. That is the entire point of this Gemara. That is if the carrier does not say "Before me it was written and signed", then the doc is not valid.  And Rabah is saying that if he does say that formula, then we ask him if it was written for her sake. The question on Rabah is that that is only when he says the formula, but if he does not say it and we depend on establishing the validity of the doc by asking the witnesses if they signed on it, that fact tells us nothing about Lishmah. And the answer of Rabah to this question is if he the husband does not claim it was not lishma, then we don't complain about it. But we certainly do complain about forgery, Therefore the Raavad is correct that we need validation in all cases including if the wife or her carrier bring her own doc.  

_______________________________________________________________________________

The ראב''ד holds a woman or her carrier that brings her divorce has to establish its validity and it is not enough for either to say it was written and signed in front of me. רב שך brings a proof for this opinion comes from a version of the גמרא in גיטין ף ה' ע''ב  b. The גמרא brings a teaching that if a carrier brings a גט outside of Israel and does not say, ''It was written and signed in front of me,'' the document is not valid, unless its validity was established by witnesses. This is a  question against רבה who holds the reason for saying, ''It was written and signed before me'' is they do not know about the need to write the גט for the sake of that particular woman (לשמה). After all, outside of Israel, they do not know about the need for לשמה. One answer is this is after they learned the law.  A second version says the answer to רבה as to the question why does it help to say that formula is because the whole חשש is maybe the husband might come and complain that the גט was forged. But if he does not come and complain, why should we complain for him? [[To רב שך this proves the ראב''ד because the worry about לשמה we do not worry about unless the husband complain. But the worry about forgery, we do worry about regardless if the husband complains or not.   So if her carrier or she herself bring the גט we do require validation. ]]This shows that the ראב''ד was right because for the case where a woman or her carrier bring the document, we do complain and require full validation of the document. However one can question this because the גמרא itself is saying that if the husband does not come and complain , why should we complain for him? That seems to imply in all cases (whether she brings her own גט or her carrier or his carrier) that we depend on the saying of ''It was written and signed before me'' or we do not even need that if she or her carrier bring her own גט.

However the point of רב שך is that we do worry about forgery. That is the entire point of this גמרא. That is if the שליח does not say "Before me it was written and signed", then the גט is not valid.  And רבה is saying that if he does say that formula, then we ask him if it was written לשמה. The question on רבה is that that is only when he says the formula, but if he does not say it and we depend on establishing the validity of the גט by asking the witnesses if they signed on it, that fact tells us nothing about לשמה. And the answer of רבה to this question is if he the husband does not claim it was not לשמה, then we don't complain about it. But we certainly do complain about forgery, Therefore the ראב''ד is correct that we need validation in all cases including if the wife or her carrier bring her own גט.  

הראב''ד אוחז שאישה או שליח קבלה שמביאה את  מסמך הגירושין צריך לבסס את תוקפו ולא מספיק שאחד יאמר שזה נכתב ונחתם בפניי. רב שך מביא שהוכחה לדעה זו באה מגירסת הגמרא בגיטין ף ה' ע''ב. הגמרא מביאה הוראה שאם מוביל מביא גט מחוץ לישראל ולא יאמר ''נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' אין המסמך תקף, אלא אם כן נקבע תוקפו על ידי עדים. זו שאלה נגד רבה שמחזיק שסיבה לומר ''זה נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' הוא לא יודעים בחו''ל על הצורך לכתוב את הגט למען אותה אישה מסוימת (לשמה). הרי מחוץ לישראל לא יודעים על הצורך בלשמה. תשובה אחת היא שזה אחרי שהם למדו את החוק. גרסה שניה אומרת את התשובה לרבה (לגבי השאלה למה זה עוזר לומר את הנוסחה) היא כי כל החשש הוא שאולי הבעל יבוא ויתלונן שהגט מזויף. אבל אם הוא לא יבוא ומתלונן, למה נתלונן בשבילו? 

לרב שך זה מוכיח את הראב''ד כי הדאגה לשמה אין אנו דואגים אלא אם כן הבעל מתלונן. אבל הדאגה לזיוף, אנחנו כן דואגים, ללא קשר אם הבעל מתלונן או לא. אז אם השליח שלה או היא עצמה מביאים את המסמך, אנחנו כן דורשים אימות. 

זה מראה שהראב''ד צדק שכן במקרה שבו אישה או מוביל שלה מביאים את המסמך, אנחנו כן מתלוננים ודורשים תוקף מלא של המסמך. אולם אפשר לפקפק בזה משום שהגמרא עצמה אומרת שאם הבעל לא בא ומתלונן [שהגט מזויף או לא נכתב לשמה], למה נתלונן עבורו? נראה שזה מרמז בכל המקרים (בין אם היא מביאה את הגט שלה או את המוביל שלה או את המוביל שלו) שאנו תלויים באמירת ''נכתב ונחתם לפניי'' או שאפילו אין לנו צורך בכך אם היא או מובילה תביא את  הגט שלה

אולם הנקודה של רב שך היא שאנו דואגים לזיוף. זה כל הכוונה של הגמרא הזו. כלומר אם השליח לא אומר "לפני נכתב ונחתם", אז הגט אינו תקף. ורבה אומר שאם הוא כן אומר את הנוסחה הזו, אז אנחנו שואלים אותו אם היא נכתבה לשמה. השאלה על רבה היא שזה רק כשהוא אומר את הנוסחה, אבל אם הוא לא אומר אותה ואנו תלויים בביסוס תקפות הגט בשאלת העדים אם הם חתמו עליה, עובדה זו לא אומרת לנו דבר על לשמה. ותשובת רבה לשאלה זו היא שאם הוא (הבעל) אינו טוען שזה לא היה לשמה, אז אין אנו טוענים על כך. אבל אנחנו בהחלט טוענים על זיוף, לכן הראב''ד צודק שאנחנו צריכים אישור בכל המקרים כולל אם האישה או המוביל שלה מביאים גט משלה