TOSFOS DH "Ee'leima Cheiresh"

תוס' ד"ה "אילימא חרש"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara specifically proposed an insane person as bringing the Get.)

ולא בעי למימר כגון אלם או שלא ראה כתיבת הגט


Implied Question: The Gemara did not want to say that the case was where a mute brought the Get, or someone who did not see the Get written brought the Get. (Note: Why not?)

דא"כ הוה ליה למימר ולא אמר.


Answer: If this was the case, the Mishnah should have said, "and he didn't say" (not "and he couldn't say"). (Note: The Maharam explains that, "and he couldn't say," implies that he was able to say this originally, but when it came to giving the Get he could not say this. This is because he was originally sane, and only after he became a messenger did he become insane. However, someone who couldn't talk or never saw the writing of the Get was never eligible to be a messenger for this Get. Accordingly, the Mishnah should have used the words, "and he didn't say," implying that he never was able to say this.)


TOSFOS DH "Ee Hachi"

תוס' ד"ה "אי הכי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains this question and a similar question later in the Gemara at length.)

פי' יכול נמי סגי בקיום חותמיו


Explanation: This means that even if he could say b'Fanay Nechtav he should not have to, as it should be sufficient to verify the signatures on the document.

וא"ת מאי קשיא ליה לרבה כי היכי דלרבא ניחא ליה דמפרש אינו יכול צריך קיום חותמיו אבל יכול סגי באומר בפני נכתב ונחתם ואין צריך שנים הכי נמי יפרש לרבה דלאחר שלמדו רבה ורבא שוים


Question: Why is the Gemara asking a question on Rabah? Just as there is no question on Rava who says that if the messenger cannot say b'Fanay Nechtav etc, the document must be verified, but if the messenger does say this there is no need without having two witnesses verify the signatures, this can also be the position of Rabah. This is because once the Gemara already stated that this was "after they learned" (and there was therefore no longer an issue of Lishmah), Rabah and Rava essentially share the same opinion.

ואומר ר"ת דלרבא ניחא דתנא אינו יכול לאשמועי' דבעי קיום חותמיו אבל ביכול סגי באומר בפני נכתב אע"ג דלא חשיב לרבא כמו קיום חותמיו


Answer #1 (Rabeinu Tam): Rabeinu Tam answered that according to Rava there is no question. The Mishnah taught the case where the messenger could no longer say b'Fanay Nechtav in order to teach that verification is needed to validate the document. When he can say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., that is valid even though it is obviously not the same to Rava as an actual validation of the document.

אבל לרבה בפני נכתב עדיף מקיום חותמיו שמעיד שנעשה לשמה ע"כ תנא אתא לאשמועינן דאינו יכול סגי בקיום חותמיו כיון דאוקמינן לאחר שלמדו יכול נמי תיסגי ליה בקיום חותמיו


However, according to Rabah, b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is better than validation of the document, as this imparts that the document was written Lishmah. Accordingly, it is understandable that the Mishnah would teach us that even if b'Fanay Nechtav etc. cannot be said the document can be verified, as there was no longer a big problem of Lishmah. However, once the case is after there is no problem of Lishmah, why couldn't the document be verified even when the witness could say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.?

ולקמן מפרש אי הכי חד נמי ליבעי שמואל מרב הונא אי סגי בקיום חותמיו כיון דליכא למיחש למידי או דילמא לא פלוג בין למדו ללא למדו ומשני בחד פשיטא ליה דצריך גזירה משום שמא יחזור הדבר לקלקולו


Later the Gemara asks, "If so, one messenger should also (not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav)." The Gemara is asking, Shmuel should ask from Rav Huna if verifying the document is good enough, as there is no suspicion (of Lishmah). Or perhaps the verification should not be valid, as they did not differentiate between before and after the awareness of Lishmah? The Gemara answers, it is obvious that one messenger must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., as a decree lest the status quo go back to the way it was (when there was not enough awareness regarding Lishmah).

ור"י מפרש דהכי פריך אי הכי יכול נמי היכא דאין צריך קיום לא יצטרך לומר לרבה בפני נכתב ונחתם כיון דלמדו ולעיל אמרינן באתיוה בי תרי ובאותה מדינה במדינת הים דלרבה בהני נמי קתני מתניתין דצריך


Answer #2 (Ri): The Ri explains that our Gemara's question is as follows. Where verifying the document is unnecessary, according to Rabah there will be no need to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., as people have already learned to write a Get Lishmah. Earlier, the Gemara said that if two people bring the Get within the same country overseas, Rabah would still say that b'Fanay Nechtav etc. must be said. (Note: This is even after people learned to write a Get Lishmah, as explained immediately below.)

דכולה מתני' אית לן לאוקמא בלמדו מדפריך ממתני' דהאשה עצמה מביאה גיטה וא"כ רישא נמי איירי בלמדו


The entire Mishnah can be established to be discussing where everyone already learned to write a Get Lishmah. This is apparent from the Gemara's question from our Mishnah, that a woman can bring her Get herself (see Maharam at length as to why this supports Tosfos' point). Therefore, the first part of the Mishnah is also discussing where everyone had already learned to write a Get Lishmah.

ובענין זה יש לפרש אי הכי חד נמי


Similarly, one can explain the question discussed above, "If so, one should also." (Note: The Maharam Shif explains that once the Mishnah has been established as discussing after everyone has learned to write a Get Lishmah (as stated above according to the Ri), even one person should no longer have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. Why, then, does the Mishnah say otherwise?)

ומתחילה כתב רש"י בפירוש כתב ידו דהך קושיא דאי הכי יכול נמי ואי הכי חד נמי איירי למאי דסלקא דעתא מעיקרא דרבה לית ליה דרבא דכן דרך הש"ס דבתר דאיתותב מחדא הדר מותיב ליה מאידך ושוב מחקו רש"י


Answer #3 (Rashi): Rashi originally wrote in his handwritten commentary that these questions of the Gemara are according to the original premise that Rabah does not agree with Rava. This is the way of the Gemara, that after it asks a question from one angle it will go back and ask from another source (even though the first question seemed valid by itself). However, Rashi then erased that explanation.

ואין לפרש יכול נמי לא יצטרך לרבה בפני נכתב כיון דלמדו בשלמא לרבא דחייש לאיחלופי ניחא אבל לרבה דידענו לא מהני א"כ לא אתי לאיחלופי מה צריך בפני נכתב


Implied Question: We cannot explain the question that "even when he can say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. he should not have to," that Rabah should not need b'Fanay Nechtav etc. because there is no longer a problem of Lishmah. (Note: The question would be explained in the following manner.) It is understandable according to Rava who suspects that this will be mixed up with the regular validation of documents. However, according to Rabah where verification does not help and we therefore have no suspicion of mixing up this process with regular validation, why do we need b'Fanay Nechtav etc.? (Note: Why isn't this a valid explanation?)

דהא לקמן בריש פרק שני (דף טז:) משמע דכיון דאיתקן בפני נכתב לרבה משום לשמה מודה רבה דצריך לאומרו אפילו אחר שלמדו משום איחלופי.


Answer: (Note: This explanation is not adequate for the following reason.) The Gemara later (16b) implies that because b'Fanay Nechtav etc. was originally decreed to be said because of Lishmah, Rabah admits that it should have to be said even after people learned to write Gitin Lishmah. This is because Rabah agrees that now there is a suspicion (as Rava said earlier) of confusing this process with the regular verification of documents.


TOSFOS DH "Shelo Tachlok"

תוס' ד"ה "שלא תחלוק"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains in which cases we insist that a messenger must say b'Fanay Nechtav, etc.)

פירוש בשליחות דיכול.


Explanation: There should be no difference regarding messengers who are able to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. (even when the case is uncommon).


TOSFOS DH "Ee Hachi Ba'al Nami"

תוס' ד"ה "אי הכי בעל נמי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the question and answer of the Gemara.)

לרבא ניחא דכי מייתי ליה בעל ליכא למיחש לזיוף דאינו חשוד להכשילה במתכוין אלא לרבה בבעל נמי ליחוש שלא יערער דמתחילה לא היה יודע שצריך לשמה


Explanation: The Gemara's question is that according to Rava this is understandable. When the husband brings the Get there is no suspicion of forgery, as he is not suspected to intentionally make his wife stumble (by apparently giving a kosher Get leading to her remarriage, when the Get will actually be invalid). However, according to Rabah we should suspect that the husband will not complain, as he originally did not know that Lishmah was needed.

ומשני מינקט נקיט בידיה כיון דערעור זה אינו אלא לעז ליכא למיחש שיערער כיון דנקיט ליה.


The Gemara answers that if the husband himself is bringing the Get there is no problem. Being that even if he does complain it only serves to spread rumors about the Get (not to make it unfit, see Tosfos 3a, DH "Chad"), there is no suspicion that he will complain when he himself brings the Get.


TOSFOS DH "Bei Trei"

תוס' ד"ה "בי תרי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains Rabah's position at this stage in the Gemara, and how to understand one of Rabah's deductions based on this Gemara.)

לפי זה ליכא בינייהו לאחר שלמדו דאתיוה בי תרי אבל איכא בינייהו מקויים


Observation: At this stage of the Gemara, there is no difference between Rabah and Rava after everyone already learned to write a Get Lishmah in a case where two people bring a Get. However, there is still a difference between them in a case where the Get is verified.

ולקמן בר"פ שני (דף טז:) איכא למ"ד דשנים צריכין לומר אפילו אחר שלמדו דלא חשיב ליה מילתא דלא שכיחא


(Later, the Gemara (16b) says that there is an opinion that two messengers do have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. even after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. This is because the Gemara there does not continue two messengers bearing a Get to be an uncommon occurrence (which would not be included in the decree of the Rabbanan to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc.).

ולמאי דחשיב ליה מילתא דלא שכיחא הא דקתני בפ"ב (לקמן דף טו.) וב' אומרים בפנינו דדייק מינה רבה דידענו לא מהני אע"ג דמסתמא איירי אחר שלמדו


Implied Question: Assuming this is considered a common occurrence, Rabah deduces from the Mishnah later (15a) that when two people say they saw the signature the Get is kosher, but if they would merely recognize the signature it would not be kosher. This is despite the fact that this is after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. (Note: We stated above that there is no difference between Rabah and Rava after everyone learned to write a Get Lishmah. They both agree that verification would be sufficient. Accordingly, why would the Mishnah say that the witnesses would have to say that they personally saw the signatures?)

מ"מ נקט בפנינו משום דקודם שלמדו הוה בפנינו דוקא.


Answer: The Mishnah still stated "in front of us," as the law was that they had to have seen this personally before everyone knew to write Gitin Lishmah.


TOSFOS DH "Shelo Tachlok b'Shelichus" (2)

תוס' ד"ה "שלא תחלוק בשליחות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why this case is included in the decree while when two people bring a Get it is not.)

פי' בשליחות דחד דגזרינן חד דלא שכיח אטו חד דשכיח אבל בי תרי אטו חד לא גזרינן.


Explanation: The Gemara's answer is that we decree that even in an uncommon type of case where one person is bringing the Get, b'Fanay Nechtav etc. must be said. However, in an uncommon case where two people bring the Get it is not necessary, as we do not include a case where two people bring the Get because of a case where one person brings a Get. (Note: Being that it is both different in the amount of people discussed in the original decree and uncommon, it is far removed from the original decree regarding one messenger who brings a Get.)


TOSFOS DH "k'she'Niseis"

תוס' ד"ה "כשניסת"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the case described by the Gemara's answer does not appear in the list of three Gitin that are unfit etc.)

והא דתניא לקמן לא אמר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם הולד ממזר


Implied Question: The Beraisa later states that if one did not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. the resulting child from such a marriage (using this Get) is a Mamzer. (Note: How can this be when our Gemara implies that such a child is kosher b'Dieved?)

היינו כשלא נתקיים בחותמיו


Answer: This (the Beraisa later) is when the signatures in the Get were not verified.

וא"ת וליחשביה (לקמן דף פו.) בהדי ג' גיטין פסולין ואם ניסת הולד כשר


Question: Why don't we include this in the list (86a) of three Gitin that are unfit, but if a woman remarries based on these Gitin her resulting children are kosher b'Dieved?

ויש לומר דקסבר רבה דבג' גיטין תצא והכא לא תצא


Answer: This is because Rabah holds that in the cases on the list of the three Gitin she must get divorced, but in this case she does not even have to get divorced.

ואם תאמר להאי לישנא דבפ"ב (לקמן דף יז.) דאית ליה לר' יוחנן שנים שהביאו גט ממדינת הים צריכין לומר בפנינו נכתב כו' משמע דקסבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה היכי משני הך ברייתא דהכא


Question: According to the text later (17a) that Rebbi Yochanan holds that if two people bring a Get from overseas they must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc., the implication is that this is because people overseas do not always know to write a Get Lishmah. If so, how can we answer our Beraisa here?

דאי משני לה כשניסת א"כ ליחשביה (לקמן דף פו.) בהדי ג' גיטין פסולין דהא ר' יוחנן אית ליה בפ"ט (שם) דג' גיטין נמי לא תצא


If we will give the answer that the case is when she already remarried, it should be considered one of the three Gitin that are unfit. This is because Rebbi Yochanan (86a) holds that these three Gitin do not mandate that she get divorced (this would therefore have fit neatly into that list).

ואין לומר דלא חשיב אלא פסול התלוי בגט עצמו דהא אמרינן בפ"ט מניינא דסיפא למעוטי נתנו לה ולא אמר בפני נכתב יוציא והולד ממזר


Additionally, we cannot answer that this list of three Gitin is only a list of Gitin that have something wrong with the Get itself (not an external problem such as a messenger not saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc., which is why this Get is not on the list). This is because we say (86a) that the number of Gitin listed in the second half of the Beraisa excludes a case where the Get was given to her and the messenger did not say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. In such a case she should get divorced, and any children she had while relying on this Get are deemed Mamzerim. (Note: This shows that the Beraisa is addressing external problems in a Get as well.)

ואומר ר"י דההוא מילתא דר' יוחנן דסבר לא תצא קאי כלישנא קמא דבפ"ב (לקמן דף טז:) דאית ליה לר' יוחנן לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו וכמסקנא דשמעתין


Answer: The Ri answers that Rebbi Yochanan's statement (86a) that these three Gitin do not mandate that she should get divorced is according to the first version of the Gemara (16b). According to that version of the Gemara, Rebbi Yochanan understands that the reasoning is like Rava, that there are no witnesses to verify the document, as our Gemara indeed concludes.



TOSFOS DH "Ee Ba'is Aima"

תוס' ד"ה "אי בעית אימא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos analyzes whether or not this is part of the text of our Gemara.)

רש"י לא גריס איבעית אימא דסיומא דמילתא הוא


Opinion #1 (Rashi): Rashi does not have the text "Ee Ba'is Aima," as this is the end of a statement (not a separate answer).

ולר"י נראה דשפיר גריס ליה


Opinion #2 (Ri): The Ri understands that this phrase indeed fits in our text.

ומוקי לה השתא קודם שלמדו דכיון דניסת לא תצא כיון דלזיוף ליכא למיחש דנתקיים בחותמיו וליכא אלא לעז בעלמא דשלא לשמה אפי' אי אתי בעל ומערער כדפרישית לעיל (ע"א ד"ה א"ה בעל).


He explains that the answer is referring to a time before everyone knew to write a get Lishmah. Once she was already married she should not get divorced. There is no reason to suspect a forgery as the document is verified. There is only the possible rumor that the Get was not written Lishmah even if the husband will come and complain that it was not, as explained earlier (Tosfos 5a, DH "Ee Hachi Ba'al"). Accordingly, the Get is kosher b'Dieved (once she has married).


TOSFOS DH "v'Tisbara"

תוס' ד"ה "ותסברא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos proves that the text "v'Tisbara" is incorrect.)

לא גרסינן ותסברא כדפירש בקונטרס


Observation: We do not have the text "v'Tisbara," as explained by Rashi.

ובסמוך דקאמר אלא ר' שמעון בר אבא איניש אחרינא הוה בהדיה לא גרסינן אלא דאינו בא לסתור תסתיים


Observation: Nearby (in the Gemara), where the Gemara says, "Ela" - "Rather" Rebbi Shimon bar Aba had a different person with him," we do not have the text "Ela." This is because the Gemara is not coming to refute the proof brought earlier.

ובסמוך נמי קאמר הא מדריב"ל סבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה כו'.


Nearby the Gemara also proves this from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi who holds that people were not learned in writing Gitin Lishmah etc. (Note: This shows that the Gemara is staying with the same train of thought.)



תוס' ד"ה "הא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara did not resort to an answer based on a text of the Gemara on 17a.)

לא בעי לשנויי דסבר כאידך לישנא דפ"ב (לקמן דף יז.)


Implied Question: The Gemara does not want to answer that he holds like the other text that appears later (17a, that two witnesses who bring a Get from overseas must still say b'Fanay Nechtav etc). (Note: Why not?)

דההוא לישנא דהתם דקאמר שנים אין צריכין לומר בפני נכתב הוא עיקר דקאמר עלה יתד הוא שלא תמוט


Answer #1: The text there that says that two people do not have to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. is the main text. The Gemara there says about that text, "It is a peg that will not fall."

ועוד דבההיא שינויא לא הוה משני הא דפריך והא רבה אית ליה דרבא.


Answer #2: Additionally, according to that answer we would not be able to answer our Gemara's question that Rabah holds of Rava.


TOSFOS DH "v'Ha Kaima Lan"

תוס' ד"ה "והא קיימא לן"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos brings proof to Rashi's omission of this text.)

רש"י לא גריס ליה


Observation: Rashi does not have this text.

והדין עמו דכיון דפשיטא דבדרבנן עד נעשה דיין כדפריך לבסוף היכי פריך מעיקרא הא קיימא לן דאין עד נעשה דיין דהא פשיטא דלא ס"ד דהכא הוי דאורייתא


Proof: He is correct. Being that it is obvious that we do say a witness can become a judge in Rabbinic matters as we asked later, how can the Gemara at this stage have the opposite assumption that a witness cannot become a judge? It is obvious that here the Gemara does not merely assume that a witness cannot become a judge only in Torah matters (which would reconcile both opinions.)

ומיהו בפרק קמא דכתובות (דף יא.) יש קצת כענין זה גבי גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת ב"ד ופריך מאי קמ"ל תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו כו'


However, in Kesuvos (11a) there is somewhat of a precedent for this type of "contradictory" questioning. Regarding a convert who is a minor that Beis Din instructs for him to be dip in a Mikvah on their authority, the Gemara asks that this is an obvious law, as we know that a person can acquire for something for someone else when he is not present! (Note: Similarly, even though this minor has no Halachic knowledge until he gets older and knowingly chooses to be Jewish, the Gemara asks that Beis Din's conversion should work because this is like acquiring a good thing for someone else when he is not present.)

והדר פריך והא קי"ל דודאי עבד בהפקירא ניחא ליה.


Yet the Gemara later asks, don't we hold that a servant likes to be ownerless (and not have so many mitzvos)? (Note: The Gemara here introduces a contradictory assumption, unlike Tosfos's proof which hinged on the fact that it is not normal for the Gemara to have contradictory assumptions.)


TOSFOS DH "Hachi Garis"

תוס' ד"ה "הכי גריס"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos states the correct text of our Gemara.)

הכי גריס ר"ת כיון דאשה כשירה להביא את הגט זימנין דמייתי ליה איתתא


Observation: Rabeinu Tam has the following text. "Being that a woman is fit to bring a Get, sometimes a woman will bring the Get."

וכן פירש רבינו חננאל


Rabeinu Chananel also had this text.

וה"ה דהוה מצי למימר זימנין דמייתי ליה קרוב.


The Gemara could have also said, "Sometimes a relative will bring a Get."


TOSFOS DH "Keitzad Ya'aseh"

תוס' ד"ה "כיצד יעשה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's question, "What should he do?")



Implied Question: To whom is the Beraisa addressing the question, "What should he do?" The Rabbanan said the child is not a Mamzer, so presumably there is nothing to do!

כיצד יעשה לרבנן שתינשא לכתחילה או אם נישאת שלא תצא אבל לולד אין צריך תקנה דבלא תקנה לא הוי ממזר דלית להו כל המשנה כו'


Answer: The Beraisa is asking, what should be done according to the Rabbanan in order that the woman can marry Lechatchilah or at least that she will not have to get divorced. However, the Rabbanan do not hold that anything has to be done for the child, as the child is not a Mamzer because they do hold of Rebbi Meir's rule that (the resulting children from) whoever changes (from the standard form of a Get established by the Rabbanan are Mamzerim).

ולר"מ כיצד יעשה קודם נישואין אבל לאחר נישואין מסתבר דלר"מ אין תקנה דכיון דהולד ממזר א"כ כל הדרכים האלו בה ותצא מזה ומזה וכל הנהו דתנן לקמן בהזורק (דף פ.).


According to Rebbi Meir the question is how should this be taken care of before the marriage. However, after marriage, Rebbi seemingly holds that there is nothing to do. Being that the child is a Mamzer, all of these ways apply to her and she should be divorced from both husbands, and all of those stated later (80a.). (Note: This last sentence "Kol ha'Derachim etc.") is a quote from the Mishnah later on (80a), referring to the Mishnah's listing at length of the ramifications of this type of Get that is unfit.)


TOSFOS DH "Yitlenu"

תוס' ד"ה "יטלנו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses if "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." can/must be said before, during, and after the giving of the Get.)

מכאן משמע דצריך לומר בשעת נתינה בפני נכתב מדקאמר יטלנו הימנה וה"ה לאחר נתינה תוך כדי דיבור דמהני מדקאמר לעיל שנתנו לה כשהיה פיקח ולא הספיק לומר בפני נכתב עד שנתחרש


Observation: The Gemara implies that when the Get is given the messenger must say b'Fanay Nechtav etc. This is apparent from the statement, "he should take it from her (and give it back to her again in front of two witnesses while saying b'Fanay Nechtav etc)." This also works if it is done within Kdei Dibur (about a couple of seconds) of the giving of the Get. This is apparent from the Gemara's statement earlier that he gave her the Get when he was sane, and he wasn't able to say b'Fanay Nechtav etc, until he went insane.

אבל לאחר כדי דיבור מספקא לר"י אי מהני כל זמן שעסוקים באותו ענין או לאו וקודם נתינה מספקא לר"י נמי אי מהני


However, after Kdei Dibur the Ri is unsure if b'Fanay Nechtav is still valid as long as they are still dealing with the giving of the Get or not. The Ri is similarly unsure if b'Fanay Nechtav etc. works before the giving of the Get.

ומדתנן בפרק כל הגט (לקמן דף כט:) המביא גט ממדינת הים וחלה עושה בבית דין שליח ואומר כו' אין ראיה


Implied Question: There is no proof from the Mishnah later (29b) that says that "if someone brought a Get from overseas and fell sick, Beis Din appoints a messenger etc." (Note: The continuation of the Mishnah is that the first messenger says before Beis Din "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." and the second messenger does not have to say it when he gives the Get. This seemingly proves that stating "b'Fanay Nechtav etc." is valid before the giving of the Get. Why isn't this a proof?)

דהרי אומר כשהגט יוצא מתחת ידו.


Answer: This is not a proof because the Mishnah very well means that he says b'Fanay Nechtav etc. when the Get leaves his hands and is passed on to the second messenger.



תוס' ד"ה "אפילו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it is sufficient for the messenger to ascertain that the first line was written "for her".)



Implied Question: How can Rebbi Eliezer say that "even if he only wrote the first line Lishmah it is enough?" Doesn't the whole Get have to be written Lishmah?

שלא ראה אלא שיטה ראשונה דמסתמא סיימו לשמה.


Explanation: Rebbi Eliezer means that he only saw the first line written Lishmah, indicating that he probably finished the Get Lishmah.