Gemara explains what is the reason why the Chachamim made the special takanah that when a shaliach brings a get from מדינת הים to Eretz Yisrael has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. He has to say, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed.\" The Gemara gives two reasons. Rabbah says the reason is because אין בקיאין לשמה, because the people of Chutz La'aretz are not familiar or do not know the din that a get has to be written לשמה. And we all know what לשמה means, it has to be written for the sake of divorce and for also, but that's one thing, the sake of this specific person. The get has to be written לשמה, לשם האישה, לשם this woman and לשם this man, and the people from מדינת הים did not know that din, so we're afraid that when you bring a get from מדינת הים, maybe it wasn't written לשמה. And therefore, we have to testify, the person says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. Second reason is because of kiyum, but we're going to be talking about the first reason, because אין בקיאין לשמה.

Comes Tosafot and asks an obvious question: ואם תאמר, מאי שנא לשמה דאין בקיאין משאר הלכות גיטין? What is this reason why in מדינת הים they don't know לשמה more than other other dinim? There are so many dinim in a get. Tosafot brings there's a din of מחובר. You can't write a get when it's still connected to the ground, let's say on a leaf that's connected to the ground, you can't. Why not? Because we learn out from a pasuk, there's a limud. The pasuk says, if you want to divorce your wife, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, write a גט, ונתן בידה, and give it to her. That means that as soon as you write it, there's nothing else you have to do in order to give it to her. But if it was written when it was מחובר, connected, then after you write it, you still can't give it. You've got to cut it off first. It's כתיבה, קציצה, and netinah. And that we learn out is no good, so that's another din. Then Tosafot brings an example, שינוי שמו ושמה, if you write the wrong name, the get is pasul. Or if you write the date, the get during the day, signed at night, so many dinim in get. Why efes the din of lishmah was the only din that they didn't know? Then Tosafot says, I'm repeating the details of Tosafot, because some of it will be noga later. Then

Tosafot says maybe the peshat is different. Maybe it doesn't mean that only the din of lishmah they don't know. They don't know any din, they're amei ha'aretz there. So why does he say אין בקיאין לשמה? It gives an example of a din. And he picks the example which is more common, because not to be lishmah is more common. So Tosafot brings a re'ayah that that's not the peshat. So what is the peshat? That it's only lishmah that they don't know. So the kushya comes back: What is it so special about lishmah that they don't know? So comes Tosafot and answers: It's not a peshat they didn't know. They didn't accept the derash. How do we know that you have to have a get lishmah? Because the pasuk says, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, write for her. What does writing for her mean? Write for her means lishmah, to have her in mind. That derash that we know that you have to write a get lishmah, they didn't accept. That derash they didn't accept. And the lashon of Tosafot is, ואפשר לומר דבכל הלכות גיטין בקיאין, אך דרשה דוכתב לשמה אינה נראית להם עיקר דרשה. They don't take it as an עיקר דרשה. They don't take it serious. They don't take this derashah serious, and that's the derashah they didn't accept. Okay. Ai, it says the לשון אין בקיאין, they don't know, doesn't mean they don't know, that means they didn't accept it. Fine. The Gemara says later on they learned the din, so it doesn't mean they learned, means they accepted it. Then Tosafos comes and continues with another inyan, which seemingly has no connection to the beginning of Tosafos. And that is, if the reason why they say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is to tell the Beis Din in Eretz Yisrael that it was written lishmah, how does it lie in the words בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? All he says, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed.\" So, m'meila, how does that show it's lishmah? So

Rashi says, the way Tosafos brings, that when they say it, וממילא שיילינן ליה אם היה לשמה. If the guy says, \"I saw it written, saw it signed,\" Beis Din will ask, \"nu, you saw it written, oh, very good, you saw it signed. Was it written lishmah? Was it signed lishmah?\" And he'll answer, \"Yes. Ein, he'll answer yes.\" So Tosafos says, \"I don't like Rashi's peshat.\" And two kashyos he asks on Rashi: Number one, we don't find anywhere that you have to ask. It would be a new din that should say so in the Gemara that you have to ask, after he says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם you have to ask. And the second she'eilah Tosafos asks, when the Gemara wants to know soon, what's the difference between Rabbah's reason and Rava's reason, The Gemara should, very simple: According to Rabbah that the reason is because of lishmah, you have to ask. After he says, \"I saw it written and signed,\" you have to ask, \"Was it lishmah?\" According to Rava, it's nothing to do with lishmah, you don't have to ask. So therefore, Tosafos argues and Tosafos learns another peshat. What's the peshat? You don't have to ask. Ai, how does בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם deal with lishmah? סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. When a person says, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed,\" what it really means is lishmah. So the words itself mean lishmah. But then Tosafos is bothered, the Gemara later says that why doesn't Rava like Rabba's pshat? Cuz he tells Rabba, \"If the reason is because of lishmah, why don't we say lishmah?\" But we just finished saying, according to Tosafos, that without the word lishmah, it means lishmah! סתמא לשמה! So Tosafos says, the Gemara understood that without, it means לשמה, סתמא לשמה. The question is, since the whole purpose is lishmah, why not say it? That's the Gemara, this is Tosafos. There are a few things in Tosafos that we have to understand. Number one: Tosafos's kushya was, what's so special about lishmah that they don't know? Anything special? So Tosafos says, \"No, the pshat is not that they don't know, the pshat is they didn't accept the derash.\" What in the world did Tosafos gain? What kind of answer is that? We have the same she'eilah! Why eppes punkt the derash of lishmah that they didn't accept? All the derashot they The same kushya! The kushya Tosafos had, they don't know lishmah, and other dinim they know. Why eppes don't they know lishmah? So Tosafos said, \"No, it's not the pshat they didn't know. They didn't accept it.\" So I have back the same kushya: What eppes is it that the din of lishmah they didn't accept? Other dinim they did. Now I'll tell you even more: By Tosafos's answer makes the kushya even stronger! The din of מחובר, let's give an example, they accepted. The din of לשמה, not. They didn't like the drash. Which drash is a simpler drash: the drash that it can't be מחובר or the drash that has to be לשמה? לשמה, that's easier! The drash of מחובר is a שטיקל דרש. It says וכתב ונתן, write it and give it. So it comes to teach you has to be not no other stage in between. Okay, it's a drash, I'm not questioning the drash of the חכמים. What's the drash of לשמה? It's a very simple drash. It says the extra word in the Torah. It says וכתב לה. The mamash the word לה is extra. It could have said very simple: If you want to divorce your wife, וכתב, write a ספר כריתות, וכתב ספר כריתות, write a document, ונתן בידה. What does it mean write לה? Obviously, it means write for her sake, write לשמה. The drash of לשמה is the simplest drash, much easier than all other drashot. So why is it עפעס פונקט the drash of לשמה that they didn't accept? So Tosafos's kashya was, what's so special about לשמה that they didn't know? And he answers, they didn't accept the drash. What's so special about this drash that they didn't accept? So that's one she'eilah that we have on Tosafos. There's another she'eilah on Tosafos, which already the mefarshim ask, that what's the connection between the second half of Tosafos and the first half? Usually, when Tosafos writes a few things in one דיבור המתחיל, it's because they have a connection. If Tosafos has a few things to say on one inyan, on one lashon of the Gemara, and they have no connection, two separate inyanim, Tosafos makes a new Tosafos and a new דיבור המתחיל. The best re'ayah is over here. Tosafos has a the Tosafos we're talking about starts off with לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה. Then Tosafos finishes, and then there's a new Tosafos. The same דיבור המתחיל again: לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה, he has something else to say. Why didn't he put it all in the same דיבור המתחיל? Pashut, because that's the klal. Whatever you write in one דיבור המתחיל has a connection. Anything that's separate, you don't have to you make a new Tosafos. What's the connection between these two things? First, Tosafos writes what's so special about lishmah that they didn't know, and then he answers that, it's not that they didn't know, but they didn't accept it, whatever. Then Tosafos has a new thing: How do you know lishmah from the words בפני נכתב? So Rashi says, \"Because you ask,\" and Tosafos says, \"I have a re'ayah that it's not so,\" and Tosafos learns a new פשט, סתמא לשמה. Has nothing to do seemingly to what Tosafos said before. So לכאורה, what's the connection with these two? Now in this, we have the Maharsha and we have the Maharam Shif. So we'll see what the Maharsha says. The

Maharsha says, he tries to bring a connection. He doesn't ask the kashya the way I put it, but he's definitely answering the kashya that that we just asked. He brings Tosafos and he says רוצה לומר, what Tosafos needs to say, and he's showing what the connection between the second half of Tosafos is with the first half of Tosafos. And he says like this: Here. I mentioned before, that's why I mentioned the, that Tosafos asked the kushya right away, what's lishmah different that they don't know? Tosafot had a hava amina, trying to answer it, and then said it's not a good answer. What was the hava amina? That maybe the Gemara doesn't mean lishmah only. It's an example, but really they didn't know anything. And Tosafot said it's not true. So the Maharsha says the connection of the second half is to that hava amina, meaning like this: אי הוי אמרינן דהוא הדין בשאר הלכות גיטין אינן בקיאין כדבעינן לפרש לעיל, had the din, the pshat been like the hava amina of Tosafot, that they don't know anything, then could we say that בפני נכתב you don't have to ask, and it means all the things? Could we say that? What do you think? No. Let's go the other way. If you say I'll start If you say that it means everything, can we say סתמא סתמא מסתמא? By saying just these words, automatically it means everything, it means the problem we have? What is Tosafot's pshat? Tosafot says you don't have to ask. So how do you know it's lishmah? 'Cause סתם, when you say בפני נכתב, it means lishmah. Can we say that if they don't know ten dinim? מילא if you say you don't know one din, one din of lishmah, you could say when you say סתמא, you mean lishmah. But if you say you don't know anything, you can't say that. If you say that you only mean lishmah, then you could say it. If you would say it means everything, how would you know that they How does בפני נכתב mean that, what would you have to say? That you ask! Then it could be! If you have ten dinim that you're worried about, and the guy says, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed,\" how do you know that these ten dinim took place? You'll have to ask him! Was it lishmah? Was it not מחובר? Was it not a wrong name? All the dinim you'll ask. So Tosafot's המשך like this: first Tosafot says that, \"I have a hava amina, maybe it means all the dinim they don't know,\" and then Tosafot says, \"Well, it's not true.\" So then Tosafot continues, \"Now that I said it's not true, and it means only lishmah, now what I'm going to say will fit. Now I could say that סתמא לשמה. But had it been like my hava amina, I would have to say like Rashi.\" And since Tosafot is trying to argue with Rashi, so this is what Tosafos says: Tosafos had a piece of hava amina that you have you don't know anything. And since you don't know any din, Tosafos continues according to that, the only way בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם would take care of the problem would be like Rashi, that you have to ask. But Tosafos doesn't like Rashi. But that's no problem, Tosafos says, because I anyway said before that it's not so. I said before that it only means לשמה. If it only is לשמה, my pshat fits. So comes out according to the Maharsha that the connection between the second half of Tosafos and the first half of Tosafos is basically to the hava amina of Tosafos. Has nothing to do with Tosafos's kushya and Tosafos's teirutz. The kushya is a kushya: why is לשמה different? The answer is: it's not the pshat that they don't know לשמה, they don't like the drash. To that kushya and teirutz, the end of Tosafos has nothing to do. No kesher. But since in the middle of the middle of the kushya Tosafos had a hava amina and then schlogged it up, in connection to that hava amina we see the end of Tosafos. It's a little bit hard to It's I mean Maharsha says it, but it seems pashut pshat that the המשך is not to the middle hava amina that came in the middle. It seems like it's a המשך to Tosafos's teirutz. Tosafos says that it doesn't mean they don't know לשמה, what it means is they didn't accept the drash. The המשך to that comes Tosafos explaining whether we have to ask like Rashi, and he says, \"I dislike I don't agree, and it means סתמא לשמה.\" But according to the Maharsha, it's not. So we're lichorah back to the she'eilah: what's the connection between the beginning and the end of Tosafos? The Mahar am Shif's peshat already is much better. I mean, we can't say better, I mean seems more understood in this way. The Mahar am Shif says it like this: אפשר דמקושר. Mahar am Shif says, \"Maybe you're מקושר\" No, Mahar am Mahar am Shif says that it's possible that the connection, the kesher, I tell them Mahar am Shif wrote very not clear. This happens to be a piece which is not so bad, but bichlal when he writes, it's very hard to understand what he writes bichlal. It's very deep bichlal and very The sevara is so complicated, he so went in so deep, but he unfortunately didn't write it clearly, so we have to That's why the the Maharshaf has a biur on the bottom. You ever saw a Maharshaf with a regular print with a biur, because you need a biur here many times. So, he says like this: it's connected to the beginning, but it's also connected to the end. He says like this: according to the way it said before, the possibility that they don't know any dinim, they don't know לשמה, they don't know any dinim, if they don't know any dinim and the guy comes and says, ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״, is it possible to say that when he says סתמא לשמה, or סתמא he means all the dinim? Can't say that. Why can't you say it? Because maybe the shaliach himself doesn't know it either! When could the shaliach testify and we say what he said he meant something? If we know for sure he knows the din. Let's use לשמה. If the shaliach himself doesn't know that there's a din you have to make has to be לשמה, and the shaliach says, ״I saw it written, I saw it signed,״ and we suspect maybe he doesn't know the din. And not only this, doesn't know any dinim. Can it be that since he said, ״I saw it written, I saw it signed,״ he means that it was did done k'din? When can he mean to tell us to testify it was done k'din? If he knows there's a din that you need to know, that you have to have, and, ״I'm telling him I saw it written, so could be it means the din.״ But if they don't people in מדינת הים don't know the din, he doesn't know maybe either. So, when he says it, how do you know it means? But after Tosafos answered that it's not that they don't know, they know! They just didn't accept it. So, there's one thing the the תירוץ says they didn't accept. Comes this guy who says ״בפני נכתב״, he wonders to himself, ״I know that the חכמים made a takana that I have to watch the writing and I have to watch the signature, and I have to testify. What in the world do they want me to testify?״ So, if we learn that they didn't know the din, he doesn't even know that that's what they wanted to testify for. But now that we said that they know the din, they know that only lishmah is the problem, and they know lishmah, they just didn't accept it, and that So, even the people who don't who are not בקי לשמה, doesn't mean they're not בקי, it means they they don't accept it. And when this guy is told, the בית דין the תקנת חכמים was that you want you have to watch it and you have to testify, he thinks to himself, ״What do they want to know? There's only one thing that I could imagine they want to know.״ What's that one thing? Because I know there is a problem with lishmah, which we disagree, but over there they hold that you do have to, and they want me to say I saw it written and signed, מסתמא they want me to say it's lishmah. So, then you could say סתמא לשמה. That's the המשך. The המשך is after Tosafos said that באמת they know the dinim, there's one din that they don't accept, במילא we know that the the the שליח would definitely understand why they wanted him to say ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״. It's to testify on lishmah. So, he doesn't even have to say it's lishmah. And that's the המשך. So, Rashi says that he doesn't say lishmah, but it's not good enough. You have to ask him, because by just saying ״בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם״, that's not going to do the trick. Tosafos says you don't have to ask, because the word סתם is lishmah. When he says ״בפני נכתב״, we know he means lishmah. How do you know he means lishmah? So, Maharshef says do we know he means lishmah, because what else is it? And you can't say it's something that he doesn't know to be מכוון. Some If according to the hava amina that he doesn't even know, there's nothing to be מכוון, he doesn't know that I have to testify on that, he doesn't know there's a problem. But if we say he knows, that's the המשך to the תירוץ. Since he knows, אלא מאי, he doesn't think it's right, but there's nothing else that there could be that the חכמים want, so במילא he must mean this, so he when he says, he says it was lishmah. Huh? When he knows that they won't accept the get. That's what they want to know. Yeah, if he's Obviously, that for sure he knows. Vos raya, they asked him to say it! Yeah. So ela mai? So, he then that's the only thing he'll know. I He thinks they accept it, but they tell us what you have to do it, so they want to know if doing it. We're not choshed he's going to lie, so if it wasn't lishmah it wasn't. So, must be that they want me to watch it and make sure it's lishmah, and come back and say it. So, when he says, ״I watched it,״ what he's really saying is it's lishmah. That's what the But it's all But the hamshach is very clear. The hamshach is because after Tosafot said that they do know the din, the teirutz of Tosafot they do know, they just don't accept, bemila this is something will go through his mind. But if you lechatchilah the hava amina if they don't know, the hava amina if they don't know, so how do you how could he say is that's what he means? How could he say סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. The whole thing is lishmah, then why is he bichlal to say anything? They don't hold of it. Nobody says that the בני ארץ ישראל don't want. He doesn't hold, but in Eretz Yisrael they want, and he's bringing a get to Eretz Yisrael. He wants her to be divorced, he's bringing a get, so a shaychut, he knows that they want me to tell them this. And they're not going to lie, so he wants them to it should be lishmah, I'll watch it being lishmah, I'll be able to testify. That's all they want! And there's nothing else that they could want. What else? They didn't stand there, what didn't stand there. He's only a shaliach. So it goes through his mind that that's what that's what they wanted. But לפי זה, it

sounds like קען זיין אז ס'איז א מחלוקת במציאות if if בני מדינת הים know how like if they know better or not? It could be a מחלוקת במציאות, but a מחלוקת במציאות we can't verify, cause we're talking what happened when the when the chachamim made that takana. See, there's a מחלוקת now, Rashi, דערוויילע we didn't say Rashi and Tosafot, but let's say it is, cause Rashi didn't say like Tosafot. Rashi didn't say they they they they don't know, because Rashi דייק it. So if you learn like that, yeah, the מחלוקת is what was the situation at that time. What did the chachamim mean to a certain situation, what was it? Exactly. מחלוקת במציאות can't be if they're arguing if למשל something that's now, you could Why can't there be a מחלוקת במציאות? What are you arguing about? Find out! But a מחלוקת במציאות you cannot be mevarer, you could argue. I mean one place in the שיחות is משמע not like that, which I never understood that place. But בכלל, that's the pshat: be mevarer. But you could have a מחלוקת במציאות of what was the situation. Half of half of the Gemara is מחלוקת במציאות! A מחלוקת רב ושמואל, ויקם מלך חדש, was he new, was he not new? It's a מחלוקת במציאות! Yeah, why not a machloket? But we don't know, we can't be mevarer now, so it's a machloket, pshat. If it's something that we have to know that's שייך למשל תנאים תנאים argue, they can't argue about a metziut that happened in their time, but thousands of years later you could argue what what what did they mean, did he mean this, did he mean this? So it could be a מחלוקת במציאות. But Rashi you can't you can't say סתמא לשמה? Rashi does say it, we'll get to that too, we'll see it. This is We need to broaden this whole thing. So we're back to the she'elah, no, not so we answered the she'elah. The

only thing is according to the Maharam Shif, I'm not asking a kashya, it's not not a she'elah. So in the Maharsha was a shtikel she'elah, not a she'elah, but I'm just saying the Maharam Shif gives a very, very simple answer, proof, that סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. Very simple reason: because the guy who brings the get thinks to himself, why in the world did they ask me to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? It must be לשמה! So when he says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, it must be לשמה. And that's often a re'ayah that stam, it's a sichldike thing that you מסהיד לשמה. Tosafot, to prove that you don't have to ask, brings re'ayot, as kashyot. One kashya is: why didn't the Gemara say this is a nafka mina? Another kashya is: the Gemara never said ever that you have to ask. L'chorah, you don't need these kashyot. Tosafot could have said to Rashi: why is why do you have to ask? Like the Mahar"am Mahar"am Shif's sevara סברא, why do you have to ask? For sure he means lishmah without asking, because what else does he mean? And he knows that there's nothing else to worry about. So when he says the chachamim told me to watch it and come back, it must be lishmah! Why didn't Tosafot use that sevara? So again, it's not a kashya on the Mahar"am Shif whatsoever, because you could say that's a sevara, but Tosafot brings re'ayot. אבער, a he'arah it is that l'chorah, if that would be the only peshat, Tosafot at least should have brought such a sevara. I wouldn't say Tosafot shouldn't bring the re'ayot at all, but Tosafot doesn't bring it. So could be the connection is a little bit different, and that's what we're going to try to get. If we accept the Mahar"am Shif's sevara, then I have nothing to say further, then finish with the shiur. So we must find something not so pashut, and that we have to come with a new peshat. Like I always tell over the story, I

don't know if I told it over this year, that once Reb' Isser Zalman Meltzer had a shiur, and in the middle of the shiur he said peshat in a Rambam, and based on that he gave a whole shiur pilpul. And someone asked him, \"What's your hechreach that that's What's your How do you know that's peshat in the Rambam?\" So he said to him, \"I have a hechreach,\" and he didn't say what. Later after the shiur, they asked him, \"What's your hechreach?\" He said, \"My hechreach was I had to give a shiur.\" So I'm saying the same thing. But anyway, this I'm not asking a kashya, but l'chorah, you could have given another peshat in in in Tosafot. So we have already two kashiyot. One, what's the the the what's the לשמה they didn't know? They didn't דרש, what's that punkt that דרשה they didn't דרש? How does that answer Tosafos's קשיא? Tosafos asked: why epes לשמה they didn't know? So yeah, they didn't דרש, so how's that that? Second kashya is: what's the connection between the first part of Tosafos and the third? Then there's another kashya. Tosafos's קשיא on Rashi, Rashi says you have to ask, is written here in Rashi, right? Rashi on top of דף ב׳ עמוד ב׳, Rashi says: אין בקיאין לשמה, people don't know לשמה, הלכך, the shaliach has to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, וממילא שאילינן ליה, וממילא we ask him אם נכתב לשמה, if it was written לשמה, וממילא we ask. So Tosafos learns from here that we ask. But then Tosafos says I disagree, I hold that you don't have to ask, סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, like Rashi wrote later. So Rashi later on דף ג׳ עמוד א׳, look in the Rashi, לא יגאיס, so Rashi says וממילא שאילינן ליה אי נכתב לשמה ואמר אין, ממילא you ask, דף ג׳ עמוד א׳, Rashi on מסקא לא יגאיס, and then Rashi adds, אי נמי סתמא קא מסהיד, סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. Or you don't have to ask. So Tosafos says I agree with the second pshat of Rashi. That Rashi says over there אי נמי, and the way the מפרשים used pshat in Rashi, that Rashi is מסופק, Rashi has a ספק later. Is it that you have to ask, אי נמי, or סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, that you don't have to ask? And Tosafos says I agree with that side side in Rashi. So here we have like this, you have two Rashi's. One Rashi, the first Rashi, Rashi says ממילא שאילינן ליה, we have to ask. Then Rashi comes up and says, when he repeats it again later, you have to ask, or maybe you don't even have to ask. And like Tosafos says, just that he said בפני נכתב is enough.

Why did Rashi write the possibility of the second pshat later, why didn't he write it before? Why didn't he write right away in the beginning? When the Gemara says that the reason why we say בפני נכתב is אין בקיאין לשמה, so Rashi says וממילא שאילינן ליה, we ask. Or, maybe maybe you don't have to, maybe סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, אישתם. Why did Rashi wait for later? And this is a kushya all the mefarshim ask. Just to give some example of a teirutz, the Pnei Yehoshua gives a simple teirutz, he says like this. In the beginning, the Gemara thought that nobody know Most people don't know lishmah, that's how we learned the hava amina. אין בקיאין לשמה, people don't know. What's the maskana of the Gemara? No, רובאי בקיאין נינהו, most people know. And אפילו ר׳ מאיר, סתם ספרא דדיינא מיגמר גמירי. Most people know, it's a very small percentage that don't know. But nevertheless, the chachamim were choshesh, and one was enough, whatever. So he says like this: when did Rashi decide that there's a possibility that they don't have to be very clear, we don't have to ask them and hear from their mouth they say lishmah, but stam is enough? That's only when the chashash became very small. When it's a small chashash, and then most people know, okay, so then we rely on the word It's possible that we rely on his words בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. But lechatchila, in the beginning of Rashi, when the the Gemara there, the hava amina thought that no one knows, ah, there Rashi wasn't, didn't even have such a sevara. If no one knows, you got to be clear. If no one knows lishmah, there you got to be clearest. So Rashi didn't even bring such a safek, i nami maybe you don't have to ask. And that's why Rashi wrote it later. It's a the Pnei Yehoshua. I have no questions on it. It's good. Say it one more time. Originally, the Gemara thought that no one knows, most people don't know. So, when he comes to say בפני נכתב, he's trying to tell us that it is lishmah, when something that most people don't know. So, Rashi felt that for that, when most people don't know and he's telling us lishmah, you have to be very obvious. You have to say the word lishmah. So, if he doesn't say it, what do you have to do? You have to ask him. But Rashi wouldn't rely on the fact that we assume that when he said, \"I saw it written and signed,\" mistama he meant lishmah, because it's a big problem, lishmah. But later on, when the Gemara came to a new conclusion that most people do know, and the chashash is a very small chashash, for a small chashash Rashi feels possible that we don't even have to ask him, and we rely on the סתמא לשמה. Okay, that's one peshat. The

Rabbi Akiva Eiger has a different peshat. Rabbi Akiva Eiger says like this, the difference between before and later. In the beginning of the Gemara, it's possible that it's not only lishmah, even in Rashi. It's possible that when we say that they don't know lishmah, it means that they don't know many dinim. Later on, at the end, when the Gemara says that most people know lishmah, so Rashi says there's only one chashash. What's the chashash? Yeah? What's Rashi? Maybe it's only lishmah, and what's the chashash? That maybe he found the get that was written for somebody else, but it's only lishmah. Then we know for sure it's only lishmah. So, he says this is the reason why before Rashi did not say maybe you don't have to ask, and you rely on them, and Rashi later, I'll tell you why. He says why. The Ran says, something connects similar to the Mahar"am Shif, the the Ran says what's the סברא סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד? What What's the sevara bichlal? How could you say a sevara when he says, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed,\" ah! It means lishmah. What's the sevara? So, he says because like the a little bit the Maharam Shif, because otherwise, what's he saying? What does he think he's saying? What does he think? Why in the world do I have to come and say, \"I saw it written\"? Who cares? What what accomplish? What do Chachamim want from me? Must be they want lishmah. If it's only one chashash of lishmah, what does he think? Chachamim wanted me for what? What's the problem? There's one problem that they had, that's the only thing I know, is lishmah, and that's what I'm testifying. If there could be more than one problem, and he knows that Chachamim wanted me to verify that this is not problematic, how do you know what problem he means? Maybe he thinks that the reason they want me to say בפני נכתב, I have to tell them it wasn't מחובר. I saw it written properly, or whatever other din. How do you know that when he says, \"I saw it written,\" it means only lishmah? You can't know. But if there's only one problem, then that's what, that's what he means. So that's what he says. Lechatchilah, in the Gemara, when it says, in the beginning of the Gemara, when it says אין בקיאין לשמה, we're not so sure. Tosafos even has such a sevara that it means more things. So Rashi can't say סתמא, by just saying בפני נכתב, it takes care of the problem? Why, because what else did he have in mind? What do you mean what else? How do you know he had in mind lishmah? Maybe he had in mind only מחובר. You can't rely that he meant all the dinim. That's what Rashi says, you have to ask him. And when Rashi says you have to ask him according to the sevara that it means more than one din, shaila, you have to ask him everything. You have to ask him lishmah, you have to ask him מחובר, you have to ask him. Later on, when the maskana is it's only lishmah, there's only one problem, so now you don't have, Rashi says there's a possibility you don't have to ask him. Why? Because he, what does he think? What do they want from me? They want me, they want to verify a certain problem. There's only one problem! And if they want me to verify, mistama it's that. So מסתמא לשמה קא מעשה. That's what the Rabbi Akiva Eiger says. Fine, so we have two two peshatim, there are more peshatim, okay? But I'm going to try to just go back and answer according to what I'm going to say, answer the kushya also. So now we have three kushiyot I'm going to try to answer. One kushya is why does it say, what's the answer of Tosafos that they're not בקיאין, big deal, why is it, what kind of terutz? The second shaila is, what's the kesher with the beginning of Tosafos and the end of Tosafos? And the third she'elah, why does Rashi, when he gives this other possibility of maybe you don't have to ask, but סתמא לשמה קא מעשה, by saying stam it's enough, why does he say it only the second time, later in the Gemara? Why doesn't he say it the first time, in the beginning before? And then there's another she'elah, which is not really a she'elah, but it's a diuk, which is also mentioned in the mefarshim, what's the lashon of Rashi? If Rashi says you have to ask, in the first Rashi, and the second Rashi also, one peshat is you have to ask, why does he say a very strange lashon, וממילא you will ask? Rashi should have said, he says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, and ואנן שיילינן ליה, and we will ask him אם נכתב לשמה, or צריכים למישאל ליה, we have to ask. וממילא, so what is mimeila? Automatically we will ask. Why is mimeila? Okay, so that's like a fourth she'elah, if you want to say. To explain all this, בהקדמת another question. Again a diuk in the lashon, not a kushya, just like the last kushya, not a kushya, but this is a diuk in the lashon also. When Tosafos gives this chidush, that it's not a peshat that they don't know, but the peshat is they don't accept the derashah, what did he say? Tosafos writes like this: ובכל הלכות גיטין בקיאין, אלא דהא דרשה ד״וכתב לה לשמה״ אינה נראית להם עיקר דרשה. Also a מאדנע לשון. Should have said, all the derashot they accept, and the derashah of lishmah they didn't accept. What do you mean, they didn't accept that this is an ikar derashah? What's this ikar derashah? As if they accepted it, but not as an ikar? What do you mean? Or they accept it or not! So Tosafot says they didn't accept it. Fine, we can understand that. אין בקיאין means they didn't accept it. What's the ikar, they didn't, עיקר דרשה? You know what that means? כאילו, אלס א עיקר דרשה not, but a shtikel derasha, yeah? What in the world does it mean? So I want to say a pshat in Tosafot, pshat in Tosafot like this: be'emet, they definitely accepted the derasha. Like I said, this is the easiest derasha of all the derashot. וכתב לה, means it's an extra word, and there's no other way to learn it but לה לשמה. How could you say they didn't accept it? The chidush is, this is one din that we could accept partially. When we talk about לשמה, if someone will ask you, what is the pshat a get is written שלא לשמה? There are two types of שלא לשמה. One, it's written for another woman. You can have a get written for another woman, and the word לה will be דרשנט: לה, ולא לאחרת. Has to be written for her, not for somebody else. That's one type of שלא לשמה, written for another woman, not for her. Then there's another שלא לשמה, that even if it's not written for another woman, but that's not written for her, it's written סתם, להתלמד. If a person practices and writes a get, and happens to put in this name, he didn't write it for somebody else, but he didn't write it for her either. That's also also called שלא לשמה. But there are two levels of שלא לשמה: one is a level of not only is it not for her, it happened to be for somebody else; and there's another level of לשמה, that שלא לשמה, that it's not written for her. Which one of the two is worse? Obviously, if it's written for somebody else, that's worse than if it's written for nobody. Bichlal we have a rule, whenever we have a derash, we have a pasuk, and the pasuk is merabeh, teaches us a certain din, and we have two choices: to teach us a bigger chidush, or to teach us a smaller chidush, which one do we accept usually? The smaller. You're not going to go jump to the far, how do you know it means The smaller one for sure. Maybe the one not as long as you don't know, so you can't דרשן. So when we come to a derash of וכתב לה, there's two choices: we could say that the pasuk comes to teach you that it can't be written for another woman, that's a that's a chidush of the pasuk, otherwise if not for the pasuk we could say maybe you could, as long as it's the right name you could take it, but then you could say it comes to a further chidush, that it's not only telling you that it can't be written for another woman, it can't even be written stam, it can't even be written להתלמד, it can't be written to practice. So when you're going to drash the drash, there's only one word לה, we can one drash, which drash would you accept lechatchila? The smaller chidush. So what would you accept? That the Torah tells you, we drash the word לה, it tells you it cannot be written for somebody else. But who says that the Torah tells you that if it's written stam it's no good? Pashut is you shouldn't do that, you pashut you take the smaller drash. This is what the בני מדינת הים learned, that's Tosafos's pshat. Tosafos doesn't say that they didn't hold of the whole drash. First of all, why not? And second of all, this drash is the easiest drash. And also, what's Tosafos's teirutz? Tosafos didn't answer anything, why epes this drash they didn't hold. Now we understand Tosafos's teirutz. This is a case of a drash where makes a lot of sense you shouldn't accept it. In other words, when Tosafos says that they didn't accept the drash of lishmah, that doesn't mean completely. Tosafos says they didn't accept עיקר דרשה. They didn't take this as a complete drasha the way we learn. We learn that the word לה comes to teach you not only that it can't be for somebody else, it can't even be written stam. They didn't accept that drash. So there's a certain level of lishmah that to them it didn't matter, and to us it does. What was that level? Not the regular. If it's written for somebody else, they knew that, they drash that, they drash lishmah. There was a drash that they didn't they didn't accept this drash that it has to be written up for her. In other words, we דרש לה for her means it has to be written for her. They דרש לה not for somebody else. Precisely, if you want to put it, what's our machloket between בני מדינת הים that they It's a machloket, they didn't accept it. The machloket is when we look at the דרש, it has to be written לה, is it a חיוב or a שלילה? Is it telling you it has to be written for her? Now if you say it has to be written for her, this also obviously includes סתם wouldn't be good. And it's not called two extra דרש, because they taytsh the לה, simple words. We דרש לה for her, automatically for her means it can't be for somebody else, it can't even be סתם, because if it's סתם it's not for her. Because we learn לה is חיוב, yes. They will learn, which is also a possibility, which we know they're wrong, but that's how they learned, לה means the עיקר not for somebody else. But the דרש of לה לשמה for her, that they didn't דרש. So it comes out there's a there's an argument let me just finish. There's an argument in the עיקר דרשה. What's the עיקר what's the נקודה of the דרש? We say the נקודה of the דרש is לה for her, and they say the נקודה of the דרש is not for somebody else. Yeah, what were you going to ask? The nafka mina is very pashut.

What happens if the guy writes a גט להתלמד, a guy writes a גט סתם, is it kasher or not? If you say it has to be for her, it's not for her. If you say it doesn't have to be for her, it's just not allowed to be for somebody else, this is not for somebody else, the גט would be kasher. So according to this peshat, if we're learning this peshat in Tosafot, what is the חשש that the חכמים had when they said you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? It can't be like Rashi! Look, this is דווקא Tosafot. When the Gemara at the end says רבנן הוא דאצריך, that the רבנן said that you have to say because we're worried about lishmah lishmah. What does Rashi say? What are we worried about? You might find a גט that was written for somebody else, had the same name, and he found it and gave it. According to Tosafos, is that a chashash? No! Because everyone, they agree that this is no good, it's written for somebody else. According to Tosafos, what's the chashash? Maybe it was written stam. That's why if you look in Tosafos, Tosafos לשיטתם, look in Tosafos דרבנן at the end, what does Tosafos say?

What is the chashash in the Gemara? Look at the end. ואמרי, דהאי דהוצרכו רבנן הכא היינו כדי שלא יערער הבעל ויאמר שכתבו הסופר כדי להתלמד, והוא החתים עליו עדים שהוא לא בקי בלשמה. This is the chashash according to Tosafos. The other chashash is not the chashash. According to Tosafos, the chashash is only this one thing: maybe it was written להתלמד סתם, and that's something that they didn't, they didn't accept. But Tosafos can't accept Rashi's pshat. So here is a different chashash, according to Tosafos, because, and this answers Tosafos' kushya, Tosafos asks why if it's lishmah they don't know? So Tosafos says they did know, they just didn't derash it. And it makes sense that this is an exception to the rule, to make a derash halfway, not the עיקר דרשה. So their derash was that it can't be written for somebody else, so there's no chashash that maybe you found a גט that was written for somebody else, because everyone knows that's no good. All בני מדינת הים knew this rule. Not only רוב, nobody had a problem. What some people didn't know, even that some people, was that derash. They thought that if it's written stam, it is okay. Ah? Is Rashi? No, no, Tosafos! Tosafos, the she'eilah is maybe it was written stam, because according to Tosafot this is, this is the only thing. So here we understand pshat in Tosafot. Based on this, we'll understand the המשך from the beginning of Tosafot to the end of Tosafot. What's the second half of Tosafot? The second half of Tosafot is how does the word בפני נכתב mean lishmah? So Rashi says it means you have to ask, Tosafot brings. And Tosafot says סתמא לשמה, comes out like Rashi says later. So let me say this. Me darf halten kop. This is not simple. Me darf halten kop to see the שיטות.

According to Rashi, we just finished saying, what's the chashash? Maybe he found a get written for somebody else. So you know what? If a guy comes and says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם without adding the word lishmah, don't we know that he didn't find the get someplace? Just the words בפני נכתב ובפני, the shaliach comes, says, I was there when it was written, I was there when it was signed, so obviously the guy didn't find the get that was written for somebody else, didn't find a get. So that itself says it was written lishmah! So according to Rashi, I want to say, Rashi says you don't have to ask. Rashi says סתמא לשמה קא מעסיק. It's סתמא לשמה, for that reason. And I'm going to show soon that Tosafot learns a different reason. But this is the reason. So again, keep in mind, according to Rashi, that we said he argues on Tosafot, Tosafot says the chashash is maybe it was written להתלמד, maybe it was written just סתם. Rashi says the chashash is maybe he found another get. The fact that he comes and says בפני נכתב is enough. איי Rashi says you have to ask? So I want to say like this. So

look at the second Rashi. Let's look the words inside. ממילא שאילינן ליה אי נכתב לשמה, we ask him, ואמר אין. אי נמי, סתמא לשמה קא מעסיק. So the mefarshim learned that Rashi has a safek here. Maybe, maybe you have to ask, maybe it's סתמא. I want to say a different pshat, which is a little radical. אי נמי here doesn't mean maybe. Read it together. ממילא we'll ask, אי נמי means אפילו you didn't, so also no problem. Because Rashi holds you don't have to ask, there's no need to ask, because the whole chashash is maybe you found it. That's the whole chashash. But if the guy comes and says, I saw it written, you know he didn't find it. Now, where do we find that the word אי נמי means not another pshat, but אפילו? Two Rashis before, a few Rashis, look at the רש״י כיון דמידק דייק, where the Gemara says that if the guy says בפני נכתב, even if the husband comes to be מערער, we won't listen to him. So what does Rashi say? That the shaliach knows what he's doing, ויודע שברצון מגרשה, he knows that the husband ברצון, ולא יערער, ולא יבוא ויערער, he won't be מערער anymore, אי נמי עירער אינו נאמן. What does Rashi mean? Rashi doesn't mean or maybe he won't be believed, he says one pshat is maybe the husband will be believed, can't be, because the Gemara won't make sense over there. The Gemara's whole point is that they won't be believed. So the Rashi's לשון אי נמי אי נמי, actually in my Gemara here on the side it says that there is a girsa in that Rashi the word אפילו. But that doesn't do me any good. Huh? The Rashi on top, the first narrow line on דף ג׳ עמוד א׳. So, pshat when you say אי נמי, Rashi definitely means אי נמי means אפילו. That means, first of all, we know he won't be מערער, and אפילו he will, we don't care. Same thing here! Rashi says ממילא שיילינן. We ask, but אי נמי אי נמי לשמה, אי נמי אפילו not, who cares? Even if we don't ask. And that's the reason why Rashi uses the word ממילא שיילינן. Doesn't say צריכים לשאל, we have to ask. Because you don't really. Rashi just says the nature of things is if a guy comes says בפני נכתב, and we're interested in lishmah, the peshat is we will ask. But it's not a halachah! We don't have to. Because even if you don't ask, סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. Which, by the way, answers Tosafot, okay, one second. Yeah? If they what? You can't use it. No, he thought you could use it, the guy thought. That means I saw it, no, there's nothing to add, he says I saw the get written, I saw the get signed. So obviously it wasn't found. No, he found a פארטיקע גט. Peshat is he found a get, a שמי כשמו, it's a פארטיקע, a finished get, and he used it. It was made for somebody else and he used it. No. No, he says I saw it written, means I saw the get written. Usually when you write it, you write it all together. I saw it signed. Now, by the way, I want to say that that's the reason why he said the word mimeila, and this explains why Rashi only says it later, not before. Rashi adds this vort that you don't have to ask only after he quotes at the end that the chashash is maybe you found a get. In the beginning in Rashi it doesn't say that the chashash that you found, the chashash is it wasn't lishmah. Now could be all kinds of not lishmah, maybe it was written stam. But after Rashi says that the chashash is maybe you found it, now Rashi says, if that's the חשש, בפני נכתב itself tells you the peshat. You don't have to say lishmah. But before that Rashi didn't say it. Because before that the chashash is davka that you found it, ממילא בפני נכתב doesn't mean much. Rashi nevertheless writes even over there ממילא שיילינן and doesn't write you have to ask. Rashi is already in the beginning meramez to the end of the Gemara, that the end is that you don't really have to ask. But there you can't say it yet, so he writes that you should ask, but he doesn't write in the format: ask. Mimela we will ask. But the fact that you write mimela you will ask itself shows that you don't really have to ask. Cuz what's mimela? You have to ask, you have to ask. But he didn't want to do it. Yeah? Because most people know. Most people know לשמה. Maskana of the Gemara. So could be, what could be? So Rashi will learn that it's not סתם, because most people know לשמה, and the סופר, a רב סופר that didn't know, why would a סופר write סתם and then give it? I mean, how could you get it? It's a further, a much further chashash, we're not חייש. But Tosafos says, Tosafos says that he didn't know. Yeah, yeah, right, right, true. Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. Okay. And obviously if you learn the way I just said pshat in Rashi, two both Tosafoss kushyos fall off. What were those Tosafoss kushyos on Rashi? Why it can't be that they should ask? Because it doesn't say anywhere that you should ask. Also, why doesn't it say the difference of Rabbah and Rava? I'm telling you why! Because ממילא שיילינן doesn't mean that. It means that you would automatically ask, but not that you have to.

Rashi never meant it. Rashi just didn't say it clearly, because over there it's possible not like that. And Tosafos himself takeh finished off כדי לפרש רש״י בשלום. Okay, so listen. So it comes out that if the chashash is maybe you found a get, when you say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, just that takes care of the problem. According to Tosafos, according to Tosafos the chashash is not that you found it, because that everyone knows that that's no good, so we're not חייש. What are we חייש? Maybe he wrote it להתלמד, maybe he wrote it סתם. Now if he wrote it סתם, how would בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם work? Why would that be good enough? Huh? Yeah, but he wrote it. Could be that the guy wrote it להתלמד and he was there! See, maybe the guy found it, but if you say להתלמד, he wrote it, why can't it be I saw it there? And that's all, but how do you know, how does the words itself mean, mean לשמה? See, according to Rashi, how does it mean lishmah? It means lishmah because we're worried, not about the lishmah is what we're worried about, but we're worried maybe he didn't see it be written. He found it, wasn't written there when he was around. So he says, \"No, I was there.\" Okay, we take care of the problem. But if you say it's written להתלמד, that's the chashash, maybe he was there when it was written להתלמד. So there אלא מאי? So what's the peshat in תוספות סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד? So Tosafos says there is nevertheless, like the Mahar"am Shif said, we still say he means lishmah. Why does he mean lishmah? Because why else would he say it? What does he think to himself? He thinks, they told me to watch the get, to watch the chatimah. Why in the world did they do that? Mistama there is something they want me to do. The only thing I know that they're worried about is lishmah. So that's how Tosafos could learn סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. But be'etzem, there's a problem. If the whole chashash is that we're afraid להתלמד, the words themselves don't mean it. The The words doesn't prove anything. This is the hemshech in Tosafos. Tosafos finished saying that what's the peshat they אין בקיאין לשמה? That they didn't learn. And what did we say? Tosafos learns the way I said peshat in Tosafos, obviously, how else? What does Tosafos mean? That they didn't learn they didn't learn the this half of lishmah. They didn't learn the din of lishmah that להתלמד is no good. If they didn't learn that להתלמד is good, they That's the only problem. So how does בפני נכתב take care of it? The only way it'll take care, you know how? If you ask! If you ask, then it won't be a problem. They, cuz of בפני נכתב, the words themselves don't mean anything because that chashash is maybe it was להתלמד, and they takeh was standing The guy the shaliach was standing there, but you have to ask. If you'll ask, he'll answer you. So Tosafos is coming to say, as if it's asking a kushya on himself, after I finished saying that the peshat is they didn't learn lishmah, which, as I explained, means they didn't learn that להתלמד is a problem, and that's the only problem, comes Tosafos and says, see, by this, how does lishmah how does בפני נכתב work? And it must be the only way that it'll work because you'll ask. Zogt er, un azoy zogt take Rashi, but I don't I don't understand it, and that pshat can't be good. So it's basically like a kashya on himself. According to me that we're saying that it's only להתלמד that's a problem, so then memeila, the בפני נכתב will only work because we ask. As Rashi says, ולא נראה, it doesn't look like it. Zogt Tosafot, I'll tell you. אין הכי נמי, the words ל- the words בפני נכתב doesn't say is is, but since that's the only thing he could think of to mean, when he says בפני נכתב, what does he mean? He means lishmah. Tosafot learns like that. So it comes out, Rashi and Tosafot are really learning the same thing. Both I'm saying learn that you don't have to ask, but for different reasons. According to Rashi, you don't have to ask, why? Not because he's telling us lishmah. He's take not saying lishmah. What's he saying? That I, it wasn't found. We, on our own, say if it wasn't found, there is no more problem. The problem was we were afraid it was found. Memeila, we know it's lishmah. According to Tosafot, why is it Why is סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד? Because when he says בפני נכתב, he means lishmah, because there's nothing else that he could mean. But the hemshech of Tosafot is good. Now, the

Gemara later on asks a she'eilah. Rava asks to Rabbah, according to you that the whole reason is lishmah, why don't we say lishmah? Now, according to Rashi, according to Rashi, the kashya is a good kashya. Even though from the fact that he testifies בפני נכתב נחתם, we already know, but he never said the word He never said to us lishmah. All he said to us was what? It wasn't found. We take from that that since it wasn't found, then we understand it's lishmah. But the whole purpose, what we want to know What do we care if it was found or not? We're worried about lishmah. So the Gemara has a good kashya: אין הכי נמי, you're telling me fine, that when he says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, which means it wasn't found, so there's no chashash, and that indicates to us it was לשמה, but why doesn't he say בפירוש לשמה? That's the Gemara's kushya: let him say לשמה, that's the main thing. According to Tosafos, the kushya is much weaker. Why? 'Cause according to Tosafos, when he says בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, what are we saying? He is saying לשמה! There's nothing else he has to say. According to Rashi, that's not the reason. According to Rashi, he's not saying it's לשמה. We we understand since it wasn't found, 'cause he saw it written, then we know it's לשמה. So the kushya, so say לשמה. But according to Tosafos, why do you have to say לשמה if what he's saying means לשמה? That's why Tosafos asks right away the kushya, right after he brings his thing that סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, פרעגט תוספות, והא דאמר לקמן מי קתני בפני נכתב תני לשמה קאי, סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, and according to Tosafos a kushya is a good kushya. What is the Gemara bothered, why it doesn't say לשמה? סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד, the word בפני נכתב is לשמה. And it's not like Rashi, that it's not לשמה, but it it's still enough, because it tells you to we we take out from there that it was לשמה. According to Tosafos, he is saying לשמה. So why does the Gemara ask the word לשמה is missing? So Rashi said Tosafos answers, מכל מקום, כיוון דעיקר תקנה משום לשמה הוא, הווה ליה למימר בהדיא. Because after all, סוף כל סוף it's לשמה. So even though the words בפני נכתב mean as if he would say לשמה, but the Gemara is asking, why are you so why are you so zhalevet in Yiddish, I don't know how you say in English, how are you why are you so stingy and skip a word lishmah, if that's the main thing? Even though it means good. According to Rashi, lechatchilah the kashya is a good kashya, because he never said lishmah. It's just a something that we take out. So now we see the whole המשך of Tosafot, and everything fits in mamash perfect. Rashi, the kashya of Tosafot is why is there specially lishmah they didn't know? Tosafot answers, they did know. They knew everything. They knew lishmah, too. But lishmah is the only derashah that we could have two parts, and there there's a certain part in lishmah that they didn't darshan'd. And that's the part that we're afraid of, and we're afraid of maybe only maybe it was written stam. Then Tosafot continues: if we're afraid it's only written stam, then I have a problem, that so by saying בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, they're not proving anything. Maybe it was written stam? So how does that prove? Ela mai, you have to ask him! But I don't like when they have to ask. I don't like the pshat, I have a re'ayah you don't have to ask. So then, how does בפני נכתב work? So Tosafot says: nevertheless, בפני נכתב works, סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. Why? So we said like the פני like the Maharam Shif says, because mistama when they said it, that's what they mean. What else could they mean? There's nothing else to worry about. But then, so Tosafot says: if that's exactly what they mean, so what did the Gemara wonder later on why you don't say the word lishmah? So he says: nevertheless, the Gemara wants to know, since sof kol sof the main kavanah of why we want him to say it is lishmah, so why are you stingy not to put in the word lishmah? So that's the reason that Rava says, I disagree with Rabbah. And Rabbah answers his reason, because we don't want to cut off if there's too many words, whatever the reason is. But the whole המשך of Tosafot fits, and all the kashyot are answered. First kashya was: what's the maalah of why עפעס לשמה they don't know, they didn't learn, and what's the maalah of the teirutz? That's a big teirutz. Then the kashya: what's the המשך of Tosafos? So, right there we answered the המשך of Tosafos. Why does Rashi say ממילא שליח, and then later on he says both? I'm saying Rashi never meant, all he means, lechatchilah he learns that סתמא לשמה קא מסהיד. Why didn't he say it in the beginning? Because there we weren't muchrach to say it yet. That's why he said it later. Why does the Tosafos use the word they didn't like עיקר דרשה of lishmah? Now it makes sense. The ikar is the problem. They דרשנ'ד לשמה, the עיקר דרשה they didn't like, that which they didn't accept, that they didn't they didn't accept. And now we know the end of Tosafos, why Tosafos is so bothered, how come later the Gemara does ask that she'eilah, why lishmah? Because according to Tosafos, the Gemara shouldn't have a kashya. And the answer is: still, that's the ikar, that's why the Gemara asks.