Implied Question: Other documents are also called a "Get," as the Mishnah states later (34b) that witnesses only sign on a Get because of "Tikun ha'Olam" - "the fixing of the world." The Mishnah there is talking about all documents, not just Gitin.

The Gemara (64a) also states in a Beraisa that, "the Halachah is the same by Gitin," and the Gemara there explains that it is talking about monetary documents (not a regular Get). (Accordingly, why didn't the Mishnah explicitly remark that it is only discussing a woman's Get, not all documents?)

Answer: The Mishnah here did not have to explain that it was only discussing women's Gitin, as in most places that the word "Gitin" is discussed it refers to a woman's Get.

Implied Question: We customarily write a Get in twelve lines. (Why?)

Answer (#1): Rabeinu Tam says that this is because the numerical equivalent of the word Get is twelve (Gimmel = 3, Tes = 9).

Answer (#2): The Ri said that he heard in the name of Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Sadya Gaon that as the Torah describes a Get as a "Sefer Kerisus" - "a scroll of cutting off" it is written in the same amount of lines that separate between the five Chumashim. The Gemara in Bava Basra (13b) says that four lines must separate between each Sefer in the Torah.

The separation between Bamidbar and Devarim is not counted, as Devarim only reiterates what has already been stated in other places in the Torah. (There are therefore the three separations between Bereishis and Shemos, Shemos and Vayikra, and Vayikra and Bamidbar, totaling twelve lines.)

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not say, "someone who brings a Get from Chutz la'Aretz," as the Gemara states later (7b) that "someone who brings a Get on a boat is akin to bringing a Get from Chutz la'Aretz." (Why not?)

Answer: Chutz la'Aretz implies all land outside of Eretz Yisrael, even including Rekem and Cheger. This is why the Mishnah proceeds to use the terminology, "from overseas," implying that it means places that are far away, as in a case where "a woman's husband went overseas" (not denoting places that are close, but geographically outside of Eretz Yisrael).

This is also like the Gemara in Shevuos (41b) where someone says that he paid somebody else in front of two witnesses who went overseas. This terminology is specifically used to exclude Rekem and Cheger that Rabban Gamliel states are included in Chutz la'Aretz regarding the law of our Mishnah.

Observation: This implies that Jews live in Rekem (as someone might bring a Get from that community).

Implied Question: The Mishnah in Nidah (56b) states that all (Nidah-type) blood stains that come from Rekem are pure (as they come from Nochriyos, whose blood is not impure). Rebbi Yehudah says they are impure, because the people there are converts who are making a mistake.

Answer: This is because the stains that come from there are from Nochriyos, as Jews hide their stains. Rebbi Yehudah says that they are impure because those who act as Nochriyos there are actually converts who are mistaken (and don't know that they should hide their impure clothes). Everyone agrees that Jews lived there.

Implied Question: Why mention that this even applies to a Get that was brought from Kfar Ludim "to Lud?" The focus of the Mishnah is where the Get was brought from, not where it was brought to!

Answer (#1): The Ri says that the Mishnah mentioned Lud in order to tell us that even though it was called Kfar Ludim because there were constantly people from Lud in the area, even so a person bringing a Get from Kfar Ludim to Lud must say that it was written and signed before him. It is not considered to have the status of Lud itself (which was in Eretz Yisrael).

Answer (#2): Rabeinu Meir explained that Rebbi Eliezer was merely mentioning the name of his city, as the Gemara in Sanhedrin (32b) says, "after Rebbi Eliezer to Lud!"

Question: This does not appear correct to the Ri. He certainly would not have to mention his city for this reason, just as the Tana in our Mishnah did not have to mention that the case we are discussing is bringing Gitin to Eretz Yisrael. It is obvious!

Question: Rabeinu Tam asked that Ashkelon is part of Eretz Yisrael. (Accordingly, why is the Mishnah implying that it is part of Chutz la'Aretz?) The Pasuk in Sefer Yehoshua (13:3) states that "This is the land that was left (to conquer)...the Ashdodi (people of Ashdod) and the Ashkeloni." The Pasuk continues that they fell to Bnei Yisrael as an inheritance as you commanded, and afterwards they captured it as stated in Sefer Shoftim, "and Yehudah captured Azah, Ashkelon, and its borders."

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the ones who went up from Bavel did not recapture Ashkelon. This is evident from the Gemara in Chulin (7a) regarding Beis Sha'an, where it states that many cities were captured by those who went up from Egypt but were not recaptured by those who came back from Bavel. Therefore, there were no Torah scholars and no Rabbinical courts in Ashkelon.

Question: However, this line of reasoning is difficult. Our Mishnah implies that Rekem and Cheger were outside of Eretz Yisrael. However, the Pasuk in Yehoshua states that they sanctified Kedesh (Hebrew for "Rekem," an aramaic name) in the mountains of Naftali.

One cannot say that the ones who came back from Bavel did not capture it, as in the Sifri in Parshas Eikev it lists Rekem and Cheger amongst the cities that were recaptured by the one who came back from Bavel.

Answer: It is possible to answer that there were two cities called Rekem and two called Cheger. The Rekem and Cheger that is stated as the aramaic translation of "Kadesh and Shur" where Avraham Avinu settled (Bereishis 20:1) were in the lands of Avimelech, king of the Philistines. Those were cities that were indeed in Eretz Yisrael, as Avraham and Yitzchak were living in Eretz Yisrael.

Sefer Yehoshua also implies that the land of the Philistines was in Eretz Yisrael. This means that Rekem and Cheger were in the west, as the river of the Philistines was the western border of Eretz Yisrael.

The Rekem and Cheger discussed by our Mishnah were in the east, as stated in our Mishnah that Rekem has the status of the eastern border of Eretz Yisrael in regards to Gitin (and Rekem was considered outside the border).

Question: (Ako, however, seems to present a problem.) Ako was apparently captured by the ones who arrived from Bavel, as is apparent from the statement in Kesuvos (112a) that Rebbi Aba kissed the rocks of Ako. It is also apparent from the Gemara later (76b), as the Gemara asks on its' implication that Ako was not part of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks that this is impossible, as it was well known that when Rabbanim would part from each other they would do so in Ako, as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside of Eretz Yisrael (unless it is for the purposes of performing a Mitzvah). (Accordingly, those who did not have such a purpose would not be able to leave Ako, implying that it was clearly part of Eretz Yisrael. Why, then, is there an argument regarding Ako, implying it is outside of Eretz Yisrael?)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this is not difficult, as Ako was half in Eretz Yisrael and half in Chutz la'Aretz, as is apparent from the Yerushalmi. Our Mishnah is discussing the half in Chutz la'Aretz. (The other half is clearly like Eretz Yisrael.)

Implied Question: The Gemara (76b) did not answer the question (see (e) above) it had on the Mishnah in this fashion. The Mishnah said that if someone says, "If I do not come back in thirty days your Get is valid," and he came back to Ako, and then returned overseas in the middle of the thirty days, his condition is negated (as he came back). The Gemara could have answered that this does not show that Ako is part of Eretz Yisrael, as he could have returned to the half of Ako that is Chutz la'Aretz.

Answer: This is because when someone leaves Eretz Yisrael he first encounters the Eretz Yisrael side of the border. The Mishnah's statement "he arrived in Ako," implies the beginning of Ako (which is Eretz Yisrael).

Question (#1): However, the Gemara later is difficult to the Ri. The Gemara (6b) says Rebbi Ila came before him (Rebbi Yishmael) and said, "Isn't Kfar Sisai swallowed in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael and closer to Tzipori than Ako?" Why is this question relevant? Ako is certainly better even though it is further from Tzipori than Kfar Sisai because half of Ako itself is Eretz Yisrael!

Question (#2): Additionally, how could the Gemara deduce later (8a) that someone who sells his slave to Surya essentially has set him free, from the fact that the Mishnah states that Ako is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin? The Gemara's understanding was that it specifically stated that it is like Eretz Yisrael regarding Gitin, implying that it is not like Eretz Yisrael for slaves. This means that certainly Surya, which is further from Eretz Yisrael, has a status of Chutz la'Aretz regarding slaves!

On the contrary, Surya is better than the half of Ako that is considered Chutz la'Aretz, as this opinion holds that the capturing of an individual is also considered a capture, giving Surya the laws of Eretz Yisrael while the Chutz la'Aretz half of Ako does not have these laws!

This is why the Gemara asks if selling a slave to Surya is like selling a slave to Eretz Yisrael being that Surya was captured, or perhaps because its earth is still considered impure it has the status of Chutz la'Aretz?

Answer: The Ri says that even in the side of Eretz Yisrael one must say that the Get was written and signed before him. This is because it is located at the end of the border, far away from the regular settlements, Yeshivos, and Rabbinical courts of Eretz Yisrael. This answer also can be said for Ashkelon, Rekem, and Cheger (in questions (a) and (c).

The Gemara therefore asks regarding Kfar Sisai that it is close to Tzipori, which was a main settlement in Ertez Yisrael more than Ako that was far from the main settlements. Although part of Ako was indeed part of Eretz Yisrael and Kfar Sisai was Chutz la'Aretz, even so the Gemara extrapolates correctly that because Kfar Sisai was geographically "swallowed" into Eretz Yisrael it is as if it is part of Eretz Yisrael. This is in accordance with the position of Rabban Gamliel, who says that inhabitants of cities that were swallowed in to Eretz Yisrael were commonly found among the people of Eretz Yisrael, and were therefore learned. (Therefore, Gitin brought from there do not require one to say that it was written and signed before him.)

Question: The Yerushalmi says that if someone sells his slave to Ako, he goes free. Rebbi Shimon, the father of Rebbi Yudan says, even if he sells him from one part of Ako to another. Accordingly, if this is even so if he sells him from one part of Ako considered Eretz Yisrael to another part considered Eretz Yisrael (as implied in the statement above), why should he go free in such a case? It should be considered as if he sold him from one place in Chutz la'Aretz to another place in Chutz la'Aretz (and he should not go free)!

Answer: Although it is considered like Chutz la'Aretz in contrast to the main settlements of Eretz Yisrael, it is still considered Eretz Yisrael in contrast to Chutz la'Aretz.

Implied Question: What happens when nobody claims the document is forged, and why?

Answer: However, whenever the husband does not come and claim that the Get is forged, she can marry based on the Get and we do not suspect it is forged. This is because Chazal were lenient when it came to leaving a woman unable to marry. However, when a monetary document is presented to Beis Din and the person whose money is being claimed is not present, or only his orphans or those who bought fields from him are present, Beis Din will claim for them that the document is possibly forged (and its authenticity must be ascertained).

Otherwise, one would not be able to live! Every person could write up his own loan document and sign names of "witnesses," and then go and claim money from the person's orphans or people to whom he sold fields!

However, one cannot prove from here that even if we will not claim for them that the document is forged we will claim that their father must have paid the money. The reasoning behind doing so is that because their father would be believed to say he paid, as he could have claimed the document was forged, we should also claim for the orphans/buyers that he paid.

This is because we hold like the following opinion in Bava Basra (70b) regarding an investment document. (The case is where Reuven gave Shimon money to invest for which he would receive half the profit, and Shimon then died. Reuven demands that the orphans pay him back the money he gave their father.) This opinion says that Reuven can swear that he did not receive payment, and can collect half of the money that he claims is owed him by the orphans.

Observation: However, it is possible to prove that we claim the document is forged for them, as otherwise every person could write up his own sale or document regarding a present and sign "witnesses," and then go and claim money from the person's orphans or people to whom he sold fields! In such a case there is no claim that "I paid!"

Additionally, we can deduce from a Gemara in Bava Basra (174b) that we claim for orphans that the document of the claimant is possibly forged. Rav Huna there states that if a person on his deathbed was Makdish all of his property and added that he owes someone a Manah he is believed (and that money is given to the person he names, not to Hekdesh). This is because it is almost certain that a person would not conspire to take away money from Hekdesh.

The Gemara asks, does a person conspire to take away money from his children? Rav and Shmuel both say that if a person on his deathbed states that he owes someone a Manah, it only must be given over if the person commanded, "Give (him the money)!" If he didn't command that the money should be given over, the money is not given. The Gemara there concludes that Rav Huna (above) is discussing a document that was already ascertained to be authentic, while Rav and Shmuel are not discussing such a document. Accordingly, only if the person on his deathbed said, "Give!" is the document considered authentic. This means that he did not say, "Give!" as he didn't want his sons to have to swear.

If we do not claim that the claimant's document is forged for orphans, the claimant would collect anyway with this document, whether or not it was authenticated! It cannot be stated that we would claim that he already paid the money in this case, as Rav holds that if someone agrees that he wrote a document he does not have to authenticate the document.

Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia (13a) says that Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan argue regarding a financial document that was found and did not have within it a clause of responsibility. The Rabbanan say that it should not be given back to its owner, while Rebbi Meir says it should. Shmuel there says that the case is when the person described in the document as owing money says that he does not. Accordingly, even Rebbi Meir who says to give it back just means that he should give it back to the claimant as paper, not because it has value as a document.

According to the Rabbanan, why shouldn't it be given back as mere paper? There is nothing to suspect! If the claimant verifies that the document is authentic, he is right! If he doesn't, the other party will not lose if it is given back to him! Therefore, it must be that we suspect that the claimant will take this document to Beis Din when the defendant would not be there, and it must be that we would not claim that the document was forged

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Rabbanan's reason is not because he will pull out the document when the defendant is not present. We would still claim for him at that point that the document was already paid. Shmuel says in Bava Basra (154b) that according to Rebbi Meir, even if someone admits that he wrote a document the other party might still have to ascertain that it is authentic. Accordingly, their father would have still been believed to say that he paid, as he could have otherwise claimed that it was forged.

Even though we do not claim that a document is forged for orphans which effectively takes away the Migu (believe he paid as he could have said it was forged), because their father would have had this Migu we can make the claim for them. This is because we hold in Bava Basra (70b) that a person can swear that he did not receive payment from the deceased, and can collect half of the money that he claims is owed him by the orphans.

It must be that the reason that the Rabbanan say the document should not be returned is because it has lost credibility because it was lost and the borrower is claiming that it was forged. Such a document cannot be used to collect from the borrower, even if there are witnesses who will ascertain the document is authentic. We suspect that the document was forged, like in the case in Bava Basra where a person put his hand on the bar holding the pail used to draw water from the well (enabling him to imitate a shaky signature). This explanation is also implied by the Rashbam there.

However, if there is no borrower present and the lender found people to verify the document, the document can be given back to him. If the borrower then later claims the document is forged (after it has been verified), this will not help him, as it has already been declared valid.

Question (#1): What is special about the Halachah that a Get has to be written "for her" over other Halachos that people who are not expert in Gitin would be mistaken about, such as not writing a Get on something attached to the ground, making mistakes in his and her name, and a Get that is written during the day and signed at night?

One cannot suggest that this is used because it is a more common case, as sometimes he will find a Get that has his and her name, and he just sends it to her without realizing that it has to be written "for her." It might also be considered common as scribes who write Gitin might have merely written his or name in a standard Get (without being explicitly instructed to do so by the husband). One might therefore suggest that the Gemara is merely using this as one example of a Halachah of Gitin that can commonly make a Get invalid, and so too they are not trusted regarding the other Halachos of Gitin.

This suggestion is incorrect. This is apparent from the Gemara later (9b) that says that there are three ways that women's Gitin are similar to the documents used to free slaves. The Gemara there asks, what about the law that a women's Get has to be written "for her?" This is also a similarity between the two, as the document of a slave also must be written "for him!" The Gemara continues that according to Rabah there is no question, as the reason that one must say regarding a Get that it was written and signed before him is because it must be written "for her." However, the Gemara asks, how does Rava answer this question?

Additionally, the Gemara asks, both according to Rabah and Rava there is the problem of a Get that is attached to the ground (that is not mentioned)! This implies that according to Rabah the rule that the Get has to be "for her" is what is referred to in our Mishnah about bringing a Get, not the law regarding a Get that is connected to the ground.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that in all of the laws of Gitin people generally are learned (in Chutz la'Aretz). However, they do not agree that the derivation from the Pasuk, "And you should write for her," clearly implies that it must be written with her in mind. Accordingly, when Rabah says that "they are not expert in Gitin," he means that they are not mindful enough about this derivation. When the Gemara later says, "And after they became learned," it means after they accepted that this was a regular valid derivation from the Pasuk (that must be adhered to).

Explanation (Rashi): Rashi (DH "Lefi") explains that (once he says it was written and signed before him) we ask him if he noticed that the Get was written for her, and he says yes.

Question (#1): This does not seem correct, as the Gemara never mentions we have to ask him anything.

Question (#2): Additionally, if this was the case, let the Gemara say that the difference between Rava and Rabah is whether or not we have to ask him this question!

Answer: The Ri answers that he (the person bringing back the Get) is assumed to be testifying that the Get was written for her, as Rashi himself says later.

Implied Question: This that the Gemara asks later, "Does the Mishnah state he must say that it was written and signed in front of me for her?" (This implies that our Mishnah is not directly discussing that it was "for her." How, then, can the Ri and Rashi say that it is included in his testimony?)

Answer: Even though included in his testimony is that it was written for her, being that Rabah is saying that the main part of it is to say that it is for her, it should be stated explicitly in his testimony that it was done for her.

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara later (5a) says that if the husband himself brought a Get from overseas, he does not have to say that it was written and signed before him. Why is he different than a messenger in this regard, if the entire suspicion is that the Get was not written for her? The Gemara's reasoning (ibid.) that if the husband is holding the Get he certainly will not claim something is wrong with it seems incorrect. Why can't he later say that originally did not know that a Get needed to be written specifically for his wife, and now he knows (and realizes it is Pasul)!

Answer: The Ri answers that we conclude that most people do know these laws and every scribe who writes Gitin is presumed to know these laws. There is only a suspicion of someone spreading rumors, which will probably have no basis. Therefore, when the husband himself brings the Get, this takes away even the remote suspicion that people will spread rumors that the Get was not kosher. This is what the Gemara means when it says that if the husband himself brings the Get, he will not possibly claim it is invalid.

Implied Question: The Gemara could not have said that the difference between them is whether or not we decree that one must also say that it was written and signed before him when bringing a Get overseas.

Answer: According to Rabah, the Rabbanan also would require that one say the Get was written and signed before him when bringing a Get overseas from Eretz Yisrael. According to the Tana Kama as well, the above scenario would be included in the case of bringing a Get from one county in Eretz Yisrael to another.

Implied Question: The Gemara does not say that the difference between these opinions is an authenticated Get. (Why?)

Answer: This is because this case is similar to a case where two witnesses bring the Get, meaning that it is essentially authenticated already.

Implied Question: What is the difference between Rabah and Rava in this case?

Answer: Rashi explains that according to the opinion that witnesses are not present to verify that the document is authentic, these two witnesses will verify it is authentic.

Question (#1): This is difficult. Are they stuck in a box that they will always be present whenever the husband will come to claim that there is a problem with the Get?

Question (#2): Additionally, why does the Gemara say that the case is when two people bring the Get anymore than saying that two people are present who can verify the signatures of the witnesses?

Answer: The Riva explains that the case is where two people bring the Get and say that they are the messengers of the husband. By saying this, they are no longer believed to say that he did not send them. This is evident in the Gemara later (5a), when it says that two witnesses do not have to say that it was written and signed before them, as they would be believed if they said that they witnessed the Get.

We also do not suspect that he might have purposely signed witnesses who are unfit to testify. Being that he sent her a Get it is assumed to have been written properly, and we do not assume he wants to make her sin (by marrying someone else after having received a Get that is really unfit).

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara ask that two witnesses should be necessary if the reason why the messenger must say it was written and signed before him is merely to dispel rumors, as apparent from the Gemara later (5a, as explained in the previous Tosfos)?

Answer: The Gemara at this point did not yet realize that the reasoning was merely to dispel rumors.

Text (#1): The word is "Eiduyos" with a "Daled" (not "Arayos" with Reish), as in testifying regarding money matters or capital punishment.

Text (#2): Some say that the proper text is indeed "Arayos" - "illicit relations" with a Reish.

Question: This does not appear correct. If so, what is the Gemara's answer that one witness is believed regarding possible prohibitions? Why say "prohibitions?" Arayos is also a prohibition! It therefore should have said that this is unlike a case of other Arayos where one witness is sufficient, and should have given a reason (why this type of "Arayos" is different).

Answer: It is possible to answer that when the Gemara answers, "one witness is believed regarding prohibitions" it means to permit a previous state of prohibition. Two witnesses are only required to prohibit something that was previously permitted. Accordingly, saying that one witness is sufficient regarding Arayos is not true, as the rule that testifying about Arayos must have two witnesses (to permit) is regarding married women to remarry due to receiving a Get, Kidushin, and to forbid a married woman to her husband if she had an affair. (Accordingly, the Gemara stuck with the generic terminology about prohibitions, where this is always true.)

Explanation: Rashi explains that the Torah believed every individual about their taking of Terumah, their slaughtering of animals, trabering the hindquarters of an animal from the Gid ha'Nasheh (sciatic nerve) and forbidden fats (that they did so properly).

Implied Question: Rashi should not have mentioned the example that he is believed that he took off Terumah or slaughtered properly, as a person is believed regarding these things even though they had previously been forbidden, because he has the ability to make them permitted, as Rashi explains later.

This is also apparent from the Gemara in Yevamos (88a). The Gemara says that even though one cannot control the proper slaughtering of an animal post facto, he originally was able to ensure that the slaughtering was done properly. Otherwise, he indeed would not be believed regarding slaughtering properly, as the animal was previously forbidden to eat and he is establishing that it is permitted. We never find anywhere that another person must be present (to ascertain the kashrus of the animal).

It is common that people are believed (that an animal was slaughtered properly), although it is not possible to say that most people know the laws of Shechitah very well. For example, if the whole head was chopped off and we are unable to tell of there was a proper Shechitah (regarding some of the Halachos of Shechitah) from examining the area of the Shechitah (even so, anyone is believed to say that the animal was kosher).

The fact that we depend on women to tell us meat was slaughtered properly even though they clearly don't know the laws of Shechitah is because they have the ability to learn the laws or hire people who do. Accordingly, this is considered that it is "in her hands" to determine.

Question: How do we know that one witness is believed regarding prohibitions (to say that there is no prohibition regarding a certain matter)?

Answer: This is learned from the laws of Nidah, as we derive in Kesuvos (72a), "and will count for herself" implies "to herself" (meaning that her husband knows whether or not she is permitted on her say so).

Question: If the source is Nidah, then even if something is known to have a forbidden status (i.e. a woman who is a Nidah) it should be able to be permitted based on the words of one witness (unlike (b) above, a woman cannot permit herself).

Answer: She does not have the status of seeing Nidah blood all the time. Whenever her seven days of Nidah pass (based on the letter of the law before the time of the Gemara when it was instituted that she should have to have seven clean days after seeing any blood) she is presumed to become pure immediately. Therefore, she does not have a status of being prohibited. Additionally, she has the ability to go to the Mikvah.

Question: Rabeinu Tam asks, what kind of answer is this? The Gemara should that the Get itself is proof as it has two witnesses who signed that the Get is kosher!

Answer: He answers that this is what the Gemara means to say. One witness is good enough when there is already a valid Get present, and all we want to know is if it was written "for her."

Implied Question: The Gemara makes a point that this is a matter of Arayos which requires two witnesses. (Why specifically say that it is a matter of Arayos when there are so many other prohibitions that also require two witnesses when they have a status of being prohibited (like this woman who we know as married)?)

Answer: The Ri answers that the Gemara in Yevamos (88a) says that regarding other prohibitions such as Tevel, Hekdesh, and forbidden things it is doubtful if one witness is believed even if there is a status of prohibition and it is not in his hands to say it is permitted. (The rule of Arayos requiring two witnesses is more concrete and therefore is applied by our Gemara.)

Question: If one witness is believed regarding other things that are prohibited, even when they have a status of being prohibited and the witness cannot change that status, why do we need the Pasuk of "and she will count for herself" - "to herself?" (The Maharsha explains that Tosfos means the following. These cases have two problems: they have a status of being prohibited and cannot be changed, while Nidah only has the status of one of these (at most). Accordingly, why do we need a Pasuk regarding Nidah when we rule that even cases where there are two clear problems are permitted?)

Answer: It is possible to answer that one might have thought that Nidah should be like a regular matter of Arayos that requires two witnesses. (This is why we need a Pasuk regarding Nidah.)

Implied Question: How does the Gemara's answer that regular scribes are presumed to know the law that a Get must be written "for her" answer the question? Rebbi Meir is always worried about a minority that will cause something to be unfit, and it can still be assumed that a minority of these scribes do not know this law!

Answer: The Gemara is answering that this is such a small minority that even Rebbi Meir is not worried about it.