Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 2, 2017 | 讞壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Batra 161

Ketuba. Where do the signatures appear on the get mekushar? 聽Two different聽opinions are brought and questions are asked on each about how one isn’t concerned for forgeries?

诪讞拽 驻住讜诇 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪拽讜讬诐

but a document with a reference to words written over an erasure is not valid, even if it is verified at the end of the document. At the end of a document, before the formula: Everything is confirmed and established, is written, any corrections made in the document are verified by adding to the text: On line so-and-so, such and such a word has been added, or some similar formulation. This may be done only for inserted corrections, not for erasures.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讞拽 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讬专 讜拽讬讬诐 讜讻砖讬注讜专 砖专讬专 讜拽讬讬诐

The Gemara clarifies this statement: And they said that an erasure on a document renders the document not valid only if it is in a place on the document where the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, should have been written, and only if the erasure is the measure of space in which the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, can be written. The only concern with erasures is that the crucial formula: Everything is confirmed and established, might have been erased, as this would allow for unlimited forgery. If the erasure is such that this formula could not possibly have been erased, the document is valid.

讜诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞讜专讬 讛讻转讘 讜讻谞讙讚 讛讻转讘 诪讘讞讜抓 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪讙讜讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜诪讞转讬诐 住讛讚讬 讬转讬专讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜讗诪专 讗谞讗 诇专讘讜转 讘注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬

搂 Rami bar 岣ma asked Rav 岣sda: And according to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who says that the witnesses sign on the back of the written side, taking care that the signatures are exactly opposite the writing, on the outside let there be a concern that perhaps the party holding the document will write whatever he wants on the inside, i.e., the front of the document, adding to the text, and then have extra witnesses sign on the outside, and he will say to anyone questioning the number of witnesses being more than the minimum: I did this in order to increase the number of witnesses, the more to publicize the matters written in the document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注讚讬诐 讻住讚专谉 讞转讬诪讬 注讚讬诐 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞转讬诪讬

Rav 岣sda said to him: Do you maintain that the witnesses sign in order, that is, one under the other, starting from the top of the page on the back? This is not correct; rather, the witnesses sign from bottom to top. The witnesses sign in a perpendicular direction relative to the text of the document. The first signature begins at the reverse side of the last line of the document, and it continues upward toward the first line. There is therefore no possibility of adding to the text of the document, as, if the text extended beyond the beginning of the signatures, it would be recognized as a forgery.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬讗 专讬注讜转讬讛 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诪转讻砖专 讘讘谉 讬注拽讘 注讚 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

Rami bar 岣ma continues to question the method of signature prescribed by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: But let there be a concern that perhaps something detrimental to the holder of the document happens to appear in the final line of the document, and he excises the final line, and in doing so excises the first name of the witness on the opposite side as well. For instance, if the witness鈥檚 name is Reuven, son of Ya鈥檃kov, he will excise Reuven along with the final line of the document, and the document will be rendered valid with the remaining part of the signature: 鈥淪on of Ya鈥檃kov, witness.鈥 As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 87b): If one signs: Son of so-and-so, witness, without mentioning his own name, the document is valid.

讚讻转讬讘 专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讘讞讚 讚专讗 讜讬注拽讘 注讚 注诇讜讜讬讛

The Gemara answers: It is a case where it is written 鈥淩euven, son of鈥 on one line, i.e., opposite the final line of the document, and 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness,鈥 above it, beginning from the penultimate line of the document and continuing upward in a perpendicular manner. That is, a tied document is valid only if the witnesses sign in this manner. In this case, if the final line of the document is excised, all that will remain of the signature will be: 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness.鈥

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讜诪转讻砖专 讘讬注拽讘 注讚 讚转谞谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

Rami bar 岣ma continues to ask: But let there be a concern that perhaps he will excise the final line of the document, along with the words 鈥淩euven, son of,鈥 and the document will be rendered valid with the remaining part of the signature: 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness.鈥 As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 87b): If someone signs just: So-and-so, witness, the document is valid.

讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 注讚

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the word witness is not written after the witnesses鈥 names. That is, a tied document is valid only if the word witness does not appear after the signatures. It is only in such a case that the document cannot be materially changed by excising the final line without rendering the witnesses鈥 names disqualified.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 注讚 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛 讚讛讗 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗

And if you wish, say instead that actually the witness did write 鈥渨itness鈥 after his signature, and the case is one where we know for a fact that this signature, which consists of the words 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness,鈥

诇讗讜 讚讬注拽讘 讛讜讗

is not Yaakov鈥檚 signature. That is, it is known for a fact that there is no one living in the city where the document was written who is named Ya鈥檃kov and whose signature matches the signature on this document. Therefore, the court will recognize that the signature must have originally stated: 鈥淪o-and-so, son of Ya鈥檃kov, witness,鈥 and that the last line had been excised, and they will invalidate it.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讞转诐 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 砖诪讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 讘砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛

Rami bar 岣ma challenges: But perhaps this witness signed using the name of his father instead of his own name, as a gesture of respect toward his father. The Gemara answers: This is not done; a person does not discard his own name and sign using only the name of his father.

讜讚诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讜讬讛 讚讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜讜专讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 爪讬讬专 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜转讗 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞砖 诇砖讜讜讬讛 诇砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 住讬诪谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma challenges further: But perhaps the witness made this name into a mere distinguishing mark that he uses as his signature, as it is known that Rav used to draw a fish as his signature mark, rather than signing his name, and Rabbi 岣nina used to draw a palm branch as his signature mark, and Rav 岣sda used to sign just the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya used to sign just the letter ayin, and Rava bar Rav Huna used to sign his name by drawing a ship鈥檚 mast [makhota]. The Gemara answers: A person is not so insolent as to use his father鈥檚 name as a distinguishing mark.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诇诪讛 诇讱 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讻诇 诪拽讜砖专 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬讜 讻诇讬谉 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻住讜诇

Mar Zutra said: Why do you need all this? Why go to such lengths to answer the question posed above? There is a simpler answer: Any tied document whose witnesses do not end on a single line is not valid. The Gemara had previously assumed that the witnesses sign one after the other, beginning at the document鈥檚 bottom line and going upward toward the first line; this arrangement leaves open the possibility that the signature of the first witness could be truncated by an unscrupulous party. Mar Zutra explains that this is not so; rather, the signatures are written with each one beginning opposite the bottom line and heading upward toward the beginning of the document. Therefore, if a line of text is excised from the bottom of the document, the names of all the witnesses on the reverse side will be truncated, and the forgery will become apparent.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讞拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讻转讜讘 讜讚讬谉 拽讬讜诪讬讛讜谉 讜爪专讬讱 砖讬讞讝讜专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are two halakhot with regard to documents: For any erasures in a document, the scribe must write at the end of the document: And this is their verification. That is, he must list the erasures, stating that on line so-and-so there is an erasure and a correction stating such and such, for each erasure. And the second halakha is that the scribe must review some of the details of the document in the final line of the document. What is the reason for this second requirement?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 161

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 161

诪讞拽 驻住讜诇 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪拽讜讬诐

but a document with a reference to words written over an erasure is not valid, even if it is verified at the end of the document. At the end of a document, before the formula: Everything is confirmed and established, is written, any corrections made in the document are verified by adding to the text: On line so-and-so, such and such a word has been added, or some similar formulation. This may be done only for inserted corrections, not for erasures.

讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诪讞拽 驻住讜诇 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讬专 讜拽讬讬诐 讜讻砖讬注讜专 砖专讬专 讜拽讬讬诐

The Gemara clarifies this statement: And they said that an erasure on a document renders the document not valid only if it is in a place on the document where the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, should have been written, and only if the erasure is the measure of space in which the declaration: Everything is confirmed and established, can be written. The only concern with erasures is that the crucial formula: Everything is confirmed and established, might have been erased, as this would allow for unlimited forgery. If the erasure is such that this formula could not possibly have been erased, the document is valid.

讜诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞讜专讬 讛讻转讘 讜讻谞讙讚 讛讻转讘 诪讘讞讜抓 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讬讘 诪讙讜讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜诪讞转讬诐 住讛讚讬 讬转讬专讬 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜讗诪专 讗谞讗 诇专讘讜转 讘注讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚讬

搂 Rami bar 岣ma asked Rav 岣sda: And according to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who says that the witnesses sign on the back of the written side, taking care that the signatures are exactly opposite the writing, on the outside let there be a concern that perhaps the party holding the document will write whatever he wants on the inside, i.e., the front of the document, adding to the text, and then have extra witnesses sign on the outside, and he will say to anyone questioning the number of witnesses being more than the minimum: I did this in order to increase the number of witnesses, the more to publicize the matters written in the document.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 住讘专转 注讚讬诐 讻住讚专谉 讞转讬诪讬 注讚讬诐 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞转讬诪讬

Rav 岣sda said to him: Do you maintain that the witnesses sign in order, that is, one under the other, starting from the top of the page on the back? This is not correct; rather, the witnesses sign from bottom to top. The witnesses sign in a perpendicular direction relative to the text of the document. The first signature begins at the reverse side of the last line of the document, and it continues upward toward the first line. There is therefore no possibility of adding to the text of the document, as, if the text extended beyond the beginning of the signatures, it would be recognized as a forgery.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪转专诪讬讗 专讬注讜转讬讛 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诪转讻砖专 讘讘谉 讬注拽讘 注讚 讚转谞谉 讘谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

Rami bar 岣ma continues to question the method of signature prescribed by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: But let there be a concern that perhaps something detrimental to the holder of the document happens to appear in the final line of the document, and he excises the final line, and in doing so excises the first name of the witness on the opposite side as well. For instance, if the witness鈥檚 name is Reuven, son of Ya鈥檃kov, he will excise Reuven along with the final line of the document, and the document will be rendered valid with the remaining part of the signature: 鈥淪on of Ya鈥檃kov, witness.鈥 As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 87b): If one signs: Son of so-and-so, witness, without mentioning his own name, the document is valid.

讚讻转讬讘 专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讘讞讚 讚专讗 讜讬注拽讘 注讚 注诇讜讜讬讛

The Gemara answers: It is a case where it is written 鈥淩euven, son of鈥 on one line, i.e., opposite the final line of the document, and 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness,鈥 above it, beginning from the penultimate line of the document and continuing upward in a perpendicular manner. That is, a tied document is valid only if the witnesses sign in this manner. In this case, if the final line of the document is excised, all that will remain of the signature will be: 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness.鈥

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讘谉 讜诪转讻砖专 讘讬注拽讘 注讚 讚转谞谉 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 注讚 讻砖专

Rami bar 岣ma continues to ask: But let there be a concern that perhaps he will excise the final line of the document, along with the words 鈥淩euven, son of,鈥 and the document will be rendered valid with the remaining part of the signature: 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness.鈥 As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 87b): If someone signs just: So-and-so, witness, the document is valid.

讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 注讚

The Gemara answers: It is a case where the word witness is not written after the witnesses鈥 names. That is, a tied document is valid only if the word witness does not appear after the signatures. It is only in such a case that the document cannot be materially changed by excising the final line without rendering the witnesses鈥 names disqualified.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 注讚 讚讬讚注讬谞谉 讘讛 讚讛讗 讞转讬诪讜转 讬讚讗

And if you wish, say instead that actually the witness did write 鈥渨itness鈥 after his signature, and the case is one where we know for a fact that this signature, which consists of the words 鈥淵a鈥檃kov, witness,鈥

诇讗讜 讚讬注拽讘 讛讜讗

is not Yaakov鈥檚 signature. That is, it is known for a fact that there is no one living in the city where the document was written who is named Ya鈥檃kov and whose signature matches the signature on this document. Therefore, the court will recognize that the signature must have originally stated: 鈥淪o-and-so, son of Ya鈥檃kov, witness,鈥 and that the last line had been excised, and they will invalidate it.

讜讚诇诪讗 讘砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 讞转诐 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 讗讬谞讬砖 砖诪讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讞转讬诐 讘砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛

Rami bar 岣ma challenges: But perhaps this witness signed using the name of his father instead of his own name, as a gesture of respect toward his father. The Gemara answers: This is not done; a person does not discard his own name and sign using only the name of his father.

讜讚诇诪讗 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚砖讜讜讬讛 讚讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜讜专讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 爪讬讬专 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讻讜转讗 诇讗 讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞砖 诇砖讜讜讬讛 诇砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讛 住讬诪谞讗

Rami bar 岣ma challenges further: But perhaps the witness made this name into a mere distinguishing mark that he uses as his signature, as it is known that Rav used to draw a fish as his signature mark, rather than signing his name, and Rabbi 岣nina used to draw a palm branch as his signature mark, and Rav 岣sda used to sign just the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya used to sign just the letter ayin, and Rava bar Rav Huna used to sign his name by drawing a ship鈥檚 mast [makhota]. The Gemara answers: A person is not so insolent as to use his father鈥檚 name as a distinguishing mark.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诇诪讛 诇讱 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讻诇 诪拽讜砖专 砖讗讬谉 注讚讬讜 讻诇讬谉 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻住讜诇

Mar Zutra said: Why do you need all this? Why go to such lengths to answer the question posed above? There is a simpler answer: Any tied document whose witnesses do not end on a single line is not valid. The Gemara had previously assumed that the witnesses sign one after the other, beginning at the document鈥檚 bottom line and going upward toward the first line; this arrangement leaves open the possibility that the signature of the first witness could be truncated by an unscrupulous party. Mar Zutra explains that this is not so; rather, the signatures are written with each one beginning opposite the bottom line and heading upward toward the beginning of the document. Therefore, if a line of text is excised from the bottom of the document, the names of all the witnesses on the reverse side will be truncated, and the forgery will become apparent.

讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛诪讞拽讬谉 讻讜诇谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬讻转讜讘 讜讚讬谉 拽讬讜诪讬讛讜谉 讜爪专讬讱 砖讬讞讝讜专 诪注谞讬谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: There are two halakhot with regard to documents: For any erasures in a document, the scribe must write at the end of the document: And this is their verification. That is, he must list the erasures, stating that on line so-and-so there is an erasure and a correction stating such and such, for each erasure. And the second halakha is that the scribe must review some of the details of the document in the final line of the document. What is the reason for this second requirement?

Scroll To Top