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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 4, 2017 | 讬壮 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 163

When the braita聽said that two spaces are not allowed but one is, did they mean 2 lines plus space between the lines? 聽If so, how many lines of space? 聽Rav and Rabbi Yochanan have a disagreement if one also needs to leave a space between the signatures of the witnesses and the ratification of the courts. 聽One says lots of space can be left and the other says no space at all can be left. 聽The gemara discusses according to each interpretation why there would or would not be a concern for forgeries in each situation.

讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讜讬专谉

does this refer to the size of lines with the space between lines added? Or is it perhaps referring to lines of writing themselves, without their spaces?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讜讬专谉 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 讗讜讬专讛 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It stands to reason that it is referring to the lines with their spaces. As, if it were to enter your mind that it is referring to the lines without their spaces, for what is one line without its space fit? The baraita did not have to state that a document with a single blank line after the text, measured without counting spaces, is not forgeable; this is obvious. Rather, one may conclude from this claim that the reference is to two lines with their spaces. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this claim that it is so.

专讘讬 砖讘转讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘讻转讘 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬讚讬 住讜驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻诇 讛诪讝讬讬祝 诇讗讜 诇讙讘讬 住驻专讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讬讬祝

Rabbi Shabbtai says in the name of 岣zkiyya: With regard to the gap of two blank lines between the text and the signatures, which the Sages said invalidates the document, the lines are measured by the handwriting of witnesses, and not by the handwriting of a scribe, who is presumably skilled enough to write in a smaller script. What is the reason for this? Anyone who forges a document, adding additional lines to the document, would not go to a scribe and ask him to forge it; he would execute the forgery himself, or have another unscrupulous person who is not a professional scribe forge it. Therefore, in order to present a concern for possible forgery, a document must have two blank lines that are measured by the handwriting of an ordinary person, such as one of the witnesses.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻讙讜谉 诇讱 诇讱 讝讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讗讜讬专讬谉

The Gemara has established that the width of the gap required to invalidate the document is two lines with interlinear space. The Gemara clarifies: And how much interlinear space is necessary to invalidate the document? Rav Yitz岣k ben Elazar says: For example, enough to write the Hebrew word lekh, and then the Hebrew word lekha, this word on top of that one. These two words each consist of the two letters lamed and final khaf; the former has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space above it, and the latter has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space below it. Writing these words one under the other, then, would require an additional interlinear space above and below both lines. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rav Yitz岣k ben Elazar maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of two written lines with four interlinear spaces.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 诇诪讚 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻祝 诪诇诪讟讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讜砖诇砖讛 讗讜讬专讬谉

Rav 岣yya bar Ami states a different opinion in the name of Ulla: For example, enough to write a lamed on the upper line and a final khaf on the lower line. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Ulla maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of two written lines with three interlinear spaces, one above the first line, one between the two lines, and one beneath the second line.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讘专讜讱 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 拽讗 住讘专 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讗讜讬专讬谉

Rabbi Abbahu states a different opinion: For example, enough to write the name Barukh ben Levi on one line. Barukh contains a final khaf, and Levi contains a lamed. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Abbahu maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of one written line with two interlinear spaces, one above the line and one beneath the line.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专

Rav says: They taught in the baraita that a gap of two lines invalidates the document only if that space is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document. But if there is a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and a court鈥檚 ratification of the document, which follows the witnesses鈥 signatures, then even if there is more space than this, the document is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 谞诪讬 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: What is different about the case where the gap is between the witnesses and the text, that it invalidates the document? There is a concern that perhaps the holder of the document may forge additional lines and write whatever he wants, and the witnesses have already signed at the bottom, giving the appearance that they attest to the added lines as well. But the same concern can be raised concerning a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification as well: There, too, he can forge additional lines and write whatever he wants, and have witnesses sign it, with the court鈥檚 ratification giving the appearance that it attests to the added lines and signatures as well. Why is this document valid?

讚诪讟讬讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇砖讟专 谞诪讬 诪讟讬讬讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: When is a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification not problematic, according to Rav? Only when someone inks in the blank space with lines or dots, to prevent information from being added there. The Gemara asks: If so, the gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document should also be made irrelevant in this manner: Let the scribe ink in [metayyet] the blank space. Why, then, was it taught categorically that the witnesses must sign within two lines of the text?

讗诪专讬 住讛讚讬 讗讟讬讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讟讬讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讟讬讜讟讗 诇讗 讞转讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: Inking in the gap between the text and the signatures of the witnesses will not help, as people might say, i.e., the concern might be raised: The witnesses are signed only on the inking in. It is possible that the witnesses鈥 signatures were affixed only to attest that the inking was done in their presence and that the inking in is not a sign of duplicity, and their signatures do not relate to the actual text of the document. The Gemara asks: If so, raise the same concern when the gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification is inked in; there too, people might say: The court鈥檚 ratification is signed only for the inking in, and not for the actual text of the document. The Gemara answers: A court does not sign on mere inking in; their ratification is always in reference to the entire document.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇注讬诇讗 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讟讬讜讟讗 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜诪讞转讬诐 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专

The Gemara raises another issue: And let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire text that appears above the signatures, and then erase the inked-in part and write whatever he wants in that erased area, and have unscrupulous witnesses sign it. And this would be a valid document, as Rav says: A document that comes before the court for ratification in which its content and the signatures of its witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid. The court ratification would then be assumed to be referring to this new, forged document.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This works out well, i.e., this concern does not apply, according to Rav Kahana, who teaches in the name of Shmuel that a document in which its content and its witnesses鈥 signatures are both written over an erasure is valid; according to him, all is well. It is Rav who says that an inked-in gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification is acceptable, and it is Shmuel who says that a document that is written and signed over an erasure is acceptable. But according to Rav Tavyumei, who teaches this latter statement in the name of Rav, what can be said? According to him, Rav said both statements, and taken together they pose a difficulty: The inked-in gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the ratification can easily be erased and a new document with signatures can be written over the erasure.

拽住讘专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谉 讛讗砖专转讗 砖讘讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rav maintains that in all cases like this, where a document and its witnesses鈥 signatures are written over an erasure and there is a court ratification on a non-erased part of the paper, the later court ratifies the document not on the basis of the previous court鈥檚 ratification that is on it, but only on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on it. Therefore, the forging of a document in this manner is impossible, as the prior ratification of the court is disregarded, and the witnesses will attest to what they signed upon.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara cites another opinion: And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught in the baraita that a gap of one line does not invalidate the document only in the case where that space is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document. But if the gap is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and a court鈥檚 ratification of the document, then a space of even one line renders the document not valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇注讬诇讗讬 讜讻转讘 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: What is different about the case where there is a one-line gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification that you say it is not valid? The Gemara answers: There is a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire text of the document at the top of the paper and then write a new, brief document, with its text and the signatures of its witnesses on one line. The court鈥檚 ratification will appear to verify the new, forged document. And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that a document that comes before the court with its text and the signatures of its witnesses appearing on one line is valid.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇注讬诇讗讬 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 拽讗 住讘专 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara suggests: If so, the same problem also exists when there is a one-line gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text: There should be a concern that perhaps he will excise the entire text of the document at the top of the paper and then write whatever he wants in a brief, one-line document. And the witnesses鈥 signatures on the next line, which are there from the old document, will still be signed there, appearing to attest to the veracity of the new, one-line document. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that a document that comes before the court with its text on one line and the signatures of its witnesses appearing on another line, i.e., on the following line, is not valid.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 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

The Gemara suggests: And let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire document, leaving only the blank line and the signatures that follow it, and he will write a brief document in which its text and the signatures of its witnesses are on one line, followed by the original signatures that remained from the original document, and he will say: I did this in order to increase the number of witnesses, the more to publicize the matter written in the document. The document is therefore still forgeable.

拽住讘专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that in all cases like this, where a document and its witnesses鈥 signatures are written on one line, followed by other signatures on subsequent lines, the court ratifies the document not on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on the bottom, but on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on top, on the same line as the text. Therefore, the forging of a document in this manner is impossible. The false signatures of the witnesses will be discovered when those witnesses attest to what they signed upon.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专

搂 Having cited Rav鈥檚 statement, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav says: A document that comes before the court in which its content and the signatures of its witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid.

  • 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 163

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 163

讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讜讬专谉

does this refer to the size of lines with the space between lines added? Or is it perhaps referring to lines of writing themselves, without their spaces?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讚讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讛谉 讜诇讗 讗讜讬专谉 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讘诇讗 讗讜讬专讛 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬讗 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛谉 讜讗讜讬专谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: It stands to reason that it is referring to the lines with their spaces. As, if it were to enter your mind that it is referring to the lines without their spaces, for what is one line without its space fit? The baraita did not have to state that a document with a single blank line after the text, measured without counting spaces, is not forgeable; this is obvious. Rather, one may conclude from this claim that the reference is to two lines with their spaces. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from this claim that it is so.

专讘讬 砖讘转讬 讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 砖讗诪专讜 讘讻转讘 讬讚讬 注讚讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 讬讚讬 住讜驻专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻诇 讛诪讝讬讬祝 诇讗讜 诇讙讘讬 住驻专讗 讗讝讬诇 讜诪讝讬讬祝

Rabbi Shabbtai says in the name of 岣zkiyya: With regard to the gap of two blank lines between the text and the signatures, which the Sages said invalidates the document, the lines are measured by the handwriting of witnesses, and not by the handwriting of a scribe, who is presumably skilled enough to write in a smaller script. What is the reason for this? Anyone who forges a document, adding additional lines to the document, would not go to a scribe and ask him to forge it; he would execute the forgery himself, or have another unscrupulous person who is not a professional scribe forge it. Therefore, in order to present a concern for possible forgery, a document must have two blank lines that are measured by the handwriting of an ordinary person, such as one of the witnesses.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讻讙讜谉 诇讱 诇讱 讝讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讜讗专讘注讛 讗讜讬专讬谉

The Gemara has established that the width of the gap required to invalidate the document is two lines with interlinear space. The Gemara clarifies: And how much interlinear space is necessary to invalidate the document? Rav Yitz岣k ben Elazar says: For example, enough to write the Hebrew word lekh, and then the Hebrew word lekha, this word on top of that one. These two words each consist of the two letters lamed and final khaf; the former has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space above it, and the latter has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space below it. Writing these words one under the other, then, would require an additional interlinear space above and below both lines. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rav Yitz岣k ben Elazar maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of two written lines with four interlinear spaces.

专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 诇诪讚 诪诇诪注诇讛 讜讻祝 诪诇诪讟讛 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖谞讬 砖讬讟讬谉 讜砖诇砖讛 讗讜讬专讬谉

Rav 岣yya bar Ami states a different opinion in the name of Ulla: For example, enough to write a lamed on the upper line and a final khaf on the lower line. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Ulla maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of two written lines with three interlinear spaces, one above the first line, one between the two lines, and one beneath the second line.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讘专讜讱 讘谉 诇讜讬 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 拽讗 住讘专 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜砖谞讬 讗讜讬专讬谉

Rabbi Abbahu states a different opinion: For example, enough to write the name Barukh ben Levi on one line. Barukh contains a final khaf, and Levi contains a lamed. The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Abbahu maintains that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of one written line with two interlinear spaces, one above the line and one beneath the line.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专

Rav says: They taught in the baraita that a gap of two lines invalidates the document only if that space is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document. But if there is a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and a court鈥檚 ratification of the document, which follows the witnesses鈥 signatures, then even if there is more space than this, the document is valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讚诇诪讗 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 谞诪讬 诪讝讬讬祝 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: What is different about the case where the gap is between the witnesses and the text, that it invalidates the document? There is a concern that perhaps the holder of the document may forge additional lines and write whatever he wants, and the witnesses have already signed at the bottom, giving the appearance that they attest to the added lines as well. But the same concern can be raised concerning a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification as well: There, too, he can forge additional lines and write whatever he wants, and have witnesses sign it, with the court鈥檚 ratification giving the appearance that it attests to the added lines and signatures as well. Why is this document valid?

讚诪讟讬讬讟 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇砖讟专 谞诪讬 诪讟讬讬讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara explains: When is a gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification not problematic, according to Rav? Only when someone inks in the blank space with lines or dots, to prevent information from being added there. The Gemara asks: If so, the gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document should also be made irrelevant in this manner: Let the scribe ink in [metayyet] the blank space. Why, then, was it taught categorically that the witnesses must sign within two lines of the text?

讗诪专讬 住讛讚讬 讗讟讬讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讟讬讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚讞转讬诪讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讟讬讜讟讗 诇讗 讞转讬诪讬

The Gemara answers: Inking in the gap between the text and the signatures of the witnesses will not help, as people might say, i.e., the concern might be raised: The witnesses are signed only on the inking in. It is possible that the witnesses鈥 signatures were affixed only to attest that the inking was done in their presence and that the inking in is not a sign of duplicity, and their signatures do not relate to the actual text of the document. The Gemara asks: If so, raise the same concern when the gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification is inked in; there too, people might say: The court鈥檚 ratification is signed only for the inking in, and not for the actual text of the document. The Gemara answers: A court does not sign on mere inking in; their ratification is always in reference to the entire document.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇注讬诇讗 讜诪讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讟讬讜讟讗 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜诪讞转讬诐 住讛讚讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专

The Gemara raises another issue: And let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire text that appears above the signatures, and then erase the inked-in part and write whatever he wants in that erased area, and have unscrupulous witnesses sign it. And this would be a valid document, as Rav says: A document that comes before the court for ratification in which its content and the signatures of its witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid. The court ratification would then be assumed to be referring to this new, forged document.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

This works out well, i.e., this concern does not apply, according to Rav Kahana, who teaches in the name of Shmuel that a document in which its content and its witnesses鈥 signatures are both written over an erasure is valid; according to him, all is well. It is Rav who says that an inked-in gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification is acceptable, and it is Shmuel who says that a document that is written and signed over an erasure is acceptable. But according to Rav Tavyumei, who teaches this latter statement in the name of Rav, what can be said? According to him, Rav said both statements, and taken together they pose a difficulty: The inked-in gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the ratification can easily be erased and a new document with signatures can be written over the erasure.

拽住讘专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谉 讛讗砖专转讗 砖讘讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖讘讜

The Gemara answers: Rav maintains that in all cases like this, where a document and its witnesses鈥 signatures are written over an erasure and there is a court ratification on a non-erased part of the paper, the later court ratifies the document not on the basis of the previous court鈥檚 ratification that is on it, but only on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on it. Therefore, the forging of a document in this manner is impossible, as the prior ratification of the court is disregarded, and the witnesses will attest to what they signed upon.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 讗讘诇 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara cites another opinion: And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught in the baraita that a gap of one line does not invalidate the document only in the case where that space is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text of the document. But if the gap is between the witnesses鈥 signatures and a court鈥檚 ratification of the document, then a space of even one line renders the document not valid.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗砖专转讗 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇注讬诇讗讬 讜讻转讘 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜拽住讘专 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讻砖专

The Gemara asks: What is different about the case where there is a one-line gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the court鈥檚 ratification that you say it is not valid? The Gemara answers: There is a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire text of the document at the top of the paper and then write a new, brief document, with its text and the signatures of its witnesses on one line. The court鈥檚 ratification will appear to verify the new, forged document. And Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that a document that comes before the court with its text and the signatures of its witnesses appearing on one line is valid.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讻转讘 谞诪讬 讚诇诪讗 讙讬讬讝 诇讬讛 诇注讬诇讗讬 讜讻转讘 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬 讜讞转讬诪讬 住讛讚讬 拽讗 住讘专 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara suggests: If so, the same problem also exists when there is a one-line gap between the witnesses鈥 signatures and the text: There should be a concern that perhaps he will excise the entire text of the document at the top of the paper and then write whatever he wants in a brief, one-line document. And the witnesses鈥 signatures on the next line, which are there from the old document, will still be signed there, appearing to attest to the veracity of the new, one-line document. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that a document that comes before the court with its text on one line and the signatures of its witnesses appearing on another line, i.e., on the following line, is not valid.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讻转讘 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 讘砖讬讟讛 讗讞转 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

The Gemara suggests: And let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will excise the entire document, leaving only the blank line and the signatures that follow it, and he will write a brief document in which its text and the signatures of its witnesses are on one line, followed by the original signatures that remained from the original document, and he will say: I did this in order to increase the number of witnesses, the more to publicize the matter written in the document. The document is therefore still forgeable.

拽住讘专 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬讬诪讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇诪讟讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注讚讬诐 砖诇诪注诇讛

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that in all cases like this, where a document and its witnesses鈥 signatures are written on one line, followed by other signatures on subsequent lines, the court ratifies the document not on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on the bottom, but on the basis of the signatures of the witnesses that are on top, on the same line as the text. Therefore, the forging of a document in this manner is impossible. The false signatures of the witnesses will be discovered when those witnesses attest to what they signed upon.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讟专 讛讘讗 讛讜讗 讜注讚讬讜 注诇 讛诪讞拽 讻砖专

搂 Having cited Rav鈥檚 statement, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav says: A document that comes before the court in which its content and the signatures of its witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid.

Scroll To Top