Bava Batra 164

ואם תאמר מוחק וחוזר ומוחק אינו דומה נמחק פעם אחת לנמחק שתי פעמים

And if you say: There is a possibility of forgery with such a document, as the holder of the document can erase the original writing on the paper, then write the text of the document and have witnesses sign on the part that had been erased, then erase the document text once again, substituting for it a text that is more to his advantage, leaving the original signatures in place, this is not a valid argument. Paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice. It will be seen that the signatures are on a place that had been erased once and that the text is written on a place that had been erased twice, and the forgery will be noticed.

וליחוש דלמא שדי דיותא אמקום עדים מעיקרא ומחיק ליה דכי הדר מחיק ליה להאי הוה ליה אידי ואידי נמחק שתי פעמים

The Gemara suggests: But let there be a concern that perhaps the holder of the document will initially, after the entire original document, including the signatures, has been erased, but before the second one is written, throw some ink on the place where the witnesses are to sign under the text of the second document, and then erase that ink. He will do this so that when, after the witnesses have signed, he then erases the document text and writes a false text, it will emerge that both this, the new document’s text, and that, the signatures, will be on paper that had been erased twice.

אמר אביי קסבר רב אין העדים חותמין על המחק אלא אם כן נמחק בפניהם

Abaye said in response: Rav holds that witnesses may not sign a document written over an erasure unless the paper was erased in their presence, i.e., unless they saw the paper after its old text had been erased, before the new text was written. They will then see that the place where they are to sign has been erased twice, while the place where the document is to be written has been erased only once. They will realize that this leaves open an opportunity of subsequent erasing and falsification, and they will refrain from signing.

מיתיבי הוא על הנייר ועדיו על המחק כשר וניחוש דלמא מחיק ליה וכתיב מאי דבעי והוי ליה הוא ועדיו על המחק

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: A document in which its text is on a part of the paper that has never had writing erased and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure is valid. The Gemara suggests: But let us be concerned that perhaps the holder of the document will erase the text and write in its place whatever he wants, and it will then be a document where both its text and the signatures of its witnesses are on an erasure. Since Rav maintains that such a document is valid, it is easily forgeable in this manner.

דכתבי הכי אנחנא סהדי חתמנא על מחקא ושטרא כתב על ניירא

The Gemara answers: Such a document is valid only in a case where the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on an erasure, but the document text was written on a part of the paper that never had writing erased. If the holder of the document then tries to erase the original text and write new text in its place, the forgery will be noticed.

דכתבי היכא אי מלתחת גייז ליה אי עילאי מחיק ליה דכתבי בין סהדא לסהדא

The Gemara asks: Where do the witnesses write this declaration? If they write it underneath their signatures, the holder of the document can simply excise it. And if they write it above their signatures, the holder of the document can erase it along with the text of the document. The Gemara answers: They write the declaration between the signature of one witness and the signature of the other witness.

אי הכי אימא סיפא הוא על המחק ועדיו על הנייר פסול אמאי פסול הכא נמי נכתבו הכי אנחנא סהדי חתמנא על ניירא ושטרא על מחקא

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the baraita is discussing a case in which the witnesses write a declaration about the circumstances of the document’s condition, say the latter clause of the baraita: A document in which its text is on an erasure and the signatures of its witnesses are on a part of the paper that never had writing erased is not valid. The Gemara presents its question: Why is such a document not valid? Here, too, let the witnesses write this: We, the witnesses, signed on paper that never had writing erased, but the document text was written on an erasure.

[השתא נמי] מאי אמרת מוחק חוזר ומוחק הא אמרת אינו דומה נמחק פעם אחת לנמחק שתי פעמים הני מילי היכא דחתימי סהדי אמחקא היכא דלא חתימי סהדי אמחקא אלא אניירא לא ידיע

Now in this case as well it should be valid, as what can you say to argue that it is a forgeable document? If you say that the holder of the document, having erased the original document, can erase the writing once again and write a new, false document, this is not a concern, as didn’t you say that paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice? It would therefore be noticeable that the document had been erased a second time, and the forgery would be noticeable. The Gemara answers: That statement applies only when the witnesses are signed on an erasure, and the appearance of that erasure can be compared with the appearance of a double erasure. But in a case where the witnesses are signed not on an erasure but on paper that has not had its writing erased, so that there is no contrast between a single erasure and a double erasure, the forgery would not be known.

וליתי מגילתא אחריתי ולמחוק ולידמי לא דמי מחקא דהא מגילתא למחקא דהא מגילתא

The Gemara suggests: But let the court bring another parchment, write something on it and erase it, and then compare this single erasure with the erasure on the document in question. If the document were erased twice, a contrast would be seen between a single erasure and a double erasure. The Gemara answers: The erasure of this parchment is not necessarily similar to the erasure of that parchment. A single erasure on one parchment might resemble a double erasure on a different parchment.

ולקבלה לחתימות ידא דסהדי בבי דינא ולמחוק ולידמי אמר רב הושעיא אינו דומה נמחק בן יומו לנמחק בן שני ימים

The Gemara continues to suggest: But let us accept, i.e., verify, the signatures of the witnesses on the document in court, after which they may safely be erased; and then erase the signatures and compare that erasure to the erasure of the document text, to see if it was erased once or twice. In response to this question Rav Hoshaya says: That which is erased on the same day that it was written is not necessarily similar to that which was erased two days ago, i.e., more than a day after it was written. An older erasure looks different from a new one, so the comparison might not show that there was a double erasure in the document.

ולישהייה אמר רבי ירמיה חיישינן לבית דין טועין:

The Gemara suggests: But let us retain the document for an extra day, at which point both erasures will be old and can be compared. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response: We are concerned for the possibility of an erring court. If such complicated procedures were used in order to declare a document valid, there would be a chance that a particular court would not apply them properly, and that court would end up ratifying a document that was not valid.

רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר מקושר וכו׳: השיב רבי לדברי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A tied document whose witnesses wrote their signatures inside of it is valid, because one can transform it into an ordinary document by untying it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:

והלא אינו דומה זמנו של זה לזמנו של זה פשוט מלך שנה מונין לו שנה שתים מונין לו שתים מקושר מלך שנה מונין לו שתים שתים מונין לו שלש

But the date of this one, a tied document, is not the same as the date of that one, an ordinary document. In an ordinary document, when the king has reigned for one year, one year is counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, two years are counted for him. By contrast, in a tied document, when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. If a tied document is simply opened up and used as an ordinary document, then it will emerge that it is postdated by a year.

וזימנין דיזיף מיניה זוזי במקושר ומיתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני ופרע ליה ואמר ליה הב לי שטראי ואמר ליה אירכס לי וכתב ליה תברא

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And there are times this can be problematic, as in a case where the debtor borrows money from the creditor, and the details of the loan are written in a tied document. And the debtor chances upon some money in the interim, i.e., during the first year after the document was written, and he repays the creditor, and says to him: Give me back my promissory note, as I have just repaid you. And the creditor says to the debtor: I lost the document and cannot give it to you. And in lieu of returning the promissory note, the creditor writes a receipt for the debtor, as protection against a second collection.

וכי מטי זמניה משוי ליה פשוט ואמר ליה הני השתא דיזפת מינאי

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: And then, when the time for repayment written in the promissory note arrives, the creditor will make it into an ordinary document by undoing its stitches and opening it up, and he can then say to the debtor: It is now that you borrowed this money from me, as attested in this promissory note, and the receipt you have in your possession is for a previous debt, as its date precedes the date on my document.

קא סבר אין כותבין שובר

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel holds that one does not write a receipt in such cases. If a creditor loses his promissory note, the debtor need not pay him at all, out of concern that the debt may one day be collected again when the promissory note is found. He is not required to pay the debt and accept only a receipt, which he will then have to guard permanently to protect himself against a second collection.

ומי בקי רבי במקושר והא ההוא מקושר דאתא לקמיה דרבי ואמר רבי שטר מאוחר זה ואמר לו זונין לרבי כך מנהגה של אומה זו מלך שנה מונין לו שתים שתים מונין לו שלש

The Gemara asks with regard to the previous discussion: And was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expert in the halakhot of tied documents? But wasn’t there a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi saw the date he said: This is a postdated document. And a Sage named Zunin said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Such is the custom of this nation; when the king has reigned for one year, two years are counted for him, and when he has reigned for two years, three years are counted for him. The document is therefore not postdated. From this anecdote it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi himself had not been familiar with this practice.

בתר דשמעה מזונין סברה

The Gemara answers: After Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard it from Zunin he accepted the explanation and held this way himself, and that is what prompted him to raise his objection.

ההוא שטרא דהוה כתב ביה בשנת פלוני ארכן אמר רבי חנינא יבדק אימתי עמד ארכן בארכנותיה

§ There was a certain document on which was written, as its date: In the year of so-and-so, Archon [Arkhan], a title for a ruler, without stating any particular year of his reign. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Let it be investigated when it was that this Archon rose to his position of archon, i.e., find out the year he came to power, and the validity of the document is established from that year.

ודלמא דאריך מלכותיה אמר רב הושעיא כך מנהגה של אומה זו שנה ראשונה קורין לו ארכן שניה קורין לו דיגון

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the writer of the document was using an Aramaic or Hebrew term, and intended to say that the reign of so-and-so had already extended [arikh] for several years. Rav Hoshaya says: Such is the custom of this nation where the document was written: In the first year of the king’s reign they refer to him with the title Archon; in his second year they refer to him with the title Digon.

ודלמא עבורי עברוהו והדר אוקמוהו אמר רבי ירמיה ההוא ארכן דיגון קראו ליה

The Gemara suggests: But perhaps the people deposed the ruler and then reinstated him, and the document was written in the first year of his second reign. Rabbi Yirmeya said: In that case, they would refer to him with the title Archon Digon.

תנו רבנן הריני נזיר הינא סומכוס אמר הינא אחת דיגון שתים טריגון שלש טטריגון ארבע פנטיגון חמש

§ Apropos these Greek terms, the Gemara cites two baraitot that mention them. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Nazir 1:2) that if one said: I am hereby a nazirite heina, or stated a similar expression with other comparable Greek terms, Sumakhos said that his status depends on which term he used. If he used the word heina, he is a nazirite for one term of naziriteship, i.e., thirty days; if he said digon, he is a nazirite for two terms of thirty days each; if he said terigon, he is a nazirite for three terms; tetrigon, for four terms; pentigon, for five terms.

תנו רבנן בית עגול דיגון טריגון פנטיגון אינו מטמא בנגעים טטריגון מטמא בנגעים

The Sages taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 6:3): A round house, or one that is shaped like a digon, i.e., it has two walls, one straight and one curved, or one that is shaped like a terigon, i.e., a triangle, or one that is shaped like a pentagon, does not become susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots. If it is shaped like a tetrigon, i.e., a quadrilateral, it becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of leprous spots.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן למעלה אומר קיר קירת שתים למטה אומר קיר קירת שתים הרי כאן ארבע

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states above: “If the plague be in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:37). The verse did not state: A wall, but “walls,” indicating that the house in question has at least two walls. And where it states below: “If the plague has spread in the walls of the house” (Leviticus 14:39), instead of stating: A wall, the verse states “walls,” indicating another two walls. There are a total of four walls mentioned here in order to indicate that a house can become impure through leprous spots only if it has four sides.

ההוא מקושר דאתא לקמיה דרבי ואמר רבי אין זמן בזה אמר ליה רבי שמעון בר רבי לרבי שמא בין קשריו מובלע פלייה וחזייה הדר חזא ביה רבי בבישות אמר ליה לאו אנא כתבתיה רבי יהודה חייטא כתביה אמר ליה כלך מלשון הרע הזה

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain tied document that came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was a folded document, said: There is no date on this document, so it is not valid. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Perhaps the date is hidden between its tied folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi opened it and saw that the date was in fact between the tied folds. Afterward, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi looked at his son disapprovingly, as he held that one should not write a tied document. His son said to him: I did not write it; Rabbi Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

זימנין הוה יתיב קמיה וקא פסיק סידרא בספר תהלים אמר רבי כמה מיושר כתב זה אמר ליה לאו אנא כתבתיה יהודה חייטא כתביה אמר ליה כלך מלשון הרע הזה

Another time, Rabbi Shimon was sitting before his father and reciting a section of the book of Psalms. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: How straight and neat is this writing in this book from which you are reading. Rabbi Shimon said to him: I did not write it; Yehuda Ḥayyata wrote it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son: Turn away from uttering this kind of malicious speech.

בשלמא התם איכא לשון הרע אלא הכא מאי לשון הרע איכא משום דרב דימי דתני רב דימי אחוה דרב ספרא לעולם אל יספר אדם בטובתו של חבירו שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו

The Gemara asks: Granted, there, in the first episode, there is malicious speech involved, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was displeased with the writer of the document, but here, in the second episode, what malicious speech is there? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was complimenting the writer of the book of Psalms, not criticizing him. The Gemara answers: It is because of what Rav Dimi teaches. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra, teaches: A person should never speak the praises of another, as out of the praise spoken about him someone may come to speak to his detriment.

אמר רב עמרם אמר רב שלש עבירות אין אדם ניצול מהן בכל יום הרהור עבירה ועיון תפלה ולשון הרע לשון הרע סלקא דעתך

Rav Amram says that Rav says: There are three sins from which a person is not spared each day. They are: Having sinful thoughts, and committing sins concerning deliberation in prayer, and uttering malicious speech. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that a person cannot go through the day without uttering malicious speech?