Bava Batra 161a (קסא.) — the Talmud in English

But

an erasure renders the document invalid.

If he erased one word or more from the document and wrote other words in their place, this document is invalid,

even if the erasure was validated,

meaning that at the end of the document the scribe validated the erasure, writing concerning it that the correction of the erasure is “sharir ve-kayam,” valid and confirmed; nevertheless, the document is invalid, for the reason stated below.

And they said that an erasure renders the document invalid

only when the erasure was

in the place

where it was possible that this had been written:

“sharir ve-kayam,”

that is, when it was already at the end of the document,

and of the size of

“sharir ve-kayam,”

so that the erasure occupies at least the space where sharir ve-kayam could have been written. In that case, we must be concerned that perhaps he erased the “sharir ve-kayam” that had been written there, so that he could write in its place whatever he wished, and afterward write “sharir ve-kayam” again and validate the erasure. Therefore, the document is invalid.

Thus, it is impossible to erase the “sharir ve-kayam,” add something in its place, and then write “sharir ve-kayam” later in the document, because in that case the document would be invalid on account of the erasure.

Rami bar Ḥama again asked Rav Ḥisda:

And according to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, who said

that witnesses sign a folded document

on the reverse of the writing, opposite the writing on the outside,

and according to his view it is unnecessary to write “sharir ve-kayam” at the end of the document, because the witnesses who sign on the back themselves validate what is written opposite their signatures on the inside—the signature validates the line written on the other side, and it is impossible to add anything to the document beyond the signatures of the witnesses on the outside—if so,

let us be concerned that perhaps he wrote inside whatever he wished,

perhaps the creditor nevertheless added lines to the document,

and had additional witnesses sign on the outside,

and had further forged witnesses sign on the outside,

and said: I merely acted to increase the number of witnesses!

Although a folded document requires only three witnesses, I added further witnesses to publicize the matter!

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Rav Ḥisda said to him:

Do you think

that according to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba,

the witnesses sign in order,

that they sign according to the order in which the document is written? Thus, if the document is written horizontally, they too sign horizontally on the outside, one beneath the other?

That is not the case. Rather,

the witnesses

sign from bottom to top.

For example, if the document is written horizontally, the witnesses sign on the outside along the length of the folded document, from the end of the document toward its beginning. Consequently, it is impossible to add further lines to the document, since the additional lines would be beneath the witnesses’ signatures on the other side.

And the Gemara discusses this:

But let us be concerned that perhaps a defect will happen to occur in the final line,

perhaps something detrimental to the holder of the document is written in the final line,

and he will cut it off,

he will cut

the final line,

and cut off “Reuven” along with it,

and although by doing so he also cuts off the name of the witness whose signature is on the other side from bottom to top—for example, if he had signed “Reuven son of Yaakov, witness,” he would also cut off the word “Reuven,”

and it becomes valid,

and the document would be valid even with

“

son of Yaakov, witness

” alone!?

As we learned

in tractate Gittin [87b]: A document signed

“So-and-so son of so-and-so, witness,”

is valid.

Even though the witness did not write his own name!?

And the Gemara answers:

As it is written,

the witness must sign a folded document specifically as follows:

“Reuven son”

on one line,

on a single line; that is, the word “son” must be beneath “Reuven” [and it follows that both correspond to the same line in the document, which is on the other side],

and

“Yaakov, witness”

above it.

And above them, continuing toward the beginning of the document, “Yaakov, witness” should be written. Thus, if he cuts off the final line, only “Yaakov, witness” will remain.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But let us be concerned that perhaps he will cut it off,

perhaps he will indeed cut off

“

Reuven son

” in the final line,

and it becomes valid with

“Yaakov, witness,”

leading us to mistakenly conclude that Yaakov himself is the witness!?

As we learned

there: If he was signed

“So-and-so, witness,”

it is valid,

even though he did not write his father’s name!

And the Gemara answers:

He did not write

“witness.”

Because in a folded document one does not write “witness”; rather, only so-and-so son of so-and-so is written. Consequently, if he cuts off “Reuven son,” only “Yaakov” will remain, which is not valid.

And if you wish, say: Actually, he did write

“witness,”

it is possible to write “witness” in a folded document, and nevertheless there is no concern that perhaps he will cut off “Reuven son,” leaving only “Yaakov, witness,” because

we know concerning it that this handwriting