Bava Batra 161a — the Talmud in English

But

erasure renders it invalid.

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

, even though it has been validated,

for at the end of the document the scribe validates the erasure, writing concerning it that the correction of the erasure is “sharir ve-kayam,” and nevertheless the document is invalid, for the reason below.

And they said that an erasure renders it invalid

only when the erasure was

in the place

where it was possible that there had been written

“sharir ve-kayam,”

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

and with the measure of

“sharir ve-kayam,”

so that the erasure occupies at least the place where it would have been possible to write “sharir ve-kayam,” for then we must be concerned lest 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 not possible to erase the “sharir ve-kayam,” add to it, and write “sharir ve-kayam” later in the document, because then the document would be invalid on account of the erasure.

Rami bar Hama again asked Rav Hisda:

And according to Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba, who says

that witnesses sign on a folded document

on the back of the writing, and opposite the writing on the outside,

and according to his view it is not necessary to write “sharir ve-kayam” at the end of the document, because the witnesses who signed on the back themselves validate what is written opposite their signatures on the inside, since the signature validates the line written on the other side, and it is not possible to add to the document beyond the witnesses’ signatures on the outside—if so,

let us be concerned lest he write inside whatever he wishes,

lest the creditor nevertheless add lines to the document,

and have additional witnesses sign on the outside,

and have additional forged witnesses sign on it from the outside,

and say: I acted only to increase the number of witnesses!

Even though a folded document requires only three witnesses, I added additional witnesses to them in order to publicize the matter!

He said to him

Rav Hisda:

Do you think

that according to Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba

the witnesses sign in their order,

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

It is not so. Rather,

the witnesses

sign from below upward.

For example, if the document is written horizontally, the witnesses sign from 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:

And let us be concerned lest a disqualification happen to occur in the last line,

lest something be written in the last line that is to the disadvantage of the holder of the document,

and he cut it off,

he will cut off

the last line,

and cut off “Reuben” together with it,

and although by doing so he also cuts off the name of the witness who signed on the other side from below upward—for example, if he had signed “Reuben son of Jacob, witness,” he will also cut off the word “Reuben”—

and it becomes valid,

and the document will also be validated

by

“son of Jacob, witness”

alone!?

For it was taught

in tractate Gittin [87b]: A document upon which it is signed

“son of a certain man, witness,”

is valid.

Even though the witness did not write his name!?

And the Gemara answers:

For it is written,

the witness must sign a folded document specifically as follows:

“Reuben son”

on one line,

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

and

“Jacob, witness”

above it.

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

And the Gemara objects:

And let us be concerned lest he cut it off,

lest indeed he cut off

the

“Reuben son”

in the last line,

and it become valid by

“Jacob, witness,”

leading us to err and say that Jacob himself is the witness!?

For it was taught

there: If he was signed

“a certain man, witness,”

it is valid,

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

And the Gemara answers:

“Witness” is not written.

“Witness”

is not written in a folded document; rather, only so-and-so son of so-and-so is written. And consequently, if he cuts off “Reuben son,” only “Jacob” will remain, which is not valid.

And if you wish, say: Actually, he wrote

“witness,”

it is possible to write “witness” in a folded document, and nevertheless there is no concern lest he cut off “Reuben son” and only “Jacob, witness” remain. This is because

we know concerning it that this handwriting