Bava Batra 162b — the Talmud in English

They raised a dilemma before them:

if he left the witnesses

a line and a half

away from the writing,

what

is the halakha? Is it invalid or not?

Ta shma

a proof from that which is taught in the preceding beraita:

If he left the witnesses two lines

from the writing,

it is invalid.

And it may be inferred that it is specifically when he left two lines.

This

is so if he left

a line and a half; it is valid.

And we reject this:

Say the latter clause

of the beraita, which proves the opposite, as it teaches:

One line: it is valid.

And it may be inferred that

one line

is specifically required;

it is only then that it is valid, but if there is a line and a half, it is invalid.

And we conclude:

Rather, nothing can be inferred from this.

Nothing can be proved from the beraita, since we do not know which of them is precise—the first clause or the latter clause—and which is not precise, having been stated in that wording only on account of the other clause.

And the Gemara asks:

What was the outcome,

what is the halakha with regard to this dilemma?

And the Gemara resolves it:

Ta shma

from that

which is taught: If he left the witnesses two lines away from the writing, it is invalid.

Less than this, it is valid.

It is explicit, then, that anything less than two lines—even a line and a half—is valid.

And the Gemara continues by citing the continuation of the beraita:

If four or five witnesses signed the document, and one of them was found to be a relative or disqualified,

the

свидетельство

testimony is upheld through the others

the qualified witnesses.

This supports

the position of this beraita

of Hezekiah.

For Hezekiah said:

A document in which there remained blank space of two lines between the end of the document and the signatures of the witnesses, and

they filled it with disqualified witnesses, it is valid.

And do not be surprised

by this: How is it possible that if blank space remained there the document would be invalid, yet by filling it with disqualified witnesses it becomes valid, when disqualified witnesses are regarded as though they do not exist?

For

we find something similar in the laws of sukka. For,

empty space in a sukka invalidates it with three

if there is an empty area three handbreadths wide in the roofing, it invalidates the sukka, whereas

invalid roofing

does not

invalidate

the sukka except

with four

handbreadths. It follows that if he fills the three-handbreadth empty space with invalid roofing, the sukka is valid; we do not say that invalid roofing is equivalent to nothing. The same applies to disqualified witnesses: If he filled the blank space between the document and the qualified witnesses with them, the document thereby becomes valid.

They raised a dilemma before them: The two lines that they said

the Sages said in the beraita, that such blank space invalidates the document,