Bava Batra 163a — the Talmud in English

Is the intention the total blank space,

both them and their air-spaces

, meaning specifically when a blank space of two lines remains together with the space between the two lines?

Or perhaps both them but not their air-spaces,

so that even a blank space of two lines alone invalidates the document, even without the space between the lines?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable that both them and their air-spaces.

It is invalidated specifically together with the space between the lines.

For if it enters your mind that both them but not their air-spaces,

then the one-line blank space that the beraita said is valid refers to a blank space of one line alone, without the air-space of the line. Beyond this, it is invalid. If so, it is difficult:

What use is one line without its air-space!?

For it is impossible to write anything on one line when there is no space between it and the adjacent line; and why did the beraita need to teach us that a blank space of one line is valid?

Rather, conclude from it: Both them and their air-spaces.

For also in the case of two lines, which the beraita said is invalid, it refers to a blank space that is together with the air-spaces of the two lines.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from it!

Rabbi Shabbtai said in the name of Ḥizkiya: The two lines that they said were said with the handwriting of the witnesses,

meaning that the lines are the size of the handwriting of the witnesses,

and not in

the size of

the handwriting

of the

scribe,

which is smaller.

What is the reason?

Because

every forger does not go to a scribe and forge.

He does not go to a scribe to have him forge for him, lest the scribe refuse to help him in this; rather, he forges himself in secret inside his home. And he cannot write in script as fine as the scribe’s. Therefore, as long as a blank space of two lines the size of the handwriting of an ordinary person, such as the witnesses, has not remained, there is no concern that perhaps the owner of the document will succeed in forging and writing two lines there in his own handwriting.

And the Gemara discusses:

And how much

must the space between the document and the witnesses be in order to invalidate the document? And the Gemara answers:

Rav Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: For example, “lekh

—

lekh,” one above the other.

For the space between the two lines must be sufficient so that, if two occurrences of “lekh” meet, one from the upper line and one from the lower line, the head of the lamed of the lower line will not touch the leg of the kaf of the upper line. With less than this, there is no concern that he will forge.

It follows that he holds

that a space of

two lines and four air-spaces

is required: two air-spaces for the space between the lines, one air-space for the head of the lamed of the lower line, and one air-space for the leg of the kaf of the upper line. And two additional air-spaces: one above the upper line for the head of the lamed of its “lekh,” and one below the lower line for the leg of the kaf of its “lekh.”

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla:

It is not necessary that there be a space of two air-spaces between the lines, because he can train his hand and distance the head of the lower lamed from the leg of the upper kaf, and one air-space between them is sufficient for him. However, above the upper line and below the lower line, one air-space is required in each place.

For example, a lamed above

for the head of the lamed in the upper line,

and a kaf below

for the leg of the kaf in the lower line.

It follows that he holds: two lines and three air-spaces.

Rabbi Abbahu said: For example, “Barukh ben Levi” in one line.

A space of one line and one air-space above for the lamed of “Levi,” and one air-space below for the kaf of “Barukh,” is sufficient.

He holds: one line and two air-spaces.

Rav said: They taught

that a blank space of two lines invalidates,

only between the witnesses and the writing. But between the witnesses and the validation,

between the witnesses and the validation that the court writes at the end of the document, called “validation,”

even a great deal

even if much blank space was left there,

is also valid.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is different between the witnesses and the writing

that it is invalid,

lest he forge and write whatever he wishes,

lest he add things there as he wishes,

and the witnesses have signed,

for the witnesses have signed on it—therefore,

between the witnesses and the validation, too,

there should be concern lest he

forge and write whatever he wishes,

adding things there,

and the witnesses have signed,

for the witnesses are signed above?

And the Gemara answers:

He smears ink over it.

He must soil the space between the witnesses and the validation with ink, so that they will not be able to write anything there. And Rav declared it valid only in this manner. But if the place was completely empty, it is indeed invalid, because it was not done in accordance with the enactment of the Sages, since it is possible to forge and add things there.

And the Gemara objects:

If so, between the witnesses and the document, too,

let us declare the space between them valid when he

smears ink over it,

filling it there with ink!?

And the Gemara answers:

They said:

If so, people will say:

The witnesses signed only upon the blurring!

The witnesses did not sign on the document itself, but only on the blurring, testifying that the owner of the document made this blurring in their presence, and that nothing had been written beneath it for him to erase. Therefore, they do not smear ink there.

And the Gemara objects: If so,

between the witnesses and the validation, too, they will say

they will say:

The court signed only upon the blurring

—the court validates only the blurring and not the document itself?

And the Gemara answers:

The court

-

does not sign upon the blurring. The court does not customarily validate the blurring; rather, it validates the document itself. But with witnesses, there are unlearned people who intend to sign only upon the blurring.

And we raise another objection against Rav, who declares the space between the witnesses and the validation valid:

And let us be concerned lest he cut it off above,

lest he cut off the entire document up to after the witnesses,

and erase the blurring,

and erase the blurring,

and write whatever he wishes, and have the witnesses sign,

writing upon it a new document whose loan amount is twice as large as what had previously been written, and forging the signatures of witnesses, since immediately after the signatures there is a validation by the court that validates what is above?

And the fact that the document is written on erased paper is not an invalidating factor, since the witnesses too are signed on that same paper,

and Rav said,

Rav himself says:

A document in which it and its witnesses are upon erased paper

—both the document and the witnesses were written on erased paper—

is valid.

For only when the document is on erased paper and the witnesses are on blank paper is it invalid, lest he erased above and altered the document. But if both of them are on erased paper, and we see that the upper part was erased only once, like the place of the witnesses, and we recognize the signatures of the witnesses, there is no concern at all, since the witnesses testify concerning this document as it is. What difference is it whether it is blank or black!?