Bava Batra 163a (קסג.) — the Talmud in English

Does the reference mean the total space,

both the lines and their air spaces,

meaning specifically when there remains a space equivalent to two lines together with the space between the two lines?

Or perhaps it means the lines but not their air spaces,

so that even a space equivalent to only two lines invalidates the document, even without the space between the lines?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable that it means both the lines and their air spaces.

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

For if it enters your mind that it means the lines but not their air spaces,

then the one-line space that the beraita said is valid would also refer to a space equivalent to only one line, without the air space of the line; beyond that, it is invalid. If so, this would be difficult:

What use is a single line without its air space!?

After all, nothing can be written on a single line when there is no space between it and the adjacent line, so why did the beraita need to teach us that a one-line space is valid?

Rather, conclude from this: It means both the lines and their air spaces.

Even regarding the two lines that the beraita said are invalid, it is referring to a space that includes the air spaces of the two lines.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from this!

Rabbi Shabbtai said in the name of Ḥizkiyya: The two lines that they mentioned are measured according to the script of the witnesses,

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

and not according to the

size of

the script of

the

scribe,

which is smaller.

What is the reason?

Because

a forger does not go to a scribe to have him forge the document for him.

He does not go to a scribe to have him forge it, lest the scribe refuse to assist him; rather, he forges it himself, discreetly, in his home. He cannot write in script as fine as that of the scribe. Therefore, as long as there does not remain a space equivalent to two lines in the script of an ordinary person, such as the witnesses, there is no concern that the holder of the document will manage to forge it and write two lines there in his own script.

And the Gemara asks:

And how much

space between the document and the witnesses causes the document to be invalid? The Gemara answers:

Rav Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: For example, “lekh—

—

lekh,” one above the other.

The space between the two lines must be sufficient so that if two instances of the word “lekh” were placed opposite one another, one from the upper line and one from the lower line, the head of the lamed of the lower line would not touch the lower stroke of the kaf of the upper line. With less than this, there is no concern that he will forge the document.

It follows that he holds

that one requires a space equivalent to

two lines and four air spaces:

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 lower stroke of the kaf of the upper line. In addition, two air spaces are required: one above the upper line for the head of the lamed of its word “lekh,” and one below the lower line for the lower stroke of the kaf of its word “lekh.”

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla:

There is no need for a space of two air spaces between the lines, because he can train his hand to distance the head of the lower lamed from the lower stroke of the upper kaf, and one air space between them is sufficient. 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 lower stroke 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 a single line.

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

He holds: one line and two air spaces.

Rav said: They taught

that a space equivalent to two lines invalidates the document

only between the witnesses and the written text. But between the witnesses and the asherata,

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

even a great deal,

even if much space was left there,

it is also valid.

And the Gemara asks:

What is different about the space between the witnesses and the written text

that it is invalid,

lest he forge it and write whatever he wishes,

perhaps adding whatever material he wants there,

and the witnesses have signed,

and the witnesses are signed concerning it? Therefore,

between the witnesses and the asherata, too,

there should be concern

lest he forge it and write whatever he wishes,

adding material there,

and the witnesses have signed,

as the witnesses are signed above it?

The Gemara answers:

He covers it with ink.

He must soil the space between the witnesses and the asherata with ink, so that nothing can be written there. Rav declared it valid only in such a case. But if the area was left completely blank, it is indeed invalid, because this was not done in accordance with the Sages’ ordinance, as it would be possible to forge the document and add material there.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

let us declare the space between them valid when it is done in the manner of

covering it with ink,

meaning that he fills that area with ink!?

The Gemara answers:

They said:

If so, people will say:

The witnesses signed only upon the blurring!

The witnesses did not sign upon the document itself, but only upon the blurring, testifying that the holder of the document made this blurring in their presence, and that nothing had been written beneath it for him to erase. Therefore, one does not cover that area with ink.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so,

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

they will say:

The court signed only upon the blurring,

meaning that the court validates only the blurring and not the document itself?

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 ignorant people who intend to sign only upon the blurring.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Rav, who declares the space between the witnesses and the asherata valid:

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

perhaps cutting away the entire document down to after the witnesses,

and erase the blurring,

erasing the blurring,

and write whatever he wishes and sign witnesses,

writing a new document on it for a loan whose amount is twice as large as what had previously been written, and forging the witnesses’ signatures—for immediately after the signatures there is an asherata from the court validating everything above it?

The fact that the document is written on erased paper does not invalidate it, since the witnesses’ signatures are also on that same paper.

And Rav said:

Rav himself says:

A document in which it and its witnesses are on erased paper,

meaning that both the document and the witnesses are written on erased paper,

is valid.

It is invalid only when the document is on erased paper but the witnesses are on blank paper, because of concern that he erased the upper portion and altered the document. But if both are on erased paper, and we see that the upper portion was erased only once, like the area beneath the witnesses, and we recognize the witnesses’ signatures, there is no concern: The witnesses testify concerning this document as it stands, and what difference is it whether the paper is blank or blackened?!