Bava Batra 163b (קסג:) — the Talmud in English

This works well according to Rav Kahana, who cites it in the name of Shmuel,

who was the one who stated the ruling that a document whose text and witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid,

it is well understood.

For it may be said that Rav disagrees with this ruling, and therefore it is not difficult for him.

But according to Rav Taviumi, who cites the ruling in the name of Rav

that a document whose text and witnesses are both written over an erasure is valid,

what can be said?

The Gemara answers:

Rav holds

that

in any such case,

any document whose text and witnesses are written over an erasure and which also contains a validation clause,

we do not authenticate it on the basis of the validation clause it contains,

we do not rely on the validation clause,

but on the witnesses it contains.

It must be authenticated by recognizing the handwriting of the witnesses whose signatures are written over the erasure. A validation clause is effective only for a document written on blank paper.

But in Rav’s case, where he placed the witnesses at a distance from the validation clause, although he filled in that space, nevertheless the actual text of the document and the witnesses are not written on erased paper but on blank paper, and therefore the validation clause is effective there. There is no concern that he might cut off the entire document and use only the portion that was filled in after erasing it, since in that event the validation clause is not relied upon.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that if he left only a single line of space, the document is valid

only

when the space is

between the witnesses and the text. But between the witnesses and the validation clause, even

if he left only

a single line, it is invalid.

The Gemara analyzes this statement:

What is the difference between the space between the witnesses and the validation clause,

which is invalid even when there is only a single line? The Gemara answers:

Perhaps he will cut off the upper part.

We are concerned that he may cut off the entire document above, down to the blank line,

and write the text and witnesses on a single line.

He would write a new document on that line and forge witnesses’ signatures on that same line, and we would rely on those signatures, since a validation clause follows them. The fact that the text and witnesses are on the same line does not invalidate it, because

Rabbi Yohanan holds

that

a document whose text and witnesses

are both written

on a single line is valid.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, the space between the witnesses and the text should also be

invalid even when there is only a single line, because

perhaps

he will cut off the upper part,

perhaps he will cut off the entire document down to that blank line,

and write whatever he wishes,

writing new contents there,

and the witnesses will sign.

After all, the witnesses below are signed and authenticate what is written above!

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan holds

that

a document whose text is on a single line

containing only one line

and whose witnesses are on another line

beneath it

is invalid.

Therefore, there is no concern that he will write new contents on that blank line.

The Gemara raises another objection:

But let us be concerned that perhaps he wrote the text and witnesses on a single line,

perhaps he will cut off the entire document and insert new contents and forged witnesses into that blank line between the document and the witnesses. After all, if the text and witnesses are on the same line, we said that it is valid. And when he comes to collect with this document, he will authenticate the signatures of the genuine witnesses below.

And he will say,

he will say: This is why I added the witnesses below, even though I already had witnesses on the upper line:

I did this in order to increase the number of witnesses!

I wanted to add witnesses in order to publicize the matter more widely.

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yohanan holds

that

in any such case,

where there are witnesses both on the same line as the document and on the line below,

we do not authenticate it on the basis of the witnesses below, but on the basis of the witnesses above,

who signed on the same line as the document.

The fundamental statement: Rav said: A document whose text and witnesses are written over an erasure is valid.