Bava Batra 164a — the Talmud in English

And if you say: He erases it and then erases it again,

why should we not be concerned that he might erase the document and write another one in its place? After all, the document is written on paper, and nevertheless we validate an erased document because the witnesses are also signed on that same paper. If so, how will we be able to recognize it if he erases it again?

Your answer is:

A document erased once is not comparable to a document erased twice.

If he erases the document a second time and writes another document there, they will recognize the forgery: the document itself will be written on paper erased twice, whereas the witnesses’ signatures will be on paper erased only once.

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, raises an objection:

But let us be concerned that perhaps he initially pours ink

on the place intended for the witnesses’ signatures,

perhaps the holder of the document first pours ink over the place where the witnesses will sign, before they sign,

and erases it.

He erases the ink. He then writes the first document over the entire document, including the place of the witnesses’ signatures, and erases everything again. Afterward, he writes it a second time and has the witnesses sign it. At this point, the text of the document is written on paper erased once, whereas the witnesses’ signatures are on paper erased twice.

For when he later erases this document,

and when he subsequently erases the document in order to forge it and write a new document in its place, we will not invalidate it, because

both one and the other will be

since both the document and the witnesses’ signatures will be written on paper

erased twice.

But Rav validates a document when no difference is discernible between the appearance of the erasure on the document and that of the erasure beneath the witnesses’ signatures.

!? The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: Rav holds that witnesses do not sign on an erased surface unless it was erased in their presence,

so that they can see that the place of their signatures was erased only once.

They raise an objection to Rav

from what was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: A document written in such a way that

it,

the text of the document, is written

on blank paper

blank paper,

while its witnesses

are signed

on an erased surface, is valid.

For in any event, the witnesses’ signatures must be authenticated by recognizing their signatures, and therefore there is no concern of forgery because of the erasure.

But according to Rav, who validates a document when both it and its witnesses’ signatures are on an erased surface, this is difficult:

Let us be concerned that perhaps he erases

the document,

and writes whatever he wishes,

writing a new document in its place. When the document reaches the court, they will not invalidate it, since

it is a document with both it and its witnesses’ signatures on an erased surface,

which is valid according to Rav.

!? The Gemara answers:

They write as follows:

In a case where the witnesses sign on an erased surface and the document is written on blank paper, they write:

We, the witnesses, signed on an erased surface,

we, the witnesses, signed on erased paper,

and the document

the document itself

is written on paper

written on blank paper. Consequently, he cannot erase the document.

The Gemara discusses this:

Where do they write this?

Where do they write it?

If below,

if they write it below their signatures,

he can cut it off

for the holder of the document can cut it off, so that he can erase the document.

If above,

if they write it above their signatures,

he can erase it,

erasing the witnesses’ statement together with the entire document, and we will validate it as a document with both it and its witnesses’ signatures on an erased surface. !? The Gemara answers:

They write it between one witness and the other.

They write their statement between the two witnesses’ signatures, so that if he erases that place, the forgery will be apparent. For that place will be erased twice, whereas the place of the signatures will be erased only once.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, consider the latter clause

of the beraita: A document written with

the document itself on an erased surface and its witnesses’ signatures on paper

blank paper is

invalid.

This is because we are concerned that perhaps he erased the earlier document and wrote the present document in its place.

This is difficult:

Why is it invalid!?

Here too,

there is a solution:

let them write as follows,

so that, at the outset, when the document is written, the witnesses write:

We, the witnesses, signed on paper

We signed on blank paper

and the document is on an erased surface,

and the document was written on erased paper. When the document reaches us, we will know that he did not erase it after it was written; rather, it was written that way from the outset.

!?

what would you say?

What further concern is there?

That he might erase the document and erase it again,

perhaps erasing the document a second time,

you have already said: A document erased once is not comparable to one erased twice,

and they will recognize that he erased the document a second time.

!? The Gemara answers:

This applies

what Rav said, that a document erased once is not comparable to one erased twice, only

where the witnesses’ signatures are on an erased surface.

When the witnesses are also signed on the erased surface, there is no concern that he might erase the document a second time, because they will then see the difference between the two erasures, one of which is more deeply erased than the other. But

where the witnesses’ signatures are not on an erased surface but on paper,

as in the case of the beraita, where the witnesses are signed on blank paper,

it cannot be discerned.

It is impossible to distinguish from the erased surface of the document itself whether it was erased once or twice. Therefore, the witnesses’ statement that the document was written on erased paper will not help, because there is still concern that he erased the document a second time.

The Gemara raises an objection: There is a way to check whether the holder of the document erased it a second time:

Let him bring another sheet of parchment and erase it.

One can take another sheet of paper, write on it, and then erase the writing,

and compare it,

comparing it with the erased document; in this way, we will be able to determine whether the document was erased once or twice.

!? The Gemara answers:

The erasure of this sheet is not comparable to the erasure of that sheet.

It is impossible to compare two sheets of paper, because sometimes one of them is thinner, and the erasure is more noticeable on it than on the other, thicker sheet.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let them take the witnesses’ signatures to the court,

since it is possible to bring the witnesses’ signatures before the court for authentication,

and erase them,

and afterward we will be able to erase them,

and compare them,

comparing this erasure, which is on the same paper, with the rest of the document, and we will know whether he erased the document twice. !?

The Gemara answers:

Rav Hoshaya said: Something erased on the day it was written is not comparable to something erased two days earlier.

Therefore, it is impossible to compare the erasure of the witnesses’ signatures, which was done just now, with the erasure of the document, which was done earlier.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let us wait,

letting the erasure of the place of the witnesses’ signatures remain for some time, and afterward compare it with the rest of the document.

!? The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: We are concerned about an inexperienced court,

which may not know to examine the matter carefully and to wait before comparing the erasure of the witnesses’ signatures. Instead, they may compare the erasures immediately and end up validating the forgery. Therefore, the Sages enacted that all documents in which the document is on an erased surface and the witnesses’ signatures are on paper are invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: A folded document

whose witnesses wrote their signatures on the inside is valid, because one can make it into an unfolded document.

Rabbi responded to the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

Rabbi challenged Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel’s statement: How is it possible to validate a folded document whose witnesses signed on the inside?