Bava Batra 164a (קסד.) — the Talmud in English

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

why should we not be concerned that perhaps he will 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 can we recognize whether he erased it again?

Your answer is:

An item erased once is not comparable to an item erased twice.

If he erases the document once more and writes another document there, they will recognize the forgery, since the document itself will be written on paper erased twice, whereas the witnesses are signed on paper erased only once.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But let us be concerned lest he pour ink

over the place of the witnesses initially,

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

and erase it.

Then he will write the first document over the entire document, including the place of the witnesses, and erase everything again. Afterward, he will write it once more and have the witnesses sign it. At this stage, the text of the document will be written on paper erased once, whereas the witnesses will be signed on paper erased twice.

For when he subsequently erases this one,

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

it will be the case that both this and that,

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

erased twice.

And Rav validates a document when no difference is discernible between the manner in which the document was erased and the manner in which the witnesses’ signatures were erased, does he not?

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: Rav holds that the witnesses sign on erased paper only if it was erased in their presence,

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

The Gemara raises an objection

against Rav from that which was taught in a beraita: A document written in such a manner that

it,

the text of the document, is written

on the paper

that is blank,

while its witnesses

are signed

on erased paper, is valid.

For in any event, the witnesses’ signatures must be verified by recognizing their signatures, and if so, there is no concern of forgery on account of the erasure.

But according to Rav, who validates a document in which it and its witnesses are on erased paper, it is difficult:

But let us be concerned lest he erase it

the document,

and write whatever he wishes,

writing a new document in its place; and when the document reaches the court, they will not disqualify it, since

it will be the case that it and its witnesses are on erased paper,

which is valid according to Rav, is it not?

And the Gemara answers:

They write it in this manner,

in a case where the witnesses sign on erased paper and the document is written on blank paper, they write as follows:

We, the witnesses, signed on erased paper,

we, the witnesses, signed on erased paper,

and the document

itself

is written on paper

that is blank. Consequently, he cannot erase the document.

And the Gemara analyzes:

Where do they write it,

where do they write this statement?

If below,

if they write it beneath their signatures,

he can cut it off,

as the holder of the document can cut it away in order to be able to erase the document.

If above,

if they write it above their signatures,

he can erase it,

he will erase the witnesses’ statement together with the entire document, and we will validate it under the law of a document in which it and its witnesses are on erased paper, will we not? And 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 it there, the forgery will be apparent. For that area will have been erased twice, whereas the place of the signatures will have been erased only once.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, say the latter clause

of the beraita: A document written such that

it is on erased paper and its witnesses are on paper

that is blank,

is invalid.

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

And it is difficult:

Why is it invalid?

Here too,

there is a solution:

Let them write it this way,

so that initially, when the document is written, the witnesses write:

We, the witnesses, signed on paper

that is blank,

and the document is on erased paper.

When the document reaches us, we will know that he did not erase the document after it was written, but that this was its original state, will we not?

!?

Now too,

what would you say?

What further concern is there?

He erases it and erases it again.

Perhaps he will erase the document a second time.

You have said: An item erased once is not comparable to an item erased twice,

and they will recognize that he erased the document a second time, will they not?

And the Gemara answers:

This applies

what Rav said, that an item erased once is not comparable to an item erased twice, only

where the witnesses are signed on erased paper.

When the witnesses are also signed on erased paper, there is no concern that perhaps he will erase the document a second time, since they will see the difference between the two erasures, one being more deeply erased than the other. But

where the witnesses are not signed on erased paper but on paper,

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

it is not discernible.

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

And the Gemara raises an objection: There is a way to examine whether the holder of the document erased it a second time or not:

Let him bring another scroll and erase it.

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

and compare them,

comparing it with the erased document, and thereby determine whether the document was erased once or twice, will we not?

And the Gemara answers:

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

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Let him submit the handwritten signatures of the witnesses to the court,

for it is possible to bring the witnesses’ signatures before the court so that they can verify them,

and erase them,

and afterward we can erase them,

and compare them,

comparing this erasure, which is on the same paper as the rest of the document, with the rest of the document, and we will know whether he erased the document twice, will we not?

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Hoshaya said: An item erased after one day is not comparable to an item erased after two days.

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Let him wait,

let him wait some time before erasing the place of the witnesses, and afterward compare it with the rest of the document, will he not?

And the Gemara answers:

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

whose members will not know to examine the matter so carefully and wait before erasing the witnesses’ signatures; rather, they will immediately compare the erasures and thereby validate the forgery. Therefore, the Sages enacted that all documents written on erased paper with their witnesses on blank paper are invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: A folded document

whose witnesses signed inside it is valid, because one can make it into a simple document.

Rabbi responded to the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel,

Rabbi raised an objection to the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel: How can one validate a folded document whose witnesses signed inside it?