## Bava Batra Daf 160b

###### Bava Batra 160b:1
[Bava Batra 160b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:1)

זֶה פָּשׁוּט. ״וְחָתוֹם״ – זֶה מְקוּשָּׁר. ״וְהָעֵד״ – שְׁנַיִם, ״עֵדִים״ – שְׁלֹשָׁה. הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁנַיִם לְפָשׁוּט, שְׁלֹשָׁה לִמְקוּשָּׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**this** is referring to **an ordinary** document. When the verse states: **“And seal them,” this** is referring to **a tied** document. The next phrase, “and call witnesses [*veha’ed edim*],” which more literally would be translated: And have witnesses bear witness, is interpreted as follows: **“And have bear witness [*veha’ed*],”** this indicates the need for **two** witnesses, as the term “witness [*ed*]” in the Torah generally refers to two witnesses. As to the word **“witnesses [*edim*],”** this additional term indicates the need for **three** witnesses. **How so?** How can the verse call for both two witnesses and three witnesses? Rabbi Ḥanina explains: **Two** witnesses are required **for an ordinary** document, and **three** are required **for a tied** document.


###### Bava Batra 160b:2
[Bava Batra 160b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:2)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה בִּקְשָׁרָיו, נִתְרַבָּה בְּעֵדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But I** can just as well **reverse** it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: **Since** the tied document requires **more** to be done **with regard to its ties,** it stands to reason that it requires **more** to be done **with regard to its witnesses,** requiring three rather than two.


###### Bava Batra 160b:3
[Bava Batra 160b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:3)

רַפְרָם אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה, אֶת הֶחָתוּם הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים, וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי״; ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה״ – זֶה פָּשׁוּט. ״אֶת הֶחָתוּם״ – זֶה מְקוּשָּׁר. ״וְאֶת הַגָּלוּי״ – זֶה פָּשׁוּט שֶׁבַּמְקוּשָּׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rafram says** that there is a different source for two kinds of documents, **from here: “So I took the deed of the purchase, that which was sealed, the terms and conditions, and that which was open”** (Jeremiah 32:11). When the verse states: **“So I took the deed of the purchase,” this** is referring to **an ordinary** document. When it states: **“That which was sealed,” this** is referring to **a tied** document. When it states: **“And that which was open,” this** is referring to the **ordinary,** unfolded part **of a tied** document.


###### Bava Batra 160b:4
[Bava Batra 160b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:4)

״הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים״ – אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין פָּשׁוּט לִמְקוּשָּׁר. הָא כֵּיצַד? זֶה עֵדָיו שְׁנַיִם, וְזֶה עֵדָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה; זֶה עֵדָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ, וְזֶה עֵדָיו מֵאֲחוֹרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rafram continues: With regard to the phrase: **“The terms and conditions,” these are the matters that** distinguish **an ordinary** document **from a tied** one. **How so?** What are the details that differentiate the two types of documents? **This** one, the ordinary document, has **two witnesses, and that** one, the tied document, has **three witnesses.** And in **this** one, the ordinary document, **its witnesses** are signed **inside it,** on the front side, while in **that** one, the tied document, **its witnesses** are signed **on the back of it.**


###### Bava Batra 160b:5
[Bava Batra 160b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:5)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה בִּקְשָׁרָיו, נִתְרַבָּה בְּעֵדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But I** can just as well **reverse** it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: **Since** the tied document requires **more** to be done **with regard to its ties,** it stands to reason that it requires **more** to be done **with regard to its witnesses,** requiring three rather than two.


###### Bava Batra 160b:6
[Bava Batra 160b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:6)

רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר״ – אִם תִּתְקַיֵּים עֵדוּתָן בִּשְׁנַיִם, לָמָּה פָּרַט לָךְ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה? לוֹמַר לָךְ: שְׁנַיִם לְפָשׁוּט, שְׁלֹשָׁה לִמְקוּשָּׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Yeḥezkel said** that there is a different source for two sets of *halakhot* for two types of documents **from here: “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established”** (Deuteronomy 19:15). **If** witnesses’ **testimony is established with two** witnesses, **why** did the verse **specify for you** that it is also established **with three,** which is self-evident? Rather, this verse serves **to tell you** that there is a requirement for **two** witnesses **for an ordinary** document, and a requirement for **three** witnesses **for a tied** document.


###### Bava Batra 160b:7
[Bava Batra 160b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:7)

וְאֵיפוֹךְ אֲנָא! מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּתְרַבָּה בִּקְשָׁרָיו, נִתְרַבָּה בְּעֵדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But I** can just as well **reverse** it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: **Since** the tied document requires **more** to be done **with regard to its ties,** it stands to reason that it requires **more** to be done **with regard to its witnesses,** requiring three rather than two.


###### Bava Batra 160b:8
[Bava Batra 160b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:8)

וְהָנֵי לְהָכִי הוּא דְּאָתוּ? כׇּל חַד וְחַד לְמִילְּתֵיהּ הוּא דַּאֲתָא – לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ, וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם״ – עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת סֵפֶר הַמִּקְנָה״ – הָכִי הֲוָה מַעֲשֶׂה. ״עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ עַל פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים״ – לְהַקִּישׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם, בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it so that **these** verses **are coming for this** purpose, to teach that there are two types of documents? But **each and every one** of them **comes for its** own **purpose.** The first verse comes **for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: When the verse states: **“They shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them,** and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44), it is merely to **teach us good advice,** that people should carefully document their purchases in order to provide permanent proof of purchase. When the verse states: **“So I took the deed of the purchase”** (Jeremiah 32:11), **this was** merely how that **incident** occurred, and the phrase is not intended to teach any *halakhot*. When the verse states: **“At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses** shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), this is stated in order **to juxtapose three** witnesses **with two** witnesses for several reasons, as delineated **in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis** (*Makkot* 5b).


###### Bava Batra 160b:9
[Bava Batra 160b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:9)

אֶלָּא מְקוּשָּׁר מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּקְרָאֵי אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the entire institution of the **tied** document is **rabbinic** in origin, **and** all these **verses** that were cited above by various *amora’im* were intended as **mere support** for the concept of a tied document, as opposed to actual sources.


###### Bava Batra 160b:10
[Bava Batra 160b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:10)

וְטַעְמָא מַאי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן מְקוּשָּׁר? אַתְרָא דְכָהֲנֵי הֲווֹ, וַהֲווֹ קָפְדִי טוּבָא וּמְגָרְשִׁי נָשַׁיְיהוּ; וְעָבְדִי רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **the Sages instituted** the **tied** document? The Gemara explains: There was **a place where there were** many **priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would** seek to **divorce their wives** impetuously. The *halakha* is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. **And** therefore, **the Sages instituted an ordinance** that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that **meanwhile, their composure would be regained** and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.


###### Bava Batra 160b:11
[Bava Batra 160b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:11)

הָתִינַח גִּיטִּין, שְׁטָרוֹת מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּחַלֵּק בֵּין גִּיטִּין לִשְׁטָרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This **works out well** for **bills of divorce,** but **what can be said** with regard to other **documents?** Why is this procedure used for other documents as well? The Gemara answers: This was instituted **so that you should not differentiate between bills of divorce and** other **documents.**


###### Bava Batra 160b:12
[Bava Batra 160b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:12)

הֵיכָן עֵדִים חוֹתְמִין? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר. וְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: אֲחוֹרֵי הַכְּתָב – וּכְנֶגֶד הַכְּתָב מִבַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Where do the witnesses sign** on a tied document? **Rav Huna says:** They sign **between each tied** fold. **And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says:** They sign **on the back of the written** side, taking care that the signatures are exactly **opposite the writing, on the outside.**


###### Bava Batra 160b:13
[Bava Batra 160b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: לְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר – קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר מִגַּוַּאי – וְהָא הָהוּא מְקוּשָּׁר דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְאָמַר רַבִּי: אֵין זְמַן בָּזֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי לְרַבִּי: שֶׁמָּא בֵּין קְשָׁרָיו מוּבְלָע? פַּלְיֵיהּ, וְחַזְיֵיהּ. וְאִם אִיתָא, ״אֵין זְמַן בָּזֶה וְאֵין עֵדִים בָּזֶה״ מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: According to Rav Huna, who says** that the witnesses sign **between each tied** fold, it **enters our mind** that he meant **between each tied** fold **on the inside** of the document. **But** this is difficult, as there was **a certain tied** document **that came before Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was tied, **said: There is no date on this** document, so it is not valid. Then, **Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **said to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: **Perhaps** the date is **hidden between the tied** folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **opened it and saw** that the date was in fact between the tied folds. **And if it is so** that the witnesses sign between each tied fold on the inside of the document, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **should have** had two objections, and said: **There is no date on this** document, **and there are** also **no witnesses** signed **on this** document.


###### Bava Batra 160b:14
[Bava Batra 160b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר – מִגַּוַּאי? לָא, בֵּין קֶשֶׁר לְקֶשֶׁר – מֵאַבָּרַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to him: Do you maintain** that Rav Huna meant that the witnesses sign **between the tied** folds **on the inside? No,** he meant **between the tied** folds **on the outside** of the document.


###### Bava Batra 160b:15
[Bava Batra 160b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:15)

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא זַיֵּיף וְכָתֵב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וַחֲתִימִי סָהֲדִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rav Huna’s opinion: **But let us be concerned** that **perhaps** the party holding the document **falsified** some information **and wrote whatever he wanted. And** this is a concern, as there are already **witnesses signed** on the document. In an ordinary document the witnesses sign immediately following the text, so there is no possibility of adding to the text. A tied document has part of its text written in the folds, but also has a part written on the face of the document on the unfolded paper, before or after the text in the folded part. If the witnesses sign between the folds there is the possibility of writing additional text in the unfolded section.


###### Bava Batra 160b:16
[Bava Batra 160b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:16)

דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: The case is one **where it is written in** the document: Everything is **confirmed and established.** That is, every folded document must contain this formula at the end of the text, to prevent forgery, as any writing after this formula would be disregarded.


###### Bava Batra 160b:17
[Bava Batra 160b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:17)

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא כָּתֵב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וַהֲדַר כָּתֵב ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״ אַחֲרִינָא! חַד ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״ כָּתְבִינַן, תְּרֵי ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״ לָא כָּתְבִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But let us be concerned** that **perhaps** the holder of the document **wrote whatever he wanted and afterward wrote another** time: Everything is **confirmed and established.** The Gemara explains: **We write** only **one** declaration of: Everything is **confirmed and established; we do not write two** declarations of: Everything is **confirmed and established.** Therefore, anything written after the first declaration would be rejected, even if followed by a repetition of the declaration.


###### Bava Batra 160b:18
[Bava Batra 160b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/160b:18)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מָחֵיק לֵיהּ לְ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״, וְכָתַב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וַהֲדַר כָּתֵב ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״! הָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּלוּיָה; מְקוּיֶּימֶת – כְּשֵׁרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions further: **But let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps** the holder of the document **erased** the declaration: Everything is **confirmed and established, and** then **wrote whatever he wanted** over the erasure, **and afterward wrote** the declaration: Everything is **confirmed and established.** The Gemara responds: How could this happen? **Doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** A document that includes **a suspended** correction of text inserted between lines of the document, which is **verified** at the end of the document, **is valid;**