## Bava Batra Daf 161a

###### Bava Batra 161a:1
[Bava Batra 161a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:1)

מְחָק – פָּסוּל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּקוּיָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
but a document with a reference to words written over **an erasure is not valid, even if it is verified** at the end of the document. At the end of a document, before the formula: Everything is confirmed and established, is written, any corrections made in the document are verified by adding to the text: On line so-and-so, such and such a word has been added, or some similar formulation. This may be done only for inserted corrections, not for erasures.


###### Bava Batra 161a:2
[Bava Batra 161a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:2)

וְלֹא אָמְרוּ מְחָק פָּסוּל – אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״, וּכְשִׁיעוּר ״שָׁרִיר וְקַיָּים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies this statement: **And they said that an erasure** on a document renders the document **not valid only** if it is **in a place** on the document where the declaration: Everything is **confirmed and established,** should have been written, **and** only if the erasure **is the measure** of space in which the declaration: Everything is **confirmed and established,** can be written. The only concern with erasures is that the crucial formula: Everything is confirmed and established, might have been erased, as this would allow for unlimited forgery. If the erasure is such that this formula could not possibly have been erased, the document is valid.


###### Bava Batra 161a:3
[Bava Batra 161a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:3)

וּלְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר: אֲחוֹרֵי הַכְּתָב – וּכְנֶגֶד הַכְּתָב מִבַּחוּץ; לֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא כָּתֵיב מִגַּוַּאי מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וּמַחְתִּים סָהֲדֵי יַתִּירֵי מֵאַבָּרַאי, וְאָמַר: אֲנָא לְרַבּוֹת בְּעֵדִים הוּא דַּעֲבַדִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda: **And according to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who says** that the witnesses sign **on the back of the written** side, taking care that the signatures are exactly **opposite the writing, on the outside let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps** the party holding the document **will write whatever he wants on the inside,** i.e., the front of the document, adding to the text, **and** then **have extra witnesses sign on the outside, and** he will **say** to anyone questioning the number of witnesses being more than the minimum: **I did** this in order **to increase** the number of **witnesses,** the more to publicize the matters written in the document.


###### Bava Batra 161a:4
[Bava Batra 161a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי סָבְרַתְּ עֵדִים כְּסִדְרָן חֲתִימִי? עֵדִים מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה חֲתִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to him: Do you maintain** that the **witnesses sign in order,** that is, one under the other, starting from the top of the page on the back? This is not correct; rather, the **witnesses sign from bottom to top.** The witnesses sign in a perpendicular direction relative to the text of the document. The first signature begins at the reverse side of the last line of the document, and it continues upward toward the first line. There is therefore no possibility of adding to the text of the document, as, if the text extended beyond the beginning of the signatures, it would be recognized as a forgery.


###### Bava Batra 161a:5
[Bava Batra 161a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:5)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא מִתְרַמְיָא רֵיעוּתָה בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה, וְגָיֵיז לַיהּ לְשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה – וְגָיֵיז לֵיהּ לִרְאוּבֵן בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּמִתַּכְשַׁר בְּ״בֶן יַעֲקֹב עֵד״; דִּתְנַן: ״בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, עֵד״ – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama continues to question the method of signature prescribed by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: **But let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps something detrimental** to the holder of the document **happens** to appear **in the final line** of the document, **and he excises the final line, and** in doing so **excises** the first name of the witness on the opposite side as well. For instance, if the witness’s name is Reuven, son of Ya’akov, he will excise **Reuven along with** the final line of the document, **and** the document **will be rendered valid with** the remaining part of the signature: **“Son of Ya’akov, witness.” As we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 87b): If one signs: **Son of so-and-so, witness,** without mentioning his own name, the document is **valid.**


###### Bava Batra 161a:6
[Bava Batra 161a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:6)

דִּכְתִיב ״רְאוּבֵן בֶּן״ בְּחַד דָּרָא, וְ״יַעֲקֹב עֵד״ עִלָּוֵויהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where it is written “Reuven, son of” on one line,** i.e., opposite the final line of the document, **and “Ya’akov, witness,” above it,** beginning from the penultimate line of the document and continuing upward in a perpendicular manner. That is, a tied document is valid only if the witnesses sign in this manner. In this case, if the final line of the document is excised, all that will remain of the signature will be: “Ya’akov, witness.”


###### Bava Batra 161a:7
[Bava Batra 161a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:7)

וְלִיחוֹשׁ דִּלְמָא גָּיֵיז לֵיהּ לִ״רְאוּבֵן בֶּן״, וּמִתַּכְשַׁר בְּ״יַעֲקֹב עֵד״ – דִּתְנַן: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד״, כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama continues to ask: **But let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps he will excise** the final line of the document, along with the words **“Reuven, son of,” and** the document **will be rendered valid with** the remaining part of the signature: **“Ya’akov, witness.” As we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 87b): If someone signs just: **So-and-so, witness,** the document is **valid.**


###### Bava Batra 161a:8
[Bava Batra 161a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:8)

דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״עֵד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is a case **where** the word **witness is not written** after the witnesses’ names. That is, a tied document is valid only if the word witness does not appear after the signatures. It is only in such a case that the document cannot be materially changed by excising the final line without rendering the witnesses’ names disqualified.


###### Bava Batra 161a:9
[Bava Batra 161a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/161a:9)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם דִּכְתִב ״עֵד״, דְּיָדְעִינַן בַּהּ דְּהָא חֲתִימוּת יְדָא –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead **that actually** the witness **did write “witness”** after his signature, and the case is one **where we know** for a fact **that this signature,** which consists of the words “Ya’akov, witness,”