## Bava Batra Daf 161b

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

לָאו דְּיַעֲקֹב הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is not Yaakov’s** signature. That is, it is known for a fact that there is no one living in the city where the document was written who is named Ya’akov and whose signature matches the signature on this document. Therefore, the court will recognize that the signature must have originally stated: “So-and-so, son of Ya’akov, witness,” and that the last line had been excised, and they will invalidate it.


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

וְדִלְמָא בִּשְׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ חֲתַם! לָא שָׁבֵיק אִינִישׁ שְׁמֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ, וְחָתֵים בִּשְׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama challenges: **But perhaps** this witness **signed using the name of his father** instead of his own name, as a gesture of respect toward his father. The Gemara answers: This is not done; **a person does not discard his own name and sign using** only **the name of his father.**


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

וְדִלְמָא סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּשַׁוְּויֵהּ! דְּהָא רַב צָיֵיר כְּווֹרָא, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא צָיֵיר חֲרוּתָא, רַב חִסְדָּא סָמֶךְ, רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא – עַיִן, רָבָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא – מָכוּתָא! לָא חֲצִיף אִינָשׁ לְשַׁוּוֹיֵהּ לִשְׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ סִימָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama challenges further: **But perhaps** the witness **made** this name **into a mere distinguishing mark** that he uses as his signature, **as** it is known that **Rav** used to **draw a fish** as his signature mark, rather than signing his name, and **Rabbi Ḥanina** used to **draw a palm branch** as his signature mark, and **Rav Ḥisda** used to sign just the letter ***samekh*,** and **Rav Hoshaya** used to sign just the letter ***ayin*,** and **Rava bar Rav Huna** used to sign his name by drawing a ship’s **mast [*makhota*].** The Gemara answers: **A person is not** so **insolent** as **to use his father’s name as a distinguishing mark.**


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

מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: לְמָה לָךְ כּוּלֵּי הַאי? כׇּל מְקוּשָּׁר שֶׁאֵין עֵדָיו כָּלִין בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra said: Why do you need all this?** Why go to such lengths to answer the question posed above? There is a simpler answer: **Any tied** document **whose witnesses do not end on a single line** is **not valid.** The Gemara had previously assumed that the witnesses sign one after the other, beginning at the document’s bottom line and going upward toward the first line; this arrangement leaves open the possibility that the signature of the first witness could be truncated by an unscrupulous party. Mar Zutra explains that this is not so; rather, the signatures are written with each one beginning opposite the bottom line and heading upward toward the beginning of the document. Therefore, if a line of text is excised from the bottom of the document, the names of all the witnesses on the reverse side will be truncated, and the forgery will become apparent.


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

אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְּחָקִין כּוּלָּן, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב ״וְדֵין קִיּוּמֵיהוֹן״. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּחֲזוֹר מֵעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בְּשִׁיטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה; מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** There are two *halakhot* with regard to documents: For **any erasures** in a document, the scribe **must write** at the end of the document: **And this is their verification.** That is, he must list the erasures, stating that on line so-and-so there is an erasure and a correction stating such and such, for each erasure. **And** the second *halakha* is that the scribe **must review** some **of the details of the document in the final line** of the document. **What is the reason** for this second requirement?