## Bava Batra Daf 163a

###### Bava Batra 163a:1
[Bava Batra 163a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:1)

הֵן וַאֲוִירָן, אוֹ דִלְמָא הֵן וְלֹא אֲוִירָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
does this refer to the size of lines **with the space** between lines added? **Or** is it **perhaps** referring to lines of writing themselves, **without their spaces?**


###### Bava Batra 163a:2
[Bava Batra 163a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:2)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּהֵן וַאֲוִירָן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ הֵן וְלֹא אֲוִירָן – שִׁיטָה אַחַת בְּלֹא אֲוִירָהּ, לְמַאי חַזְיָא? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ – הֵן וַאֲוִירָן! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:** It **stands to reason that** it is referring to the lines **with their spaces. As, if** it were to **enter your mind** that it is referring to the lines **without their spaces, for what is one line without its space fit?** The *baraita* did not have to state that a document with a single blank line after the text, measured without counting spaces, is not forgeable; this is obvious. **Rather,** one may **conclude from** this claim that the reference is to two lines **with their spaces.** The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** this claim that it is so.


###### Bava Batra 163a:3
[Bava Batra 163a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:3)

רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַי אָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין שֶׁאָמְרוּ – בִּכְתַב יְדֵי עֵדִים, וְלֹא כְּתַב יְדֵי סוֹפֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּכׇל הַמְזַיֵּיף, לָאו לְגַבֵּי סָפְרָא אָזֵיל וּמְזַיֵּיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shabbtai says in the name of Ḥizkiyya:** With regard to the gap of **two** blank **lines** between the text and the signatures, **which** the Sages **said** invalidates the document, the lines are measured **by the handwriting of witnesses, and not** by **the handwriting of a scribe,** who is presumably skilled enough to write in a smaller script. **What is the reason** for this? **Anyone who forges** a document, adding additional lines to the document, **would not go to a scribe and** ask him to **forge** it; he would execute the forgery himself, or have another unscrupulous person who is not a professional scribe forge it. Therefore, in order to present a concern for possible forgery, a document must have two blank lines that are measured by the handwriting of an ordinary person, such as one of the witnesses.


###### Bava Batra 163a:4
[Bava Batra 163a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:4)

וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: כְּגוֹן ״לְךָ–לְךָ״ זֶה עַל גַּבֵּי זֶה. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין, וְאַרְבָּעָה אֲוִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara has established that the width of the gap required to invalidate the document is two lines with interlinear space. The Gemara clarifies: **And how much** interlinear space is necessary to invalidate the document? **Rav Yitzḥak ben Elazar says: For example,** enough to write the Hebrew word ***lekha*, and** then the Hebrew word ***lekha*, this** word **on top of that** one. These two words each consist of the two letters *lamed* and final *khaf*; the former has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space above it, and the latter has a projection that fully occupies the interlinear space below it. Writing these words one under the other, then, would require an additional interlinear space above and below both lines. The Gemara concludes: **Apparently,** Rav Yitzḥak ben Elazar **maintains** that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of **two** written **lines with four** interlinear **spaces.**


###### Bava Batra 163a:5
[Bava Batra 163a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:5)

רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן לָמֶד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְכָף מִלְּמַטָּה. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: שְׁנֵי שִׁיטִין וּשְׁלֹשָׁה אֲוִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami states** a different opinion **in the name of Ulla: For example,** enough to write a ***lamed* on** the **upper** line **and** a final ***khaf* on** the **lower** line. The Gemara concludes: **Apparently,** Ulla **maintains** that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of **two** written **lines with three** interlinear **spaces,** one above the first line, one between the two lines, and one beneath the second line.


###### Bava Batra 163a:6
[Bava Batra 163a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:6)

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: כְּגוֹן: ״בָּרוּךְ בֶּן לֵוִי״ בְּשִׁיטָה אַחַת. קָא סָבַר: שִׁיטָה אַחַת וּשְׁנֵי אֲוִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu states** a different opinion: **For example,** enough to write the name **Barukh ben Levi on one line.** Barukh contains a final *khaf*, and Levi contains a *lamed*. The Gemara concludes: **Apparently,** Rabbi Abbahu **maintains** that the empty space required to invalidate the document is the width of **one** written **line with two** interlinear **spaces,** one above the line and one beneath the line.


###### Bava Batra 163a:7
[Bava Batra 163a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:7)

אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בֵּין עֵדִים לַכְּתָב, אֲבָל בֵּין עֵדִים לָאַשַּׁרְתָּא – אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: They taught** in the *baraita* that a gap of two lines invalidates the document **only** if that space is **between the witnesses’** signatures **and the text** of the document. **But** if there is a gap **between the witnesses’** signatures **and** a court’s **ratification** of the document, which follows the witnesses’ signatures, then **even** if there is **more** space than this, the document is **valid.**


###### Bava Batra 163a:8
[Bava Batra 163a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא בֵּין עֵדִים לַכְּתָב – דִּלְמָא מְזַיֵּיף וְכָתֵב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וַחֲתִימִי סָהֲדִי; בֵּין עֵדִים לָאַשַּׁרְתָּא נָמֵי, מְזַיֵּיף וְכָתֵב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וַחֲתִימִי סָהֲדִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** about the case where the gap is **between the witnesses and the text,** that it invalidates the document? There is a concern that **perhaps** the holder of the document **may forge** additional lines **and write whatever he wants, and the witnesses** have already **signed** at the bottom, giving the appearance that they attest to the added lines as well. But the same concern can be raised concerning a gap **between the witnesses’** signatures **and** the court’s **ratification as well:** There, too, he can **forge** additional lines **and write whatever he wants, and** have **witnesses sign it,** with the court’s ratification giving the appearance that it attests to the added lines and signatures as well. Why is this document valid?


###### Bava Batra 163a:9
[Bava Batra 163a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:9)

דִּמְטַיֵּיט לֵיהּ. אִי הָכִי, בֵּין עֵדִים לַשְּׁטָר נָמֵי מְטַיֵּיט לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: When is a gap between the witnesses’ signatures and the court’s ratification not problematic, according to Rav? Only **when** someone **inks in** the blank space with lines or dots, to prevent information from being added there. The Gemara asks: **If so,** the gap **between the witnesses’** signatures **and** the text of **the document** should **also** be made irrelevant in this manner: **Let** the scribe **ink in [*metayyet*]** the blank space. Why, then, was it taught categorically that the witnesses must sign within two lines of the text?


###### Bava Batra 163a:10
[Bava Batra 163a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:10)

אָמְרִי: סָהֲדֵי אַטְּיוּטָא הוּא דַּחֲתִימִי. בֵּין עֵדִים לָאַשַּׁרְתָּא נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: בֵּי דִינָא אַטְּיוּטָא הוּא דַּחֲתִימִי! בֵּי דִינָא אַטְּיוּטָא לָא חֲתִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Inking in the gap between the text and the signatures of the witnesses will not help, as people might **say,** i.e., the concern might be raised: **The witnesses are signed** only **on the inking in.** It is possible that the witnesses’ signatures were affixed only to attest that the inking was done in their presence and that the inking in is not a sign of duplicity, and their signatures do not relate to the actual text of the document. The Gemara asks: If so, raise the same concern when the gap **between the witnesses’** signatures **and the** court’s **ratification** is inked in; there too, people might **say: The court’s** ratification **is signed** only **for the inking in,** and not for the actual text of the document. The Gemara answers: **A court does not sign on** mere **inking in;** their ratification is always in reference to the entire document.


###### Bava Batra 163a:11
[Bava Batra 163a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/163a:11)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא גָּיֵיז לֵיהּ לְעֵילָּא, וּמָחֵיק לֵיהּ לִטְיוּטָא, וְכָתֵב מַאי דְּבָעֵי, וּמַחְתִּים סָהֲדֵי; וְאָמַר רַב: שְׁטָר הַבָּא הוּא וְעֵדָיו עַל הַמְּחָק – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another issue: **And let** there be **a concern** that **perhaps** the holder of the document will **excise** the entire text that appears **above** the signatures, **and** then **erase the inked-in** part **and write whatever he wants** in that erased area, **and** have unscrupulous **witnesses sign** it. **And** this would be a valid document, as **Rav says: A document that comes** before the court for ratification in which **its** content **and** the signatures of **its witnesses are** both written **over an erasure** is **valid.** The court ratification would then be assumed to be referring to this new, forged document.