Quoting%20commentary for Bava Batra 320:18

וליחוש דלמא מחיק ליה לשריר וקיים וכתב מאי דבעי והדר כתב שריר וקיים הא אמר ר' יוחנן תלויה מקויימת כשרה

Rami b. Hama said to R. Hisda: According to R. Huna who said [that the witnesses sign] 'between [one] fold and the other', assuming [that he meant], 'between [one] fold and the other on the external side'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the document. ');">⁴³</span> [the following objection may be raised]: Surely, a folded [deed] was once brought before Rabbi who remarked, 'There is no date on this [deed]'. [Thereupon] R. Simeon son of Rabbi said to Rabbi, 'It might be hidden between the folds'. [On] ripping [the seams] open he saw it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The date. ');">⁴⁴</span> Now, if it were [so],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the witnesses sign between the written lines on the inside and that their signatures are consequently folded and stitched in the same way as the date. ');">⁴⁵</span> he should have [remarked].' There is neither date nor are there witnesses on this deed!' — He replied to him: Do you think [that according to R. Huna the witnesses sign] between the folds on the inside? No; [they sign] between the folds on the outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the signatures may be seen without ripping open the stitched folds. [According to the description of the folded deed given by the Yad Ramah, the signatures would appear as in fig. 2, p. 704.] ');">⁴⁶</span> But [is there no reason] to apprehend that he might forge [the lower section of the folded deed]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is left unfolded. (Cf. supra p. 700. n. 14.) ');">⁴⁷</span> and enter whatever he wished [after] the witnesses had signed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the external sides of the folds of the upper section. Since the signatures do not appear at the foot of the deed, there is no guarantee that the holder would not add anything he pleased. ');">⁴⁸</span> — 'Firm and established', is entered on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This formula appears at the foot of every deed, and anything added after it would be detected at once as a forgery. ');">⁴⁹</span> Is [there, however, no reason] to apprehend that he might enter whatever he wished and then write a second time, 'firm and established'? — [The formula], 'firm and established', is entered [only] once,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one firm etc. we write. ');">⁵⁰</span> not twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'two'. Cf. previous note. Hence the forgery would be detected by the double entry of the formula. ');">⁵¹</span> Is [there no] apprehension that he might erase the [original] 'firm and established', and add<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'write'. ');">⁵²</span> whatever he wished, and then write, 'firm and established'? — Surely, R. Johanan said: A suspended [word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or words, inserted between the lines of a deed. ');">⁵³</span> that has been] confirmed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the foot of the deed. ');">⁵⁴</span> is admissible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the deed is valid. ');">⁵⁵</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Batra 320:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.