Bava Batra 325

הן ואוירן או דלמא הן ולא אוירן

[include] themselves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the space occupied by the written lines. ');">¹</span> and the space between them or, perhaps, themselves [only] and not the space between them? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It stands to reason that they and the space between them [were meant];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that if space enough for the written lines only was left, the deed is valid. ');">²</span> for if it could be assumed [that only] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 707. n. 26. ');">³</span>

א"ר נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא דהן ואוירן דאי סלקא דעתך הן ולא אוירן שיטה אחת בלא אוירה למאי חזיא אלא ש"מ הן ואוירן שמע מינה

[were meant] and not the space between them, of what use<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Current edd., 'one line without its space', is to be deleted. (CF. Rashb. and BaH, a.l.). ');">⁴</span> [is such a narrow space]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No forgery could in such a case be committed with impunity. Whether the two lines would be inserted without the proper space between them or whether intervening space would be obtained by the use of a smaller hand, the forgery would be easily detected. Why, then, should a deed containing such a narrow blank space be invalid? ');">⁵</span> Consequently it follows [that] they and the space between them [were meant]. This proves it.

רבי שבתי אמר משמיה דחזקיה שני שיטין שאמרו בכתב ידי עדים ולא כתב ידי סופר מ"ט דכל המזייף לאו לגבי ספרא אזיל ומזייף

R. Sabbathai said in the name of Hezekiah: The 'two lines' that were mentioned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' CF. p. 707, n. 15. ');">⁶</span> [are such as are] in the handwriting of the witnesses, not [in] the handwriting of the scribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The characters in the handwriting of ordinary witnesses ate larger than those of a skilled scribe, and naturally occupy more space. ');">⁷</span> What is the reason? Because whoever [desires to] commit forgery does not go to a scribe to get it done.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and forge'. A forgery would be carried out in the secrecy of one's house and the unskilled writer would naturally draw big characters. ');">⁸</span>

וכמה אמר רב יצחק בן אלעזר כגון לך לך זה על גבי זה אלמא קסבר שני שיטין וארבעה אוירין

And how much [space]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is implied by the limit of 'two lines'. ');">⁹</span> — R. Isaac b. Eleazar said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] Lak Lak<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] to thee, to thee, (or perhaps [H] get thee out, a clause from Gen. XII, 1). There must be sufficient space for allowing of the writing, in each of the two lines, of letters which extend upwards ([H]) and downwards ([H]) without their touching each other. These letters, furthermore, are to be in the larger kind of character as reported above in the name of Hezekiah. Cf. supra note 6. ');">¹⁰</span> above one another. This shows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and four [intervening] spaces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two between the lines (for the [H] of the upper, and the [H] of the lower line), one above the upper line for the [H], and one space below the lower line for the [H]. Thus: [H] ');">¹¹</span>

רב חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר כגון למ"ד מלמעלה וכ"ף מלמטה אלמא קסבר שני שיטין ושלשה אוירין

R. Hiyya b. Ammi in the name of 'Ulla said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] a Lamed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">¹²</span> in the upper.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from above'. ');">¹³</span> and a [final] Kaph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H]. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבי אבהו אמר כגון ברוך בן לוי בשיטה אחת קא סבר שיטה אחת ושני אוירין

in the lower [line].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., from below'. ');">¹⁵</span> [from this]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since mention is only made of a [H] in the upper, and a [H] in the lower line. ');">¹⁶</span> it clearly follows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and three [intervening] spaces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One above the upper line for the letters which, like a [H], extend upwards; another below the second line for the letters which like [H], extend downwards; and a third between the two written lines for the letters that run both downwards and upwards. Should a [H] happen to come below a [H], one could easily move the letter forward or backward to avoid coalescence. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב לא שנו אלא בין עדים לכתב אבל בין עדים לאשרתא אפילו טובא נמי כשר

R. Abbahu said: As [much] for instance [as is necessary for the writing of] Baruk b. Levi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] contains two letters which extend downwards and one which runs upwards. ');">¹⁸</span> in one line; [for] he holds the opinion [that the limit is] one [written] line and two [intervening] spaces. Rab said: What has been taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the limit to two lines of the blank space allowed below the text of a deed. ');">¹⁹</span>

מאי שנא בין עדים לכתב דלמא מזייף וכתב מאי דבעי וחתימי סהדי בין עדים לאשרתא נמי מזייף וכתב מאי דבעי וחתימי סהדי

is only applicable [to the space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text; but between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the legal attestation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Confirmation by a court at the foot of a document. ');">²⁰</span> even if [the blank space is] wider, [the deed] is valid. Why [is the limit] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text different [from the other]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That between the signatures and the attestation of the court. ');">²¹</span> Because, the witnesses having signed, [the holder of the deed] might commit forgery by entering [on it] whatever he desires! [In the case of the blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation too, [could not] forgery be committed by entering whatever one desired and attaching the signature of witnesses?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the attestation at the foot would be regarded as a confirmation of the entire deed inclusive of the spurious additions and signatures. ');">²²</span>

דמטייט ליה א"ה בין עדים לשטר נמי מטייט ליה

— [In the case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., more blank space than the 'two lines' maximum is allowed not in all cases but only in that particular case. ');">²³</span> where [the blank space] is dotted with ink marks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that nothing could be entered on that space. Aruk reads [H] ([H] to dot with ink); cur. edit. [H] ([H] to blot, smear). ');">²⁴</span> If so, one [could] also dot with ink marks [any blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the [text of the] deed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why, then, was the blank space in this case restricted to the minimum of two lines? ');">²⁵</span>

אמרי סהדי אטיוטא הוא דחתימי בין עדים לאשרתא נמי אמרי בי דינא אטיוטא הוא דחתימי בי דינא אטיוטא לא חתימי

— It might be assumed [that] the witnesses had confirmed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'signed'. ');">²⁶</span> the dotted [portion].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the text; and this would invalidate the deed (cf. Git. 87a). Hence, no dotted ink marks are permissible between the text of a deed and the signatures of the witnesses. ');">²⁷</span> [In the case of dotted ink marks] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation, [would it not] also be assumed [that] the court had confirmed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 709. n. 10. ');">²⁸</span>

וליחוש דלמא גייז ליה לעילא ומחיק ליה לטיוטא וכתב מאי דבעי ומחתים סהדי ואמר רב שטר הבא הוא ועדיו על המחק כשר

the dotted portion? — A court does not confirm an ink dotted [space].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it would, therefore, be obvious that the attestation referred to the text of the deed. In the case of witnesses, however, such an assumption is not warranted, since not every witness knows the law and it is possible to assume that the holder of the deed had found some witnesses who consented to confirm with their signatures that a blank space was dotted with ink marks. ');">²⁹</span> Is [there no reason] to apprehend<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an unlimited blank space be allowed between the signatures of the witnesses and the attestation of the court. ');">³⁰</span> that the upper [portion of the deed], might be [entirely] cut off, the ink dots erased, any [terms] desired entered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the spot erased. ');">³¹</span> and the signatures of witnesses [also] might be attached<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without their knowledge. ');">³²</span> [and yet the deed would be regarded as valid], since Rab stated that a deed the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'. ');">³³</span> and the [signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 163b seq. ');">³⁴</span> is legally valid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the signatures are known. In the case, therefore, where an attestation of a court appears at the foot of the deed, the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses would be taken for granted; and since, according to Rab, the fact that the deed is written on an erasure is no disqualification of its legality, the forgery would never be detected. How, then, could Rab state that the two lines limit does not apply to the space between the signatures of the witnesses and the attestation of the court? ');">³⁵</span>