Bava Batra 326:1

הניחא לרב כהנא דמתני לה משמיה דשמואל שפיר אלא לרב טביומי דמתני לה משמיה דרב מאי איכא למימר

According to R. Kahana who reported it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The legality of a deed, the text and signatures on which are written on an erasure. ');">¹</span> in the name of Samuel, this is quite right;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No difficulty arises, since it may be claimed that, in the opinion of Rab, a deed on an erasure is invalid. ');">²</span> according to R. Tabyumi. however, who reported it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The legality of a deed, the text and signatures on which are written on an erasure. ');">¹</span>

קסבר כל כי האי גוונא אין מקיימין אותו מן האשרתא שבו אלא מן העדים שבו

in the name of Rab, what is there to be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the difficulty raised. Cf. supra note 8. ');">³</span> — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab. ');">⁴</span> is of the opinion that in any such case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the text of the deed and its witnesses are written on an erasure though an attestation of a court also appears on it. ');">⁵</span>

ורבי יוחנן אמר לא שנו אלא בין העדים לכתב אבל בין עדים לאשרתא אפילו שיטה אחת פסול

[a deed] is not confirmed by the attestation of the court that [may appear] on it but by the witnesses on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the personal evidence of the witnesses, or that of those who knew their signatures, is thus required, a forgery on the lines suggested would, of course, be detected. ');">⁶</span> R. Johanan, however, said: What has been taught<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 709. n. 3. ');">⁷</span> 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',' V. l.c., n. 4. ');">⁸</span>

מאי שנא בין עדים לאשרתא דלמא גייז לעילאי וכתב הוא ועדיו בשיטה אחת וקסבר שטר הבא הוא ועדיו בשיטה אחת כשר

even [if the blank space is limited to] one line<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And even though that space is dotted with ink marks (Rashb.). ');">⁹</span> [the deed is] invalid. Why [is the limit] between the witnesses and the attestation different [from the other]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That between the text and the witnesses. ');">¹⁰</span> Because the upper [portion of the deed] might be cut off and the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'. ');">¹¹</span>

אי הכי בין עדים לכתב נמי דלמא גייז ליה לעילאי וכתב מאי דבעי וחתימי סהדי קא סבר שטר הבא הוא בשיטה אחת ועדיו בשיטה אחרת פסול

[of a new deed] and its witnesses might be written on the one line, and he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">¹²</span> is of the opinion that a deed the text and the witnesses of which appear on one line is valid! If so, [in the case of a space] between the witnesses and the text also, might not the upper [portion of the deed] be cut off and, the witnesses having signed, anything one desires might be entered? — He holds the opinion [that] a deed the text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it'. ');">¹¹</span> of which appears on one line and its witnesses on another is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, as stated supra 162a, the last line cannot be taken as the determining factor. ');">¹³</span>

וליחוש דלמא כתב הוא ועדיו בשיטה אחת ואמר אנא לרבות בעדים הוא דעבדי

But is [there no reason] to apprehend that the text and the witnesses might be written in one line<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the Original text of the deed would be cut away, leaving only the two lines' blank space above the signatures and, on one of these, a forged text and signatures would be written. ');">¹⁴</span> and [the holder of the deed might] plead, 'I did this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Arranged for signatures of witnesses in more than one line. ');">¹⁵</span> in order to increase the number of witnesses'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The genuine witnesses, though appearing in the second line, would not invalidate the deed, since the first line contains the text and witnesses, while for confirmation of the deed, the holder would not make use of the signatures of the fictitious witnesses in the first line but of those of the genuine witnesses in the second line. ');">¹⁶</span>

קסבר כל כי האי גוונא אין מקיימין אותו מן העדים שלמטה אלא מן העדים שלמעלה

— He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan. ');">¹²</span> holds the opinion [that] in any such case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the text of a deed and the signatures of its witnesses appear in one and the same line, and these are followed by other witnesses in the next line. ');">¹⁷</span> a deed is not confirmed by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from'. ');">¹⁸</span>

גופא אמר רב שטר הבא הוא ועדיו על המחק כשר

the witnesses that [appear] below but by<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from'. ');">¹⁸</span> the witnesses who [appear] above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the signatures of the witnesses in the first line, being fictitious, could not be attested, the forgery would be exposed. ');">¹⁹</span> [Reverting to the above] text. 'Rab stated [that] a deed the text and [the signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure is valid.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 163a. ');">²⁰</span>