(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 162



(a) We just discussed Rebbi Yochanan's ruling that one may only use the last line of a Sh'tar to repeat the contents of the Sh'tar. The reason Rav Amram gives for this Takanah is - because the witnesses cannot sign immediately following the writing on the Sh'tar, in which case the space in between, would only serve as an opportunity for the claimant to add a clause of his own.

(b) The latter Halachah will not apply however, in a Sh'tar which contains 'Sh'rir ve'Kayam', which in any event, negates any chances of the Ba'al ha'Sh'tar adding anything to the text.

(c) When Rav Nachman asked Rav Amram the source of his statement, he cited a Beraisa, which draws a distinction between witnesses who leave two blank lines between the text and their signatures - which is Pasul, and those who leave only one - which is Kasher.

(d) The reason for this distinction is - because two blank lines allow for one new previously unmentioned clause in the first of the two lines, whereas from the last line we do not learn from, the source for Rav Amram's statement.

(a) Even if witnesses testify that nothing was added to the Sh'tar with two blank lines dividing between the signatures and the text - it is nevertheless Pasul, because it was not written according to the Halachah.

(b) The Sh'tar with two blank lines - will not however, be Pasul if he wrote 'Sh'rir ve'Kayam'.




(a) We ask whether a Sh'tar with a space of one and a half lines is Kasher or Pasul. We can infer from the Beraisa cited earlier 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - that one and a half lines is Kasher.

(b) Nevertheless, we cannot resolve the She'eilah from there - because of the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Shitah Achas, Kasher', from which we can infer the opposite, leaving us without any proof at all.

(c) We finally resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa which begins in the same way as the previous one 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitin min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - but which ends 'Pachos mi'Ka'an, Kasher'.

(a) The above Beraisa states that if one of four or five witnesses who signed on a Sh'tar turns out to be a relative or otherwise disqualified from giving testimony - the testimony of the remainder of the witnesses nevertheless stands.

(b) This supports a statement made by Chizkiyah who said that if one filled a Sh'tar with signatures of relatives - the Sh'tar is nevertheless Kasher.

(c) According to Rabeinu Chananel, Chizkiyah is speaking about a Get Keire'ach - which as we learned in our Mishnah, is a Sh'tar with more knots than witnesses. What Chizkiyah is then saying is - that since the additional signatures are only in order to satisfy this particular requirement (and the Sh'tar has three Kasher witnesses without the relatives), even they are able to sign.

(d) If it is, then Chizkiyah follows the opinion of Rebbi Akiva - who, in a Mishnah in Gitin, requires witnesses who are Kasher to testify elsewhere. According to ben Nannes there, even witnesses who are Pasul le'Eidus in all cases, are valid to sign on a Get Keire'ach.

(a) Based on the fact that the Reisha of the Beraisa that supports Chizkiyah reads 'Hirchik es ha'Eidim Sh'nei Shitim min ha'Kesav, Pasul' - we would assume that the Seifa too, speaks in the same case (and not in the case of a Get Keire'ach).

(b) If the Beraisa was not speaking about those two lines - one would have expected to find it quoted in Makos, and not here.

(c) And besides, Chizkiyah must be speaking about those two lines, and not a Get Keire'ach - because otherwise a. he could have cited the Mishnah in Gitin as proof for his statement, and b. why would he need to teach us what we already know from that Mishnah?

(d) We prove from the fact that a Sucah is Pasul if it has three Tefachim space in the roof, whereas it requires four Tefachim of Pasul S'chach to invalidate it - that Chizkiyah's ruling is not illogical, because there too, if they left two lines empty, the Sh'tar would be Pasul, yet if they filled it with Pasul witnesses, it is Kasher.

(a) We establish the case of 'Mil'eihu bi'Kerovim Kasher' - only if they signed first. If they signed in the middle or at the end, the Sh'tar be Pasul?

(b) This is due to a statement of Rav Nachman in Makos - who extends the Halachah that a Sh'tar which contains one witness who is a Karov or Pasul is Pasul, even to monetary matters.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,