skip to main |
skip to sidebar
One empty line between the document's text and the signatures of witnesses is to be expected, but two lines make it invalid because this opens up the document to forgery. The space of the two lines is measured in the larger handwriting of witnesses and not in the smaller handwriting of the professional scribe. We assume that anybody who falsifies a document does it himself and does not go to a scribe.
Rav said that a certified document with both its text and the signatures of its witnesses written on erased parchment is valid, if it can be discerned that it was erased only once. But maybe he erased the document and the signatures, wrote a new document, forged the signatures, and re-used the certification? Rav answers that such a document is certified not from the certification written in it but from the signatures; thus, the forger gains nothing.
Art: Drawing Board Pipe Onions And Sealing Wax by Van Gogh
If the witnesses leave a space of two lines, the document becomes invalid. However, if they fill the space with the signatures of witnesses who are either relatives or otherwise ineligible to be witnesses, such as gamblers, the document is valid. This is similar to the fact that a hole of three hand-breadths in the covering of a sukkah invalidates it, but a patch of covering made of unfit material can be up to four amot.
Art: A Trompe L'Oeil With A Pewter Ink Stand, Books And Papers by Edwaert Collier
In a regular document, the witnesses sign immediately at the end of the document's text, thus precluding the possibility of tampering with it.
In contrast, a "bound" document requires that the witnesses sign between each fold. However, this opens a possibility of forgery.
Should we be concerned that, having the witnesses already signed above, he will write an additional clause at the end of the document that benefits him? - No, because the words "firm and established" are written at the end of a bound document.
What if he erases the words "firm and established," adds to the document, and then writes the words "firm and established" again? - Additions do not invalidate the document, but erasures, even certified with "firm and established", do invalidate it.
Art: Still Life with Documents by John Turing
Two kinds of documents are “plain” and “folded” or “bound.” A plain document is written in the usual fashion, with the pertinent information in a single, unbroken body of text.
Folded or “bound” document is written in the following manner. The scribe writes the first line and leaves the second line blank. He then folds the written line forward onto the blank blank and sows (“binds”) the fold shut. He then repeats this process for subsequent lines.
The Sages created the “bound” document, which was very hard to produce, to prevent Kohanim from rashly divorcing their wives. A Kohen cannot remarry his wife because she has become a divorcee. Now that he is first required to find a scribe who knows how to produce a “bound” Get, he will make peace with her. Commercial documents can also be “bound.” Not widely used even in the time of the Mishna, the “bound” document went entirely out of use by the 10th century.
Art: The scribe by John Frederick Lewis
They sent a ruling from Israel: If a son borrowed against his father's property and subsequently died, his son can seize it from purchasers.
Now, what is hard to understand here? The son stood to inherit his father. He sold some properties that would be coming to him in the future. Later, he died and thus never inherited those properties. Now, his son (a grandson) can tell the buyers, "My father sold you property that he stood to inherit but never inherited, so the sale is void. I inherit it not from my father but directly from my grandfather." In this case, the rule that the grandson inherits directly from the grandfather is derived from the following: "In place of your fathers shall be your sons..."
So what is difficult? That "In place of your fathers..." refers to blessings, not monetary laws.
Art: Grandfather's Jack in the Box by Arthur Boyd Houghton
Consider the case where a house collapsed on a son and his mother. Since it is not known who died first, the son's paternal brothers claim that perhaps the mother died first, the son inherited her, and they should inherit him. The mother's relatives (for example, her paternal brothers) claim that perhaps the son died first, so he never inherited anything, so they inherit the estate.
Unlike in the case of a father and son, here the claims of both sides are equally based on "perhaps," and therefore, both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that they divide it.
Rabbi Akiva says that Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai also argue in this case, but Ben Azzai said to Rabbi Akiva, "We are in enough pain over what they disagree, and now you come to dispute a unanimous decision?"
Art: Backyards of Old Houses in Antwerp in the Snow by Van Gogh
Consider the following case. A house collapsed on a son and his father, and it is not clear who died first. The son had nothing, but he had debts and the obligation to pay Ketubah to his wife.
The son's creditors claim that perhaps his father died first. Then, the inheritance passed to the son before he died, and they could collect. The father's inheritors claim that perhaps the son died first. Thus, when the father died, they inherited his property directly, leaving nothing for the son's creditors.
Beit Shammai says that the father's heirs and the son's creditors divide the money, but Beit Hillel says that the property remains in the possession of the father's heirs. We can understand Beit Hillel's reasoning, but what is Beit Shammai's reasoning? They say that a loan document is considered as if it has already been collected, which bolsters the creditors' claim.
Art: Cry of the prophet Jeremiah on the Ruins of Jerusalem by Ilya Efimovich Efimovich Repin
