Rebuttal (R. Tam): It says in Gitin (18b, that if one commanded 10 to sign a Get,) according to the opinion that two are for witnesses, and the rest are for the Tenai, therefore if at the end one was found to be a relative or Pasul, it is Kosher;

However, if a relative or Pasul signed at the beginning, some say that it is Pasul, and some say that it is Kosher;

The one who says that it is Pasul [disqualifies] because people will confuse this with validation of documents elsewhere, and they will not say that they signed due to a Tenai, since the Pesulim signed first.

Inference: Even the one who is Machshir at the end, he disqualifies at the beginning. If so, here, whether at the beginning or at the end, it is Kosher.

Remark: R. Chananel's text "first" does not mean that only this is Kosher. Rather, all the more so [at the end]. Even though air disqualifies [at the beginning, it is Kosher, and all the more so if the relative or Pasul signed at the end, where air does not disqualify]!

Question: Why is it Kosher here, and they will not come to confuse this with validation of documents elsewhere, like there?

Answer: There, we disqualify [when the Pesulim signed first] mid'Rabanan, because witnesses on a Get sign only in front of each other;

If a relative or Pasul signs first, the other witnesses standing there will say that the relatives signed for the sake of testimony, for the Kosher witnesses who were there could have signed first, and the relatives signed first, and they will come to be Machshir relatives;

However, [if a relative or Pasul signs] at the end, they will say that two [Kosher witnesses signed] for the sake of testimony, and the rest for a Tenai.

Distinction: However, in other documents, in which [witnesses may] sign not in front of each other, if a Pasul is found at the beginning, it is Kosher, for they will not come to be Machshir elsewhere;

They know that they did not sign for the sake of testimony. Rather, like [the order in which Ba'al ha'Shtar] found them, he had them sign, and when these first witnesses signed, he did not find others, until later.

Question (Ri, against R. Tam): If so, why are [such documents] Kosher when they are found at the end? We say below (163b) that in such a case (a document in one line has witnesses in that line, and also witnesses below), we do not validate from the witnesses below. This implies that elsewhere, we validate only from the witnesses below;

Note: Seemingly, we may infer only that we may validate from below! Some Rishonim explain like this. Perhaps Tosfos holds that the words "we do not validate from the witnesses below" are extra to teach that elsewhere, we validate only from the witnesses below.

If so, when they see Pesulim at the end, in place of Kiyum of the document, they will say that a relative or Pasul is Kosher.

Retraction: R. Tam retracted, and he is Machshir only at the beginning, but not at the end, because Kiyum of the document is at the end, like Rav Yehudai ruled.

Question: This is difficult from a Get Kare'ach, which we are Machshir both at the beginning and at the end!

Answer: There is different, for we validate from any three, and the Kiyum here does not suffice, like it explains there;

However, with the Pashut documents that we validate with two witnesses from the bottom, it is Pasul at the end.

Explanation #1: If he forges and writes two thin lines, it will be recognized that it is forged, for these two lines are thinner than the other letters of the document;

Also, he does not go to a scribe to write finely, and even if he wants to cut [the old document, a scribe will not write above signatures].

Explanation #2: [The Gemara asks,] one line without space, for what is it proper? He cannot write anything! Why do we need to teach that if he distanced one line, it is Kosher?

He need not ask what are two lines [without spaces] proper for. They are very proper, to write one line, and say that we learn from the last line;

This that we said above that we do not learn from the last line, this is according to the conclusion here, that we conclude [two lines] and their spaces. One line and its space is proper to write one line. Therefore, we do not learn [from the last line];

However, before we conclude [two lines] and their spaces, we can say that just the contrary, we learn [from the last line], since we disqualify two lines without their spaces!

Explanation #1: We need not say that the leg (bottom) of the [final] Chaf is over the top of the Lamed. Rather, even if the leg of the Chaf is not opposite the top of the Lamed, even so there are four spaces, for we need one space between two lines without the leg of the Chaf and the top of the Lamed;

Source: This is like [R. Chiya bar Ami] says, e.g. Lamed [extending] above [the second line] and Chaf [extending] below [the top line], and he holds two lines and three spaces;

Inference: There must be a [blank] space between one line and another [and he did not need to mention it. We need] another space due to the leg of the Chaf in the first line, or the top of the Lamed in the second line, i.e. there are two spaces between lines [so there will be a blank space between letters of different lines].

Rebuttal: This is no proof, for if so, why do we need a second space? The top of the Lamed and the leg of the Chaf can be in the first space, since they are not opposite each other! (I.e. it suffices that no letter enters the line above or below. We do not need a blank space between letters of different lines, like Tosfos assumed above.)

Explanation #2: Rather, we must explain that they are opposite each other Lecha Lecha. He will not begin to forge if there is not enough space between them so that if Lecha Lecha will occur opposite each other in his forgery, he will be able to do it with space.

Note: The Bach and Maharsha say that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: One line and two spaces.

Explanation: This is more than two lines without spaces, for if not, what is one line proper for?, like it asked above.

Explanation (R. Tam): He smudges it with dots or lines. It is recognized in a small amount of blank [parchment] that he did not erase initially;

If he would smudge it with ink, and it is not recognized whether or not there was an erasure there, and even so he is Machshir the document...

If so, he would totally smudge the entire document, and also the witnesses below, and write a document in the margin above, and forge witnesses, and the Kiyum below validates them!

And if there is no margin above, and there is one line between the witnesses and the document, he will write a document and witnesses in that line, and the first witnesses he will smudge with ink, and the Kiyum below validates the witnesses that he forged!

Conclusion: This is why one must explain that the smudge is dots or lines.

Implied question: In Gitin (21b) we disqualify a document on the Mechak!

Answer: This is when the witnesses are on the paper. ("Paper" always refers to parchment that was not erased.)

Question: This implies that that he comes to argue. What does he argue about? He disqualifies only without a smudge. If there is a smudge, why is it Pasul?

Suggestion: They argue as follows. R. Yochanan disqualifies even with a smudge of two lines between the witnesses and the Kiyum, for he will erase it, and write a document and witnesses on the erasure, and the Kiyum validates it, for he holds that we validate from the Kiyum in it.

Rejection: You cannot say so, for if so, all documents that have a Kiyum are Pasul, for he can erase it, and write a document with witnesses on the erasure!

Rather, surely he holds that we do not validate in such a case from a Kiyum, rather, from the witnesses.

Answer #1: R. Yochanan holds that if he smudges it, it is Pasul, because Beis Din [might] sign on a smudge.

Answer #2: We can say that they do not argue. Rather, Rav discusses with a smudge, and R. Yochanan discusses without a smudge.

Comment - Answer #3: There is one line between the witnesses and the Kiyum. Rav holds that it is Kosher, for in every such case we do not validate it from the Kiyum, rather, from the witnesses inside. The comment ends here.

Question: Is it fine for him?! If so, every validated document, he will erase it!

Answer: This is not so difficult. Since it was written initially, he cannot erase it so the letters will not be recognized;

However, erasure of a smudge is not recognized. He will erase and write like he wants.

Implied question: Below (164a), [the Gemara] asks "if you will say that he erases again", even though it was written on erased parchment!

Answer: It asks according to the truth, that there is no distinction between a smudge and writing.

Explanation: He writes [the document] and its witnesses in one line, and the Kiyum validates them.

Question: Just like we disqualify a document that is in one line and its witnesses in another line, because it is common for witnesses to distance their signatures from the writing (document) one line...

Similarly, we should disqualify a document that is in one line with its witnesses, because Beis Din distances [their signatures] one line from the witnesses, and [the bearer] can forge in that line!

Answer: Witnesses are not meticulous to put their signatures close [to the document], but Beis Din is meticulous, and signs close to the witnesses;

When they distance one line it is Pasul, for one could write (forge) a document in one line with its witnesses, and the Kiyum validates them.

Consequence - Explanation #1: Now that we disqualify documents that one can forge, one must be careful about documents and Kesuvos with a margin. The witnesses may not sign next to each other, for this can come to forgery;

He will write what he wants in the margin aligned with (in the line of) the witnesses, and it is a document in one line with its witnesses, and it is Kosher, and he will cut off [the rest of] the document.

Rather, they sign one under the other. Now, there is no concern.

Implied question: Perhaps he will write in the margin before the witness "I, Ploni, who signed, I owe 100 Zuz to Almoni", and it is a document with the borrower in his handwriting in one line!

Answer: We do not disqualify a document due to this. The witness caused his own loss through signing in a place that enables forgery, and [the bearer] can write what he wants about [the witness];

We disqualify a document only when there is blank [parchment] in front of [both witnesses], and they signed next to each other, and someone can make a document with two witnesses to take from others;

However, due to [loss to] the witness himself, no (we do not disqualify). He caused his own loss.

Consequence #2: Even if there is no margin in the document, they may not sign at the end of the line one next to the other, since there is blank parchment in front of them, due to the reason I explained. Rather, they sign one under the other;

Explanation #2: Or, we can say that even if there is much margin at the beginning of the line, and the witnesses signed next to each other at the beginning of the line of the document, it is Kosher, even though [the bearer] can write what he wants before them, in the margin;

We disqualify a document only when it can be forged in the part needed for the document, that one could not cut it off, and if he would cut it off it would be Pasul, e.g. two blank lines before the witnesses, or one [blank] line before the Kiyum, between it and the witnesses;

Or, [if there is] blank parchment after the document in a Mekushar at the end, for also this is needed for the document, for the Kiyum. Therefore, the Gemara asked above (160b) "we should be concerned lest he forge what he wants..."

However, blank parchment that is not needed for the document, that if it was cut, the document would not be Pasul, even though he can forge in it what he wants, the document is not Pasul due to this, e.g. blank parchment in the margin.

Support: Also, most of the time Shushbinim sign in Kesuvos one under the other, and they leave two blank lines in front of them (and we do not disqualify the Kesuvah)!

Rather, surely this is not a problem, since it is not necessary for the document.

Comment: Also questions asked about the Mishnah (160a DH Mekushar Edav) are answered through this answer.

Distinction: However, if they signed at the end of the line one next to the other, and left half a blank line in front of them, it is Pasul, for one can forge in that blank parchment, and it is needed for the document;

If it were cut, the document would be Pasul, for we would say that there was a document written where it was cut, and these witnesses signed on it, and he cut it, and made this document in front of the witnesses;

[The witnesses] can leave blank parchment in front of them, since it is not needed for the document (therefore it would not disqualify the original document. Therefore, there is reason to be concerned lest they did so.)

Consequence: Rather, they must sign one under the other.

Question: This is not needed for the document, the half-line before the witnesses! Even if it was cut, we should not be concerned that there was a document, for if so the borrower was a lunatic, that he made his document and left blank parchment before the witnesses;

The lender could write another document in it (the blank on top of the witnesses) and cut this (original) document [and everything on top of it]!

Answer: Perhaps we should be concerned that in what was cut was another document, and the borrower left much blank parchment before the witnesses, for he thought that if the lender writes another document there and cuts off this (the original document, and nothing else) his forgery will be known, for it will be evident through the cut at the end (the line of the signatures is narrower than the document, for part was cut off);

In any case it is a need of the document, and the witnesses should sign one under the other if they sign at the end of a line and leave blank parchment in front of them.

Rebuttal: Still, we can say that it is not needed for the document, for even if the blank half-line was cut, the document would be Kosher, and we would not be concerned that there was a document there, and these witnesses signed on it, and the lender wrote this document [that we see now] for (i.e. to take from) this [borrower]...

We need not be concerned [for this], for the borrower was not so crazy to leave blank parchment above the witnesses, that the lender could cut this document, and also all the blank on top of it, [cutting straight] even with this document, and there will remain blank parchment only even with (above) the witnesses, and he will write there what he wants, and his forgery will not be evident. (The entire document is the same width as the line of the witnesses);

Therefore, it is not a need of the document, and they can sign there one next to the other, even though they leave half a line in front of them that [the bearer] can forge there;

We do not disqualify the document due to this, since it is not needed for the document, for it was cut, the document would not be disqualified. We need not be concerned at all, like I explained.

Pesak: R. Tam ruled like I explained initially, that the witnesses must sign either at the head of the parchment, even next to each other, or even in the middle of a line, as long as they sign one under the other;

We can explain why we are not concerned at all about Shushbinim (who leave two blank lines), for there the document is not disqualified due to the Shushbinim who signed two lines away. They are not witnesses, and they do not pertain to the document at all.

Question: We should be concerned lest initially [the document] was on the paper, and its witnesses were on the Mechak, which is Pasul, and he erased the entire document and wrote what he wanted, and [the document] and its witnesses are on the Mechak! (The Bach and Maharshal fix our text to say that "initially, it was on the paper, and its witnesses were on the Mechak, which is Kosher." Maharsha disagrees, for the Gemara asks this (164a)! Rather, Tosfos means that it is Pasul if the witnesses did not write "we witnesses..." He answers that we are not concerned for this. Surely, they would write it!)

Answer: There is no concern for this. If initially [the document] was on the paper and the witnesses were on the Mechak, it would be written between witness and witness "we witnesses signed on the Mechak, and the document is on the paper", like it explains below. We need not be concerned that he gave to him a Pasul document (in which they did not write this).