Question: Perhaps he erased "we witnesses..." and the entire document above, except for the witnesses, and wrote what he wanted!

Answer #1: We are Machshir when the document and the witnesses are on the Mechak only when there is not room between one witness and another in order to write "we witnesses..."

Answer #2 (Rivam): We need not be concerned lest he erase "we witnesses...", for initially it was written on the Mechak, and if he will erase it, it will be erased twice, and the document, which is written on paper that he erased, it was erased once;

The forgery will be evident, for what was erased once does not resemble what was erased twice.

Assertion: This is when he writes on the Mechak. Then it is recognized which was erased once, and which was erased twice;

However, erased parchment alone, on which nothing is written, it is not evident (how many times it was erased).

Proof: This is proven below (164a). [The Gemara] asks "we should be concerned lest he put ink on the place of the witnesses, and erased it, and erased it again, and both of them are erased twice, when he will erase the document afterwards!"

Question: What was the question? When [the witnesses] want to sign, they will see that the document was erased once, and the place where the lender tells them to sign was erased twice!

Answer: Rather, surely it is evident (how many times it was erased) only when it is written, and it is dry!

Rebuttal: This is not a proof. We can say that it is not evident to the witnesses, for they are not meticulous, but a document that comes in front of Beis Din, it is evident, for Beis Din are meticulous;

Therefore, if he erases "we witnesses...", Beis Din will see that [the document] was erased twice, but the witnesses' signatures was erased only once, like is proper.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): According to Rivam, this is fine when "we witnesses..." is written on the Mechak, just like the witnesses' [signatures];

However, when "we witnesses..." is written on paper, he will erase it, and erase also the document, which is on the paper, and the document and its witnesses will be on the Mechak. Why is it Kosher?

Suggestion: When [the document] is on the paper, and the witnesses are on the Mechak, it is Kosher only when he erased between one witness and another, where they wrote "we witnesses...", but not if "we witnesses..." was written on paper.

Rejection #1: Just the contrary, it is more proper to be Machshir in this case, for surely he did not do any forgery!

However, when the document was erased, and also the space between witness and witness, that there is concern lest was written there "we witnesses..." and he erased it and forged. Then, it is more proper to disqualify.

Rejection #2: We do not find a distinction between when "we witnesses..." is written on the paper, and when it is written on the Mechak!

Answer: We are not concerned lest he erased "we witnesses...", for if so, there would be a distance between one witness and another. Presumably, they do not write this statement even with (i.e. in the same width of parchment as) the signatures in less than two lines. (Amudei Shesh - it could fit in one long line, but presumably, they write it in lines no longer than the signatures. The Tumim (45:23) did not understand like this. He could not resolve Tosfos, for below Tosfos says that "we witnesses..." can fit in one line between their signatures!)

Just like two lines between the witnesses and the [document] disqualifies the document, also two lines between one witness and another disqualifies, lest he write another document before the witness. (Above (163b DH Shitah), Tosfos said that we disqualify a document due to concern for forgery if it can cause a loss to others, but not if it can cause a loss only to witnesses who signed in the wrong place. Tosfos will explain immediately how a document with one witness can cause a loss to others.)

Support: It connotes below (165a) that two witnesses in two documents (one in each) join to force a person to pay.

Observation: However, do not say that he will write for him (to have one signed witness) in order to take money from one who is suspected (and cannot swear to contradict the witness), for he is believed to take only through a Shevu'ah.

Rhetorical question: Where is there concern lest he erased "we witnesses..."? It is when the witnesses are signed near (even with) each other in one line, this one at the start of the line, and this one at the end of the line, and "we witnesses..." [was] on the paper in between them...

In this case it is not common for them to write "we witnesses..." on the paper and witnesses [sign] on the Mechak, for why should they do this folly, to write "we witnesses..." on the paper and they are signed on the Mechak?! They should sign on the paper, and this suffices!

Question: Why didn't they enact that a document on the paper and witnesses on the Mechak is Kosher without "we witnesses...", and when witnesses and the document are on the Mechak, it is Kosher only if they wrote "we witnesses signed on the Mechak, and the document is on the Mechak"?

Now there is no concern lest initially the document was on the paper, and he erased it and forged it, for there was more reason to make an enactment when the document is on the Mechak, for there is concern that forgery was done, than in a case when forgery was not yet done (just there is concern lest it will be done).

Answer: It is more common that the document and its witnesses are on the Mechak, for a scribe has several document parchments in which [the details of] the episode (e.g. loan) was not like it was written, and he erased them;

However, the document on the paper and its witnesses are on the Mechak is not so common. Therefore, they enacted "we witnesses..."

Support: Now, the Ri's question against Rivam's Perush is answered, that there is more reason to be Machshir when it is written on the paper, for no forgery was done, than when it is written on the Mechak, and there is concern lest forgery was done to it;

Now we can give a good reason, for "we witnesses..." on the paper is not common. Just the contrary, they should sign on the paper and everything will be on the paper!

Question: The Rashbam explained that if a document and its witnesses are on the Mechak, if there is an erased area between one witness and another, it is Pasul, for there is concern lest "we witnesses..." was written, and the document was written on the paper, and he erased it;

If so, this that it says that they wrote "we..." between one witness and another, this is when there is paper between one witness and another. Why should they write "we witnesses..."? They should distance the space to write "we witnesses...", and this suffices!

If [the bearer] will erase [it], and everything will be on the Mechak, it will be Pasul, like I explained, since there is room between one witness and another.

Implied suggestion: We require "we witnesses..." only when there is paper between one witness and another.

Rejection #1: [If so], the Gemara should have explained this.

Rejection #2: If so, we discuss fools, who abandoned the paper and wrote on the Mechak!

Answer: We should not ask 'when there is Mechak between one witness and another, why should they write "we witnesses..."? They should distance blank space [to write this], and this suffices!'

This is not [difficult], for if they need not write it, they will not leave [blank parchment] between one and another, and they will not be concerned, for they will say "why should I leave space, and distance my signatures from my colleague, since nothing [need be] written in between?!"

Reference: I explained this above (towards the beginning of the previous Dibur).

Question: According to Rivam, who explained that when it was erased twice, it is evident, even if nothing is written on it, this is difficult. He should put ink between the witnesses and the writing [of the document], erase it, and write "we witnesses..."!

Now he cannot erase it, for it will be erased twice, and it will be evident!

However, according to [Tosfos'] Rebbi, it is fine. It is not evident, because nothing is written on it.

Answer: [The Gemara] gave a better answer. Without [putting and erasing] ink, he can do (write) this between one witness and another.

Remark: The one whose text does not say this holds that similarly, what was erased two days ago is unlike what was erased three days ago.

Explanation #1: The buyers will lose improperly (the lender will take what they bought from the borrower. Really, he was already paid!)

However, we are not concerned for the borrower's loss, for he caused his own loss when he borrowed with this document;

This is like I explained above (163b DH Shitah) about witnesses, that we should not disqualify a document just because [the bearer] can forge [a document] against them, and bring against them their signature (admission to what is written in the document), for they caused their own loss.

Explanation #2: [Even if] there is no loss to buyers, e.g. the document says that there is no Achrayus, even so we are concerned for loss of the borrower;

This is not [considered] that he caused his own loss, for the borrower does not know to be so careful, and it does not cross his mind that it will come to forgery.

Explanation (Ri): This "Archan" is not the king. Rather, he is an appointee who is removed from his authority after a year. He is not appointed permanently.

Support: This is why [the Gemara] asks "perhaps he was deposed, and Amlechuhu (they made him Melech)."

Implied question: He is called king (Amlechuhu)!

Answer: It is normal to call authority kingship, like it says "R. Yochanan Malach" (reigned - Ta'anis 21a), Rabah Malach (Brachos 64a);

However, if "Archan" is a king, it is not normal to depose him from his reign.

Explanation: This is Greek, like it says (Shabbos 31b) that in Greek, "one" is called Heina.

Question: What is the Chidush? If he said "I am a Nazir for two [terms of] Nezirus", and [Sumchus] teaches that he is obligated two [terms of] Nezirus, this is obvious! What is the difference between Leshon ha'Kodesh, Greek, or another Nochri language?!

Answer: If he does not know what Digun or Trigun means, and he said "I am a Nazir Digun [or] Trigun." Chachamim made this like Leshon ha'Kodesh. How much is Digun? It is two...

This is a Nochri language. The Chidush is that it is like Chachamim's language, and he is obligated - if he said Digun, he is obligated two Nezirus.

Support: We say like this in Nedarim (10a. If one said) "Hareini Nazik," "Nazi'ach" or "Pazi'ach" (he is a Nazir, for it is a Kinuy (nickname) for Nezirus). Some say that these words are from Nochri languages, and some say that Chachamim made them up for people to use to accept Nezirus.

Explanation #1: It is bad when he thinks in (expects Hash-m to answer) his prayer, like it says in Brachos (55a) "one who ponders in his Tefilah comes to heartache";

This is like we say there "the following arouse mention of a person's Aveiros - [walking under] a leaning wall, and Iyun Tefilah.

Support: Now it is like Hirhur Aveirah and Leshon ha'Ra (which were taught with it), which are not Mitzvos.

Rebuttal: Why is no one saved from this every day? Many people do not anticipate when their Tefilah will come (be fulfilled), for they do not have such [good] intent to anticipate [the fulfillment of] their Tefilah!

Explanation #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): Iyun Tefilah is bad when he does not have intent in it, like it says (Shabbos 127a) "for these [Mitzvos], one receives Peros [in this world...] and Iyun Tefilah;

One is not saved from this every day, for no one can have good intent in his Tefilah.

It says in the Yerushalmi, R. Matanyah said "I am grateful to my head. When I reach Modim, it bows by itself."