Siman 44

It is an enactment of the sages that they should repeat the matter of the document that was written previously in the final line of the document, for one does not learn the rights of the holder of the document from the final line. The reason is because it is impossible to be exact such that the witnesses sign directly adjacent to the writing, and they feared perhaps they left space for a line, and the holder of the document would commit a forgery and write in the final line whatever he desires for his benefit, and the matter would not be recognizable when the witnesses left a line's worth of space between the document and their signature. Therefore, they enacted that one does not learn from the final line, and they enacted that he should repeat the matter of the document in the final line; and now, if the holder of the document forges in the final line, they will not learn from it, and the forgery will be recognizable since it is written after the repetition of the document. And even if the witnesses came and said that they did not leave a line blank and they wrote the final line, one does not learn from this, for the rabbis did not differentiate in their decree, as anything that is not proven from within the document does not have the status of a document [Shach], and this detail has only the status of an oral loan. And if he did not repeat in the final line, the document is not invalidated thereby, rather one only does not learn from it; and this is not like those who say that the entire document is invalid because it was not made according to the enactment of the sages, even though there is no reason to invalidate it, for the sages themselves did not invalidate it but only said that one does not learn from it. And the obligation of the holder of the document is learned from the final line [and even though the Shach disagrees on this, nevertheless this is the primary ruling]. And so too the rabbis did not differentiate in their decree in this regard, that one does not learn his rights from the final line even when there is no fear of forgery, such as when the matter of the document was not repeated in the final line and there is a line's worth of space between the document and the signature of the witnesses, for according to this he should have been able to learn from the final line since the primary fear is perhaps they will leave one line blank and the blank space is indeed present; nevertheless, the rabbis did not differentiate [Sma]. And this decree applies only if the writing of the document is the writing of the lender or of another person, but if the writing is that of the borrower, one learns from it, for it is impossible for the lender to forge as the change in handwriting would be recognizable.

Regarding that which we do not learn from the final line, there is no distinction between whether witnesses are signed on the document or whether the borrower himself signed. For just as we concern ourselves that the witnesses will not be precise in their signing, so too we concern ourselves that the borrower himself will also not be precise and will sign one line distant from the writing, and therefore we do not learn from it [Sma]:

The Sma wrote that this which we write in a document on the final line, "and we have performed a kinyan from Ploni to Ploni etc.," this is like a repetition of the document, even though the kinyan was not mentioned above. For this is not a new matter regarding the details of the document, but rather the utility of the kinyan, and most documents involve a kinyan, and it was for this purpose that they began to write the document. Consequently, it is as has been explained above and constitutes a repetition. And even though there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless, it is proper to rule accordingly:

If the document concluded at the end of a line, and the witnesses distanced themselves a full line and signed in the middle of a second line, one does not learn from the latter half-line nor from the full line preceding it if anything is found written in them, because witnesses are not precise and distance themselves one line; if so, when they distance themselves a line and sign in the middle of a second line, since there is only the thickness of one line between the witnesses and the document, one also does not learn from the full line [Shach]. And specifically if the witnesses signed one beneath the other, then in any case it is kosher, for if it comes blank before the beit din, the document was written in its validity, and if they were written upon, one does not learn from them. But if they signed one after the other, the document is invalid if it comes blank before the beit din, for such a document could lead to invalidity, as he could cut off the entire document and leave only this line in which the witnesses are signed, and before the signatures he will write a document, and it will be a document where it and its witnesses are on one line, which is kosher as written in siman 45, and it turns out that it is a document that can be forged and is invalid. But if it comes before us written upon, everything is kosher, for there is a presumption upon the witnesses that they acted properly and wrote until the signature and did not leave anything empty, and one learns even from these lines [Sma, Shach, and Netivot HaMishpat]. And in this, "the sages did not distinguish" does not apply, for since if we were to concern ourselves with this, perforce the witnesses signed on an invalid document, and it is impossible to say so [as above]. Therefore, witnesses should be careful when the document concludes in the middle of a line that they sign on that same line; and if a document comes before us that concludes in the middle of a line and the witnesses did not sign themselves on that line, the document is invalid as written in siman 45.

If there is a custom in that place that they write in all documents at the end of the document "sharir vekayam," and everyone writes thus, then naturally we learn from the last line and there is no need to repeat the subject matter of the document in the last line. This is because there is no concern at all, for even if the witnesses distance themselves one line from the writing, the holder of the document will not be able to add in that line; since "sharir vekayam" was written previously, the forgery would be recognizable, as "sharir vekayam" must be the end of the document. And even if at the end of this line he also writes "sharir vekayam," the forgery would be recognizable from the fact that "sharir vekayam" was written twice and in two lines, for only when there is a blank line is it valid with "sharir vekayam" twice, as will be explained in section 10. But in the last line twice and there is no more blank space, or one in the last and one in the one before the last, it is invalid. And if perhaps they erase the first "sharir vekayam," the erasure will be recognizable. But if there is no custom that they write thus in all documents, even if it is found in a document that "sharir vekayam" is written, we do not learn from the last line, and one must repeat the subject matter of the document in the last line. For since there is no custom in all documents, this is not a sign, as perhaps the witnesses left a line of space and did not write "sharir vekayam," and he added the line and wrote "sharir vekayam." And even if the signatures of the witnesses are distant from the writing by one line, and if so there is no concern that he added, nevertheless we do not learn from it, as I wrote in section 1, for the rabbis did not differentiate, and what would the "sharir vekayam" add [Shach]. And that which is implied ostensibly from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, that only if "sharir vekayam" is written in the document do we learn from it even if there is no such custom in all documents—in truth, the later authorities wondered at this. And although they pressed themselves to settle the words of the Shulchan Aruch, nevertheless the essence of the law is as I wrote. and it appears that the Shulchan Aruch also deals with a place where they write thus in all documents, and so it appears from the words of the Sma. And in a place where they are accustomed to write "sharir vekayam" in all documents, they do not write anything else after "sharir vekayam," and we do not learn at all from after "sharir vekayam," even an obligation of the holder of the document, for "sharir vekayam" must be at the end of the document.

If there are erasures in a document, or words suspended between the lines, or words over which the pen was passed, and the witnesses must validate them, he shall warn that they validate them before the final line, for if not so, one does not learn from them. And in a place where they write in documents "sharir ve-kayam," they may validate them even in the final line, provided it is before "sharir ve-kayam." And it is not necessary to write "and this is their validation," but rather they should write that such-and-such a word or words are on an erasure, or they are suspended, or that the pen was passed over these words in error. And if they passed the pen intentionally in order to erase these words, they shall also write that they passed the pen over these words to erase them. And if they did not validate them, the document is not disqualified, but rather one does not learn from them, lest he added them afterward. And some say that with an erasure the entire document is disqualified, for perhaps the obligation of the document's owner was written there and he erased it, unless it is evident from the document what the erasure was, then the entire document is not disqualified, and so one should instruct. And likewise, if the erasure or the suspension was in the essence of the document, which is to say in the name of the borrower and the lender and the money, the entire document is disqualified if it was not validated. And if the erasure or the suspension was in the date and it was not validated, it is like a document that has no date. And likewise, erasures and suspensions and passing the pen in a document with the signature of the borrower, the borrower must validate them before "sharir ve-kayam" or before the final line. And if they wish to validate after the signatures, they may validate as well, provided that they must sign once more.

A document that has an erasure on its back in a place where it is customary to write the payment on its back, or where the erasure is between the lines in a place where it is customary to write the payment between the lines, there are those who validate the document because the document is held in the hand of the lender and is as if he is held in the money of the document, and the borrower must bring proof for his words. And there are those who disqualify the entire document, for since there is a flaw of an erasure before us in a place where it is customary to write the payment there, it is not relevant to establish the document upon its presumption. And such is the primary ruling according to this opinion [Shach].

There is one who says that one should only fulfill the erasures with script that is the script of the document, and not with writing finer than the script of the document. The reason is that perhaps the witnesses left one line of space and the lender will write two fine lines in that same line. From this reason it was explained that this is only if he fulfills the last two lines, for then there is this concern; but when he fulfills above this, there is no concern at all in this, and he may fulfill even with fine writing [Shach].

If the erasure was in the line adjacent to the final line, and it is the size of "sharir ve-kayam" or more, even if he went back and validated it below in the final line, it is invalid. For we fear that perhaps in the place of the erasure "sharir ve-kayam" was written and the witnesses signed and left a blank line, and he erased the "sharir ve-kayam" and wrote in its place whatever he desired, and went back and validated it in the space between the shtar and the witnesses and wrote another "sharir ve-kayam." And these words apply when there is currently no space of a line between the witnesses and the shtar, for then there is reason to fear perhaps he added in that space that the witnesses left. But if it comes before us with a space of one line, it is kosher, and we do not fear perhaps they initially left a space of two lines, for there is a presumption regarding the witnesses that they acted properly and did not leave a space of two lines. And these words apply when the witnesses are established as knowing [the law]; however, if not so, we do fear. And so too in every place where we say there is a presumption that the witnesses acted according to the law, it is specifically with witnesses established as knowing [Shach].

It is written in the Shulchan Aruch that nowadays it is the custom to write the validation of erasures and interlineations after "and we have performed a kinyan" [before "sharir vekayam," and even on the last line] because they are now accustomed to writing "sharir vekayam" in all deeds, such that it is impossible to forge, and we learn from the last line, and there is no need to repeat the subject matter of the deed. Because of this, a deed that does not contain "sharir vekayam" is invalid, and witnesses should not sign unless "sharir vekayam" is written. And if "sharir vekayam" is written twice therein, it is valid if there is still a blank line between the witnesses and the deed [Sma], but ab initio one should not do so. Thus wrote our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and the reasons have already been explained in our previous words. Therefore, in our times, one must be precise in every single place whether they are accustomed to writing "sharir vekayam" in all deeds or not. And one must know that even in a place where they are accustomed to writing "sharir vekayam" in all deeds, one should not validate after "sharir vekayam," and if they validated there, it is invalid [Shach].

A case came before the Rashba, of blessed memory, where it was written in the authentication of a deed in this language: "such-and-such is on an erasure," and they checked and searched the deed letter by letter and those two letters were not found on an erasure. Nevertheless, the Rashba validated the deed, for what should we be concerned about? Since the deed was authenticated, the witnesses have already testified regarding everything written in it that it is so, and we suspend [judgment] that it was erased so finely that its place is no longer recognizable now.

A document that contains erasures or interlineations, and the witnesses forgot and did not validate them at the end of the document, and they wrote "established and enduring," and one witness signed, and before the second signed they remembered that they did not validate the erasures or interlineations—the remedy for this document is that they should write after the signature of the first witness: "We witnesses, after one of us signed, saw that we did not validate such and such erasures or interlineations that are in the document, therefore we have validated them now as is proper and everything is established and enduring," and both of them shall sign again. However, when only the second witness signed, it is not effective [Shach]. And all the more so if something is written below the signatures of the witnesses and they signed again, it is valid, as I wrote in section 6.