Bava Batra

refers to  the plain [deed]; and seal  them, refers to  the folded [one]; and procure the evidence, [implies] two [witnesses]  witnesses, [implies] three.  How [is] this  [possible]? Two for a folded [deed]; three for a plain [one]. Might not this be reversed?  — Since it has more folds,  it [must also] have more witnesses. Rafram said: [It  may be derived] from the following.  So I took the deed of the purchase, both that which was sealed, containing the terms and conditions, and that which was open.  So I took the deed of the purchase, refers to  the plain [deed]; that which was sealed, refers to the folded [one]; and that which was open. refers to the plain [portion] in the folded [deed];  the terms and conditions, refers to  the laws which distinguish  the plain [deed] from  the folded [one]. viz.,  the one  [requires] two witnesses  and the other,  three witnesses;  the witnesses of the one [sign] on the obverse, while the witnesses of the other [sign] on the reverse side. Might not this be reversed?  Since it has more folds  it [must also] have more witnesses. Rami b. Ezekiel said: [It  may be derived] from, the following text.  At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the month of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.  If their evidence may be established by two, why should three be specified? To tell you [that] two [are required] for a plain [deed]; three for a folded [one]. Might not this be reversed? — Since it has more folds,  it [must also] have more witnesses. [Is it] for this [purpose]  that the verses  [mentioned] were intended?  [Surely] each one is required  for a separate purpose;  as it was taught: [By the statement], men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them,  good advice was tendered;  so I took the deed of the purchase,  [is] just [a record of] what had happened; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses,  [has been specified], in order to compare three [witnesses] to two,  concerning which  R. Akiba and the Rabbis are in dispute!  [The fact], however, [is that the law of] a folded [deed] is [only] Rabbinical, and the Scriptural verses [quoted] are a mere asmakta. What is the reason why the Rabbis instituted a folded [deed]? — They were [in] a place [inhabited] by priests, who were very hot-tempered and they divorced their wives.  Consequently the Rabbis made [this] provision,  so that in the meantime  they might cool down.  This satisfactorily explains bills of divorce; what [explanation, however], may be given  [in the case of other] documents? — In order that there may be no distinction between bills of divorce and [other] deeds. Where, [in the case of a folded deed], do the witnesses sign? — R. Huna said: Between [one] fold and the other;  and R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: [On] the back of the writing and corresponding to [all] the written part, on the external [side of the deed]. Rami b. Hama said to R. Hisda: According to R. Huna who said [that the witnesses sign] 'between [one] fold and the other', assuming [that he meant], 'between [one] fold and the other on the external side'  [the following objection may be raised]: Surely, a folded [deed] was once brought before Rabbi who remarked, 'There is no date on this [deed]'. [Thereupon] R. Simeon son of Rabbi said to Rabbi, 'It might be hidden between the folds'. [On] ripping [the seams] open he saw it.  Now, if it were [so],  he should have [remarked].' There is neither date nor are there witnesses on this deed!' — He replied to him: Do you think [that according to R. Huna the witnesses sign] between the folds on the inside? No; [they sign] between the folds on the outside.  But [is there no reason] to apprehend that he might forge [the lower section of the folded deed]  and enter whatever he wished [after] the witnesses had signed?  — 'Firm and established', is entered on it.  Is [there, however, no reason] to apprehend that he might enter whatever he wished and then write a second time, 'firm and established'? — [The formula], 'firm and established', is entered [only] once,  not twice.  Is [there no] apprehension that he might erase the [original] 'firm and established', and add  whatever he wished, and then write, 'firm and established'? — Surely, R. Johanan said: A suspended [word  that has been] confirmed  is admissible;