Bava Batra

[include] themselves  and the space between them or, perhaps, themselves [only] and not the space between them? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It stands to reason that they and the space between them [were meant];  for if it could be assumed [that only] they  [were meant] and not the space between them, of what use  [is such a narrow space]?  Consequently it follows [that] they and the space between them [were meant]. This proves it. R. Sabbathai said in the name of Hezekiah: The 'two lines' that were mentioned  [are such as are] in the handwriting of the witnesses, not [in] the handwriting of the scribe.  What is the reason? Because whoever [desires to] commit forgery does not go to a scribe to get it done.  And how much [space]?  — R. Isaac b. Eleazar said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] Lak Lak  above one another. This shows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and four [intervening] spaces.  R. Hiyya b. Ammi in the name of 'Ulla said: As [much] for instance [as is required for the writing of] a Lamed  in the upper.  and a [final] Kaph  in the lower [line].  [from this]  it clearly follows that he is of the opinion [that the limit is] two [written] lines and three [intervening] spaces.  R. Abbahu said: As [much] for instance [as is necessary for the writing of] Baruk b. Levi  in one line; [for] he holds the opinion [that the limit is] one [written] line and two [intervening] spaces. Rab said: What has been taught  is only applicable [to the space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text; but between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the legal attestation,  even if [the blank space is] wider, [the deed] is valid. Why [is the limit] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the text different [from the other]?  Because, the witnesses having signed, [the holder of the deed] might commit forgery by entering [on it] whatever he desires! [In the case of the blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation too, [could not] forgery be committed by entering whatever one desired and attaching the signature of witnesses?  — [In the case]  where [the blank space] is dotted with ink marks.  If so, one [could] also dot with ink marks [any blank space] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the [text of the] deed!  — It might be assumed [that] the witnesses had confirmed  the dotted [portion].  [In the case of dotted ink marks] between the [signatures of the] witnesses and the attestation, [would it not] also be assumed [that] the court had confirmed  the dotted portion? — A court does not confirm an ink dotted [space].  Is [there no reason] to apprehend  that the upper [portion of the deed], might be [entirely] cut off, the ink dots erased, any [terms] desired entered,  and the signatures of witnesses [also] might be attached  [and yet the deed would be regarded as valid], since Rab stated that a deed the text  and the [signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure  is legally valid?