Bava Batra

According to R. Kahana who reported it  in the name of Samuel, this is quite right;  according to R. Tabyumi. however, who reported it  in the name of Rab, what is there to be said?  — He  is of the opinion that in any such case  [a deed] is not confirmed by the attestation of the court that [may appear] on it but by the witnesses on it. R. Johanan, however, 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 limited to] one line  [the deed is] invalid. Why [is the limit] between the witnesses and the attestation different [from the other]?  Because the upper [portion of the deed] might be cut off and the text  [of a new deed] and its witnesses might be written on the one line, and he  is of the opinion that a deed the text and the witnesses of which appear on one line is valid! If so, [in the case of a space] between the witnesses and the text also, might not the upper [portion of the deed] be cut off and, the witnesses having signed, anything one desires might be entered? — He holds the opinion [that] a deed the text  of which appears on one line and its witnesses on another is invalid.  But is [there no reason] to apprehend that the text and the witnesses might be written in one line  and [the holder of the deed might] plead, 'I did this  in order to increase the number of witnesses'?  — He  holds the opinion [that] in any such case  a deed is not confirmed by  the witnesses that [appear] below but by  the witnesses who [appear] above. [Reverting to the above] text. 'Rab stated [that] a deed the text and [the signatures of the] witnesses of which appear on an erasure is valid.'