Answer #1: Surely, it is Kosher!

Implied question: In Gitin (19b) it connotes that it is Pasul, for it taught there that if Yisraelim signed on a Persian document, we collect from Meshubadim;

The Gemara asks "they must recap the matter of the document in the last line, and this was not done!", and answers that it does recap.

Why didn't it answer that the witnesses are one line from the document, if it is Kosher?

Answer: [The Gemara] gave a better answer. Even if they did not distance at all, it is Kosher if they recapped.

Rebuttal #1 (of Answer #1): We can prove that it is Pasul from Gitin (11a). If a Persian document was given in front of Yisrael witnesses, [the bearer] collects with it from Bnei Chorin;

[The Gemara] asked that we require a writing that cannot be forged (erasures would be evident), and this is not fulfilled, [and the Gemara answered that the parchment] was treated with gallnuts (so it cannot be forged);

[The Gemara] asks "they must recap the matter of the document in the last line, and this was not done!", and answers that it does recap.

Question: Why did it ask "it must recap the document"? If it is lest [the bearer] write what he wants, since there are Edei Mesirah (in front of whom it was given), they remember if there was a Tenai (stipulation), and he forged it!

They remember even after several days, like R. Yochanan said in Gitin (22b) regarding "we do not write on erased paper... and Chachamim are Machshir";

R. Yochanan said that even from now and after 10 days, R. Elazar (i.e. Chachamim) is Machshir. If there was a Tenai and he forged it, they would remember.

Inference: If so, what was the question "they must recap the document"? This shows that even if he cannot forge, it is Pasul when there is no recap!

Implied question: R. Elazar [ben Pedas, an Amora] argues with R. Yochanan, and disqualifies, if not immediately!

Answer #1: The Halachah follows R. Yochanan, his Rebbi.

Answer #2: Above (29a), Abaye said that "Sados ba'Kesef Yiknu" is a good counsel. This is like R. Yochanan there.

Rebuttal: That is not a proof, for you are forced to say that the question "there is no recap of the document" was not according to R. Yochanan;

According to him, how do we ask "we require writing that cannot be forged, and this is not fulfilled"? R. Yehudah ben Beseira said that one may not write on erased parchment, and not on partially processed parchment, and Chachamim are Machshir...

R. Yochanan said that R. Eliezer was Machshir even from now and after 10 days, for they remember! Rather, he asked about according to R. Elazar (the Amora), who says that R. Elazar (the Tana) permitted only immediately, but not from now and after 10 days;

Likewise, he properly asked "we require recap of the document, and there is not", and it can be forged, and [witnesses] will not remember a long time. However, according to R. Yochanan, it is Kosher, since he cannot forge, since witnesses remember!

Disclaimer: However, we can say that he asks even according to R. Yochanan. R. Yochanan was Machshir even from now and after 10 days only for Gitin, which do not have so many stipulations. Therefore, they remember;

However, for other documents, [he is not Machshir] from now and after 10 days, for there are many stipulations in documents, and they do not remember for a long time.

Conclusion However, presumably, it is Pasul. This is a decree due to when they did not distance one line. [If the Halachah distinguished], surely in some place [the Gemara] would have distinguished! Rather, whether or not they distanced, we require a recap of the document.

Inference: In their days, they did not write Sharir v'Kayam in their Pashut documents, like it says above (160b) about a Mekushar, that they wrote in it Sharir v'Kayam. This connotes that in Peshutim, they did not write Sharir v'Kayam;

This is why they did not learn from the last line, lest [the bearer] forge in the one line that the witnesses distanced [from the text]. They wrote a recap in the last line, and not anything primary, for we do not learn from it;

If an erasure occurred, and they wrote on the erasure, they would validate it before the last line, for after this (i.e. in the last line) we do not learn from it at all.

Question: If so, how did we get accustomed to write Kiyum (validation) of erasures after "v'Kanina Minei (we acquired from him)"? We do not learn from the last line. There is no greater learning than this!

We should not learn [from it] because it can come to forgery, since the document is Kosher without Sharir v'Kayam. Sometimes he does not write Sharir v'Kayam initially, and [the bearer] will erase what he wants and change it, and he will validate the erasures at the end, and write Sharir v'Kayam!

Answer: Since we became accustomed to write Sharir v'Kayam, it is Pasul if it was not written, even when there is no erasure. Now, it cannot come to forgery;

Therefore, we properly write validation of erasures after v'Kanina Minei, and we properly learn from the last line, since we write Sharir v'Kayam;

Explanation #1: This that we write v'Kanina Minei is not a recap of the document. Rather, it is still testimony on the Kinyan. Initially he wrote "he said to us 'be witnesses against me, and acquire for me'", and afterwards v'Kanina Minei. Likewise, he can write it in the middle of the document.

Consequence: According to this Perush, that we do not need a recap of the document, if so, this that we write in Gitin "v'Dein Dihavi Leichi Minai Sefer Tiruchin v'Get Piturin" (this will be for you, from me, a Sefer of cutting and a document of release), this is not for the sake of a recap of the document;

He need not write a recap of the document, since we write Sharir v'Kayam, and in Gitin "k'Das (like the law of) Moshe v'Yisrael" is in place of Sharir v'Kayam.

Observation: It is a question in Gitin (85b) whether or not we need v'Dein, and it was not resolved.

Therefore, it seems that we write v'Dein to be a primary part of the Get, and we do not need a recap, for the reason that I explained, and they can write v'Dein in the last line, for "k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael" is in place of Sharir v'Kayam.

Question: Why did early [Chachamim] change to write Sharir v'Kayam and to learn from the last line, and to validate erasures after v'Kanina Minei?

Chachamim of the Gemara did not write Sharir v'Kayam, since it says that we do not learn from the last line, and we validate erasures [only] before the last line!

Answer: They were concerned that sometimes witnesses will err, for they are not experts, and they will distance two lines;

Even if the bearer is not [so] brazen to make a new document in two lines, for he fears lest the witnesses contradict him, that they never signed on this document...

Still, he will not fear to add two lines, and they will learn from the upper [of these two lines], for the witnesses will not remember that they distanced two lines.

Since it is written Sharir v'Kayam, we properly learn from the last line.

Remark: The Ri asked R. Tam about validation of erasures, which we write in the last line, and he answered like I explained, that we rely on Sharir v'Kayam.

Question: Due to Sharir v'Kayam and "k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael" that we became accustomed to write, we do not write recap of the document. Also they (in the days of the Mishnah) used to write k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael, like is proven in Yadayim (4:8)!

Tzedukim said "we have a complaint against you Perushim (zealously pious people). You write the [Nochri] ruler together with Moshe in a Get!" This is the text in Mishnayos;

The text does not say "the ruler together with Hash-m", like is written in some [texts of] Mishnayos, for why would Hash-m's name be on a Get?!

Implied suggestion: Surely, after Beis Chashmonai defeated [the Yevanim], they used to write "in such and such year of Yochanan, Kohen Gadol to the Supreme G-d", before they abolished writing Hash-m's name in documents, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (18b)!

Rejection: They would not write the [Nochri] ruler when they wrote Hash-m's name (for then it was dated based on the Kohen Gadol).

Conclusion: Surely, the text says "[the ruler together] with Moshe." This shows that they [used to] write k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael in Gitin!

Answer: Initially, they used to write k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael in the middle of the Get. Afterwards, they enacted to write it at the end, in place of Sharir v'Kayam. Therefore, we do write a recap of the document.

Explanation #2: After R. Tam died, the Ri found in Bahag that R. Tam had in Tikun ha'Get that he made, that everything from which we learn, if he erased or suspended (wrote between the lines), he must write what is on the erasure or between the lines before the last line, before v'Kanina Minei;

Note: I did not find these words in Bahag (39, Hilchos Gitin), and not in Tikun ha'Get in R. Tam's Sefer ha'Yashar (139). However, in both of them, the text of the Get ends "v'Dein Dihavi... v'Get Piturin k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael."

However, matters that were repeated, that he wrote them two or three times in the document, the essence of the Get does not depend on them. For this, they became accustomed to validate after the last line.

Inference: If so, he holds that we do not learn from the last line, and v'Kanina Minei is a recap of the document, and we write Sharir v'Kayam needlessly.

Consequence: One must be careful in Gitin not to write "v'Dein Dihavi Leichi Minai Sefer Tiruchin" in the last line;

Only from Tiruchin and onwards (i.e. v'Get Piturin), which is a repetition in another expression [may be there], since we do not learn from the last line, even though we write Sharir v'Kayam in [monetary] documents and k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael in Gitin, for one may not write any essential part of the Get in the last line.

It is a question in Gitin (85b) whether or not we require v'Dein. It was not resolved.

Objection (Ri): According to R. Tam, who explained that we do not learn from the last line, and Kiyum of erasures that became customary to write after v'Kanina, this is for matters on which the document does not depend...

If so, this can come to forgery! [The bearer] will erase something on which the document depends, and write over it something repeated in the document, and he will validate it at the end of the document after v'Kanina Minei!

Conclusion: [The Ri] holds that R. Tam said initially, that we learn from the last line (Explanation #1).

Support (Ri): Since it became customary to write Sharir v'Kayam in documents and k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael in Gitin (this shows that we learn from the last line).

Remark: Even though we learn from the last line (because we do not learn from what is after Sharir v'Kayam), if [the witnesses] distanced two lines it is Pasul, lest he cut off the top and write a document in two lines, and the witnesses are in the third line.

Explanation (Ri): Perhaps due to the toil, they became accustomed to write Sharir v'Kayam. Sometimes in the recap itself there was an erasure, and he needed to validate it, and repeat it another time;

Granted, we don't learn from the last line Zechus of (something that benefits) the bearer, but we do learn Chiyuvo (what harms him). There is no concern lest he forge Chiyuvo;

Therefore, he needed to validate the erasure of the recap, lest the borrower or seller say "there was Zechus for me, and he erased it."

Implied suggestion: He asks about when the document ends in the middle of the line, and the witnesses left that remaining half line and also another line, what is the law?

Rejection: Obviously it is Pasul, for [the bearer] can write what he wants in the half [line] and repeat it in the last line!

Explanation #1: Rather, when the document ends at the end of a line, and [the witnesses] left a full blank line, and wrote (signed) in the middle of the line [below it]. What is the law?

Do we say that it is Pasul, because he can forge in the full line, and in the half line he will write a recap of the document, and we do not learn from the half-line, for it is the last line, but we learn from the full [line]?

Or, perhaps it is Kosher, for also from the full line we do not learn, for it is the last line of the document?

Retraction: It seems that also this is obvious that it is Kosher, for the reason why we do not learn from the last line is because witnesses are not meticulous, and they distance one line;

If so, when they distance one line and sign in the middle of the line, since there is only one line between the witnesses and the document, we do not learn from it. Therefore, he cannot forge, and it is Kosher.

Support (of retraction, and Explanation #2): Also, he asks similar to when they distanced two lines, or distanced one line, which discusses the thickness [of the blank area. If he left one and a half blank lines] like this, what is the law?

Do we say that he cannot forge anything in one and a half lines?

Or, perhaps with difficulty he can write two lines (thinner or with less separation between lines than usual), so it is Pasul?

Explanation: If the Reisha is precise, the Seifa is not precise, and one and a half lines is like one line, which is Kosher;

And if the Seifa is precise, the Reisha is not precise, and one and a half lines is like two lines, which is Pasul.

Explanation: He refers to when they distanced two lines, and so is proven in Gitin (87b), for it says "if because [the signatures] are distanced two lines it is Pasul, Chizkiyah said that if he filled them with relatives, it is Kosher!

According to R. Chananel, whose text of the Beraisa says "the first two were found to be relatives or Pesulim." This properly supports Chizkiyah, who is Machshir the first witnesses who were found to be relatives or Pesulim;

However, according to the text in Seforim that does not say "first", how does this support [Chizkiyah]? Perhaps the Beraisa is Machshir only when Kosher witnesses were found at the end, but if they were found above, in a place where blank space disqualifies, I can say that also a relative disqualifies!

Answer: Since [the Beraisa] did not fix a place, and he said Stam "if four or five were found to be relatives or Pesulim, it is Kosher", this teaches that in every place it is Machshir them;

This is like it says in Gitin (82a) "this teaches that if a relative signed at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, it is Kosher. What is the source? A place was not fixed."

Question: How does the Beraisa support [Chizkiyah]? The Beraisa is Machshir both a relative and a Pasul, and Chizkiyah is Machshir only a relative, since he did not say Pasul! And what is Chizkiyah's reason?

Answer: Chizkiyah holds like R. Akiva, who says in Gitin (81b) that a Get Kare'ach (it has knots without signatures), anyone may [sign to] complete it, even a relative, but not a Pasul.

However, the Beraisa holds like Ben Nanas, who permits completing a Get Kare'ach even a slave. [The Beraisa] holds like Chizkiyah in one way, regarding a relative.

Pesak (Ri): The Halachah does not follow Chizkiyah, for he holds like R. Akiva. Rather, [the Halachah follows] Ben Nanas, who permits even a Pasul, for we say there that when they came in front of R. Ami, he said "go complete it with a slave from the market";

R. Ami's opinion is more primary [than Chizkiyah's], for [R. Ami's opinion] was fixed (taught in the Gemara) regarding the argument of R. Akiva and Ben Nanas, but Chizkiyah's teaching was not brought there.

Support #1: Also, the Stam Gemara is like Ben Nanas, for we say in Gitin (18b, if one commanded 10 to sign a Get) "if a relative or Pasul signed first", and it is proven there that according to everyone, when he signs first, it is Pasul. [If he signs] to fulfill the Tenai, all would be Machshir, if not for concern lest this be confused with validation of documents. (People will think that he signed for testimony, and a relative is a valid witness.)

Support #2 (that the Halachah is that even a Pasul can complete it): Also, perhaps also Chizkiyah holds like Ben Nanas.

Implied question: [If so,] why did he say to complete it with relatives, and he did not say Pesulim?

Answer: He did so for a clearer Heter, so it will be Kosher according to all opinions.

Comment - Defense (of Explanation #1 in DH Iba'i above): It seems to resolve that the case is, witnesses signed in the middle of the line, and he is unsure, lest [the bearer] write what he wants in half the full line. (I.e. "the last line" is the latter half of the full line, and the half line before the signatures.)

Note: Maharsha says that this comment belongs here. Seemingly, it should be in DH Iba'i, before (e) Support of retraction.

Citation: The Tosefta concludes here "how far can the witnesses be from the text, and it is Kosher? It is so they can be read with it. Rebbi says so. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, it is one full line. R. Dostai b'Ribi Yanai says, it is a full signature of two witnesses;

If five witnesses signed on a document, and the first three were found to be relatives or Pesulim, the testimony is fulfilled through the rest.

Explanation (Maharam and R. Tam): We discuss when they signed from the side. (Maharsha - they signed in the margin, even with the last line. Rashash - Maharsha means that the document ended in the middle of the line, and they signed towards the end of the line.)

Question: Why didn't [Chizkiyah] bring a proof from a Get Kare'ach? Air (a knot without a signature) disqualifies, and a relative completes (makes it Kosher)!

Answer #1: That itself is an enactment mid'Rabanan, and it itself needs a source from a Torah law. (Chachamim enact like Torah law.)

Question: What is the relevance of the Pesul of air in a Get to air in a Sukah?

Answer: It means as follows. If he filled it with relatives it is Kosher. Even though air disqualifies, we should not decree [to disqualify] filling with relatives due to air (leaving it blank), for air disqualifies [a Sukah] through three [Tefachim], and Pasul [Sechach] disqualifies through four. It does not disqualify through three, and we do not decree due to three of air, which is Pasul.

Answer #2: [Chizkiyah] did not bring a proof from a Get Kare'ach, that we do not decree completing with relatives due to air, for there it is proper that we not decree;

The reason why air disqualifies is only because it has more knots than witnesses, and not because one can forge. Even if there are four blank lines between witnesses, it is Kosher through merely filling the blank area with dots. Then, there is no concern for forgery;

We do not say that the witnesses signed on the dots, since the document is not on the side on which the witnesses signed, like I explained on the Mishnah (160a DH Mekushar Edav).

Therefore, we do not decree relatives due to two blank lines, for even if there is air, it suffices to make dots.

Distinction: However, here dots do not help at all, for the witnesses signed are on the side of the document. If he will make dots, we say that [perhaps] the witnesses signed on the dots (so the document is Pasul). Therefore, we decree completing with relatives due to air, for there is no solution for air;

Therefore, he brings a proof from Sukah. Air disqualifies it, and there is no solution, and [through] Pasul [Sechach] it is Kosher, and we do not disqualify it due to air.

Implied suggestion: We discuss a big Sukah that has four walls, in which (without the air) remains the Shi'ur of a Sukah (a square of seven Tefachim; one opinion says, a square of four Amos) and three walls on each side [of the air].

Rejection: Why should it be Pasul?! (Each side is a Kosher Sukah by itself.)

Implied suggestion: It is called Pasul to teach that one may not sit under the air.

Rejection: If so, why does it discuss three [Tefachim]? Even less than this, it says in Sukah (19a) that one may not sleep [with most of his head] under [air]!

Explanation #1: Rather, it means that a big Sukah that has three walls, and it has three Tefachim of air along the entire length of the Sukah. It is Pasul, for air of three interrupts, and now remain only two walls on each side;

Pasul Sechach is an interruption only if it is four Tefachim.

Explanation #2: The Sukah has four walls, but it is not so big that the Shi'ur of a Sukah will remain on each side of the air.

Question: It says here that if one of them was found to be a relative or Pasul, it is Kosher, and according to R. Akiva, if he was a relative it is Kosher;

Whether [the invalid witness] was at the beginning, end or middle, it is Kosher, since no place was fixed for him;

Even according to R. Chananel, whose text says "at the beginning", this does not exclude at the end, for all the more so, it is Kosher [if the invalid witness is at the end,] in a place where air does not disqualify!

Likewise in a Get Kare'ach, according to R. Akiva a relative is Kosher.

Summation of question: In Makos (5b), R. Akiva said that also [when there are] three [witnesses], if one of them was found to be a relative or Pasul, their testimony is Batel!

Answer: There he discusses witnesses who testify orally. When they come to testify, their testimony is Batel, for we ask them if they came to testify or to see, for Rav Nachman ruled there like Rebbi;

However, here they did not sign to testify, merely to fill [the desired number of witnesses]. When they sign in the middle or at the end, we say that they sign for the Tenai (Ba'al ha'Shtar stipulated that all must sign), and they did not come to testify.

Similarly regarding a Get Kare'ach, they sign only to complete the baldness, so there will be as many witnesses as knots.

Implied question: For other testimony, i.e. oral testimony, we ask them if they came to see or to testify! (Also here we should ask them.)

Answer: That is because their testimony was not investigated in Beis Din. However, in a document there is no need to investigate why they signed, for witnesses signed on a document, it is as if their testimony was investigated in Beis Din;

It is as if it was investigated [and determined that] they signed to fill or for a Tenai;

Pesak: Rav Yehudai [Gaon] ruled about a document with two witnesses or more, and one was found to be a relative or Pasul, [if he was] at the beginning it is Kosher, like we say that they signed for honor. However, if he signed at the end, it is Pasul.