Question: How near to the text should the witnesses sign (in order to avoid someone inserting words into the text)? So that the signatures are read with the text of the document. These are the words of Rebbi,

R. Shimon ben Elazar: A line's width.

R. Dusta ben Yehudah: The width of the signatures of the witnesses.

R. Yirmiyah citing Rav: We evaluate it according to the words 'lecha' and 'lecha' - meaning the letter 'lamed' (that has a part that extends upwards) and the final letter 'chaf' (that extends downwards).

Question: According to whose handwriting do we evaluate (these letters)?

Answer (R. Yasa citing R. Shovtai): According to the witnesses' handwriting.

Chizkiyah: We are lenient - that if the handwriting of the witnesses was small and the text of the document was large, we follow the large. If the handwriting of the witnesses was large and the text of the document was small, we still follow the large.

R. Yitzchak: If the witness's name was, for example, Yosi ben Yanai (which does not contain any letters that extend above or below) we view it like the signature of Shaul ben Baruch (that does contain a lamed and a chaf).

R. Idi quoting R. Yirmiyah: He may distance the witnesses from the text that was written on an erased area, even by two lines (as if some text would have been adjusted in between, it would be visible, as the text would have had to be erased a second time in order to do this.) (Note: This entry follows the commentary of the Meichal HaMayim.)

R. Yitzchak: This leniency even applies to a get pashut.

Rav: An erased area or a mark indicating an insertion into the text is valid as all can see that a change has been made.

Another version of Rav: (In these cases) they must be declared by the witnesses when they sign.

R. Abahu citing R. Yitzchak ben Chakula: Whatever you are able to make depend on the erasure, you should do so.

Question: What does that mean?

Answer (R. Yosi Kutzira, son-in-law of R. Yosa citing R. Yosa): When the document (such as a betrothal document) is conditional - if the text of the document is above and the condition is repeated below but erased, one can say that they later agreed to continue with the betrothal even without the condition. (If so, why did they not write a few lines at the end of the get stating that the condition was cancelled?) In order not to have to squash all of the lines inside the get, which the Rabbanan were particular about, as it causes the text to overlap and be easily misread.