Our Gemara on Amud aleph discusses various circumstances where a parchment that was erased can be reused without being vulnerable to forgery. Ordinarily, with the technology of Talmudic times, one couldn’t inkwash the contract and remove or add clauses without the discoloration being noticeable, thus signifying potential forgery. But, if the entire parchment was written on erased material, the Gemara says it would be a valid contract since it is apparent that the entire document was redone, with new witnesses and signatures. We only suspect alteration when one part of the document appears erased and the other appears original. 

The Gemara objects: Since the material already has signs of erasure, a forger could erase and alter a specific section and the smudges wouldn’t stand out, since the parchment already has signs of erasure all over. To this concern the Gemara counters:

Paper that has been erased once is not similar in appearance to paper that has been erased twice. It will be seen that the signatures are on a place that had been erased once and that the text is written on a place that had been erased twice, and the forgery will be noticed. 

We may borrow from the approach of the Noam Elimelech (Shemos Bo 15) that we saw in blog post psychology of daf 154, whereby a legal discussion of obligation and litigation was seen as a metaphor for the human encounter with divine judgment. Here too we can reflect on the metaphor of this recycled contract.

The human process of memory, intellect and personality are sometimes compared metaphorically to a written record. For example, in English one might say, “It’s time to turn the page and write a new chapter,” meaning to change direction and experiences in life. In Hebrew, Mishna Avos (4:20) refers to what is learned in youth as writing on fresh parchment while what is learned later, as one ages, as writing on old, erased parchment.

The difficulty of retaining new information and learning new ideas and attitudes that comes as one ages is a result of having already so many preconceived notions that organize and bias thinking. Of course this is necessary as acquired wisdom must become integrated, and we essentially run on autopilot or our minds would be overtaxed trying to figure out everything each time. Imagine every day in your car like it was the first time that you were behind the wheel, or imagine trying to read phonetically instead of sight reading. This is the blessing and curse of the way the human mind must function. And, just as sight reading leads to foolish copy errors and misspelling because the words were not fully sounded out but also makes for efficient reading, so too we have prejudices and beliefs that interfere with mindful awareness of new data and ideas but allow us to function expediently. 

The challenge in life is to find balance between trying to see matters fresh and objectively without over thinking and obsessing over every detail. We must generally follow our instincts and automatic responses while still monitoring and discerning potential blindspots. In a religious sense, we cannot review and decide on our beliefs every day before we pray as that might take hours, yet to never stop and contemplate is robotic. Confusing? Perhaps. However, there is an easy way to discern what might be worth re-evaluating. A good signal is when something doesn’t work. There is an urge to quell anxiety by doubling down on our internal narrative, and avoid the possibility that we may have to admit failure, reassess and change. Yet, the fact that something isn’t working is our most important feedback and the right time to contemplate. When we have personal and relational challenges, sometimes we must strengthen our resolve and stick with our plan and core values. But if we meet with consistent failures, we ought to reconsider our basic assumptions.

If we stay true to the metaphor, we can find more insight from additional questions and analysis from our Gemara:

The Gemara suggests: But let the court bring another parchment, write something on it and erase it, and then compare this single erasure with the erasure on the document in question. If the document were erased twice, a contrast would be seen between a single erasure and a double erasure. 

The Gemara answers: The erasure of this parchment is not necessarily similar to the erasure of that parchment. A single erasure on one parchment might resemble a double erasure on a different parchment. 

The Gemara continues to suggest: But let us accept, i.e., verify, the signatures of the witnesses on the document in court, after which they may safely be erased; and then erase the signatures and compare that erasure to the erasure of the document text, to see if it was erased once or twice. In response to this question 

Rav Hoshaya says: That which is erased on the same day that it was written is not necessarily similar to that which was erased two days ago, i.e., more than a day after it was written. An older erasure looks different from a new one, so the comparison might not show that there was a double erasure in the document. 

The Gemara suggests: But let us retain the document for an extra day, at which point both erasures will be old and can be compared. Rabbi Yirmeya said in response: We are concerned for the possibility of an erring court. If such complicated procedures were used in order to declare a document valid, there would be a chance that a particular court would not apply them properly, and that court would end up ratifying a document that was not valid.

Essentially, the Gemara considered additional way to prove that the contact was not improperly altered such as comparing one erasure of one document to another, and/or waiting for the new erasure to age a bit so that a more accurate one-to-one comparison of inks and paper can be conducted. The Gemara rejects a series of similar situations by arguing that no two parchments react to erasure in the same manner, and likewise in situations where aging might allow more accurate reading, we fear that leaving something unattended instead of passing an immediate ruling could cause the judges to lose track of details and issue an erroneous ruling.

The nimshal is that as we try to formulate opinions and assessments of our beliefs and practices we might want to use prior experiences to inform us. While this is potentially valid we must also be careful to not assume that “all parchment and inks are the same”, meaning not all circumstances can be fully compared. Furthermore we must always be concerned that “the court may make a mistake”, i.e. that our judgement is fallible.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)