Bava Batra 162A

אמר רב עמרם: לפי שאין למדין משיטה אחרונה.

Rav Amram says: It is because one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document. There is a concern that the holder of the document may have written in an extra line of text to his advantage, between the text and the witnesses’ signatures. Therefore, any new information contained in the last line is disregarded. Since the final line is disregarded, it is necessary that the final line of a document contain only a review of what is already written in it.

אמר ליה רב נחמן לרב עמרם: מנא לך הא? אמר ליה, דתניא: הרחיק את העדים שני שיטין מן הכתב ⁠– פסול, שיטה אחת ⁠– כשר.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Amram: From where do you know this? Rav Amram said to him: As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 11:1): If one writing a document distanced the witnesses’ signatures two lines from the text of the document, leaving two lines blank, the document is not valid, as it would be possible for the holder of the document to fill in false information in those lines. But if one distanced the signatures one line from the text, the document is valid.

מאי שנא שני שיטין ⁠– דלמא מזייף וכתב; שיטה אחת נמי, מזייף וכתב! אלא לאו שמע מינה אין למדין משיטה אחרונה? שמע מינה.

Rav Amram analyzes the baraita: What is different in the case of two blank lines that the document is not valid? If you say that perhaps the holder of the document will take advantage of those two blank lines, and forge unverified information and write it in those lines, then in the case of one line left blank as well, he can forge information and write it in that line. Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that one may not learn any new details from the final line of a document? Therefore, only when two lines are left blank is there a concern that false information would be added to the penultimate line. The Talmud affirms: Conclude from this baraita that it is so.