Mistakes Found During

Keriyas HaTorah
Part II
By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of

.this document, press ctrl and click here
Thanks to R. Shmuel Rosenfeld of Min HaStam Ltd for his
assistance

You can contact him at ravstam@yahoo.com or 972-2-538-5972 if

your community has safrus needs
I. Introduction-This series is a follow up to R. Sobolofsky's webinar on the same topic. The
purpose of the shiur outline is to provide some additional mareh mekomos and discuss
some of the topics that he didn't have time to discuss. The first part will focus on what
one should do in a situation where a mistake is found in the middle of keriyas HaTorah.
The second part will discuss some of the common mistakes that are encountered. We
will use Rambam's list of psulim {}, focusing on the mistakes relating to k'sav.
a. Regarding specific letters, Mishna Berurah has a kuntrus called Mishnas Soferim,
where he spells out what is ideal and what is valid for each letter. You can access a
version with illustrations here.
II. Extra or missing letters
a. The Gemara notes that R. Yishmael warned a sofer to be very careful not to have any
extra or missing letters because doing so "causes the destruction of the world." {}
b. Rama (1520-1572) writes that if one finds a psul in chaseiros or yesieros {} (i.e. there
is a vav or yud that is missing or extra and doesn't change the pronunciation- one of
the more famous examples is totafos which is spelled once with a vav and once
without {}).
i. R. David HaLevi Segal (Taz c.1586-1667) writes that Rama's leniency is
limited to the case of a missing yud or vav. If there is another missing letter
and the meaning of the word doesn't change, we nevertheless take out another
Torah. {}
ii. There is a dispute how to understand Rama's opinion:
1. R. Yechezkel Landa (1713-1793) is of the opinion that the mesorah
that we have of chaseiros and yesieros is the only proper version of the
Torah to use. Rama is simply stating that mistakes of chasieros and
yesieros are common enough that it is not worthwhile to put away one
Torah with such mistakes and take out another one. {}
2. R. Aryeh Leib Ginsburg (1695-1785) is of the opinion that we don't
have a real mesorah on the chaseiros and yeseiros. He goes so far as to
suggest that perhaps for this reason, the mitzvah of writing a sefer
Torah is not practiced. {}
III. Letters that Touch Each other
a. The Gemara states that each letter must have klaf surrounding it on all sides. {} This
is known as mukaf gvil. {}
i. Rashi (1040-1105) states that mukaf gvil only applies to tefillin and mezuzah,
not sefer Torah. {}
ii. Rashba (1235-1310) writes that it applies to sefer Torah as well. {}
 1. Rashba implies that the machlokes is about the nature of mukaf gvil.
According to Rashba a letter does not constitute a letter without the
surrounding klaf. Therefore, there is no difference between tefillin and
sefer Torah.
2. According to Rashi one can argue that mukaf gvil is a requirement in
the tzuras haksav and tefillin has different halachos regarding its
tzurah than sefer Torah.
iii. Rambam records the halacha of mukaf gvil in Hilchos Tefillin. {} He doesn't
mention mukaf gvil in Hilchos Sefer Torah, but in his list of psulim, he lists "
‫שנגעה אות באות‬." {}
1. R. Chaim ben Shabtai (1550-1647) writes that Rambam is of the
opinion that there is a difference between a letter that is touching
another letter and a letter that is not surrounded by klaf. Regarding the
former, Rashi and Rambam agree that it is not a letter and therefore,
not valid for sefer Torah. However, the latter is valid for sefer Torah.
{&}
iv. Shulchan Aruch writes that there is a requirement of mukaf gvil regarding
sefer Torah. However, his description is limited to two letters touching. {}
v. Shulchan Aruch also provides another leniency regarding mukaf gvil: If it
started off as mukaf gvil and the klaf got ripped or punctured, it is not
considered a problem. {}
1. Mishna Berurah notes that this only applies to mukaf gvil where the
letter reaches the end of the klaf. However, if two letters are touching,
even if this occurred after the writing (such as a result of spilled ink or
a smudge), it is invalid. {}
2. Mishna Berurah's distinction is in line with R. Chaim ben Shabtai's
idea that mukaf gvil and touching letters are two different problems.
IV. The Letter may look like another letter
a. The Gemara records a story where there was a break in a "vav" and R. Zeira
instructed them to call a child who is not too smart but not too ignorant to see if he
would read it as a vav or yud.
i. A break in a letter can happen in the middle of the letter {} or at the end of the
letter {}.
b. The Gemara also states that if the leg of the "hey" was punctured, it is only valid if
the size of a small letter remains. {&}
c. The Rishonim ask: why is it that if the vav is partially erased a child is called and
when the hey is erased, there is a requirement that part of the letter remains?
 i. R. Menachem Meiri (1249-1306) writes that either option is available
regarding the hey. If there remains the amount for a small letter, it is valid.
Alternatively, if a child reads it as a hey, it is valid. {}
ii. Mordechai (1250-1298) provides a different answer. The child is only called
when there is a question if one letter looks like another. If there is a question
whether the letter has the proper tzuras ha'os, a child is not called. Therefore,
regarding the vav, the child was called because the question was whether it
looks like a vav or a yud. However, a hey that's missing a portion of the leg
will still look to a child like a hey. Nevertheless, if a significant portion is
missing, it is invalid because it lacks the proper form. {}
1. It should be noted that Meiri understands that the Gemara's reference
to ‫ יריכו של ה"א‬can be either leg, whereas Mordechai understands that it
is the small leg.
iii. R. Ya'akov ben Asher (1269-1343) doesn't distinguish between different
letters when it comes to asking a child. {} Rama (1520-1572) deduces from
his comments that he is of the same opinion as Meiri. {}
iv. Rama codifies the opinion of Mordechai. {}
 ‫‪ .5‬ט"ז או"ח קמג‪:‬ב‬ ‫‪ .1‬רמב"ם הל' ספר תורה י‪:‬א‬

‫‪ .6‬נודע ביהודה תנינא יו"ד ס' קעח‬

‫‪ .7‬שאגת אריה ס' לו‬

‫‪ .8‬מנחות כט‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬עירובין יג‪.‬‬

‫‪ .9‬אינו מוקף גויל‬

‫‪ .10‬רש"י מנחות כט‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬רמ"א או"ח קמג‪:‬ד‬

‫‪ .4‬מלא וחסר )דברים ו‪:‬ח‪ ,‬יא‪:‬יח(‬

‫‪ .16‬שלחן ערוך או"ח לב‪:‬טז‬ ‫‪ .11‬שו"ת הרשב"א א‪:‬תריא‬

‫‪ .17‬משנה ברורה לב‪:‬נד‬

‫‪ .12‬רמב"ם הל' תפילין א‪:‬יט‬

‫‪ .18‬מנחות כט‪:‬‬

‫‪ .13‬תורת חיים עוללות הכרם ס' ב‬

‫‪ .19‬נפסק האות באמצע‬

‫‪ .20‬נפסק האות בסופו‬

‫‪ .14‬נגיעת האותיות‬

‫‪ .21‬מנחות כט‪.‬‬

‫‪ .15‬שלחן ערוך יו"ד רעד‪:‬ד‬

‫‪ .22‬נפסק יריכו של ה"א‬
‫דאם לא כן לא היה לו לכתוב סתם ואם‬ ‫‪ .23‬קרית ספר ג‪:‬ב‬
‫נפסק אחד מהאותיות אלא היה לו לפרש‬
‫דבאותיות פשוטות מיירי‪.‬‬

‫‪ .27‬שלחן ערוך ורמ"א או"ח לב‪:‬טז‬

‫‪ .28‬מנחות כט‪.‬‬

‫‪ .29‬תוס' מנחות כט‪.‬‬

‫‪ .24‬מרדכי מנחות ס' תתקנג‬

‫‪ .25‬טור או"ח ס' לב‬

‫‪ .26‬דרכי משה או"ח לב‪:‬ד‬

‫ומדברי המרדכי דלעיל נראה שאין סובר‬
‫חילוק זה שהיר חילק בין אותיות פשוטות‬
‫שבהן נזכר תיקון של תינוק אבל בה"א‬
‫וכיוצא בה יש לדון בדין אם נשתייר כמלא‬
‫אות קטנה אבל דברי הטור מטין כדברי‬
‫ה"ר מנחם שהרי שהטור מחלק בין ניקב‬
‫הה"א לנפסקו האותיות וזה משמע כדבריו‬