Mukaf Gvil

          The gemara in Menachot describes several laws which govern the writing of the parshiyot (paragraphs) of tefillin.  Among the laws enumerated is one which declares that any letter not surrounded by parchment on four sides - presumably because it is attached to another letter - is pasul (unfit).  This halakha is known as "mukaf gvil" (literally, "surrounded by parchment")  and will form the subject matter of this article.

 

          Often, the first question one must ask regarding a halakha which presents a disqualification or "pesul" is whether the invalidation is inherent or whether it only leads to a situation which causes the invalidation for independent reasons.  Said otherwise - a letter which is not mukaf gvil is pasul either because inherently it must, for some reason, be surrounded by parchment or because if it is unattached it suffers some other flaw.

 

          There are several opinions which discern no inherent problem with the lack of mukaf gvil.  To them, a letter which is not encircled by parchment would be invalidated for peripheral reasons.  For example, the Me'iri in Hilkhot Sefer Torah (page 43) indicates that there is no distinct problem with the lack of mukaf gvil.  Instead, the letter is invalidated because, being attached to another letter, it loses its original pattern and now contains extraneous components as well.  The same impression is provided by the Mordechai in Gittin (316); the only problem with attached letters is that they lose their defining feature - their shape and design.

 

          The same position might be deduced from a Yerushalmi which draws an interesting distinction regarding the point at which the letters are attached.  According to the Yerushalmi in Megilla (1:9), if the letters are attached on top they are pasul whereas if they are attached on the bottom they are valid.  This difference, which on the surface seems surprising, is explained by the Penei Mosheh (one of the commentaries to the Yerushalmi) in light of the above stated position.  If the primary concern with attached letters is that they are unrecognizable one might distinguish between different points of attachment.  If they are connected on top (where people's eyes glance first), their shape is severely altered and their identity is forfeited.  Conversely, when letters are attached on the bottom, they still retain their basic design and  remain valid.

 

          A similar rationale, understanding the problem of mukaf gvil as one which compromises the form of the letter, seems to be the basis of the Or Zarua (Hilkhot Tefillin 553).  Based on the above Yerushalmi, he differentiates between most attached letters and an attached "chaf sofit" (the long final chaf).  In this case, if the previous letter bisects the top of the leg of a "chaf sofit" one might still validate it because the overall shape of this letter is so distinct that it is in no way disturbed by this intrusion.  Mukaf gvil is only problematic because it generally doctors the design of the letter.  A "chaf sofit," however, is so unique and identifiable that it resists this pesul.

 

 

          A derivation of this idea is presented by the Rashba in Menachot (see Afterword for a discussion regarding the author of this work).  Even if the attachment did not ACTUALLY alter the shape of the letter we might say that this is not the ideal intended shape of the letter.  Part of a letter's identity is not just its general shape but also its independence and its borders.  If a letter is attached to another it loses this distinct identity.  Hence, even if the letter remains recognizable to human eyes we might rule that through halakhic lenses the letter is unacceptable.

 

Summary:

----------

          All the above stated positions based this disqualification upon structural concerns.  The attachment to another letter compromises the distinct form of a letter and hence invalidates it.  In theory, if the attachment is so small that the letter is still recognizable the letter might remain valid.  Indeed, the Or Zarua already addressed a related case where a letter (chaf sofit) is so large and distinct that its shape is not compromised by an intersection or point of contact with another letter.  The Rashba claims that even a recognizable attached letter ipso facto does not maintain its true shape, for its original borders no longer exist.

 

          An alternative approach would view the deficiency as an integral one.  Independent of any requirement to maintain its shape, and regardless of whether that shape is in fact compromised, letters simply cannot be attached to each other.  Inherently, a letter or any script is defined as ink which is surrounded by parchment (or any other writing medium, for that matter).  Any letter which is not completely surrounded by its backdrop is invalid.  According to this, the requirement of mukaf gvil is an internal and basic one, rather than merely a CONDITION which preserves the proper letter shape.

 

          If such, indeed, is the nature of the halakha, a subsidiary question must be posed.  Do we consider an attached letter as script which has not reached a high enough standard to be used in tefillin and sifrei Torah, or do we maintain that if not properly surrounded by parchment, it is simply not considered as writing at all?  Said otherwise, a letter which is not mukaf gvil might either be pasul writing or not be writing at all (see Afterword for a parallel case mentioned by Rashi).

 

                     One interesting manifestation of this question might be found in the scope of the disqualification.  The Mordechai in Menachot cites an opinion that the requirement only applies to a name of Hashem.  When spelling ordinary, mundane words, no such condition is necessary.  He cites another opinion which applies this standard to all words written on the parshiyot of tefillin but not necessarily to the words of a sefer Torah (which, with regard to certain halakhot, demands less stringency).  Clearly, any opinion which does not apply this standard across the board cannot maintain that mukaf gvil is fundamentally necessary in order for the letters to be considered actual script.  Instead this halakha sets a higher standard for certain scripts by requiring that they have clearly defined borders.  As such, one might speculate as to which texts are subject to this special rule.  Tosafot in Gittin (20b) raise two opinions as to whether a get (bill of divorce) must be written with letters which are mukaf gvil.  If mukaf gvil is essential to a letter's basic definition we could not even consider waiving this requirement in the case of get.

 

          One might examine this issue - the precise nature of the requirement - in light of the actual source of this halakha.  The gemara in Menachot which raises the standard mentions no biblical source.  One might claim that it is based on pure reason - any letter which is not written clearly on a defined medium which serves as its backdrop is not considered a letter; no prooftext should be required.  However, Tosafot in Gittin posit a possible source.  The gemara (Shabbat 103b)deduces from the pasuk "U-khtavtam al mezuzot beitekha u-vish'arekha" that in some instances we require a ketiva tama - a complete and clean writing.  If indeed we require a distinct pasuk to assert this requirement and the pasuk alludes to this requirement in terms of ketiva tama, we might categorize mukaf gvil as a higher standard which certain letters are expected to live up to.

 

          An interesting halakhic distinction which would revolve around this issue concerns the halakha of "chok tochot."  The gemara in Gittin (20a) establishes that letters must be actively written through a human hand.  One cannot spill ink over parchment, then scrape away the excess to form the desired letter.  What would happen if the letters were written "properly" but were attached?  Would one, in such a case, be allowed to scratch away the attached part so that the letters would  be legitimate?  If an attached letter is not even considered a letter, then he is basically fashioning a letter by scratching away ink.  This is no better than actually forming the whole letter through scratching and would thus not be kasher.  Alternatively, if we assume that attached letters are truly considered letters (and hence valid in a get), then he is not writing a letter through scratching away ink.  He is merely rendering it valid through removal of a flaw.  Hence we might allow this "improvement."

 

METHODOLOGICAL POINTS:

-----------------------------------------

1. One must question whether a factor entails an independent problem or merely imposes a related factor which itself invalidates.  Does attachment of letters simply ruin the shape of letters or does it represent an inherent pesul?

 

AFTERWORD:

--------------------

1. The commentary known as the Rashba on Menachot was not authored by R. Shlomo ben Aderet, the 13th century Talmudic commentator.  The true author is not known.  It is referred to, however, as the 'Rashba' on Menachot.  Many of the sections deal exclusively with reconciling difficult passages in Rashi.

 

2. Rashi in Gittin (20a) s.v. Anduchteri notes that letters which are composed of sown fabric which are not fully woven into the fabric of their backdrop are not writing at all because they are not incorporated into their setting.  This Rashi reminds us that script is not merely writing, but letters and a medium.

 

 

Copyright (c) 1996 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.