In The second picture the ע does not have a clearly identifiable regel coming from the right side, it seems partially that the regel is going from the left side. It almost looks like a deformed ט. Is this a Shalos Tinok question?

In the first picture (a low quality Ksav Chabad) the ת has an inward right regel. Which is almost like a Tav with 2 feet.
What do you say R' Moshe?


  1. Dovid thanks for posting this
    The Ayin is a shaylas tinok (although quite near the boundary, a bit less of its moshav I would say definitly pasul).

    In the csav chabad the tav in אתכם is in a very bad shape, regarding a tav with 2 feet I would forgive, and say a shaylas tinok would clear that problem. But the left foot is pasul there is no distinguish between the kav and moshav of this foot turning it into a kav mashuch (as I posted earlier).
    The second tav in the word וסרתם is penetrating the reish's territory - causing a shayla of a hai, I think if covering the tav, a tinok would read the reish correct then this extra piece of the tavs regel should be erased.
    But the first tav is pasul, and it is difficult to fix it without doing chok tochos. Even if you would widen the left foot by adding dio, it would look awfull and in any case would not be a l'chatchila.


  2. R' Moshe,

    Can you please elaborate on the issue of the left regel of tav being kav mashuch?

    To me, the left regel of אתכם has a tiny part at the top of the regel that looks like it's going in a different direction from the rest. ie a tiny kav and a massive moshav.

    It's possible I haven't fully understood when to draw the line of kav mashuch. Also, assuming this tav is kav mashuch, since the concern is it looking like a chet can it be corrected if a tinok reads it tav?

  3. Following the line that (basicaly) any letter read by a tinok is so and kosher - this tav may pass as a tav.
    But according to the opinions (I explained a bit above, in "the common problems of yudim") that letters also require specific measures/pieces, this tav is problematic.
    Essentialy a tav has 4 parts. 1) gag 2) right foot 3) left foot descending from the gag 4) the moshav of the left foot.
    In this picture and in the picture I noted above, the parts 3,4 are not realy separate, so there is no difference between the regel and the moshav. This is called kav mashuch in the poskim, this tav is equal to the yud hatachtona of the alef becoming one piece, which is accepted as pasul, because there isnt a seperation between the kav descending from the gag of the alef and the yud itself protruding to the right.

  4. It definitly doesnt look like a ches so I guess fixing it would be OK, but the fixing is dificult because in a kav mashuch situation you can only fix by adding ink, scraping away is clearly chok tochos (shulchan aruch 32:18).

  5. Ari thanks
    I enlarged the picture of the tav - you are correct, there is a tiny regel before it goes into the massive moshav, so I change my opinion from pasul to kosher.
    Dovid excuse me, I hope I didn't cause any damage.
    But in general this is a very practical issue in regard to tavim.

  6. I was going to say, one of the problems judging a shaila from an image is that it has to be big enough to see clearly. the picture posted can only be seen clearly when enlarged, in which case you can see clearly the regel is not kav moshuch.

  7. Ari in regard to the basic theme of kav mashuch in the left foot of tav - this is brought in Mishnat Hasofer p. 92 (see picture 271)

  8. So as a summary, I understand that the ת of eschem and the ר of visartam need havchanos tinuk.
    R' Moshe, do you now have a clear maskana on the ו that I showed you from the Ksav chabad. i.e. kosher bidieved and necessary to fix it. After which it would still remain as bidieved?

  9. summary correct.
    in regard the vav, fix it by adding a bit to the head. I want to be meikal and accept it as a lechatchila vav after fixing.

  10. I asked a tinok on the ר of visartem by covering over part of the next letter and he called it a ה, however he afterwards admitted that the reason he called it that was because he read it on an angle not directly straight. He said that if he would of seen it from the proper angle (straight) he would of never of called it a ה, since the regel does not look like that on a ה. He would of called it a ר. Is that ok?


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

תיבה מיותרת במזוזה