Both the Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Mishnah Brurah use similar terminology when describing the importance of the shin being "pointy" on the bottom and all three branches of the letter shin meeting at a point or "chad" at the bottom of the letter. There is a strong foundation in Halacha for this and for the bottom of the shin to be flat like a moshav (base) is considered questionable (Pri Megadim) and definitely not Kosher Lechatchillah. It is worse if the moshav is very wide, but it is still questionable if it is lechatchillah if there is a thick noticeable base rather than a chad. Even for Sephardim, who lechatchillah make an angular base, it is still important that the base is indeed on a (significant) angle. If the base is flat, even if all three branches of the shin come out of the base connected , as in the top picture, it is problematic. It is worse in the bottom picture below where the right head/ branch comes out of the right part of the base and the m
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei would like to comment on tyour earlier post
ReplyDelete"In regard to the question in the last post - can it be that a ois that is kosher for sfardim be pasul for ashkenazim (or opposite).
The Shaarei Tshuva OC36 quotes Sfardi Poskim that csav ashkenaz is pasul for sfardim, since there are shinuyim between the csavim. He (the ST, I didn’t look up the seforim he quotes) doesn’t mention what/which shinuyim are m'akev, that are pasul for Bnei Sfarad."
Rabbi Greenfeld from Vaad Mishmeres STa"M told me that the tshuvos maharam ben chaviv miksav yad quoted by the shaarei tshuva was already printed as sefer KOL GADOL.HERE IS THE LINK
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1256&st=&pgnum=114
WOW- IT SHEDS LIGHT ON THE WHOLE SUGYA
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethanks
ReplyDeleteI looked it up - the maharam there: the gimel ashkenazi looks like a nun sfaradi. which therefore is pasul for sfaradi. Somewhat an opposite case of what i'm talking about, but proves that shinuyim between the csavim that are posel may occur. If so there is no machalokes between the maharam and NB.
yasher koiach
but he doesnt picturize or explain there, why the ashkenaz gimel looks like a nun - maybe, since in BY the regel should resemble a nun, although there was a pgima between - hard to accept.
ReplyDeleteI do recall somebody that explained in the BY יהיה ירך משוך עב אליה - אל הגוף meaning that it was mamash touching the guf, like the first pictures on the post,
obviously today we would pasel that as a nun, maybe thats what maharam saw?