A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.
In this gimel the
left foot is totally connected to the guf.
the law of yud of the alef shin ayin etc. that are touching the body of the ois, straight
without a connecting oketz (SA 32:18), apply in gimel?
Note MS ois gimel
אם נדבק הירך בהרגל יגרור הירך ודי בכך
(if the left foot
is stuck to the right foot ..) – this can mean pic.1 because it is [like a]
nun, or also pic. 2?
pic. 1 pic. 2
Biur Hasofer p.
44 (ד"ה וירך) quotes Mikdash M'at that says
this is [pic. 2] pasul, and Biur Hasofer argues. I personaly think the MM's opinion
is solid and correct (see oisiyos harav p. 89, par. יב).
It is accepted
here in Eretz Yisrael that there is a sfardi gimel that is written
m'lachatchila as pic.2, it is locali called "gimel Bagdadi" (the
gimel that Iraqi/Bagdad sofrim were custom to write), this is noted in Biur
Hasofer ibid. in the name of Da'as Kdoshim – that this gimel is csav velish. [Old
csav velish, but today all sofrim sfardim don’t write the gimel so, rather like an
ashkenazic gimel the left foot separated from the guf. Even sofrim from the
iraqi community today don't write a gimel as prescribed "gimel Bagdadi"].
1) can there be a change hallachicaly, that a
gimel once accepted as kosher [even l'chatchila] is now pasul bdieved?
2) If the gimel was kosher for velish/bagdad
does that make it automaticaly kosher [bdieved] for ashknazim (then, or even