Measuring the length of Zadi Pshuta/Pai Pshuta bdieved #2

In this post I will explain more about the length of the pai/zadi pshutim, but I will first clarify:
These are my thoughts, I don’t have enough hallachic basis for my opinion, and I don’t dare hold a machalokes halacha l'maase against the opinion of Pri megadim or Misna brura.

A.  A possible solution could be, that the long letters - the pshutos
(of the pairs kfufos-pshutos: caf, nun, pai, zadi)  {please don’t mix with the 'ois pshuta' mentioned in one of my posts above, that meant a simple letter that only has a foot, like a vav. Here the word 'pshuta' means extended straight in defference to the bent 'kfufa'}
must be unique in their tzura that they extend under the line, this being part of their tzuras ois, the kfufa is bent and in line, the pshuta extended and going under line.
Accordingly we may suggest that a pshuta that doesn’t extend under the line is pasul because of shinuy tzuras ha'os – it isn't the correct letter, examples:
A kaf pshuta in line [3k hight] although if for some strange occurance would not be a reish at all (even to the tinok) still is pasul – it isn't a pshuta!
A zadi pshuta 3k high (as in question) would be pasul, although it extends 1k under the connecting yud and a tinok has clearly read it as a zadi pshuta, since it is in line – it isn't a pshuta.
[If somebody realy wants to get into this idea, see R. Yehuda Hachasid quoted in Baruch Sh'amar p. 140: וכשהוא כותב ארצך תפארתך צריך להאריך כרעיה דכ"ף פשוטה למטה מן התי"ו, וכשהוא כותב ארצנו תפארתנו, יכתוב הוי"ו לתוך הנו"ן.   
See also Alfa Beisa quoted in BY ois gimel on this (in AB p. 218).  Why can't he write the caf pshuta inside/above the bend of the tav or moshav of zadi?! ]

This solution is very problematic, for 2 reasons:
a.  If by definition a pshuta extends under line, then the opposite - a kfufa must be in line – causes a big problem – our Pai kfufa is clearly under the line. In the old csavim (see AB&BY) the nun & zadi kfufa extended under line, so leaving place for the next letter to be close to the head of nun/zadi.  So this defintion doesn’t hold, unless we are going to make up a new parameter – that the pshutos always have to extend below their partner kfufa! Varying from cafs and nuns that may be short and in line, from (sefardi zadim, and) paim that are 4k.
b.  Why do all poskim say that the caf pshuta must be long - so as not to be mixed up as a reish? Couldn’t they add an including psak that all the pshutos must be long and extend so as not to lose their tzuras ois [including also those that don’t resemble another letter, as pai & zadi] if this was realy me'akev?!
Or the contrary if the pshuta was distinct because it goes under the line – why are the poskim so worried if one is moishech the gag of the kaf so it resembles a big/long reish? Aren't they distinct - the reish in line, the kaf extending under the line?!
[the hallachic connection between the kfufot and their partner pshutot, is a whole issue in itself]

B.  Why did the Pri Megadim include the pai pshuta and zadi pshuta in the shiyur ois ketana?
This shiyur was mentioned for the foot of dalet, hai, etc. They have a foot connected to their gag, and the minimum shiyur of their regel is a ois ketana. But the 'foot' of these pshutos [presented by PM] are not exactly the foot of the letter!
In the pai the foot should start from gag down, so mlo ois ketana is finished way above the end of the nekuda – impossible to accept as Mishnat Sofrim (ois pai pshuta) writes, therefore [MS forces the explanation in PM] that the shiyur is regarding the part of the regel descending under the nekuda.
If so why include the pai pshuta in the catigory of shiyur mlo ois ketana?
In the zadi the shiyur starts after the connection of the yud. Does this mean that the part above is not a regel, the regel only starts from the connection lower?  {would the Pri Megadim hold that the right foot of the gimel also has to have a mlo ois ketana after the connection of its left foot?? Or zadi has a unique combination – the regel only starts under the חיבור הראשים?}
From the fact that PM includes (the moshav of) the lamed requiring mlo ois ketana in length – it seems quite clear he did not mean at all to define these pieces [in pai, zadi, lamed] as feet of the letters. But it means - anywhere that there is a required piece of a letter, it has a minimum shiyur of ois ketana, therefore the moshav of the lamed required must be at least the shiyur of a yud (Biur Halacha, MS ois lamed. See also what the MS wrote on kuf, in regard to mlo ois ketana in the length of the left foot).
This is the opinion of the MB!  In other words: the definition 'mlo ois ketana' although given by chazal in the case of a short foot of hai, is only an example and is much broader than a measure for the regel [of a os] only.

C.  The Mikdash M'at in general disagrees with the Pri Megadim.
In his oisiyos, in lamed and pai pshuta doesn’t mention the PM at all. In zadi pshuta he argues with the PM, as the reservation mentioned before – the shiyur was mentioned for the foot of an os, which doesn’t apply in the case of zadi pshuta. Rather a short zadi pshuta is a shaylas tinok.
Accordingly the MM is meikel, that there is no specific measure for a short pai or zadi pshutim – it is a shaylas tinok.

D.  Up till now we haven't managed to force a psak that the zadi/pai pshutim must extend under the shita, it seems agreed from all mentioned above that zadi/pai pshutim well recognized, the foot extending 1 kulmus under the nekuda in pai, under the connection in zadi, are kosher.
In practical terms, a pai pshuta [in our csav that the hight of the line is 3k] being 3 and 1/4k, according MM might be kosher if asked by a tinok, and according MS if the nekuda was quite high, so the regel extends under the nekuda 1k. Even combining the MB's chumra that mlo ois ketana is more than 1k, it would seem comfortable to say that a pai pshuta 3 and 1/2k tall may be ok.
In regard to a zadi pshuta 3k high standing correctly in line, it is up to a shaylas tinok, if accepted by a tinok is kosher.

E.  My personal opinion, is to accept the MM stand in regard to a pai pshuta, that it doesn’t have any specific measure, and is dependant on shaylas tinok.
But in regard to zadi pshuta, there is a statement in Rema 32:16
נפסק אחת מהאותיות הפשוטות כגון וי"ו זיי"ן או שנפסק רגל הנו"ן וכיוצא בה
This is quoted exactly in SA Harav 32:20 with a slight change  וכיוצא בהן
What is/which letter is כיוצא בה?
I think it is the zadi pshuta!

The zadi pshuta - not only in picture is a combination of nun pshuta and yud, as written in BY, but also a nun pshuta in category of letter[s measure] according to Rema & SA Harav.
I explained in "common problems yudim" #3 [and elsewhere] that nun pshuta by definition has a foot 3k, so the zadi pshuta by definition (and not because it otherwise won't be recognized by a tinok) has a minimum measure 4k, 1k head, 3k foot. Less than that according to Rema's shita explained is pasul, because lacking a fundamental measure – as part of the general theme שלא יעשה ווין יודין וכו'  explained there. Obviously, according to SA & MB's shita explained - this measure doesn't exist!
Since the reservation presented before by MM against PM, it would seem that there is no specific measure the foot of zadi has to extend below the connection of the yud, but rather be a shaylas tinok.
If one combine the chumros, the zadi must be at least 1k under the line, and also extending 1k below the connection of the yud to the guf.
As explained, since according to many a shaylas tinok is sufficient, therefore once recognized by a tinok, the pai or zadi should be fixed (as MS writes ois pai pshuta), but a nafka-mina would be bdieved if the zadi pshuta cannot be fixed.


Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

תיבה מיותרת במזוזה