In a
comment to Dovids "large Vav on a small mezuzah", Beis hastam wrote:
"it is important to note the difference between vov and
zein. mishna brura in letter zein writes not to make regel longer than 2
kulmusim, however in letter vov he writes not to make it "aruch
miday".
when viewing old ktavim i always found
"very" long vavs, i met with rav samson from london who pointed out
the alpha baisa who explains why vavin should be written long. see page 264 in
the new print."
I
would like to comment on this issue, although I already wrote the basic point
in "common
problems in yudim" (especialy #3)
above, and perhaps add a bit here, bezras hashem.
A. As explained in "common problems in
yudim" there is a machalokes between the poskim, how to define the difference
between yudin-vavin, zayinin nunin [and also yudin-zayinin, vavin nunin].
According to the Shulhan Aruch's [32:16] shita explained, the sole dimension is a shaylas tinok, it is
simple - whatever is read correctly by the tinok, that’s what it is.
But according to Rema there is an additional
measure required from these pairs, the yud is a dot, the vav and zayin are
lines (osiyos pshutos), the nun an extending longer line. yud [guf] 1
kulmus, vav & zayin 1+2k, nun 1+3k. A letter that is out of its dimension
(smaller or bigger) is not kosher. See there some of the nafka-minas.
I admit that from the MB& Biur Halacha's comments there
(32:16) it seems that he holds that the Rema and Mechaber don't argue on this
issue, so according to all, everything follows a tinok only. But that doesn’t
automaticaly machshir a long vav, as I will explain.
Therefore a vav 4 kulmusim long [in regular script that the
normal letter = beis is 3X3k] according SA&MB is kosher since a tinok will
recognize it, but according to Rema is pasul because it deviated from its
measure (foot being 2k, twice the shiyur of its head) turning into a nun-pshuta
shiyur (foot3k).
B. The common thought that since a tinok will not read a very
long vav as a nun, because the difference in their heads tzura, the nun
being a zayin shaped, is in dispute.
This thought follows the opinion that a nun having a vav type
head is pasul (see MB in Mishnat Sofrim 36 on nun: the Pri Megadim is in doubt צ"ע,
but other acharonim pasel), but other poskim hold that bdieved a nun with a vav
head is kosher (see Mikdash M'at on nun pshuta).
But basicaly as the Mikdash M'at writes there, this psul is
in doubt, and he allows to fix the head of the nun even in Tfilin shlo csidran.
This means a long vav is a nun [maybe pasul, maybe not], therefore it is pashut
that a long vav, is definitly pasul for vav, since it turned into a nun pshta
(even if a pasul one).
Evidence to this, is the Shaar Hatziyun (MS 36, on vav:2) in
name of Chida (l'david Emes) that a vav as long as a nun pshuta is pasul – so,
although a nun with a vav head is pasul according MB, still a long vav (long as
a nun pshuta) is also pasul.
C. In practical terms after the argument between SA and Rema
in regard to a long vav:
A long vav 5k is actualy a nun pshuta, and pasul even
according MB (shaar hatziyun quoted).
A long vav 4k is pasul according to Rema since it is out of
its shiyur, although a tinok will read it vav, but according SA&MB will
only be a shaylas tinok (if obvious what the tinok will read, we don’t even
have to ask, knowing what his recognition will be).
a. Not to accept lechatchila a long vav 4k, but to fix
it (by adding some ink to its head changing the porportions of head-foot).
b. Bdieved one that wants to rely on the SA & Mb may do
so, till a limit of close to 5k [I would be very skeptical to machshir
4.5k!], and as long as a tinok can recognize it as vav.
D. True that there is a kabala reason for lengthening the vav
as Beis hastam quoted from Alfa
Beisa p. 264 (at end), but there it says יכתוב הויו ארוכה מעט
לפני רגל הה"א indicating a bit. That means an
additional third of kulmus under the line, not more.
E. In summary what Beis
hastam wrote according MB is
correct, but there is a limit and not very long vavim!
F. I would add a very important point:
Lets say that in old csavim from Europe they accepted even
lchatchila {very} long vavim, on the assumption explained - since it cannot at
all be a nun pshuta. Today things are different!!
In old times what was kovea was the local
custom/psak/shaylas tinok, which obviously varied from place to place as the
Rosh writes in his tshuva (Tur YD Hilchos Sefer Tora),
therefore in one communuty or country a vav would be kosher, and in another place
would be pasul, because of these differences.
Today tefilin written in Eretz Yisrael by a sfardi sofer in
ashkenazic csav, are immediatly sent and used {in two weeks time} in LA, London, Moscow….
The tinok today is not the standard yerushalmi child
going to cheider in Mea Shearim or HarNof, but the normal jewish child
everywhere! The csav today has to be accepted globaly.
