Posts

Showing posts from November 17, 2011
A Mezzuaza I was checking had a very tiny black hair like chut on the moshav of the Lamed connecting to the top of the Moshav. (I should of taken a picture), I touched it 2 times to see if it was connected or not and it fell off. What do you say in this case? (I believe it was touching in a very loose way "touching and not touching"

kuf

Image
I was asked today on a kuf [the pic. is an illustration only. In the kuf in question the roshem of the dyo was better] in tefilin, that the ink at the left side of the gag fell apart, leaving the regel apparently outside of the letter.
The Mikdash M'at writes that if the regel of the kuf (as of the hai) are hanginig outside of the challal of the ois, left of the gag, or under the moshav, it is pasul. So this kuf is pasul.

I think that since a tinok would recognize this letter [and there is some remnant (roshem hadyo) of the ink] it is permitted to fix.


I am giving a better drawing, closer to the kuf that I saw.


The moshav of nun and tav

Image
Important update:

Here is a nun that its moshav is very short, I think that according to the MB (MS ois lamed) that the moshav of the lamed must have a minumum measure of (mlo ois ketana) 1 kulmus, that this nun should have a 1k moshav, and is therefore problematic.There is another issue the Da'as Kdoshim comments that a nun that its head is wider than the moshav,  may be considered a shinuy tzura. I think that [in our case] a shaylas tinok is accepted, and afterwards fixing it to the right measure is correct. 

The same should apply to the first tav, the moshav isn't a full kulmus, lacking its minimum shiyur.

Another problem is, where do we measure the shiyur kulmus at the base of the moshav [where it has 1k] or at the top where its lacking. I would suppose that the shiyur should be at the top.


The yellow highlited was the first edition. After receiving comments (see) I admit a mistake in regard to the tav.
There is no indication in the MB that the left foot of a tav has a moshav.

The word בכור that the caf and vav are very close to another #2

Image
In the first post I quoted Shut Maharshag & Shaivet Halevi, that in this case we are not concerned what a tinok may read, because we know for sure what the letters are.I would like to pose an argument.
A.  The criteria of "the reading of a tinok" is not only a measure in cases of doubt, in order to determine kashrus of a letter b'dieved, but also a positive criteria in כתיבה תמה [special and unique script] demanded m'lechatchila. IE, the argument is; is shaylas tinok a tool limited to our need in specific cases, or a clear criteria demanded always as part of csiva tama.
Rambam Hilchos Tefilin 1:19:   וצריך להיזהר בכתיבתן, כדי שלא תדבק אות לאות, שכל אות שאין העור מקיף לה מארבע רוחותיה, פסולה, וכל אות שאין התינוק שאינו לא חכם ולא סכל יכול לקרותה פסולה. לפיכך צריך להזהר בצורת האותיות, שלא תדמה היוד לואו, ולא ואו ליוד, ולא כף לבית, ולא בית לכף, עד שירוץ כל הקורא בהן The Rambam is implicating that the script must be unique, each letter separate (mukaf gvil) not mixed with…