problematic Zayin

The second zayin in mezuzos - is lacking a complete rosh on its right side. I think it is pasul.

Here is the same picture, at the smallest size available for the blog. In reality it is even smaller - cut the screen size to 50-65% - for a more accurate size - and the blita of the right is unnoticable.


  1. Yes, it's passul.

  2. there is a small blita with a zavis, does that count for anything?

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I once learned that the zavios of the ז does not need to come out from the entire side, rather even if the top is sticking out (as if it is in a slant, similar to this picture)it is enough. Certainly, it should later be fixed. When in doubt one can ask a tinok. Why not here as well?

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. What I mentioned does depend on how much the rosh is sticking out, i.e. if the right rosh is sticking out a lot from the top than it is kosher (even though the bottom is on a slant).
    So here that it is not sticking out so much maybe it is not enough. However if you notice the bottom of the rosh surpasses the regel by a small amount, I would think that this should also help. As I mentioned before seemingly why should we not rely on the tinok in this case? Please explain why you differ.
    Thank you

  7. The big problem with this case is that you cannot make a shailos tinok because of the taggim. If the tinok sees the taggim, he will be someich on the taggim, not the tzura of the rosh of the ois, to identify the letter as a zayin. In such a case, sofek leChumra and posul (see Mikdash Meat who brings this).

    For another approach (a vov with an upper right-side blita)which would also deem our case posul , see Shut Shevet HaLevi V:5:3.

    Yet - I see the small blita of a zavis on the lower right head of the zayin, as pointed out by R' Eli.

    Is this small blita noticeable when viewed at actual size? if so, it may be enough to be matzil.

  8. Concerning the Shevet Halevi you quoted, based on the picture there it is not similar to our case. There is no way this could be called a vuv (even through a tinok) even if it was missing the tagim.
    There are some poskim which allow to cover the tagim for a shailos tinok, however the mikdash maat seems to be speaking when it would take the appearance of a 'vuv yeshara' (were it theoretically missing the tagim). I am not sure that our case could qualify for a vuv yeshara (would it be missing the tagim) so it is not as severe as what the mikdash is talking about.
    Anyways this is an interesting sheila.

  9. All true - I only suggested these sources so we could look at the case of a vov with an extra blita by contrast.

  10. I'm fairly certain I have seen this specific example in S'fakot Hasofer. Will try and check it out and if I can work out how to load a picture into a comment could put a scan of the example up.

  11. Mordechai hi,
    It isn't possible to upload a picture in a comment. If you want to load a picture you can do so thru a new post only.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

shin in "Alter Rebbe" script