The negiyah between the chof pshutah and reish.

Had it been a chof cfufah instead of the reish it would have been majorly problematic to fix the negiyah due to it having formed the tzurah of lamed.

Having said that , can this chsash apply to a reish?

I would appreciate reb Moshe's opinion on this negiyah. Thanks


  1. i know i'm not r' Moshe shlit"a, but l'aniyas da'ati, there is no question of the negiya creating a lamed

    the tzura of a lamed is described in the mishnat sofrim as a vov that sits on top of a kaf (in other words, it doesn't say 'a vov on top of a REISH). He refers to the Beiur Halacha for further clarification.

    What the BH essentially brings is that the "k'mlo ot k'tana' necessary to machshir the tzura of a lamed is referring to the portion of the kav hatakhton (lower line) PAST the rounded middle portion that sits in the middle of the kav hatakhton and the kav ha'elyon.

    In other words, the BH says that if there is not even a slight curve which appears to lean in the direction of forming a kav takhton, then there is "no image of a lamed AT ALL."

    Back to this case: since the kaf pshuta here touches what is clearly a REISH (it has no lower-curvature of it's yerech that would resemble a guf of a LAMED) then there is no chashash that the negiyah creates the tzura of a LAMED.

    Hoh RAYAH that the negiyah can be separated.

    1. a sefardi lamed often has no moshav at all

      while this case is not much of a worry, it could very well happen that separating a negiyah between a reish on the lower line touching a chof pshutah on an upper line could indeed be chok tochus. If the regel of the reish was angled a little too much and the gug of the chof pshutah was a little less wide, it could indeed be a serious shaylah.

    2. If 2 letters touch and "technically" seem like another letter (like the example above), if a tinok reads it properly it may be fixed.

      משנה ברורה סימן לב ס"ק פ

      כגון וי"ו שנדבק בסופו לנו"ן כפופה דיבוק עב שנראית כצורת טי"ת עד שתינוק דלא חכים ולא טיפש יקרא אותו לטי"ת לא מהני גרירת הדיבוק בזה

    3. In shas and poskim in hilchos tefillin you will find the terms kasher, posul, lechatchila, bedi'eved, but NOT mehudar. It is a relative term and it depends on the situation, not just the actual parshia.

      Even the terms lechtchila and bedieved very often refer to the sofer, NOT to the finished parshia, and depends on the situation.

      In Shulchan Aruch Harav 36 os hei-
      אא"כ אין תיקון מועיל אזי יש להכשיר אפילו לכתחילה

      IN the Tzemach Tzedek Orach Chayim 16 -
      אבל בנ"ד ודאי יש להקל מצד ב' טעמים דלעיל. ואין להחמיר בזה דהוא חומרא דאתי לידי קולא שלא נצטרך לגנוז ד"פ דתפילין בפרט שהם כת"י סופר מומחה ומפורסם לטוב מנוחתו כבוד

      A sofer who is mishpacha with Horav Moshe Feinstein told me that he asked the Rov over the years many shaalos in hilchos stam and he only answered kosher or not kosher, but refused to discuss mehudar.

    4. Mendel:

      With all due respect what you write shows that you( or whoever you got this from) is completely out of touch.

      I have spent Years both in Israel and the US learning Stam, both within Chabad and outside Chabad and I never met a Rov / Posek or even sofer (With the exception of Rabbi Z and his school of sofrim) who does not hold of "Mehudar" being the halachic geder in stam.

      While Mehudar is a broad term, it has connentations both to the halachic status of the stam as well as asthetic beauty. If you want to learn the gedarim of mehudar I suggest you do some shimush with a competent Rabbi as it is not something I can define comprehensively in a few sentences.

      I think it is important to note that this removal of the halachic and asthetic geder of "Mehudar" is not a Chabad thing. (Some people say it is and this is incorrect). All contemprary Chabad poskim (Including R' Zalmon Shimon Z"L used the word "Mehudar" as a classification in Stam. (Just look at the first halacha of the kovetz we just sent around). Furthermore, the word "Mehudar" IS mentioned in the Tzemach tzedek, probably the only real chabad SHu"t of any relenvence.

      Outside Chabad it is as common as any other concept and is used as such.

    5. Sorry, in my second paragraph I meant "Mehudar" being a halachic geder in stam, not the halachic geder in stam

    6. Leis mann depolig that "Mehudar" is a halachic geder in stam, that the sofer must try to write as best he can, neatly, without shaalos, without negios, etc. all of which contribute to the hiddur of the ksav. The term "mehudar", however, is not meant to indicate that there are multiple levels of lechatchila in the final product.

      For example, if in one set of parshios the sofer did certain hidurim (lemoshol meubad letfilin, no hefsek, etc.) that were not done in another set, you can say that one is more mehudar than the other in these details. It is inaccurate to say, however, that a parshia that is kosher lechatchila is not mehudar. Hidur is a relative comparative term, that has no limits.

      The word "mehudar" does indeed appear in the Tzemach Tzedek when discussing the tikun for a squared final chof, in the context of how the sofer should fix it so it should appear neat and similar to the rest of the ksav. The sofer must do all he can to make it as mehudar as possible. The final product is then kasher lechatchila.

      The sources quoted in the previous post support this, as well as what I learned from older sofrim who are true mumchim.

      Rabbi Zirkind, whom the Rebbe trusted to be his personal sofer, and who wrote parshios tefillin and a Sefer Torah for Horav Moshe Feinstein zt"l, is a sofer mumcheh and a lamdan and impresses on his "school of sofrim" to try and be likewise.

      Yossie Altein

    7. Reb Yossi,

      Thank you for taking the time to explain this.

      While I respect your views and can appreciate what you are saying, the fact is that in velt, "Kosher Mehudar" and "Kosher lechatchillah" are two distinct halachic defenitions and almost all competent morei horoha today use these terms on a practical level.

      It is for this reason that I have spent years of shimush learning and defining the different gedarim and yes, I make myself "plenty crazy" ensuring that if I sell something as geder Mehudar it should indeed be such.

      I think it is important that both sochrim and sofrim who lack this experience or knowledge (I'm not suggesting for a second I have it down to a science either) show relevant shailos to a competent Rav and receive a psak as to the halacghic staus of the shailo in question.

      An example of this would be the negiyah I posted above. FYI I received a psak that this cannot be sold as geder "Mehudar" (after tikkun).

      [ I mean no disrespect, but I understand that CH in general lacks this mindset (of a shailos chochom), I understand this is largely due to the abscence of a Rov willing to pasken definitively on these matters. However this issue, as well as the confusion it causes for both sofrim and consumers, is a separate topic altogether....]

  2. there is no problem to fix, it isnt a lamed.

  3. I'd agree that it can be fixed. With regards to a shailos tinok, it has always been my policy to ask a shailos chacham first. If he says it's fine then I don't risk an unnecessary psul by the tinok and if it's passul then a tinok should not have been asked. If he says to ask a tinok, I ask him what darga the shaila will be if the tinok in fact reads it correctly.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

shin in "Alter Rebbe" script