stamforum

stamforum
פורום בינלאומי לנושא סת"ם

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

kuf

kosher? fixable by tefillin?

8 comments:

  1. I just saw rav shtern writes that there is yesh lismoch even if it is a reish mamash though lechatchillah it should be fixed. I doubt though it's geder mehudar after such a shailo even after fixing - not that it make a difference in this case where the entire ksav is not geder mehudar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is not problem with this. In general there is a machlokes if the tzurah of Kuf is Chaf and vav or reish and nun (sofit). For some marei mekomos, see the Mikdash Me'at on Kuf.

    Obviously, these parshios are anyway not mehudar, but if there were a sofer who intentionally wrote that way, based on a mesorah or minhag that he learned, I can't see why it would be a lack in hiddur.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would not be mehudar because there are a number of noteworthy poskim who say its possul as a reish - I am not with my seforim now but I can quote them to you next time I go online

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even if the kuf is meant to be a reish and nun-sofit, the leg isn't even that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes no difference. According to the other opinion it is a chaf and a vav and yet we make it like a zayin or nun sofit. The minimum shape of the leg to be kosher is just a straight line. All the rest is al pi kabbala but not meakev.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This case is clearly as Aaron mentions. Although the Alpha Beta establishes that the shape of a KUF resembles that of a KHAF + NUN; there are others like the Maguen David who describe it as resembling a RESH + VAV.

    Although we have upon whom to rely in justifying the above shape, LeCHATECHILA we invalidate it as it is. However, we must correct it, and add a base to the RESH, transforming it into a KHAF.

    In the above, there is no SHELO KeSIDRAN as according to some poskim the original RESH + VAV shape of the KUF is valid.

    The interesting thing here is that according to some poskim, we must show it to a TINOK. Why would a Sofer need a TINOK if he can recognize that the shape is there anyways?

    Likewise, others require SHEELAT HAKHAM. why ??? What is the need? Your insight is appreciated.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.