kuf
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
Not a "khaf"
This gave me a "Safrut smile"... OK, I realise that this is not Ktav STaM, however it is interesting what happens when graphic/font Hebrew becomes too stylised. Case-in-point, a colleague and I were visiting the mayor's office in the Gaza Belt region of Shaar HaNegev (adjoining Sderot). He is new to reading Hebrew and pronounced the welcome sign as " brooning " or " broobing " (instead of the intended " brookhim ". I replied that he was more correct than the graphic designer, as the letter meant to be a " khaf " was closer to a halakhic "Nun" or "Bet", and had this been Ktav STaM, the letter would likely be considered pasul as a "Khaf".
shin in "Alter Rebbe" script
Both the Shulchan Aruch Harav and the Mishnah Brurah use similar terminology when describing the importance of the shin being "pointy" on the bottom and all three branches of the letter shin meeting at a point or "chad" at the bottom of the letter. There is a strong foundation in Halacha for this and for the bottom of the shin to be flat like a moshav (base) is considered questionable (Pri Megadim) and definitely not Kosher Lechatchillah. It is worse if the moshav is very wide, but it is still questionable if it is lechatchillah if there is a thick noticeable base rather than a chad. Even for Sephardim, who lechatchillah make an angular base, it is still important that the base is indeed on a (significant) angle. If the base is flat, even if all three branches of the shin come out of the base connected , as in the top picture, it is problematic. It is worse in the bottom picture below where the right head/ branch comes out of the right part of the base and the m
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.
ReplyDeleteThere 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.
ReplyDeleteObviously, 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.
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
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven if the kuf is meant to be a reish and nun-sofit, the leg isn't even that.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteAlthough 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.