mem pasul

I think this mem is pasul, and definitly a shinuy tzura of the letter.


  1. Hi R. Moshe,
    This Mem has two major problems. 1) The Moshav is like a ZANAV and 2) The MEM is greatly separated from the VAV with the connector descending to the bottom of the CHARTUM.

    In both cases however, it appears to me that, we do not have the halakhic basis to invalidate it. Instead, the VAV part should be thickened a bit and the MOSHAV should be squared.

    My reasoning with respect to the VAV is that we are lenient in the case of a GIMMEL where the left foot connects to the right foot near or at the top of the roof. Here we have the same thing with respect to the CHARTUM of the MEM where on one side (at least) it definitely connects at the middle. Thickening the VAV a bit would definitely remedy this situation.

    With respect to the MOSHAV being written as a ZANAV, whe are lenient when it comes to a LAMED. Likewise, whe should accept that here, the KHAF part maintains its TZURAH. However, we should square it at the bottom in order to improve its shape.

    1. In response to what R Attia wrote, if one looks at the MEM above the one in question, it seems that the tikkun proposed by R Attia had already been done. When enlarging the photo it seems as though there is a white space in between the "old VAV" and the alleged tikkun. it also looks like the ink in this place is a little different. Could be that it is an illusion... maybe not.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

תיבה מיותרת במזוזה