A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.
Very nice - thanks for posting. I have seen this in Sifrey I have checked too. In fact there are several interesting 'layouts' around the 'ervat' section, 'arur' section and other places that are no longer in the standard tikkun which I think is a bit of a shame. Though of course it does often involve stretching letters a fair amount which whilst fine is often frowned upon (e.g. Rambam who wasn't happy with vavey ha-amudim sifrey when they first came along because sofrim often stretched letters to much to accommodate it).
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
We all know that there is no ancient source that requires ink to be מן המותר בפיך . Possibly, as said here before, because in the olden days ink was always מן המותר בפיך and the question was never raised. It was probably self-evident. Nowadays, no decent Rav will approve an ink which is not מן המותר בפיך . Who was the first one to raise this question? Was it raised because of animal ingredients or because of non-kosher wine?
Very nice - thanks for posting. I have seen this in Sifrey I have checked too. In fact there are several interesting 'layouts' around the 'ervat' section, 'arur' section and other places that are no longer in the standard tikkun which I think is a bit of a shame. Though of course it does often involve stretching letters a fair amount which whilst fine is often frowned upon (e.g. Rambam who wasn't happy with vavey ha-amudim sifrey when they first came along because sofrim often stretched letters to much to accommodate it).
ReplyDeleteI have a hard enough time not repeating those words too many times during leining as it is. To use amazon parlance, novelty value -- would not read.
ReplyDelete