How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
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
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".
If the sofer was a sefardi, this never would have happened!
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the spelling mistake, note that:
ReplyDeleteThe ך of the second בשבתך and ובשעריך are most probably פסול.
The foot of the big ד is to short.
The extra תגים are not at all exact: 6 on מ of ובקומך(?),
דגנך ותירשך ויצהרך like in תפילין, in מזוזה should be nothing on ותירשך and on the ר of ויצהרך.
Lacking the תגים in many places (וקשרתם, אחרים and others).
In short, this sofer (in my opinion) needs to do a little bit homework before he continues.
I wouldn't have thought the kafim are Pasul. Lechatchila - definitely not. But I think they're kosher bediavad since the regel is longer than the gag (not easy to see in the pic) and they are yored mehaketiva amongst a ktav that has fairly consistent letter heights. Maybe at most a ST, but I'm not even sure about that.
ReplyDeleteAlso the regel of the dalet is short but also I think its kosher.
If the Regel is not longer than the Gag then it's a serious Safek of Tzuras Ha'os. After all, if this were the large Raish of Acher (ki lo sishtachaveh l'eil acheir), would it be Pasul because it's a long Kaf?
Deleteואבדתם
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, the two most common spelling mistakes in a mezuzah are:
ReplyDelete1) in the 2 places where the words letotofos and mezuzos are written - where the sofer has mixed up the moleh or choser and either left out a vov or added a vov.
2) in the two v'avadatems where he has mixed up the ayin / alef.
In my opinion, after checking a mezuzah normally, it is worth glancing over those 6 words a second time.
Also, I have commonly found the first written ועבדם - lacking the TAV
ReplyDelete