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.
I don't disagree, but I do admire your courage. (In any case, the second VeHayu might need a Kotz added to the Yud.)
I question whether it is wide enough to pasel.
I wouldn't be so quick to passul, it's regel is bending inwards & a tinnuk would most likely read it correctly,
Not so sure. If it would be the top of a Vav, there would be hesitation about if it's a Reish. It's MUCH wider than any Vav in that Ksav. A Tinok might read this as a Yud, only because what else could it be. The Tinok might do so even if this were 50% longer, with a nice Kotz top and bottom, and a nice Regel.
Yes, if it were a vav that would be a reish, however it is not and it also can't be mistaken for a reish, it therefore should remain a sheilas tinnok, as with a shinu tzurah.Were it longer it would be worse, and we may not rely on a tinnok if we know he is clearly wrong.
I am not only concerned in regard to tzuras haos (as all agreed there is at least a shaylas tinok involved), but also a dimensional change.A yud is a nekuda, here it is a kav IE a gag. So what Aharon said in regard to reish-vav is a problem, to my opinion.
Would you also be machmir if a nun had a rosh that was that wide, even if the moshav were extended well beyond the rosh and therefore no chashash of a beys?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.