extended yud
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".
I don't disagree, but I do admire your courage.
ReplyDelete(In any case, the second VeHayu might need a Kotz added to the Yud.)
I question whether it is wide enough to pasel.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be so quick to passul, it's regel is bending inwards & a tinnuk would most likely read it correctly,
ReplyDeleteNot 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.
DeleteYes, 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.
DeleteWere it longer it would be worse, and we may not rely on a tinnok if we know he is clearly wrong.
Shaylas Tinok
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteA 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?
Delete