This is from a shel yad I was checking today.

Obviously it's greatly magnified. To me, the yud has no Rosh and is Pasul. If you look carefully (it's clearer in reality), the thick regel at the top connects directly with the tag/kotz.

Does anyone disagree?


  1. I think its fixable because the section that is bolet on the left between the kotz elyon and kotz rt is enough

  2. I think that's why my gut feeling made me post it. My problem is that the little section that is bolet is only really visible when the photo is blown up. In reality (and even from the second photo a little which I took over a magnifying glass but didn't zoom in) it's incredibly hard to distinguish any kind of rosh section.

    To me that sort of says that it really has no rosh and it's tzura has changed significantly. Also because, no matter how fine one writes the lines, you can always blow up a picture and see extra sections.

    That being said, if the consensus is that it could be fixed, I'm sure the customer would be happy not to have to buy a new set.

  3. We can be machsshir by calling the whale diagonal part -raosh and the tiny foot on the bottom -regel

  4. With respect, in my humble opinion I would disagree.
    To me, the diagonal big part on the right and the tiny bottom are a clear kav mashuch.
    Do you have a specific psak or precedent you base this on?

  5. Hi Ari,
    I can understand your view, however I side with Eli & Beis Hastam on this one, and it should be fixed. All one needs is a small Rosh, and the Kutz of Rabenu Tam descends from it. That is, if one were to remove the Kutz, then it would become obvious that there is enough of a head to be able to be makhshir.

  6. I agree with Ari, this yud has no tzuras ois at all!

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. The truth is, the machshirim are saying 2 different svarot. The question was does this yud have enough of a Rosh to be fixed? Where is it?

    Beis HaStam says that what I'm calling a big regel can be seen as a thick top Rosh and a tiny bottom regel.

    R Alberto and R Eli say that where the tag is is the Rosh because if the top protruding tag and the bottom protruding kotz were taken away, you'd be left with a valid horizontal Rosh.

    I do see both the views.

    I'm not sure I agree with Beis. To me it's a kav mashuch.

    Of the other one - my chashash is that this case is
    what R Shtern is referring to:
    ילקוט הסופר דף סב ״עשה אותה בלי ראש רק קוצו השמאלי משוה לה קצת דמיון ליו״ד נ״ל דאין להכשיר.״

    From what my eyes see, if you were to cut out the tag and kotz that are bolet, I think you're more likely to get a vav than a yud.

  9. Both (no rosh/shinu tzura(vav) are valid concerns and would suggest asking a shailas chacham.

    I've known this sofer for many years and have seen many similar issues with his Yuds.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

shin in "Alter Rebbe" script

The different ways of forming the"Hefsek Parshas Stuma" in tefillin parshiyos.