negiya
Does anyone know what today's morei horoa have to say on such a negiyah pls
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
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".
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
Negia daka - what's the sevara to posel?
ReplyDeleteBecause during the ksivah you had a kosher mem. Rabbi sholom elishevitz, (one of the expert sofrim I did shimush under) would passel such a negiya
ReplyDeleteOk. It looked to me like that branch might have been drawn from the bottom up, just by the way it looks like it was connected to the Rosh...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it couldn't be a mem in a million years. Muttar to scrape.
ReplyDeletewe are talking about before he finishes the shin
Deletecover the bottom third of the right branch of the shin with your mouse icon, and imagine that's how it looked for a second before the sofer joined and completed the shin
Deletewe had something very similar on this forum several months ago. I will search it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stamforum.com/2014/06/opinion-on-this-negiya-please.html
ReplyDeletecorrect. But there it was an ayin and alter rebbe ksav, where a lot of sofrim do that part going from the moshav to the yud. so it was a sofek.
DeleteHere, by cheap parshiyos, it is much more likely the heads are done first then the sofer goes down from the head so before he hits the bottom we have a kosher mem.
Finally, after referring to that link Rabbi Askotzky says Rav Friedlander passels such negiyos, which I guess answers my question.
There are several issues here.
ReplyDelete#1) Lets assume that there was a Me"m there at some point,, it reverted back into a Bei"s through a maasah ksiva in the Shi"n.
This in and of itself is a Machlokes Achronim. Some say that constitutes Chok Toiches. But others disagree.
Issue #2: this assumes that there was a Me"m there. The reality is that it is a very very far cry. The beis has an akev and is obviously a Be"is. The connection between the Be"is and the so-called "Chartum" is terribly peculiar. The "Chartum" is lopsided... An adult would certainly not call it Me"m and it's unlikely a child would have either.
This is certainly no worse than a sfek sfeika.
Its hard for me to conceive that erasing is not permitted.
Rabbi Gutnick writes "Here, by cheap parshiyos, it is much more likely the heads are done first then the sofer goes down from the head so before he hits the bottom we have a kosher mem."
ReplyDeleteI see something else. Indeed the heads were done first, then from the left head he went down, but the right "yerech" looks like it was done with the whole width of the kulmus, so apparently it was done from left to right. If done from right to left it would be "pushing" the kulmus, which would rub out his kulmus/plastic nib VERY quick. That is not the natural way of writing ("pushing" the kulmus) and I don't believe that anyone would do that, especially in "cheap" writing, where speed is high priority.
Looking closely, I guess that this is most probably what happened: First the heads, then left yerech top-down, or possibly in one stroke with the head, (then middle yerech top-down) then right yerech LEFT to RIGHT but OOPS!!! it hit the right head in the middle (can be clearly seen in the picture) and then he, or someone else tried to fix it, that's when it got messed up.
That is what I think. Others are entitled to think otherwise.
I would be very grateful if rabbi askotzky or anyone with access to Rav friedlander could show him this shailoh.
ReplyDeleteI would have a hard time being meikel here since we cannot assume that the sofer or the "someone else" has learned hilchos sta"m. Unless the sofer was under oath from the chayay adam not to use a blde why did he not correct it?
ReplyDeleteThe mezuza that had the ayin and beis touching is a possible error even by the best,and reb moishe explained that sfaika deoraysa does not apply in that case(which i read on his hebrew blog and found very informative and well written-ThanK you)
I'm still in the US. Rav Friedlander is very adamant that the accepted psak is if the letter turns into another for a moment, due to connecting to another then the continuation of the stroke doesn't save it.
ReplyDeleteWe can't make assumptions how the sofer wrote it so if there's a tzad he wrote it in a manner that would cause a shinui tzura we have to be chosesh that it was done that way.
With regards to this specific shaila, i think it is worthy of a shailos chacham. I'll send the picture to someone and see if he can show it to Rav Friedlander.
As I expected, Rav Friedlander said it's pasul.
ReplyDelete