are these caf kosher?
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
The different ways of forming the"Hefsek Parshas Stuma" in tefillin parshiyos.
Following Ari's post, I have cut and pasted an article I wrote for a local publication some time ago on this very issue. I think it sums up this issue and the various shittos. I also suggest Rav Yonason Hershlags kuntres on this topic called "stumah shebestam". The different ways of forming the"Hefsek Parshas Stuma" in tefillin parshiyos. Introduction There is a common misconception that the only difference between the different minhagim (customs) of tefillin parshiyos is the ksav (font) they are written in. For example if a person is Sephardic, the ksav will be "Vellish", a script that is unique to Sephardic Jews; If one is of traditional Ashkenazic and non-Chassidic background, then he would usually get the "Beis Yosef" script; If one is "Chassidic", he would get the "Arizal" script, etc. While this is correct, there are also different opinions and minhagim on how to make the spacing between the parshiyos of th
שאלת תינוק
ReplyDeleteThere are many reasons why I would not invalidate these KAFS.
ReplyDelete1. They retain there appearance, and cannot be confused with a NUN, especially since this is a Ketav Arizal where the Rosh of a NUN is written like a ZAYIN.
2. Although, the base of the letters appear narrow, the RASHIM have more than the SHIUR of a KOLMOS as can be seen when you compare to the ROSH of the NUN's in the same Ketav. As such, the width of the head, even in a Ketav Sepharadi, where one makes the head of a NUN like a VAV, when in a SAFEK one would make a She'elat TINOK.
3. Likewise, although the MOSHAV is a bit narrow. However, it is not that narrow as to appear like a RESH.
Therefore, I say that this KAF retains it's shape. However, if one is in doubt, they should not jump to invalidate it. Rather, the letter must be shown to a TINOK.
the lamed of lachem needs a shealas chacham if it has a sheur in the regel
ReplyDeletethe lamed of lachem needs a shealas chacham if it has a sheur in the regel
ReplyDeleteI think it's ok but definitely should be fixed.
DeleteI agree with Alberto only with the chaf of anochi , however lachem IMHO is a nun.
ReplyDeletethe lamed is kosher, sice most poskim disagree with the chidush of m"b. the Baruch Sheamar calls it a zanav