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.
There are many reasons why I would not invalidate these KAFS. 1. 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
I think it's ok but definitely should be fixed.
I agree with Alberto only with the chaf of anochi , however lachem IMHO is a nun.the lamed is kosher, sice most poskim disagree with the chidush of m"b. the Baruch Sheamar calls it a zanav
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.