Vov of umalkosh
- Get link
- Other Apps
By
Rabbi Eli Gutnick
-
- Get link
- Other Apps
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
נראה לי שמותר לתקנו בהוספת דיו כי הסדק דק, ועל כן העוקץ מצטרף לצורת האות
ReplyDeleteWithout the oketz there's no rosh. So is the oketz enough of a rosh, even if it were to be mechubar?
ReplyDeleteלא, העוקץ אינו מספיק ראש אבל בצירוף העוקץ והוי"ו נראת לתינוק - נראה שמותר
ReplyDeleteלתקנו
I agree with R' Moshe. If a tinok calls it a vov it can be fixed.
ReplyDelete@ R' Eli, Please tell me: on what basis is there no "rosh". I am completely dumbfounded such an assertion. The regel is about 5 or six time more narrow than the gag. The fact that the the break between the regel and the gag is not perfect does not "transform" the gag into a simple extension of the regel.
The Kotz certainly helps to crystallize that there is a gag there which arguably is more vital in this case since the break between gag and regel isn't so pronounced.
But how does one go so far as to say there is not rosh? And what are the sources for such a view?
If you ignore for a second the ( broken) shpitz coming out of the top, look at the tzurah, it is like an "ice cream cone" where it gets wider as it goes up but this is NOT considered a halachic rosh. Now, there are those who say that such a tzurah, even with a small shpitz coming out to the left of the wider upper part, is not a proper rosh either. I, personally don't hold like this but I wanted to hear what others say, in particular Reb Moshe, who has asserted this view many times on this forum. Hence my surprise when he said (or at least I understood) that the problem is related to the hefsek, not to the lack of rosh. So I asked - to clarify his position - if he felt that without the nifsak, would the shpitz still be enough or would it still be insufficient (and require fixing). That was the purpose of my comment. I hope that clarifies it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it.
DeleteOn the "guf ha'inyan" I obviously disagree with the machmirim... ESPECIALLY as R Reuven wrote plenty of vovs like that. And.. I hsve yet to see the source for such a position.