Vov of umalkosh

By -

Comments

  1. moshe weinerJanuary 13, 2017 at 4:29 AM

    נראה לי שמותר לתקנו בהוספת דיו כי הסדק דק, ועל כן העוקץ מצטרף לצורת האות

    ReplyDelete
  2. Eli GutnickJanuary 14, 2017 at 6:14 AM

    Without the oketz there's no rosh. So is the oketz enough of a rosh, even if it were to be mechubar?

    ReplyDelete
  3. moshe weinerJanuary 14, 2017 at 12:43 PM

    לא, העוקץ אינו מספיק ראש אבל בצירוף העוקץ והוי"ו נראת לתינוק - נראה שמותר
    לתקנו

    ReplyDelete
  4. Y.Y.January 14, 2017 at 6:39 PM

    I agree with R' Moshe. If a tinok calls it a vov it can be fixed.

    @ 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?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eli GutnickJanuary 15, 2017 at 10:18 AM

    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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Y.Y.January 15, 2017 at 12:54 PM

      Thank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it.

      On 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.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog