width of each colums (Bnai Haman/V'es) in 42 line (45 or 48cm) Aseres Bnai Haman

By -
In order to figure out the width of the amud I need to know the width of the Bnai Haman and the width of V'es then I can calculate the space to leave in between. (Will be according to Rav Elyashiv who holds the space should be 2x the width of both V'es and Bnai Haman. (For example, if Bnai Haman is 6cm and V'es is 4cm then the space in between is 20cm.

Comments

  1. Etan KatzJune 15, 2018 at 12:34 AM

    Whenever I write a megila in a new size I write “פרשנדתא" and “עשרת” (in that size) three or four times on a scrap of klaf and take the average of the measurements.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Beis HastamJune 17, 2018 at 4:17 PM

    I don't believe Rav Eliashev said so in case of a large megila.
    maybe he said so as a plus for an 11 liner.
    Before doing it take the following into account:
    1)It is clear that if it will be read as 2 columns its posul.
    2)Lehalacha 9 letters space is kosher.
    3)kiflayim is not brought down in earlier poskim.
    4) Rashi in megila is a commentator.
    5) There are various ways to learn pshat in Rashi
    6) Not even one old megila was written with kiflayim.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yerachmiel AskotzkyJuly 30, 2018 at 5:10 AM

    I'm not aware of any chiluk between an 11 line and 42 line megillah. I'll confirm with the mechaber of Toras Hagilyonos. If Rav Elyashiv holds that there should be kiflayim between Aseres and V'es in any megillah then one who wants to fulfill all opinions would follow Rav Elyashiv's opinion. (I'm sure Rav Elyashiv was aware of everything on your list.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yerachmiel AskotzkyJuly 30, 2018 at 7:00 PM

    I've clarified that in fact Rav Elyashiv holds the same no matter the size of the megillah.
    A sefer by the aforementioned mechaber will be coming out that deflects the concern that the aseres of a large megillah appears more as 2 separate amudim than in a smaller one.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Not a "khaf"

By -
Image
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".
Read more

shin in "Alter Rebbe" script

By -
Image
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
Read more