- Get link
- Other Apps
By
Shea Lindner
-
- 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
You need to ask a moreh horaah
ReplyDeleteI agree. Thanks. Regarding the part of smudge that is connected to the Hay, there is probably more reason to be Maikil, since it probably was always connected to the Hay, but in any case, you're right that it should be discussed with Moerh Hora'ah.
DeleteOf course! as the same applies to all such questions on this forum.
DeleteAs we have the Disclaimer in red on the top right of the page:
One should not use this forum as a substitute for proper "shimush" or a proper rabbinic ruling.
See the beginning of קול סופרים in the letter he writes to his brother, paragraph 25.
Therefore all we can do is to help an other sofer with sources so he has what to present to the Rov.
That is correct. This is exactly what I am looking for: Sources.
DeleteThere's 2 issues here. What seems to be the slightly less concerning is part of a letter going into another, the ink connected to the leg of the Hei into the Dalet. If this were the only ink inside the Dalet then I'd think a tinok would suffice and if so, all would agree that the Hei need not be covered.
ReplyDeleteThe more concerning issue is the loose into (particularly the one bit that is pretty close to the lower left hand corner). According to the Rosh/Tur this would suffice to make it a kosher Hei and according to those who hold the SA agrees with the Rosh, would be pasul as well and the the Chazon Ish and Maamar Mordechai would consider it a Peh so it would seem difficult to machshir.
See שו״ת צמח צדק אבן העזר חלק שני סימן קס״ד-קס״ה
DeleteI'll look up the source when time permits. Please elaborate for the forum members and visitors.
DeleteThanks again! Teshuva in Tzemach Tzedak is indeed very interesting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe more concerning issue is the loose ink in the Dalet....
ReplyDeleteHei, not Peh