The International STa"M Forum

I added this picture the word "beisecha" the yud looks to me like a mini lamed. R' Moshe do you agree on this? The Mikdash maat sif katan 11 seems to say that it is fixable by adding dio on the top? Can someone explain me the mikdash maat? This is a sefardi yud with a big tag on top of it (seems disconnected a little) I believe is still kosher. this is ksav chabad where the tag is a little thicker than should be, interestingly I have learned that the top tag should be just over a kolmus ( just bigger than the regel) The next picture the tag is even taller (like that of the sefardi, besides for the positioning) however thinner. although I believe both are still passable since the tzura is still on them. What do you say?

In the first picture the Yud is it kosher? The second picture the א and the ו from the word "laois". Does the aleph have a kosher foot? The vuv is it still moil tinok or too long? The Nun of Anochi is the head technically fixable? Here the Nun of the word Vinasati looks like a proper chuf with tagim on top of it. What do you say?

This first bet could be related to Mikdash Meat's doubt " Ee (=if) tinok moil"; is it kosher? Vav and zain are quite close one to the other; are they still kosher?

Since B"h we are getting into mezuza laws, I would ask does anybody know about a specific lubavitch custom in regard to the shiur parsha in mezuza. The kuntres acharon of SA Harav [32:12] writes: ובמזוזה אין צריך להיות הריוח רק כשיעור ג' יודין סוף פרשת שמע וכשיעור ג' יודין קודם התחלת פ' והיה אם שמע. It seems there is a printing error and it should be ט' יודין as the minimum shiyur (not ג' יודין ). Meaning that the Alter Rebbe didn’t require a full 3 x Asher in mezuza (as in tefilin). The difference the Alter Rebbe makes between tfilin and mezuza, can easily be explained. This was to my knowledge the custom followed by all lubavich sofrim that I saw or heard – to leave at least 9 yudim [b'revach – well spaced] in the mezuza both before vhaya, and after shma. Lately I heard a suggestion that this isn't a mistake, rather the Alter rebbe did instruct to leave less than a shiyur. I doubt this rumor has any reliable source, (also it doesn’t fit w...

B"H 2 questions on fixing a mezuza: I am wondering what is the custom concerning placing a Mezuza on a gate (or door etc..) when it is placed on the outside of the door and not within the Oivei Hapesach (since it is very thin). The Pischei Teshuva in Yoreh Deah 290:10 writes that the bottom of the mezzuza should be alachson pointed towards the door while the outer part should be going pointed away from the door. Is this the accepted practice, I have seen by many that in this case the exact opposite, (i.e. the top is pointed towards the door and the bottom pointing away from the door)? 2) In a bedroom (which has windows) and the only door the heker tzir opens out from the room. Should the mezuza be placed as walking into the room (against the heker tzir) or following the heker tzir (from the inside of the room going out)? Possibly in this case minhag chabad is to follow heker tzir, while others go by the conventional way to enter the room from the outside? If a Rabbi (non Sofer/ M...

I recently saw an article where mishmeres stam exposed a sofer who was selling magnificently written ksav velish mezuzos, parshiyos and sifrei torah (see pic). However the sofer was using a dubious technique - he was printing on the klaf with a machine, and then writing over it. While ksav al gabei ksav is common in Sifrei torah, esp. refurbished ones, and presents no Halachic problems, the issue here was that the first ksav underneath was computer generated and printed, not hand written. Rav Elyashiv Sh' and others ruled the sefer should go to genizah. If you look at the second picture, you can see and example of  the way he was caught out. The printed ksav underneath was not always perfectly covered by the new ink. This led to "double edges" and edges that were a different shade and texture, which was a giveaway, particularly when examined closely with a magnifier. I once had a discussion with a prominent rav as to whether you could use a stencil when writing stam. ...

2 sheilas In the first picture the gimmel of Diganecha problems 1) it is connected high near the rosh? (although in this case may be still kosher) and 2) the two feet are like a bow (although again in this case I think it is kosher), correct? the head of the nun nun is primarily going to the right (with a tad to the left). Since the Tagim are on the right side specifically it makes it look even more like a nun hafucha (which is a chashash pasul?) What do you say?

Im'm throwing a question into the ring: If lechatchillah the ink has to dissolve in water like the opinion of the Rambam, how is it mehudar to write with these "new age" waterproof inks????

Magen Avraham 32:1: צריך לכתוב ד' דאחד כל כך גדולה כמו ד' דלתי"ן קטני' (כתבי האר"י).   The dalet of echad should be large the size of 4 small daletin (in the name of Ari-zal). The MB 32:1 (in name of Pri Megadim): maybe this is not estimated by the script actualy used, rather if it has the size of 4 tiny dalet, it is sufficient. And therefore the custom is to write this dalet only larger than a regular dalet. This means that the custom wasn't to make the large dalet actualy 4 times a dalet in the script, only slightly larger. R. Menahem Dovidovitz shlita holds that the proper writing of this dalet (4 x dalet ktana) is done by doubling the size of the rosh to its height and twice its length, so it is equal in area to 4 regular dalets. My opinion is that this is not the meaning of the MA (Ari). The extending of the gag twice is not considered doubling the dalet, since the dalet once [its gag] becoming thicker must be also extended in order not t...

A continuation to a point I mentioned in my last post "shiyur moshav of the lamed" - the basic measure-unit in stam is a yud. But this unit may not be a exact square area – highth=width, since the width of the yud may vary, and will be fairly accepted at 0.7k, when the hight is always 1k – the oivei of the kulmus is the width of the line [gagei ha'oisiyos]. So a shiyur yud may be = 1kHigh/0.7kWide. In Alfa Beisa (p. 200, 205. Quoted in Darke Moshe, and Mishnat Sofrim) that the beis should be 3x3 kulmusim highth=width. This is built according to the measure of a standard yud, which is 1x1 kul. As the MS ois yud writes:  שיעור גופה מלא קולמוס אחד ולא יותר שלא תדמה לרי"ש   The guf of the yud is 1k, no more, so it won't resemble a reish. Obviously, the MS is speaking about the width of the yud, not its hight, because it shouldn't resemble a reish! (not a vav). Accordingly, the regular BY csav today is built on a structure of exact square, the yud 1x1k, th...

B"H Sheilas for R" Moshe In the chuf, it has a kav going down from it. I assume it is allowed to erase it since lo nishtanu ikur tzuroso, correct? I have another sheila (not able to take a picture of it, because it does not show well) where a tiny kav is going from one part of the inner half of the tav untill the next part. The ink is extremely faint (done probably by a mistaken swift of a rapidiograph), not so noticeable. I would assume it is allowed to erase but I did not see this is mefurash in sfarim? These are similar vuv's which I showed yesterday although here the roshim are even bigger, (this is from the same sofer, he had a tendency of writting long rashei vuvim) the tinok correctly called this and the following picture by vuv. I am able to rely on it or is this or the next one too similar to a reish?

Sheila of Ches

B"H In this picture blitos (done as they were placing tagim on the letter) are descending from the Rosh of the Nun, Shinui Tzura or fixable? In this picture you can clearly see that the left regel of the Hei was touching the gag and it was scratched away (appears like a chok tochos or very close to it) could I assume that only when it was being written this happened and the letter was scratched and redone in a kosher way? (I don't think so, since there is no hint of scratch marks besides near the gag). The Nun Sofit has a tiny blita going to the left, although I think it is still fixable correct? THe Yud in the word yimeichem does not have a clear regel, although I think it is fixable by lengthening the regel yamin, correct?

Are those yellowed-signed heiim - and therefore the whole mezuzah - kosher? As far as I could understand, Mikdash Meat and Otiot Harav consider posul due to shinui tsurah when the left regel of a hei is wide as a moshav, instead of being a iud-like point. It should also be thinner than the area of blank klaf (haparuts merube). In some hexagonned-signalled above, the paruts could be most of the area, but still the left regel seems to be a moshav. And what should then be the border between a moshav and a point, 1k(one ovi-kulmus)?

The reason that mlo ois ketana is the minimum measure for the foot of the hai, is because the yud is the smallest letter. IE the smallest considerable piece in the script. Therefore, the basic pieces of a letter [for ex. a hai has 3 pieces, gag & 2 feet] their minimum measure that is accepted, is the minimal letter of yud. This keeps the basic structure of all the letters/script in a unified size. We find the use of the yud also a measure for the separation of words from each other, that l'chatchila they should be seperated the size of a ois ketana which is the yud (MB 32:143). And even for bdieved this measure is used, for measuring the separation of one parsha from another parsha = 9 oisios, the minimal ois being a yud. So the shiur [of revach parsha ] is 9 yudim. The chidush is, that we see Chazal used the shiyur yud also to the width, not only to the length as in the foot of hai. The basic unit of measure for script in stam, is a yud.   Now o...

B"H Sheila to R' Moshe, These are 2 more examples of wide Roshei Nunim. I believe the first picture is kosher, while the second one is a less clear to me (although smaller of a rosh than in the previous post of mine which was posul), what do you think? I think it is important to stress that just like the nun in the previous post " A few shaylos on Tzuros Haosios " that was Posul shelo kisidran. And the second picture in this one (which is in question to me) is clear that the extra wider head was done afterwards by rapidiograph (seemingly to make it big enough to amply place the tagim), it is a big problem which should be of special attention to magihim and sofrim.

There are kosher nunim from vatikin sofrim whose regel doesn't achieve the moshav straightly rightwards, whereas there are posul nunim with a broken regel. This one could apply to the description of the kosher ones. But it doesn't seem to me a nun and "my" tinok said he doesn't know what it is. Is it kosher? Yossef Moshe, Rio - Brazil.

The MB 32:42 quotes the P ri M egadim that the law of shiyur M lo O is K etana is applicable to other letters also [although this shiyur was mentioned in gemara and SA in regard to hai, the hai is only an example] as dalet, lamed, pei pshuta, zadi pshuta, kuf, reish, tav, or ches [the MB explains: l'ch'ora the PM meant either right or left foot of the ches] if a shiyur in the length of the foot as a yud [MOK] was left, it is acceptable. [till here the quote from PM. The MB Continues:] ועיין לקמן see in siman 36 in the laws of zuras haosiyos [the elaboration of Mishnat Sofrim on the PM's words] in letters lamed, pei pshuta, zadi pshuta, kuf, and tav.   I find the words of the MB very deep and important l'hallacha, and although quite arguable, when studying what the MB is teaching, we may appreciate his logic. All that I'm writing in this post, is explaining my understanding of the MB's shita, only. I am not regarding if this opinion ...

Back to the question – a gimel that the left foot is totally connected to the guf, is it kosher? The question of this gimel to my understanding is – what is the definition of the left foot of the gimel? Alfa Beisa ois gimel (quoted in BY) basicaly calls the left foot   ירך שמאל   but at the end [of his 2 nd gimel] writes ויהיה הירך משוך עב אל הגוף because this part of the gimmel resembles a nun - The foot should be extended thick close to the body – meaning that the left foot should not be far from the body [pic.1], but close, and extended wide [pic. 2] not thin [pic. 3]. [the illustrations are to explain the AB, I am not getting into the issue of the slant of this foot, only regarding the dimension of this foot, and its attachment to the guf! ] From the above and the continuation of AB that the left foot should descend lower than the line, in order to allow the next letter to be close to the head ...