The moshav of nun and tav
Important update:
Here is a nun that its moshav is very short, I think that according to the MB (MS ois lamed) that the moshav of the lamed must have a minumum measure of (mlo ois ketana) 1 kulmus, that this nun should have a 1k moshav, and is therefore problematic.
There is another issue the Da'as Kdoshim comments that a nun that its head is wider than the moshav, may be considered a shinuy tzura. I think that [in our case] a shaylas tinok is accepted, and afterwards fixing it to the right measure is correct.
The same should apply to the first tav, the moshav
isn't a full kulmus, lacking its minimum shiyur.
Another problem is, where do we measure the
shiyur kulmus at the base of the moshav [where it has 1k] or at the top where its
lacking. I would suppose that the shiyur should be at the top.
The yellow highlited was the first edition. After receiving comments (see) I admit a mistake in regard to the tav.
There is no indication in the MB that the left foot of a tav has a moshav. The correct definition of this foot is - a foot that is bent, so therefore there should be no problem relating the MB's psak that the moshav of the lamed has a minimum measure, to the tav. Accordingly, there is no basis to pasel the tavim above.
The yellow highlited was the first edition. After receiving comments (see) I admit a mistake in regard to the tav.
There is no indication in the MB that the left foot of a tav has a moshav. The correct definition of this foot is - a foot that is bent, so therefore there should be no problem relating the MB's psak that the moshav of the lamed has a minimum measure, to the tav. Accordingly, there is no basis to pasel the tavim above.
Michoel Ganz emailed me a comment to this post:
ReplyDeleteJust to say hello, as a first time viewer of this blog, I”ll comment on todays post b’mchilas kvodo.
In my humble opinion, there is no shailah whatsoever on the Tav you discuss here.
In the MB there is no mention of a minimum shiur for the Moishav haLamed.
In Biur Halacha he explains that the Pri Megodim that mentions Lamed amongst the letters that need "mlo ois ketana" must be reffering to kav hatachton.
If it's as you say that the blitah of the regel haTav would need mlo ois ketana, the PR"M would have included that too, along with the Lamed.
The ois Tav consists of a gag and two reglaim (not a moishav). We find the shiur of mlo ois ketana regarding the “height” of a regel, but not the “width”.
How do you learn pshat in mlo ois ketana in regard to the left foot of ois Hey – do you say it’s posul if the width is less than a Yud?
The MB (sim.32 sfk 91) discusses a Tav that has no blitah at all (kav moshuch b’shovah).
If you were correct that the Tav needs a blitah the shiur of mlo ois ketanah, would there be any discussion of no blitah at
I understand the issue of tav to be that of lechatchila, but not meakev. Mikdash Me'at commenting on the Levush letter tav says that when writing the tav as dalet vav the rosh of the vav is the width of a kulmus. This makes sense because lechatchila a vav is suppose to have a rosh that is 1x1 kulmusim and a regel of 2 kulmusim.
ReplyDeleteBut bediavad, as with a normal vav, if the rosh is less than a kulmus it's certainly ok.
This is in contrast to the shiurim for the height of the regel in tav and hey etc where regarding them the halacha mentions a shiur as critical for the tzura. With the rosh of the vav the critical aspect for the tzura is the distinction of the rosh and regel.
Thanks for the comments!
ReplyDeleteI am trying to connect the MB understanding in lamed - that the moshav has a shiyur Mlo OK, to other letters that have a distinct moshav.
I admit this chidush is not found otherwise, and the point from MB 32:91 is excellent!
But what is the difference in the MB's opinion between a lamed and the other letters moshav?
Just because this was explicitly mentioned in PM, makes the difference?!
My personal opinion on shiyur MOK is regarding the hight of a regel only, but the issue is what is the MB's opinion.
Thanks again, please continue any comment/hasaga on things I wrote.
Good Shabos
Addition:
ReplyDeleteI understood the Biur hallacha simply as paskening like the PM in regard to the kav hatachton (moshav) of the lamed.
If there is a different understanding in the MB/BH psak - please explain, I would like to hear?
Reading the comment of R. M. Ganz again - Maybe he is arguing only on the Tav - that the letter tav doesn't have a definition of a moshav, only a bent foot, but there is no shiyur to the kfifa (like Ari summarized).
ReplyDeleteMy understanding of the Mishnah B’rurah in regard to ois Lamed is as follows. Since most learn that the Lamed is a combination of a Chof and a Vav on top of it, the guf should (at least lechatchilah) have zuras ois Chaf. The MB is therefore saying that although a Chof has the moshav extend all the way to the left, in the case of a lamed it should not extend that far (not like the Rdv”z) and is still considered a chof. To this he brings proof that the PR”M also doesn’t require the moshav be parallel with the rosh.
ReplyDeleteThe MB though, is only defining how the ois Lamed should be made Lechatchilah & does not discuss if the moshaov being less than mloi ois ketanah would render it possul.
It is very possible, that since Rabeinu Todrus Haleivi is of the opinion that Lamed should be a combination of Daled Vav, The moshav being less than mlo ois ketanah, would not be m’akiv bidieved. V’tzurich Iyun
I remember hearing an interesting insight, from Harav A.H. Wosner Shlit”a at one of his shiurim. He said that the Zohar brings down that ois lamed is K’ein zuras Tes. The Gr”a explains the similarity between lamed and Tes to mean that if you flip the Chof part of the Lamed up 180 degrees, so that it’s parallel to the vav you get a Tes. That is the reason the moshav of the chof does not extend all the way because then it wouldn’t give you a Tes.
In MS ois lamed one may try understanding the way you put it. But this is difficult to understand, what is the proof the BH brings from the PRM, since the MS is explaining the shiyur moshav l'chatchila, and the PRM is speaking about b'dieved. It may be that the PRM holds that l'chatchila the moshav should be more than 1k, this makes sense since as you explained the guf of the lamed is a caf, it should l'chatchila extend like a caf, and only b'dieved 1k is kosher.
ReplyDeleteSee BH on kuf exlaining that bdieved the moshav is kosher even [colsh'u] אפילו כפוף מעט this seems to indicate that the moshav of other letters [indeed the lamed] should be bdieved min. 1k.
See MB 32:42 quotes the PRM, and notes ועיין to see his explanations in MS tzuras haoisios.
It is quite accepted that the MB quoting any posek in a regular lashon, without any reservation, proves this is his hallachic opinion.
See also R. Shterns Biur Hasofer p. 70 ד"ה וכפוף where he debates the issue.
Thanks so much for joining the forum, and adding your insights. Please continue.