tricky image
I think this is exactly the argument mentioned long ago in the בכור case, that the caf and vav are so close to each other but not touching. [posts given at end of this blog]
The opinions in regard בכור that say that it is kosher as is, so no need/care what a tinok will read. Accordingly here, they will say since the yud and nun are touching and they are a kosher zadi, we are not concerned what a tinok may read.
[I don't think anybody is concerned of the regel of the yud - as a cause of a shinuy tzura of the zadi].
The opinions mentioned in regard to בכור that say that although the letters are not touching, still the wrong conception in the eyes of a tinok cause them to be considered another letter [in that case - mem], will say here the same - we must ask a tinok what does he read חמץ או חמין???
See The word בכור that the caf and vav are very close to another
and The word בכור that the caf and vav are very close to another #2
A nostalgic issue -
ReplyDeletethere are some beatiful and interesting issues way long ago (4 or 5 months ago) on this Forum,
I hope people have the initiative to look at them sometimes.
It appears though, that this case is slightly different, because there is an actual Zadi S. In the other case, it is a issue of appearance but here there is an actual letter. It would seem to me that if there is an hefsek in the line connecting the "yud" and "nun" of the Zadi S. it would change things a bit and you would def. need a shailas tinnok. In this case, there is an actual letter which was always there just altered a little which causes an illusion. Am i right Rav Moshe?
ReplyDeleteno difference. a zadi connected or disconnected is subject to shaalas tinok, as a mem connected or disconnected in the case of bechor.
Deletethose that hold that if the word is kosher, we dont care about the tinoks illusion or probable mistake, hold that we only ask atinopk when we have a problem.
A side point - many old sifrei torah have strange tagim that look like this one. And it seems to me that the additional part should be considered an extra tag but not a shinui in the tzura. All this is assuming you agree that the old sifrei torah with extra tagim are kosher lekatchila.
ReplyDeleteR' Shammai said it's kosher without a shailos tinnok
ReplyDelete