Pei - Shinui tzura?
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
Ink, Kosher vs. non-Kosher
We all know that there is no ancient source that requires ink to be מן המותר בפיך . Possibly, as said here before, because in the olden days ink was always מן המותר בפיך and the question was never raised. It was probably self-evident. Nowadays, no decent Rav will approve an ink which is not מן המותר בפיך . Who was the first one to raise this question? Was it raised because of animal ingredients or because of non-kosher wine?
Question to Yosef Chaim B
Thank you for commenting on my ink article. In your comment you stated: "Many poskim disagree... Many rishonim have clearly stated the use of our ingredients." Would you please be kind enough to teach us (so I can include it in the article) which Poskim and what exactly and where did they say that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן that does not fail? We are not interested in biased פילפולים , or in those who said that דיו עשן is not being used because it fails easily or because it was not known how to make good quality דיו עשן. Nor are we interested in those who said to use עפצים וקנקנתום וגומא ואין לשנות when they discussed specifically the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink. We are interested to find out where and who (if any) said explicitly, based on sources, that the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן , even when there is דיו עשן of good quality that does not ...
I never saw such peis !!
ReplyDeleteI think that the pai of nafshechem, veasafta, letotafos [in the first mezuza] are a complete shinuy tzura and pasul.
nafshechem in the third also pasul.
The others maybe a shylas tinok and fixing !?
thanks for the interesting post.
A Peh with a runny nose? Wow, there are some Kutzot that are really exaggerated!
ReplyDeleteNotwithstanding, it appears to me that, one may erase part of the long kutz and it is not considered Chak-Tokhot.
Look at the Imrei Shefer (Klal Hei)... Even if the kutz descended all the way to the point that it touched base, one may still erase it as long as it looks like a kutz (i.e. it's a thin decender)
However, if it were to be thicker, then we may be dealing with a MEM setuma that has some decoration in the middle, in which case we may not erase it. That would be Chak Tokhot.
In our case, however, the kutzot do not reach anywhere near the base, (even though some are a bit thicker than a normal kutz) there is no confusion with a MEM Setuma.
Because of the above, it appears to me that, our letter PEH maintains its shape (as a Sephardi Peh). Thus, the extended projection may be reduced without it being considered Chak Tokhot.
Alberto,
ReplyDeletesome of these kotzim are thick and descend till [opposite] the base of the pei, I think this is clearly a shinuy tzura.
It looks like it may have been the Metayeg...
ReplyDeleteSefer S'fakot Hasofer brings a similar example (peh 15) but where the kots comes from the nekudah and actually touches the base. He brings down that this can be fixed in Tefillin or Mezuzot by scraping and this doesn't constitute Chok Tochot. He bases this on the Imrey Shefer rule 5. One therefore assumes that given it doesn't touch but is just a bit odd then repair is easily affected.
ReplyDelete