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?
The forum is back online...for reference and research purposes.
Dear Readers and Members, The forum has been down for over 6 months because the domain name (www.stamforum.com) lapsed and it is no longer available to re purchase. Although this forum is now defunct (it has morphed into several whatsapp groups), I have had many requests to put it back online because it contains so much information (over 1,800 posts and thousands of comments in the discussions, on a wide range of topics related to STa"M). I have therefore put the forum back online at blogger, so the address is www.stamforum.blogspot.com. The forum lasted for a decade...not a bad effort! It was pretty popular back in the days before whatsapp and managed to receive over a million hits in it's short life. It was one of the only organised forums in the STa"M world and definitely the largest in it's heyday. I would like to thank all those who cobtributed over the years, particularly the early members who helped build it up. Thanking you all, Eli
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