Ches - vov into chatotros

By -
I'm sure this has come up...
Ches of vechoro goes straight into the chatotros

Comments

  1. moshe weinerJune 10, 2014 at 4:11 PM

    Moshe Weiner says it is passul

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alberto AttiaJune 10, 2014 at 5:22 PM

    Hi R. Moshe,
    Can you please elaborate for our own education. I can understand that according to Rabenu Tam the Chatoterot is not a GAG. Therefore we would definitely invalidate a Chet where the Chatoterot begins from the edge of BOTH legs, as in such a case there is NO ROOF.

    But perhaps this a case is a bit different and there there is room to be lenient if one of the Zenins has a Gag although the other side appears as a Kav Pashut. I base the above on the makor of a CHET from RASHI where we are lenient (bedieved) even if there is not the shape of two ZENINS and no BELITA at the top.

    Do you think that maybe we can also be lenient here and allow correction if read as a CHET by a TINOK? In such a case, perhaps one may be able to thin out the CHUTRA on the right side to reveal the head of the VAV in order for it to be satisfactory? Or in a Bet Yosef, allow to add a bit more ink to the right, without it being considered shelo kesidran?

    Or do we judge this letter strictly on the standards of Rabenu Tam who requires a ROOF over every YERECH of the CHET and invalidate it as such. After all, this is not a CHET SHEL RASHI, and one may argue that it needs to be judged solely by the parameters of a Chet de'Rabenu Tam. Your elaboration is very much appreciated. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. moshe weinerJune 10, 2014 at 9:56 PM

    This question was already on the forum a long time ago, one of Yehoshua Deital's blogs. There he quoted Rabbi Shammai Gross shlita machshir, following part of the logic you give here. This is also in Mishnat hasofer or some example close to this ches.

    Therefore - The above is my opinion, and I will explain next note.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. moshe weinerJune 10, 2014 at 10:50 PM

      maybe it was not Yehoshua, but it was on the forum.

      Delete
    2. Rabbi Eli GutnickJune 11, 2014 at 6:53 AM

      Yes I posted it and the conclusion was that it was fixable.

      Delete
  4. moshe weinerJune 10, 2014 at 10:01 PM

    This ches is not a Rashi ches, neither a RT ches, therefore we cannot combine both shitos to make a third ches (half Rashi half RT) !!
    The right foot is a golem which is an accepted pisul, in related parts of letters, as yudin of alef etc. the same here the right foot is not a zayin or vav, rather a golem.
    Those that permit fixing a golem (Mikdash Me'at) may consider permitting here to fix by adding dyo (not scraping), since the letter [ches] is obvios.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aaron ShaffierJune 18, 2014 at 6:57 AM

    I think the Lamed of the word "Al" on the third line from the bottom is a definite psul.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Klaff Tanning question:

By -
I received this question via email. I am not really a klaf expert, I was wondering if anyone could answer this question:   Dear Rabbi Gutnick,   I am writing to you because a good friend of mine has put the idea into my head that the klaf in my tefillin were not really tanned and therefore are not kosher. He referred me to Megilla 19a re diftera.   From the research that I have done so far, it seems that the klaf that is used today is tanned only with a lime wash. On all of the tanning websites I’ve seen so far, they say that the lime doesn’t accomplish tanning but only the removal of the hair and some other pre-tanning effects.   Would you be able to explain to me or refer me to a website that explains how the tanning process that is used today takes the hide out of the category of diftera?   Thank you very much.    
Read more

Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz clarifies his position on Ksav Chabad (and my final thoughts)

By -
Last week I posted some thoughts in response to a public lecture given by Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz regarding  Ksav Chabad (the Alter Rebbe's ksav). I felt he did not represent the issue fairly, and since I had received questions about it from a number of people I felt it made sense to write a general response. After I posted my response on this forum, Rabbi Mendlowitz reached out to me by email and we ended up having a respectful and productive email exchange regarding the relevant issues surrounding Ksav Chabad. His position is a lot clearer to me now, and I think he also took certain things on board that I clarified with him. The purpose of the Stam Forum (at least back in it's heyday before all the whats app groups took over)  was to connect sofrim from around the world, to promote achdus and build bridges, as well as to offer support and advice. In that spirit, I felt  I should write a follow up post, to clarify some of the issues and misconception...
Read more