Shinui Tzura
A clear shinui tzura - a mistake leading a Ayin look like a Tzadik. I will erase most of it
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
Tzadi"k? I couldn't even fantasize that that's a tzadi"k. But, either way, mimoh nafshoch: if you accept the Chumra of Keses Hasofer (Siman 8, Seif 8) to follow Rada"ch - then erase it all. And if you do not follow that - then why erase "most of it"? Erase only the ksiva (stroke) in which the problem was created.
ReplyDeleteAnd is you wrote the zayin (nun) of the Ayin first, then you are required to erase ALL (not only mitzad Chumra).
Deleteyes, i wrote the zayin first indeed. why does that change the situation?
Delete@YY and @ aharon yes i meant tsadi sofit
Deleteראשית תודה רבה
ReplyDeleteצריך למחוק את מה שנכתב בפיסול, וזה תלוי מה כתבת קודם את צד ימין או צד שמאל
אם כתבת קודם את צד ימין מחוק את של שמאל, ואם כתבת קודם מין נו"ן פשוטה, צריך למחוק כולו, כי כולו נכתב בפיסול
Toda
DeleteI wrote first the zayin. why does that mean it was all B'pisul? I could have stretched the mishkav of the ayin lower and make it better, but i didnt do that
i mean "moshav"
DeleteI think he means Tzadik Sofis
ReplyDeleteIt's a shinui tzura so even if you don't think it looks like tzadi it needs to be fixed.
ReplyDeleteYou could thicken the moshav and make it into an ugly Ayin. If you would be mevatel the tzura, it would still be ok. Of course, lechatchila you should remove what was nichtav b'psul and if you want to be machmir remove everything like the Radach.
R' Moshe, If you wrote the Nun peshuta first, no psul was created until you made the moshav through it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a tall Ayin so he could have made the moshav through the bottom kulmus of the Nun. Hence, I don't see why the Nun has to be removed due to nichtav bpsul.
May I suggest making the square roshim of your more square and less rectangle. Some are a tad wide.
Thickening the moshav will stick out like a sore thumb. YK has a nice ksav, my first choice of action would be to make a nice clean mechikah and rewrite the ayin properly...
Delete@yerachmiel I thought like you did, that nothing was wrong with the zayin because it could be fixed with a proper moshav. I didn't lower the moshav because it would be ugly, and when I finished I realized that it was a shinui tzura
Deletethank you for the suggestion of the roshin. It's noted and I will keep an eye mikan uleabo
I agree that thickening it would be ugly, as i wrote, and your ksav is very nice. I was just mentioning it as a (theoretical) option.
Deleteלכבוד ר' ירחמיאל
ReplyDeleteכמדומה לי שזה תלוי במחלוקת האחרונים בביאור דין כ"ף פשוטה [של שם] שהאריך גגה - אם צריך
למחוק גם רגלה או לא - המבואר במגן אברהם סימן לב ס"ק כו
ומשמעות משנה ברורה שם ס"ק עז וביאור הלכה להחמיר [בכ"ף פשוטה של חול] שצריך למחוק כולה
thanks for all your comments
ReplyDeleteI will go lechumra and erase it all
It seems there is an impression here that if one could "theoretically have included the distortion into the letter, then its not called "nichtav bi'psul".
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a mistake...
The Keses does contemplate it in the case of "dale"d bimkom Rei"sh". He takes issue with the Mechabers "yesh le'hachmir" to erase all, since one can "theoretically" include the entire dale"d into the rei"sh by rounding the whole back corner etc. And therefore doesn't think its considered nichtav bi'psul (in addition to other variables). Nonetheless, he does not conclude le'maasaeh to be meikil.
Now, the M"B follows the Ta"z way of understanding that whole din I.e. that there entire dale"d was written in one single movement. Nonetheless, it's still considered nichtav bi'psul, even though "theoretically" one can simply round the back and make a rei"sh!
In my understanding WE DO NOT FOLLOW THE THEORETICS.
If you disagree, please cite your sources. I always want to learn the source texts.
Now, there is one more issue here: since the first "ksiva" was nichtav bi'psul, the wuestion is if what was written after that needs to go or not. Of course, the Alter Rebbe holds that it must be erased and this is based on the M"A.
The M"B is entirely no convinced of this. However, there may be a distinction between the case of an Alef in which the top yu"d attaches to the shaft following which one writes the bottom yud, vs. Our case at hand. On the case of Alef, the bottom yud was appropriately written (except it was written after the psul occured). In the case at hand, considering that the moshav cuts through the nun, it is nichtav bipsul as well! It is distorted in-and-of itself!
So, even according to M"B, the only ksiva that doesn't require to be erased is the right head (as, presumabley, it was it's own ksivah).