Feh Meshunah
What is the status of the 'Pehs' where a line protrudes and closes the gap completely? In one of the peh's the line closes even the bottom moshav completely! (feh of nafshechem)
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
נראה לי שהפ"א האחרונה היא פסולה [אע"פ שאין לי מקור או הוכחה לכך
ReplyDeleteשאר הפאי"ן אפשר שמועיל שאלת תינוק
R' Moshe:
Delete"Torah hee, ve'lilmod ani tzarich". How can we passel a parshah without a makor?
There's an extra tag over here and without a makor that this is an absolute shinuy tzura, why would it not be subject to shaalas tinoi?
התכוונתי לפ"א שבתמונה האחרונה "נפשכם" שלדעתי היא שינוי צורה
Deleteמי אומר שהיא יותר מפ"א ממ"ם סתומה. ולדעתי זה שינוי גדול בצורת האות
A moreh horaah mucheh in STaM doesn't require a mekor that specifically addresses a particular tzura and there are numerous tzuros not discussed in the achronim/poskim. (and even if there's a mekor it's up to the MH to decide if the tzura in question fits within the parameters to pasel or if a ST is called for or if it's kosher and at what darga.) But back to the point - If the MH feels that it' a shinui tzura then he's entitled to pasel or require a tinok based on the severity.
ReplyDeleteThis is far worse than an extra tag as it's thick and long.
Leaniyas Daati, the 2nd Peh is ok and a ST will suffice for 1 and 3.
In tshuvos, Achronim don't just passel on intuition alone. They always envoke related principles and psakim from earlier poskim.
DeleteWe have a basic principle that the Ramba"m codified... and that is that a shinuy tzura only passels if a tinok no longer recognizes the letter (except if its mentioned in sha"s like "beis"in chof"in etc).
Hence, the question is on what basis is this considered a categorical shinuy tzurah? A psak requires a basis. I don't need to agree with the basis. But a psak - especially to passel a parsha with Sheimos - requires as basis.
The way you have to look at, in practical day to day terms, it is as follows:
DeleteThe basic principle is that letters must be formed in a very specific manner. When a sofer deviates, it is a shinoy tzurah. Period.
If the deviation is small, it may be rendered insignificant and can pass as a non issue. However there is no way every possible deviation can be codified in black and white. So intuition / individual judgemnent plays a very important role in sofrus, much more than maares or any other area of halacha.
Futhermore, in a case of doubt, a sofer or magiha should not make the call, especially if he is nogeya bedovor. A sofer or magiha should just know when to ask. Its like a mashgiach / rav hamachshir scenario. The same shulchan oruch that tells us how to form the letters tells us that the psak of a posek becomes the metziyos hadovor.
A Shailos tinok is employed primarily when the letter may be one of two letters and the tinok is machriah. withot getting into details now, it is wrong in many ordinary cases of shinoy tzurah for a tinok to be machriah.
A sofer or magiha with a lot of shimush or personal experience may have less of a need to show a rov because he knows from experience (without "intuition" alone), how to pasken on a "grey area" since he has seen the case many times before. But the same principle of shaolos chochom applies to him as it does to a less experienced sofer, namely if its not clear cut to him, it must be shown to a Rov.
Unfortunately the importance of Shailos chochom is understated in some communities (primarily because of the lack of knowledge by many local communal rabbis in the area of Stam).
Once again, I have yet to see a single tshuva in which a posek in dealing with a shaalah of shinuy tzura does not address the related principles in Halachah. Unfortunately, Sta"m has become a field flooded with "intuition"...
DeleteMany great poskim follow the opinion of the Ramba"m that until a letter becomes so distorted that a tinok no longer recognizes it - it is kosher.
The Panim Meiros as well as the Tz"Tz include letters that are missing pieces in this category (at least certain ones).
In the case at hand, the letter has something extra.
What's the difference? And why should it not be eligible for shaalas tinok.
I question the premise that "shaalas chacham" is about the chachams intuition. It is about the chachams knowledge.
What are the HALACHIK PRINCIPLES that relate to this shaalah?
אע"פ שאין זה מקור לפ"א הנ"ל – מ"מ שייך לכללות הענין המדובר פה. ראה שו"ת חתם סופר יו"ד סי' רסט שכ' דלאו דוקא שינוי שנדמה אות אחת לחברתה, אלא כל שינוי גדול בצורת האות הגורם שאינה ניכרת לנו כצורתה המקובלת הוי שינוי צורה לפסול. וכ' בשבט הלוי [אינו לפני לציין היכן בדיוק] שזה כלל גדול בדיני שינוי צורת האות.
ReplyDeleteאני חושב שהפ"א הזה נשתנית צורתה מעיקר צורת הפ"א, כי הפ"א חללה פתוח למטה, ואילו זו נסתמת ע"י הקו שחוסם חללה אע"פ שאינו נוגע.
כמובן יתכן שאחרים יחשבו שאין זה שינוי גדול כל כך ....
Thank you R' Moshe.
DeleteThere are very experienced magiim that due to their extensive shimush, knowledge and experience are not limited to deciding only on specific tzuros in which they have shimush and is clear cut. Of course, when they're in doubt as how to pasken they need to ask their MH. The greater their shimush, experience and knowledge the fewer shailahs they will have. Of course, each magia needs to really know where he is holding.
ReplyDeleteR' Eli, your hint to the misuse of the ST is a major issue and is worth expanding upon as is the issue with people presenting shailahs to those not qualified to pasken in STaM and rabbonim who are not mumchim in STaM taking upon themselves to answer such shailahs.
לענ''ד גם לתינוק הוא נראה כפ''א, וכשר
ReplyDeleteואין זה כלל ''שינוי גמור שאין ניכר לרוב העולם כצורת אות
המקובל אצלינו...'' שבזה פוסל החת''ס שם
וראה התמונות שמביא שם שאינו דומה כלל לצורת אות פ''א זו
וכמו שפוסק אדה''ז ...לא פסל אא''כ שינה צורת האות לגמרי!!