os zayin frequently problematic in cheaper STa"M
I see this shailo often in cheap stam:
Zayin from bechozek)...
Very often there will be no bottom right corner of the rosh. Sometimes it's just extends out to the right on a slight angle from the regel.
I find that a shailos tinok is not always apt because child will be deceived by the tagin and will not distinguish between an angular blita and a proper rosh.
How does the Olam deal with this shailo? And can a tinok relied upon here?
Very often there will be no bottom right corner of the rosh. Sometimes it's just extends out to the right on a slight angle from the regel.
I find that a shailos tinok is not always apt because child will be deceived by the tagin and will not distinguish between an angular blita and a proper rosh.
How does the Olam deal with this shailo? And can a tinok relied upon here?
I think it is passul. no shayla at all.
ReplyDeleteAgav, second Yud of Einechah has no Kotz. Enlarged, the corner is even a bit rounded. Fixable.
ReplyDeleteIn old STaM, zayins often had much less protrusion to the right than that. Nowadays one could discuss if such a zayin would be pasul because a tinok might well read it as a vav. But here the rosh protrudes to the right quite significantly and does not resemble a vav at all. The fact that the head is diamond-shaped and not square actually reflects the older form of the heads of שטענ"ז ג"ץ and is generally known as the opinion of the Yereim. Therefore, I fail to see the problem here.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is definately passul for a vav, it is equaly passul for a zayin. It is lacking a main feature of the zayin that "ha'rosh over m'shtey tzadidim"
ReplyDelete[excuse me for hebrew, I didnt have the proper english]
Of course it's over on both sides! It's just that on the right side it goes at a slant.
DeleteEspecially considering that these are Vellish parshiyos, I think it is worth noting that the יריעות שלמה says that such a tzura is kosher as it does protrude to the right, although on an angle as R' Yankev pointed out, but that preferably a bit of ink should be added to square it.
DeleteIMHO, for Ashkenazim at least, it's a very serious shailo. Everyone knows how strict so many Gedolai Haposkim of our generation (including at least two well known printed teshuvos by the Shevet Halevi (Chelek 1 and 3))are on the matter of roshim which don't protrude correctly, or protrude on an angle only. And this being said of an even a lesser case of sofek choser rosh! (ie such as the case of the upper yud of an Aleph which doesn't have a proper rosh, how much more so by a letter which can potentially be considered an entirely different letter.
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to grasp the basis for the assumptions.
ReplyDeleteIf its not:
1) bilti mukaf gevil
2) touching itself
3) detached from itself
4) looking like a different letter
5) or unrecognizable as a Zayin
Then it's Kosher. (See Shu"t tz"tz Y"D siman 205).
Furthermore: ti gedolim it's certainly obvious that it's a Zayin. So, a long add a tinok can recognize it there is no question what so ever.
How is it that we can make up psulim that have no source in Sha"s?
ראה תשובת חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רסט
DeleteThank you R' Moshe! I will learn the Tshuvah.
Deleteהזיי"ן בפירוש עובר משני הצדדין - כמו שכותב בשו"ע
Deleteואין זה דומה כלל לתשובת החתם סופר - "שמשך הקו מן הצד אלא שחזר ועיקם כלפי האמצע". משא"כ כאן הקו לכתחילה מחובר לאמצע הגג
@ R' Eli:
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Poskim is the source that tagin on a letter would affect it's eligibility for Shaalaa tinok?
I never said this is sourced in poskim. I said the concept of roshim that don't protrude correctly are dealt very stringently and I'm sure you don't need me to give you sources for that.
DeleteRegarding the tagin, I personally feel that if you have a tinok who is familiar with letters in stam, as a proper tinok beis din is supposed to be, then they will often use tagin as a sign to differentiate between a vov and a zayin. For example, a vov with a rosh that angles back up to the right a bit, will likely still be read as a vov by a tinok, but a "zayin", with an IDENTICAL tzura except that it has tagin, will be almost always be read as a zayin instantly (because of the tagin). This is in my experience. Others may find it different.
I GET what your saying. But what is the basis on which to assume that that would be a problem?
DeleteExperience. I just don't feel it's doing justice to the shailo at hand. Think about it. The same tzura with tagin and the child says zayin. Without he says vov.
DeleteTry it yourself...
I plan on talking about this with Rav Friedlander next time I talk to him. I'm sure I'm not the first sofer to discover this phenomena. It's likely been discussed and it's likely that there is something written on this. I'll keep you updated on what he says...
DeleteAnd must tagin be covered if they were made L'achar Ksivah by a metayeg, because if we rely on the tinok then surely it's blatant Lo K'sidran...
DeleteDoes anyone have something on this that they've either discussed or seen written?
הזיי"ן בפירוש עובר משני הצדדין - כמו שכותב בשו"ע
ReplyDeleteואין זה דומה כלל לתשובת החתם סופר - "שמשך הקו מן הצד אלא שחזר ועיקם כלפי האמצע". משא"כ כאן הקו לכתחילה מחובר לאמצע הגג
I'd think that it depends on the sharpness of the angle. If it's slight it would be passul and if considerable, which it seems to be in this case, it could be fixed and a tinok would be asked when in between. This is, in fact what the Yerios Shlomo says and I saw another sefer that suggested being machmir by asking a tinok in our case.
ReplyDeletewhether the tagin need to be covered when asking a ST in such a case is discussed in the Kol SOfrim and MM. It seems that they should be covered.
Indeed, it is the Sefekot HaSofer that tells us to be machmir in this case and requires us to ask a tinok.
DeleteYes, that's it. However, I think in our case it isn't necessary.
ReplyDeleteclearly the question here is if this zein is called over mishnei tzdadim.
ReplyDeleteBeis Yosef:"head of zayin square and oveir hakol mipnei hasod".( Tikun Tefilin page 100 reveals the secret of oveir mishnei tzdadim: zayin is Shabbos and when honoring past shabbos properly the angel says next Shabbos to be as past shabbos)
Biur halacha letter zein -3 understands that whatever is mipnei hasod-does not passul,
However:
Biur Halacha feels that square on all sides is min hasod but "not round" is min hatalmud also( פירוש הרא"ם.שזיונין הכוונה פינין)
Mikdash Me-at brings "Beis Yosef's wording is inaccurate since oveir is min hadin, but square on all sides is mipnei hasod,he quotes shulachan aruch admh"z as stating this understanding clearly.
We see here that most poskim understand that oveir is min hadin,full square is mipnei hasod. (Round zayin with foot in the middle according to biur halacha would be passul and mikdas me-at brings 2 understandings).
We see clearly that oveir and full square are different,I would suggest that our picture is oveir and the regular zayin is square on all sides.
Rabbi Greenfeld/Mishmeres STa"M, paskens "Kosher _should be corrected"
ReplyDelete