אות זיי"ן פסולה
הזיי"ן הזאת פסולה. הראש של הז' צ"ל עובר מב' הצדדים, וכאן אינה עוברת כמעט על צד ימין. וגם המעט שעוברת הוא בצורת עיגול שדומה לוי"ו
לכן יש לפסלה, ואין להתיר אפילו קריאת התינוק
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
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
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?
I would be machshir with a שאלת תינוק.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the above ZAYIN is that the YERECH comes out way too close to the right edge of the ROSH and the head is rounded on the right. Therefore, this letter has lost its shape. As such, I agree with R. Moshe, that even the reading of a TINOK would be of NO avail.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if the YERECH were to start in the MIDDLE and extend close to the right edge of the ROSH due to extra ink at the place where they both meet, in such a case, it would be KASHER as is, and a TINOK not required.
In any other (in between) case of SAFEK, I would agree with R. Yankev that a TINOK would definitely be of avail.
ז' ...ראשה צריך להיות עובר מב' צדדין שלא תדמה לוי"ו – לו, ב
ReplyDeleteלכתחילה צריך לכתוב... אם שינה לא פסל אלא א"כ הפסיד צורת האות לגמרי – שו"ע אדמו"ר הזקן לו, א
ובספרדית... ועובר על גופה משני צדדין אבל לא בשוה, כי הירך יוצא ממנה בצד ימין קרוב לסופו, ועל כל פנים נוטה מאמצע הראש לימין... – קול יעקב לו, ס"ק ז
והרי בשו"ת נ"ב חי"ד סי' פ' הביא ראיה מכתב וועלי"ש להכשיר בתמונת האותיות, הרי פשיטא לי' דכתב וועלי"ש כשר בדיעבד, דהיינו שכן כותבין בספרד ע"ש – שו"ת צמח צדק יו"ד סי' רה
וכשספק על צד אחד אם זה הוי עובר כראוי או לא, בעי תינוק – מקדש מעט אות ז
וראה שו"ת צמח צדק אבן העזר סימן קסה עמ' כד, ד – כפי שמצויין על הצד בשו"ע אדה"ז לו, ד
בבקשה מי שיש לו מראה מקום לפסול ובפרט בלי שאלת תינוק, שיזכה את הרבים
Please take a look at Sefekot HaSofer - OT Zayin #9 & #10. Study the slight differences between both of these cases in order to understand why a case like the one above would be passul.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, it's true that in many older Sephardic and Middle Eastern scripts the yerech appeared to reach the right edge of the ROSH. However, in this style of "velish" writing the letter always maintained a distinct shape.
Some of them, would be written similar to the previous post by R. Gutnick on "cheap stam" where showing a Tinok is considered only a CHUMRA. Others, would have the Rosh of the ZAYIN inclined at an angle (like in the Leningrad and Aleppo Codexes).
In all of the above cases, even though the YERECH extends to the right, the ROSH always remains SQUARE. It is the combination of the rounded flat head + the foot emerging way too close from the right side of the head that causes the ZAYIN in our case to loose it's shape. In such a case, a TINOK is of no avail.