The International STa"M Forum

In regard to the question in the last post - can it be that a ois that is kosher for sfardim be pasul for ashkenazim (or opposite). The Shaarei Tshuva OC36 quotes Sfardi Poskim that csav ashkenaz is pasul for sfardim, since there are shinuyim between the csavim. He (the ST, I didn’t look up the seforim he quotes) doesn’t mention what/which shinuyim are m'akev, that are pasul for Bnei Sfarad. The Noda B'yehuda vol 1 YD 80 writes that changes in csav from what is written in BY as csav ashkenaz, isnt m'akev, since anything that isn't mentioned in the talmud, isnt m'akev (it isnt clear if the NB means that anything mentioned is always m'akev, or that at least what is mentioned may be m'akev - if the talmud says so ). The NB writes: notice that csav velish is different from csav ashkenaz. This meant that csav velish is accepted for an ashkenazi. (I would think this may argue with the ST mentioned). But this is a general statement - not every change

B"H Good Week to everyone, Does anyone recognize the Tzadik Sofit in the word Chamatz. The sofer is consistent with this tzadik in the entire tefillin. Although still looks kosher to me. I have wondered what is the proper derech HaPsika for Tzuros HaOsios in question. In Halacha we have general rules on derech HaPsika. For example, Safek Daraita Lechumra. Or more specifically, in Inyanei Tahara Lenashim, the Rav is supposed to matriach to find hetarim , letahar eisha lebahla (even when we are dealing with Inyanei Kares). Inyanei mikvaos and Shabbos we go lechumra in general etc... [Rav Braun O"H author of Shareim Metzuim Behalacha once wrote an essay on Klalei Horah]. What is the derech hapsika on Tzuros Haosios in doubt. Often I find that there are some Rabbonim that will Posul a specific Ois HaMesupek while others will Machshir (I am not referring to this forum, I am speaking in a general way, for example the mezuza was checked and machsired the first time and a different s

We had a situation today in one of the big shules here in Melbourne where it was raining and one of the baali korah was laining and his hat was saturated with water, it was literally dripping off his hat onto the sefer. To make a long story short,  It ruined about 4-5 lines including part of a shaim. My way to fix would be to erase and  rewrite the damaged area, except I have 2 problems: 1) The water soaked right through the klaf and so I could not erase it clreanly anyway. 2) I cannot erase the remainder of the shaim, therefore I would have to make a matlis anyway. Once I make a matlis, One should not lechatchillah write a shaim on a matlis. I must admit I have done this before but only on "old" and "bedieved" sforim. This sefer, on the other hand, is only a few years old and very high quality. Lechorah, if I want the sefer to remain mehudar, my only option is to replace the yeriya. Does anyone have any other ideas or feedback?

In this gimel the left foot is totally connected to the guf. Question: Does the law of yud of the alef shin ayin etc. that are touching the body of the ois, straight without a connecting oketz (SA 32:18), apply in gimel?   Note MS ois gimel   אם נדבק הירך בהרגל יגרור הירך ודי בכך (if the left foot is stuck to the right foot ..) – this can mean pic.1 because it is [like a] nun, or also pic. 2? pic. 1   pic. 2 Biur Hasofer p. 44 ( ד"ה וירך ) quotes M ikdash M 'at that says this is [pic. 2] pasul, and Biur Hasofer argues. I personaly think the MM's opinion is solid and correct (see oisiyos harav p. 89, par. יב ).   It is accepted here in Eretz Yisrael that there is a sfardi gimel that is written m'lachatchila as pic.2, it is locali called "gimel Bagdadi" (the gimel that Iraqi/Bagdad sofrim were custom to write), this is noted in Biur Hasofer ibid. in the name of Da'as Kdoshim – that this gimel is csav velish. [Old

A few questions 1)I think the י of Bneichem is Kosher however it needs a kotz Drebeinu Tam?correct? 2) The י of Vinasati is without a body, is this allowed to be fixed or not (moiel shalios tinok)? 3) The נ of Nafshechem is a little wide, fixable or not? 4)In this picture the rosh of the נ is pretty wide, is this a Shinui Tzura? it surpasses the moshav on both ends. (The Mikdash Maat speaks of when the moshav is shorter than the rosh it looks like an upside down Nun).

A Mezzuaza I was checking had a very tiny black hair like chut on the moshav of the Lamed connecting to the top of the Moshav. (I should of taken a picture), I touched it 2 times to see if it was connected or not and it fell off. What do you say in this case? (I believe it was touching in a very loose way "touching and not touching"

I was asked today on a kuf [the pic. is an illustration only. In the kuf in question the roshem of the dyo was better] in tefilin, that the ink at the left side of the gag fell apart, leaving the regel apparently outside of the letter. The Mikdash M'at writes that if the regel of the kuf (as of the hai) are hanginig outside of the challal of the ois, left of the gag, or under the moshav, it is pasul. So this kuf is pasul. I think that since a tinok would recognize this letter [and there is some remnant ( roshem hadyo ) of the ink] it is permitted to fix. I am giving a better drawing,  closer  to the kuf that I saw.

Important update: Here is a nun that its moshav is very short, I think that according to the MB (MS ois lamed) that the moshav of the lamed must have a minumum measure of (mlo ois ketana) 1 kulmus, that this nun should have a 1k moshav, and is therefore  problematic. There is another issue the Da'as Kdoshim comments that a nun that its head is wider than the moshav,  may be considered a shinuy tzura. I think that [in our case] a shaylas tinok is accepted, and afterwards fixing it to the right measure is correct.  The same should apply to the first tav, the moshav isn't a full kulmus, lacking its minimum shiyur. Another problem is, where do we measure the shiyur kulmus at the base of the moshav [where it has 1k] or at the top where its lacking. I would suppose that the shiyur should be at the top. The yellow highlited was the first edition. After receiving comments (see) I admit a mistake in regard to the tav. There is no indication in th

In the first post I quoted Shut Maharshag & Shaivet Halevi, that in this case we are not concerned what a tinok may read, because we know for sure what the letters are. I would like to pose an argument. A.  The criteria of "the reading of a tinok" is not only a measure in cases of doubt, in order to determine kashrus of a letter b'dieved, but also a positive criteria in כתיבה תמה [special and unique script] demanded m'lechatchila. IE, the argument is; is shaylas tinok a tool limited to our need in specific cases, or a clear criteria demanded always as part of csiva tama. Rambam Hilchos Tefilin 1:19:   וצריך להיזהר בכתיבתן, כדי שלא תדבק אות לאות, שכל אות שאין העור מקיף לה מארבע רוחותיה, פסולה, וכל אות שאין התינוק שאינו לא חכם ולא סכל יכול לקרותה פסולה . לפיכך צריך להזהר בצורת האותיות, שלא תדמה היוד לואו, ולא ואו ליוד, ולא כף לבית, ולא בית לכף, עד שירוץ כל הקורא בהן The Rambam is implicating that the script must be unique, each letter separat

In the word ואספת the samech is square on the right side, and looks like a [final] mem. Is this a shaylas tinok?  Another problem is - if I show the whole word to a tinok, he might decide it’s a samech, because he knows that a final mem will never occur in the middle of the word, and not because the tzura is more a samech in his eyes. Or maybe I should cover the rest of the word, and show the tinok only the samech. [this same question would arise for example, in a case of a zayin a bit longer than its shiyur standing in the middle of a word] This samech - on the right side looks like mem stuma, and on the left side looks like a samech. The Mikdash M'at (mem stuma) quotes Shut Darcei Noam that in this case a tinok is not acceptable to resolve the issue, since we are in doubt as to which side (right or left) of the letter he emphasizes, so therefore this shape should be pasul both for a samech or a mem (since we have a doubt that cannot be solved). But all acharonim d

Following Ari's post, I have cut and pasted an article I wrote for a local publication some time ago on this very issue. I think it sums up this issue and the various shittos. I also suggest Rav Yonason Hershlags kuntres on this topic called "stumah shebestam". The different ways of forming the"Hefsek Parshas Stuma" in tefillin parshiyos. Introduction There is a common misconception that the only difference between the different minhagim (customs) of tefillin parshiyos is the ksav (font) they are written in. For example if a person is Sephardic, the ksav will be "Vellish", a script that is unique to Sephardic Jews; If one is of traditional Ashkenazic and non-Chassidic background, then he would usually get the "Beis Yosef" script;  If one is "Chassidic", he would get the "Arizal" script, etc.  While this is correct, there are also different opinions and minhagim on how to make the spacing between the parshiyos of th