The International STa"M Forum

B"H In this picture blitos (done as they were placing tagim on the letter) are descending from the Rosh of the Nun, Shinui Tzura or fixable? In this picture you can clearly see that the left regel of the Hei was touching the gag and it was scratched away (appears like a chok tochos or very close to it) could I assume that only when it was being written this happened and the letter was scratched and redone in a kosher way? (I don't think so, since there is no hint of scratch marks besides near the gag). The Nun Sofit has a tiny blita going to the left, although I think it is still fixable correct? THe Yud in the word yimeichem does not have a clear regel, although I think it is fixable by lengthening the regel yamin, correct?

Are those yellowed-signed heiim - and therefore the whole mezuzah - kosher? As far as I could understand, Mikdash Meat and Otiot Harav consider posul due to shinui tsurah when the left regel of a hei is wide as a moshav, instead of being a iud-like point. It should also be thinner than the area of blank klaf (haparuts merube). In some hexagonned-signalled above, the paruts could be most of the area, but still the left regel seems to be a moshav. And what should then be the border between a moshav and a point, 1k(one ovi-kulmus)?

The reason that mlo ois ketana is the minimum measure for the foot of the hai, is because the yud is the smallest letter. IE the smallest considerable piece in the script. Therefore, the basic pieces of a letter [for ex. a hai has 3 pieces, gag & 2 feet] their minimum measure that is accepted, is the minimal letter of yud. This keeps the basic structure of all the letters/script in a unified size. We find the use of the yud also a measure for the separation of words from each other, that l'chatchila they should be seperated the size of a ois ketana which is the yud (MB 32:143). And even for bdieved this measure is used, for measuring the separation of one parsha from another parsha = 9 oisios, the minimal ois being a yud. So the shiur [of revach parsha ] is 9 yudim. The chidush is, that we see Chazal used the shiyur yud also to the width, not only to the length as in the foot of hai. The basic unit of measure for script in stam, is a yud.   Now o

B"H Sheila to R' Moshe, These are 2 more examples of wide Roshei Nunim. I believe the first picture is kosher, while the second one is a less clear to me (although smaller of a rosh than in the previous post of mine which was posul), what do you think? I think it is important to stress that just like the nun in the previous post " A few shaylos on Tzuros Haosios " that was Posul shelo kisidran. And the second picture in this one (which is in question to me) is clear that the extra wider head was done afterwards by rapidiograph (seemingly to make it big enough to amply place the tagim), it is a big problem which should be of special attention to magihim and sofrim.

There are kosher nunim from vatikin sofrim whose regel doesn't achieve the moshav straightly rightwards, whereas there are posul nunim with a broken regel. This one could apply to the description of the kosher ones. But it doesn't seem to me a nun and "my" tinok said he doesn't know what it is. Is it kosher? Yossef Moshe, Rio - Brazil.

The MB 32:42 quotes the P ri M egadim that the law of shiyur M lo O is K etana is applicable to other letters also [although this shiyur was mentioned in gemara and SA in regard to hai, the hai is only an example] as dalet, lamed, pei pshuta, zadi pshuta, kuf, reish, tav, or ches [the MB explains: l'ch'ora the PM meant either right or left foot of the ches] if a shiyur in the length of the foot as a yud [MOK] was left, it is acceptable. [till here the quote from PM. The MB Continues:] ועיין לקמן see in siman 36 in the laws of zuras haosiyos [the elaboration of Mishnat Sofrim on the PM's words] in letters lamed, pei pshuta, zadi pshuta, kuf, and tav.   I find the words of the MB very deep and important l'hallacha, and although quite arguable, when studying what the MB is teaching, we may appreciate his logic. All that I'm writing in this post, is explaining my understanding of the MB's shita, only. I am not regarding if this opinion

Back to the question – a gimel that the left foot is totally connected to the guf, is it kosher? The question of this gimel to my understanding is – what is the definition of the left foot of the gimel? Alfa Beisa ois gimel (quoted in BY) basicaly calls the left foot   ירך שמאל   but at the end [of his 2 nd gimel] writes ויהיה הירך משוך עב אל הגוף because this part of the gimmel resembles a nun - The foot should be extended thick close to the body – meaning that the left foot should not be far from the body [pic.1], but close, and extended wide [pic. 2] not thin [pic. 3]. [the illustrations are to explain the AB, I am not getting into the issue of the slant of this foot, only regarding the dimension of this foot, and its attachment to the guf! ] From the above and the continuation of AB that the left foot should descend lower than the line, in order to allow the next letter to be close to the head of the gi

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