Joined Kuf
The joined kuf - kuf d'vukah
Like the letter heh
the kuf
always has a break between the gag
(rood) and the left regel
(leg). Or does it!
Exodus 32:25 and Numbers 7:2 sees two possible exception to this rule as the generally accepted Massoretic opinion is that the kuf in b'kameyhem and the one in ha-p'kudim sees the leg of the kuf apparently joined to its base - the kuf d'vukah. Minchat Shai says specifically it should touch. In addition the kuf does not have it's usual single tag. Sefer Tagin brings both of these too in the list of special letters.
Torah Sh'lemah spends some considerable time discussing this in three separate places whether this could actually be the case and whether - despite the authorities stating this is a joined kuf - doing so would invalidate the letter and thus the scroll. He does feel that 'the language 'd'vukin' or 'd'vukah' does reveal the intention is to really join the regel (foot) of the ... kuf to its gag (roof)' and brings examples of old Sifrey and also Yemenite ones where this happens and notes that this is one of the cases of one [scribe] receiving tradition from another going back to Moses. However he then notes several examples of Sifrey by greats such as Landsofer (author of B'ney Yonah), the Maharam of Rottenberg which do not have a joined kuf and brings a number of authorities who would invalidate the Torah if it did.
In reality, Sifrey Torah and tikkunim today do not have a joined kuf; this ruling is just simply ignored. Indeed Keset Hasofer explains that if one does find this in a scroll then this would invalidate and one must correct it. However the Rambam would not invalidate such a scroll if it were old as that was then the tradition then, but the general view is not to do it.
For example in a Torah from Victoria, Canada that I repaired, unfortunately a sofer who preceded me in previous fixing 'corrected' the intention of the original scribe to have the kuf d'vukah. You can tell because of the slightly wider gag (roof) and you can see the roughed up parchment where he has scraped out the join so that it looks like other letters kuf. This is a real shame and deliberate re-writing of the past - in a literal and metaphorical sense. Now that it has been 'corrected' I can't deliberately 'uncorrect' it as according to many opinions I would be making the the Torah pasul (invalid). However if it had been there I could have left it well alone.
The 'corrected' kuf d'vukah from the Victoria Torah © Mordechai Pinchas.
Exodus 32:25 and Numbers 7:2 sees two possible exception to this rule as the generally accepted Massoretic opinion is that the kuf in b'kameyhem and the one in ha-p'kudim sees the leg of the kuf apparently joined to its base - the kuf d'vukah. Minchat Shai says specifically it should touch. In addition the kuf does not have it's usual single tag. Sefer Tagin brings both of these too in the list of special letters.
Torah Sh'lemah spends some considerable time discussing this in three separate places whether this could actually be the case and whether - despite the authorities stating this is a joined kuf - doing so would invalidate the letter and thus the scroll. He does feel that 'the language 'd'vukin' or 'd'vukah' does reveal the intention is to really join the regel (foot) of the ... kuf to its gag (roof)' and brings examples of old Sifrey and also Yemenite ones where this happens and notes that this is one of the cases of one [scribe] receiving tradition from another going back to Moses. However he then notes several examples of Sifrey by greats such as Landsofer (author of B'ney Yonah), the Maharam of Rottenberg which do not have a joined kuf and brings a number of authorities who would invalidate the Torah if it did.
In reality, Sifrey Torah and tikkunim today do not have a joined kuf; this ruling is just simply ignored. Indeed Keset Hasofer explains that if one does find this in a scroll then this would invalidate and one must correct it. However the Rambam would not invalidate such a scroll if it were old as that was then the tradition then, but the general view is not to do it.
For example in a Torah from Victoria, Canada that I repaired, unfortunately a sofer who preceded me in previous fixing 'corrected' the intention of the original scribe to have the kuf d'vukah. You can tell because of the slightly wider gag (roof) and you can see the roughed up parchment where he has scraped out the join so that it looks like other letters kuf. This is a real shame and deliberate re-writing of the past - in a literal and metaphorical sense. Now that it has been 'corrected' I can't deliberately 'uncorrect' it as according to many opinions I would be making the the Torah pasul (invalid). However if it had been there I could have left it well alone.
The 'corrected' kuf d'vukah from the Victoria Torah © Mordechai Pinchas.
Torah Sh'lemah's sympathies lie with scribes who do join the letters - he claims to have a small Torah
which has this and asks what do those nay-sayers rely on since the Massoretes make it clear that it should be there and Midrash Otiot d'Rabbi Akiva
also asks what is the reason for the kuf d'vukah? It is not, he argues, as if the letter could be confused with another if it did join (which would invalidate a heh
with a join as it would resemble a chet). Also he feels of those who invalidate that their main objection is derived from Shabbat
104 which reads 'and why is the foot of the kuf
suspended [to show] that if he repents, he can enter and be brought in [to God's favour] through this [opening]' but this doesn't necessarily mean every
kuf has to be like this.
Nonetheless it is is a problem as there is obvious machloket (disagreement) and there has been some compromise for scribes who have tried to perpetuate this tradition by writing the kuf such that it nearly joins or is very close. Tikkun Hasofer (L'rav Yitschak Dov) notes a kuf with a leg that is a long vertical line only without the zayin type head which goes very close to the gag (roof) of the letter - almost but not quite touching.
Nonetheless it is is a problem as there is obvious machloket (disagreement) and there has been some compromise for scribes who have tried to perpetuate this tradition by writing the kuf such that it nearly joins or is very close. Tikkun Hasofer (L'rav Yitschak Dov) notes a kuf with a leg that is a long vertical line only without the zayin type head which goes very close to the gag (roof) of the letter - almost but not quite touching.
Imrey Shofar's take on what it could look like to avoid actually having it join! Photo © Mordechai Pinchas.
Torah Sh'lemah
doesn't really see the point of this - as if it's not touching then it's not touching regardless of how near it is. But it can't be so, as Safek Hasofer
(Doubts of the Scribe) gives an example of a kuf
leg joined to it's roof and invalidates it - and makes no mention of the two special occasions at all.
So a massive amount of debate over something that may or may not have had a deliberate hidden meaning. If so, what is it? Torah Sh'lemah after having been so verbose over whether we should do it or not provides no explanation as to why - other than it says so. (I have some theories as part of my wider studies, but that's for another day and an academic paper).
However after several near misses in Sifrey - finally in the Alexander Torah I encountered an actual kuf d'vukah that hasn't been amended by any other scribe. One to preserve.
Below an uncorrected, unadulterated kuf d'vukah from the Alexander Torah. Photo © Mordechai Pinchas.
So a massive amount of debate over something that may or may not have had a deliberate hidden meaning. If so, what is it? Torah Sh'lemah after having been so verbose over whether we should do it or not provides no explanation as to why - other than it says so. (I have some theories as part of my wider studies, but that's for another day and an academic paper).
However after several near misses in Sifrey - finally in the Alexander Torah I encountered an actual kuf d'vukah that hasn't been amended by any other scribe. One to preserve.
Below an uncorrected, unadulterated kuf d'vukah from the Alexander Torah. Photo © Mordechai Pinchas.
Mordechai Pinchas
