A problematic Lamed

By Dovid Nissan Bressman -
In the ל of Leahava, it has seemingly a double problem. 1) the head is short like a yud
2) the rosh of the lamed is like it is not existent, being that beneath it, there was dio added to it.
The Lishkat Hasofer 5:17 is machshir bidieved (vitzorech Litaken) on each individual case (however when it is missing a rosh it is only fixable beshas hadchak , without making a bracha on it).
My question is, when both of these problems arise on the same Lamed can and should we machshir it?
I will note that this is for a Sefardi.

Comments

  1. moshe weinerOctober 23, 2011 at 2:09 AM

    BTW the first zayin of mezuzos is pasul, the regel is from the right side of the gag.
    In regard to the lamed i think that after a shaalos tinok the mezuza may be fixed, but this should be done only b'shaas hadchak - IE this person is poor and cannot afford another mezuza.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dovid Nissan BressmanOctober 23, 2011 at 2:25 AM

    Thank you,

    Good point on the Zayin, (I did not check the entire Mezuza, but the Lamed caught my immediate attention).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Beis HastamOctober 26, 2011 at 12:05 PM

    moshe:why shalas tinok on lamed?

    ReplyDelete
  4. moshe weinerOctober 26, 2011 at 12:34 PM

    If the tinok will not recognize this as a lamed then definitly its pasul, only if he will recognize it as a lamed then B'shhaas Hadchak it may be fixed, since a lamed that its head is a yud is bdieved kosher.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ink, Kosher vs. non-Kosher

By -
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?
Read more

Question to Yosef Chaim B

By -
Thank you for commenting on my ink article. In your comment you stated: "Many poskim disagree... Many rishonim have clearly stated the use of our ingredients." Would you please be kind enough to teach us (so I can include it in the article) which Poskim and what exactly and where did they say that the עפצים וקנקנתום  type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן  that does not fail? We are not interested in biased פילפולים , or in those who said that  דיו עשן is not being used because it fails easily or because it was not known how to make good quality דיו עשן.  Nor are we interested in those who said to use  עפצים וקנקנתום וגומא ואין לשנות when they discussed specifically the עפצים וקנקנתום type of ink. We are interested to find out where and who (if any) said explicitly, based on sources, that the  עפצים וקנקנתום  type of ink is preferable over good quality דיו עשן , even when there is  דיו עשן  of good quality that does not ...
Read more