kuf

By -

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.


Comments

  1. Rabbi Eli GutnickNovember 17, 2011 at 10:35 AM

    I dont get it. If roshem is not considered ink and the regel is under the roshem, it should be possul as the regel is outside the os. why make a shailos tinok?

    ReplyDelete
  2. moshe weinerNovember 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM

    I was reluctant immediately to matir fixing, because this a new shayla I never came accross. So I thought, given that a tinok would definitly recognize the kuf (the kuf in reality looked better than the one I gave here) that should be sufficient to fix, although the regel would be outside the challal haois. But still maybe this would be a shinuy tzuras haois, that cannot be fixed, therefore I added - given that the left edge of the gag still intact and some dyo in the middle, this is actualy a nifsak that should be permitted to fix.

    After second thinking, I trully think that each reason alone is sufficiant to permit fixing.

    I will fix the picture a bit and reedit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. moshe weinerNovember 17, 2011 at 11:40 AM

    the last sentence is a mistake - I am leaving the original picture, but I will add another picture of kuf closer to what actualy was.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dovid Nissan BressmanNovember 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

    I heard from a Rav that concerning roshem we can be lenient (on issues like Shelo Kisidran) to rely on Shut Mayim Chayim Responsa 1 from Rav Chayim HaCohen Rapaport. In the end of the responsa he writes" if the dio had peeled off and there only remained mamoshush of dio even though it is similar to white or edom it is permissible to pass over it with a kolmos.

    I do not know if this is fitting with Shitas S A HaRav, but many rely on this Teshuva.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dovid Nissan BressmanNovember 17, 2011 at 3:46 PM

    I must note that the Mayim Chayim is only talking about old parshiyos and mezuzahs.

    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