Shaylos on some letters

By Dovid Nissan Bressman -

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?

Comments

  1. moshe weinerNovember 23, 2011 at 1:53 AM

    the nunim may be fixed as you wrote. the yud also may be fixed, BTW the vav of shem in the last picture is quite wide - maybe a ST if not a reish.
    In regard to the hai, i cant see from the scan presented any obviousl conclusion, but to your eyes it may look diferent since the original is before you.
    Are you sure it was scratched from the gag, maybe it was only extended towards the gag but not touching, which may permit scratching?

    ReplyDelete
  2. moshe weinerNovember 23, 2011 at 2:05 AM

    the rule in stam is - that any stam [in normal circumstance] is bchezkas kashrus, unless we can prove otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dovid Nissan BressmanNovember 23, 2011 at 2:24 AM

    With a second up close magnification look, it seems there was a tiny area unscratched. So I assume what happened was that the left regel was very close to the gag and someone scratched it. But it was very close. So it would of been permissible to scratch? So long as that is noticeable to the naked eye that is not touching the gag and is not an obvious shinui tzura,this might of happened. So it is maybe Kosher.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dovid Nissan BressmanNovember 24, 2011 at 1:34 AM

    The tinok read the vuv of Shem in the last picture as a vuv.
    Looking again at the Hei, I see it has some ink touching towards the gag exactly where the scratch mark starts, so I will in this case assume it was chok tochos.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AriNovember 24, 2011 at 9:01 PM

    just FYI, although it's hard to see in the third pic, it looks like the dalet and shin in besadecha may be touching...

    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