A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.
What do you think of the kuf of "umilkosh"? do you think its just a fat tag or he wrote another lamed and was too lazy to erase it and turned it into a kuf without erasing the rosh?
"do you think its just a fat tag or he wrote another lamed and was too lazy to erase it and turned it into a kuf without erasing the rosh?"
Does it matter what he meant? Is there a difference between a case that he intend it to be a lamed, and changed his mind and turned it into a kuf [I understand from your wording that this is a type of "csiva b'pisul"], and the case that he intended to write a kuf but the tag came out fat?
Please clarify the issue - because I am not sure I understood you correctly.
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. I was asking if you think it is pasul or if a sheelat tinok would help in this situation? to me, it looks pasul, but I wanted other Sofrim's opinions on the matter.
I showed this to R' Shammai Gross this morning. He said to me as it is he said it's kosher. If the tag would come out that thick and be all the way at the end (on the left side) it'd be pasul.
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?
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 ...
"do you think its just a fat tag or he wrote another lamed and was too lazy to erase it and turned it into a kuf without erasing the rosh?"
ReplyDeleteDoes it matter what he meant? Is there a difference between a case that he intend it to be a lamed, and changed his mind and turned it into a kuf [I understand from your wording that this is a type of "csiva b'pisul"], and the case that he intended to write a kuf but the tag came out fat?
Please clarify the issue - because I am not sure I understood you correctly.
Perhaps I phrased it wrong. I was asking if you think it is pasul or if a sheelat tinok would help in this situation? to me, it looks pasul, but I wanted other Sofrim's opinions on the matter.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a shaylas tinok.
ReplyDeleteI showed this to R' Shammai Gross this morning. He said to me as it is he said it's kosher. If the tag would come out that thick and be all the way at the end (on the left side) it'd be pasul.
ReplyDeleteI agree it makes no difference what the sofer's intentions were. I also would have said like Rav Shamai.
ReplyDelete