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.
I agree with R' Attia. Firstly, it has a blita at the top, and an eikev at the bottom right, so I don't see why it would be a shaalot tinok. You can add ink to the eikev and make it more mehudar.
Kasher but would be good to improve the ekev as everyone is saying. Havchanot Tinok is only for cases of genuine safek and it is fairly obvious it is a bet. However, if the bet is so poor on all these 'cheap' mezuzot, one wonder what else is wrong with them? I've actually fixed a Torah in the past where all the bets were similar to this and added an ekev onto all of them so I don't envy you going through all those mezuzot! But as 'aaa' says, don't assume they are all the same and each should be dealt with in turn.
I recently tried this kosher ink for my rapidograph and I am extremely pleased with it. It does not clog the nib like other kosher rapidograph inks, and it's very dark and strong. It's at least as good as the Rotring commercial grade rapidograph inks (of course these can only be used with batch numbers that have been lab tested and approved kosher), and in addition you do not need to add a drop of regular Sta"m ink (as per the instruction of the Shevet Halevi, which is messy and time consuming). I was wondering if anyone else had an opinion or comments with regards to their experience with this ink...
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?
In today’s day and age, virtually every kosher product available to the consumer comes with a hechsher. By hechsher, I mean an official and recognised rabbinical body or agency that certifies the kashrus of a product, be it a food item or a religious article. Hechsherim play a vital role in providing consumer confidence, and something branded by a reputable kashrus agency will be considered more legitimate than a similar product that does not. The agency has rigid policies and protocols in place to ensure correct standards are met, and they are independent of the manufacturer so that there is no conflict of interest. As we have discussed on this forum previously, there is a distinct lack of official hechsherim on Sta”m products - Tefillin, Mezuzos and Sifrei Torah. Even the Vaad Mishmeres Sta”m, the oldest and most well- known rabbinic agency in the Sta”m world does not certify products. They test and ordain sofrim and magihim (examiners), offer a computer checking service (sp...
This still looks kosher, although poor quality.
ReplyDeleteI think this picture is a shaylas tinok, and after a tinok reads it correct should be fixed (if easily accomplished)
ReplyDeleteKosher
ReplyDeleteKasher as it is + the majority of poskim don't require us to show it to a tinok. Nevertheless, its good to enhance the heel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with R' Attia.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it has a blita at the top, and an eikev at the bottom right, so I don't see why it would be a shaalot tinok. You can add ink to the eikev and make it more mehudar.
every sheila must be dealt separately a minor shinuy can change the letter
ReplyDeleteKasher but would be good to improve the ekev as everyone is saying. Havchanot Tinok is only for cases of genuine safek and it is fairly obvious it is a bet. However, if the bet is so poor on all these 'cheap' mezuzot, one wonder what else is wrong with them? I've actually fixed a Torah in the past where all the bets were similar to this and added an ekev onto all of them so I don't envy you going through all those mezuzot! But as 'aaa' says, don't assume they are all the same and each should be dealt with in turn.
ReplyDelete