Dear Readers and Members, The forum has been down for over 6 months because the domain name (www.stamforum.com) lapsed and it is no longer available to re purchase. Although this forum is now defunct (it has morphed into several whatsapp groups), I have had many requests to put it back online because it contains so much information (over 1,800 posts and thousands of comments in the discussions, on a wide range of topics related to STa"M). I have therefore put the forum back online at blogger, so the address is www.stamforum.blogspot.com. The forum lasted for a decade...not a bad effort! It was pretty popular back in the days before whatsapp and managed to receive over a million hits in it's short life. It was one of the only organised forums in the STa"M world and definitely the largest in it's heyday. I would like to thank all those who cobtributed over the years, particularly the early members who helped build it up. Thanking you all, Eli
There is a machalokes ha'acharonim [see keset 11:16] although he is machmir - the iykar is to follow the Rema YD 276 that "hamakdish baalei mumim la'mazbeach lo niskadshu" (see Mishnat Hasofer ibid:56) -
ReplyDeletekal vchomer in this case that "hekdesh b'taus aino hekdesh".
My sofek was perhaps this is worse since the first 2 (or three letters) are a name of HaShem. See Keses HaSofer Siman 12 sif gimmel and sif-katan gimmel in Lishcas HaSofer.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling I'm wrong here however I want to know *why* is this different or not even comparable.
The issue of e-l from e-lokim, is only when the shem is itself kadosh, then even the the 2 letters since they constitute a shem bythemself [although his cavana was not to write shem e-l, rather another shem - e-lokim] therefore they are kodesh.
DeleteBut in a case that the whole word would not be kadosh (according to Rema above) the first 2 letters are not kodesh, as well.
This is pashut from the Rema himself, he is speaking about "elohim acherim" that isnt kodesh, although a person mistakenly was mekadesh the "elohim" there, and the Rema was not concerned about the e-l of elohim acherim.
So how does one understand the case of the Keses HaSofer in Siman 12, sif 3, sif-katan 3 (in a particular case of Yehuda.) Or is that simply going not like the Rema (i.e. like the machmirim)
ReplyDeleteThe difference is, that in yehuda his mistake was thinking that the correct word should be written sham YKVK, indeed wrote it lshem kedusha - therefore this is a shem kodesh, although written in the wrong place "shem shlo bimkomo".
DeleteBut in the question of aleihem, his mistake is in thinking this is a shem, but actualy mekadesh a word of chol, the kedusha doesn't apply.
I don't understand. In both cases there is a word of chol where he thought was a Shem Kodesh and wrote it l'shem kedusha. Yehuda is worse because it has in it YKVK?
ReplyDeleteHe did not intend to write yehuda, he mistaked and thought the correct word to be written should be YKVK and wrote so - so there is a complete shem kadosh written, but the mistake is that there should be a different word.
DeleteBut if the mistake was that he thought that yehuda is a shem, then the Rema's ruling applies. And if he wrote YK of yehuda according to the din this is not kadosh [there probably will be big problem of maris ha'ayin, but that may be solved, in contrast to mechikas hashem which is forbidden.