hei instead of daled
if someone wrote a hei instead of a daled, can he add ink and round out the top right corner like a reish, then erase the left regel, then add ink and make the reish a daled?
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
Ink, Kosher vs. non-Kosher
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?
Question to Yosef Chaim B
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 ...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting shyla, logically since at the time he erased the left foot [did the chakika] it wasn't the kosher letter required [the dalet] and he finished by writing the correct form of dalet it should be kosher.
ReplyDeleteBut the question bothers and it is uneasy - since this example of erasing a hei to make it into a dalet is written in the poskim and nobody gave this advice, they all write that the right foot must be erased and rewritten [although this is not solid proof, but still bothers]
Maybe this solution is a type of "csiva b'pisul" since there is no true intention of reforming the dalet into a reish, this fictive addition is not considered.
Tzarich Iyun !! thanks for the question !!
NOw I found that the mishnas hasofer (siman 8,ois 5,ois katan 15) writes that after you erase the left foot, you can erase the daled to make it reish, and then rewrite the eikev to make it a daled.
ReplyDeletewould the same apply if erased the left foot only after it was made a reish?
would the same apply if instead of erasing the daled to make it a reish , you made it a reish with ksivah?
would the same apply if erased the left foot only after it was made a reish? - yes
ReplyDeletewould the same apply if instead of erasing the daled to make it a reish , you made it a reish with ksivah? - that is your original question, and as I wrote in the note maybe thi sis different.
From a conversation I once had with R' Shammai....
ReplyDeleteShailo: A sofer had to write a daled and by mistake wrote a hei. However the gag of the hei was made like a reish and not like a daled. Is it enough to erase the "yud" of the hei and be mosif an eikev onto the reish. Or must the tzurah of the reish also be erased.
Teshuva: It's not enough to erase the yud and be mosif an eikev this is still considered to be chok tochos. Must be mavatel the entire tzurah of the "hei". L'maseh in some casavim (by the Sephardim) the gag of the hei is written like a reish.
(Note: I thought in such a case one must erase the entire reish otherwise chock tochos since the reish was part of the hei and is not being made into a daled only by erasing the yud. Even though by itself it's a pasul daled. I pointed to a re'ah that the Mikdash Ma'at brings from the Radak (See Mikdash Ma'at in Letter Hei Ois 20) that when someone writes a Mem-Stumah and gets closed off that the Radak says not enough to erase only the chartom, must erase the entire ois. Even though over there the "chof" it's not a tzuros Mem, still however it's coming through chok tochos. R' Shammai agreed this was a good re'ah and that my psak to erase the entire ois and re-write it (or be m'vatel the tzurah) was the correct psak. One could bring a re'ah that it's enough to be mosif an eikev to the reish from from what the Mikdash Ma'at writes by the Letter Hei in "ois daled" over there. V'Tzrich l'ayin b'zeh...
Could be when the Mikdash Ma'at brings the Radak and the Chasam Sofer that argues you could bring a re'ah against this psak as well and what I wrote here from R' Shammai. I'd be interested to see what you have to say R' Moshe...
According to what Peretz quoted from Mishnas Hasofer, it is pashut that in your shyla he did not have to erase any part of the reish, only add the zavis & akev finishing the letter with csiva of a dalet.
DeleteThe Radach is known and he is machmir that in any case of pasul of chok tochos or csiva bpisul the whole letter must be erased and rewritten (this is quoted clearly in Magen Avraham 32:23), but we do not follow this chumra [only the Keset advises lechatchila to follow this opinion].
R' Shammai although said this by the case of a daled/hei said by the Mem we're not machmir like you point out l'maseh. So what's the difference. Did you look at the other re'as from Mikdash Ma'at that I pointed out?
DeleteI don't know of a difference between the shayla of dalet [at hand] and a question in regard to mem. In both we are meikel [opposed to the Radach] that gomro bcsiva is sufficient.
Delete