tav - can it be fixed?
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 ...
Hi R' Moshe,
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion there is ample "leg room" (no pun intended) to enlarge the foot of the TAV. : )
There is no doubt that a TAV that is missing a foot is absolutely PASSUL on 2 counts. (1) Its shape has changed, and (2) It can be confused with a CHET.
The above TAV is different from the above described shape precisely on these two counts. (1) The foot is NOT really missing. Rather, the FOOT appears to be CUT. (2) It also cannot be confused with a CHET.
I would equate the above situation to the Halakha when the HEAD of a VAV is cut at an angle. Although, the VAV is not written with a straight face as most poskim describe it should, the Minchat Yitzchak informs us that there is a head nevertheless and (lechatchilla) is kasher.
Just like we are MACHMIR in case of a VAV with a cut head and repair it anyways, I would draw a parallel with our above TAV and strengthen the foot.
It likewise, it appears to me that a SHEELAT TINOK is not necessary to make the repair. However, after the fact that he has read it as such, it just confirms that it has always been a TAV.
thanks !!
DeleteI wouldn't have asked a tinok but rather would've added ink to improve it.
ReplyDeletethere is a difference between sofek kav moshuch on the left regel of a tav and the roshim of a shin, ayin, aleph etc. The difference is that by the roshim, there is no shailah of it being another letter - only choser aiver. However with tof you have the shailah of a ches (d'rashi)which is more chomur.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I think I agree with Yerachmiel that there is enough sticking out to be machshir