Popular posts from this blog
Klaff Tanning question:
By
Rabbi Eli Gutnick
-
I received this question via email. I am not really a klaf expert, I was wondering if anyone could answer this question: Dear Rabbi Gutnick, I am writing to you because a good friend of mine has put the idea into my head that the klaf in my tefillin were not really tanned and therefore are not kosher. He referred me to Megilla 19a re diftera. From the research that I have done so far, it seems that the klaf that is used today is tanned only with a lime wash. On all of the tanning websites I’ve seen so far, they say that the lime doesn’t accomplish tanning but only the removal of the hair and some other pre-tanning effects. Would you be able to explain to me or refer me to a website that explains how the tanning process that is used today takes the hide out of the category of diftera? Thank you very much.
The forum is back online...for reference and research purposes.
By
Rabbi Eli Gutnick
-
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
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