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.
Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz clarifies his position on Ksav Chabad (and my final thoughts)
By
Rabbi Eli Gutnick
-
Last week I posted some thoughts in response to a public lecture given by Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz regarding Ksav Chabad (the Alter Rebbe's ksav). I felt he did not represent the issue fairly, and since I had received questions about it from a number of people I felt it made sense to write a general response. After I posted my response on this forum, Rabbi Mendlowitz reached out to me by email and we ended up having a respectful and productive email exchange regarding the relevant issues surrounding Ksav Chabad. His position is a lot clearer to me now, and I think he also took certain things on board that I clarified with him. The purpose of the Stam Forum (at least back in it's heyday before all the whats app groups took over) was to connect sofrim from around the world, to promote achdus and build bridges, as well as to offer support and advice. In that spirit, I felt I should write a follow up post, to clarify some of the issues and misconception...

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