sefer torah tikkun
Hi chevra, I was wondering what are the pros and cons between the two tikunnim 245 amudim V 248 amudim and which is the preferred methood in the commercial market?
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?
The forum is back online...for reference and research purposes.
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
245 - beraishis and shemos are more squashed, but more baalei korah are used to this layout
ReplyDelete248 - less baalei korah like this but three extra amudim reduce the more compacted look of beraishis and shemos, the sefer looks nicer too
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would offer the same haaros with the note/clarification that good, experienced baalei korim have no problem with the 248.
ReplyDeleteLess experienced "hobbyist" baalei korim don't like it because it doesn't match the tikkun they prepared out of, which isn't a very good complaint when you consider that very few pre-Davidovitch sifrei torah match today's Tikkun Korim anyway.
Well, its more accurrate to say that: very few of today's tikkun korim match pre-Davidovitch sifrei torah.
Many balei korim (including my self)use the Feldheim Simanim Tikun. Which of the Sifrei Torah layouts matches the Feldheim Simanim Tikkun?
ReplyDeletethe 245 layout match the tikun simanim, and its the one most ba'alei kriah use/like.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, the 248 layout is easier to write and looks nicer, even if it is less common at the present time. I would add that if you want to use the 248 tikun, you should make sure to mention that in the contract to avoid any issues down the road. Something like, "The Sofer will write the Sefer Torah according to the 248 column tikun of Rav Yaakov Chenagel”.
ReplyDeleteSince we are so used to the 245 column tikun, when we calculate what to charge the customer and what to pay the sofer, we automatically think of 245 columns multiplied by X and 62 yerios of klaf. Take into account an additional yeria for 248. Also, do we pay the sofer for 3 more amudim, particularly if he requests to write 248 and you and the client don't care either way? Therefore, first work out which tikkun will be used and if it will be 248 work out with the sofer what, if anything he'll be paid for the 3 additional amudim and who will pay for the extra yeria. Once that's worked out you can work out the price for the client.
ReplyDeleteIf the sofer wants to write 248 after a per amud (writing only) price was agreed upon (and a price given to the client) then ask ask a shailah.
Excuse my ignorance, but who was Davidovich?
ReplyDeleteIs, not was. R' menachem Davidovitch sh' is a Toldos Ahron Chassid who setup the post war way of writing, including the tikkun
ReplyDelete