sfek sfaika
could it be argued that changing a tzadi beis yosef to arizal or vice versa could be allowed because of the following tziruf: 1) ponim chadashos (sofek) and 2) kav moshuch (sofek)?
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
נראה שאם קודם עשה ראש הצד"י כעין זיי"ן שעובר לפה ולפה ואח"כ מילא את השני, הרי זה רק שאלה של פנים חדשות.
ReplyDeleteואם קודם מילא את היו" דלעשותו גולם ואח"כ תיקנה הרי זה שאלה של גולם האם מותר לתקנו שלא כסדרה.
obviously I am talking of the former case, where he added the new rosh first, and then scratched off the original head. obviously the second case is not feasable. my point was that in the first case where he fixed, since the ponim chadoshos here was only a rosh, and kav moshuch is fixable according to the mikdash me'at and others (as opposed to a ponim chadoshos which involves a more chomur/ fundemental part of a letter which has no sofek and is definitely possul -such as a regel- ) - then perhaps we have a tziruf. I know lemasah this is not the case but perhaps there is an argument that certain types of ponim chadoshos are better than others....does this make sense?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore; you can fix it in such a way that when you scratch off the original head you leave enough that without the ponim chadoshos it would be only a definite sofek choser aiver (because some of the original rosh makes it thicker on the top) which is even fixable on its own according to shut T'Tn and others. So certainly then with the additional argument that ponnim chadoshos is acceptable according to many opinions, it would be acceptable to reverse the heads.
Deleteyes? maybe? no?...anyone?
ReplyDeletereb moshe???
according to those that accept panim chadashois this is acceptable. according to those that pasel panim chadashois, this is no exception.
ReplyDeleteI dont see an additional kula, because of the issue of fixing the golem. {it is a "panim chadashois" of the kula}