mem pasul
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,
ReplyDeleteThis Mem has two major problems. 1) The Moshav is like a ZANAV and 2) The MEM is greatly separated from the VAV with the connector descending to the bottom of the CHARTUM.
In both cases however, it appears to me that, we do not have the halakhic basis to invalidate it. Instead, the VAV part should be thickened a bit and the MOSHAV should be squared.
My reasoning with respect to the VAV is that we are lenient in the case of a GIMMEL where the left foot connects to the right foot near or at the top of the roof. Here we have the same thing with respect to the CHARTUM of the MEM where on one side (at least) it definitely connects at the middle. Thickening the VAV a bit would definitely remedy this situation.
With respect to the MOSHAV being written as a ZANAV, whe are lenient when it comes to a LAMED. Likewise, whe should accept that here, the KHAF part maintains its TZURAH. However, we should square it at the bottom in order to improve its shape.
In response to what R Attia wrote, if one looks at the MEM above the one in question, it seems that the tikkun proposed by R Attia had already been done. When enlarging the photo it seems as though there is a white space in between the "old VAV" and the alleged tikkun. it also looks like the ink in this place is a little different. Could be that it is an illusion... maybe not.
Delete