mem pasul
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
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
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?
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