What is wrong with this non-kosher Parshia?
Open the image in a new window to enlarge.
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 ...
Only thing I can see is its eidot hamizrach with an arizal dalet Nekuda tachtona in the alephs.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise...what am I missing?
The ksav looks a bit like what you'd get if you crossed veilish with alter rebbe. I can't say I've ever seen anything quite like it.
ReplyDeleteWell - u'vish'arecha shouldn't go all the way up the edge - i.e. it shouldn't be fully justified and I'm not entirely sure why l'vav'cha and l'vavecha have been underlined as they look okay. But I've have to send a bit of time checking through to see if there was anything else wrong.
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't ובשעריך be fully justified?
ReplyDeleteCertainly every tikkun for T'fillin I've ever seen in the books leaves a space. It all seems to be part of large disagreement over spacing (s'tumot and p'tuchot) between Rambam and Rabbenu Asher over v'hayah im shamoa in relationship to the Shema parsha, with the Turei Zahav offering some form of compromise but I'm sure there are others who can explain it better.
ReplyDeleteI know the machloket. SA paskened acc to rambam which is why even though the first three parshiyot are petucha acc to rambam and Rosh, vahaya im is only stuma acc to rambam.
ReplyDeleteRambam holds stuma (amongst other ways) is done by starting the first line indented. Lechatchila needs to be 3 x אשר, bediavad even a smaller indent it kosher.
Taz has an eitza to make it stuma acc to all by having less than 3 otiyot ketanoy at end of shma and less than three at beginning of vehaya im and through combining the two lines is like a stuma acc to Rosh and rambam.
Machloket achronim whether to go like taz or rambam.
But this parsha mistama is rambam and acc to him you don't need any space at end of shma. SA says this (don't remember exact seif) and SA then says if one does leave a space it should be less than 9 otiyot.
So it doesn't need to be any space - unless someone has a mekor I don't know about that says even acc to rambam its better to leave a space?
In the Taz paragraph there's a typo - meant to say less than 9 otiyot, not less than 3. Indeed less than three will defeat the point of the taz because then through combining there won't be a total of 9. (But it may still be kosher acc to rambam)
DeleteWhat about Rabbeinu Tam's opinion that a parsha break is three otiyot?
DeleteThe Taz's eitza was through tziruf to have 9 otiyot keyanot.
DeleteThe tur paskens acc to the Rosh that a stuma needs 3 otiyot. Mistama acc to that, a taz written with 3 would be kosher.
But SA paskens like rambam.
Rambam brings 3 ways of stuma:
1) writing at beginning and end of line with a "k'shiur" in middle. Mistama, k'shiur means the same at it meant for parsha petucha, which is 9 otiyot. (This is acc to Rosh also)
2) leaving the rest of the line blank and starting a little indented on the next line.
3) finishing at the end of the line and starting the next line with an indent of k'shiur revach.
In hilchot Sefer Torah the shach says that its possible that if the parasha was 3 otiyot, lemaaseh possibly it would be Pasul and the taz seems to say that too. Both point to the drisha who brings all the shitot. But they are talking about option 1 of the rambam.
Lemaaseh if one wrote a taz that through tziruf there was 3 otiyot (ie 1.5 on each side) I'm not sure. From the lashon of the rambam (2) it seems that one only needs to indent the line a little, not necessary a full Shiur. But that's only when a space is left at the end of the previous line. How much? Is 1.5 otiyot enough. Im guessing yes, but not sure.
Rav Moshe?
I just had a quick glance in MB. Siman 32 seif 36, biur Halacha even says lechatchila to not have any space at end of shma (ie make it justifies) so that its not as if its moreh on the following parsha that its petucha...
ReplyDeleteSo, R Tzvi - what's wrong with it?
ReplyDeleteClearly the ksav is a bit of a cholent - indicating that the sofer may be incorrectly trained and may have made other errors that we cannot see such as not being makdish the shaimos. But you cannot passel on that assumption.
ReplyDeleteThe line going to the end is normal for sfardi rambam.
The only thing that irks me is the pencil marks. Firstly its not correct to mark a parsha with pencil, even though people do it, it may be what Zvi is referring to. Secondly, it may indicate that there was an error which was fixed lo kesidran. again you cannot passel on that assumption.
Answer: This Parshia was given to me by Rabbi Shimon Rooshan who asked for my help in proving forgery. It turns out that it is part of a new wave of STAM being produced by כתב על גבי דפוס . The klaf is first printed and then, artists, who are not necessarily sofrim, go over the printing with ink. The two pencil marks under לבבך are where the artist missed the kotz at the bottom right of the letters ב. The printed kotz is visible and it is not covered with writing ink.
ReplyDeleteThis may also explain why the Ktav is a cholent. The first wave of such forgeries, a few years ago, was done by an expert sofer. Now it appears that others who are not expert sofrim, and maybe not sofrim at all, have joined the trend.
Shkoach, Zvi. Impossible to really see that from a photo (at least on iPhone).
ReplyDeleteThe whole issue R Eli brought up about indications that a Sofer may not be trained and assumptions that serious mistakes were made is one, I think, nowadays should be more accurately defined. There are many instances where Halacha assumes that a Sofer did something correctly unless we know otherwise. But we also know that the principle of כל ישראל מוחזק בכשרות doesn't apply re STa"M...
Are there any teshuvot that draw a line and say, if such and such is found then one should assume the Sofer can't be trusted and the Stam is Pasul? The only one I know of comes close is a shevet halevi who deals w sofrim that write yudim with a square bottom left corner instead of an actual kotz RT. he says that they misunderstand the chatam Sofer and therefore don't assume they are not good...but I can't think off hand of any others.
Wow would never have seen that from the photo but I'm guessing in real life there is a difference in surface level of the ink standing proud (though did enjoy the little side track discussion into the machloket). I thought the printing thing had long since gone away. Very sad to hear it is back. The ktav is a bit weird but not so bad. How on earth is your average person going to be able to tell.
ReplyDeleteThe average person can't. That's why people must only buy from sofrim they know and trust. Even most rabbinim wouldn't know.
ReplyDeleteSofrim they know and trust.... The biggest problem is that all of these forgeries were sold by well known and respected sofrim. Until the forgeries were discovered, nobody suspected anything.
ReplyDeleteSounds similar to the glatt-kosher stores owned by very frum and respected people, that were caught selling treif meat.
Now what?
Its very sad. I suppose it is no different than any other are of halacha - as you mentioned, kashrut, but also dinei mamonot, there are many sad stories of rabbanim involved in fraud, etc.
ReplyDeleteLechatchila we can only do what we can do. התורה לאו למלאכים נתנה Trust those that are known to be talmidei chachamim and yerei shamayim.
If it turns out that someone who was respected and thought to be genuine, indeed committed these acts, they should be stripped of all their certifications and be charged heavily by the beit din to pay for their actions.
I don't think this is different from any semicha. You have guys who learn material and how to do things practically and they are good at deception. We should be vigilant and when discovered punish the perpetrators.