Your thoughts on the chaf of Anochi?
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
Klaff Tanning question:
I received this question via email. I am not really a klaf expert, I was wondering if anyone could answer this question: Dear Rabbi Gutnick, I am writing to you because a good friend of mine has put the idea into my head that the klaf in my tefillin were not really tanned and therefore are not kosher. He referred me to Megilla 19a re diftera. From the research that I have done so far, it seems that the klaf that is used today is tanned only with a lime wash. On all of the tanning websites I’ve seen so far, they say that the lime doesn’t accomplish tanning but only the removal of the hair and some other pre-tanning effects. Would you be able to explain to me or refer me to a website that explains how the tanning process that is used today takes the hide out of the category of diftera? Thank you very much.
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?
very good shayla, but I'd be inclined to say it's kosher since there is a small section between the gug and "moshav". If the moshav came directly out of the gug at such an angle it would definitely be possul.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me like a classic Shailat Tinok
ReplyDeleteEli, I just saw the Kesiva Tama where he discusses a chaf with no yerech. (It looks like a thick arrow.) In that extreme case he brings one unnamed posek who says it's pasul while he and another expert sofer holds it's kosher and he brings the Minchas Yitzchak as being machshir as well. I do agree with you that this it is kosher (as did the 2 magiim who checked it.)
ReplyDeleteAaron, what bothers you to the point that you feel there is a tzad psul requiring a tinok to be machria?
yes, the arrow case is worse. This is better. I'd still fix it anyway
DeleteWhat bothers me is that when you first look at it it doesn't look like a chaf. That is what shaylat tinok is for.
DeleteGreat sh'alyla. S'fakot Hasofer brings a similar arrow shape in b'tsurah aleksonit (pic 26 on page 104) which he says it seems the halacha is that it is pasul, even if it is (he adds) a bit curved. I'd be inclined to go Sh'ailot tinok as R. Aaron says, as must admit at first glance when I opened the post it could also resemble a badly drawn resh, But can see the machsir side too.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any resemblance to a reish.
ReplyDeleteWas just the first glance, before my mind registered the context. Once you do then you don't see a resh with a very curved leg.
ReplyDeleteנראה לי שזה שאלת תינוק, כי היא משונה מעט מהרגיל, ולוקח שניה להבין שהיא בעצם כ"ף. ובגלל שינוי מועט מצורתה הנכונה צריכה שאלת תינוק
ReplyDeleteTodah R. Moshe - it does indeed take that split second time to register and that was why I was inclined to put it to the tinok. Is there a source as R. Aharon asks as would be good to know?
DeleteIt's not the SHAPE that is Mekulkal. It's the missing thickness at the bottom, similar to his Beis.
ReplyDeleteI'm unsure of the source for R' Moshe's statement that when it takes moment to recognize, that Sh'aylas Tinok is called for. (It certainly doesn't fulfill Rambam's למען ירוץ הקןרא בה, but Sh'ailas Tinok?)