Ches - vov into chatotros
I'm sure this has come up...
Ches of vechoro goes straight into the chatotros
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?
Moshe Weiner says it is passul
ReplyDeleteHi R. Moshe,
ReplyDeleteCan you please elaborate for our own education. I can understand that according to Rabenu Tam the Chatoterot is not a GAG. Therefore we would definitely invalidate a Chet where the Chatoterot begins from the edge of BOTH legs, as in such a case there is NO ROOF.
But perhaps this a case is a bit different and there there is room to be lenient if one of the Zenins has a Gag although the other side appears as a Kav Pashut. I base the above on the makor of a CHET from RASHI where we are lenient (bedieved) even if there is not the shape of two ZENINS and no BELITA at the top.
Do you think that maybe we can also be lenient here and allow correction if read as a CHET by a TINOK? In such a case, perhaps one may be able to thin out the CHUTRA on the right side to reveal the head of the VAV in order for it to be satisfactory? Or in a Bet Yosef, allow to add a bit more ink to the right, without it being considered shelo kesidran?
Or do we judge this letter strictly on the standards of Rabenu Tam who requires a ROOF over every YERECH of the CHET and invalidate it as such. After all, this is not a CHET SHEL RASHI, and one may argue that it needs to be judged solely by the parameters of a Chet de'Rabenu Tam. Your elaboration is very much appreciated. Thanks!
This question was already on the forum a long time ago, one of Yehoshua Deital's blogs. There he quoted Rabbi Shammai Gross shlita machshir, following part of the logic you give here. This is also in Mishnat hasofer or some example close to this ches.
ReplyDeleteTherefore - The above is my opinion, and I will explain next note.
maybe it was not Yehoshua, but it was on the forum.
DeleteYes I posted it and the conclusion was that it was fixable.
DeleteThis ches is not a Rashi ches, neither a RT ches, therefore we cannot combine both shitos to make a third ches (half Rashi half RT) !!
ReplyDeleteThe right foot is a golem which is an accepted pisul, in related parts of letters, as yudin of alef etc. the same here the right foot is not a zayin or vav, rather a golem.
Those that permit fixing a golem (Mikdash Me'at) may consider permitting here to fix by adding dyo (not scraping), since the letter [ches] is obvios.
Thank you Rav Moshe.
DeleteYasher koach
DeleteAnd so too fixable acc the tzemach tzedek by adding ink?
Deletesee http://hebrewstam.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_7.html
DeleteI think the Lamed of the word "Al" on the third line from the bottom is a definite psul.
ReplyDelete