Second guessing a tinok

By -


The Nun from hotziyonu has a small kotz coming out the back of the bottom right, possibly a shailos tinok. I felt certain the child would read it as a nun, esp compared to the other gimmels. To my surprise, the tinok read it as a gimmel.

My gut feeling is to show another few tinokim and go with the majority, since I feel the child may have erred on this. However at what point does one decide to negate the original tinok and show it to more than one tinok? Am I doing the right thing by showing it to other tinokim just because he surprised me? He is the tinok I usually use and generally fares well. What does Reb Moshe (or others) think? I never understood the criteria of using multiple tinokim.

Comments

  1. moshe weinerDecember 30, 2014 at 12:16 PM

    If this would happen to me, I would passel because of the tinok.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yerachmiel AskotzkyDecember 30, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    I can't make the call based on the image whether it's a shalos tinok (or better or worse) but once asked I'm not that surprised he called it a Gimel so I'd agree that there's no place to try and get a majority to be machshir. (If he identified the nuns and gimels before you asked on this letter then his reading of this nun should stand.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Beis HastamDecember 30, 2014 at 8:02 PM

    tough one

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Eli GutnickDecember 30, 2014 at 11:28 PM

    Thank you everyone for their response.

    However things are now more complicated.

    The owner of the tefillin wanted the tefillin back quickly, and I took matters into my own hands. Unfortunately, time was not on my side.

    I showed it again to the same tinok. This time he read it as a NUN. I showed it to another tinok, who also read it as a NUN. Satisfied, I finished checking the tefillin and gave them back (obv. I fixed by adding ink).

    I now see everyone's comments and I'm starting to fret. Had I had access to the internet a little sooner I wouldn't have reshown the tinok.

    The question is what to do now. Reb Moshe, you know me, if you think I need to go back to the customer and explain the situation (even though it is somewhat unprofessional) and replace the parshiyos, please tell me, I will do what I need to do.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  5. moshe weinerDecember 30, 2014 at 11:45 PM

    kosher

    ReplyDelete
  6. AharonDecember 31, 2014 at 8:49 AM

    Would it have been Kosher if it would have HAD to be a Gimmel?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rabbi Eli GutnickDecember 31, 2014 at 9:47 PM

    probably not since you go after the majority

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ink, Kosher vs. non-Kosher

By -
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?
Read more

Question to Yosef Chaim B

By -
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 ...
Read more