Ink Blot On Shem - Came Right Off.

By -
An ink Blot fell right on the Shem, and after carefully blotting the wet ink immediately, all that was left was a very light shadow, which would not be disqualifying at all.

After cleaning it a little more with an eraser, nothing at all was left from the ink that fell, and the original shem remained as clear as before.

What are your opinions on the matter, with sources/reasoning please?


Comments

  1. Y.Y.July 17, 2015 at 7:13 PM

    What EXACTLY did you do? How did you "blot"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Y.Y.July 17, 2015 at 7:25 PM

      I ask because, according to us, even if the ksav is dry and the tippa is wet - it still constitutes Chok Tochos to wipe away the tippah.

      Now, if we assume it was Chok Tochos, it's passul.

      In terms of fixing it: many poskim hold it is not permitted to be Mochek a Sheim even if it was created via Chok Tochos.
      Others hold it is permitted to erase a sheim that came about through Chok Tochos.
      However, even according to the latter opinion, R Akiva Eiger writes in Shu"T tinyana 36 that since according to the Sma"k (at least according to the Get Poshut) it is NOT Chok Tochos to remove a tippah if it fell after the letter was written, it would be prohibited to erase the Sheim add it never lost is kedusha even when the tippah was on it.

      So, in my very very limited knowledge this Yeriah would have to go UNLESS we assume that the blotting was so mild... in which case SOME do not consider it chok tochos.

      Delete
  2. Y.Y.July 17, 2015 at 7:49 PM

    Sources: See Sfeikas Hasofer, section 3, Siman 9. He had a nice discussion about a droplet that got "spunged" up and left little to no mark.
    He also cites related sources although I have not looked them up.
    Then see Shu"t R' Akiva Eiger Tinyana 36.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownJuly 20, 2015 at 12:40 AM

    B'dieved, you could probably cut out the shem and 2 other words, put in a matlis, and rewrite that way. I know Keset Hasofer doesn't love that option, but . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. moshe weinerJuly 20, 2015 at 2:15 AM

    chas v'shalom don't erase the shem !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJuly 22, 2015 at 6:47 PM

      Rabbi Weiner, do you care to elaborate or to discuss the issue?

      Delete
    2. UnknownJuly 22, 2015 at 6:48 PM

      Rabbi Weiner, do you care to elaborate or to discuss the issue?

      Delete
    3. moshe weinerJuly 24, 2015 at 3:45 AM

      see http://hebrewstam.blogspot.co.il/2015/07/blog-post_20.html

      Delete

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