A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.
While there is a yerech, albeit thick and ugly, does the blob of ink make it a shinui tzura? If the oketz was a normal length I'd be less inclined to pasel but as is it only makes the tzura look worse.
A fundamental problem is showing us the enlarged , zoomed in version. please submit an "actual size" . Remember R Shlomo Mualem agreed to optic magnification only to be like "chadei Ha Ain" and my mesora is to use magnification to be "machshir" not the opposite.
Please see the discussion on this matter. http://www.stamforum.com/2013/04/rav-friedlander-on-paskening-from.html
While I can't speak for others, my purpose for posting is for discussion and education. There are few among our membership who are poskim and even less who can judge from enlarged images as per Rav Friedlander's comments. With regards to this shaila, you can save it as an image then view it in a smaller size but even then the image lacks the sharpness of the actual ksav.
The mesora I have with regards to magnification is we may use it to confirm, to be machshir or to pasel, what we are confident we see with the naked eye/corrective lenses. If with magnification we see the opposite of what we are confident we see without it, whether lekula or lechumra, then magnification isn't taken into account.
I don't understand why this isn't a clear case of the regel touching the guf, and would require a bitul tzurah (barring the potential issue of there not even being a "regel" anymore)...Can anyone explain the shailah?
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
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?
לי נראה שהנקודה התחתונה הפכה לגולם ופסולה
ReplyDeleteI would consider this a case of "נגע רגל האל"ף בגג האל"ף".
ReplyDeleteA fundamental problem is showing us the enlarged , zoomed in version.
ReplyDeleteplease submit an "actual size" .
Remember R Shlomo Mualem agreed to optic magnification only to be like "chadei Ha Ain" and my mesora is to use magnification to be "machshir" not the opposite.
Please see the discussion on this matter.
Deletehttp://www.stamforum.com/2013/04/rav-friedlander-on-paskening-from.html
While I can't speak for others, my purpose for posting is for discussion and education. There are few among our membership who are poskim and even less who can judge from enlarged images as per Rav Friedlander's comments. With regards to this shaila, you can save it as an image then view it in a smaller size but even then the image lacks the sharpness of the actual ksav.
The mesora I have with regards to magnification is we may use it to confirm, to be machshir or to pasel, what we are confident we see with the naked eye/corrective lenses. If with magnification we see the opposite of what we are confident we see without it, whether lekula or lechumra, then magnification isn't taken into account.
I don't understand why this isn't a clear case of the regel touching the guf, and would require a bitul tzurah (barring the potential issue of there not even being a "regel" anymore)...Can anyone explain the shailah?
ReplyDelete