Your thoughts?
Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz clarifies his position on Ksav Chabad (and my final thoughts)
Last week I posted some thoughts in response to a public lecture given by Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz regarding Ksav Chabad (the Alter Rebbe's ksav). I felt he did not represent the issue fairly, and since I had received questions about it from a number of people I felt it made sense to write a general response. After I posted my response on this forum, Rabbi Mendlowitz reached out to me by email and we ended up having a respectful and productive email exchange regarding the relevant issues surrounding Ksav Chabad. His position is a lot clearer to me now, and I think he also took certain things on board that I clarified with him. The purpose of the Stam Forum (at least back in it's heyday before all the whats app groups took over) was to connect sofrim from around the world, to promote achdus and build bridges, as well as to offer support and advice. In that spirit, I felt I should write a follow up post, to clarify some of the issues and misconception...
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