Vov of umalkosh
- Get link
- Other Apps
By
Rabbi Eli Gutnick
-
- Get link
- Other Apps
How about the Bais of Uleovdo?
Popular posts from this blog
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?
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
נראה לי שמותר לתקנו בהוספת דיו כי הסדק דק, ועל כן העוקץ מצטרף לצורת האות
ReplyDeleteWithout the oketz there's no rosh. So is the oketz enough of a rosh, even if it were to be mechubar?
ReplyDeleteלא, העוקץ אינו מספיק ראש אבל בצירוף העוקץ והוי"ו נראת לתינוק - נראה שמותר
ReplyDeleteלתקנו
I agree with R' Moshe. If a tinok calls it a vov it can be fixed.
ReplyDelete@ R' Eli, Please tell me: on what basis is there no "rosh". I am completely dumbfounded such an assertion. The regel is about 5 or six time more narrow than the gag. The fact that the the break between the regel and the gag is not perfect does not "transform" the gag into a simple extension of the regel.
The Kotz certainly helps to crystallize that there is a gag there which arguably is more vital in this case since the break between gag and regel isn't so pronounced.
But how does one go so far as to say there is not rosh? And what are the sources for such a view?
If you ignore for a second the ( broken) shpitz coming out of the top, look at the tzurah, it is like an "ice cream cone" where it gets wider as it goes up but this is NOT considered a halachic rosh. Now, there are those who say that such a tzurah, even with a small shpitz coming out to the left of the wider upper part, is not a proper rosh either. I, personally don't hold like this but I wanted to hear what others say, in particular Reb Moshe, who has asserted this view many times on this forum. Hence my surprise when he said (or at least I understood) that the problem is related to the hefsek, not to the lack of rosh. So I asked - to clarify his position - if he felt that without the nifsak, would the shpitz still be enough or would it still be insufficient (and require fixing). That was the purpose of my comment. I hope that clarifies it.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification. I really appreciate it.
DeleteOn the "guf ha'inyan" I obviously disagree with the machmirim... ESPECIALLY as R Reuven wrote plenty of vovs like that. And.. I hsve yet to see the source for such a position.