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 ...
Was this written in China?
ReplyDeleteI don't see how this ksav is that unique for a basic level ksav that it should rouse such a response. It's overall better than lots of cheaper parshios and mezuzahs out there. In all likelihood the Yud was scratched.
ReplyDeleteIt appears as though the yud was touching the reish and it was scraped.
ReplyDeleteLa'aniyus daytime it's a Shalas tinok (although the "chaser eiver" community would probably passel outright)
Out of context, it has no Tzura of a Yud. Eiver or no eiver. In context, even an asterisk can be "read" as a Yud.
ReplyDeleteI discussed with shailah with 2 colleagues, senior talmidim of our rebbi, Harav Friedlander zt"l. One felt it was pasul due to lacking a guf. Another felt it could be fixed as a bedieved. I hear both sides.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was asked about the Yud and didn't take notice of other letters, one sugested that the Chaf peshuta (next to the Yud, is a shailas tinok.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about the yud, but about the chaf, Rav Menachem Davidovitch was Machmir in any Rosh that did not have 2.5 Kulmus widths, but Rav Friedlander ztl was Mekel up to 2 Kulmus, where in that case he refered a Tinok. Again, as a rule, he said you can count the width of the Regel as belonging to the Gag also,. After taking that into account it doesnt look like the haf poses a problem.
ReplyDeleteBut what about the nun underneath it, or the vov of the lamed on top, and, hey, that's a nice tzadi of artzechem (or is it an ayin)?