Careful who you ask
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?
Question to Yosef Chaim B
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 ...
See שו״ת רב פעלים חלק שני או״ח שאלה יו״ד
ReplyDeleteR' Yisroel,
ReplyDeleteI'd like to clarify your intention:
Based on the שו"ת רב פעלים I think we can all agree that it is פסול as is - since the תג is NOT close to the right hand רגל...
However, since the דלי"ת was written בהכשר - there is no ח"ת דאורייתא even לדעת הרא"ש. AND there is no מראית עין of חק תוכות either because it is obvious that the תג belongs to the שי"ן...
Hence it may be scraped away.
Is that what you mean?
CAn you pls elaborate a bit on the concept of מראית עין of חק תוכות...
DeleteIf it is now a Heih - and therefore Pasul - and you then change it to a Dalet, is this not Shelo KeSidran?
DeleteYou are (probably) correct that: even according to רש"ק and רב פעלים, IN THIS EXACT CASE while in a ספר תורה it would be fine to fix with חקיקה - in תפילין not.
DeleteHowever, I am not 100 percent sure for two reasons:
1) I have not looked up all of the שו"ת of רש"ק that deal with the principles relevant here.
2) The צמח צדק establishes a principle that considering that ח"ת is more חמור than כסדרן (as is evident from the fact that according to the first interpretation of the ספר התרומה on the ירושלמי of אין תוולין בתו"מ) it follows that if there is no ח"ת there is no שלא כסדרן.
* IF it is now a Heih?
Delete1. “It is very difficult to accept with certainty and finality "פסולים" of these kinds without really seeing them”
2. Does a Heih have 3 legs on the left?
3. Where is the left leg supposed to be standing?
4. Isn’t there a minimum size for the Yud in the letter Heih?
* Is this not Shelo KeSidran?
The רב פעלים, and the שנות חיים which he brings down, do not discuss 3 Tagim of a letter going into a Daled Rabosi of the line above it. however in the cases they do discuss – Lamed in Daled or Reish, Lamed in Chof Pshuto, Chof Pshuto touching the Gag of a Daled beneath it, Tagim going into Chof Pshuto above it - they DO NOT differentiate between Sefer Torah or Tefillin and Mezuzot.
שנות חיים - ספר סת״ם דף כ״ב ע״ב סימן מ״ז
שנות חיים - ספר סת״ם דף כ״ט ע״א סימן ס״ד
ספר סת״ם חלק שני - הלכות תפילין דף נ״ג ע״א תשובה ך״ו
Seems like differences’ are only, whether you need a Tinok, Kosher and no need for a Tinok, and is it necessary to be removed.
If it is Pasul now, the reason is not because it is a Dalet Psulah but because it is not a Dalet. Ergo: Shelo Kesidran
DeletePlease have a look in the above sources
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is the opinion of ר' שלמה קלוגער that:
ReplyDeleteחק תוכות מדאורייתא is only if the אות never had a שעת הכושר. If, however, it had a שעת הכושר but was נפסל later on in any way - it is not חק תוכות מדאורייתא, only מדרבנן.
He holds this to be true EVEN לדעת הרא"ש! In other words: although the רא"ש holds - and so we פסק'ן - that if a טיפת דיו falls on a letter and is מבטל its צורה - it is ח"ת to remove the טיפה, nevertheless this is only מדרנן since the letter had an initial שעת הכושר.
Now, the notion of חק תוכות מדרבנן is not exclusive to רש"ק, as is known the בית מאיר holds that if a טיפת דיו falls on a letter or even if one is changing from one letter to another through חקיקה (the two cases of the מחבר in סימן ל"ב סי"ז) it is only חק תוכות מדרבנן. (This is how he goes about being מישב the סתירה in the רשב"א between his חידושים and תשובות etc).
The גט פשוט as well considers the possibility that changing one letter to another through חקיקה is only חק תוכות מדרבנן and points out that the לשון המחבר in the end of סי"ז is 'משום דהוי כחק תוכות' with a כ"ף הדמיון.)
However, there is a fundamental difference between the שיטה of רש"ק and the שיטה of the בית מאיר. Namely: according to רש"ק the core of חק תוכות דרבנן is מצד מראית עין. In other words: say a טיפת דיו fell on a letter, or a letter was changed into another after it had a שעת הכושר the on looker who watched me scrape the letter back into shape has not idea that the letter had a שעת הכושר... hence the חכמים forbid it.
Accordingly, holds רש"ק, if there is some type of היכר, clue, indication, that this letter really was once כשר - there is no מראית עין and therefor חז"ל never forbid the חקיקה.
For instance: a למ"ד that is reaches into a כ"פ פשוטה... when one sees it is abundantly clear that a כ"פ פשוטה was written בהכשר on the top line and afterwards, when the lower line was written, the למ"ד entered the airspace of the כ"פ. So, while it is פסול as is (if the למ"ד is towards the left hand side of the כ"פs airspace), it may nevertheless be scraped away since it is obvious that the כ"פ פשוטה was written בהכשר and therefore there is not more חק תוכות even מדרבנן.
That is the view of רש"ק.
The בית מאיר and גט פשוט, however, do NOT refer to an issue of מראית עין at all. Their שיטה seems to be that it is is an ordinary פסול דרבנן that would have no exceptions.
Needless to say: many פוסקים do not accept that these cases are merely מדרבנן. Rather, they hold that it is מן התורה... (which makes the מחלוקת between the סמ"ק and the רא"ש a lot more extreme: what the סמ"ק holds is מותר מן התורה as well as מדרבנן - the רא"ש holds is אסור מן התורה).
That is a brief overview of the שיטה of the חק תוכות דרבנן and רש"ק.
Parenthetically, רב פעלים ACCEPTS the position of רש"ק!