Rabbi Zirkind Addresses Mezuzah Claims



    Name*
    Email*
    Message

    Atica Pop Up Shop Banner

    Rabbi Zirkind Addresses Mezuzah Claims

    As the Mezuzah Saga continues, in response to Rabbi Wolf’s article responding to Rabbi Moskowitz’s article, Rabbi Meir Zirkind of Florida writes a letter addressing his disagreements with Rabbi Wolf and standing up for the Kavod of his father, the well-known Sofer, Rabbi Eliezer ZirkindFull Article

    As the Mezuzah Saga continues, in response to Rabbi Wolf’s article responding to Rabbi Moskowitz’s article, Rabbi Meir Zirkind of Florida writes a letter addressing his disagreements with Rabbi Wolf and standing up for the Kavod of his father, the well-known Sofer, Rabbi Eliezer Zirkind.

    ***

    Written by Rabbi Meir Zirkind

    I would like to take issue with Rabbi Wolf on his contention that since the Mezuzos were Possul anyway, making any erasures would not be a Halachik issue. Here are some sources that disagree with such assertions:

    הרמב”ם בהלכות יסודי התורה פ”ו ה”ח “כתבי הקודש כולן ופירושיהן וביאוריהן אסור לשורפם או לאבדם ביד”? (ומש”כ שם בה”ה “שאר הכינויין.. הרי הן כשאר כתבי הקדש ומותר למוחקן” בוודאי משום איזה תיקון מותר למחוק, וכמש”כ ה”חינוך” במצוה תלז “שמותר למחקם לצורך שום דבר”). ב) בפתחי תשובה יו”ד סי’ רפג סק”ב כתב “וכתב עוד [בתשב”ץ ח”א ס”ב] דמה שנהגו המלמדים.. אף דכתבי הקודש אסור לאבדן ביד או למחקן.. ג) והוא העיקר, בזוהר חדש (בדפוס מונקאטש שנת תרע”א הוא בדף ח ע”ב) ס’ בראשית בסתרי אותיות כתוב “ואע”ג [דהכנויין] דנמחקין עם כל דא לא אתיהיב רשותא למחקא אפי’ אות זעירא דאורייתא”.

    While we’re at it, I would like to point out that the reason my father (Rabbi Zirkind A”H) would have Kashered the Zayin (perhaps other reasons as well) is because, as he used to say that, the Tzemach Tzedek holds that in order to invalidate a letter on account of it looking like another letter – it would have to look like that letter how it is to be written L’chatchila (in this case since this letter would no way look like a L’chatchila Vov, the Zayin can’t be invalidated on the fact that it looks like a Vov!). (I believe, but not sure, he’s referring to Tzemach Tzedek Orach Chaim Siman #18).

    Another point would be the Chof that has a semi-Okeiv (heel) that would have an issue of maybe looking like a Bais. For starters, I invite you to read all about this in ספר שערי קדושה in his margin comments to ספר מקראי קודש on the letter Kof #4 in the name of תשובת נטע שוריק סימן צ”ה. From there we may understand why the Alter Rebbe (in Siman 36, by the letter Kof) writes אבל אם עשה מלמטה ומלמעלה הרי זו דומה לב’ ופסולה he did not write that if only the bottom itself was square that it’s Possul. (Following the logic from the תשובת נטע שוריק it’s because the fact that Bais is square on top it is enough to prove that this (Kof) is not a Bais.)

    I am only commenting about these 2 questions because my father was dragged into these two issues.

    Bechlal, I wonder if Rabbi Wolf asked a Rov and Mashpia whether his approach was according to Halacha and Hashkofo. According to what it says in Shulchan Aruch Yore Dai’ah (Siman 64,21 also 119,16-18) the proper approach in such matters is not concurrent with what happened with these videos.

    Just my humble opinion.

    733

    Tags: ,

    Add Comment

    *Only proper comments will be allowed

    Related Posts:

    Rabbi Zirkind Addresses Mezuzah Claims



      Name*
      Email*
      Message