Joseph-
Please reread fakemavens comment. The fact is that rav aliyashiv was not mevarer the metzius, as he says himself in the mentiond letter. Secondly, one of his biggest talmidim, rav Carp, wears techeiles.
Gadolhadorah-
“To argue we should follow some practice because it is not forbidden and MAY have some redeeming spiritual value and/or provide some segulah is borderline “new age” hashkafah along the lines of the “healing” properties of certain crystals worn around your neck etc.”
Please think before you write. We are not dealing with a segulah only a mitzvah עשה דאורייתא, that predates the creation of the universe. As I wrote before there is a חשש ביטול מצוות עשה דאורייתא, and the isur of בל תגרע , so of course who doesn’t want to play it safe. Besides it almost ברור that we are dealing with the real thing. [let me just ask: how many esrogim do you use??]
Das yochid.-
The simanei Chazal are a strong argument pro the murex trunculus.
Apushita yid –
In the same vein we shouldn’t wear tefilin, there is also 4 shitos. [FYI: the Tur only brings down shitos tosafos, same with TAZ, and שו”ע הרב .]
Regarding the method of tying, its not מעכב.
Das yochid- please explain what do you see in the ישועות מלכו. You cauld have put up all 3 teshuvos?? [The murex is not a cuttlefish.]
Iacisrmma-
“thinker123: I think that is the point. We can find the chilazon but are we sure we know it is the correct species?”
I agree with you 100% what im saying is that we cant brush off the whole thing because we don’t have a mesorah what is the chilozan. If after a careful research we find it, we have to wear it.
Now back to ubiquitin
“Im not familiar with the Mahril you mention”
What?? Anyone who learnt a little about this topic would know it. So no, I’m not going to help you find it. Just learn about the topic before you write.
“Even if it exists. halcha isnt decided based on what the Mahril held. R’ Chaim Kanievsky said it wont be found until Moshiach comes”
Pardon me, I think that the maharil is bigger then rav chaim. Do you realize that the Mahril is usually the mesorah of Ashknaz? But its irrelevant, rav chaim told a lot of people, if you hold this is techeiles, you MUST go with it. So how could you bring as proof to your point. [as is known rav chaim has sedorim back to back, so no, he never went through this topic which is תלוי in a lot of things that are not בין כותלי הביהמ”ד]
“chas vesholam to be motzi laz on gnerations of kala Yisroel. They were yotzi the mitzva as am I.”
They were yotzah, of course. But now if we found the techeiles we are מחוייב to go with it. [“as I am” ??? who says you were??]
“The halacha is techeiles eino meakev as halavan.”
If you would learn the topic you would see that it has nothing to do with it. There are clear gemaras that we see the חוייב to go with techeiles if its obtainable. Besides I quoted clear sources who say what I mentioned. So “its not mine” either.
“Plus there are no sources that disagree. So who can?!!”
Ruba deruba of Gedolim can disagree both past and present
Very well, find me one who [went through the topic and] argues with them.
“Also see DY’s excellent source. thank you DY for supplying it.”
Nothing new, your just proving the point that you never went thru the topic at all.