April 27, 2011 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #1057457
Patur Aval Assur
As well as Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, the Roshei Yeshiva of Yeshivat Aderet Eliyahu (Zilberman’s), Rav Simcha Kook, and Rav Dr. Abraham J. Twerski.April 27, 2011 6:08 pm at 6:08 pm #1057458
Patur Aval Assur
Rav Scheinberg k`yeduah wears around 80 pears of tzitzis. Some of the 80 are techeiles.
Listen to the shiur yourself and see.April 27, 2011 7:04 pm at 7:04 pm #1057459
Actually there are numerous other gedolim and roshei yeshiva who wear techeiles. Many do it privately. For instance Rav Belsky shlita wears it only on shabbos when it’s covered by his bekisheh. There’s another famous rosh yeshiva who shall remain nameless who wears techeiles and but tucks it in and it was big hock when his shirt once got untucked and everyon found out. Full disclosure: I do not support techeiles (being that Rav Elyashiv and the general consensus of gedolim don not wear it – and it doesn’t matter one iota what their reason is, or if some am ha’aretz blogger disagrees or not) however I do support the truth.April 27, 2011 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #1057460
“Rav Scheinberg k`yeduah wears around 80 pears of tzitzis. Some of the 80 are techeiles”
How does that make sense? It’s tarti disasri. Mima nifshach it’s a problem. If the techeiles is real than on all the pairs which do not have techeiles, he would be subtracting a mitzva (i.e. ba’al tigra). And if it’s not real then all the pairs that have a blue string would be in violation of the Rema which I quoted earlier in this thread.April 27, 2011 7:47 pm at 7:47 pm #1057461
listen to the shiur at 53 minutest inApril 27, 2011 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #1057463
em even if you can name a Gadol who does wear techeiles (and I’d rather avoid the debate “who is a Gadol”), he is certainly batel b’shishim. /em
A gedol BATUL??? A gedol is a gedol, even when other gedolim disagree with him.
“the cheif rabbi (who then was actually a rabbi in Ireland) Reb Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog ZT”L.”
He was the Chief Rabbi of Ireland for about 20 years. The techelit research was done for his doctoral dissertation in chemistry prior to his appointment to that position. Rav Herzog z’tz’l was well respected by all, even those who did not choose to wear techelit.April 27, 2011 9:50 pm at 9:50 pm #1057464
charliehall: As a matter of fact, Rav Herzog started his doctoral research trying to corroborate the Radzyner techeles. He only came to the conclusion that the chilazon was the Murex later when his research uncovered the fact that the Radzyner was cheated by the chemist he worked with.
Patur aval assur: Those who wear techeles for the most part (Rav Schachter is an exception) hold that they are doing it to be yotze a safek. So, since “???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ” he can be yotze the safek without worrying about bal tigra on the other pairs.
BTW, anyone who claims to know why Rav Scheinberg wears so many pairs of tzitzis is just speculating. Two of his grandchildren have told me personally that he has never told anyone why.April 27, 2011 9:53 pm at 9:53 pm #1057465
I have seen and spoken to Rav Scheinberg, Rav Z N Goldberg, Rav Belsky and Rav Schachter and none of them were wearing techeiles.April 27, 2011 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm #1057466
charlie: Actually, bitul is learned from ???? ???? ?????, the same pasuk that teaches us to follow a majority in Beis Din. The overwhelming majority of Gedolim certainly do NOT wear or endorse wearing what is called techeiles today.April 28, 2011 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #1057468
If its true that Rav Belsky wears techeiles but doesn’t want anyone to know, this indicates he has his own reasons for wearing it but doesn’t think anyone else should follow him.April 29, 2011 12:02 am at 12:02 am #1057469
I’ll ask next time I see him.April 29, 2011 3:43 am at 3:43 am #1057470
According thh shiur I quoted before, Rav Belskey told his sons not to wear it.June 23, 2011 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #1057471
If Rav Belsky only wears techeiles on shabbos when no one can see it because he doesn’t want people to know that he wears it, it kind of defeats the purpose because now everyone knows anywayJune 23, 2011 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #1057472
ItcheSrulik – It is very possible that Rav Scheinberg has mentioned that it is to be Yotze all shitos. His grandchildren may have just meant that has never told anyone why he took this stringent practice on himself.June 23, 2011 5:01 pm at 5:01 pm #1057473
it is equally possible that Rabbi Scheinberg didnt actually say anything at all and it was actually a ventriloquist in the closet.June 23, 2011 5:18 pm at 5:18 pm #1057474
equally? I dont think so. Maybe you meant also possible.June 23, 2011 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #1057475
youre right, ill change it if you want. but ill have to also remove the ‘very” from your post, let me know.June 23, 2011 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #1057476
It wouldn’t make sense to wear many pairs of tzitzis to be yotzei according to all shitos because if you wear 80 pairs that are each according to a different shita then you are wearing 79 4 cornered garments without the proper tzitzis which entails a violation of a mitzvas aseh for each one.June 23, 2011 5:44 pm at 5:44 pm #1057477
Mod – no just remove your ‘equally’. It is nonsensical. My ‘very’ is at worst a little exaggerated.June 23, 2011 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm #1057478
Hey mods – as we’re chatting – perhaps you can give me a nice subtitle?June 23, 2011 9:53 pm at 9:53 pm #1057479
The Radziner has the siyata that the cuttlefish is actually blue (when it feels like it) and it also undulates with the water, so it is domeh layam in two respects that the murex cant, though they are both mollusks, the cuttle fish is also, more “like a fish” than the snail.
On the down side, the blood or body fluid of the chilazon is supposded to be black,( or what the Rambam means by “shachor”) which neither the octopus or the snail present.
There are also some indications that both camps have the color wrong. If kale ilan is a reasonable look alike, than techeles should be the color of, pardon the expression, brand new, unwashed blue jeans.
For talis shekula techeles, you can’t make the strings black, because THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE TECHELES. (hilchos tzizis bet/chet)
The bottom line, is that while it is hard to figure what the Rambam means with the firmament reference, the plain havana is that the color is really dark blue, diluted from a black/blue fish juice, and the processing is only to make it color fast. A really dark purple might also fit, but not the milky bladder juice of the snail nor the sepia brown of the cuttlefish whose must color change in essence,through elaborate chemical processes.
In Medrash Tanchuma on Shlach, the techles is called ganuz. Not lost, but hidden, taken away for time unspecified. As we will not find the aron, the ketores, the other kelim, we will not find the blue juiced blue fish untill it is revealed in its right time, and we are restored to our destiny.June 24, 2011 12:13 am at 12:13 am #1057480
“In Medrash Tanchuma on Shlach, the techles is called ganuz. Not lost, but hidden, taken away for time unspecified. As we will not find the aron, the ketores, the other kelim, we will not find the blue juiced blue fish untill it is revealed in its right time, and we are restored to our destiny.”
look in the sefer Sefunei Temunei Chol (written by the Radzyner Rebbe) where he refutes that claim.June 24, 2011 3:26 am at 3:26 am #1057481
twisted: One of the major points in favor of the Murex techeles is that it is the exact color of the indigo plant that is still used for most blue jeans. If you see a difference between the two it’s solely in the strength of the dye, not the actual pigment. In fact, the pigment in Murex techeles is the same compound as the pigment in kele ha’ilan. (BTW, I do have a pair of jeans that is the same shade as my techeles.)June 24, 2011 4:16 am at 4:16 am #1057482
“One of the major points in favor of the Murex techeles is that it is the exact color of the indigo plant…In fact, the pigment in Murex techeles is the same compound as the pigment in kele ha’ilan.”
Not only is this point not in favor of Murex techeiles, it is a tremendous kashya on it. As I so aptly wrote earlier in this thread:
“The gemara gives chemical tests that can distinguish between real techeiles and kala ilan. Now if they were chemically identical then no test would be able to distinguish between them.”June 24, 2011 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm #1057483
“So, since “???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ” he can be yotze the safek without worrying about bal tigra on the other pairs.”
???? ???? ???? ?? ???? merely means that in the absence of techeiles you still wear white tzitzis. It is not however, a heter to not use techeiles if you do have the opportunity to do so.June 24, 2011 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #1057484
why do people post opinions on complex halachic matters when they so clearly lack even a basic fundemental undertanding and knowledge of the relevant halachic principlesJune 24, 2011 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm #1057485
well klach, thats a problem
the only available solution at this time is for posters like you to continue to point out the Halachic principles, frustrating and time consuming as it is.June 24, 2011 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #1057486
Rav Henoch Leibowitz ZT”L said one of the fundamental seforim that every jewish guy must must learn is the mishna berurah – he must know it cold and well.June 24, 2011 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm #1057487
“Rav Henoch Leibowitz ZT”L said one of the fundamental seforim that every jewish guy must must learn is the mishna berurah – he must know it cold and well.”
I think every gadol in the world would concur with that.June 24, 2011 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm #1057488
1. the test on kla ilan and techailes is actually a raya to the murux. Because if the gemara says you need a chemical test pashtus that means it was a different color or it means all the tanaim and amaroim were color blind. NOw the chiluk between kla ilan and the murex that if you put them in bleach the klah ilan will loose its color quickly, while the murex after a few months will still not loose its color. The gemara says the chemicaL test will make the kla ilan loose its color.
2. About it being nignaz, this was said by R yose and ameimar ( close to 300-400 years later) had techailes. So go figure.June 24, 2011 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #1057489
“Because if the gemara says you need a chemical test pashtus that means it was a different color or it means all the tanaim and amaroim were color blind.”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding you but logically (and logic seems to be very sparse in the CR) the neccessity of a chemical test would mean that they were the same color. If they were different colors then you wouldn’t need a test – you could just look what color it is. Now it happens to be that the test that the murex trunculus passed is the same test that plant indigo passed and it seems to be agreed upon that plant indigo is kala ilan. So clearly the test is being done wrong.June 24, 2011 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #1057491
sorry you are right I meant the same color. so now try putting it in bleach they ARE the same color, but the bleach will remove the kla ilan dye in a matter of hours and it will not effect the murex.
so yes they are chemically equivalent but the dye from the kla ilan does not stay on as long. try the test yourself.June 24, 2011 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #1057492
The fact that kala ilan comes off with bleach does not prove anything(other then that kala ilan is not techeiles which we already knew). The tests spoken of in the gemara and brought down by the Rambam do not involve bleach. Kala ilan passed the gemara’s test. Which either means that the test is being done wrong or that plant indigo is in fact techeiles. Clearly the latter cannot be true. Therefore, we must assume that we don’t know how to correctly utilize the gemara’s test which means that we cannot prove from the test that murex trunculus is the chilazon. Now the reason why kala ilan and murex trunculus both pass the test is that they are chemically identical. Presumably then, there is no chemical test that can differentiate between them. Therefore the mere fact that the gemara mentions a chemical test that can differentiate between them would seem to indicate that murex trunculus is not the chilazon.December 24, 2011 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1057493
I clarified with a Talmid that Rav Belsky does now encourage people to wear Techeiles. However, for personal reasons he continues to only do so on Shabbos, when it is not seen.December 25, 2011 12:35 am at 12:35 am #1057494
So do many great rabbis. I know a guy who put together a whole list of rabbanim. I am just not sure if they want it to be publicized but from what I hear a large percentage of rabbanim (besides for me) wear btzineh.December 25, 2011 12:50 am at 12:50 am #1057495
And once this thread is brought up I guess I should respond to Patur aval assur.
They are chemically identical in color. but the chemical that comes from the Murux has a stronger cleavage and will stay on stronger. THe kla ilan should be easier to wash off. Now the gemara gives us a test that should make the kla ilan should come off. But it doesn’t. So this is not a question on the techeiles but a question on kla ilan. But what i am prooving from the bleach is that there still is a chiluk between kla ilan and the murex in the strenth of the dye.December 25, 2011 2:39 am at 2:39 am #1057496
I did not see this thread before, but Rav Schachter holds that since we have the real Techeilis nowadays it’s better to not wear Tzitzis at all than to wear Tzitzis without Techeiles. He says there is an Issur D’Oraisa of Bal Tigrah if you don’t wear Techeiles.December 25, 2011 2:42 am at 2:42 am #1057497
I wear tzitzis without tcheiles, because that is what my rebbeim say to do.
All the rest is commentary.
Sam: what is bal tigrah?December 25, 2011 2:52 am at 2:52 am #1057498
PBA: The Issur of removing a Mitzvah from the Torah. Rav Schachter holds like the Rashba that this is accomplished by being Yotzei any Mitzvah but not doing it Bishleimuso Mid’oraisa.December 25, 2011 2:55 am at 2:55 am #1057499
Ah. I see. ?? ????? ????December 25, 2011 2:55 am at 2:55 am #1057500
the gemora says godol onsho shel lovon meonsho shel techeiles, meaning there is a bigger onesh if you do not wear lavan than not to wear techeiles ( which is mashma there is an onesh for not wearing techeiles) so i have a very hard time understanding Rav Shachter’s psak.December 25, 2011 2:57 am at 2:57 am #1057501
Sam: Did the rashba not wear tzitzis?
Also, didn’t we lose the tcheiles like a really long time ago, and we’ve been wearing tzitzis the whole time?
Also, wouldn’t that mean that he would still hold it is assur unless we were sure that this stuff was really tcheiles?December 25, 2011 3:01 am at 3:01 am #1057502
PBA: There was no Bal Tigrah when it was impossible to wear Techeilis. Or there was, but that’s an Ones. He says that since we have it now the Bal Tigrah goes back into effect. He is sure it’s really Techeiles.
Chacham: He will tell you (I presume) that that is referring to when Techeiles is not available.December 25, 2011 3:03 am at 3:03 am #1057503
My rebbeim still say to not wear it. So, ?? ??? ?? ??? ????December 25, 2011 3:27 am at 3:27 am #1057504
Gemara in Menochos 43b
???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????
Rashi says ???? ????? ??
???. ??? ????? ???? ?????
Mashma when someone is wearing neither he is oiver
Rambam in tzitzis 2:9
??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????:
it is mashma we are talking about when both are available.December 25, 2011 3:53 am at 3:53 am #1057505
I will put on a pair as soon as my rav does. I almost bought a pair years ago, and was talked out of it.December 25, 2011 4:52 am at 4:52 am #1057506
Jothar- where you convinced out of it for a problem with the murux or just because your rabbi does not wear?December 25, 2011 2:33 pm at 2:33 pm #1057507
“They are chemically identical in color. but the chemical that comes from the Murux has a stronger cleavage and will stay on stronger.”
I’m not sure what that means. I assume chemically identical means the same chemicals.
” Now the gemara gives us a test that should make the kla ilan should come off. But it doesn’t. So this is not a question on the techeiles but a question on kla ilan.”
Actually it would prove that they are doing the test wrong.
” but Rav Schachter holds that since we have the real Techeilis nowadays it’s better to not wear Tzitzis at all than to wear Tzitzis without Techeiles.”
You first have to prove that it is the real techeiles.
” But what i am prooving from the bleach is that there still is a chiluk between kla ilan and the murex in the strenth of the dye.”
As far as I know the Gemara’s test does not mention anything about bleach.December 25, 2011 4:37 pm at 4:37 pm #1057508
Patur -welcome back
Chemically Identical in what color it is. It is the exact color of the indigo. I do not know chemistry but the way someone explained it to me is that there is something in the chilazon that when mixed with purpurase which has some sort of reaction with the air that causes the dye to stick. Now Kla Ilan has the same purpurase stuff just the other chemicals are slightly different. To proove that they are different i can tell you that they show differences when exposed to bleach. NOw regarfing the gemaras test that does not work means we either are doing the test wrong or maybe nishtanu hateva or maybe they make the kla ilan differently these days. I don’t know. But it does not say anything about the techeles being that even if you think the murux is not the techeles we still know this is the kla ilan.
NOw there is evidence that the murux was used as a dye 2000 years ago from digging things up. So if the gemara goes out of its way to tell us that there is something identical why does it only mention the indigo and omit completely the murux which was used in those days and is the exact same color?December 25, 2011 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #1057509
Also there is definitely very strong evidence that this is the real chilazon. HOw about you researching it yourself. Ask me any problem you have with the evidence. Go ahead.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.