Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

  • This topic contains 736 replies, has 66 voices, and was last updated by  twisted 2 years ago.
Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 738 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1057678

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “I looked up the Chazon Nachum. I didn’t see anywhere in that piece that he said that techeiles is blue.”

    ?”? the reason why he learns the ?”? ??????? says the body is green, is because the dye cannot be green as it is blue.

    “Furthermore he is a daas yachid saying ????”

    The point is he doesn’t think it’s ???? the ???? of ???? ???. Obviously he’s saying ???? how can he know for sure the color of the Chilazon? Nor can we call him a daas yochid if you don’t know of anyone who argues in him.

    “and is against a valid girsa of the Rambam”

    How can it be a valid girsa of the Rambam? we have the Rambam’s ??? ?? ???? signed in the ??? ????? on the other girsa.

    “as well as the mashmaos of the Gemara in Menachos. So I’m not so nispael from your raya.”

    Ok, so not only are you ignoring everything we wrote above proving that it’s not a ???? from the Gemara in Menachos, but you are arguing on the Chazon Nachum who was the ??? ???? ??????? and a rebbe of the Chida.

    “I’m not sure what your point is that you need strong rayos to change a girsa. If anything that’s better for me.”

    You can’t change a Girsa *MiSvara* w/o strong Ra’yos. But if you have 2 different versions why is one better than the other. ??? ????? you’ll find this in all the ???????.

    “What does ???? mean?”

    ??’ ????’ ???? ??: ?”? ????? ?????, ??’ ?????

    ‘???? ?? ??? ????,?? ??”? ???”? ??”? ??? ?, ??? ??’

    ?????? ???? )?? ????”? ??”?, ??”? ?????; ???’ ??? ????? ??’

    ? ??? ? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? “??? ???? ???? ????? ???

    ]????[ ????? ????? ??? ?????”

    #1057679

    Chacham
    Participant

    patur- yes yam is obviously being used for green as in yam domeh lasavim. So why does the braisa say domeh lyam? maybe for the aggadita like rashi says ???? ???. ????? ?? ???? ??????: However, the rambam and meseches tzitzis are gores ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ??? ???? ?????

    #1057680

    twisted
    Participant

    <what is yarok> Rashi on Hullin 47b (colors of the lung) ‘green but not like grass, …..rather like kashos (hops?)… carcom (saffron or turmeric), like egg…(from pale yellow to blue)

    The conclusion of the gemara there is that yarok for lung is k’karti. If this is the leek, leek leaves are dark blue-green at the top. This is relevant the the requirement of misheyakir- between techels and karti a close match.

    As for the matching of the vegetative matter of the Mishna to that of today, if you don’t hold by Dr. Felix, there is the Chazon Ish in the Igros that states that the kezayit and barley weight shiurim were given as plant products that would be everywhere in every time, regardless of the changes of size due to passage of time change of place or climate

    #1057681

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I am very confused. A minute ago you were saying that ???? means blue. If that is true then the Chazon Nachum should not have had a kashya that the die has to be blue not green. And if you changed your mind and now claim that ???? means green, then Rashi apparently holds that the die is green, and why did the Chazon Nachum not have the same kashya on Rashi?

    #1057682

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So l’shitascha that ???? means blue the Chazon Nachum is a kashya on you because he is saying that the body of the chilazon is blue. Which is not true by the Murex Trunculus.

    #1057683

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur Aval Assur-

    I’m sorry for not being clear, ???? means both green and blue (see ?????? in my last post and ???”? ????????? ?”? ??’ ????).

    Interestingly, the African Himba tribe don’t have a word to differentiate between blue and green and they actually have a hard(er) time differentiating between the 2. Whereas they have a separate word for a certain green to which they have an easier time differentiating in practice.

    Now we can understand how can easily be both blue and green can be ???? if ???? was one word used for both colors, and the Chazon nachum is not ???? the ????.

    #1057684

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I still don’t understand. Rashi and ?”? ??????? say the same thing. So why are we assuming that Rashi meant blue yet ?”? ??????? meant green? We should either assume that they both meant blue, in which case the Chazon Nachum would not have a kashya. Or we should assume that they both meant green, in which case techeiles should be green.

    #1057685

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Rashi says ???? but ?”? ??????? says ???? ?????? ???”?

    #1057686

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    That doesn’t explain how you know that Rashi didn’t also mean green.

    #1057687

    zvei dinim
    Member

    It explains how we don’t know that Rashi held it IS green. Also see Rashi Sof Shelach ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???.

    #1057688

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The Chazon Nachum quotes the Mileches Shlomo who quotes ?”? ??????? that it’s ???? ?????? ???”?. The Chazon Nachum does not quote the very next words of the Mileches Shlomo where he quotes the Even Ezra who also says ????. It is abundantly clear that the Even Ezra is talking about the dye not the chilazon. If the Mileches Shlomo quoted these two pshatim one after the other, obviously (at least according to the Mileches Shlomo) they are referring to the same thing. It would be rather presumtuous to claim that one is referring to the chilazon and the other is referring to the actual Techeiles. Furthermore, why would a Mefaresh tell us what color the chilazon is which has absolutely no relvance to the Mishna at hand. Finally, The Chazon Nachum’s ketzas kashya is based on a Tosfos which uses a different ??”? word. Now unless you can prove that both Rashi and the Even Ezra (and any other Rishon that may have used the word ????)meant blue, then it’s not a kashya on ?”? ???????. And the Chazon Nachum answers that it seems that he must have been talking about the chilazon and he knew the color of the chilazon from Sod Hashem L’yrayav.

    In summary: The Chazon Nachum seems to be arguing with the Mileches Shlomo, based on a question that does not seem so compelling*, and in order to make sense out of it is mechadesh that Hashem revealed the color of the chilazon to ?”? ???????. I don’t know if that is a “wipe away all opposition” source.

    *obviously I am only using such a lashon to make my point, and should not chas v’shalom in any way be construed as a lack of respect and awe for gedolei hameforshim.

    #1057689

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Also keep in mind that the “eleven lines prior” is not part of the argument. The gemara which brings different braisos for different reasons. The inyan of ???? ????? came from ??? ????? ?? ???. Now why should we cut out part of a Braisa?

    In addition the 1st braisa says

    ???? ??? ?’ ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????

    which is obviously a much higher ???? of ????. It has to be different than everything else in that sense.”

    I don’t have the slightest idea what this is supposed to mean. Care to explain?

    #1057690

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Furthermore, it is clear that there is a machlokes as to the color of techeiles: Rashi and various others say that Techeiles is ???? ????? yet the Kli Yakar says clearly that it is not ???? ?????. (Unless you somehow claim that they are talking about two different ????s which would seem unlikely.

    #1057691

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Also see Rashi in Chullin (47b s.v.??????) where he differentiates between ???? and ????. (I’m not saying that this means that ???? can’t mean blue, I am merely showing that Rashi knew of the word ???? and that there are definitely times that ???? means green, therefore it would be odd for him to describe Techeiles as ???? if he meant blue.)

    #1057692

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    And according to the Kli Yakar it also would seem that Techeiles is not blue, because he holds that it’s not ???? to the throne of glory.

    #1057693

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur Aval Assur-

    Your right ????? ???? didn’t learn ??”? like ???? ????.

    “why would a Mefaresh tell us what color the chilazon is which has absolutely no relvance to the Mishna at hand.”- Good point but it’s that shver to go off on a tangent and add a ???? about the ?????, like ??”? in ??? ?? ?”?:

    “??? ????? – ????? ????? ????, ???? ???? ?? ???, ????? ??? ?????? “.??? Also, it highlights ???? ???? ????? being that ???? ???? ???.

    “Now unless you can prove that both Rashi and the Even Ezra (and any other Rishon that may have used the word ????)meant blue, then it’s not a kashya on ?”? ???????.”

    “In summary: The Chazon Nachum seems to be arguing with the Mileches Shlomo, based on a question that does not seem so compelling*, and in order to make sense out of it is mechadesh that Hashem revealed the color of the chilazon to ?”? ???????. I don’t know if that is a “wipe away all opposition” source.”

    ?”? ?????? . ?????

    #1057694

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “I don’t have the slightest idea what this is supposed to mean. Care to explain?”

    The fact that ???? ??? is used for different colors in 2 different ??????? is not made more shver by the fact that they’re 11 lines appart. Both braisos were said at different times in different contexts. The fact that they happen to share the same ???? is not a reason for the ?? ??? to cut and change one of those ??????? so they should be match each other.

    #1057695

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The fact that they are eleven lines apart was not part of the raya. It was merely for dramatic effect. My point was that we see that both Techeiles and the Chilazon are ???? ??? and the braisos are obviuosly not arguing about the color of techeiles, the chilazon, or the ??, and there is no reason to assume that the two braisos are using the word ?? to mean two different things (other rhen the fact that you want it to fit with the murex trunculus).

    #1057696

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I agree that the Chazon Nachum does not think that green is a stirah to ???? ???. But that is a chiddush which other meforshim may not agree with. And this is all besides for the fact that the actual murex trunculus isn’t even green.

    #1057697

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    What do you mean know one knows what the Ibn Ezra meant? And who cares that the yam shel shlomo was not such a fan of him? The rambam clearly was. But then again, the Yam shel shlomo had what to say about the Rambam also. Maybe we don’t know if the Ibn Ezra meant green or blue, but that is largely irrelevant. I brought in the Ibn Ezra to prove that according to the Mileches Shlomo, ?”? ??????? was not talking about the chilazon but rather about techeiles. Which means that there is definitely a shita that techeiles is not blue. That being the case, it could very well be that Rashi and the Ibn Ezra (and others) subscribe to such a shita.

    #1057698

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Also it seems from the Yam shel Shlomo that you could change a girsa misvara.

    #1057699

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “You’re right ????? ???? didn’t learn ??”? like ???? ????.”

    Not necessarily. It is possible that ??”? is saying pshat in ???” ???? ????”. I.e. he is saying that when the mishna says ???? it means chilazon. Then it could be that the ????? ???? agrees that ??”? is talking about the color of the body. This would also resolve the relevance issue.

    #1057700

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “Rashi knew of the word ???? and that there are definitely times that ???? means green, therefore it would be odd for him to describe Techeiles as ???? if he meant blue.”

    The answer is ???? wasn’t a used word and Rashi uses a simple and understood Hebrew. Rishonim who say ???? is blue don’t use the word ???? (besides Rambam who explains himself).

    ????? ???? ?? ????”? ??”? ??”? ?????

    already says Rashi means blue.

    See ??? ????? ??’ ? ??? ?

    ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? “??? ???? ???? ????? ??”?

    “????? ????? ??? ?????

    w/o using the word ????.

    #1057701

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “The answer is ???? wasn’t a used word and Rashi uses a simple and understood Hebrew.”

    It was a used word – that’s what I showed from Chullin. And ???? is very vague to use to describe Techeiles as blue, considering it can mean other colors as well.

    “Rishonim who say ???? is blue don’t use the word ???? (besides Rambam who explains himself).”

    Which Rishonim?

    “See ??? ????? ??’ ? ??? ?

    ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? “??? ???? ???? ????? ??”?

    “????? ????? ??? ?????

    w/o using the word ????”

    That’s not a raya considering that he explains what he means by ????.

    #1057702

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “t is clear that there is a machlokes as to the color of techeiles: Rashi and various others say that Techeiles is ???? ????? yet the Kli Yakar says clearly that it is not ???? ?????.”

    ??? ??? is actually saying over ??”? ???? ?”? ?”?.

    In addition to your claim “Rashi knew of the word ????”, it doesn’t seem ???? was a color but a colorant, therefore there was no word for blue other than ????.

    “But that is a chiddush which other meforshim may not agree with.”

    I went to great length to show you it’s not a chidush, tell me what’s shver and i’ll explain. Besides you can’t just w/o basis reject a ???? ???? based on “maybe someone who we didn’t find yet might argue.”

    “And this is all besides for the fact that the actual murex trunculus isn’t even green.” The green is stuck on to it, how else should you describe it?! I the ?? ???? colored?

    See ??”? ??”? ?-?

    ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ????

    How can something be called ???? if it’s only a coating that can be washed off and not ???? ?????

    “who cares that the yam shel shlomo was not such a fan of him?”

    It was a reference to “?? ??? ??? ??????”, being that the ??? ???? was coming from Chazal on this point, there’s no reason to count him against the ???? ????? on this point. The “letter from the Rambam” (besides for being ????? ?????) is referring to pshat not ?????.

    “it is possible that ??”? is saying pshat in ???” ???? ????”. I.e. he is saying that when the mishna says ???? it means chilazon.”

    Then he’d clearly be arguing on the Rishonim and ???? ????? ??????.

    #1057703

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “It was a used word – that’s what I showed from Chullin.”

    The opposite, Rashi in chulin is explaining what ???? means, Rashi dose that for rare words.

    “???? is very vague to use to describe Techeiles as blue, considering it can mean other colors as well.”

    Find me a word for blue!

    “Which Rishonim?”

    ??”? ??????, ?’ ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??’ ?????, ????”? ????”? ????? ? ?, ????? ???? ????? ?: ???? ???”?, ????? ???? ???? ?? -?, ??????? ?? ?? ?, ???”? ???? ?-?-?, ????”? ????????? ?”? ??’ ????, ???? ????.

    “That’s not a raya considering that he explains what he means by ????.”

    It shows that the generic word to describe blue was ????.

    #1057704

    Chacham
    Participant

    For a full huge overdone maaracha on the color and the shitah of rashi and why rashi does not write ???? see Kuntreis Chosem Shel zahav ‘??? ??. He also brings over 15 rishonim who hold clearly it is blue (many of them who always will quote shitas rashi if they argue yet none of them do). the kuntreis can easily be found with a quick search.

    #1057705

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    4) The Midrash says that the ?? is ???? ?????? and there is a girsa that Techeiles is ???? ??????.

    7) Everything would work out if Techeiles was green (or turquoise). It could fit into ???? ???. It would fit into ???? ??????. And then you could even claim that the Murex Trunculus is ???? ???.

    #1057706

    zvei dinim
    Member

    That would be equally shver if Rashi meant green. Also, only unambiguous Rishonim were quoted above so you can’t extrapolate based on that sample. ???? was a wide-ranging color (African tribes who still only have one word for green and blue have a hard time differentiating between both colors), you want Rashi give you the specific shade, ??? ???? ???.

    Besides, being that 15 other Rishonim say it’s blue it doesn’t really make a difference l’gabay the color of tcheiles, I’m just explaining Chazon Nachum.

    Remember this p’shat in Rashi is from ????? ???? and others, not myself.

    Ask anyone who speaks Spanish or Portuguese to translate green.

    “So it seems that there is a non-blue shita out there.” Your saying the ????? ???? argues with ??”? on the interpretation of ??”?, we agreed about that before, what’s your point?

    3) “Many of the rayos to blue mentioned in the chosam shel zahav were based on the fact that ???? is ???? ???” I can talk for the ones I brought above, they don’t come on to ??.

    5) There are different levels of ???? see ??? ??? above. Also it’s a ???? and there can be a reason it mentions each one see ??? ??? ????? ?”? ?”?. There can be no disagreement as to the exact color of Techeiles as we know it’s 100% identical to ??? ???? – indigo dye.

    8)”you cannot play both sides of the fence regarding ???? ???”

    We already showed how the ???? ???? dose take both sides of your arbitrary fence.

    We brought the ??? ??? ?? ?? who writes “???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????’ ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??

    ??.” It follows that two different things can be ???? ???.

    We brought the ???? ?????? which says “??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????..”. The Rishonim who understand techeiles to mean blue, obviously understand that ???? ??? encompasses blue and green.

    We showed from the African Himba that our modern English vocabulary gives us a bias to divide between different types of ????.

    We pointed out that there are many similar ????? in ??”? which describe natural phenomenon in ways we wouldn’t.

    Also the itself can be green or blue, the Chilazon is underwater and ???? ??? is likely to mean the ?? around it.

    Patur Aval Asur is it so bad thing if Hashem actually sent us techeiles?

    #1057707

    Chacham
    Participant

    sbepth- if you are still around.

    Regarding my raya from the case of rosh hashana to which you wrote “This as I understand it has nothing to with Reb Chaim. If i have ??? if there is a Esrog in a certain place I need to go find out since I might fulfill my mitzvah 100 percent.”

    It could be I am a little late but I saw the magen avraham in ???? says that even if the safek shofar is in a place that they only know seder echad (ie they don’t know how to do a teruah) we still say safek deoraysa lchumra. In this case you do not know if you were vadai yotzei. I know it is not as strong as I originally wrote because it is only from a magen avraham and not a gemara. And yes patur, I know that your chiluk still applies here.

    #1057708

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ???? is more of a normal word to describe green.

    According to this logic every sea creature is ???? ???.

    #1057709

    sbeph
    Participant

    To me the Rayah is a good proof though I think it was mentioned earlier. Reb Shlomo Miller in the second Teshuva on the topic though mentions a similar proof regarding bentching if one only know the first ????. He then says that it doesn’t prove anything though I don’t really understand the reason he writes.

    #1057710

    sbeph
    Participant

    I didn’t ever go through the whole forum and maybe someone raised this topic but something bothers me. Honestly I’m tempted to wear a pair of Techeles in private. (Im not interested in discussing why not in public) But it really seems strange to do such a thing though some people mentioned they do that. A much bigger issue of “getting the ????” of Techeiles is the fact that if you don’t have ????? on your ????? and you could, you really are probably being ???? an ???. (Not to get into all that Lomdus). Well if Im ????? the ????? enough to wear it to maybe get a ???? i better be ready then to put it on all my four cornered garments. Rather I feel it would be a lot less hypocritical to just say I’m following a ??? not to wear it and be done with it.

    #1057711

    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: Doesn’t the Magen Avraham hold like R’ Hai? So it could be he only says that because you’d still be Yotzei Mid’oraisa, and not just a Safek if you’re Yotzei Mid’oraisa.

    #1057712

    Chacham
    Participant

    “???? is more of a normal word to describe green.”

    That still does not prove that it necessarily means green and does not mean blue.

    That is exactly what Rav herzog said. see ?’ ???”? ?????? ?”? ??’ ?? and rav Tuccashinsky accepted that. IT does sound like that it was hard for Rav Hezog to get his hands on.

    ”According to this logic every sea creature is ???? ???.”

    No. Not every creature picks up the growth around it. It depends on other factors ????? ????? ( ??’ 295) ????

    ???? ?? ????? “? ????????? ,” ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? . (???? ??? ??? ???? ???”? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ???, ?? ?????

    ???????? ??? ???? ???). ??”? ?? ?? ??? ????, ?????? ???? ????????

    ?????.

    #1057713

    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2- after looking it up again The machatzis hashekel DOES sound like you but the Pri megadim not. And see also the Pri megadim pesicha koleles (back of chelek 1 page ???? in the bahir) chelek 4 ois 13 (kdai to see inside)

    #1057714

    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: I’ll take a look at the P”M when I get a chance. I just remember thinking that the M”A held that way when I learned him on Hilchos R”H. I don’t know what others say on him. (I didn’t learn those Halachos so well so I could be mixing things up.)

    #1057715

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur Aval Asur-

    “???? is more of a normal word to describe green”

    You’re again basing yourself on modern usage. ??? ???? is not green (see ??? ??? ?”? ????’ ???”? ???”? ??).

    Ok, so there’s a ?????? if maybe an Acharon holds it’s green. That doesn’t carry weight against the Mesorah ??? ?????? ????? that ???? is blue, geonim, all (or almost all) Rishonim, scores of Acharonim, ????? ??????, ????? ?????, Philo and Josephus who himself saw the ???? ?????.

    I wrote “Also the itself can be green or blue” I meant to write “Also the ?? itself can be green or blue” so obviously both are ???? ???.

    ???? ??? ???????? there’s the 2 latest ???? ??????? have allot

    about this shaila and there’s an Igros Moshe that says ??? ???????? ?????? for Tefilin that’s ??? ???? where you don’t have another pair.

    I think murex is a ???? so it’s not ???? ????? here.

    #1057716

    vochindik
    Member

    The Arizal says that techeiles only applies during the days of the Bais Hamikdahs. Rav Elyashev shlita wrote a lengthy, as-yet unpublished teshuva (as far as I know) about today’s techeiles to Rav Feivel Cohen, explaining at leangth why we do not use it. The Arizal is one of the reasons he brings.

    The Arizal is difficult to understand: what does the bais hamikdash have to do with techeiles? There is an explanation on this by the Satmar Rav ZTL: Chazal say that the value of the techeiles color is that “techeiles is similar to the sea, which is similar to the sky, which is similar to Hashem’s throne of glory.” But Chazal also say that “since the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed, the sky has not been seen in its pure color”. Ergo: Techeiles is no longer “similar to the sky” and therefore no longer similar to Hashems “throne of glory” after the churban.

    As for the YU rabbis and the rest, Rav Elyashev said they’re wrong. And he, being much greater than all of those Rabbis, says its useless to wear the Techeiles, meaning, no, don’t follow their example.

    For the record, one of those modern rabbis is going around dismissing the Arizal because some sages in the Gemora after the churban worse techeiles. The fact that they use such reasoning – that the Arizal doesnt count based on what you see in the Gemora – is itself a reason not to follow them. We cant dismiss the words of the Arizal because we think we know better. Just because they cant think of an asnwer to the Arizal doesnt mean someone else cant. Bishvil kushya lo yishtaneh hadin – the Halachah doesnt change because you dont understand it.

    (And even were we to accept their challenge to the Arizal, it is satisfactorily answered, as per above. So no more problem with the Arizal and the Gemora.)

    Rav Shach ZTL writes regarding a certain issue, that if the Chazon Ish didnt think there is any reason to do it, and that doing it doesn’t benefit you in any way, someone who thinks he knows better “needs bedikah”. The same thing applies here. If Rav Elyashev, after hearing the case for techeiles, said theres no reason to wear it, and more, that we should not, because Klall Yisroel throughout the generations apprently ruled like the Arizal, then we dont do it. (And its not as if these rabbis have any reason why we should not follow the Arizal – as I said, their “problem” with the Gemora is quite answerable).

    If you want chumras, the Chazon Ish has a strong case for prohibiting using nails in your sukkah; a strong case exists for not opening and closing your refrigerator on shabbos; some people hold you are not allwoed to wear glasses outdoors on shabbos.

    If you really want to take on an important halachic behavior, follow Rabbeinu Tam’s shitah of Motzoi Shabbos – there you have the majority of Rishonim, plus the shulchan aruch, holding that if you end shabbos with the “early zman” you are a mechalel shabbos.

    Let’s get a perspective here.

    If you want to take on chumras, at least take on those which make much more halachic sense. A good way to tell which are which, is to follow the lead of the great Gedolei Yisroel, those with the proper Yiras Shamayim and Torah perspective. And thats excactly what Rav Elyashev is saying — believe me, he is more religious than you or I, and he is much more careful about violating and minotiry shitos. This techeiles thing was not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of our leaders. If you want to take on chumras, start with those that are not really chumras – first get rid of your kulos; then take on the chumras that are more halachicly weighty than this.

    Here is a small, starting-out “Action plan” for you of behaviors that are more halachicly well-founded than the case for Techeiles. Some of them are things that you should actually be doing, as oppsoed to relying on minority opinions or precarious heteirim. Others are things that we apprently should be doing, but we dont simply because of historical precedent, even though we dont clearly understand the heter not to; still others are the opinions of some poskim, while others disagree.

    1) Wait 72 minutes before you end Shabbos

    2) Dont eat chodosh

    3) Dont let your wife wear transparent stockings

    4) Do Birkas Kohanim every day, even in Chutz Laaretz

    5) Do hagbaah before leining also

    6) Wash for a davar shetivulo b’mashkeh

    7) Specifically designate 2 witnesses by the badeken, like you do under the chupah

    8) Wear a talis, even if you are not married

    9) Dont use nails to support the walls of your sukkah

    10) Dont let anybody Jewish use your credit card except you

    11) Dont return something to a Jewish vendor for a refund, even if it was bought with a satisfaction-guaranteed, money-back deal.

    12) In fact, dont even buy something with a 30-day (or whatever) satisfaction guaranteed or your money back deal.

    My list is only the beginning, only a small moshol. We’re talking about an entire lifestyle that you are not living. Unless, you are one of the Gedolie Hador, and even then, Rav Elyashev doesnt think the case for techeiles is valid enough for him to worry about it.

    #1057717

    vochindik
    Member

    The Chida writes that sometimes the Yetzer Horah convicnes us to do a good thing. He has his reasons – maybe he wants us to become baalei gaavah, or maybe he wants you to think youre better than other Jews who dont do whatever it is you are doing, or maybe he wants to distract you from the real issues you should be focusing on, whatever.

    The Chidah says the way to tell whether our action are Yetzer tov-driven or Yetzer Horah-driven is to see whether they are consistent with our general spiritual standard of living. If they are not, if a certina hanhagah or chumrah is inconsistent with our general lifestyle, then it is probably the Yetzer Horah’s idea.

    Thats my point here. One of the olden-day Roshei Yeshiva in YU, Rav Ueruchem Gorelick ZTL, a Rebbe of Rabbi Hershel Schechter who I know is into this techeiles, used to give a moshol for this:

    A guy is at a wedding and everybody is laughing at him. He goes over to one of those guys laughing and asks him why hes laughiong. He sayd “look at you! youre missing your tie!”. He as wearing a facny tuxedo, but an open shirt with no tie.

    That night after the wedding he gets undressed, gets into his pajamas and goes to bed, when he hears the doorbell ring. He gets up, goes to his drawer, puts on a black silk tie over his pajamas and answers the door.

    At the door was the guy who was laughing at him by the wedding, standing there, laughing at him again.

    “Why are you laughing at me now?” he says.

    “Because youre wearing a tie” he answers.

    “What? You must be crazy, the guy in pajamas says. First you laught at me because I am wearing a tie, and now you laugh at me because I am not wearing a tie. Make up your mind!”

    The answer is, if youre wearing a tuzedo, a tie is a goo thing. If youre wearing pajamas, a tie is weird.

    Same thing with our nehsoma. Certain actions are nothgin but weird even if they are chumras, becuase they make no sense in context of our lifestyle. Its liek were in pajamas and suddenly we become so frum regarding this one little thing. It shows theres somethgin wrong with the way we look at ourselves and our religiousness. If we had a healthy outlook, wed bother with other things first.

    So if someone like Rav Elyashev shakes his head at this techeiles nad says its nothing at all to be concerned about, that theres zero reason to bother with it, your “in case its a good thing” attitude is misplaced. And if you were living a lifestyle like that, it would still be unrealistic, but at least it would be consistent. As it is, I think you should reconsdier the whole idea totally.

    Oh, and of course certain doors need two mezuzos – one on each side, to fulfill disagreeing opinions.

    (And I didnt even mention chodosh…)

    This techieles wasnt even accepted as a real shitah. There are seriosu quesitoins as to whether it is real, before you get to the Arizal. Its really not worth doing.

    And you dont need any brachah to wait 72 minutes after shabbos. I think whoever told you think probably means hataras nedorim anyway, nto a brachah. But you dont need any such thing. Theres no minhag in anybodys family to do melachah right after shabbos. Teh majority of Rishonim, inclusing the shulchan aruch and the nosei keilim, hold that shabbos ends 72 minutes after shkiyah. It is a quesiton of sofek chilul shabbos.

    #1057718

    Chacham
    Participant

    vochindik- I am glad to see the Copy/paste on your computer is working fine.

    But how come when this guy whos is so into the Satmar rebbe’s understanding of the Arizal he fails to point out that in Divrei Yoel 44,3 the Rebbe says that according to the arizal it could come back before the binyan habayis?

    It should be noted that if a navi were to tell you that a mitzva is not nogea bizman hazeh it is assur to listen to him, kal vchomer the arizal (if chas vshalom that is what he meant) Reb Yaakov Hillel explains the derech of the Arizal in Vayeshev hayam siman 20

    ???”? ???? ??? ????”? ??? ????”? (??’ ?) ??? ??? ??? ?????”? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ???? “??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????”

    As for the case being presented to Rav Elyashiv zt”l in that teshuvah he writes “???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??”?” which means that the fullcase was not presented before him.

    As you can see from his teshuva the only thing asked “????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????” Rav Elyashiv responded that being that this is the 3rd proposal ???? we don’t have to believe the ??????. (which is really not the case)

    It’s important to point out Rav Elyashiv was addressing Rav Feivel Cohen’s question about ?????? ???????, not the specific proofs for the murex trunculus (Rav Feivel Cohen said that at the time he didn’t even know the arguments and it certainly not part of his question).

    As for his list of chumras I was literally laughing out loud as I read them.

    #1057719

    Sam2
    Participant

    Vochindik: I will let the others on this thread who clearly know this Sugya far better than I do discuss the Halachic relevance of the Arizal’s Shittah (because his opinion that ties it to the Beis Hamikdash is clearly a minority one and we wouldn’t Pasken like the Arizal against a majority of Rishonim), but you can’t ask a question from a Gemara to an opinion? Have you ever learned before? Rishonim (and Achronim, though it’s rarer) reject Shittos in the Rishonim all the time because there are Gemaros against them. That’s how you learn. You ask Kashas and sometimes a Kasha is so strong that because of it you are Doche the Shittah from Halachah. R’ Hertzog and R’ Schachter (and the Radziner) are clearly on a level to do such a thing, even if people like you and I are not.

    And about your list of Chumros to keep, some of them are very strange.

    2) Dont eat chodosh

    I honestly wouldn’t. It’s a Pele that we do. But to stop eating Chadash would be Motzi Laaz on dozens of generations who did. Pashtus is we (for whatever reason) hold like the Bach.

    3) Dont let your wife wear transparent stockings

    What’s the relevance of this? There is no Issur on transparent stockings. If you hold that ankles need to be covered, then of course transparent stockings above the ankle are not okay. If you hold the knee is the issue, then transparent stockings that show below the knee are for sure not okay. That’s not a Chumra. That’s explicit Halachah. (And forget transparent, even translucent ones would be problematic.)

    4) Do Birkas Kohanim every day, even in Chutz Laaretz

    The cities of Vilna and Pressburg almost burned down for trying to reinstitute Rirchas Kohanim. To quote the Aruch Hashulchan, “It’s as if it’s a G’zeirah from Shamayim” not to Duchan every day.

    5) Do hagbaah before leining also

    Why? This isn’t even a Din D’rabannan. It’s closer to a Minhag. So go with the way it’s Nahug. It’s certainly not something that belongs on a level with a possible Bittul Asei D’Oraisa and an Issur D’Oraisa of Bal Tigra.

    6) Wash for a davar shetivulo b’mashkeh

    Also explicit Halachah, and one which (by fruits) the Shulchan Aruch (and Gemara) say that one who follows is arrogant.

    7) Specifically designate 2 witnesses by the badeken, like you do under the chupah

    As far as I know the only Rav on earth who mandates this is a YU Rosh Yeshivah. It’s nice that you agree with him though. 🙂

    9) Dont use nails to support the walls of your sukkah

    Interestingly enough, R’ Schachter said that everyone misunderstands this Chazon Ish.

    #1057720

    vochindik
    Member

    Sam2: Perhaps you missed what I wrote:

    I said that some of them are things that you should actually be doing, as oppsoed to relying on minority opinions or precarious heteirim. Others are things that we apprently should be doing, but we dont simply because of historical precedent, even though we dont clearly understand the heter not to; still others are the opinions of some poskim, while others disagree.

    My main point was that those are more halachicly well-founded than the case for Techeiles. If you want to take on chumras, at least take on those which make much more halachic sense. A good way to tell which are which, is to follow the lead of the great Gedolei Yisroel, those with the proper Yiras Shamayim and Torah perspective. This techeiles thing was not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of our leaders. If you want to take on chumras, start with those that are not really chumras – first get rid of your kulos; then take on the chumras that are more halachicly weighty than this.

    Btw, besides skipping a few from the list, how do you address that the Chazon Ish has a strong case for prohibiting using nails in your sukkah; a strong case exists for not opening and closing your refrigerator on shabbos; and some people hold you are not allwoed to wear glasses outdoors on shabbos.

    Start taking on those chumras first. Then we can discuss techeiles.

    #1057721

    Chacham
    Participant

    vochindik- I see almost every post on here or on zionism is a staight out copy past from the frumteens site. Not only is it a copy paste but you posted the same paragraph twice.

    Chazon ish on nails- Is against the rishonim and pri megadim if you understand it simply.

    Now explain why it is more pashut to do all of the above over techeiles. if you are going to come from gedolim and talk all about how Rav Elyashiv Zt”l nodded his head and all that other hype, I already told you that the full case was not presented to him.

    (Besides i saw that this mr frumteens dude says it is a straight out chiyuv to keep 72. Lshitaso how come the chazon ish Rav shlomo zalman and Rav Elyashiv And Rav Moshe etc. all held that you do not need to in chutz laaretz. So if you are coming from what the gedolim do than his list is against that idea. so why is techeiles less)

    And if you are coming halachikaly why is techeiles less than the above on the list?

    #1057722

    Sam2
    Participant

    Vochindik: The case against opening most modern refrigerators is fairly weak. By nails in Sukkah, even if you assume like the way the Chazon Ish is read by everyone except R’ Schachter he’s still a pretty minority opinion. And glasses on Shabbos is only relevant where there’s no Eruv. The Minchas Elazar is also a minority opinion, especially nowadays where many, many people wear glasses all the time, which wasn’t true in his time.

    #1057723

    Vochindik: Techeiles is not a Chumro.

    Tcheiles is what the Ribono Shel Olam specifically asks us to wear. You even say so twice a day.

    Reb Chaim Kanievsky – who knows very well what Rav Elyashiv said – told a big Askan from Monsey last Pesach that if someone looks into the matter thoroughly and is convinced that this is really Techeiles then it is not a question of whether or not he should wear it, but he MUST wear Techeiles.

    “Ehr Muz Dos Onton”

    Reb Chaim himself never studied this topic in depth so he doesn’t wear it.

    This conversation with RTeb Chaim is recorded on video and I, myself, saw the video last week Sunday morning at the shul of TriStar in Woodbourne.

    #1057724

    Kozov
    Member

    .

    #1057725

    Kozov
    Member

    In a letter to the son of the Radziner, the fifth Chabad Rebbe explains that the Arizal never said tcheiles is obselete (see there) but he explains why it is indeed the case that no one should wear tcheiles. He also explains how its not a stira that the Tanaim and Amoraim wore tcheiles after the churban.

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31622&st=&pgnum=404

    #1057726

    “6) Wash for a davar shetivulo b’mashkeh

    Also explicit Halachah, and one which (by fruits) the Shulchan Aruch (and Gemara) say that one who follows is arrogant.”

    In context, (O.C. 158:5 and M.B. 158:2, 158:22) it seems to only be referring to fruits which are not dipped in liquid. You made reference to a gemara. Where is it?

    #1057727

    Proud Hungarian said: “Reb Chaim Kanievsky – who knows very well what Rav Elyashiv said – told a big Askan from Monsey last Pesach that if someone looks into the matter thoroughly and is convinced that this is really Techeiles then it is not a question of whether or not he should wear it, but he MUST wear Techeiles.”

    That contradicts what I heard from Rav Nissan Kaplan about a bachur from the Mir who was very involved in promoting techeiles, and went to Rav Chaim Kanievsky to ask him about it. Rav Kanievsky responded, “Chazal shteit, ‘nignaz.'” The bachur asked, “Just in case……” Rav Kanievsky said back, “Ke’ilu lovesh dam chamor.”

    I’m not saying you’re wrong; I just would absolutely love to see that video.

Viewing 50 posts - 251 through 300 (of 738 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending