July 26, 2013 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #1057836
I agree that I have no answer to what the Chachmei Umos Haolam. (To quote a very respected poster on this thread: “( and generally speaking [without sparking a huge hashkafa debate] we only listen to these chachmei umos haolam as long as they are not being soiser chachmei yisrael like the radvaz)”)
By the way, I think that you once posted a link to a biography of the Chazon Ish about using Techeiles if there’s a safek. Do you remember where that was?July 28, 2013 1:59 am at 1:59 am #1057837
The chazon Ish is brought down in maaseh ish vol. 1, pg 132
if you are still looking into safek deroysa lchumra on safek techeiles I found a sefer on otzar hachachma called Mishmeres mitzvah (from a talmid of rav shimon shkop) that is very maarich to prove that we say safek deoraysa lchumra here. it can be seen for free on otzar hachachmah’s website since it is only 40 pages longJuly 28, 2013 2:30 am at 2:30 am #1057838
Thanks for the link. (But don’t think that it exonerates you.)August 4, 2013 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm #1057839
I saw that they found some synogogue from the Tannaic era (when there was no safek as to what color Techeiles is) in which there were drawings on the wall and one of them depicted the kohen (gadol), and the Bigdei Kehuna that contain Techeiles were blue.August 4, 2013 4:31 pm at 4:31 pm #1057840
[There is also the “water Hyacinth” which is a weed that grows in seas and rivers. the flower itself is generally light pink, purple or white. However, all the flowers have blue in the middle. Someone once told me that perhaps this is pshat in the yerushalmi that says ???? ??????. Keyadua, all old Kisvei yad don’t have much of a space in between words so maybe the yerushalmi actually said ???? ???? ?? referring to the water hyacinth that is the grass of the sea.
It is very mechudashdik and doesn’t answer the domeh lwilan in the medrash.]
I saw other attempts to explain the yerushalmi but they are all dochkim.
Speaking of “hyacinth” it is good to quote Codex Justinian (in levush haaron pg. 32)
“No private person shall have power to dye or sell purpurae goods,
Shtait Duh hycinthina (techeiles) comes from murex
Lmaaseh why don’t you wear techeiles??August 4, 2013 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #1057841
Interesting pshat with the ??? ??. Although Tosfos clearly didn’t learn that way. And contrary to your assumption I do indeed wear blue Techeiles dyed from Murex Trunculus.August 4, 2013 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm #1057842
oy. Sorry for being Choshed Bksheirim. ???”? should be yimalei kol mishalos libcha ltova.
Since when? and how many stringsAugust 4, 2013 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1057843
I wouldn’t quite consider it choshed bekshairim since I definitely gave off the impression that I don’t wear Techeiles. But I’ll take the bracha anyway. I wear four per corner. Which is quite annoying because they only sell Rambam and Raavad so I had to buy two Raavad.August 4, 2013 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1057844
Where did you see this thing about the old shul. I once saw it referenced to, but never got to the bottom of it.
As for the strings in Torah Treasures in Lakewood they sell tosfos.
They sell there ones that are not made by petil tekhelet company, but by avreichim in Bnei Brak. They call it Techeiles Lchosvei Sh’mo.August 4, 2013 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1057845
Rav Eliyahu Tavgar mentions it in Maamer Techeiles. It’s all the way at the end right before note 180. http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/ta01.pdfAugust 6, 2013 3:16 am at 3:16 am #1057846
How do Rashi/one pshat of the Ritva/the Kli Yakar (and anyone else who says the Domehs are progressive) fit into the gemara minay ubay? R’ Meir’s statement is that Techeiles is unique among all colors in that it ultimately reminds you if G-d’s glory. But according to the aforementioned mefarshim there are three colors that are better than Techeiles in this regard – the color of the yam, the color of the rakia, and the color of the kisey hakavod.August 6, 2013 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #1057847Sam2Participant
I once thought that the Aggada at the top of Chullin 88a (maybe it was 98a) is a strong Ra’aya against Shittas Hatosfos that you need 4 strings. Sometimes when I think about it it feels like an ironclad proof and sometimes it just feels silly.August 6, 2013 9:52 pm at 9:52 pm #1057848
You mean the fact that it says “chut shel techeiles” in singular?August 6, 2013 9:59 pm at 9:59 pm #1057849
The sefer Daf al Daf brings this up and says that it’s lav davka and that even according to the Rambam and the Raavad you have to say it’s lav davka because according to the Rambam there are four techeiles strings alltogether and according to the Raavad there are eight alltogether. But he does conclude that it’s mashma more like the Rambam/Raavad. And for some reason he has Tosfos as agreeing with the Raavad instead of with Rashi.August 6, 2013 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #1057850
where is an excerpt of what i wrote on that
. ???”? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?”? ????’ ??? ???? ???, ?? ?”? ???? ????? ?”? ??? ?? ??? ?’ ?? ???? ??’ ?? ???. ?”? ????? ?????’ ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????”?. ???”? ?????”? ?????”? ?? ???? ????’ ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????.
 ????? ????? ??? ????’ ?????? ?? “?? ??? ???? ??????”, ???”? ??”? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??’ ??”? ??”? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ????”? ???? ???? “????” ????”?.
 ??”? ??? ??? ?”?????? ????” ???”? ???? ????? ????”? ????? ????.August 6, 2013 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #1057851
also 2 retzuos and it says retzuah lashon yachidAugust 6, 2013 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #1057852
the beis yosef was gores the raaved to say like tosfos.August 6, 2013 10:43 pm at 10:43 pm #1057853
I don’t know if you have a raya from retzua because that’s technically one retzua which hangs down on two sides. Unless you meant that there’s the retzua of the shel rosh and the retzua shel yad, but it seems from the next step in the gemara that it was only referring to the shel rosh.
The sefer that I quoted switched Tosfos to the Raavad, not the Raavad to Tosfos.August 6, 2013 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #1057854
also the tiferes yaakov in chulin explains it to mean the sechar of avraham is that on something as simple as a string you can have shechina. ayin shum- lfi this the lashon of chut isn’t necessarily lashon yachidAugust 7, 2013 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #1057855
The Mizrachi quotes the Gemara as “????? ?? ????” and “?????? ?? ??????”.
The mefarshim discuss an apparent contradiction: Here we see that the mitzva was due to Avraham’s zechus but in the end of parshas Noach we see that it was due to Shem’s zechus. The mefarshim all give different answers but all explaining some kind of combintion of Avraham’s zechus and Shem’s zechus. Utilizing this concept, this could be viewed as each of them contributing to half of the mitzva. Thus it would be accurate to refer to Avraham’s share as “??? ?? ????” even according to Rashi/Tosfos because that’s Avraham’s half.August 7, 2013 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #1057856
The Radzyner has a pshat in the whole Asavim/Ilanos thing (Although he is clearly not going like Tosfos). He says that the comparison to the Yam is not so clear because there are some times and places where the yam is black or red or green. So Asavim is brought in to tell us which type of yam it was referring to. But Asavim is not so clear either because some grass is green and some is blue. So it has to bring in Ilanos. But Ilanos is also not so clear because when looked at from close they are green but when looked at from afar they appear blue. So the Rakia is brought in. But that’s also not so clear because depending on the time and place (and weather) the sky looks different. So then we compare it to the rainbow… and the cloud…August 7, 2013 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #1057857
The problem with this pshat is that bringing in Asavim and Ilanos to clarify that you meant blue is like shooting yourself in the foot. It should have just said yam domeh l’rakia (which in fact it does in the Talmud Bavli). Asavim and Ilanos only add to the confusion.August 8, 2013 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #1057858
Your raya from Taanis is not necessarily true. Rashi and Rabbeinu Chananel say that it is referring to tzitzis. Meaning that when the gemara says Techeiles it also means Tzitzis.(The Kli Yakar in fact learns the Gemara in Chullin as referring to tzitzis in general not specifically to Techeiles.) That doesn’t necessarily mean that when it says “string of Techeiles” it means “strings of Techeiles”.August 9, 2013 1:57 am at 1:57 am #1057859
The Tifferes Yaakov says befairush that there’s only one string of Techeiles. His pshat therefore is that it’s awesome that you can have such a manifestation on a mere string. And granted that if you held two or four strings you could say the same pshat, but the Gemara doesn’t say “strings” and the Tifferes Yaakov doesn’t prove that it’s lav davka.August 9, 2013 3:15 am at 3:15 am #1057860
Today I saw leeks live and up close. They were green as can be without a shemetz of blue in them.August 13, 2013 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #1057861stanleycParticipant
This whole thing is so stupid, everyone knows that techeiles was made up by the hareidim. Rabbi Slifkin told me!September 4, 2013 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #1057862
Funny that you should say that the charedim made it up when the vast majority of chareidim are against it. And R’ Slifkin himself wrote that he thinks the Murex Trunculus is the chilazon but he doesn’t wear Techeiles for a reason which he wrote will be forthcoming in a future post.September 8, 2013 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #1057863
There are a few legitimate reasons to not wear techeiles that some gedolim do hold by, such as requiring a mesorah to re-institute or R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s interpretation of “nignaz” to mean quite literally hidden from us until the yemos hamashiach.September 9, 2013 12:28 am at 12:28 am #1057864
Those are not exactly legitimate reasons considering that the Gedolim of hundreds of years ago (the Maharil, the Radvaz, etc.) wrote that Techeiles can be reinstituted. So obviously they held that “nignaz” does not refer to yemos hamashiach and you don’t need a mesorah. Furthermore, where does this idea of needing a mesorah come from? It is quite outrageous to suggest that we cannot fulfill a mitzva d’oraisa because we don’t have a mesorah as to the exact identity of the chilazon. We have enough proof from the Gemara. And if you are so concerned about not doing anything that the previous generations didn’t do, why do you all where your tzitzis out? Ask anyone who was around back in the day in Europe. Non-chasidim wore their tzitzis in. For a frumkeit be’alma we can deviate from the Mesorah but for a mitzva d’oraisa (which in actuality is is not a deviation) we can’t? Ludicrous!September 9, 2013 2:10 am at 2:10 am #1057865
First of all, if R’ Chaim feels that that is a valid interpretation of “nignaz”, despite the rishonim/acharonim who seem to indicate to the contrary, than who are you to argue?? Unless you think that you have a better understanding of the sugya than R’ Chaim does. In which case. . .September 9, 2013 2:29 am at 2:29 am #1057866
“It is quite outrageous to suggest that we cannot fulfill a mitzva d’oraisa because we don’t have a mesorah as to the exact identity of the chilazon.”
I think it is quite outrageous to suggest that you understand the place and scope of mesorah in Judaism better than the Gedolei Rosh Hayeshivos. Mesorah is a very deep, profound and nearly impossible to understand even for such great men — for us, we have no relevant opinion nor are we entitled to one amidst our gaping deficiencies in Daas Torah (& Daas stam).September 9, 2013 2:32 am at 2:32 am #1057867
“And if you are so concerned about not doing anything that the previous generations didn’t do, why do you all where your tzitzis out?”
Your comparison is absurd. There is a vast difference between instituting a mitzva and being following a chumra, for which common sense should be enough to distinguish.September 9, 2013 2:34 am at 2:34 am #1057868
“but for a mitzva d’oraisa (which in actuality is is not a deviation) we can’t?”
Once the mitzva was discontinued, it is a deviation to reinstitute it.September 9, 2013 4:10 am at 4:10 am #1057869Sam2Participant
PAA: The Beis HaLeivi, I think, was the one who said you need a Mesorah, and he brought Ra’ayos for it.
TU731: The “do you think you understand the Sugya better than…” argument is not an argument. By that logic, you should never say P’shat in anything, ever, because you don’t know better than everyone who has ever spoken on it ever. R’ Chaim (if he actually said this; I’m not holding in his Shittah here) is entitled to his opinion even if it argues with many major Shittos. Us Talmidim are entitled to point out that he is arguing on said Shittos and in the minority. I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?” It’s inane and doesn’t mean anything.September 9, 2013 5:58 pm at 5:58 pm #1057870
Sam2: It’s a machlokes what the bais halevi said. The Radzyner Rebbe printed in his sefer the response that he received from the bais halevi’s camp, which said that if the suggested chilazon has always been around and it was known how to dye (blue) with it and our ancestors didn’t use it then that is as if we have a mesora that this creature is not the chilazon. That is a far cry from saying that we need a mesorah to identify the chilazon. However, The Rav claimed that the Bais Halevi actually held that you need a mesorah to identify the chilazon. Now first of all, even within the Brisker dynasty this is not quite agreed upon. Second of all, R’ Elyashiv said that the Radzyner’s version seems to be the right version based on how the halachic system works. Even The Rav’s Talmid R’ Hershel Shachter disagreed with him on this. So for all you guys who on every other topic consider the Rav to be an apikores but suddenly by Techeiles want to follow his shitta, just bear in mind that this shitta has nothing to do with Techeiles. The Rav held that you need a mesorah to identify anything. This was already spoken about at length in one of the other techeiles threads in regards to rice ayain sham.September 9, 2013 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1057871
TorahUmadda: This has nothing to do with understanding the scope of Mesorah. Just show me one place in Shas/Poskim where it says that if we were unable to do a Mitzva at a certain point in time then the Mitzva becomes batel. And my comparison is only absurd because you misconstrue it. No one is instituting any mitzvos over here. G-d instituted it by saying “V’nasnu al tzitzis hakanaf pesil techeiles”. Please explain how it could be worse to follow the Torah than to change a minhag.September 9, 2013 6:24 pm at 6:24 pm #1057872
And how can you say that once a mitzva is discontinued it is a deviation to reinstitute it? That might hold true if the mitzva was specifically discontinued (e.g. the chachamim were gozer not to blow shofar on shabbos so we cannot reinstitute it). But that is not the case by Techeiles. There was never a gezeira to not wear Techeiles. What happened was that people were unable to wear it hence they didn’t wear it. Let’s say the government would prohibit importing esrogim and no one was able to get an esrog. Would you say that we can no longer fulfill the mitzva of esrog because it’s not part of the Mesorah?September 10, 2013 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm #1057873
Rabbeinu Yonah in Iggeres Hateshuva writes: “The Sages of blessed memory said that one who casts off the yoke is in the category of reshaim gemurim. Included in ‘casting off the yoke’ is if one says ‘I will keep the whole Torah except for one of the Mitzvos, because my fathers did not teach me it and I was not accustomed to being careful to do it in my youth’ or ‘because the people of my place are not careful to do it’. Because a slave cannot say to his master ‘I will choose to do these but not to do these’.”September 11, 2013 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #1057874
By that logic, you should never say P’shat in anything, ever, because you don’t know better than everyone who has ever spoken on it ever.
I have no idea what you’re talking about — when it comes to learning to be mekayeim mitzvas Talmud Torah, then you follow your own intellect far more (how much, etc, depends on your yeshiva/rebbe, etc); when it comes to halacha lemaisa, then you don’t have a relevant opinion against a gadol for sure without being a pretty heavyweight posek yourself.September 11, 2013 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1057875
Us Talmidim are entitled to point out that he is arguing on said Shittos and in the minority.
True, but that doesn’t extend to the point that you can claim what R Chaim is saying is indefensible and is not a legitimate pshat in the first place.September 11, 2013 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #1057876
I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?”
For that to even be remotely plausible in the first place, you would have to assume that R’ Chaim is arguing with these rishonim/acharonim as opposed to understanding them differently.
Even granting that, though, your analogy is anyway fundamentally flawed — you taking on R’ Chaim is not in any way comparable to R’ Chaim taking on the Maharal whatsoever — when you have legitimate Daas Torah like R’ Chaim does, then you’re entitled to argue. Furthermore, R’ Chaim isn’t assuming the Maharal etc blew pshat — in arguing, he’s merely saying that he cannot understand how he gripped the inyan, and therefore paskens differently, just as the rabanan said about R’ Meir (Tanna).September 11, 2013 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1057877
This has nothing to do with understanding the scope of Mesorah.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. Not every detail – or anywhere close – of how mesorah operates, it’s boundaries, scope, it’s halachic weight against various types of other halachic factors, etc, will you find verbatim chapter and verse. But only an ignoramus takes that to mean they therefore aren’t true. You want to find out, ask one of the R”Y’s who still stand behind mesorah for this today.September 11, 2013 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #1057878
And how can you say that once a mitzva is discontinued it is a deviation to reinstitute it? That might hold true if the mitzva was specifically discontinued (e.g. the chachamim were gozer not to blow shofar on shabbos so we cannot reinstitute it). But that is not the case by Techeiles. There was never a gezeira to not wear Techeiles. What happened was that people were unable to wear it hence they didn’t wear it. Let’s say the government would prohibit importing esrogim and no one was able to get an esrog. Would you say that we can no longer fulfill the mitzva of esrog because it’s not part of the Mesorah?
You are arbitrarily making up this distinction between intended discontinuation and passive discontinuation. Who said that is even a relevant criterion?? Again, what the geder for when the muchzak switches from having the mitzvah to not having it, go ask someone who has a legitimate opinion — it’s definitely not simple at all.September 11, 2013 8:57 pm at 8:57 pm #1057879
Rabbeinu Yonah in Iggeres Hateshuva writes:. . .
This is an egregious misrepresentation of the havanah by presenting it as if the context in which his words are written includes even where halacha (in this case derived from mesorah) says the opposite. R’ Yonah expected people to be able to understand the obvious contextual limitations.September 11, 2013 9:14 pm at 9:14 pm #1057880ToiParticipant
the approach in the brisk camp is that you need a mesorah on what it is. i heard enough chumash shiurim. believe me.September 11, 2013 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #1057881truthsharerMember
Additionally as was posted earlier, using your logic how can R’ Chaim say what he said if Rishonim and earlier Acharonim said differently?September 11, 2013 9:48 pm at 9:48 pm #1057882
Additionally as was posted earlier, using your logic how can R’ Chaim say what he said if Rishonim and earlier Acharonim said differently?
What part of my “logic” suggests in any way that the gedolim of one generation cannot ever disagree on psak with those of a previous generation?September 11, 2013 10:16 pm at 10:16 pm #1057883
“The Sages of blessed memory said that one who casts off the yoke is in the category of reshaim gemurim. Included in ‘casting off the yoke’ is if one says ‘I will keep the whole Torah except for one of the Mitzvos, because my fathers did not teach me it and I was not accustomed to being careful to do it in my youth’ or ‘because the people of my place are not careful to do it’. Because a slave cannot say to his master ‘I will choose to do these but not to do these’.”
Perhaps one can add one who says ‘I will invent my own methodology of understanding Torah concepts and textual statements’.September 11, 2013 11:47 pm at 11:47 pm #1057884
Mesorah is a very, very complicated, deep, nuanced, and difficult, among other adjectives, concept. Mesorah is not simply, chas veshalom, a fancy way of saying “tradition”, or “Divine Tradition”. Mesorah is, as a concept, an integrated and integral part of the fundemental fabric and basis of validating and assessing Halacha and Hashkafa realia. What Mesorah, or what a specific Mesorah, says and how it says it is among the most complicated subjects in Judaism. What role Mesorah plays, the scope of its role — both in general, and even more convolutedly, in specific subjects or particulates — is a multi-faceted machlokes that involves myriad very subtle and finely nuanced factors. It’s brazenly presumptuous for someone to think that they understand what Mesorah is, it’s scope, how we apply it, etc, so thoroughly that not only do they have an informed opinion about it (which they don’t), they have as good a grasp (if not better) than Gedolei Doros.September 11, 2013 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #1057885
In other words, grosse lamdanim seem to be quite willing to say baalabatishe svaras when it comes to Mesora. The Ramchal says the same thing regarding chassidus — the “chachamim” think there is no depth, etc, in middos, (and therefore they neglect it(generalization of part of hakdama to Mesillas Yesharim)). Meaning they look at the particular subject as being bereft of normative, deep lomdus characteristic of shverer Rambams.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.