- This topic has 91 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Did anyone see the new techeiles movie? And can anyone explain why it hasn’t gotten any coverage, as if it’s something that people are embarrassed to talk about?
I saw it. Nothing new in there and no real details about the production of techeles. Mostly it was just some historical background about the use of blue dyes and a theory of why we lost techeles.
Then two arguments for the use of techeles 1. There was an ancient blueish dye that was produced from the murex snail and we don’t know of any other candidates for Techeles, so it must be this. 2. Why not use murex dye on your tzitzis on the possibility this is the correct source of techeles.
It was completely a one sided presentation, without objectively presenting the halachakic pros and cons of coloring ones tzitzes with murex dye.
Mm
“It was completely a one sided presentation”
Don’t know why you say that. I also watched it, they interviewed rabbonim who don’t agree with it.i will look for it; the exhibit in the bible museum is fabulous and imho seals the deal as do talks by various proponents.
Did they present both sides equally well and at the same depth?
I wrote “without objectively presenting the halachakic pros and cons”
Quoting rabbonim to use as bait, and for a straw argument to knock down, is the definition of a one sides presentation.
“As far as I know there aren’t any halachic “cons” to wearing blue strings”
Thus conclusively demonstrating that the movie is in fact one sided.
“As far as I know there aren’t any halachic “cons” to wearing blue strings, or any other color for that matter.”
Forget the techeiles debate, if you truly aren’t trolling, you need to be informed that nobody allows you to just dye tzitzis any color you want. Even the techeiles folks agree to that.
I be guess the question is why a company that produces techeilis feels the need to reach out to all of us, rather then allowing us to simply follow the guidance and the behavior of Gedolei Yisroel and rabbonim. I understand they want to increase their bottom line, and I understand that it is theoretically possible that they found techeilis, however Chazal tell us it was nignaz and until the poskim wear it themselves (there is only a minority that do), I will not change and pass down a mesorah to make my children put an unproven dye on their tzitzis. Feels like this company wants to increase their bottom line, did not succeed with the poskim, and is now reaching out to us.
if you want to actually make precise comments, listen to a tape by rabbi yisroel reisman on ten reasons NOT to wear techelet and a response by rabbi aryeh lebowitz to the 10 reasons on YU Torah. you will learn a bit about the issue.
Neville ChaimBerlin: Forget the techeiles debate, if you truly aren’t trolling, you need to be informed that nobody allows you to just dye tzitzis any color you want. Even the techeiles folks agree to that.
Wrong. As the Rezhiner Rebbe expalins in his sefer Pesil Techeles, there is nothing wrong with putting on kela ilan (if there is no Techeles), therefore you only have to gain and nothing to lose with putting it on.
Bshtei_Einayim: Chazal tell us it was nignaz.
Although Chazal do tell us it was nignaz, the Rishonim understand that this does mean that we cannot rediscover it through the simanim givenn to us by Chazal, (see for instance Shut HaMahril Hachadoshos siman 5).
TheFakeMaven, until you either convince me that I should listen to you rather then most poskim (doubtful that you can succeed in that!) I and my children will continue assuming that Almighty Hashem does not expect us to be smarter then most poskim.
Bshtei_Einayim: Realize that you haven’t disputed my point at all, and you must agree that the Rishonim do not understand nignaz in the sense that you were implying. Furthermore, no posik would argue against a Rishon thus we can safely assume that the argument of nignaz is based on false assumptions. Therefore, unless you can tell me of a different way of learning the Mahril, no contemporary posek can dismiss it. (And in truth, no big Gadol has argued about nignaz other tha HaGaon R’ Chaim Kanievsky, and that is hearsay, which carries no wight).
So I don’t think I need to convince you of anything, the facts speak for themselves.
והגאון מקוטנא בספרו ישועות מלכו ב’ כבר הוחזק אצל ישראל זה יותר מאלף שנה שנכנס התכלת, ופשט לשון הספרים פ’ ברכה ומדרשו של האריז”ל מסכים לזה שאין תכלת אלא בזמן בית המקדש.
Sounds like נגנז means נגנז to them.
Thefekemaven, in Daas Noteh Reb Chaim is very strong NOT to wear the techeies. He quotes the Medrash there too. I’m not sure whichbRishonim you are referring to, but he says the Maharil etc. Is not a proof against this Medrash, and the Medrash means we won’t have it until Moshiach.
The shoel seems to be pressing the issue asking what could be wrong with wearing it just in case. He answers very strongly not to wear it. He also quotes the Chazon Ish also saying not to wear it, the Beis Halevi too. And in the footnotes he brings Reb Dovid Soleveichik that according to the Rambam, if it’s not the real thing, you are not yotzei the mitzvah of tzizis at all.
to mms601: If there can only be tcheiles in the time of the Beis Hamikdosh, how come the Gemara in Menachos talks about amoraim in the time of Abaye, four hundred years after the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, wearing tcheiles on their tzitzis?
Eichler’s offers special talleisim colored with techeles for only a $99 surcharge (and a free shatnes test. Like so many other issues, there is no “right” or “wrong” when you can find several chashuve rabbonim who say its “ok”.
אם לפי האריז”ל אין תכלת אלא בזמן בית המקדש – איך אפשר שהובא במסכת מנחות שבזמן של האמורא אביי – כ400 שנה אחר חורבן הבית עדיין קשרו תכלת בציצית?
mms601: In general when arguing, it is always best to look up each opinion at its source. You took this from the Kovetz Teshuvahs which in turn is quoting the Yeshuas Malko, if you would actually learn the sefer in question, you will see that you are understanding it out of context. He does not mean that one cannot rediscover it, rather that since it got lost it is extremely difficult to know for sure what it really is.
Two points to ponder: 1) there were Geonim that still had Techeilis, so clearly it cannot mean as you thing it does. 2) Again, there is no contemporary Gadol that can argue with a Rishon.
עיין בדעת נוטה הלכות ציצית מה שהיה הגר”ח שליטא על זה
I’m not understanding anything out of context. I’m simply quoting Rav eliyashiv who says (by quoting the yeshuos malko) that nignaz is understood כפשוטו. This was in response the the claim that “nobody” can possibly understand נגנז כפשוטו.
The claim that the rishon as group all understand nignaz meaning something other than it’s basic understanding, is quite dubious. Be either way, I’ll Rav eliyashiv and the yeshuos malko decided for themselves whom they can argue with. I’ll simply follow 99% of contemporary poskim who for the past 15 years were simply not impressed and not convinced, that tzitzit strings dyed with murex is the mitzvah of techeles.
FakerMaven:, Which Rishonim are you referring to? Reb Chaim shlita in his teshuvas does not understand any of the “Rishonim” the way you do, and neither did the Chazon Ish.
As an aside, there are much more important issues to be careful about with this mitzvah.
For example, what size is your beged? Is it at least an amah according to at least Reb Moshe’s shiur? Do you even know the shiur?
How about menufatz lishma which Shulchan Aruch says you should be makpid on. Do they even make “tecehiles” which is menufatz lishma?
anonymous: As I stated in the first post, what is said about R’ Chaim Kanievsky is hearsay and carries no weight in a halachic discussion. Furthemore R’ Chaim Kanievsky does say clearly that if one is sure it is techeilis he is mechuyiv to wear it (see the enclosed link). Also please enlighten me as to how such a statement is not against the Mahril.
As to the Chazan Ish, again that is hearsay, and more importantly he was referring to the cuttlefish.
The Bais Halevi: If you mean the version that was actually written down, i.e. that if it was always known etc. then it is simple why it is not said of the Murex. And if you mean the version that is a Berisker bemesora, being that I am not a Brisker I am not beholden to accept their stories, especially in this case, as A) the Reziner who was corresponding with him quotes it differently, and B) the second version makes no sense whatsoever, since there is no place other than the kashuras of fowel that we need a mesorah.
As to the Rambam, again I refer you to my first post where I stated that the Rezhiner Rebbe says with clarity that there is no such opinion in the Rambam.[video src="http://techeiles.org/viewer.php?filename=debate%2F%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91+%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%2FHarav+Chaim+Kanievski+www.techeiles.org+.mp4" /]
mms601: What I meant by taking things out of context is for qouting a source without going through it inside. If you would learn it proterly you would see that the Yeshuas Malko does NOT understand nignaz litterly, See for instance the end of Teshuvah 3:
איברא שאם היה נמצא תחלת בבירור והיה ידוע לנו כיצד צובעין ודאי היה ראוי לאחוז במצוה זו אלא שאין לנו בירור גמור שזה תכלת.anonymous: For the third time, both R’ Chaim and the Chazon Ish are hearsay, they do not write it themselves, and as such I am extremely skeptical that it is quoted correctly as the Mahril clearly disagrees with them.
Furthemore, if R’ Chaim really believes nignaz kepshuto, why did he pasken that for those that are sure the Murex is the Chilazon the are mechuyav to wear it? How can R’ Chaim tell someone to go against Chazal? Obviously the Daas Noteh is an oversimplification of R’ Chaims words.As to you other points, first of all, yes they do sell Menupats LeShma. However you comments directly underline the problem. You are equating a Hidur with a Deoraysa. While the above Hidurim are nice, the majority of the Poskim disagree with R’ Moshes shita, and the like. Don’t equate a side point with a Mitzvah Deoraisa.
Ask ybl”c Rav Chaim shlita directly. What’s so shver?
I personally asked R Elyashiv if its better not to wear it and he said yes
There’s a basic question here: do we act as we would regarding all other shaylos following our rebbeim or the general consensus of the gedolim or do we look at a video and think we understand better than them I think that is a much bigger shayla than techeiles it is a shayla regarding all of yiddishkeit
BMG: To answer your second point first. We do what the Shulchan Rules, which is to those that can understand a sugya themselves should follow what they understand. (See Y”D 242). [As is quite common, your mixing up a hashkafa question with a halachic one]
R’ Eliyashiv was refering to people as yourself that have never gone through the sugya, as ybl”c R’ Chaim told R’ Karp, a talmud muvhak from R’ Eliyashiv, that since he learnt the sugya and feels it is the correct techlis he IS mechuyav to wear it, even though his Rebbe held not to/
Furthemore R’ Eliyashiv himself states that he never went through the metziyos of the Murex. [See in the letter to R’ Feivel Cohen, and as R’ Karp his talmud muvakh says clearly in regards to the letter].
It is quite telling that so far there has been no refutation with regards to the Mahril.
[It seems that the participants of this thread are unaware as to the status of the sefer Daas Noteh, and seem to think that R’ Chaim penned or authorized it. In fact the sefer is not from R’ Chaim rather someone compiled a bunch of answers al pi hashmuah, furthermore, the footnotes are an addition that everyone agrees is not from R’ Chaim.
As such, the sefer carries no weight in a halachic discussion since we do not know the exact question and answer, nor the context it was said in].
there is a video of R
Toporovitz asking r chaim about tcheiles in wich he answers: if you investigate and discover its correct, then you should wear it. i have asked RToporowitz about this myself. please do your research anonymous before you talk.in the movie, someone there said that he saw r karp wearing tcheiles and asked him if he spoke to r elyashiv about it he said yes, and r elyashiv did not discourage him from wearing tcheiles. (this was many wears after r elyashiv wrote his first tshuva)
Fakemaven again quoting out of context.
Here what Rav Eliyashiv actually wrote.
והנה טענת הבית הלוי נגד התכלת של הרבי מרדזין ז”ל
הוא שאם הדג היה במציאות וגם הוצאת צבעו היה ידוע בכל זמן
מהזמנים מעת שנפסקה התכלת מישראל ועכ”ז לא לבשוהו אבותינו ה”ה כאילו יש לנו בקבלה ומסורת מאבותינו כי זה הדג וצבעו איננו החילזון והתכלת אף שיש בו כל הסימנים שסומנו בו חזל – ואנא לא ידענא מה עם ההמצאה אשר המציאו חוקרי זמנינו אם גם עליה חל הטענה הנלI don’t know if the bais halevis argument against the radziners , tecehels applies to the newly discovered techeles.
i watched it and i think its definitely worth the time and money. i dont think mm 601 comments were accurate although it did lean towards the tcheiles side, they presented both sides pretty fair. It should also be noted that he presented choshuva rabbonim on the other side, and even though after they film the kasha on tcheiles they film someone else that solves it, seeing such rabbonim opposing tchailes is something that cannot be answered. (most people on the tcheiles side arent renowned chashuvim – not all but most) On the opposing side i dont recall there was a single yungerman or simpleton who wasnt known as a choshuva rabbi.
with regard to nignaz, there are many rishonim, early (and late) achronim that its clear from their words that nignaz was the circumstance, not the halacha. There are those who argue, but any one rishon that says nignaz is a halacha shoiuldnt wrap up the whole mitzva, becouse there is a broader world out there.Fakemaven: yeshuos malko treats nignaz as literally. That disclaimer at the end simply says that if techeles is 100% rediscovered without any doubt or dispute, then obviously it’s no longer nignaz. But until then, it’s nignaz, and any dye substance is bechezkas not techeles until it’s vadai otherwise. Keep looking, and while you are at it, let me know when you find the תחש
“that since he learnt the sugya and feels it is the correct techlis he IS mechuyav to wear it”
שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא
FakeMaven, there are so many ridiculous things you wrote, it’s a waste of time to refute them.
However, to disregard the Sefer Daas Noteh because it doesn’t fit with your agenda is a cheaper shot than the Democrats. It is a very reliable Sefer, out out by Reb Chaim’s SON. He is printing over wtitten teshuvos, and kisvei yad of his father. He also quotes a little from oral responses.
But if you read the sefer you will see how hard he tries to push the inyan of wearing techeiles, and Reb Chaim stays strongly apposed. To say that the Chazon Ish written in Reb Chaim’s kesavim is hearsay, is simply heresy.
Daas Noteh is much more reliable than a clip of a video which we have no idea what the context of the rest of the conversation was about.
To say that nobody addresses the Maharil, is also not true, Reb Chaim does address it. He also WRITES in a tesshuva brought in Daas Noteh that all of the proofs that this is the real techeiles are thoroughly refuted in a recent sefer which Reb Chaim agrees with.
And agav, what you wrote about Reb Moshe’s shiyr is false. I didn’t say the Chazon Ish’s shiur, I said Reb Moshe. M’ikur Hadin you need the proper shiur of an amah. Most people I’ve seen with tecehlis are wearing these tiny begadim which are not the minimum required shiur for tzizis.
You probably don’t even know what the minimum shour is. But from the way you write, I assume your talis katon is something like a size 18 which is less than an amah even according to the minimum shiur.Since almost all Gedolim do not wear techeiles, and advise against it, we hold it is not required. Not even a chumra. But Niputz L’shma is brought in Shulchan Aruch l’halacha, and for us is much more important than techeiles.
There are much more important things in life than techeiles. Like davening by the first zman krias shema, not talkung during davening, and the like. Why do so many techeiles wearers ignore so many things which are so much more important?!? Why do they only chap on to this chumra?!?
Edited
mms601: Simply qouating R’ Eliyshiv etc.
quoting someone who quotes someone else gives you two opportunities to quote out of context, which you did spectacularly well. Let’s stop for a minute and think, if the Rishonim would clearly state nignuz means until after moshiach comes, is there even a safek that no matter how many proofs we would bring about a specific animal being the chilozon, it would definitely NOT be the true one? Of course not! And if someone would say in such a case that being we know for sure that it is the chiozon obviously we are mechuyiv to wear it, such a person may correctly be deemed a heretic for he disregards Chazal according to the Reshonim, and places his own opinion above them.
Now does the Yeshuas Malko state that it is possible that someone will be able to know for sure that a specific animal is the chilozon? Yes he does. If the Yeshuos Malko believed that niguz means literally would someone be able to find it? Of course not! Obviously the Yeshuas Malko did NOT understand it to meant literally.In regards to the ridiculous statement of שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא. Before making up halachos it is a good idea to learn the relevant material first. שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא is not said if one made a mistake, see Y”D 242: and the achronim there.
Furthermore, if one changes his mind and decides that it IS the correct one, that means that he is mechuyav min HaTorah to wear it, שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא CANNOT uproot a deoraisa! (Think about that, can I make a שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא against Tefilin and not be mechuyiv to wear them?!)daass torah: There are those who argue, but any one rishon that says nignaz is a halacha shoiuldnt wrap up the whole mitzva, becouse there is a broader world out there.
Please name me one Rishon that clearly says nignaz means literally.
Anonymous,
I came back to this coffee room topic, and i simply can’t believe the stupidty of your arguments. Remember, for someone who holds that this murex thingy is the chalzon, then he is mechuyiv מן התורה to wear it. Its not a chumrah to him but a must, a hundred times more important then ניפוץ לשמה. Anyone who has (real) techeiles and doesn’t want to put it one, is מבטל מצות עשה בידים, and might be עובר the איסור בל תגרע.
From the way you write it seems you probably don’t know the difference between a מנהג and מצוה דאורייתא. And you also seem to think that one mitzvah is more important then others.
The way you are portraying people that wear this techeiles, is disgusting. I personally know a few people who wear it, they are ירא שמים, don’t talk in middle davening, say krias shema בזמנו (and go with size 24).
Im not saying all the arguments pro sound right, but try talking דברים של טעם, instead of stupidty.
Another thing you don’t seem to know, המנהג להקל בניפוץ.Fakemaven: A gadol like Rav Karp who went through the sugyah is very different than anyone surfing the web.
Regular people who watch a video and therefore think they know better than the consenses of the gedolei hador Hashem yerachem !
If you can’t convince the gedolim go directly to the baleh batim and explain to them how the gedolim missed the boat?! Sounds great for klal yisroel!TheFakeMaven,
I really always find these conversations so disheartening from from both sides. Reb Chaim Kanievsky’s opinion is very clear. It is recorded in numerous letter and seforim that he feels that we should assume the chilazon was nignaz. Daas Noteh was written by Reb Chaim’s son in conversation with Reb Chaim, because there are so many inaccurate quotes in general from Reb Chaim. Unfortunately I don’t know much about you, but to dismiss this as hearsay suggest you are like the vast majority on both sides of the issue; completely and totally biased. The clip shows nothing and is obviously cut up. Why the full clip cannot be shown, add to my frustration.anonymous: As a bystander, I must comment on your inability to realize the difference between a sefer such as Daas Noteh and say Derech Emunah. You don’t understand how Daas Noteh was written (and it is totally irrelevant that his son wrote it). However, he himself wrote Derech Emunah, that is the big difference.
@fakemaven: ramabam (to name one if you want a list of more you can watch the tcheiles movie)
Derech Emunah was looked over prior to publishing by Rav Chaim himself.
excuse me on my earlier comment, i`m not sure what nignaz literally means (both sides of the machlokes in pshat in the midrash are literal)
the rambam holds nignaz means that was the circumstance but you could find it. as for rishonim arguing, i dont remember the names off hand but i do believe there were rishonim oposing (possibly the arizal)@mm601 – ““that since he learnt the sugya and feels it is the correct techlis he IS mechuyav to wear it”
שוויה אנפשיה חתיכה דאיסורא”
just becouse you know something in loshon kodesh that sounds similar, it deosnt uproot his yesodOn Rav Elyashiv’s Teshuva…
Rav Elyashiv’s Teshuva is NOT in relation to EVIDENCE for murex. The question posed is:
(1) חוקרים claim this is the Chilazon and (2) there’s nothing to lose — therefore should we wear this dye?
No evidence for or against murex is presented!Indeed, the response relates to the question of נאמנות החוקרים where past theories were refuted (and some other צרופים).
It’s very well known Rav Elyashiv spent his time on Shas and Poskim and was generally not the kind of posek who researched the technical aspects the Shailos — that is something Poskim the like Rav Belsky do. Instead, Rav Elyashiv’s approach was to respond precisely to the question how it was asked.
The cogent evidence for the murex, especially as has been developed lately, is a highly technical question never posed to Rav Elyashiv.
Regarding Rav Chaim Kanievski, in a lengthier Teshuva in a footnote in Da’as Noteh, he states that his position is based on his Rabeim who didn’t wear this Techeiles. Presumably he is referring to those who lived after the murex was a question, ie Rav Elyashiv.
IMHO this is a very, very technical shaila, and people should be relying on the likes of Rav Belsky.
First off, what I mean by saying that the sefer Daas Noteh is hearsay is this: of course I am not C”V belittleing R’ Chaims son who is a Talmud Chachom in his own right, however, everyone here without a doubt would agree that he carries nowhere near the weight of HaGaon R’ Chaim. Now, so far no one has been able to explain the Mahril who CLEARLY states nignuz does not mean that it cannot be found. Furthemore in the sefer Daas Noteh it does NOT mention at all the Mahril. Clearly the Mahril cannot be ignored, yet it would seem that R’ Chaim did ignore it! Obviously, the version brought down in Daas Noteh is NOT the full opinion of R’ Chaim, rather we are missing some integral part of his opinion.
Now, if R’ Chaim himself wrote and went through the sefer we cannot say that. However the sefer in question was NOT gone through by R’ Chaim to ensure complete accuracy. As such I don’t think it wrong to be skeptical of its accuracy in portraying the full opinion correctly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.