- This topic has 128 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
There was a major event, and the silence of lack of coverage is deafening. We can discuss any topic in the world but not this?!
Seems like we can discuss this too!
Nu so discuss…Any serious study of the tcheiles that is available now, leads to the conclusion that it is the real thing, and it should be worn by everybody. All the questions have already been answered (see Levush Ha’aron by Rav Hellman) and the the silence is deafening. What we need is more people to start wearing it in public (many talmidei chachomim wear it underneath) so that it becomes more accepted, and we reach a tipping point where it becomes the normal and accepted thing to do.
There are plenty of poskim/gedolim/talmidei chachomim who hold that the techeiles that is available today should not be worn.
” leads to the conclusion that it is the real thing, and it should be worn by everybody”
even if a is true, that doesn’t mean b is true.
TDH: Did they pay to advertise it? If not, then who would know about it?
it was such a big event, that nobody heard of it.
This issue was discussed in Aim magazine. Some of the points on this thread were addressed in that article. And please don’t describe the imaginary silence as “deafening”. If it wasn’t cliche before, it is now.
…please remember to include it (along with pushing during hakofos) as among the major issues facing the tzibur in these troubled times….I suspect a good percentage of CR readers either (i) have tuned out any further debate on this subject, having exhausted commentary in prior threads or (ii) have no clue what you are talking about when dealing with wearing/not wearing
I put on techeiles a year ago because of the DNA study. Yes, it does not have menorah, ask a dayan if you may ad a color to the tztitz, and you’ll find out that you can put any color unto it. If that is the case, why don’t people wear as a possible mitzvah. It won’t hurt!
ubiquitin: Your comment need explanation. premise A) all Jews must do every mitzvah possible. Premise B) techielis is a mitzvah. Premise C) this is the real techelis (which is your premise a). It therefore follows, if B and C then A.
R’ Hershel Schachter shlita holds that since there’s nothing to lose by wearing it, you should wear the techeiles nowadays.
R’ Elyashiv zt”l was against it, as he held we did not have a mesorah for it, and so shouldn’t do it.
R’ Chaim Kanievsky shlita holds that we won’t get techeiles until Mashiach comes, so the one we have is wrong. He also says, however, that he feels there is room to disagree with his view, and that if someone believes it is the correct techeiles, they have a chiyuv to wear it. (This differs from R’ Elyashiv, who said that even if we believed it was correct, we shouldn’t wear it due to a lack of mesorah for it.)
At the end of the day, as usual, one should ask their own Rav what to do, as there are gedolim on both sides of the issue on whom to rely.
back to the event….
tell us about it
DaMoshe: Your statement in regards to Rav Eliyashiv ztz”l is incorrect. Rav Eliyashiv held (in his 1997 letter) that since we do not have a direct mesorah we cannot be mechayiv the population, not that we shouldn’t wear it. Furthermore now days that we have much more evidence even Rav Eliyashiv might agree,. In fact his biggest talmid Harav Karp does wear techielis.
Thefakemavin
Premise A isnt true (eg there is a mitzva to grant a get, not every Jew must grant a get)
Granted techeiles isnt analagous to get. Yet even if your reword your premise a to something along the lines of “all Jews must do every mitzvah possible that if circumstances call for r”
your conclusion STILL isnt true
namely: “It therefore follows, if B and C then A.”Example:
premise A) (reworded) all Jews must do every mitzvah possible if circumstances call for it
. Premise B) Yibum is a mitzvah.
Premise C) (not relevant)Yet it doesn’t follow that if B then A
Here is a better and more analogous example. Suppose we dig up Moshe Rabbeinu’s Tefillin, We recognize his handwriting, all archaeologists recognize it as real etc etc. then Eliyahu Hanavi comes along and says these are Moshe Rabbeinu’s tefilin. and lo and behold they are Rabbeinu Tam’s. While certainly a fascinating find, this has exactly zero bearign on halacha lemaisah. halcah isnt decided by Archaeology nor by Eliyahu hanavi. We have a mesora and that doesnt include Techeiles.
so while it is intersting, I dont think we should revise halachic practice based on archaeology. That is a ver y dangerous game
The sheytils women wear today also dont have a mesora of the original sheytil. Time to remove your sheytil.
Seems the consensus is that there is no consensus and like many such issues, you can always find a “gadol” on your side of the debate
ubiquitin: “We have a mesora and that doesnt include Techeiles”
so will we never fulfill this mitzvah again? or will that change with the coming of Mashiach? and if that latter, please explain how.
we have a Torah, and that DOES include Techeiles.
TheFakeMaven: What changed in the last 5 years since Rav Elyashiv was niftar that you are so convinced would have changed his mind and had him don this after not having worn it all his life?
To argue we should follow some practice because it is not forbidden and MAY have some redeeming spiritual value and/or provide some segulah is borderline “new age” hashkafah along the lines of the “healing” properties of certain crystals worn around your neck etc. Given that most yidden struggle just keeping up with hundreds of mitzos asseh m’doraisah, coming up with new rules of general applicability seems to complicate our daily lives unnecessarily.
ubiquitin: I’m sorry but you are simply incorrect. Premises B and C dictate premise A without your addition. Premise A, all Jews must do all mitzvohs. Objection of Gitten and Yibud are fallicious, for Gitten is a mitzvah only if a divorce is needed. So to Yibbum or Chalitzah are circumstantial mitzvohs, as is tzitzis (if a beged of four corners is worn) Every circumstantial mitzvah is a mitzvah if and only if the circumstances call for it.
Premise A in regards to Gitten would be such: Premise B, Gitten is a mitzvah ‘when it is needed’ (otherwise it is not a mitzvah). so if a get is needed it is a mizvah other wise it is not. Therefore your objections are as wrong as can be.
As to archaeology, it is only used as a snif for techelis, the simanei chazal and testimony of the gentiles are the actual arguments.
in conclusion: spreadthetruth is correct, whilst your wrong.the simanei chazal
The simanei Chazal are a strong argument against murex trunculus.
Assuming one decides to “wear techeiles”, does one follow the shitta of tosfos (2 of the 4 on each corner are techiles resulting in 4 blue and 4 white per corner) ), rambam (only 1/2 of the 4 should be techeiles resulting in 7 white and one blue per corner) or the raavad (who holds an entire string is blue resulting in 6 white and 2 blue per corner.
once you decide that, then, there are many opinions how to tie the strings.
Takes2ttango
Im sorry Im not sure if our comment is addressed to me. I dont understand it or its relevance.Gingerkale
“or will that change with the coming of Mashiach? and if that latter, please explain how.”I dont know. Im excited to find out though.
“we have a Torah, and that DOES include Techeiles.”
As mentioned it also includes Yibum. Last time you had a spot that you didint know what it was, did you go to a kohein (Mitzvah 169 in chinuch)? We dont practice wah tthe Torah says that was the Tzedoki approach. We practice the Torah as interpreted by torah shebal peh and as handed down ish mipi rabbo, and as codified by Rishonim/acronim
The fake maven
You are contradicting yourself You disagree with my rewording of your faulty premise “all Jews must do all mitzvohs” Yet concede “… only if a divorce is needed. …Every circumstantial mitzvah is a mitzvah if and only if the circumstances call for it.”which is almost verbatim my rewording “all Jews must do every mitzvah possible if circumstances call for it”
So Im not sure what your disagreement is there.You then go on “Premise A in regards to Gitten …”
But my example was yibum“As to archaeology…”
I was using that as a generalization meaning modern research. and lol at “testimony of the gentiles”Of course I may be wrong. Though I am not alone, my rebeim felt that way. Rav Elyashiv felt that way. The Chazon ish was opposed to paskening based on manuscripts. R’ Yoshe Ber said we dont pasken from Genizahs (what he called the garbage can). while Admitedly the evidence for the murex is stronger than the cases made based on manuscrits and it isnt exactly the same. The principle holds
The premise that a mesorah is needed to be ืืงืืื the mitzvah of techeiles is contrary to the das torah of the Maharil and more who say that its possible to find the chilozon. ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจ
ubiquitin: it seems i must explain exactly what i mean. I did not rewrite premise A, rather I explained to you why you’re wrong. I’ll explain myself again. You’re under the impression that a when a person gets married he has a mitzvah of giving a get, that is simply incorrect. There is no mitzvah of getting divorced. the reason why one should not give a get is not because one should try doing the most mitzvahs he can, rather one has no mitzvah of giving a get unless he wants to. Big differnce. the same is with yibbum or any other circumstantial mitzvah.
Which is why there was no difference in giving the example through gitten or yibbum, both of the there is NO MITZVAH UNLESS WANTED, not that one should try doing as many mitzvohs as one could.
I hope this is clear and simple enough.as to the testimony of the gentiles. i’d advise you to look up the Pri Chadash (Y.D 80:2) and the Steipler (kisvei hachadashim 119:20) before dismissing anything lightly. It is an extremely irresponsible to give an opinion on something you have obviously done no research. And again all Rav Eliyashv said is that we can’t be mechayiv the world to carry, and that was before all the new evidence of recent times.
You should search Rabbi Frand has a shiur on techales hachodosh where he shows why the murex is NOT correct. It’s not so simple that it is
ubiquitin
I read your comments and I can’t make any sense of it. What ืฉืืืืืช does ืืืื ืืืืืื have regarding this topic??!! Tzitzits is a mitzvah for everyone to do. Now even though a person doesn’t have to put on a beged with ื ืื ืคืืช do become mechuav in the mitzvah, but once you are wearing a pair of tzitzis and you don’t put on techeles you are being ืืืื ืืฆืืช ืขืฉื ืืืืื ืืื ืจืืข as though you are wearing ื ืื ืคืืช without tzitzis!! The ืืืช ืืืื says clearly that in such a case that you have techeles and you only put on white its an isurr ืืืืจืืืชื of ืื ืชืืจืข!! In the sefer ืขืจืืืช ืืืืฉื from one of the ืืขืื ืชืืกืคืืช it says that if a person only wants to go with white strings ืืืื ืืืชื ืขื ืฉืชืฆื ื ืคืฉื ืืื ืืฆืืช ืขืฉื.
So its obvious that your whole pshetle makes no sense.
So to rest of your words
There are clear sources that state matter of factly that the murex is the ืืืืื ืืชืืืช. For example ืจืื ืืืจืื ืืจืืคื ืืกืคืจ ืฉืืื ืืืืจืื, and the ืืืืช ืืืืจ ืืกืคืจ ืืงืืจ ืืืื. Plus there are no sources that disagree. So who can?!!
All the gedolim that you mentioned none of the were ืืืจืจ ืืืืจ. As they say themselves. R`chaim says to anyone who asks him that if they are sure thag this is techeles they MUST go with it.
Anyone’s who is interested to study the topic should go to techeiles. org and see for himself
thinker123: I think that is the point. We can find the chilazon but are we sure we know it is the correct species?
whoa lots of comments from many people I shall go i order.
thinker123
“The premise that a mesorah is needed to be ืืงืืื the mitzvah of techeiles is contrary to the das torah of the Maharil and more who say that its possible to find the chilozon”Im not familiar with the Mahril you mention, Even if it exists. halcha isnt decided based on what the Mahril held. R’ Chaim Kanievsky said it wont be found until Moshiach comes, R’ Elyashiv essentially said what said (that should be reversed obviously)
Thefakemaven
“Youโre under the impression that a when a person gets married he has a mitzvah of giving a get…”
I m under no such impression. Your premise simply isnt accuate, as you admit as there is no race to fullfil mitzvos. If you need to give a get you give a get if you have abeged with daled kanfos you wear tzizis if you come across a nest and want the eggs yo udo shiluach hakein etc etc. There are soem mitzvos that are incumbent no matter waht. not all are.” the same is with yibbum or any other circumstantial mitzvah.”
My point with yibum, is that even i a situation where there is a mitzvah of yibum (brother dies without children r”l) as you may or may not know, we STILL do not perfrom the mitzvah of yibum, instead chalitza is done. Even when the circumstance DOES call for yibum, we still forgo it.As for accepting testimony (I dont have immediate access to your sources) . Even of a Yid isnt neccesarily accepted. For example R’ Elazar reports how he saw the tzitz in rome yet we dont pasken like him.
thinker123
“I read your comments and I canโt make any sense of it.”
hope I can help, though dont hold your breath.” What ืฉืืืืืช does ืืืื ืืืืืืhave regarding this topic??!!Tzitzits is a mitzvah for everyone to do”
And yibum is a mitzvah for a person whose brother dies childless to do. Yet he doesnt do it.
(Im not saying it is a perfect comparison, it of course isnt. But it does demonstrate that this line “all Jews must do every mitzvah possible.” isnt 100% true.“but once you are wearing a pair of tzitzis and you donโt put on techeles you are being ืืืื ืืฆืืช ืขืฉื ืืืืื ืืื ืจืืข as though you are wearing ื ืื ืคืืช without tzitzis!!”
chas vesholam to be motzi laz on gnerations of kala Yisroel. They were yotzi the mitzva as am I. The halacha is techeiles eino meakev as halavan.
“So its obvious that your whole pshetle makes no sense.”
It isnt mine.“Plus there are no sources that disagree. So who can?!!”
Ruba deruba of Gedolim can disagree both past and present.“R`chaim says to anyone who asks him that if they are sure thag this is techeles they MUST go with it.
Anyoneโs who is interested to study the topic should go to techeiles. org and see for himself”Yet Rav Chaim doesnt wear it himself, too bad R’ Chaim doesn’t have access to techeiles.org. Maybe you can print it out and persuade him.
Also see DY’s excellent source. thank you DY for supplying it..
You’re welcome.
ubiquitin: This is getting tedious, but I shall try to explain this simple concept to you one last time. ‘as you admit as there is no race to fullfil mitzvos…’ I have never ‘admitted’ such an absurd concept. Of course there is a ‘race to fulfill every mitzva possible, do you argue on the Mishna of ‘ืืขืืื ืืื ืจืฅ ืืืืจ ืืฆืื’?! All I said was that a ืืฆืื ืงืืืืืช meaning a mitzvah that there is no obligation to do unless wanted to, ืืื ืืืื ืงืืื ืืืื ืขื ืืืื. But of course he should do it if he can. But giving a get is NOT even a ืืฆืื ืงืืืืืช, there is no reason why one should divorce if not needed, it is a last resort, if nothing else can help, but of ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืื ืืืฉ ืืืฉืชื ืืืื ืคืืจืืชืืื ืืขืืื ืืื! As such every logical indivisual should understand the difference between Gitten and other mitzvohs.
As for yibbum, again your comparison is fundamentally off. The reason why we do Chalitza over Yibbum is because Chazal knew that most people perform Yibbum the wrong way as it is CLEARLY written in Mesechtes Yevamos. it is not US who ‘forgo it’, Chazal have stated that we are not ืืงืืื ืืฆืืช ืืืื ืืืืืชื. So again it is not a kiyum mitzvas Yibbum which we ‘forgo’ rather it is mitzvahs chalitza which CAN be done the correct way which takes precedence.
But of course any mitzvah that CAN be done correctly, any person with half a mind should RUN and do it.ืืื ืื ืืงื ืืฆืืช.
DY: The Yehushuas Malko is irrelevant to the present discussion as the issues raised in the teshuva were only relevant to the Rezhiners techeilis. Sorry to bust your bubble.As to the Gedolim, again you miss the point. The Gedolim in question say that the have not been ืืืจืจ the ืืฆืืืืช. And Rav Chaim Kenievzky said that one is entitled to disagree with him and should wear techilis.
ื”ื ืืืืจ ืชืฉืข”ื ื”ื ืืืจ”ื ืงื ืืืกืงื ืฉืืื”ื: ืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืืืืกื ืืจืืจ, ืืขื ื ืืืจ ืืืืื ืขื ืคื ืืื!as to the Pri Chadash etc, I know that you have not seen it, which is what I meant that before you write any comment do the research before.
Please think before you answer this, and do not just answer off the cuff.
Joseph-
Please reread fakemavens comment. The fact is that rav aliyashiv was not mevarer the metzius, as he says himself in the mentiond letter. Secondly, one of his biggest talmidim, rav Carp, wears techeiles.Gadolhadorah-
โTo argue we should follow some practice because it is not forbidden and MAY have some redeeming spiritual value and/or provide some segulah is borderline โnew ageโ hashkafah along the lines of the โhealingโ properties of certain crystals worn around your neck etc.โ
Please think before you write. We are not dealing with a segulah only a mitzvah ืขืฉื ืืืืจืืืชื, that predates the creation of the universe. As I wrote before there is a ืืฉืฉ ืืืืื ืืฆืืืช ืขืฉื ืืืืจืืืชื, and the isur of ืื ืชืืจืข , so of course who doesnโt want to play it safe. Besides it almost ืืจืืจ that we are dealing with the real thing. [let me just ask: how many esrogim do you use??]
Das yochid.-
The simanei Chazal are a strong argument pro the murex trunculus.Apushita yid โ
In the same vein we shouldnโt wear tefilin, there is also 4 shitos. [FYI: the Tur only brings down shitos tosafos, same with TAZ, and ืฉื”ืข ืืจื .]
Regarding the method of tying, its not ืืขืื.Das yochid- please explain what do you see in the ืืฉืืขืืช ืืืื. You cauld have put up all 3 teshuvos?? [The murex is not a cuttlefish.]
Iacisrmma-
โthinker123: I think that is the point. We can find the chilazon but are we sure we know it is the correct species?โ
I agree with you 100% what im saying is that we cant brush off the whole thing because we donโt have a mesorah what is the chilozan. If after a careful research we find it, we have to wear it.
Now back to ubiquitin
โIm not familiar with the Mahril you mentionโ
What?? Anyone who learnt a little about this topic would know it. So no, Iโm not going to help you find it. Just learn about the topic before you write.
โEven if it exists. halcha isnt decided based on what the Mahril held. Rโ Chaim Kanievsky said it wont be found until Moshiach comesโ
Pardon me, I think that the maharil is bigger then rav chaim. Do you realize that the Mahril is usually the mesorah of Ashknaz? But its irrelevant, rav chaim told a lot of people, if you hold this is techeiles, you MUST go with it. So how could you bring as proof to your point. [as is known rav chaim has sedorim back to back, so no, he never went through this topic which is ืชืืื in a lot of things that are not ืืื ืืืชืื ืืืืื”ื]
โchas vesholam to be motzi laz on gnerations of kala Yisroel. They were yotzi the mitzva as am I.โ
They were yotzah, of course. But now if we found the techeiles we are ืืืืืื to go with it. [โas I amโ ??? who says you were??]
โThe halacha is techeiles eino meakev as halavan.โ
If you would learn the topic you would see that it has nothing to do with it. There are clear gemaras that we see the ืืืืื to go with techeiles if its obtainable. Besides I quoted clear sources who say what I mentioned. So โits not mineโ either.
โPlus there are no sources that disagree. So who can?!!โ
Ruba deruba of Gedolim can disagree both past and present
Very well, find me one who [went through the topic and] argues with them.
โAlso see DYโs excellent source. thank you DY for supplying it.โ
Nothing new, your just proving the point that you never went thru the topic at all.The fake maven
We are getting sidetracked by what I assume is amisunderstanding.
you wrote “premise A) all Jews must do every mitzvah possible. ”
I pointed out that this wasnt 100% accurate, but that reworded your point could still stand with merely that flaw.I wrote “Your premise simply isnt accuate, as you admit …” The punctuation was poor on my part, and Im sorry about that. I meant that Your premise A “all Jews must do every mitzvah possible.” Isnt 100% you now correctly differentiate between mitzvah kiyumis and chiyuvis.
You agreed that that premise wasnt 100% accurate. for example you conceded “โโฆ only if a divorce is needed. โฆEvery circumstantial mitzvah is a mitzvah if and only if the circumstances call for it.โ”
This is alomst verbatim what I corrected your premise to namely ” all Jews must do every mitzvah possible if circumstances call for it”what follows is ” there is no race to fulfill mitzvos” Though you havent admitted this point. It is of course accurate. Again there is no race to perform every mitzvah, as there is no race to perfrom a Get.
Yes there are tirutzim why we dont do yibum, I didnt mention korbon Pesach as Ive heard many peshetlach explaining why we don’t do that either. Im surprised nobody mentioned the reason we arent mekayem showing nega to Kohanim is becasue they arent meyuchos which is the classic answer. These are peshetlach explaining existing practice. (As we should do Im not being Motzei Laz on whomever it is that woke up one day with what looked like a nega and said, forget this Im not going to the Kohein, see if I care)
“And Rav Chaim Kenievzky said that one is entitled to disagree with him and should wear techilis.”
He must not know the mishna “ืขืืื ืืื ืจืฅ ืืืืจ ืืฆืื” Why isnt he mevarer it
“I know that you have not seen it, which is what I meant that before you write any comment do the research before”
disagree completely! Im here to learn. and if I’m mistaken or you have new knowledge to share Im eager to learn.
This isnt off the cuff, this is after years of discussing with My Rebbeim, Mesora to me is paramount. when New things are introduced Even with good intentions, it can have a devastating affect on everything.Out of curiosity say I proved to you that the Pri eitz Hadar mentioned by the Torah is actualy an Apple.(dont worry its not) We find archaeological evidence it turns out unlike Esrogim Apple bark tastes like Apples (again, not really) would you abandon the Esrog in place of the apple?
thinker 123
“What?? Anyone who learnt a little about this topic would know it. So no, Iโm not going to help you find it. Just learn about the topic before you write.”Foolishness. This may surprise you. Bu YWN coffee room isnt realy where I produce final ideas after researching Evrything. I am always eager to hear more. IF you dont want to help me find it . no problem there is always google. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
“Pardon me, I think that the maharil is bigger then rav chaim. Do you realize that the Mahril is usually the mesorah of Ashknaz?”
Yes. though again that sint how halacha gets decided.
” But its irrelevant, rav chaim told a lot of people, if you hold this is techeiles, you MUST go with it. So how could you bring as proof to your point. [as is known rav chaim has sedorim back to back, so no, he never went through this topic which is ืชืืื in a lot of things that are not ืืื ืืืชืื ืืืืืโื]”
Cmon that is the weakest excuse. You cant possibly beleive that.
” [โas I amโ ??? who says you were??]”
We may be going in circles. But over a thousand years of mesora says so. and the again of course there is the inconvenient fact that most Gedolim today do not wear it. (including Rav Chaim)“If you would learn the topic you would see that it has nothing to do with it. There are clear gemaras that we see the ืืืืื to go with techeiles if its obtainable. Besides I quoted clear sources who say what I mentioned. So โits not mineโ either.”
โPlus there are no sources that disagree. So who can?!!โ
Ruba deruba of Gedolim can disagree both past and present
Very well, find me one who [went through the topic and] argues with them.
Gedolim? OR Rabbonim. Among Rabbonim are Rabbi Resiman who delivered a shiur a few years back. among Gedolim I dont know who was mevarer what. I do know that they dont wear it. Again an inconvenient fact you cannot just wish away. You say it is so easy to be mevarer just go to the website. They can be mevarer and choose not to. Care to explain why?
Also feel free to answer my apple question posed to thefakemavinI dont think i am saying anything that crazy.
Here it is in short.
We practice the way our parents practiced we dont introduce new innovations even if they seem correct.Thinker123
you quoted the Beis halevei earlier. I found the source I was looking for
R’ yoshe Ber quotes from his Grandfather (The beis Halevi) in Shiurim Lezeicher Aba Mari, chelek 1 page 228 that we dont prove based on research, when a specific item is required for a Mitzvah. This is why the Beis Halevi rejected the Radziner’s techeiles and the principle holds true with the murex as well.Dont feel bad if you havent come across this in your research, it in no way proves you never went thru the topic at all. It is a vast topic. With many dimensions. there is always more to share. and now you know.
ubiquitin:
“The Chazon ish was opposed to paskening based on manuscripts.”This is one of the most often misquoted statements said in the name in the Chazon Ish. Of course the CI allowed the use of manuscripts. The CI did not allow for the uprooting of halacha pesuka with a manuscript.
Rโ Yoshe Ber said we dont pasken from Genizahs (what he called the garbage can).
This should never be said over in his name. This statement reflects extremely poor on him. Maybe the Rambam’s manuscript from the genizah is also garbage c”v.
youdontsay: well said!
ubiquitin: Again please think before you answer. No, it is neither verbatim or conceding a point! Premise A is that one has to do all mitzvos possible, that means every mitzvah. But let’s think for a moment, must one get married so he can divorce? Must one injure someone so that he can pay? Must one borrow so that he can repay? Obviously not, even though premise A is correct, these are not a mitzvah, meaning these are mitzvohs (M) if such and such happen (P). Now so long as P does not happen there is no M. the reason why one does not do M is not because one does not have to do M (as you have mistakengly understood), rather there is no M as long as P does not happen.
There is a big ื ืค”ื between these two ways of thinking, for according to your understanding of M, there is a concept of M, you just don’t need to do it. Whereas according to my (and the correct) explanation of M, so long as P does not happen THERE IS NO m AT ALL. So to reiterate, there was NO agreement to any of you ืกืืจืืช ืืจืกืืืช.“what follows is โ there is no race to fulfill mitzvosโ Though you haven’t admitted this point. It is of course accurate. Again there is no race to perform every mitzvah, as there is no race to perform a Get.”
I take it that you have no problem arguing with Shlomo Hamelech who stated ืืื ืื ืืงื ืืฆืืืช, or with the Tanna who has stated ืืขืืื ืืื ืจืฅ ืืืืจ ืืฉื ื, wince, we have no mesorah for this… [I think it self understood that you have nothing to say on this topic since you have clearly not addressed this point other than restating this concept which is against the whole ‘mesorah’ of yiddishkeit].
[as an aside, I now understand why Chazal had to give a special name for one that does not put on Tefilin ืงืจืงืคืชื ืืื ืื ื ืชืคืืื, since seeing that their are frum people such as yourself, who do not see an issue with not doing mitzvohs, since, after all there is no race, they would not even put on teffilin if not for the statement of ืงืจืงืคืชื…].As for yibbum, I can’t believe you really meant what you said. Terutzim?! Do you consider not blowing shofar on shabbos because of the gezaira a ‘terits?! We don’t do yibbum because Chazal told us not to! it’s not a kahya teritz! seriously, even for you….
you can stop with your excuse of mesorah, the only place in HALACHA that we find the concept of mesorah is with birds, for everything else we rely on a sefer which you may or may not have heard of, it is called the Shulchan Aruch. There cannot be a mesorah against techeilis as there was no techeilis to speak of….
As for Rav Chaim, explain to me, do you have a different explanation of the mishana?! Why Rav Chaim is not meverer is simply because since he from the Gedoei Hador and has real limited time…..
“disagree completely! Im here to learn. and if Iโm mistaken or you have new knowledge to share Im eager to learn.”
So go to techelis.com, don’t sstart writing nonsense. It is quite clear you have an agenda….as for the Esrog, it’s a moot point, there has never and would never be such a thing,
ubiquitin: “I dont think i am saying anything that crazy. Here it is in short. We practice the way our parents practiced we dont introduce new innovations even if they seem correct.”
You simply miss the point. This issue is not innovation.
Chazal never told us to avoid doing Yibum. Only Ashkenazim have a custom to only to Chalitza. Sephardim can still do Yibum today.
The religious Zionist wear techeylus. Another good reason to avoid it.
ubiquitin
โI am always eager to hear more. IF you dont want to help me find it . no problem there is always google. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.โIf you really are interested I already told you were to look. My point is if your lazy to go thru the topic, Iโm not going to help you.
โCmon that is the weakest excuse. You cant possibly believe that.โ
You have another explanation? Itโs a fact the bigger the gadol the less time he has. And because almost all people when they hear about it, they donโt believe it, [until they research it themselves], the same with rav chaim he is not going to spend his time on it.
โWe may be going in circles. But over a thousand years of mesora says so.โ
Huh??!! Your not going to find someone who disagrees with you. But what does that have to do with it, its very possible that now we found it. [as the maharil says that its possible].
โand the again of course there is the inconvenient fact that most Gedolim today do not wear it.โ
And again you keep on leaving out the inconvenient fact that most of the gedolim were not mevarer. And from those that were, most came to the same conclusion: techeiles is back!!
Regarding Rabbi Resiman. Just look on the mentioned website.
โyou quoted the Beis halevei earlier. I found the source I was looking for
Rโ yoshe Ber quotes from his Grandfather (The beis Halevi) in Shiurim Lezeicher Aba Mari, chelek 1 page 228 that we dont prove based on research, when a specific item is required for a Mitzvah. This is why the Beis Halevi rejected the Radzinerโs techeiles and the principle holds true with the murex as well.
Dont feel bad if you havent come across this in your research, it in no way proves you never went thru the topic at all. It is a vast topic. With many dimensions. there is always more to share. and now you know.โThe ืืืช ืืืื I quoted is in the teshuvas. Regarding what you are quoting, [realy sorry but a know it already]. I usually try not to waste time on all the brisker bubeh maises, especially when thy are not compatible with the letter the ืืืช ืืืื sent the radziner rebbe, what is printed his the sefer. There he says a slightly different reason from what is said in his name ืืืืช ืืจืืกืง, and changes the whole perspective, and would not apply regarding the murex. So no, if have to pick between what the ืืืช ืืืื said to what is said in his name, its obvious the latter is out the window. [as would every sane person].
By the way, I donโt know if Iโll be wasting more of my time debating someone who never went thru the topic.DY: The Yehushuas Malko is irrelevant to the present discussion as the issues raised in the teshuva were only relevant to the Rezhiners techeilis. Sorry to bust your bubble.
Actually, some of his points are relevant to murex as well.
Tzvi hersh
They also keep other mitzvos. Maybe we should stop keeping the torah ch”vDaasYochid: “Actually, some of his points are relevant to murex as well.”
Since you seem to know the Yeshuos Malko so well, why don’t you share with us how his teshuva is relevant to the murex. Why so ambiguous?
I’m not getting involved in the particulars of the shailah – my research on “Techeiles” consists of listening to one or two shiurim a year ago, and some minimal browsing online. I don’t profess to know anything about the Murex, or about Techeiles.
For years, I had shver why we don’t wear techeiles at least ืืกืคืง. Surely the dictum of ืกืคืง ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืืืจื obligates us to wear something which MAY be the techeiles, even if we are not convinced that it is! I find it a chiddush to say that the fact we have no Mesorah stops any ืืืืช ืืกืคืง.
I think the answer to this is R’ Chaim’s vort. R’ Chaim explained that ืกืคืง ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืืืจื only obligates an action that will remove you from the ืกืคืง. For example – nobody who davens Nusach Ashkenaz will say Krias Shema in Sefardi or Temani pronunciation, although it is a ืืืื ืืืืจืืืชื and there is certainly a chance that the Temani mesorah is correct. So why doesn’t ืกืคืง ืืืืจืืืชื ืืืืืจื obligate you to say Shema in as many pronunciations as you can? The answer is – since even after you say Shema a second time, you still will not have ืืืื been yotze the chiyuv, you are not obligated.
Once we establish that you are not mechuyav ืืืื ืกืคืง, you are only obligated if you really are convinced that you are wearing Techieles. And even if you are 100% without a shadow of doubt sure that the Murex is Techeiles, you still have no idea whether to wear them like Tosfos, like the Ra’avad, or any of the other shittas.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.