- This topic has 128 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
“It is clear, however, to those who have properly researched the subject, that whoever doesn’t accept this
techailes , is simply mistaken and is not aware of the seriousness.”Thats fine. It is equally as clear to me (based on my own Rav) that there are legitimate halachic reasons NOT to wear what is claimed to be techeiles. I dont know what they are, and since I am not in the business of second guessing my Rav, his psak, is a psak, not a recommendation. I suspect, many (though certainly not all) other people feel the same way.
Tom
“you have not, as is apparent from the constant inaccuracies in your statements. ”Its clear from my say so. I am not pretending to have done thorough research let alone “very thorough ”
Although I would question how good your research has been given that you are having trouble with a simple halacha
A few posters here have said that not wearing techeiles is being mevate lthe mitzva of tzitizis.
This is incorrect. If you were to say that not wearing shel rosh means you werent yotzeh tefilin you would likewise be incorrect.“and the same is true for techailes.”
Arguably. What isnt arguable though is that it is circular reasoning to say “there is a chiyuv to wear this debated techelies and otherwise yo uarent yotzeh tzitzis sincedebated techeiles is available, and therefore there is nothing further to debate” (this isnt an actual quote from anybosdy here but it is a summary of the argument using the fact that we are being mevatel a mizvah.
Put another way, the only way you can possibly say it is being mevatel a mitzvah is if we are sure it is techeiles. And one of the arguments being made to accept it is that not doing so would be mevatel a mitzvah.
Ditto for my argument based on mesora. If it requires a mesora (and I grant not all agree) then not wearing it because there is no mesora is not being mevatel a mitzvah.“Had you attended the asifa, you would have heard this being explained clearly and thoroughly. ”
do you believe 100% of the audience will now wear techeiles?Tom (continued)
“By the way, as you admit to not having done much research besides reading some flyers etc, why are you so bold to argue so strongly against the techailes. ”
Im not being bold at all. I acknoweldged that talmidei chachomim disagree. There is room for machlokes in klal yisroel. This isnt the first time ive encountered machlokes.
However, as the discussion progressed it has become clear to me that Given the strange arguments coming from your side. Besmirching anyone who disagrees and intimating that they are more motivated to perform mitzvos and have a better grasp due to their “Very thorough Research” this isnt coming from a good place. That isnt how the Yetzer Tov operates. Im not sure what is driving it. Money? Mesianic fervor? Yehura? but it is not coming from a good place.People often ask what is the point in engaging in these conversations, minds arent changed. Here is another example of where my mind has changed. before this conversation I had thought most of those who advocate for the techeiles are out of genuine desire to perform ratzon Hashem (even if mistaken, for whatever reason) I see that for many this isnt the case.
“Do you often engage in the practice of making arguments in subjects in which you aren’t well learned, against people who may very well know far far much more that you, and may actually be experts?”
Of course! that is the best way to learn. And besides, any experts here are doing a great job at hiding their expertise and/or their honesty.
@ubiquitin: Who was speaking to you? Most of what I wrote was not addressed to you.
“Seriously, what is your agenda, money?”
More likely you are an obstinate person.
No, Rabbi Kaganhoff is entitled to his opinion. However, I am entitled to call him out when he errs. Such as his incorrect reading of the Yeshous Malko, and the Rema, and his misunderstand of the malachah of gozeiz. In any case, most of his arguments are not new.
You simply miss my point regarding Teshuvos V’Hanhagos. You don’t get the politics surrounding it. I stand by my argument, it is a krankeit to cite Brisker Torah l’halacha.
You don’t understand mesorah, and halacha psuka. Its not your fault, its a Brisker thing. There is no chance that you are not yotze.
I cite sources that there is halachic proof, but you are more interested in arguing that the main proof is scientific. More to come later.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles-nowadays
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles-1
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/ticheles-nowadays-legit-or-not
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/tcheiles-today
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/if-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90said-it-was-tcheiles
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/arba-kanfos-without-techeles(https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles-and-drinking-on-purim)
“But do not make arguments about this subject, because you don’t know it.”
I have not, and do not intend to. A comment, is not an argument, for or against.
“There are actually no legitimate halachic reasons not to wear this techailes.
My Rav disagrees with you.
“Unfortunately, most people who comment on this, including rabbonim, have not studied it and simply make an assumption ,”
If this is your belief, so be it.
“And please don’t argue about whether or not there was a huge event in Boro Park, because there was, and you argue without knowing, as you do about the very subject itself.”
Again, I have not. I have asked repeatedly what went on at this event, and so far you have come oh so tantilizingly close to answering this question, but dont.
“I would suggest you stay out of the argument because you don’t now the subject.
That is a very valid suggestion. In fact, one I have followed since the outset. I have not taken a position one way or another. I HAVE stated my personal practice, which I have not suggested that anyone here adopt.
“If your reason not to wear techailes is truly because you are following your rav, than why do you need to argue?”
You must be confusing me with someone else. Again, I have not taken a position, only stated my personal practice.
youdint say
“Who was speaking to you? ”
whoever cares to read. and to flush out my own ideas. As mentioned I learnt a lot from this thread.“Most of what I wrote was not addressed to you.”
It is still wrong. and wrong comments are worthy of response“More likely you are an obstinate person.”
could be. But what is motivating you?“No, Rabbi Kaganhoff is entitled to his opinion. However, I am entitled to call him out when he errs.”
Beseder. So it is a machlokes (and he isnt the only one who disagrees as you correctly point out “In any case, most of his arguments are not new” Though I’m not sure why that would make them wrong.).“You simply miss my point regarding Teshuvos V’Hanhagos. You don’t get the politics surrounding it. I stand by my argument, ”
I didn’t miss it. I understood that you were being dismissive of R’ Moshe Shternbuch’s ability/right to pasken .
“it is a krankeit to cite Brisker Torah l’halacha.”
See I was right. You are arguing that R’ Moshe Shternbuch suffers from a krankeit and cant be cited as a halachic source.“You don’t understand mesorah, and halacha psuka. Its not your fault, its a Brisker thing.”
I am not a brisker. and So now Brisker’s dont understnad halacha? Seriously do you beleive these kind of arguments are motivated by the Yetzer Tov?
BTW another excelent example occured to me When Dr. Yehuda Felix brougt proof that sheboles shula isnt Oats. R’ Moshe replied that even with another thousand proofs we wont change a tradition in klal yisreol (yep not exactly analagous, but the point is there)
” There is no chance that you are not yotze.”
Agreed completely. was this a typo?ubiquitin – “…you can possibly say it is being mevatel a mitzvah is if we are sure it is techeiles.”
Ok so if this blue ink happens to be the real techailes are we fine with being mevatel a mitzvah?
And if its just ink what did you lose by wearing it just for 10 mins a day in the privacy of your home?Tom, the absurdness of your declaring Talmidei Chachomim far greater than you, who have concluded it is not techeilus, that “their statements are based on false arguments and ignorance… they are spoken too quickly and without accuracy” based upon what ” is apparent to me from my research” is beyond description.
Edited. Deleted. Wiped clean. Your derogatory statements, beliefs and attributions of naivete toward the greatest Torah giants is completely unacceptable and not publishable. We have done our research well and have years of experience in recognizing pompous, over-confidence.
יישר כחך, Moderator! (25?)
Wasn’t me -25
I believe it was 29. -100
’twas – 29
2qwerty
“Ok so if this blue ink happens to be the real techailes are we fine with being mevatel a mitzvah?”
I wouldnt say “fine” We daven multple times daily for the return of many mitzvos that we dont fullfil lfor one reason or other.
“And if its just ink what did you lose by wearing it just for 10 mins a day in the privacy of your home?”
A few things.
1. Who says I dont
2 I have no problem with putting it on privately, my concern is the mass communal efforts. Many Rabbonim as pointed out did put it on, though they did not advocate for others to put it on. (I dont fully understand the reasoing of these Rabbonim, the ones of asked told me a combination of yehura and breach in mesora that they felt they avoided by doing it privatly liek you suggest as opposed to mass communal effort)
3. there may be an issue of different color tzitzis than beged.
4. that isnt how halacha works. Say there is a treifa that has a 10% prevalence in cows. The Halcah is thsi is a miut sheino matzi and we dont check. That means (statistically) if you eat meat from 10 different cows you ate meat that had a treifa. What is the harm in just avoiding meat or checking?
That isnt how halacha works. There are rules, and if you can eat meat without checking then you can eat it.
If Techeiles requires a MEsora, or if there are sufficient questions on it we dont need to do it just in case, (especially given the cost)Therefore I think the only way to discuss this is by discussing the actual topic.
Did I miss where you did that, rather than just assert that you know you’re right?
I don’t like being pompous
But you are very good at it.
Besides for arrogance being a bad middah, it also gets in the way of the ability to discern emes.
For example, some people are so arrogant that they can’t accept that if a talmid chochom comes to a different conclusion than them, there might actually be some validity to it, and it might not be out of carelessness and irresponsibility.
Tom
“This is a major cause, in my opinion, for people to so quickly and easily dismiss it and make arguments which aren’t well thought through. ”I havent encountered that. I think people dismiss it either becasue they arent convinced or becasue the yrely on their Rabbonim. (Yes I know you maintain anyone wh oisnt convinced hasnt done enough research this too is circular)
” because if true techailes is available, it’s a chiyuv gamur. That’s the intention of the point that’s being made.”
Yes I understand the point. But lets follow through If true techeiles is not available (for whatever reason) then their is no chiyuv. Thus the argument that it is a chiyuv isnt an argument to wear questionable techeiles.
“but that it is an issur of being mevatel a mitzva, namely the mitzva of techailes, which is a chiyuv gamur.”
forgive my ignorance but who counts techeiles as a separate mitzva? I dont beleive the Chinuch does.“But let me ask you. If you would know something as clear as the day, …”
It is childish to say anyone who disagrees hasnt researched i enough. There is machlokes on almost everything we do Are Crocs shoes for Yom kippur? does the government supervision count as Jew watching milk? Is a video camera kesiva on Shabbos etc etc etc
on all these there are MAchlokism on both sides and we allow people to follow their Rabbonim. all of a sudden Techeiles that has been lost for a thousand years or more with conflicting descriptions left behind over the centuries, You uare SO SURE that there is absolutely no room for argument.
Even when many Gedolei Olam diasagree?! I find that mind boggling and I dont think its healthy. It is almost cultlike. Next someone might compare not supporting techeiles to supporting terrorists. I know it is hard to believe anyone would make such a strange claim, but with this cultlike mentality, that is where your arguments are headed. (I skipped the next paragraph, forgive me it sounded like you were saying something really crazy)“I don’t like saying that all who argue against me are wrong.”
So dont. Say that you are convinced this is techeiles, you are convinced that no mesora is needed to reintroduce it and so you wear it , and you respect those who disagree“Say there is a treifa that has a 10% prevalence in cows. The Halcah is thsi is a miut sheino matzi and we dont check. That means (statistically) if you eat meat from 10 different cows you ate meat that had a treifa.”
That point is statistically incorrect. (This comment is only about the statistics.)
TomDicknHarry: Please stop equating the Gedolei Yisroel – regardless of how much you disagree with them – with Idol Worshipers. Frankly, it’s disgusting.
ubiquitin – ill give you credit for the first 3 answers you gave me.
Joseph
“That point is statistically incorrect. ”Thanks you are of course correct
. tShould read, Given enough cows it is more likely than not that you ate a treifa2qwerty
Thats funny. I thought the 4th answer was the best. I heard it from Rabbi Reisman, he maintains that there is less than 10% chance that this is the correct techeiles so no reason to be chosehsh for itTDH: This comment of yours “I have not made any derogatory statements chas vesholom against Torah giants. (found above in 1385155) disputes what you say above: “Unfortunately, most people who comment on this, including rabbonim, have not studied it and simply make an assumption , maybe based on the status quo or whatever, that we may ignore this halachic issue. So they don’t bother to research it, and simply make bold statements against the techiles which are false and can easily be disproved in an honest dialogue, as I have seen countless times in this subject”. (found in 1385075).
How do you know what my Rav has or has not studied? Who are you to pass such judgement? I did not attend the asifa. Why? Because my rav (based on his own research) has determined that what today is called techailes may NOT BE what the Torah means by techailes. And yes, he did discuss this with the Radziner Rebbe Tzatzal in the 1970’s when my yeshiva learning the sugya in mesechta menachos.
“We daven multple times daily for the return of many mitzvos that we dont fullfil lfor one reason or other”
I wonder how many of those ehrliche yidden davening for the opportunity to be mekayem ” more mitzvos that they don’t fulfill for one reason or other” are already being mekayem 100% of the ones they can.
I wonder how many of those ehrliche yidden davening for the opportunity to be mekayem ” more mitzvos that they don’t fulfill for one reason or other” are already being mekayem 100% of the ones they can.
Probably none. So what?
about safek deroaysa here is the psak of the mishna berura in 34 places not like the so called reb chaim that yekke brought.
1. כ”ז, סעי’ י”א בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק מ”ג.
2. ל”ב סעי’ ה’ בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק יח וי”ט כתב שהטעם משום סד”א לחומרא- וכ”מ בביאור הגר”א שם ובפרמ”ג, וכ”כ הב”ש בהל’ גיטין.
3. ל”ב ס”ק קע”ג (ואולי יש לחלק).
4. ל”ב ס”ק קע”א ועי”ש בביה”ל.
5. ל”ב ס”ק קפ”ד.
6. ל”ב סעי’ ל”ח בביה”ל ד”ה היכא.
7. ל”ב סעי’ נ’ ס”ק רכ”ז [דלהחולקים [ובראשם בעל העיטור] על הנוב”י אמרינן סד”א, רק הנוב”י ס”ל שאין כאן ספק אלא הם ודאי פסולים].
8. ל”ג ס”ק ט”ו ועי”ש בביה”ל ד”ה לחוש.
9. ל”ג בביה”ל ד”ה ומיהו.
10. ל”ג ס”ק כ”ט.
11. ל”ד סע’ ה’ ובמ”’ב ס”ק כ”ט
12. ל”ט ס”ק כ”ו [ומקורו מהפרמ”ג]
13. ל”ט סעי’ י’ ברמ”א ועי’ מ”ב שם ס”ק כ”ח
14. קצ”ד ס”ק י”ג [שכתב שם המ”ב דלא כהפרמ”ג המפורסם {ואף שהפרמ”ג עצמו סתר דבריו בכ”מ, ויש דרך אחרת ליישב דבריו, ואכמ”ל}, ומלבד המ”ב הרבה אחרונים נמי נקטו דלא כהפרמ”ג ואלו הם: הגר”ז, אבן העוזר, מחצה”ש, דגול מרבבה, בגדי ישע, ערה”ש]
15. תקפ”ו ס”ק י”ח
16. תקפ”ו סעי’ ז’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל”ד ומקורו מהפרמ”ג
17. תקפ”ו ס”ק ל”ו [וכ’ שהוא מטעם ספק, ומקורו מהריטב”א]
18. תקפ”ו בביה”ל ד”ה ויש אומרים דוקא
19. תקפ”ו ס”ק מ”ג ועי’ שעה”צ שם בשם הברכי יוסף
20. תקפ”ו ”ק מ”ז ושעה”צ שם ודו”ק
21. תקפ”ו שער הציון אות צ”ב
22. תקצ”ג סעי’ ב’, ועי”ש בביה”ל שעכ”ז א”א לברך (כלומר שלא קי”ל כרב האי) ועי’ ס”ק ג’ וע”ע תוס’ בר”ה ל”ג:
23. תקצ”ה א’- והוא באמת גמ’ מפורשת בר”ה לד:, ועי’ מג”א א’, ובפרמ”ג שם, ומ”ב ס”ק ג’ וע”ע פרמ”ג פתיחה כוללת סוף שער ד’
24. תרל”א ס”ק ל”ג מהפרמ”ג
25. תרל”ב ס”ק י”ט
26. תרמ”ה בסעי’ ו’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל’ שכל הנידון אינו אלא לענין ברכה ודו”ק
27. תרמ”ט ס”ק נ”ח
28. תרמ”ו ס”ק ט”ו ועי’ היטב בשעה”צ ט”ו
29. תרמ”ו סעי’ י”א ועי”ש במ”ב ל”ו
30. תרמ”ח בביה”ל ד”ה שהוא, ובמ”ב ס”ק ס”ב
31. תרנ”א ס”ק מהפרמ”ג.
32. תרצ”א ש”צ אות ד’.
33. תרצ”א סעי’ י’ ובמ”ב ס”ק כ”ז מהפרמ”ג מבואר שהוא מטעם ספק, והדבר ק”ו
34. תרצ”א ס”ק י”ג-י”ד ובשעה”צ שם אות ט’ וחידוש הוא שהוא כנגד דבריו בכ”מ.minyan hamitzvos has nothing to do with a=how much a chiyuv it is. shoresh 9 and 11
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.