Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

Let’s summarize the last hundred or so posts: The pro-techeiles camp brings dozens of sources/rayas/kashyas that show that mesorah is a non factor here.

According to their tailor-made ideas of mesora, yes.

They further demonstrate that they are on defense based on the starting point of the Torah, thus putting the burden of proof on the anti-techeiles camp.

This is nonsensical and irrelevant. You for some reason seem incapable of making what is a fairly straightforward distinction between the initial starting point from which mesora is justified to once it already is there, when the default is that the starting point is that mesora is legitimate until PROVEN otherwise. Claiming that the default is still what “the Torah says” verbatim is intellectually dishonest.

The anti-techeiles camp does not address any of the sources/rayas/kashyas, but continues to insist that there is a problem of mesorah (without being able to prove it which on offense makes it an invalid claim,)

The anti-techeiles camp did not have a voice to express their shitta. I am not going to keep harping on your asinine intellectually dishonest misconceptions about the default assumption as to the validity of a mesoras applicability here as it stands today.

based on one anonymous rosh yeshiva

You are making up on your own that this is based on one anonymous R”Y. It is not a mere one R”Y. I am not listing names. Nor should I, because they likely wouldn’t want it.

who (based on the fact that my assumption was not challenged) very likely never went through the inyan and therefore most likely never saw what the rishonim and acharonim say on the topic.

Yet again you are inventing the rules of mesoras. This is irrelevant.

I honestly think that TUM731 is indicative of them problems that come up when people apply Lomdus to practical Halachah too much. The fact is, the Rishonim were incredibly clear with everything they said.

I didn’t invent this rule myself. I got it from my Rebbeim who got it from multiple gedolei hador. I am not saying which yeshiva I go to.

And while the current mode of learning might respect the ability to find a way to prove that a Rishon really meant the exact opposite of the words he said, when we get down to the Aliba D’hilchasa aspect of the Sugyos, we have to understand that the Rishonim’s Shittos are, well, the Rishonim’s Shittos.

This is not a “mode” of learning, even if it’s some peoples’ excuse to make up retarded pshatim. This is emes. You need a rebbe for rishonim too. I am not presenting an entire philosophy of shas axioms.

A more accurate summary is:

The people asserting that one should wear techeiles have done a marvelous job bringing a plethora of rayas ranging all over shas that form a legitimate basis to wear techeiles. The people (person?) claiming that there is still a basis to not wear it do so on the basis either that: 1- you’re following the psak of one of a few gedolim or 2- you’re following your mesora (which is the same thing, the real difference is the underlying svaras given.) No attempt was made to provide the logic by which a mesora says not to, because it is unnecessary to support the argument that the shitta exists.

TU731: So if this “Mesorah” of yours doesn’t care about what the Rishonim and Achronim say, what does it care about, exactly?

PAA: So he’s not saying we shouldn’t wear Techeiles. He’s saying we already are!

TU731 – if the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt tomorrow, are you going to say we don’t have the mesorah for bringing korbonos?

TU731 – if the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt tomorrow, are you going to say we don’t have the mesorah for bringing korbonos?

I imagine that maybe, just maybe, Eliyahu Hanavi &/or Mashiach might resolve such an issue. . .

There are two reasons that you can dismiss the evidence: 1- it doesn’t meet the required standard; 2- there is no standard [good enough]. There are those who hold of “1” (I know cuz I asked one). And preaching to me is stupid because I’m not holding in the sugya enough to appreciate the merits of the different sides. Brisk holds of “2”. Furthermore, there is the question of whether there is anything at stake if it’s not techeiles. So the answer is, machlokes whether we should be choshesh for Rashi’s shitta — that discoloration = tzitzis are pasul — as asserted by the Rema. I’m not citing names of poskim I asked, as common sense and basic erech eretz dictates, that they don’t want to be quoted on an internet forum.

it makes zero sense to anyone who learned the sugyos to say there is a psul based on rambam and rashi on color.

1. rama says we aren’t noheg like that shita ???? ?????.

2. the gmara says bfeirush on someonne wearing kla ilan bmkom techeiles ” ??? ??? ??? ???”

3. there is no din min kanaf on techeiles, because otherwise if the talis isn’t tzemer you will never be yotzei min kanaf.

4. also poskim say so mefourosh see yam shel shlomo yevamos 3, mishna berura 9, 14 chazon ish 3, 25 and others.

5. also many assume that even acc. to rambam and rashi it isn’t pasul if isn’t min kanaf

sorry, mechaber.

mechaber doesn’t mean the strings bemakom techeiles acc. to maharshal malbim mishna berura chazon ish. and nobody can argue on that since what they are saying is muchach kana”l

anyways lulei this even if mechaber meant the strings bemakom techeiles a lechatchila can’t go kneged a safek deoraysa (see oc 595) besides for the fact the rama has a kpeida not to be makpid on the mechaber

“Because I managed to find and ask a posek pretty easily.”

a posek par with mahari”l?

did you ask him what he does with maharil, chemdas shlomo, malbim, olas tamid, kli chemda etc.?

it isn’t muchach poskim know those exotic sources. I spoke to many tremendous talmidei chachamim who didn’t know they exist.

TUM: So you have a Minhag L’chatchilah versus potentially being Over an Issur D’Oraisa. Which would you choose?

Also, your point of the evidence not being good enough is nowhere near the same argument as you were making earlier, that we now have a Mesorah to not wear T’cheiles.

The loss of the Mesorah of what Techeiles is was the loss of the identity of the species needed. In other words a critical bit of secular knowledge needed for Torah was lost.

It is ironic that in this thread we have someone who has taken a long screen name to indicate that “secular knowledge is the equivalent of an evil king who tried to uproot Torah Judaism”.

There are no dissenting opinions, hence I don’t quote them.

Wow. This is beyond arrogant. But at least now you’ve made it abundantly clear that this is agenda driven, and that you’re unsinterested in hearing anything else to the contrary. “Don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth.”