Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

“That’s assuming that the Raavad disagrees with the Rambam. But it’s possible that the Raavad agrees with the Rambam but he just holds that a pesil is a full string. If I recall correctly R’ Soloveitchik understands the Raavad as such (in his shiurim on menachos). I will try to find the exact quote and post it.”

I’m not sure if this is what I was referring to:

????”? ???? ????? ?????? ??”? ?????”? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ?”? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????”? ????? ??? ??? ????”? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???

From ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????’?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????

I do Tosafos. It has the most support amongst Rishonim and Acharonim particularly the mainstays of Ashkenazic psak.

Not to beat a dead horse, but over the years since this discussion started, I have been thinking about the color of Techeiles. I think we already established here from historical sources (Philo, Josephus, the shul) that Techeiles is blue. However the Rishonim and Acharonim were probably not working with those sources and therefore it is possible that some of them came to different conclusions. I think that the case for a shita that holds it was green is pretty strong. Rashi, as far as I have seen, does not anywhere say that Techeiles is blue. On the other hand he does say that Techeiles is close to the color of leek green, a sentiment echoed by the Bartenura. Rabbeinu Yonah has a kashya on those who hold that karti is green – when the Mishnah says bein techeiles lekarti it is talking about to very similar things, clearly not blue and green. Therefore he holds that karti is a shade of blue. Now Rashi explains karti as green. How does he address Rabbeinu Yonah’s question? The simple answer would be that he holds that Techeiles is green and therefore “bein techeiles lekarti” is comparing two shades of green.

The Mileches Shlomo writes ??? ???? ?????? ???

??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? and immediately follows this by quoting the Ibn Ezra’s pshat in the color of techeiles. This is a peirush on the word techeiles in the mishnah so it should be pretty clear that he is explaining the color of techeiles as opposed to the color of the chilazon. The Chazon Nachum claims that it is referring to the color of the chilazon not the color of techeiles. I would suggest that the CHazon Nachum had to say this because he was working with a hanacha that techeiles is blue. But it doesn’t fit so well. If you are trying to explain what color techeiles is why would you not say what color techeiles is and only say what color the chilazon is if it is a different color? Also the juxtaposition of the Ibn Ezra implies that the quote from ??? ???? ?????? is also about the color of techeiles.

It is very reasonable that these commentators thought that techeiles was green. As I pointed out a couple of years ago, the Yerushalmi and various midrashim, when listing the color progression from techeiles to the rakia, have “???? ??????” in between. If Techeiles is blue then this would be saying that blue is domeh to green which is domeh to blue. Whereas if techeiles is green then it would be saying that (a shade of) green is domeh to (another shade of) green ehich is domeh to blue etc. (This could get a little dicey because some of the girsas have ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? so you would have the same problem unless you say that ?? is green.) In fact Tosafos says that the Yerushalmi implies that techeiles is green and the Marei Panim says that it seems to be a machlokes/stirah between the Bavli and Yerushalmi.

So all in all, while in practice it does seem pretty clear that Techeiles is blue, it also seems that there is definitely room for a shitta to say that it’s green and we have no need to monolithically attempt to interpret everyone as saying that it’s blue.

“You always said it is impossible for a machlokes in metzious between the different people who saw techeiles. So if Historians say so, and that is also the pashtus of bavli, we must be docheh yerushalmi. But once you agree there can be machlokes, than we have no reason to be madcheh the pashtus of the bavli to agree with yerushalmi.”

I haven’t changed my position on that. I am agreeing that WE know that techeiles is blue but Rishonim/Acharonim who didn’t see the historians, and had to harmonize the Bavli with the Yerushalmi would have a good hechrech to say that techeiles is green.

I wasn’t using Rabbeinu Yonah as a “raya”. It’s just that if Rashi held that techeiles is green, it would easily answer Rabbeinu Yonah’s kashya.

“and anyways green is domeh to blue lfi the yerushalmi that says yam doeh lasavim”

I would say that green could be domeh to blue even without the Yerushalmi. The only thing is that if you interpret yam as blue then you would have my kashya on the Yerushali as well. Since anyway when it comes to the chilazon, yam was interpreted as green/blue-green, it would make sense to interpret it as such here as well.

“the mishna achrona clearly understood the Ras”h on the color of techeiles therefore the mishna achrona brought the Ibn ezra. the chazon nochum disagrees with pshat in ras”h. The rash himself doesn’t bring the ibn ezra. the cahzon nochum is obviously not the pashut pshat, but obviously it was very clear to him that techeiles was blue so he had to be madcheh.”

(When you say Mishna Acharona I assume you mean Mileches Shlomo.) He definitely understands ??? ???? ?????? as saying that Techeiles is green. The Chazon Nachum definitely argues with this understanding. My point was that the Chazon Nachum’s reading is somewhat dochek and that he was forced into it by the hanacha that techeiles is blue. But at the end of the day, there is still a strong case that Rashi and ??? ???? ?????? held that techeiles was green and I brought in Tosafos and the Marei Panim to lend credence to such an understanding of the Yerushalmi.

I saw the kuntris but I did not read it yet.

By the way, I don’t know if you saw but I posted the quote(s) from (both) R’ Soloveitchik(s) about the Raavad agreeing with the Rambam.

“Rabeinu Yona is a raya farkert since he could have easly answered his question and didn’t.”

He couldn’t have easily answered his question because he held that techeiles is blue.

I agree that we don’t know why the rishonim thought that techeiles is blue.

It seems to be a machlokes as to the Raavad’s shita.

So on Shabbos I was perusing a certain sefer and I found that it had a small piece about Techeiles. The author mentioned that the Radzyner Rebbe claimed to have rediscovered Techeiles but all the contemporary gedolim, with R’ Yitzchak Elchanan Spector at their head, completely rejected it. He said that the Brisker Rav explained that we can’t identify it without a mesorah, based on the Bais Halevi’s response to the Radzyner Rebbe. He concluded by referring readers to the Radzyner Rebbe’s sefer to see the Bais Halevi’s Teshuva which is printed there.

I had two objections to this. I have no problem if people want to be against techeiles. Let them argue against it and marshal sources and halachic arguments. But it seems that this sefer was engaging in dishonest tactics (or the author simply hadn’t ever read the sources he was discussing). The claim that all the contemporary gedolim, with R’ Yitzchak Elchanan Spector at their head, completely rejected it is patently false. The Radzyner Rebbe printed in his sefer two letters from R’ Yitzchak Elchanan in which he very much supported the Radzyner Rebbe (although he didn’t wear it nor did he pasken that one should wear it for certain reasons which he mentions). As for other gedolim, the Maharsham, R’ Itzele Ponevezher, R’ Chaim Berlin, (according to some claims, R’ Chaim Ozer), and R’ Akiva Yosef Shlessinger actually wore the Techeiles, while various other gedolim such as R’ Shmuel Salant, R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin, and R’ Yehuda Leib Eiger provided varying levels of support. In fact I have not seen any written work from any of the gedolim of the time which completely rejected it. The Yeshuos Malko came the closest in his three teshuvos but he merely didn’t support it.

My second objection is that the author was discussing a claim in the name of the Bais Halevi that Techeiles requires a mesorah and he sources the Teshuva in the Radzyner Rebbe’s sefer which says almost the exact opposite. Yes, there is a machlokes between the Briskers and the Radzyners as to what the Bais Halevi actually said, but you can’t only mention the Brisker side and then source it to the Radzyner version. That is lending very much credence to the Brisker position that should not be lent. It makes it seem as if the Radzyner Rebbe’s printed letter is reflective of the Brisker position when it most certainly is not.

Why did he stop?

Back on page 5, zvei dinim wrote “The ??? ???? selects the ?????, why dose he brings this Braisa?”. His point was that the braisa in Menachos on the top of 44a which discusses the chilazon, is not a halachic statement of what the chilazon has to be like, as evidenced by the fact that the Ein Yaakov deemed it to be an aggadah. However, I don’t think that this is such a proof, because the Ein Yaakov has passages which are clearly halachic (e.g. the Gemara in Gittin 7a about music, which is the source which every halachist discusses in regards to whether music is permitted or prohibited). So the mere fact that a gemara appears in the Ein Yaakov does not necessarily mean that it is not to be used as a halachic source.

Sam2:

I like how you expect me to know what you’re referring to without mentioning that you are responding to something I said more than a year ago, which really had nothing to do with techeiles, and in the two pages since then, the discussion has been back to techeiles. But for those who don’t know what Sam is referring to, here’s the discussion from page 13:

mariokart said:

“whats an example of something thats “patur avul assur”??”

Patur Aval Assur said:

puncturing an abcess to remove the pus (on shabbos) when you’re not doing it because of tzaar

Sam2 said:

mariokart: Any Issur D’rbannan.

Sam2 said:

PAA: Your example was not of something Patur Aval Assur. By Mapis Mursa, it’s either Chayav Chatas or Patur UMuttar. If it’s L’hotzi Leicha then it’s Ein Tzricha L’gufa and Chazal weren’t Gozer in this case. If it’s La’asos Pesach, it’s Chayav because now it’s Tzricha L’gufa.

Patur Aval Assur said:

Sam2: Tosfos in kesubos (6a s.v. hai) says that it’s only patur umuttar because of tzaar. If there’s no tzaar then it’s patur aval assur.

The Gemara in Shabbos 107a says:

????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????

Rashi there says:

????. ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????

Tosafos in Kesubos says:

??? ??’ ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? (??? ?? ??.) ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ???

I was interpreting that as saying that it’s only muttar when you’re alleviating your ???. Sam is interpreting it as saying that because people have ???, the Rabbis were never gozer on this case and therefore it’s muttar regardless of your personal circumstances. I actually think that the lashon is mashma more like Sam, especially the Bartenura in Eduyos 2:5 who says ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????.

However, the Magen Avraham (328:32) writes:

???? ??? ????? ?”? ???”?

Now if there was never any gezeira, why would it be better to have a non-Jew do it? It’s completely muttar! However, if you say that since it’s a melacha she’aina tzericha l’gufa, it’s b’etzem assur miderabanan, but b’makom tza’ar they allowed you to do it (and in a case where there is no tza’ar it would be assur) then it makes sense why it would be better to have a non-Jew do it.

I think the Mishnah Berura might support me. In sif kattan 88 he writes:

??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????

which implies that it is b’etzem assur, but because of tza’ar the Rabbis overrode the issur. And in sif kattan 90 he writes:

???”? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????

in which he could be saying that they were never gozer in the first place, but it is notable that he said ?????? ??? instead of ???? ???, which implies a case by case basis.

And the Aruch Hashulchan (338:36) explicitly says:

??? ??????? ???? ?”? ????? ???? ????

So I think a case can be made either way.

DaasYoshid is agreeing with me!!!!!!!!!!