- This topic has 737 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
🙂
The chazon Ish is brought down in maaseh ish vol. 1, pg 132
see- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51554&st=&pgnum=132&hilite=
if you are still looking into safek deroysa lchumra on safek techeiles I found a sefer on otzar hachachma called Mishmeres mitzvah (from a talmid of rav shimon shkop) that is very maarich to prove that we say safek deoraysa lchumra here. it can be seen for free on otzar hachachmah’s website since it is only 40 pages long
[There is also the “water Hyacinth” which is a weed that grows in seas and rivers. the flower itself is generally light pink, purple or white. However, all the flowers have blue in the middle. Someone once told me that perhaps this is pshat in the yerushalmi that says ???? ??????. Keyadua, all old Kisvei yad don’t have much of a space in between words so maybe the yerushalmi actually said ???? ???? ?? referring to the water hyacinth that is the grass of the sea.
It is very mechudashdik and doesn’t answer the domeh lwilan in the medrash.]
I saw other attempts to explain the yerushalmi but they are all dochkim.
Speaking of “hyacinth” it is good to quote Codex Justinian (in levush haaron pg. 32)
“No private person shall have power to dye or sell purpurae goods,
Shtait Duh hycinthina (techeiles) comes from murex
Lmaaseh why don’t you wear techeiles??
oy. Sorry for being Choshed Bksheirim. ???”? should be yimalei kol mishalos libcha ltova.
Since when? and how many strings
Where did you see this thing about the old shul. I once saw it referenced to, but never got to the bottom of it.
As for the strings in Torah Treasures in Lakewood they sell tosfos.
They sell there ones that are not made by petil tekhelet company, but by avreichim in Bnei Brak. They call it Techeiles Lchosvei Sh’mo.
I once thought that the Aggada at the top of Chullin 88a (maybe it was 98a) is a strong Ra’aya against Shittas Hatosfos that you need 4 strings. Sometimes when I think about it it feels like an ironclad proof and sometimes it just feels silly.
sam2
where is an excerpt of what i wrote on that
. ???”? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?”? ????’ ??? ???? ???[1], ?? ?”? ???? ????? ?”? ??? ?? ??? ?’ ?? ????[2] ??’ ?? ???. ?”? ????? ?????’ ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????”?. ???”? ?????”? ?????”? ?? ???? ????’ ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????.
[1] ????? ????? ??? ????’ ?????? ?? “?? ??? ???? ??????”, ???”? ??”? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??’ ??”? ??”? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ????”? ???? ???? “????” ????”?.
[2] ??”? ??? ??? ?”?????? ????” ???”? ???? ????? ????”? ????? ????.
also 2 retzuos and it says retzuah lashon yachid
patur-
the beis yosef was gores the raaved to say like tosfos.
also the tiferes yaakov in chulin explains it to mean the sechar of avraham is that on something as simple as a string you can have shechina. ayin shum- lfi this the lashon of chut isn’t necessarily lashon yachid
This whole thing is so stupid, everyone knows that techeiles was made up by the hareidim. Rabbi Slifkin told me!
There are a few legitimate reasons to not wear techeiles that some gedolim do hold by, such as requiring a mesorah to re-institute or R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s interpretation of “nignaz” to mean quite literally hidden from us until the yemos hamashiach.
First of all, if R’ Chaim feels that that is a valid interpretation of “nignaz”, despite the rishonim/acharonim who seem to indicate to the contrary, than who are you to argue?? Unless you think that you have a better understanding of the sugya than R’ Chaim does. In which case. . .
“It is quite outrageous to suggest that we cannot fulfill a mitzva d’oraisa because we don’t have a mesorah as to the exact identity of the chilazon.”
I think it is quite outrageous to suggest that you understand the place and scope of mesorah in Judaism better than the Gedolei Rosh Hayeshivos. Mesorah is a very deep, profound and nearly impossible to understand even for such great men — for us, we have no relevant opinion nor are we entitled to one amidst our gaping deficiencies in Daas Torah (& Daas stam).
“And if you are so concerned about not doing anything that the previous generations didn’t do, why do you all where your tzitzis out?”
Your comparison is absurd. There is a vast difference between instituting a mitzva and being following a chumra, for which common sense should be enough to distinguish.
“but for a mitzva d’oraisa (which in actuality is is not a deviation) we can’t?”
Once the mitzva was discontinued, it is a deviation to reinstitute it.
PAA: The Beis HaLeivi, I think, was the one who said you need a Mesorah, and he brought Ra’ayos for it.
TU731: The “do you think you understand the Sugya better than…” argument is not an argument. By that logic, you should never say P’shat in anything, ever, because you don’t know better than everyone who has ever spoken on it ever. R’ Chaim (if he actually said this; I’m not holding in his Shittah here) is entitled to his opinion even if it argues with many major Shittos. Us Talmidim are entitled to point out that he is arguing on said Shittos and in the minority. I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?” It’s inane and doesn’t mean anything.
By that logic, you should never say P’shat in anything, ever, because you don’t know better than everyone who has ever spoken on it ever.
I have no idea what you’re talking about — when it comes to learning to be mekayeim mitzvas Talmud Torah, then you follow your own intellect far more (how much, etc, depends on your yeshiva/rebbe, etc); when it comes to halacha lemaisa, then you don’t have a relevant opinion against a gadol for sure without being a pretty heavyweight posek yourself.
Us Talmidim are entitled to point out that he is arguing on said Shittos and in the minority.
True, but that doesn’t extend to the point that you can claim what R Chaim is saying is indefensible and is not a legitimate pshat in the first place.
I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?”
For that to even be remotely plausible in the first place, you would have to assume that R’ Chaim is arguing with these rishonim/acharonim as opposed to understanding them differently.
Even granting that, though, your analogy is anyway fundamentally flawed — you taking on R’ Chaim is not in any way comparable to R’ Chaim taking on the Maharal whatsoever — when you have legitimate Daas Torah like R’ Chaim does, then you’re entitled to argue. Furthermore, R’ Chaim isn’t assuming the Maharal etc blew pshat — in arguing, he’s merely saying that he cannot understand how he gripped the inyan, and therefore paskens differently, just as the rabanan said about R’ Meir (Tanna).
This has nothing to do with understanding the scope of Mesorah.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. Not every detail – or anywhere close – of how mesorah operates, it’s boundaries, scope, it’s halachic weight against various types of other halachic factors, etc, will you find verbatim chapter and verse. But only an ignoramus takes that to mean they therefore aren’t true. You want to find out, ask one of the R”Y’s who still stand behind mesorah for this today.
And how can you say that once a mitzva is discontinued it is a deviation to reinstitute it? That might hold true if the mitzva was specifically discontinued (e.g. the chachamim were gozer not to blow shofar on shabbos so we cannot reinstitute it). But that is not the case by Techeiles. There was never a gezeira to not wear Techeiles. What happened was that people were unable to wear it hence they didn’t wear it. Let’s say the government would prohibit importing esrogim and no one was able to get an esrog. Would you say that we can no longer fulfill the mitzva of esrog because it’s not part of the Mesorah?
You are arbitrarily making up this distinction between intended discontinuation and passive discontinuation. Who said that is even a relevant criterion?? Again, what the geder for when the muchzak switches from having the mitzvah to not having it, go ask someone who has a legitimate opinion — it’s definitely not simple at all.
Rabbeinu Yonah in Iggeres Hateshuva writes:. . .
This is an egregious misrepresentation of the havanah by presenting it as if the context in which his words are written includes even where halacha (in this case derived from mesorah) says the opposite. R’ Yonah expected people to be able to understand the obvious contextual limitations.
the approach in the brisk camp is that you need a mesorah on what it is. i heard enough chumash shiurim. believe me.
Why not?
Additionally as was posted earlier, using your logic how can R’ Chaim say what he said if Rishonim and earlier Acharonim said differently?
Additionally as was posted earlier, using your logic how can R’ Chaim say what he said if Rishonim and earlier Acharonim said differently?
What part of my “logic” suggests in any way that the gedolim of one generation cannot ever disagree on psak with those of a previous generation?
“The Sages of blessed memory said that one who casts off the yoke is in the category of reshaim gemurim. Included in ‘casting off the yoke’ is if one says ‘I will keep the whole Torah except for one of the Mitzvos, because my fathers did not teach me it and I was not accustomed to being careful to do it in my youth’ or ‘because the people of my place are not careful to do it’. Because a slave cannot say to his master ‘I will choose to do these but not to do these’.”
Perhaps one can add one who says ‘I will invent my own methodology of understanding Torah concepts and textual statements’.
Mesorah is a very, very complicated, deep, nuanced, and difficult, among other adjectives, concept. Mesorah is not simply, chas veshalom, a fancy way of saying “tradition”, or “Divine Tradition”. Mesorah is, as a concept, an integrated and integral part of the fundemental fabric and basis of validating and assessing Halacha and Hashkafa realia. What Mesorah, or what a specific Mesorah, says and how it says it is among the most complicated subjects in Judaism. What role Mesorah plays, the scope of its role — both in general, and even more convolutedly, in specific subjects or particulates — is a multi-faceted machlokes that involves myriad very subtle and finely nuanced factors. It’s brazenly presumptuous for someone to think that they understand what Mesorah is, it’s scope, how we apply it, etc, so thoroughly that not only do they have an informed opinion about it (which they don’t), they have as good a grasp (if not better) than Gedolei Doros.
In other words, grosse lamdanim seem to be quite willing to say baalabatishe svaras when it comes to Mesora. The Ramchal says the same thing regarding chassidus — the “chachamim” think there is no depth, etc, in middos, (and therefore they neglect it(generalization of part of hakdama to Mesillas Yesharim)). Meaning they look at the particular subject as being bereft of normative, deep lomdus characteristic of shverer Rambams.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.