Chacham

the last stanza

דְרַייצְן דְרַייצְן . ווֶער ווֵייסְט ווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן?

,
אִיךְ ווֵיי א ,סִיךְ ווֵיי ס. א ִיךְ ווֵיי סווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן!
אַ גָאט פֿוּן רַחְמָנוּת . א ִיז א וּנְזֶער בּוֹרֵא
,
דְרַייצְן מִידוֹת . לֶערְנְט א וּנְז דִי תּוֹרָה
יַעֲקֹבְ’ס קִינְדֶער . פֿוּן דוֹר צוּ דוֹר / דִי צְוֶועלְף שְׁבָטִים . אוּן רְאוּבֵן אִיז דֶער בְּכוֹר
עֶלְף שְׁטֶערְן . הָאט יוֹסֵף גֶעזֶען / וָואס בּוֹיגְן זִיךְ . צוּ אֶים אַלֵיין
אוֹיף בַּארְג סִינַי . הָאט אוּנְזֶער גָאט / אוּנְז גֶעגֶעבְּן . דִי צֶען גֶעבָּאט
נַיין מָאנַאטְן . אִיז אַיינְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט / אֵיידֶער אַ קִינְד . קוּמְט אוֹיף דֶער וֶועלְט
אַכְֿט טֶעג . וֶוען אַ קִינְד אִיז אַלְט / מַאכְֿט מֶען אַ בְּרִית . אוּן עֶר וֶוערְט גֶעמַלְט
אַ גַאנְצֶע וָואךְ . גְרֵייט מֶען זִיךְ צוּ / אוּן דֶער זִיבֶּעטֶער טָאג אִיז שַׁבָּת . שְׁטֶעל זִיךְ אָפּ אוּן רוּ
אוֹיף זֶעקְס חֲלָקִים . עֶפְֿן אוֹיף אוּן זֶע / אִיז בַּיי אוּנְז צוּטֵיילְט . דִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה
דִי תּוֹרָה אִיז צוּטֵיילְט . אוֹיף פִֿינְף סְפָרִים / בְּרֵאשִׁית שְׁמוֹת וַיִקְרָא . בַּמִדְבָּר דְבָרִים
פִֿיר אִמָהוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / שָׂרָה רִבְקָה . רָחֵל וְלֵאָה
דְרַיי אָבוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב . זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה
צְוֵויי לוּחוֹת . פֿוּן סַפִּיר שְׁטֵיין / אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְט הָאט זֵיי . דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער אַלֵיין
אֵיינֶער אִיז . הַקָדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא / אוֹיף דֶער עֶרְד אוּן הִימְל . אֵיינֶער בִּיסְטוּ!

I saw this discussion, and I couldn’t help but comment a few points:

1- Although I have nothing to do with the making of the video, I watched it and I think it was very well donr. It is true that it was indeed made by those in the pro-techeiles camp, and the techeiles people always got the last word, but there was no distortions on the matter. They had big big Rabbanim speaking against it, and they in no way hid the fact that the gedolei harabbonim do not support techeiles. And those making the video are only achrai in what the narrator says, not what the Rabbanim they interviewed say.

2- They also stated bfeirush that the intention of the video is to give knowledge on the subject, like learning halacha and obviously everyone should ask a Rav. They in no way are encouraging people to start wearing techeiles without making a sheilas chacham.

3- A commenter above stated that the claim that there is no harm in wearing techeiles is a proof of the dishonesty of the video since anyone who knows the first thing about techeiles knows that this isn’t true. Let’s get things clear: The baalei Havideo didn’t say that, rather it was said by none other than Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlit”a and Rav Dovid Kohn Shlit”a, although they are clearly against the identificatioin of the Murex as the Chilazon.

7- Last week Lee Weisman (who btw admitted in a phone conversation that he is totally unaware of the story of Avoda Zara loosing hair…shoin a reyusa oib her iz taka aza groiseh mumcha, also you keep on changing whether he was in India for 6 years or six months. Make up your mind.) said that Indians answer a question the way that the asker wants to hear. Im kein, there is no significance to the whole interview with the priest, specifically because you put the words in his mouth.

8- In interview with Rabbi Paskesz, you keep getting back to Rashi in Yevamos that says Tikrovos is a Doron. Indeed, rashi says that, but this in no way means that tikrovos is only a doron, rather the case of that shoe is that it was a doron to Avoda Zara, but there are also cases of Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no Doron.

The rayas for this is that any Shechita to Avoda Zara assurs the entire beheima as Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no intention of giving beheima to AVODA ZARA.
במשנה (חולין לח:) מבואר שלדעת רבי אליעזר אמרינן שסתם מחשבת נכרי הוא לע”ז, ועוד ילפינן חוץ מפנים, זאת אומרת כשם שבפיגול [לדעת ר”א ברבי יוסי] מחשבת הבעלים יכולים לפסול הקרבן, הוא הדין בשחיטת חולין שמחשבת הבעלים לעבודה זרה אוסרת את כל הבהמה משום תקרובת עבודה זרה. ולכן אם יש לנכרי חלק קטן של הבהמה, כיון שסתם מחשבת נכרי לע”ז, כל הבהמה אסורה משום תקרובת ע”ז, כיון שהגוי הוי שותף בבהמה ומחשבתו יכול לאסור הבהמה. ואמר ר”א במשנה שם “שאפילו שחטה לאכול להגוי מחצר כבד שלה בלבד פסולה”, ומפורש שם שחיישינן אף אם הגוי “אוכל” מהחצר כבד, ולא מקטיר ממנו לע”ז, וחצר כבד לאו דווקא כמש”כ תוס’ שם, אלא הוא הדין כל חתיכה קטנה בבהמה. וכן מפורש בגמ’ שם לט: שאפילו אם הנכרי רק נתן זוזא לישראל ע”מ לקבל חלק מהבשר לאכילה, אם הוא גוי אלים, אז מעות קונות, ומחשבתו פוסלת את כל השחיטה, יעיין שם.
מבואר מכל זה שהמחשבה לע”ז שאוסר הבהמה הוא אפילו אם אין כוונתו להקטיר הבהמה, אלא אפילו אם כוונתו לאכול אותו עדיין מחשבת הגוי אוסרת את כל הבהמה. ועד כאן לא פליגי חכמים על ר”א אלא אם חיישינן שמא סתם מחשבת נכרי הוא לע”ז, אבל במקום שהגוי מפרש שהוא עובד לע”ז בשחיטה, לכו”ע הבהמה אסורה משום תקרובת ע”ז גם אם לא חשב על שום מעשה הקרבה, הרי ששייך לעשות תקרובת ע”ז בשחיטה גם אם אין הכוונה להקטיר ממנה כלום.
ועוד ציור שמצינו תקרובת ע”ז בלי שום מעשה נתינה הוא שכשוך יין נסך. לדעת כמה ראשונים (עי’ רש”י גיטין נב: ד”ה מנסך, וכ”ה בחולין מא. ד”ה שניסך, תוס’ בגיטין שם) גוי ששכשך ידו לתוך היין לכבודו של הע”ז נאסר היין מן התורה משום יין נסך על אף שלא ניסך ממנו להע”ז כלום. ועי’ דברי הרא”ש (ע”ז פ”ד הלכה יג) שכתב “עיקר ניסוך הוי בהגבהה והורקה… דוקא בפני עבודה זרה, אבל שלא בפני עבודה זרה, אין דרך לשפוך אלא לשכשך” עכ”ל. וכן כתבו הראב”ד (ע”ז עד.), והריטב”א (ע”ז עב: ד”ה דנרגמוה), והאריך בזה במרחשת ח”א סוף סימן כא.

That being the case by shechita, it follows that any cutting which is the tolda of shechita, also makes it tikroves Avoda Zara even without any mayse of giving like what Rabbi Paskesz said. Other cases of tikrovos Avoda Zara with an action of cutting making it assur without having any nesina to the Avoda Zara include:
א- פרכילי ענבים
ב- אבנים שחתכו לצורך זריקתן למרקוליס [מאירי]
ג- הדס שנחתך לע”ז [רש”י יב: ע”פ מאירי מד:, ועי”ש בתוס’]
ד- מעות שבצרן לצורך מרקוליס [מאירי, ורבינו יונה]
ה- מנעל שנחתך לשם ע”ז [שאילתות פח, מאירי ראש תוס’ חד מקמאי יבמות קג:]
ו- שופר שנחתך לשם הע”ז [מאירי ר”ה כח]
ז- כלים שנחתך לשם ע”ז [רמב”ן רשב”א ריטב”א בשם הראב”ד ע”ז נב.]

9- Rabbi Paskesz says that sheviras makal is an act of serving the Avoda Zara, you jump on him and say it is only tikrovos and not actual avoda. Rabbi Paskesz was only quoting the gemara, which you apparently are unaware of:
“אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב, עבודה זרה שעובדין אותה במקל, שבר מקל בפניה, חייב, ונאסרת
The word chayav means that the one who does it is chayav misa, meaning he served the Avoda Zara. Any act of giving tikrovos is an act of serving the Avoda Zara. Being that he is only quoting a gemara which you are unaware of, it is extremely unfitting of you to tell him to go learn the sugya and that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am sorry for saying this, but he actually spent some time on the sugya and the Rishonim and he isn’t the one who has no clue about the sugya and is parroting the mareh mekomos prepared for by someone else.

10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you can’t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a de’ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.

11- You mention quickly in the beginning of the show that there is two taaruvos, and therefore it is muttar. Basic mistake. The case of 2 taaruvos is only when a ring gets mixed into 1000 rings and one of the rings separates, and then falls into another taaruvos. But when the 1000 rings fall into 10,000 rings, it is still the same taaruvos. Following, since the hair mixed in India is never porish from the taaruvos, rather the whole taruvos gets remixed, the hetter of 2 taaruvos does not apply. וכן מפורש בבית יוסף (סי’ ק”מ), וז”ל: “וכבר כתבתי לשון הגמרא בסימן ק”י (קעד. ד”ה ולא מיבעיא) ונתבאר שם דהיינו דוקא כשמיעוט התערובת הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אבל אם רוב התערובת הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אין זה ספק ספיקא, ולפיכך כולם אסורים” עכ”ל.
There is much more to be maarich, but I will stop here.

Comments on the second show that I recieved in an email from a friend.

He apparently sent it in to the headlines show, and they didn’t post it for some odd reason.

Hi, I just finished listening to this past weeks show on the sheitel controversy, and I would like to makeseveral crucial points.
1- Emma Tarlo keeps getting quoted about the majority of hair from India not being sourced from the temple. In an exchange of emails, she explains that 80% of the hair is what comes from comb collected hair, and only 20% from the temples. Yiyeh aich sheyiyeh, even if a professor in anthropology is actually a trade expert, this isn’t very helpful for our discussion. All comb hair is non remi hair, and all temple hair is remi hair. 90% of sheitels are made from remi hair, this can be checked very easily by feeling if the hair cuticles are intact. That being the case, If a sheitel is indeed made from remi hair it will not help at all that 80% of the hair in India is comb collection, being that you can know bvadai that the sheitel in front of you is not from those hairs.

2- I hear quoted Rav Elyashiv’s letter where he writes that 75% of the hair in India is sourced from the temples and you naturally claim that the psak was made based on misinformation. Very silly. Rav Elyashiv did indeed write that, and the information was based on what the Israeli Consulate in India reported based on what they heard from the Finance Ministry of India (should be a decent source in my opinion, much better than an anthropologist who doesn’t study international trade). Attached is a link to that file (removed)
But for some reason you left out the continuation of Rav Elyashiv’s teshuva. He never paskend based on those numbers, rather he writes explicitly:
גם אם זה להיפך, דין קבוע להם כמש”כ בשו”ת דברי חיים ח”ב סי נ”ז וזה לשונו, “כשהקונה כותב ומבקש ממנו מן הגוי שישלח לו כו”כ והוא שולח מביתו, בכה”ג הו”ל כלקח מן הקבוע ולא יחלוק ע”ז זולת חסר דעת”
He writes that the hair from the temples have the din of a kavua, and therefore even if only 25% comes from the temples it will still be a problem. Yes, there are those that argued on Rav Elyashiv, but honestly if it is not a Shayla in metzious rather a Shayla in Hilchos Kavua, there is a lot of weight to the opinion of Rav Elyashiv. This also fully disregards Rabbi Kuber’s point (agav we are all still waiting for the source of his numbers).

3- The Shayla whether or not it is possible to make Tikrovos Avoda Zara in a way that the galachim do not serve this Avoda Zara is a very basic Shayla that is lechoirah discussed in a mefurashe Mishna.
Markulis was an Avoda Zara that was served by throwing stones at it. However, the Mishna writes that if you find on it Grapes or wheat stalks, it is assur because we are choshesh it is Tikrovos Avoda
This is the lashon of the Rashba 51b
“…דמתניתין לכאורה אפי’ בשאין דרכה בכך מיירי דהא ממרקוליס סליק וסתם מרקוליס אין דרכו אלא בזריקת אבנים ולא בפרכילי ענבים וסלתות”
It is mefurosh that although it is not the way to serve markulis with anavim and flour, it is still tikrovos Avoda Zara.
This is also clear from the Gemara there that says:
אמר רב אסי בר חייא כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלין אפי’ מים ומלח אסור
Meaning that anything we find by the Avoda Zara is tikrovos, and there is no condition that it must be something that it is the derech to serve that way.
The Rambam furthers this rule even more, that anything, even if it is not ke`in pnim, is assur because of Tikrovos Avoda Zara, if it is found in front of the Avoda Zara, see Rambam Hil. Avoda Zara 7, 21-22.

The Rashba also writes that Parcheilei Anavim are only assur if we know that it is the derech to serve this Avoda Zara by cutting the anavim for it, but if it is not from the laws of this Avoda Zara, it is not assur unless we know it was cut. Meaning the Mishna is discussing the laws of what is found, and something that it is in the laws of this Avoda Zara to cut lishma is assur because we are choshesh that it was cut lishma, but if it is not in the laws it is still assur if we have the yediah that it was cut lishma. Zos Omeres, it is possible to serve Avoda Zara by cutting it and it even creates Tikrovos Avoda Zara, even if it is not included in this Avoda Zara laws.
This is his full lashon:
“פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים. פירשה רבה בר עולא בגמ’ כגון שבצרן מתחלה לכך, כלומר שיש בחוקיהם לבצרן מתחלה לכך, וליכא לפרושי בדידעינן ודאי דבצרן מתחלה לכך דהא מצא קתני, ואומר רבינו הרב נ”ר דאע”ג דבבשר הנכנס לע”ז לא חיישינן דילמא נשחט מתחלה לכך, הכא שאני דאין דרכן להביא מן הבצור אלא ממה שבוצרין מכרמיהן בתחלה לכך אבל בשר דרכן להביא מן החתוך, והילכך אף בפרכילי ענבים אי ידעינן דאינם קפדין בחוקיהם לבצור מתחלה לכך אף הענבים הנמצאים שם מותרין עד דידעינן שנבצרו מתחלה לכך”.
ומבואר מדבריו שעל אף שכתב שתלוי בחוקותיהם, מ”מ כל ההיתר אם אינו בחוקותיהם הוא רק משום שאז אין לנו להניח שנבצר מתחילה לכך, אבל אם ידיענן שבצרן מתחילה לכך, אפילו אין זה דרך עבודתה בחוקותיו, כל שבצרן מתחילה לכך עדיין אסורה

Another basic raya is the actual case of shviras makal, since it is talking about an Avoda Zara that the derech is with kishkush makal, and even so if one brakes a makal it is Avoda Zara and he is chayav misah even if the galach isn’t maskim. Vsu lo midi.

Now let us examine the rayos you brought otherwise.
1- The gemara that says that a woman who accepted to serve every Avoda Zara in the world asked the comrim how do they serve baal peor. You brought a raya that you must do like the comrim.

But it is not a raya bichlal, this woman wasn’t trying to make tikrovos and make up a new Avoda Zara, all she wanted to do was to serve baal peor the way the “right” way, from where do you see that if she were to have served it contrary to galach’s opinion it wouldn’t have been Avoda Zara.
2- The gemara that says that Savta ben alas served bal peor in a new way and the galachim praised it
Again, there is no raya that if they would not have praised it that it would not constitute as Avoda Zara.
So, what is the inyan of derech avodaso mentioned in the gemara and Shulchan aruch? Very simple. The halacha is that if you do the maysa of Avoda Zara even without accepting it as a god you are still chayav. The lashon of the gemara is:
הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור הרי זה עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין לביזוי הזורק אבן למרקוליס זו היא עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין למירגמיה
Meaning that if you do the act of Avoda Zara without kavana you are chayav. See minchas chinuch 26,1 barichus. So, this is nogea only if you do derecho avodasa, like throwing a stone to markulis. But if you are mechavein to accept the Avoda Zara as a diety, no matter what you do, it is definitely Avoda Zara as the rambam writes about picking up a leveina. Vdoi”k.

The hair is cut off the head in an act of avoda, therefore it is Kein shveria.
this act alone is enough to assur it, without it being brought in front of avoda zara just like any shechita does not have to be in front of avoda zara [see tos. chulin 40a, az 32b etc.], and parchelei anavim the rashba also says isn’t in front of a”z

there is no kuntz to give links to teshuvos that say one way when i can give links to teshuvos that answer those teshuvos.

in all your arichus i didnt see any answer l’inyan.
you get off topic to discuss pn in general which is totally irrelevant, because even if in your eyes Rav karp has negiyos, or whatever other terminology you might call it, it doesn’t answer for anybody else.
all i learned is that i totally missed the boat inn the sugya. . maybe explain. And can i ask did you ever even learn the sugya? or you saw a few teshuvos?

And why is it relevant that there is an old avoda zara that they once gave hair too?

Which point from Rav Belsky’s teshuva did I fail to understand?
[וצע”ג איזה נאמנות יש לה אם היא כבר הבינה שהיהודים מפסיקים לקנות מהם מחשש ע”ז, כמו שאמרה בפירוש] who said:

your only hochacha is because that you never heard anybody say anything, therefore Rav Chaim Meir Vosner is no longer neeman to proclaim what his fathers position is?
Rav Gross gives a hechsher, and rav Moshe shternbuch holds it isn’t good. but that isn’t really the nidon being that 90% of sheitels don’t have a hechsher to begin with.
and there are plenty of new michtavim from this year. I can’t help if you are uninformed

please if you are totally not knowledgeable on the subject it is ok, but don’t claim that there is no makom to be choshesh. and if there is a makom to be choshesh, obviously the correct approach is to burn them.

I saw you responded on the news page about Rav Moshe sternbuchs view, basically saying that he only said so on indian.
however in his sefer teshuvos vhanhagos 5, 271 he writes how you have to be choshesh hair from anywhere is a taaruvos of indian and you can’t even be somech on the hechsher.

“goan”
“It is strange that IF it is true indeed, where are ALL the Gedolim? Where is Rav N Kareltz, Rav Chaim K. etc.”

Rav Nissim Karelitz is not well. however his beis din did indeed write a letter recently, and they too hold it is a vry big cshash now.
“Again, the main issue are indeed the facts, Rav Belsky and others disputed Rav Dunners version. In fact, to have a clearly understanding you do have to be a “Mumcha” in the facts. You can not decide just by asking a few individuals and the sites.”

Rav dunner, as well as another shliach sent by Rav Karelitz said that the avoda zara likes hair. Rav Belsky claimed that they are doing it to remove ego and nothing more. Today, as opposed to 2004, if you want to know what a religion believes you can use the internet.
on wikipedia it says :
“Many devotees have their head tonsured as “Mokku”, an offering to God. The daily amount of hair collected is over a ton.[26] As per legend, when Lord Venkateswara was hit on his head by a shepherd, a small portion of his scalp became bald. This was noticed by Neela Devi, a Gandharva princess. She felt “such an attractive face should not have a flaw”. Immediately, she cut a portion of her hair and, with her magical power, implanted it on his scalp. Lord Venkateswara noticed her sacrifice. As hair is a beautiful asset of the female form, he promised her that all his devotees who come to his abode would offer their hair to him, and she would be the recipient of all the hair received. Hence, it is believed that hair offered by the devotees is accepted by Neela Devi.”
that is clear that the getchka wants the hair, not that it is only an avt o fremoving ego.
you don’t need to be an expert to figure that out

OK mr. goan, you claim that the chshash that sheitels are from avoda zara is baseless.
which of the following points do you tayne?
1- Rav Karp Rav A. Auerbach Rav S Rosenberg Rav M. Sternbuch etc. don’t know what they are talking about, and they just want klal yisrael to loose money for no reason.
2- since there are people involved with an agenda, even if there is no good answer we can disregard anything and we can make believe that thosse who are pro-heitels have absolutely no agenda in making sure they aren’t assur, even though it is a loss of thousands of dollars.
3- Rav Elyashiv Rav Wosner Rav Karelitz don’t know how to learn a sugya, and really there is no chshash even if the facts are as they claim.
4- the temples websites and other sources are not neeman to tell us what the goyim believe’ and although they all say precisely what Rav Elyashiv heard from Dayan Dunner, we can disregard what they say and be somech on certain jews who are bigger mumchas than the temples website.
5- Most hair doesn’t come from India, and The UN comtrade that claims that most does is just anti sheitels

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.

see minchas yitzchok vol. 5 siman 1, tzitz eliezer 10,1, yabia omer 5 27

??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ??

although he is talking about a school he continues to say “????? ???? ???? ??????” meaning that bnei torah should be machmir even if it costs more.

I don’t know of any psak halacha that is in igros that was written after a teshuva was already written. once a teshuva was written there is nothing to be moisif in a short letter

jt-

vadai reb moshe himself was makpid, and he vadai wrote that only bshaas hadchak to be meikil. ??? ?? ????

in weinfeld letter he writes to be machmir to get cholov shel yisrael, not like the magiah of igros moshe chelek 8.

edited

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

So basically your entire point is that we don’t know why the rishonim thought techeles was blue, and really it would make sense to say it is green, so why were they madche to say it is blue. However, you agree that they punkt happened to be right. If so, maybe the makor of the rishonim was a mesora, (just like the tiferes yisrael, and the radzyner write)

Anyways i dont think there is that much to be mosif, however please check out the article on the color in that kuntris.

as far as the raavad agreeing with rambam, it is more mistaber the raavad disagrees since he holds the chulyos are lavan and techeiles together. the rambam who holds all chulyos from techeiles pashtus learns ????? ?? ????? ???? ?”? to mean on the tzitzis (lavan) there is techeiles and the tachlis of the mitzvah is to wrap (therefore it is on the lavan) and to wrap you don’t need more that half a string.

the emek bracha says it very nicely:

????? ??? ????”? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????”? ?????”? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????”? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??”? ??? ?? ????”? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????”? ???’ ?’ ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??”? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?”? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?’ ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????”? ??????’ ????? ?? ?? ????”? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??”? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???’ ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????”? ?????? ??”? ?”? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?’ ?????? ?????? ??????

I do Tosfos. Most Rishonim, Achronim, incuding Mishna Berura who goes LKULA like tosfos (see siman 9, s”k 14 very well vdoik) I happen to think that tos. is the pashtus of the sugya, and most likely the correct girsa in the sifri.

Rav Belskey and Rav Shachter both pasken to do like tosfos.

on tekehlet.net (a mirror of the old ptil website) in the “hot off the press” section there is a very good article on this, pro tosfos.

however, the majority of people who wear techeiles do raavad but Their reasons all vary. Some think that we look at psukim and if we think it makes sense that “psil” means only one, than that is the halacha (even if 30+ rishonim say there is two strings). Some people are convinced that the gra holds like the raavad (even though in biur hagra to shulchan aruch the gra paskens very strongly that there is 2 strings).

Basically it is a complicated subject, and much has been written in every direction. take a look at the library on techeiles.org for many articles.

The Raavad holds the ?????? were done from techeiles and lavan together, whereas the Rambam holds all of the ?????? were from techeiles except for first and last. So the pashtus is they disagree id the mitzva of techeiles is to wrap or if it is a din in the strings. See Emek Bracha Tzitzis 1

I am b’ikur willing to argue against bal tosif when wearing wrong techeiles, kneged the entire shtikel tora in teshuvos vhanhagos chelek 6. But i have what to say about extra chutim too.

[And I really don’t understand how Reb Moshe Shternbuch uses Bal tosif of extra chutim as a tziruf not to be choshesh a tzad rachok of techeiles, he writes :

???? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ????”? ?? ????? ??? ???, ?????”? ??? ???, ?????’ ??? ?????, ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???’ ????”?, ????? ????’ ????’ ?????”? ???? ??? ????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????’ ?? ?????”? ?? ?????”?, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? , ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????.

Mima nafshach, if it isn’t techeiles and there is no chiyuv to wear (like he writes in that teshuva) that means there can’t be b”t since you were not mosif on chutei techeiles. The only way it is shayich to be b”t if it IS techeiles and if so there is no reason not to wear. lchoira he is being poseach al shnei si’ifim.

Patur, I do not usually have internet access, but i randomly checked this site and saw this topic was live again.

did you ever see the new techeiles.org?

RI HAKODESH-

1. The discussion of the color of the strings was never said on the strings in place of techeiles; it was only said on the strings of lavan. See Mishna Brura 9,14, Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamos 3, Artzos Chaim 9, 5, Chazon Ish 3, 25 and others.

2. You claim there is Bal Tosif if I try to do a mitzvah and it turns out to not be one. So you are suggesting not to do it even misafek.

Can you explain to me why this is different than tefillin that there is a safek if they are kasher, or esrog safek murkav, and every other safek mitzvah where the poskim say you are chayav to do it misafek deoraysa lchumra and aren’t choshesh for Bal tosif if it is passul?

the sefer hachinuch doesn’t seem to agree. He writes in mitzvah 454

???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???, ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????

The Riaz brought in Shiltei Giborim 4b of dafei hariph in Rosh Hashona says the same thing that there is no bal tosif if you put tefilin in the wrong place.

Do you have any source that there is Bal tosif on a pasul Mitzvah?

It could be you are oiver bal tosef if you make up a new issur of Bal tosef that the torah never assured.

Sam2, there are snails that jump. So it is no raya to say that tosfos thought it is a fish.

I am asuming The bais halevi you are referring to is

read on. kesef mishna is mefurosh

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

“Ant the gemara in menachos is only muchach that kala ilan is a specific thing if you make the hanacha that murex trunculus is not kala ilan”

no. gemara is muchach that vadai a testthat will reveal kla ilan will reveal all kla ilans, meaning al karchach they are identical. murex and indigo are not.

“And correct me if I’m wrong but I think the nimulei yosef did not say “plant indigo”, he just said indigo”

yeah but what does kla ILLAN mean, either referring to plant, or it is a take-off of a name of the min, mmeaning only that min. Either way plenty of rishonim say ISatis, name of plant.

“And anyway the fact that the rishonim don’t mention murex trunculus as part of kala ilan is very reasonable considering they didn’t know of any blue dye from it”

well the shiltei giborim knew techeiles was from murex and still said it was blue.