Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
hey, don’t attack my bain hazmanim. how else would my mother clean the car for pesach?
” (That might be why I don’t post much anymore.)”
don’t post anymore? maybe you mean don’t post on that username anymore.
??? ???? ???? ??? ??
I am standing. May I sit down?
can someone explain to me how i became a joseph? all i did was link to another old thread (which i happened to post on see comment number 35). I remembered something about it so i searched the homepage. and yes, i have been registered for over 5 years. March 6, 2007.
happy april fools
check out the comments http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=5703
i am trying to find a site that has all the books. in particular ???? ??????? which one guy once gave me and had some solid kefira in it
they have no room left for this zman
I found kefira in ? Mishpat hasukim, which says in the last paragraph that the ikkar is to do mitzvos so you can attach your neshama to the neshama of rav nachman and hhis talmid rav nossan. and after doing mitzvos you are connected with them therefore you are saved from din and mishpat, because rav naachman saw how bad the dor was so he promised hashem he will take care of all the neshamos……
sounds christian to me.
sam2-I have a simple raya farkert from the ran in the begining of nedarim which says the chilukim between nidrei hekdesh and nidrei issur, but does not mention a chiluk if the husband can be mattir. however, just like you said it seems to simple.
Can the baal be mevatel the nidrei hekdash of the wife?
longarekel—
1 ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????
2- It is shayich to be yotzei both by tying all three shitas in the same beged and make a tnai the real one is tzitzis and the other is a kishut balma. see bais yosef end of siman 12.
3-see radzhiner sefer that in a case wear there is a machlokes with a kula and chumra on each side we say ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? see the ramban and rashba in chulin 43b
4- I think there is a clear hachraah from the gra like shitas haraavad. I can’t be maarich now so see Kuntress Chosem shel zahav on page 49 http://www.tchelet-net.022.co.il/BRPortalStorage/a/31/86/54-EnqP9QK36s.pdf
I will not be able to reply from now on as I am going back to yeshiva tonight. I should be back purim time. I will look back here and answer any taanos that come up.
longarekel- good question.
First of all, if 4 is correct and you only wear one or two strings, you are not doing anything worse than not wearing techeiles. But if 1 is correct and you are wearing 4 than you indeed do loose out, as you are missing min kanaf. However, Min kanaf according to the rama is only a hiddur and is not meakeiv. Of course, If it is a mitzvah or a safek mitzvah than you are required to take a chance to loose that hiddur.
But regarding your question how do we know if we should go like shitas rambam or Raavad or Tosafos, obviously this is not a reason from stopping someone from wearing techeiles. Before there was a hachra’a in the machlokes rashi and rabeinu tam tefilin, it is poshut that somebody living then can’t say I just won’t wear tefilin since there is a machlokes.
So, what should you do?
Some people point out that most rishonim and most achronim are sosem like the shitah of tosafos. However, being that those achronim (ie mishna berura) are not clearly machria, and that it is brought down by the din of gardumim which tosafos will come out being the most machmir we cannot pasken based on that.
But by the way it appears, the gra is machria like the raavad in two places. So why should you go like the gra? Simply because most Poskim ( like Rav moshe and The Chazon Ish and the Steipler etc.) say that in something that you do not have a minhag in follow the opinion og the gr’a.
Ain kan makom lhaarich, but check out the tekhelet website or the tchelet-net website which have a lot of hock about this.
Toi- let me just point out that medrash is part of torah. The Gra is not just legitimatizing the medrash.if you think nignaz means it can’t be found ( wherever you picked that up) than it means that without the gra quoting it. But if nignaz means it could be found (like I quoted before) than the gra does not suddenly disagree because it is in biur hagra.
About Mesorah- First of all, that the Maharil, Chemdas shlomo, Malbim, radvaz and all the rabonim in the time of the radziner who held techeiles in theory could come back ( look in the hakdama to ein techeiles where he says Reb Shmuel Salant and The Maharil Diskin and Reb Yitzchok Elchonon Spector all held in theory it could come back and it is known that the Maharsham and reb itzele ponovizher used the Radzhiner techeiles) all clearly disagree with this premises that you need a mesorah. The bais Haleivi is also quoted saying the opposite as I pointed out earlier. So you are on very flimsy grounds.
But let us discuss the general idea of needing a mesorah and not being able to bring rayas from metzious. The way Reb Yoshe Ber Zl said it over is that if we do not have a mesora on on something we cannot bring a raya from the metzious. An example he gave was ???? which the bracha is mezonos. However, there is a safek whether rice is ???? or ????. However later based on rayas from languages and other rayas from metzious the achronim were machria that rice is ????. But Reb Yoshe Ber said based on the fact that the mesora was lost we still do not know what is really ???? therefore you should not eat rice except after making a hamotzie. It should be noted that the gra was one of those achronim who paskened based on the metzious. See tosefes maaseh rav. So the gra disagrees with this idea. But anybody who is using this mesora idea to patur themselves from this mitzvah must be careful not to eat any rice.
In shas the idea of needing a mesora for metzious is not found anywhere. In fact there are many places in shas where amoroim used metzious to prove halachos. One example would be in Bava Basra where Raba bara bar chana tried using the tzitzis of the Meisei Midbar to pasken if the halacha was like bais shamai or bais Hilel.
Another example is Yoma the gemara says hat by the avoda of yomi kippur you do not spray the dam on the peroches….but Reb eliezer brebi Yosi said that he saw the paroches and it had drips of blood from the avodah of yom kippur. The gemara is not just docheh him by saying you cannot bring a raya from metzious. ayin shum vdoik.I can bring at least another 4 examples of cases when the the gemara uses metziousto pasken the halacha.
There is, however, one place in Shulchan Aruch where the idea of Mesora is brought down. By a bird the Torah does not tell us which ones are kosher; it just lists the non-kosher birds. But the gemara gives us simanim to see in the birds and determine if it is kosher. But it is brought down in YD siman 82 that some are machmir not to rely on simanim alone but you also need a mesora. This din is only said Lchumra. The reason is because we are not certain which the 24 non kosher birds are. So we are Machmir and al pi this many are makpid to not eat Turkey.
According to this one should not be able to use a Chazon Ish esrog. However, as I pointed out earlier, the chazon ish (see maaseh ish 3:139) said he has so many rayas from metzious it is better than a mesorah.
And that is it. Those are the only places the din of having a mesora is mentioned. All these places it is used to be machmir, not meikil. And it is very clear these are the only places. The reason for needing a mesora is explained by the taz in yd 82 because we can assume that a tzaddik paskened for them that this oif is good.
edited. Me personally, I have no idea what the answer is. And when my rebbeim start wearing it, I’ll very happily do so as well. I can give you plenty of mekoros about following one’s rebbeim.
Oh, reb Toi i forgot to mentions that the rif and the rosh both bring down the halachos of techeiles even though they never bring down halachos that are not nogea bizman hazeh.
Now let us Hondle the biur hagra you quoted earlier.
The Mechaber In Orach Chaim Siman 9 Sif 2 says ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????
The Biur hagra on the words ???? ??? ????? ???? says ?’ ?”? ?’ ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??
We can probably all agree that the gra does not quote a medrash to ”prove” the mitzious that we have no techailes today. Everybody knows that the gra tells us his opinion in a few words which normally is just a mareh makom. So what does the gra mean?
Well, The Gra tells us to look at the Medrash. So let’s look at it. The lashon is like this
??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????
????? ????. ????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???.
The Medrash says the mitzvah of tzitzis is to put on lavan and techeiles. When does this apply? when there was techeiles. But today we only have lavan because the techeiles was nignaz (forgotten) so the mitzvah is with lavan.
All I think the gra is saying is that when you do not have techeiles their is still a mitzvah with lavan.
Toi-
1. about Lo sisgodidoo–If you are interested in where i am coming from see the radzihner in eyn hatecheiles. Although I may have been wrong about the minhag part, he clearly explains why it is not nogea by techeiles. But either way Lo sisgodidoo cannot patur you from a mitvas asey dioraysa especially if you can get out of the lo sisgodidoo problem by wearing btzineh
2– If nignaz means forgotten then in theory it can be found. Now all Techeiles dudes agree it was forgotten. That is metzious and we do not deny metzious. However, as I have quoted from the maharil previously it is not impossible to find it.
The Maharil seems to think you can find forgotten things. his Lashon in siman 5 of teshuvos is
“…????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ????, ??”? ???? ???? ??”? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???’.”
The Chemdas Shlomo ??”? ??’ ? ?? seems to agree with that and says “??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???”? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ????”? ?”? ???’ ?????.”
The Malbim in his sefer Artzos chaim (OC 9 41) says the same thing
[????? ???? ???”?].
sam4321– we actually do have a mesora from the chavos yair and the yaavetz as I pointed out earlier.
But either way I already pointed out the lashon of the Maharil in teshuvos siman 5 and the radvaz etc. that all say clearly it is possible to find it. What this taaneh that you need a mesorah probably means that it needs more than to fit with the simanim. The radzhiner techeiles had no rayas at all, rather it just ”fit” with all the simanim of chazal. The yeshuos malco said about it ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? (??’ ??”? ?????? ???? ??’ ?). So for that the Bais haleivi said you need more of a mesorah. However, the Murex has loads of strong rayas and is not just a guess. When the Chazon Ish was asked about his esrog which had no mesorah, he said He has so many rayas it is better than mesorah.
popa- it is more likely he would say they are being makpid on the opinion of the baal meor who paskens techailes is meakeiv lavan
Itche- I think that psak is actually found in bais haleivi 1:42 and quoted in eyn hatechailes. My shayala is is bal tigra like bal tosef that it only applies if you have kavana to be mosef on the mitzva ( ie therefore there is no problem with RT tefiin or succa shmini atzeres) or even if you are oiver with out the kavana to be mevatel like any other mitzvah?
About Minyan Hachutim this is a machlokes rishonim between rambam, Raavad, and Rashi (and many other rishonim who go like Rashi)
The Rambam ( Hilchos Tzitzis 1:6) says one of eight should be made from Techeiles ( half a string).
The Raavad (ibid.) argues and says one full string should be blue meaning two out of eight.
Most of the Rishonim however say that half of the strings are techeiles.
Most of the people who wear today follow the Raavad’s opinion being that the gra was maachria like him. However I believe Rav Belsky, who should be zoche to a full recovery and Raav Shachter are noheg to wear 4 out of eight techeiles.
longarekel– We (or at least I) am reffering to the Murex techeiles which is used by the zilbermans and Rav Shachter and basically anybody who wears techeiles and is not chassidish.
The Radzyner was proven wrong by Rav Yitzchag Isaac Haleivi Herzog after a chemical test revealed that the dye was Prussian Blue and had very little to do with the fish. The only difference between that and Prussian Blue was the source of Nitrogen which in prussian blue it came from a horse’s blood. Therefore it would make no sense to make a gezeira on kla ilan if you could use anything else. Thre were many other problems as well such as that the medrash is clear that there is a shell and that the dye binds very strong -neither of them being fulfilled with the radzyner Sepia.
Rav Herzog suggested that it could be the Murex just he had a few problems. 1- The shell was not the color of the sea as the gemara seems to say (acc. to rashi in menachos 44a) 2. the color extracted from the snail was purple not blue. 3. The dye did not stick strongly. So because of this He suggested another fish called the Janthina (which has many other problems such as that you cannot use it to dye and it is missing a lot of the ikar simanim)
Some 20 years ago it was discovered the answer to all of rav herzogs problems. 1- the shell IS the color of the sea when you take it out of the water and for the next few hours. After a while it looses that color and turns white we must assume that he only saw a snail that was out of the water for a while.
2- It was discovered if you keep it in the sunlight the dye turns blue and not purple.
3- The mitzious is that the scientists all agree that The murex is from the fastest dyes out there. However when dyed on a non wool material that it it does not bind very well at all, like described by the Sefer Hachinuch in 386 ??? ????? ?? ??? [????] ??? ????? ????? ??? ????
Besides for all this there are many rayos to the Murex including That the Chavos ya’ir in Mekor Chaim siman 18:3 and the Yaavetz In Mitpechehes Seforim 4 clearly say that the techeiles was made from the Purpura (the greek word for the Murex)
sam4321- Well we know that the later amoraim did have which was some 500 years after the churban. (some say that ecen the rambam had techeiles) so is that not after the time of the bais hamikdash? so what does that ariza”l mean? And since when is the arizal able to be mevatel a mitzvah, even a navi can not do that. Ele mai the arizal is explaining to us why the mitzious is this way but is not telling us a psak. ( reb yaakov Hillel says that this is the derech of the arizal)
???”? ???? ??? ????”? ??? ????”? (??’ ?) ??? ??? ??? ?????”? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ???? “??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????”
“?; ???’ ????? ???”? ?????”? ??????? ???”? ???”? ???? ???? ??’ ?? ?, ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????,
About Mesorah- the bais haleivi actually says the exact oppisite in a letter written to the radzhiner rebbe in the hakdama to eyn hatecheiles. this is the lashon
????? ?????”? ??????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????. ??”? ?? (?”? ????) “???? ?????”? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ???”?, ???”? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????, ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????, ??? ???? ??? ???”? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ?? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??????, ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????, ???”? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ??”?, ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????, ??”? ?????” ??”? ?????”? ??????? ????”? ??
He says clearly that if you would prove to him that the rishonim did not know of this fish and choose not to wear than ?? ???? ???????? ????? ???? ??????,
yes hello99 I did indeed read the Maharil. Pashtus he is coming from the Rambam who says it was found in the yam hamelach. But the obvious question on this is that the gemara says it was found in the chelek of Zevulun and from the sulomos of tzur to chaifah which obviously is talking about the yam Hagadol. So the ya’avetz in Mitpeches Seforim Perek 4 and reb chaim kanievski in kiryas melech explain we find many times that the word yam hamelach is used for yam hagadol. (see ramabam 10:1 of hilchos Klaiyim, Peirush hamishnayos Keilim 15:1 rabeinu Chanael in Pesachim 28a etc.)
Toi –If you would actually look in the Biur Hagra you will see he does not say the word nignaz rather he says Vachshav ain lanu ella halavan, which means today we only have white, but says nothing about nignaz. And as per Rashi’s interpretation of Nignaz see Rashi in Psachim 62b ????. ?????: But nobody ever said it cannot return. See Teshuvos Radvaz chelek 2 siman ???? that says clearly it is still around today. See teshuvos Maharil siman 5 ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ????, ??”? ???? ???? ??”? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????
If you want more mareh mekomos just ask.
About lo sisgodidoo The radziner in his sefer ain hatecheiles expounds on this and explains why there would be no problem since this din is only said by minhagim and not by dinim. but to be yotzie all the shittos tou could just wear it tucked in.
In Shu”t bais haleivi chelek 1 siman 42 says you are oiveer bal tigra by not wearing it when it is available.
Patur—- ”’ The Gemara in Menachos (44a) describes the Chilazon:
1) It looks like the ocean
2) It’s form resembles a fish
3) It comes up once in 70 years
4) With its blood we dye the Techeiles
5) Therefore it is expensive
Let’s analyze the Murex Trunculus:
1) It does not look like the ocean
2) It does not resemble a fish
3) It does not come up once in 70 years(or have any known cycle of abundance)
4) The secretion used from the Murex Trunculus is no its blood
5)It is expensive, however Rashi explains that the statement of “Therefore it is expensive” refers back to the fact that it only comes up once in 70 years. The Murex Trunculus is expensive because you can only get around four drops of die per snail.
It seems that the Murex Trunculus is 0/5(according to the pashut pshat in the gemara. Obviously the Murex Trunculus proponents have a way to read each one of the criteria).”’
1.- What does look like the ocean mean to you? The Rambam is pretty clear it means the color. Now if you research this you will find out that in the water and the first few hours a after it comes out of the water, the shell is the color of the area it is taken from either blue or green.
2.Why not? have you ever seen a good picture of it? how about a picture of any other snail? which one looks like a fish and which one does not?
3. See the radvaz in chelek 2 in 685 that says nignaz means it stops coming up.
4. You were mechavein to tosfos in shabbos 75a dh ki. I will quote it for you ????? ?? ?”? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????
5.Yet at the same time we know for a fact that it was caught using nets (see shabbos 74b)
Patur– “It is also clear from the afforementioned Gemara in Shabbos that the dye of the chilazon is better when the chilazon is alive, and therefore people would try not to kill it when extracting the dye. The Murex Trunculus dye starts deteriorating several hours after its death which would make completely unnecessary to try to keep it alive.”
Very simple. Look in shabbos 75a once again. ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? which means that you are dyeing it after it is already dead.
zvei dinim- Why would you have to come unto a chazon ish? as far as ia m cocerned there is a mefurosh gemara azoi that says vlo yehai ela lavan.
patur– ”The Gemara in Shabbos (75a) says that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one who extracts the dye from the chilazon on shabbos is chayev for Dosh. Now the minimum shiur to be chayev for Dosh is a Grogeres. The amount of dye taken from a Murex Trunculus is less than a Grogeres.”
Now do me a favor, before you make it appear so simple, look into it. There is a machlokes rambam and raavad if dash needs the shiur grogros( shabbos 8:7 in yad) but if you would look in the kesef mishnah you would see that they are only arguing by oichel and everything else they agree on that even less than a grogros is chayav. V`ayin od bchasam sofer shabos 75a dh hatzad that has a pshitus there has less than a grogros in each chilazon.
Patur aval assur- you said ” No one would use Murex Trunculus as a forgery seeing that it is just as expensive as the actual Techeiles.
Just for the record, Rav Shlomo Miller holds that the Murex Trunculus is in fact Kala Ilan. “”
Why don’t you go ask rabbi miller why someone would use an expensive forgery?
Murex= kla ilan? the aruch is pretty clear otherwise.
Ok I will try to answer next off shabbos which is in four weeks.
1. If you will like to fight about the chilazon I am open for debate, but to argue about who does wear and who does not wear is really a waste of time. Go do some investigating yourself. I know someone who went around to many rabbanim and asked them why they do not wear. He may have gotten the gabboim angry, but he managed to put together a list of many of them who wear btzineh.
So let us try Rabbi Belsky. You claim he does not. I claim he does. So pick up the phone and call his son to find out. It is not very hard to do. But to decide everyone does not based on no information will make you what people call a proven shakran.
2. Why would someone wear btzineh? very poshut. Look in Tshuvos Vehanhagos of Reb Moshe Shternboch who says there may be a problem Lo sisgodido. I don’t know why they wear btzineh, but you can go ask them. Do some research yourself. Did you look into every gadol you wrote does not wear?
3. I am not trying to prove to the world that you must wear this on your tzitzis. I AM trying to prove that this is the chilazon. So if you have any taanos on whether this is the chilazon then I am open for argument.
optimusprime– John Doe had a preconception that no rabbonim wear so he decided to make a list of rabbanim. If he would look into the matter he will find out that at least eight of those rabbonim do wear.
sam4321- I also have a hard time believing such a story.
Toi- the biur hagra is just commenting on the rama which says not to make a talis of shatnaiz – so the gra says ayin medrash rabba Vachshav ain lanu ella halavan. I do not see how this means it can not be found . It just means since today we don’t have techailes we cannot use shatnez. It does not say anything about it not coming back….
sam4 according to rav Karp mechaber of hilchos shabbos beshabbato and Rav Simcha Kook Shlita Rav Elyashiv said we was just pointing out the possible problems and he himself does not hold that min Kanaf is on two strings. (you can confirm it from them)
And the yam shel shlomo in Yevamos 1 siman 3 and Artzos Hachaim (malbim) OC 9 5 (it is brought down in Mishna Berura) Chazon ISh siman 3 Ois 25 Shu”t Yeshuas Malco sima 1 and the maharsham all clearly hold there is no problem of min canaf
First of all a lot of your list is based on misinformation.
tHere are some rabbis on your list who do indeed wear techeiles (not that your point is not valid that the gedolim do not do it but there are many that do wear.) And there are many big names who wear btzineh. On your list, I counted 8 who I know bvadai wear. I know a guy out there who went to the gedolim and asked them why not? HE actually found out that many of them do btzineh. If you want names, fine, but that is not the point.
Now if you do not want to wear techeiles because therabbanim do not wear, then you have a very good taayne. All I am saying is that it can be proven that the murux is the chilazon. And i am willing to argue for that. I am not saying you are mechuyav to wear it.
Also there is definitely very strong evidence that this is the real chilazon. HOw about you researching it yourself. Ask me any problem you have with the evidence. Go ahead.
Patur -welcome back
Chemically Identical in what color it is. It is the exact color of the indigo. I do not know chemistry but the way someone explained it to me is that there is something in the chilazon that when mixed with purpurase which has some sort of reaction with the air that causes the dye to stick. Now Kla Ilan has the same purpurase stuff just the other chemicals are slightly different. To proove that they are different i can tell you that they show differences when exposed to bleach. NOw regarfing the gemaras test that does not work means we either are doing the test wrong or maybe nishtanu hateva or maybe they make the kla ilan differently these days. I don’t know. But it does not say anything about the techeles being that even if you think the murux is not the techeles we still know this is the kla ilan.
NOw there is evidence that the murux was used as a dye 2000 years ago from digging things up. So if the gemara goes out of its way to tell us that there is something identical why does it only mention the indigo and omit completely the murux which was used in those days and is the exact same color?
alright- we are you putting down this money? when and where can i come pick it up?
Jothar- where you convinced out of it for a problem with the murux or just because your rabbi does not wear?
yityningwut- Well as far as i am concerned nobody ever told me he has a chavrusa. I guess if you know him better than i do you can tell me he does.
Gemara in Menochos 43b
???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????
Rashi says ???? ????? ??
???. ??? ????? ???? ?????
?????
Mashma when someone is wearing neither he is oiver
Rambam in tzitzis 2:9
??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????:
it is mashma we are talking about when both are available.
the gemora says godol onsho shel lovon meonsho shel techeiles, meaning there is a bigger onesh if you do not wear lavan than not to wear techeiles ( which is mashma there is an onesh for not wearing techeiles) so i have a very hard time understanding Rav Shachter’s psak.
OK, there is also a significant minority of bachurim who don’t take showers. so for some people they want to avoid those people. You can’t have any taanos on them.
I remember the first day of the zman i made up to meet my second seder chavrusa in the yeshivas CR and the first thing he said to me after asking me if i am chacham is if i mind if he goes to take a smoke. I told him I will rather getting started right away. After this minor disagreement he decided he does not want to be my chavrusa and that shoft only lasted one day. (bh i have a chavrusa but i think this guy is still learning by himself)
And once this thread is brought up I guess I should respond to Patur aval assur.
They are chemically identical in color. but the chemical that comes from the Murux has a stronger cleavage and will stay on stronger. THe kla ilan should be easier to wash off. Now the gemara gives us a test that should make the kla ilan should come off. But it doesn’t. So this is not a question on the techeiles but a question on kla ilan. But what i am prooving from the bleach is that there still is a chiluk between kla ilan and the murex in the strenth of the dye.
So do many great rabbis. I know a guy who put together a whole list of rabbanim. I am just not sure if they want it to be publicized but from what I hear a large percentage of rabbanim (besides for me) wear btzineh.
toi- I still believe most don’t smoke.
Bar Shattya- do you think someone wants to marry your mishmar dude who doesn’t take showers ever and stinks even if he will bring up fine children? Some people can’t take being near the smell. Another reason why some won’t want someone to smoke is because it is a certain personality of people who smoke. Also it is against halacha according to many poskim. Do you thinks they want someone who shaves with a razor?
bump
yitayningwut–much hatzlacha this zman.
where is this gra because i think he doesnt argue on tosfos he just says there is still a pashute pshat
that means the entire ey