Sunday, June 07, 2015

The תכלת issue clarified

The sefer עין התכלת quotes a message which the בית הלוי sent to the author.
הגאבד"ק בריסק דליטא שיחיה מסר כל טעמו ונימוקו בדבר מיאונו במצות
התכלת לאחד ממיודעינו שיכתוב ויאמר לנו משמו בזה הלשון כמע"ל לא   ביאר
בדבריו מה זאת מצא אחר שנשכח, אם מציאת הדג או הוצאת צבעו, ורק אחרי
אשר כמע"ל יברר זאת, היינו היה בזה דבר הנשכח והוא מצאה, אז נהיה
מחויבים לשמוע אליו וללבשו, אכן אם נאמר כי הדג היה במציאות, וגם הוצאת
צבעו היה ידוע בכל זמן מהזמנים שעברו עלינו מעת שפסקה התכלת מישראל,
ועל כל זה לא לבשוהו אבותינו ואבות אבותינו, הרי הוא כאילו יש לנו בקבלה
ומסורה מאבותינו כי זה הדג וצבעו איננו החלזון והתכלת אף שהוא בכל
הםימנים שסמנו בו חז"ל, כי אפילו נרבה כחול ראיות לא יועילו נגד הקבלה
והמסורה, ורק אחרי אשר יברר לנו כי דג זה או מלאכת צבעו נפסק ונשכח
מציאתו או ידיעתו בשום זמן מהזמנים ונפסקה בזה הקבלה אז יהיה לנו דברי
ההלכה לראיה, ע"כ

The author adds the following ודברים נכונים ואמיתים המה שאם לא
בזח שום שכחה ותמיד ידעו לצבוע מדם דג זה מראה התכלת ובכל זה לא
השתמשו בזה אבותינו לתכלת מצוה לא היה מועילים שום ראיות ובירורי
ההלהכה להכשיר תכלת זה למצוה, דמדלא השתמשו בו אבותינו ואבות
אבותינו לתכלת מצוה שמע מינה דהוי קים להו שזה הדג וצבעו איננו החלזון
והתכלת ומה יועיל ראיות ובירורי ההלכה נגד הקבלה והמסורה
We see from the above that if a species existed and the methodology to
extract a blue dye from this species was known, but כלל ישראל did not use
this for תכלת a מסורה is established that this species is not the חלזון and the
extract retrieved is not תכלת and there is no way to overrule the .מסורה
The ability to establish a מסורה that that the murex dye is not תכלת can be
derived from a Psak of the 4773-4863 ) רי"ף ). In מנחות הלכות ציצית דף י"ג ע"ב
the רי"ף states והאידנה דלית לן תכלת רמינן ליה לסדין ציצית ממיניה ושפיר דמי
that since we do not have תכלת today the prohibition of
putting linen ציצית on linen clothing is now permitted. In order for the רי"ף to
make this psak the רי"ף has to hold that תכלת does not exist in the gentile
world, for if it did than the prohibition has no reason to expire since תכלת
exists even though it is not being worn by Klal Yisroel. All the Rishonim
agree with the רי"ף that תכלת does not exist. They only disagree with the
premise of a prohibition expiring even though the cause for the prohibition
does not exist anymore . Since the Roman Empire was using the murex dye
for 350 years after the passing of the רי"ף and at least a thousand years
before he was born (for several hundred of those years they ruled over Klall
Yisroel) it is obvious that the existence of the murex was known to all. The
Rishonim still had no problem declaring that תכלת does not exist. It is
therefore evident that the Rishonim felt that the murex was not the חלזון The
proponents of the murex dye are claiming that the murex has the סימנים of
the חלזון If you read the quotes above you will see that is irrelevant since
the Mesorah comes first. This is exactly the scenario the בית הלוי was
referring to. I have a confidence level of 100% in the Rishonim and
therefore I do not worry that murex dye maybe .תכלת
Toshav Monsey


Anonymous said...

I think Rav Elyashev has another tayna as to why he would not wear this so called tcheilis.

Anonymous said...

well, Rav Chaim Kanievsky disagreed and said that if one looks through the rishonim and achronim and is convinced that this is the techeiles then they have a chiyuv to wear it.

Anonymous said...

R' Chaim Kanievsky is cholek on his own shver? He is allowed to but I have never seen him do it


To: Jun 8 6 PM
You have completely misunderstood the article. Rav Cahim Kanievsky did not say that you can go against the Bais Halevy and use something where there is a Mesorah from the Rishonim that this is not Techcles. He is only talking in the instance where there is no Mesorah and you find something that you think would be Techeles according to the Simonum in the Gemarah and Rishonim. The murex was being used by the Romans at the same time that all the Rishonim said Techeles doesn't exist. Common sense dictates that this cannot be Techeles according to all the Rishonim. So we have a Mesorah from all the Rishonim that this is not Techeles.

Another Toshav of Monsey said...

Toshav Monsey is making a series of fascinating claims, that the Roman Empire was not only using murex dye for 350 years after the passing of the Rif, but that it was so widely used that all the Rishonim (even in Northern Europe!) knew of the murex dying industry, and, given their awareness of the Roman dying industry, they thereby rejected murex as being the chilazon.

Please, please share with us how you know all this!!

And please, please share with us how you know that those who have asked Rav Chaim Kaievski this question misunderstood him when he told then they were "mechuyav" to wear it if they were convinced that Murex was kosher for techeiles. (There is even a posted video of his sating this to someone).


Even Rav Chaim on the video doesn't understand Rav Chaim as well as Toshav Monsey does!


Response to Another Toshav

According Wikipedia the murex for Techeles was used in full force till the plundering of Constantinople (1204).
The Roman nobleman and senators who were wearing Techeles were doing it to show off and not to keep it a secret. There were decrees limiting the use to only Roman nobility and also in the buying and selling of Tyrian purple. It is very doubtful that it was being kept a secret. So besides the Rishonim you had thousands of Jews who knew that this was being used, therefore this was common knowledge.

As for Rav Chaim Shlita. According to the Bais Halevy someone who wears Murex is wasting his money. You are claiming that Rav Chaim Shlita disagrees with the Bais Halevy. I tried to explain to you that Rav Chaim Shlita and the Bais Halevi do not disagree but they are referring to different scenarios. The Bais Halevy is referring to someone who goes against the Mesorah and Rav Chaim Shlita is discussing a scenario where you assume you have the Simonim and there is no Mesorah that this is not the Techles. Unfortunately I was not able to penetrate. So I suggest you show the Bais Halevy to Rav Chaim Shlita and ask him if he holds that this is correct. If he says it is correct then ask him to explain the statement he made about Techeles.

Another Toshav of Monsey said...

To Toshav Monsey:

This is a complex issue, and as I assume you are well-intentioned and eager to learn more about it, so I suggest you spend at least a few hours on, where you will find multiple resources both for and against. You should look as well at

Rav Chaim bases himself on his understanding of a midrash. Because he interprets the midrash to mean that the chilazon CAN NOT be found today, the evidence is of no consequence to him.

This is why he says he has not investigated the evidence and freely admits he knows absolutely nothing about it.

Other Rabbonim (Rav Belsky, Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rav Gershon Letzer of Mir Yerushalayim, Rav Offman of the Badatz, Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp of Kiryat Sefer) feel the evidence DOES matter and, after studying it, believe it points to murex as kosher l'chilazon.

Murex-supporting Rabbonim and poskim include talmidim of Rav Elyashiv.

Those who have asked Rav Chaim and informed him that they HAVE investigated the matter and believe murex to be kosher l'techeiles have been told not only that they MAY wear it, but that the MUST, if that is what they believe.

For instance, see this video, which is what I referred to:

Toshav Monsey said...

I am sorry but I have been there and done that. They conveniently ignore the Rif and the Bais Halevy. They do not mention or respond to the issue that for hundreds of years countless numbers of Rishonim and thousands of plain Yidden were viewing the Roman nobility in their Tyranian Purple attire and no one raised the question How could the Rif say Techeles does not exist. The only the thing they can prove is that the murex was the source of tyranian purple and we have a mesora that tyranian purple is not Techeles. So they are completely distorted.

Another Toshav of Monsey said...

When you say "they are completely distorted," whom are you referring to?

All the Rabbonim I mentioned above?

(Like Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp, Rav Gershon Melzer, Rav Offman of the Badatz, Rav Belsky, and Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg?) All of whom are "completely distorted"? Isn't that somewhat disrespectful, referring to these Rabbonim in that way?

And also the tens of talmidei chachamim whose ma'amarim on techeiles are linked to on the two sites I suggested?

What about the hundreds of pages of arguments and evidence they cite?

The kashia you asked above wipes away all their sevoras and all their evidence?

And you thought of something that they never thought of?

Is it perhaps possible they thought of it and don't consider your kashia so significant?

BTW, what do you think about the Ramban to Shemos 28:2?