R. Dovid points out that there are innumerable lines of evidence all converging to the conclusion that the Murex trunculus snail is the source of techeles. Why, then, is the general charedi practice not to wear it?
Rav Eisenstein explodes. He screams about how anyone wearing techeles is attacking the Gedoylei Toyrah, who said not to wear it. He yells that they are exhibiting chutzpah, claiming that they are smarter than the Gedolim, and they are contravening the mitzvah to listen to the chachomim.
But what is the actual reason why the Gedoylei Toyrah are against it? Rav Eisenstein vacillates on this. At times, he says that the proofs for the Murex are not absolute and could easily be overturned tomorrow and the Gedolim certainly heard all the proofs and found them lacking. But at other times, he shouts that it doesn't matter what the proofs are, the mesorah is not to wear techeles, and we don't change the mesorah for anything.
R. Lichtenstein pushes hard. He raises several examples from history where great Rishonim and Acharonim did indeed evaluate scientific and other lines of evidence to adjust halachic practice. Rav Eisenstein avoids answering these questions and keeps yelling about Gedoylim and Mesoyrah.
Rav Herzog and others stated that Chazal's ruling about killing lice on Shabbos remains in force even though it was based upon the mistaken belief in spontaneous generation, due to the canonization of halachah - a topic that I explained at length in the final chapter of Sacred Monsters. The canonization of practice is especially important in the modern era, when traditional Judaism is under such threat from both academic investigation and social forces. Critical investigation into traditional sources is a Pandora's Box. When restricted to the realm of theory and belief, it is harmful, but unavoidable. Letting it affect halachic practice, on the other hand, is something that can and should be avoided wherever possible. Those who say otherwise often don't realize how far down the rabbit hole this path leads.
(Having an olive-sized kezayis and eating locusts are not a violation of that approach. In both those cases, there were still those who always had a tradition of acting that way.)
But I part company from Rav Eisenstein on two issues. First, Rav Eisenstein attempts to claim that this is always how things were. It's not. As R. Lichtenstein ably demonstrates, the Rishonim and early Acharonim did not act this way; they were ready to re-evaluate practice in light of new evidence. This approach is a new one, and it is a response to the threat of modernity. Rav Eisenstein keeps yelling that "Chadash assur min haTorah", but apparently is not aware that this approach is itself new. Again, it's an approach that's understandable and necessary - see my monograph on the development of Orthodoxy for a longer discussion - but it's new.
The second is that, notwithstanding the arguments that I presented above, one could still certainly cogently argue that techeles is a mitzvah and one should wear it. And it's perfectly legitimate for someone to decide that way. This is not an "attack on the Gedoylim" or a "contravention of the mitzvah to listen to the chachomim." The latter is applicable to the Beis Din HaGadol, not to the contemporary chareidi pantheon. A person is perfectly entitled to have a different rabbinic authority, or even to decide matters himself if he is competent. See my post from six years ago, Disputes vs. Deference, where I explain at length why it is perfectly legitimate for a person to dispute "The Gedolim." In that post I discuss a particularly important responsum from Rav Moshe Feinstein, where he permits (and even encourages) a young rabbi to follow his own views against the Chazon Ish. The notion that it is forbidden for, say, Rav Hershel Schechter to decide to wear techeles, is absurd and has no basis in halachah.
And it's also against the Mesoyrah.
I'm under the impression that some chassidic rebbeium say that the discovery of techeles is a sign of moshiachs imminence. Perhaps I'm paraphrasing liberally. The point remains, couldn't it be argued that the gedolim who speak against techeles are preventing moshiach from coming?
ReplyDeleteHere is a letter from a benei berak rosh yeshiva that addresses these points very well, betuv ta'am veda'as, cogently and accurately, in words that are mi'ut hamachzik as hamerubah.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=578168832356882
ty - very honest evaluation.
Deletekt
R' Natan, I fail to understand why your halachic conservatism disallows techeilet while using a much smaller 'kazayit' measure than the traditional Ashkenazy 1/2 or 1/3 of an egg volume. I'm not aware that there is an halacha to not don techeilet. It's just that the source and dyeing method had become lost in antiquity. Why should there be an objection to fulfilling a clear torah command once the source and dyeing method were recovered? On the other hand, clear Ashkenazy tradition was to assume a large zayit for mitzvot, i.e., matzoh. If the Netziv and possibly others argued for a realistic zayit shiur, that was an deviation from traditional Ashkenazy practice. Why is that acceptable, but not wearing techeilet in our tzitzit?
ReplyDeleteY. Aharon
Just as an FYI - Rav Yisroel Belsky ZT"L accepted the scientific evidence on the Murex, and wore Techeiles on his Talis Katan on Shabbos. I know this as I personally saw it and discussed it with him. He said that the reason he only wore it on Shabbos and only on his Talis Katan was that he did not want to be obvious about it - he thought it might be Yuhara - but on Shabbos, he wore a Kappota (long rabbinic frock), which covered the Tzitzis of his Talis Katan.
ReplyDeleteThen again, Rav Belsky was one of a kind in many ways.
I was advised that R' Belsky wore it in his Tallis Kattan at all time and had it in his Tallis Gadol for Shabbos. By having it in his Tallis Kattan he was able to be mekayem the Mitzvah daily.
DeleteR' Belsky wore it in his Tallis Kattan daily and Shabbos Tallis Gadol. That way he was able the be mekayem the mitzvah daily.
DeleteRav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp, the latter being one of Rav Elyashiv's most prominent talmidim (an actual posek, not just a hanger-on), would disagree not only with Rav Nachum, but with you.
ReplyDeleteThey both maintain that someone who has investigated murex techeiles and thinks it's the real thing is OBLIGATED to wear it.
Indeed. I don't understand how alleged meta-halachic principles like "respect for Gedoylim" or "conservatism of halacha" can justify a bitul aseh. (Of course it's quite another matter if you aren't convinced that the murex is techelet.)
DeleteR. Slifkin, are you sure that's a rabbit hole, and not a hyrax hole?
DeletePleases please, enough hare splitting!
DeleteWhy do you consider wearing techeilet per the identification of the chilazon a Halakhic novelty that one who's "conservative about halachah" can/should ignore? There is no change whatsoever in the halakhic code or canon; the only issue is a zoological identification of an established halakhic entity. Halakha itself does not undergo any change.
ReplyDeleteKilling lice on Shabbos is an entirely different issue; forbidding the practice expressly contradicts a specific accepted ruling.
R Stefansky
Not sure that I agree with the analogies. There is no re-evaluation of halacha or practice here. The halachah was always that we should wear Techeiles. It just wasn't practical because it wasn't available. I think that this could be better analogized to Ashkenazim not eating locusts.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do get the conservatism as long as some problems remain, and there does seem to be factual dispute as to whether they had a analogous process to produce the blue color as is used today by the modern Techeiles makers.
This 'factual dispute' is of zero relevance whatsoever. There is no source that implies in any way whatsoever that a particular process is needed for the dye to be kosher.
DeleteThe increasingly bizarre contortions that people are willing to go to find reasons not to perform an easy mitzvah that they read about twice a day is a thing to behold. It's enough to make one wonder whether this sitra acher thing really does exist (ר''ל).
This 'factual dispute' is of zero relevance whatsoever. There is no source that implies in any way whatsoever that a particular process is needed for the dye to be kosher.
DeleteWell, let's start off simpler. Would it be kosher if it was purple (Argaman)?
Tyrian purple, which some claim is Argaman, is made from a different snail, the Murex Brandaris. The purple-indigo colour made by the Murex Trunculus under certain conditions (which are actually hard to create outside a lab) is not, according to anyone, Argaman. If memory serves, the false claim that the Murex Trunculus also produces Argaman comes from a an extremely poorly argued tract by some unworldly chap in Bnei Brak.
DeleteIf you are asking whether the purple-indigo colour would be kosher ... Who cares? We know that the pure indigo-blue colour is kosher. How on earth would such a question exempt anyone from anything? It's like saying 'I'm not sure whether an Italian etrog is kosher, so I won't take an etrog at all'.
We know that the pure indigo-blue colour is kosher.
DeleteHow do you know that? Maybe the violet is the right color and indigo-blue is no good. For example see here:
Ancient recipes for making imitation tekhelet substantiate that ancient tekhelet was a violet colour. Thus a 7th-century document recently discovered describes the imitation of hyacinthine purple by double dyeing with woad and madder. This chemical composition has also been reported in a new analysis of the violet wool tassel from the Dead Sea Cave of the Letters, previously considered to have been dyed with woad and kermes as an imitation of tekhelet for use on ritual tassels. Such a dye combination corresponds to the Talmudic description (Midrash Sifrey, on Numbers 14:41) of forging ritual tekhelet: ‘Behold! I use red dye and indigo so that they resemble tekhelet: who could then expose me?’
The hyacinth connection
Tekhelet was translated ‘hyacinth’ in Greek by Hellenistic Jews and in Latin by the Romans. What does the term signify in this context? In classical Greek, ‘hyacinth’ had meant a flower and not murex purple. In the Hellenistic period, however, several Jewish translations of the Bible into Greek appeared, in which tekhelet was consistently rendered ‘hyacinth’. This translation is surely authentic, having been made at a time when the use of tekhelet in the Second Temple was completely familiar to both the translators and their readers. The new usage of ‘hyacinth’ for a dyestuff would appear to have derived from its similar hue to Hyacinthus orientalis L., a violet-coloured flower native to the Phoenician hinterland.
Concurrent with this usage in Hellenistic Greek, ‘hyacinth’ was one of the two classes of purple dyeing described in Latin by the Elder Pliny (Book XXI.xxii.45–6; also called ‘amethyst’ and ‘ianthine’).18 In an earlier passage (Book IX.lxi.130–lxiv.140), Pliny describes two hyacinthine dyeings: namely, hyacinthine purple, made from a mixture of bucinum and pelagia molluscs, and a paler one (also called conchylia), made from pelagia alone.19 Bucinum appears to be today’s dogwinkle, while pelagia is a category for the various dye-murexes.20 Thus Pliny’s description of ‘hyacinth’ is compatible with identification of banded dye-murex as the source for tekhelet. In classical Greek, two terms describe the colour purple.21 Porphorous is from porphora, murex shellfish. Phoinikous means red, scarlet or purple: it is of uncertain origin and was not used for murex. Did they perhaps correspond to the two purple products, hyacinthine and Tyrian?
[...]
Photolytic debromination
DeleteIn order to produce a bluish colour that could be marketed as tekhelet for the ritual tassels, the purple from banded murex (largely MBI) has been photolytically debrominated to indigotin, which was vat-dyed in situ onto wool.31 Driessen discovered photolytic debromination of DBI in 1944.32 An aqueous solution of the halogen-containing indigoid in the leucoform is first prepared by reaction with the powerful reducing agent sodium dithionite. Then the solution is exposed to sunlight or an equivalent ultraviolet source, while held in a transparent glass vessel for effective irradiation. But dithionite is a modern synthetic reagent that was not known in antiquity, and neither were glass reaction vessels. Therefore it is questionable whether photolytic debromination was available in antiquity to make indigotin. Furthermore, it would have been unnecessary in that era to make indigotin from purple, considering the ready availability of inexpensive woad and/or indigo from plants, then used for producing indigotin dye. Besides, the highly precious value of the purple dye would have been squandered. But it should now be possible to prove murex provenance of an indigotin dyeing by using analytical chemistry. A diagnostic test could be performed by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). This sensitive technique can detect the presence of residual traces of DBI and MBI that are too minute to affect the colour, but must be present in every dyestuff originating in shellfish. HPLC analysis of archaeological textiles dyed blue with indigotin has not hitherto detected a vestige of brominated indigotin.33 Accordingly, they are vegetable dyes, either woad or indigo. Hence, analytical evidence has not yet been presented to suggest that shellfish were used for dyeing blue by debromination of purple to indigotin.
Conclusion
The new understanding of the status of MBI in the banded dye-murex dye, as described above, should lead to the development of a marketable tekhelet dye that is not merely indigotin. Firstly, the thermal transition of the purple to form blue would seem to be a more acceptable process, as an alternative to photolytic debromination to indigotin. Secondly, investigation of the chemical reactions of the natural dye precursors from banded dye-murex should reveal the empirical conditions required for direct synthesis of a stable dye mixture of indigotin and DBI that resembles the violet colour of the hyacinth flower.
As far as which snails produce which color, Murex Trunculus produces all the colors in different proportions and can produce "Tyrian purple":
Delete[FYI: Banded dye-murex = Trunculus; Spiny dye-murex = Brandaris].
The revival of tekhelet dyeing in Israel has been undertaken in order to renew its use in ritual corner-tassels. The initiative began with a scientific study that determined the historical source of the required dye to be banded dye-murex, the colour to be violet and the chemical composition to be indigotin and DBI. Experiments with shellfish glands confirmed that a violet colour may be made with banded dye-murex and a purple with spiny dye-murex and with dogwinkle. But usually a purple colour was obtained, which was considered inappropriate as tekhelet since it was the same colour as the Tyrian purple from spiny dye-murex.
BTW, the "Photolytic debromination" that the author says would not have been done in ancient times is what the the current Tekhelet people do, IIUC.
DeleteCoincidentally, Hirhurim has some pieces on this up right now:
DeleteA Testament to the True Tekhelet
Here is the debate that I had read many years ago: Scholar’s Study: The Great Tekhelet Debate
DeleteLast one: Here is evidence from the Gemara that blue was not the desired color:
DeleteKoren also dismisses Roy Hoffman’s attempts, who besides using a glass vessel that was covered, also only received blue after a second dyeing in the same dye bath. Koren has shown that the red dibromoindigo (DBI) has a higher affinity to wool than the blue indigo (IND) and in the first dyeing DBI will adhere to the wool more readily than IND, see Koren, The First Optimal, p. 143. The second dyeing resulting in a bluer wool is explicitly disqualified in the Talmud (Menahot 42b). Based on Koren’s finding we can perhaps suggest that this is another indication that the desired color of tekhelet was violet (Cf. Rashi and Tosfot in Menahot ibid). Hoffman himself admits that natural blue dyeing was probably impossible on a commercial scale, thereby conceding that the dyeing process described in the Greek authors was not for a blue dye.
1) Rav Ziderman agrees that the indigo-blue colour is kosher; he even claims credit for being a sort of virtual founder of P'til Tekhelet (they do not seem to share this opinion). It's possible he wears the indigo-blue colour they produce, since he doesn't seem to say otherwise. Your argument that this counts as some sort of limmud zechut for people not to wear tekhelet is your own Hiddush.
Delete2) Rav Ziderman claims that it is possible to produce Argaman/Tyrian purple from the Murex Trunculus, but he is not able to do so and nor is anyone else. I therefore stand by my assertion that Argaman and Tekhelet come from two different snails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple
3) The reason why we know the indigo-blue colour is valid is because the Gemara clearly states that tekhelet is indistinguishable from kala ilan and kala ilan is indigo. No Rabbinical authority disputed this until tekhelet was rediscovered (you will note, parenthetically, that no-one claimed the Israeli flag should be purple). This objection that maybe tekhelet has to be some other colour was conveniently discovered when people were looking around for any excuse not to wear it.
4) My personal opinion is that any dye in the spectrum between purple-indigo and blue-indigo is called 'tekhelet' and all would be valid. This is also the opinion of Mori v'rabi Ha Rav Hayyim last I checked and he believes that ideally the dye should be halfway in between the extremes. Baruch Sterman's arguments, on the other hand, are also quite persuasive.
5) Even if you want to makpid on this shitah of yours, you can easily get round the 'problem' (and other 'problems') by simply using 4 white strings and 1 (or 2 - though that is wrong) blue string(s).
So in sum, when there is something so easy to do, so devoid of negative consequences, and so obviously a mitzvah, eventually it is time to stop making excuses for doing the wrong thing and just to do the right thing.
Could it be that I've quieted Gavriel M on one of his favorite topics? The mind boggles :).
DeleteRav Ziderman agrees that the indigo-blue colour is kosher; he even claims credit for being a sort of virtual founder of P'til Tekhelet (they do not seem to share this opinion). It's possible he wears the indigo-blue colour they produce, since he doesn't seem to say otherwise. Your argument that this counts as some sort of limmud zechut for people not to wear tekhelet is your own Hiddush.
DeleteIt is not a Chiddush to say that if you are going to dye your Tzitzis the color Tekhelet, that you need to actually get the color Tekhelet and not some other color that comes from can be derived from the same dye. On the contrary, it is a Chiddush to say that you fulfill the Mitzvah with the wrong color just because it comes from the same snail. Are you arguing from the authority of Rav Ziderman?
Rav Ziderman claims that it is possible to produce Argaman/Tyrian purple from the Murex Trunculus, but he is not able to do so and nor is anyone else. I therefore stand by my assertion that Argaman and Tekhelet come from two different snails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple
I need more research on this point, but there is no source for that thing that you point to on wikipedia. Please give me a scholarly source that this is the case.
But this point is not important. The point is that Murex Trunculus produces some kind of purple color (a mix of indigo and dibromoindigo at least) and does NOT produce the sky-blue that you can buy without a special process. See the pictures in this paper; the color is very purple: http://esmelivingcolour.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TA-Jan-2013-Purple.pdf. The result is very purple. The P'til Tekhelet people admit this and claim that the Photolytic debromination process that they use was the missing piece to create what they think is the right color of Tekhelet. If they thought the right color was more purple, they would leave the color that way. They make it blue because they (I think mistakenly) think that this is the right color.
The reason why we know the indigo-blue colour is valid is because the Gemara clearly states that tekhelet is indistinguishable from kala ilan and kala ilan is indigo.
Unfortunately, this is untrue. Sifrei says that you would create a fake tekhelet from Kala Ilan and Samamanim, meaning that you would have to add something change the color. The other sources that just say Kala Ilan could be referring to the main ingredient.
No Rabbinical authority disputed this until tekhelet was rediscovered (you will note, parenthetically, that no-one claimed the Israeli flag should be purple).
Rabbinical Authority before Tekhelet was rediscovered??? Before it was rediscovered, the color was a guess. No one knew exactly what it was. Rashi thinks it was green (Yarok). You have to use scholarship, archaeology, and chemistry to figure out what the color is. The consensus is that it was some kind of purple (probably some color found in a hyacinth, since that is how the word was translated when the Beis Hamikdash stood).
This objection that maybe tekhelet has to be some other colour was conveniently discovered when people were looking around for any excuse not to wear it.
DeleteThis is completely absurd. Every expert publication that I've found except for the Stermans thinks that the original color was some kind of purple, and all of them are either non-religious sources or ones that want to bring back Tekhelet.
My personal opinion is that any dye in the spectrum between purple-indigo and blue-indigo is called 'tekhelet' and all would be valid. This is also the opinion of Mori v'rabi Ha Rav Hayyim last I checked and he believes that ideally the dye should be halfway in between the extremes. Baruch Sterman's arguments, on the other hand, are also quite persuasive.
Argument from authority? Why would the wrong color be valid. Am I a heretic if I think that Baruch Sterman's arguments are very weak?
Even if you want to makpid on this shitah of yours, you can easily get round the 'problem' (and other 'problems') by simply using 4 white strings and 1 (or 2 - though that is wrong) blue string(s).
Why would I tie on any number of strings of the wrong color?
So in sum, when there is something so easy to do, so devoid of negative consequences, and so obviously a mitzvah, eventually it is time to stop making excuses for doing the wrong thing and just to do the right thing.
My summary would be that you haven't responded to any of the arguments that the currently used color is simply incorrect.
1) Our sources clearly indicate that Tekehlet is blue. This is what the Radzyner concluded and no-one disagreed with him. This is what Rav Herzog concluded and no-one disagreed with him. This is why these colours were chosen for the Israeli flag and noone disagreed. Suddenly now it's controversial because we need an excuse not to do a mitzvah.
Delete2) Those who claim that the ideal colour is closer to purple than that currently produced (with whom I partly agree) do not claim that this exempts anyone from fulfilling the mitzvah as best they can with the strings currently on sale. If you were genuinely worried about fulfilling the mitzvah you would sen Rav Ziderman an email and ask him to whip you up some purple strings. If you wanted to be super-brisk/aspie about it, you could wear both the blue and the purple at the same time. But this is not about fulfilling the mitzvah, this is about not fulfilling the mitzvah.
3) We have actual surviving textiles from the Murex Trunculus which are blue, so the arguments that the ancients didn't have a method of dyeing blue are totally impertinent. To make an analogy, some people argue that since we cannot explain how the Egyptians built the pyramids, therefore they were built by aliens. A more reasonable position, is that they had some method we are unaware of. If you have any experience of how ancient history works, epistemologically speaking, this should be your default position.
4) The basis of the purple-party's argument is that the ancients perceived colour differently from us and therefore would look at a piece of purple wool and say it looked like the sky. If this is so (and I'm inclined to doubt it), then it would also follow a fortiori that they could look at piece of indigo-blue wool and piece of indigo-purple wool and call them by the same name. Since we know that both the purple and blue shades were produced and yet we only have one name (since, again, Argaman/Tyrian purple is a different colour) this would appear to actually be the case.
P.S.
DeleteI'm going to admit I was wrong about one point.
The Murex haemastoma and Murex brandaris both produce reddish-purple dyes. Previously it was thought that these snails were the source of argaman and the Murex trunculus was the source of tekhelet. However, it has been shown that the haemastoma and brandaris will not produce purple dyes unless some trunculus dye is used. Koren has analyzed many examples of ancient molluscan purple textiles and has always found that they contain MBI which can only be found in the trunculus. We must therefore conclude that argaman and tekhelet are just two shades of the porphura snails.
He seems to know what he is talking about, so I'll defer to him on this. IMHO this an argument for leaning on the side of caution towards blue rather than purple.
Also Vaynman writes that
We differ only in our opinions of the exact hue of tekhelet, which may not even be halakhically consequential. Dr. Sterman and his co-found organization Ptil Tekhelet have been instrumental in restoring the mitzvah of tekhelet and they should be commended for their efforts to educate the public of the importance of this mitzvah and for manufacturing thousands of sets of tekhelet.
I think he is being evasive here, but what he ends up saying is that what P'til tekhelet produce is kosher, but it would be better to produce something darker with more purple in it. I agree. The sets produced by P'til Tekhelet, in any case vary between quite sky blue and fairly dark shades and I'm particular to choose the latter.
Is there anyone else apart from you that thinks this is some sort of valid reason not to wear tekhelet?
Our sources clearly indicate that Tekehlet is blue. This is what the Radzyner concluded and no-one disagreed with him. This is what Rav Herzog concluded and no-one disagreed with him. This is why these colours were chosen for the Israeli flag and noone disagreed. Suddenly now it's controversial because we need an excuse not to do a mitzvah
DeleteYou are repeating your argument from authority. I'll make one point though. While the Stermans represent Rav Herzog as disqualifying Murex because it was not a sky blue color, others have read his dissertation quite differently (quoted at the bottom from R Vaynman.
Those who claim that the ideal colour is closer to purple than that currently produced (with whom I partly agree) do not claim that this exempts anyone from fulfilling the mitzvah as best they can with the strings currently on sale.
Can someone who hasn't got any matzah on Pesach fulfill the Mitzvah the best they can using rice bread? If Tekhelet is a color and you have the wrong color, then perhaps you can't fulfill your obligation with it. And yes lots of people think that the biggest problem with re-establishing Tekhelet is the uncertainty about the color.
If you were genuinely worried about fulfilling the mitzvah you would sen Rav Ziderman an email and ask him to whip you up some purple strings.
But Argaman purple is probably wrong also as you point out. So what color do I ask for and how does he produce it? Also, I don't think that it is my job as someone who is not an expert in the field to start a new movement. There is a movement out there and it looks to have lots of uncertainty, enough that I don't think I'll join. I don't have to start my own out of ignorance and make similar mistakes.
We have actual surviving textiles from the Murex Trunculus which are blue, so the arguments that the ancients didn't have a method of dyeing blue are totally impertinent.
That isn't the argument at all. It was that they would not have done so (because why would you take valuable violet or purple and make it into less valuable blue) and that they could not have done it in vast quantities. You will get bluer stuff if you first use the dye for wool and then put the next piece of cloth into the dye bath. As pointed out above, though, the halacha rules this as pasul, possibly because of the color.
Also, IIUC there are lots of ancient blue pieces out of non-snail while the purple/violet stuff is usually snail.
The basis of the purple-party's argument is that the ancients perceived colour differently from us and therefore would look at a piece of purple wool and say it looked like the sky.
Not at all. They (and again, this is basically everyone except for the Stermans who seem to be a Daas Yachid) say that it is a kind of violet because that is how it was translated contemporaneously and that is the color that you get when you dye with it. The question the becomes the meaning of the Talmudic statement "Because tekhelet is like the sea, and the sea is like the sky, and the sky is like
[God’s] throne of glory". There is no way to derive the color of Tekhelet from that statement because the first comparison is with the sea, and the secondary comparison with the sky doesn't say whether or not it is day or night, and God doesn't have an actual throne, and it doesn't even say that they are the same color. But you can speculate as what it means and that is where you have to go back to what kinds of color comparisons the Ancients might make.
PS: "In 1914, Rabbi Isaac Herzog, later the first chief rabbi of Israel, defended his dissertation, Semitic Porphyrology,3 about the search for tekhelet. This excellent work is still the most comprehensive treatise on the subject. While Rabbi Herzog did not come to a conclusive resolution for the source of tekhelet, he did feel that he had firmly proven its original color. In Rabbi Herzog’s words: “I believe conclusively, that if not actually so in the strictly scientific sense, the tekelet-colour did not, at all events, appreciably differ from a dark pure blue, the nuance assigned to it by tradition.”4 Elsewhere he says it is what an English man calls “deep dark blue”.5
DeleteThough he very much longed to do so, Rabbi Herzog never did produce tekhelet from either of the two snails he strongly considered in his dissertation.6 He had doubts about both possibilities but his questions were not enough to conclusively dismiss either one as the source of the tekhelet. Problems with creating an actual dye were more practical because at the time scientist had not found a way to create a color fast dye from either snail.7
Despite his assuredness about the true color of tekhelet, Rabbi Herzog was not absolutely certain that tekhelet was a pure blue. He was willing to allow a degree of violet because “there are very persuasive reasons to believe that the species known as Murex trunculus is the hilazon of tekhelet. For one, the dye that it emits is sufficiently blue.”8 At the time it was not yet known how to produce a pure blue dye from the Murex trunculus. Although Rabbi Herzog would tolerate a blueish violet color, he believed that it was likely possible to create a pure blue dye from the Murex trunculus if we only knew the precise sub-species and correct way of dyeing.9"
We differ only in our opinions of the exact hue of tekhelet, which may not even be halakhically consequential.
DeleteBut that means that it may be halakhically consequential. My intuition says that it would be.
Is there anyone else apart from you that thinks this is some sort of valid reason not to wear tekhelet?
It's not important, but of course, yes.
1) You keep saying tekhelet is a colour. It's very clear from the way the Torah and Rabbinic sources use the term that it is not a colour, but a material. (Kind of like when the Tanach talks about 'a fig' it means a tree). There's no reason to think that 'tekhelet' can't, at the very least, include blue, especially since, otherwise, there is no word for the blue material.(If tekhelet was a colour, by the way, then it would make no logical sense at all to say kala ilan was pasul).
Delete2) Your job is not to decide whether to 'join a movement'. it is to do what G-d told you to do because he created the universe and took your fathers out of Egypt. You don't seem to want for free time, so send an email.
3) The fact is that Rabbinical authorities who look into the matter unanimously conclude that tekhelet is blue because that is what the sources say. Apparently, that is trivial to you. I honestly don't understand why.
4) If it turns out that blue is the wrong colour and it turns out that this invalidates it then you still lose nothing by wearing it. Suggested halakhic problems with doing so can be solved quite easily by using an extra white string. For people who believe in G-d this is a powerful reason to just wear it, but shockingly it leaves you unmoved.
5) If you go to a shop and ask to see a dozen sets you can choose one that is very dark blue. While I can see that the really sky blue ones could be beyond the tekhelet range, I find it quite inconceivable that that the dark ones would be.
You keep saying tekhelet is a colour. It's very clear from the way the Torah and Rabbinic sources use the term that it is not a colour, but a material.
DeleteOK, so now we circle back to my initial question to you. You maintain that if you take the snails and color the strings purple, then you fulfill your obligation. Very well, but the sources that you rely on don't agree. The whole narrative of the Stermans is that Tekhelet was only re-established with the [re?]discovery of the photolytic debromination. His narrative is open to question, but your position that the color is not relevant is certainly subject to doubt.
(If tekhelet was a colour, by the way, then it would make no logical sense at all to say kala ilan was pasul).
I didn't say that it was only a color. What it was was a dye that produced a range of blue-purple colors. That you could make a somewhat inferior imitation dye from Indigo and some red would not mean that it would be sufficient for Tekhelet.
2) Your job is not to decide whether to 'join a movement'. it is to do what G-d told you to do because he created the universe and took your fathers out of Egypt. You don't seem to want for free time, so send an email.
Thank you for letting me know what my job is ;). I disagree with your interpretation of what God wants from me.
The fact is that Rabbinical authorities who look into the matter unanimously conclude that tekhelet is blue because that is what the sources say. Apparently, that is trivial to you. I honestly don't understand why.
I'm very surprised to hear you make this kind of argument. Would these authorities agree with your characterization of the authority of the Bavli as Bavliolatry? Apparently the Rabbinic tradition of giving primacy to the Bavli is trivial to you.
To answer your question, Tekhelet was restored based on scholarship, archaeology and science. I don't feel bound to these Rabbis on such issues. They seem to be relying on the singular opinion of Dr. Sterman in these matters.
If it turns out that blue is the wrong colour and it turns out that this invalidates it then you still lose nothing by wearing it. Suggested halakhic problems with doing so can be solved quite easily by using an extra white string. For people who believe in G-d this is a powerful reason to just wear it, but shockingly it leaves you unmoved.
I think that there is a very good chance that Blue is the wrong color. It would then make no sense for me to wear it.
If you go to a shop and ask to see a dozen sets you can choose one that is very dark blue. While I can see that the really sky blue ones could be beyond the tekhelet range, I find it quite inconceivable that that the dark ones would be.
Unless those that think that it must be sky blue are right and the dark ones are Pasul.
I'll wait a little longer for the experts to shake this one out and then see what my Rabbis say.
And it's also against the Mesoyrah.
ReplyDeletePretty sure that's Mesoyreh. :-D
Should it not be 'mesorah'?
DeleteWhere did the 'y' come from but then we are not supposed to ask 'why'!
Enough nit picking.
Nope, both wrong.
DeleteMesayreh.
Let's verify which word we are speaking of:
DeleteIs it מסורה?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I think that it's particularly important for me to be conservative about halachah".
ReplyDeleteHow is it conservative to not perform a mitzvah from the Torah? This doesn't make sense to me. The main objection to techelet is based on ignoring the archeological evidence. The case of the louse on Shabbat is different - that's a law from the Talmud and codified in the Shulchan Aruch. Not wearing techelet is not a halacha from Chazal. It's the ignorance of many modern day leaders.
For video of Rav Chaim, contra Nochum Eisenstein and your own conservativism, http://techeiles.org/debate.php#rck
ReplyDeleteFor Rav Karp,
http://techeiles.org/haskamos.php#rmmk
I didn't hear any explosion, screaming or yelling...
ReplyDeleteWe are seeing a similar phenomenon regarding the so-called "New TANACH Studies", which largely originated in the Har Etzion Yeshiva in Gush Etzion, which combine a renewed emphasis on the peshat of the TANACh pasukim along with modern historical and archaelogical studes, combined with the traditional commentaries. Those who oppose it use the argument that it is new, therefore it is invalid.
ReplyDeleteA parallel example is the dispute that began more than 100 years ago when new manuscripts of famous halachic and Talmudic commentaries appeared which had variant texts from the known ones and which sometimes clarified difficult passages. Again, the argument was used that since these new versions weren't known in the past, we weren't supposed to have them and so the new, corrected versions should be rejected.
It depends on what you meant by rejection. From a scholarship perspective, it makes sense to use them. But from a halachic perspective, we don't practice based on the most advanced sholarship on what the Talmud means. Tradition plays a large role and that doesn't change with scholarship (at least not directly and immediately).
DeleteThat's interesting. Dangerous, though, from a frum POV. How does one integrate history and archaeology and maintain a traditional understanding of Tanach?
DeleteG*3-
DeleteWe all see that in ambiguous pasukim in the TANACH that the different classical commentators will cover all conceivable permutations of understanding them. If archaeological or historical studies come to light which allows a more clear understanding of the pasukim, we can now say which of the old commentaries "makes the most sense" to us.
So archaeology is only used to choose between different traditional interpretations? I guess that could work. Though you still have the danger of legitimizing archaeology and history.
DeleteIf archaeology is trusted to tell you that "Ur Kasdim" means, "Ur of the Chaldeans" and not a fiery furnace, then it should follow that it's also trusted to tell you that Yericho didn't have a wall when Yehoshua was supposed to have conquered it, or any one of a hundred other things that undermine the traditional understanding.
Why would new manuscripts of "famous halachic and Talmudic commentaries [with] variant texts" be problematic, but corrections that appear in haghos on the very page of the Talmud not be?
Delete"A person is perfectly entitled to have a different rabbinic authority, or even to decide matters himself if he is competent."
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe F. writes the same in his hakdamah to Igros Moshe. In fact, it's essentially the main point of the hakdamah.
Arguably, the main objection to techelet is based on the cost.
ReplyDeleteWell, if they weren't expensive, they wouldn't be real. :-)
DeleteBut seriously, forgo the black hat and get two or three sets. Forgo the shtreimel and get dozens.
How much does it cost?
DeleteYou can buy the thick Ptil strings separately (ie, no begged) for about $30. So for what many people pay for a weeks use of an esrog, you can have techeleis on both your talis and your tallis kotton, with some extra to spare.
DeleteNot saying that I buy it, but there has been an argument that if all people who wear Tzitis tried to wear Techeiles, then the cost would skyrocket because the sources would become strained.
DeleteMore formally, widespread adoption of Techeleis would move the demand curve to the right, and the current supply curve is probably inelastic (has a steep slope) and it also may be difficult to move the supply curve to the right in response to the move of the demand curve because there are only so many snails available per year.
Here is what one of the pro-Tekhelet groups are saying, which indicates that it is simply not possible now for all Tzitzis wearers to use Tekhelet at this time:
Delete"The trunculus-tekhelet has become available in recent years, but it is not manufactured in sufficient quantities for universal use.
We are looking for partners with vision, for whom the Jewish tradition, religion and keeping mitzvot are close to their hearts.
We hope to find people who are interested in our initiative and in our work plan, which includes three years of research and development and then two years of preparation for mass production of tekhelet for the Jewish World, with the aim of reaching:
50,000 sets in 2017
100,000 sets in 2018
250,000 sets in 2020
The program includes initial marketing through the Internet.
We are calling upon you to join us, to show interest, to come and hear, to examine our program and to take part in the great challenge of our times – to renew the mitzvah of tekhelet in all Jewry after a break of 1,300 years.
The tekhelet produced by the Ptil Tekhelet organization comes with certification of the Badatz Mehadrin of R. Avraham Rubin, whose certification is widely relied on by the Israeli haredi public. Admittedley, the certification only applies to the process, not to the actual identification of the murex as the true tekhelet, but he wouldn't grant the certification if he thought it qualified as a slap in the face to the gedolim.
ReplyDeleteWhen I asked Rav D. A. Morgenstern שליט"א about wearing תכלת his answer was that there's a מחלוקת ראשונים how to prepare the die - and the 2 ways are mutually exclusive (either method makes it Pasul for the other opinion). Since this מחלוקת was never resolved (as it wasn't of practical relevance) we "don't know how to proceed".
ReplyDeleteHe didn't tell me what the מחלוקת was.
Danny, as I recall there may be a dispute between the Rambam and possibly the Aruch (an early Rishon)as to the use of 'samemanim' (chemicals) in the dyebath. I don't know that this issue would invalidate the techeilet dye as long as the snail origin and color produced were correct. It's unlikely that either savant knew the process since the dye production was secretive and had been abandoned centuries before their time. In any case, the process used by the Ptil Tekheiet people differs significantly from what is known of the ancient practice - at least that described by Pliny, the Roman historian. In that process the Murex gland is extracted and kept in brine until ready for use. Then the collection of Murex glands is slow cooked for a number of days to cook the meaty portion and allow it to be separated from the liquid. There is much bacteria that grows in the broth under those conditions. These bacteria reduce the dye materiai to a soluble form. The tzitzit (or the wool yarn) is dipped in the clarified broth and turns into the blue dye upon exposure to air (and the sun). In contrast, the Ptil process first dries the smelly glandular extract in air. The powdered material is then placed in a glass beaker containing a chemical bath - including a strong reducing agent, to form the soluble dye component. The insoluble blue color forms on the tzitzit upon removal from the bath in air and the presence of sunlight. The dye process is thus different from what we gather in ancient sources, but the color may be the same. It seems to me that it's the Murex Trunculus dye source and the color produced that is the key, rather than the process.
DeleteY. Aharon
Y. Aharon, I don't understand the Chemistry like you do, but there is some disagreement about whether or not the ancients could have got blue out of the Murex because there would be no step of exposure to the Sun. I'd have to google again to find the places where this dispute is recorded.
DeleteThe subject of the post seems mocking Gedoylei Torah or take them likely. Is there no concern about loosing olam haba?
ReplyDeleteLol!!! Where have you been?!?
Deletethe shiurim i've heard on the "downside" of wearing tcheilet focus on the titzit not being the same color as the beged (imho not overwhelming), so as r'hs says (and i wonder especially about briskers) if u have an opportunity to maybe get a torah mitzvah (me-especially tzitzit which was kiyumit and we made chiyuvit), why wouldn't you? (except for the chadash argument)
ReplyDeleteKT
I understand some have an argument that if there is even a small doubt we don't wear T'cheiles because of Godol Mitzvas Lavan etc. Most arguments against T'cheiles were already dealt with by the Radzyner, who was quite probably greater than R' Eisenstein.
ReplyDelete"the Radzyner, who was quite probably greater than R' Eisenstein."
DeleteFor sure. But if "greater" matters, the hundreds? of Rabbonim who didn't act on the Radzyner's recommendation need also to be put on the scale.
"The latter is applicable to the Beis Din HaGadol, not to the contemporary chareidi pantheon."
ReplyDeletemerriam-webster.com offers four definitions for "pantheon." I assume you mean "a group of illustrious or notable persons or things," and not "the gods of a people; especially the officially recognized gods."
I hope the same is also true of their constituency. :-)
Isn't the pronunciation of the cholem as "oy" (or "oi") also based on an individual's mesorah? Why mock it?
ReplyDeleteAndy
It's not mocking the mesorah. In many communities here, charedi deliberately emphasize the "oy" to sound more frum. And thus non-charedim will mock that in turn.
DeleteAnd your evidence that they deliberately emphasize the "oy" in order to sound more frum is......?
DeleteIs this typical thinking among Daati Leumi? Or just your own opinion?
Andy
Andy - of course some people were taught from birth to speak that way, that's obvious. But have you never been to a yeshivah? Changing one's pronunciation, along with dress, to accord with charedi norms is a time-honored step in the "frumming out" process. And that includes emphasizing the oy or the aiy as the case may be.
DeleteSo you believe that R' Slifkin was mocking only those who CHANGED their pronunciation to accord with Chareidi norms, in order to sound more frum.
DeleteDo you know for a fact that R' Eisenstein, whose pronunciation he mocked, is one of those who changed?
Andy
Andy
After the Slifkin affair 12 years ago, I knew I could never be a Chareidi. And I've come to believe that the Dati Leumi do have a point about Chareidim needing to join the work force and the army.
DeleteBut we have here gratuitous mocking of a man because of his valid mesorah on the pronunciation of a cholem, and NO ONE ON THIS BOARD THINKS THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG.
This is why I don't blame Chareidim for not trusting that Dati Leumi speaks to them and about them in complete good faith. There's just a bit of gratuitous hatred mixed in with the admittedly valid points, for some in the Dati Leumi camp.
Andy
I would never mock anyone for their mesorah of how to speak. This has to do with a way of sounding frum. I didn't come up with this observation - it's commonly made here. I suspect that you don't live in Israel.
DeleteAndy-I suggest you read Prof Marc Shapiro's book "Changing the Immutable" and see how Rav Kook has been completely written out of Jewish history by Haredi propagandists in ways that are completely bizarre, such as publishing the hesped of Rav Kook given by a relative of Rav Haim Ozer Grodzinski in which Rav Kook's name is completely expunged so the reader has no idea whom the hesped is for. This tiny example of a much larger phenomenon might give you a taste of why many DL people are not completely comfortable with the Haredi world. To call it "gratuitous hatred" is going too far....I would call it "problematic channels of communication".
DeleteR' Slifkin--
DeleteDo you have evidence that R' Eisenstein originally pronounced his cholem as "o", but changed to "oi" in order to sound more frum? That's a yes or a no.
If the answer is "no", then would you at least consider the possibility that there's just a bit of gratuitous hatred mixed in with the admittedly valid points, for some in the Dati Leumi camp?
I'm surprised to hear you of all people rely on "commonly made" observations. You mocked a specific individual for a specific pronunciation, and assigned a motive ("appearing frum") to it. Doesn't this require evidence, or at least some indications?
Andy
To Y. Ben-David:
DeleteIf you read Prof. Shapiro's book, you know that the censorship of Rav Kook is more extreme, and more substantive, in the Dati circles than in the chareidi circles.
Andy: rav Eisenstein is from schicawgo. His masorah is Chicago. Not yerushalmi.
DeleteBut we have here gratuitous mocking of a man because of his valid mesorah on the pronunciation of a cholem
DeleteA Mesorah that stretches back a few hundred years, to Eastern Europe, isn't much of a Mesorah. Considering the importance Charedim supposedly put on Lashon Hakodesh, you'd think they'd learn something about it.
Nothing is sillier sounding to me than an Israeli accent and a Yeshivish mispronunciation.
Yehoshua-Not sure what you are referring to regarding supposed "DL censorship of Rav Kook". Much of the Haredi world have turned him into a non-person. I am aware that there were arguments regarding the withholding from publication of some of his works, and there are certain DL's who say that his teachings are no longer relevant today, but at least some of his unpublished works HAVE been released and most DL's don't agree with the "no longer relevant" arguement, so I am not sure what you are talking about.
DeleteAndy - I don't know R. Eisenstein's history, though I wonder if someone called Norman attending HTC in the 1960s spoke that way. However, spelling their pronunciation in the way that such people say it, e.g. Toyreh, is often done in literature - because that's the way that they say it!
DeleteMiMedinat HaYam---
DeleteYou know for a fact that NO Chicagoans pronounce the cholem as "oi"? I know for a fact that there are PLENTY of Americans who do.
Avi---
There are examples in standard Ivrit that are probably not the way they were pronounced at Sinai--the chof and the chet the same; tof and tet the same. Certainly no one should be mocked for that reason, correct?
Andy
R' Slifkin--
DeleteIf R' Eisenstein's family was Yiddish-speaking from Eastern Europe, then there's a good chance that they DID pronounce it that way.
You did not mean it as mockery?? Not even a little bit? Just as literature?
Andy
However, spelling their pronunciation in the way that such people say it, e.g. Toyreh, is often done in literature - because that's the way that they say it!
DeletePerhaps, but that's not why you did it :).
This is why I don't blame Chareidim for not trusting that Dati Leumi speaks to them and about them in complete good faith. There's just a bit of gratuitous hatred mixed in with the admittedly valid points, for some in the Dati Leumi camp.
DeleteI don't think that the mocking of the pronunciation moves the ball forward, but your generalization is unwarranted. The Charedim don't recognize the existence of non-Charedi Talmidei Chachamim, while those to the left (DL and other more centrist groups) generally recognize those to the right, even when they disagree with them. There is a fundamental asymmetry that won't go away just because you find some unfortunate mockery on a blog.
There is the issue of an orphan begging for a lenient sentence for patricide. When you delegitimize everyone else, then you are likely to engender resentment. Using that as a justification for your delegitimization of others is quite circular.
It is hard to keep track of threads here, but responding to Y. Ben-David: The Dati censorship of Rav Kook began with R' Tzvi Yehuda changing his wording in Orot HaTorah and has continued until this day. You are correct that b"h there are some subversives in the Dati community who have essentially stolen some of Rav Kook's suppressed writings and published them. But other writings are still suppressed, and many in the Dati community outlaw learning the works that have been recently published. This was done deliberately in order to keep people in the dark re. some of Rav Kook's "bolder" opinions. I am surprised that you do not seem to be aware of this.
DeleteDavid Ohsie said- "The Charedim don't recognize the existence of non-Charedi Talmidei Chachamim, while those to the left (DL and other more centrist groups) generally recognize those to the right, even when they disagree with them".
DeleteThat "asymmetry" is not because the non-Chareidim are more tolerant or open-minded than Chareidim. It stems from the fact that any responsible posek - Chareidi or otherwise -knows that he cannot do his job without heavily relying on gedolei poskim such as R' Moshe Feinstein and R' Shlomo Zalman who were mostly Chareidi (for whatever reason).
David Ohsie---
DeleteYour comment had enough straw men to fill out a football team. I never said that Chareidim are innocent---and I've told them so. (Correct, I don't have many friends.)
Maybe we can summarize our disagreement as follows:
David Ohsie: given all that Chareidim have done, DL is justified in displaying even gratuitous hatred (i.e. hatred unrelated to anything Chareidim have actually done).
Andy: per Torah hashkafah, I think BOTH sides are obligated to at least work on getting rid of the gratuitous hatred (maybe work on the more substantive resentments later.)
Agreed?
Andy
David Ohsie said- "The Charedim don't recognize the existence of non-Charedi Talmidei Chachamim, while those to the left (DL and other more centrist groups) generally recognize those to the right, even when they disagree with them".
DeleteThat "asymmetry" is not because the non-Chareidim are more tolerant or open-minded than Chareidim. It stems from the fact that any responsible posek - Chareidi or otherwise -knows that he cannot do his job without heavily relying on gedolei poskim such as R' Moshe Feinstein and R' Shlomo Zalman who were mostly Chareidi (for whatever reason).
Two huge problems here.
1) This reasoning is circular. The reasons that you believe that there are no great "non-Charedi" poskim is that is precisely because they are not Charedim and "obviously" any non-Charedi cannot be a great posek. So Rav Herzog, Rav Unterman, Rav Shapira (and Rav Goren to a degree), Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin, and Rav Rabinovitch are all not considered despite their greatness. The best example is Rav AI Kook who was the posek for the non-extremist litvish in his lifetime, but has no been written out of their history. Another example would be Rav Elyashiv himself! He only because an authority once he left the Rabbinate (at the time when it was prohibited for a Charedi to be in the Rabbinate; Rav Elyashiv changed that P'sak).
2) No idea at all, whether p'sak or not, can ever be quoted from a non-Charedi. So RYB Soloveitchik, Rav Lichtenstein, RZY Kook, etc are never mentioned by name in a positive way.
I'm not sure why you need to distort reality in order to defend their position. The Charedim don't consider any non-Charedi significant (and the definition changes over time). I'm sure that they have principled reasons for this, even though I disagree with them. You don't do them any favors by distorting their position.
It is hard to keep track of threads here, but responding to Y. Ben-David: The Dati censorship of Rav Kook began with R' Tzvi Yehuda changing his wording in Orot HaTorah and has continued until this day. You are correct that b"h there are some subversives in the Dati community who have essentially stolen some of Rav Kook's suppressed writings and published them. But other writings are still suppressed, and many in the Dati community outlaw learning the works that have been recently published. This was done deliberately in order to keep people in the dark re. some of Rav Kook's "bolder" opinions. I am surprised that you do not seem to be aware of this.
DeleteYehoshua, what is your point here? The DL censorship of Rav Kook, while perhaps misguided, is precisely because they revere Rav Kook and think that his ideas will either be misrepresented or will be too radical for the masses. The Charedim remove his haskamot when they republish books because, while he was actually a revered posek at the time, he has since fallen out of favor, and has been written out of their history. While there is some superficially similarity between the two (much as shooting terrorist and shooting a policeman have superficial similarity), they have polar opposite meaning. What you are trying to derive from this?
DeleteDavid Ohsie: given all that Chareidim have done, DL is justified in displaying even gratuitous hatred (i.e. hatred unrelated to anything Chareidim have actually done).
Andy: per Torah hashkafah, I think BOTH sides are obligated to at least work on getting rid of the gratuitous hatred (maybe work on the more substantive resentments later.)
No, I agree with you. I was only trying to avoid the false equivalence and claims of "Chredi-bashing". I gather that you would agree broadly with this piece from Rav Aviner?
"Love the Charedim as yourself.
The first reason: Obviously, they too are Jews. Loving your fellow Jew means loving the entire Jewish People and not just those similar to you. You don’t need a Torah source for this. It’s natural. Torah sources serve where the act does not come naturally, but requires in depth analysis and effort.
The second reason: Charedim means Torah: Torah learning, Torah observance, devotion to Torah. When they talk, it’s based on Torah. Even if they err, for example, regarding Zionism, it’s based on Torah. They’re not like the secular, whose starting point is not Torah. So the Charedim are closer to us than are the secular. We and the Charedim share precisely the same goal. Our argument has to do with the means, the path. The secular, however, have a different goal. Obviously, deep in their souls their goal is the same, but they express themselves about a different goal."
Continued at Love the Charedi as Yourself
Your comment had enough straw men to fill out a football team.
DeleteI think it was an accurate description of the position of many, but I apologize for mis-attributing it to you.
Rabbi Dr. Slifkin wrote:
ReplyDelete"Especially since my field of study - the intersection between Torah and the natural sciences - so often leads to the conclusion that earlier generations were mistaken in their beliefs, I think that it's particularly important for me to be conservative about halachah."
I'm glad you stated this for the record so unequivocally.
Next:
"The canonization of practice is especially important in the modern era, when traditional Judaism is under such threat from both academic investigation and social forces.
Critical investigation into traditional sources is a Pandora's Box. When restricted to the realm of theory and belief, it is harmful, but unavoidable. Letting it affect halachic practice, on the other hand, is something that can and should be avoided wherever possible. Those who say otherwise often don't realize how far down the rabbit hole this path leads."
So for anyone involved in "critical investigation into traditional sources" (like yourself) your policy is to practice Orthopraxy.
Interesting.
(And you teach Torah subjects in yeshiva programs to impressionable teenagers and tell them that academia is often right and the traditional view is often wrong, but they should follow halacha anyway?)
I'm glad you stated this for the record so unequivocally.
DeleteIf you feel that this is not the case, perhaps you would like to volunteer alternate solutions to the list of conflicts that I have?
So for anyone involved in "critical investigation into traditional sources" (like yourself) your policy is to practice Orthopraxy.
What on earth does Orthopraxy have to do with that I wrote?!
And you teach Torah subjects in yeshiva programs to impressionable teenagers and tell them that academia is often right and the traditional view is often wrong, but they should follow halacha anyway?
No. There are very, very few cases where it is relevant to halacha.
I'm curious: What do YOU teach them - say, where Chazal say that you cannot be mechalel Shabbos to save a baby born after 8 months, because it is not viable?
You make it seem as if people don't realize that reality and the traditional explanations are not always in accord. There's a whole spectrum of responses to that, ranging from denying all of Torah all the way to denying all of reality. You seem to sit towards the latter extreme, while rational people stray towards the other. I don't know that one is objectively better, but I do know that we're supposed to use our minds.
Delete"If you feel that this is not the case, perhaps you would like to volunteer alternate solutions to the list of conflicts that I have?"
DeleteI'll try my best, but unlike you, I never assumed the burden of resolving everyone's conflicts. Like Rav SR Hirsch in his Commentary to Lev. 11:5&6, I am quite comfortable admitting that I don't yet have the answer to even an obvious, glaring conflict between Torah and science.
"What on earth does Orthopraxy have to do with that I wrote?!"
Everything. You basically wrote that even though accepting the conclusions of academic investigation which can undermine belief is unavoidable, one should still not express that disbelief in one's outward practice of Judaism.
That is the definition of an Orthoprax Jew: Doesn't believe XYZ is true or binding, but outwardly practices it anyway because he wants to socially belong to mainstream Orthodox society.
No. There are very, very few cases where it is relevant to halacha.
Well, if you teach that the Sages of the Talmud were capable making of gross scientific errors because they got their knowledge of the reality--including realia which determine halacha-- from their ignorant superstitious contemporaries, then you are giving them an awful good reason to discard many, many halachos.
"I'm curious: What do YOU teach them - say, where Chazal say that you cannot be mechalel Shabbos to save a baby born after 8 months, because it is not viable?"
That's an easy one.
I'd go through the sugya in Yevamos daf 80a-b and the Tosfos HaRosh to Shabbos 135a, and then ask them if they still had any issues after that.
(I'm responding to your points out of order)
DeleteYou basically wrote that even though accepting the conclusions of academic investigation which can undermine belief is unavoidable, one should still not express that disbelief in one's outward practice of Judaism.
And you would argue that such a person *should* express that disbelief in one's outward practice of Judaism?
if you teach that the Sages of the Talmud were capable making of gross scientific errors because they got their knowledge of the reality--including realia which determine halacha-- from their ignorant superstitious contemporaries, then you are giving them an awful good reason to discard many, many halachos.
I don't think that it's "many, many" halachos. Also, I think that most people are in any case going to realize that the Sages were mistaken in science. They aren't going to listen to silly apologetics or to your saying that they should just live with the question.
"If you feel that this is not the case, perhaps you would like to volunteer alternate solutions to the list of conflicts that I have?"
I'll try my best...
Great! Here goes. And I am just giving examples from my own fields, not from human physiology, terefos, etc., with which there are many more. Furthermore, I am not listing cases which can be interpreted non-literally, such as the Rabbah bar bar Chana stories; just texts which, based on both the context and universal tradition, are to be understood literally:
1) "The gestation period of a fox and all kinds of creeping creatures is six months...The gestation period of the wolf, lion, bear, leopard, cheetah, elephant, monkey, and kifof is three years... The gestation period of a viper is seventy years... The gestation period of a serpent is seven years..." (Bechoros 8a). These figures are not consistent with scientific observation.
2) "Everything that gives birth to live young, lactates, and everything that lays eggs, gathers food for its young; except for the bat, which, even though it lays eggs, lactates." But bats don't lay eggs. And platypuses lactate.
3) "Everything mates front facing back, except for three species that mate face-to-face: fish, humans and snakes... It was taught that the camel mates back-to-back." Sloths mate face-to-face. Camels do not mate back-to-back.
4) "Any species in which the male has external genitalia bears live young; any in which the male has internal genitalia, lays eggs." (Bechoros 8a). Exceptions to this principle are whales, giant anteaters, elephants, and hyraxes, all of which have internal genitalia and yet bear live young. It’s problematic to say that this is an example of a general rule where Chazal were not bothered by exceptions, because the Gemara in the same sugya lists exceptions to its other rules.
5) Salamanders are generated from fire.
6) Certain mice are generated from dirt.
7) Lice are spontaneously generated.
8) Hyenas change gender.
There's many more, but I have to go. Perhaps you can start with these.
"And you would argue that such a person *should* express that disbelief in one's outward practice of Judaism?"
DeleteI'll just note that you are now shifting the conversation.
I first want to establish that you are in fact advocating Orthopraxy for anyone exposed to "critical investigations into traditional sources". You don't see any alternative.
Once that's established, I'll give you my response.
"Also, I think that most people are in any case going to realize that the Sages were mistaken in science."
Again, you are dodging the issue.
You are apparently willing to give impressionable teenagers an awful good reason to think halachos that are determined by realia can be based on factual mistakes and have no basis in truth. Let's establish this for the record.
And of course it includes "many, many" halachos!
You yourself admit later that there are many conflicts regarding human physiology. This area alone touches on grave halachos regarding niddah, chillul shabbos, pikuach nefesh and organ donation.
Conflicts about treifos touches broadly on basic halachos of kashrus. Additionally much of the kashrus issues that come up in everyday life have to do with invisible beliyos of taste entering and exiting pots and utensils at a temp. of yad soledes bo which I'm sure generate conflicts with science all over the place.
So don't try to minimize the Pandora's box you seem quite capable of opening for these teenagers when you teach them that Chazal were often mistaken about the physical reality--even in areas of halacha.
Regarding your list of conflicts, I get the distinct feeling that I won't be receiving a balanced hearing in this forum for my responses.
Your challenge requires a more neutral, less constrained venue then a moderated comment thread on a popular blog.
This venue is not constrained and virtually never moderated. And if you don't like it, why not just go ahead and publish a book with the solutions? Because they don't exist. The simple fact is that Chazal were incorrect in many of their statements about the natural world. Someone like you, with no role other than making anonymous blog comments, has the luxury of ignoring that. But I am in the position where people look to me to address conflicts between Torah and the natural world. And most of them are not going to be as intellectually dishonest as you. They are going to realize that Chazal really did have certain mistaken beliefs about the natural world. Now, someone like yourself can lead them to believe that they might as well therefore give up halachah. Personally, following the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog, I feel otherwise. They were not advocating Orthopraxy, and neither am I.
DeleteIf you haven't got anything true or useful to say to people who acknowledge the conflicts between Chazal and science, then you're better off just keeping quiet.
@Pardon my skepticism: Your reasoning is easily shown to be false. Halacha was developed by the Rishonim based on the Gemara. Yet even your Rebbi admits that the Rishonim made mistakes in realia (e.g. belief in spontaneous generation, ignorance of the microscopic world, geocentrism, etc.). So if admitting that the Baalei Masorah had mistaken beliefs that could affect their p'sak makes you orthoprax, then you Rebbi is Orthoprax. Neither of us believe that.
DeleteYou could also call the Chasam Sofer Orthoprax by your reasoning:
"What are the meanings of the anatomical terms mentioned in this Mishna? After I researched medical books and medical writers as well as scholars and surgical texts, I have concluded that we cannot deny the fact that reality is not as described by Rashi, Tosfos and the drawings of the Maharam of Lublin. We have only what the Rambam wrote in the Mishna Torah and his Commentary to the Mishna - even though the latter has statements which are unclear. However, you will find correct drawings in the book Maaseh Tuviah and Shevili Emuna…. Therefore, I did not bother at all with the commentaries of Rashi and Tosfos in this matter since it is impossible to match them with true reality. You should know this." (Chasam Sofer to Niddah 18a) (from http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/08/but-rashi-had-ruach-hakodesh.html).
“Personally, following the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog, I feel otherwise. They were not advocating Orthopraxy, and neither am I.”
DeleteDid Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog maintain that one may, in pressing circumstances, differ with Chazal on matters of halachah, as you do? (I refer to your posts regarding the definition of death and organ donation). I do not think so.
This is a subtle but very crucial difference – a red line separating Orthodoxy from Orthopraxy. They were not advocating Orthopraxy, but you (perhaps unwittingly) are.
NS,
Deletelet's try to be more explicit in playing out your idea.
1. chazal had many mistaken notions regarding the reality of this world.
2. these mistaken ideas had (in many cases) practical affects on halachik notions.
3. chazal codified "mistaken" concepts into practical halacha.
4. god has no mistaken notions regarding the reality of this world (i'm taking that as a given, i assume you will agree with that as well).
5. as such, the halacha as codified by chazal (in many instances) is not what god intended, and is therefore against his will.
6. god allowed this to happen, and, we wise moderns, being aware that halacha is (in many cases) not what god intended, still feel obligated to practice this corrupted halacha as codified by the ignorant chazal.
7. does this seem correct to you? and is this not the very definition of orthopraxy?
signed: one of your neighbors
It's no more "against his will" than tannur shel Achnai. And it has nothing to do with Orthopraxy.
DeleteIncidentally, I assume that you would agree that whether food cooks depends solely on the nature of the food and the temperature of the environment. Yet for hilchos Bishul, we rate it as dependent on kli rishon and kli sheni. Are you not being Orthoprax?!
By the way, it's not very nice to comment as "one of your neighbors" without telling me (either online or offline) who you are!
how can this possibly be compared to tannur shel achnai? there the issue is lo bashamyim he, so the judgement of a properly trained scholar is as legitimate as god's (so to speak). here the issue is one of factual errors, not judgments or opinions.
Deleteif the melacha of bishul equaled cooking (in the sense of an irreversible chemical change taking place in the cooked item) than you would be correct, and the halacha would reflect that. in fact though, the melacha of bishul is only peripherally related to "cooking". for instance, heating water from room temperature to "yad soledes bo" is bishul, even though no one (including chazal) was under the impression that any "cooking" (in the chemical sense) is taking place. kli rishon/sheni affects the halachik category of bishul, not the chemical process of "cooking".
b"n, if i remember, the next time i bump in to you, i'll identify myself, since you want to know who i am.
"Incidentally, I assume that you would agree that whether food cooks depends solely on the nature of the food and the temperature of the environment. Yet for hilchos Bishul, we rate it as dependent on kli rishon and kli sheni. Are you not being Orthoprax?!"
DeleteWhatever the reasons are for Chazal's determinations regarding bishul or any halachos, and whether I understand them or not, I consider them absolutely binding. You do not. That is what makes your approach Orthoprax.
To David Ohsie:
Delete"You could also call the Chasam Sofer Orthoprax by your reasoning..."
No, you miss the point! The Chasam Sofer ruled in accordance with his understanding. He did not advocate believing "a" is true yet following "b" in practice. No comparison.
Whatever the reasons are for Chazal's determinations regarding bishul or any halachos, and whether I understand them or not, I consider them absolutely binding. You do not. That is what makes your approach Orthoprax.
DeleteYou've got things exactly backwards. I consider them absolutely binding. Others (such as R. Bleich and R. Schechter) consider them to be binding only insofar as they reflect factual reality.
And I think that Chazal etc. did consider bishul to correlate to cooking, which is why it was refined with categories such as kalei habishul. Also, teh point of Tanur Shel Achnai is that halachah is binding even if it does not correspond to objective reality ("Hashem's opinion").
Delete" I think that Chazal etc. did consider bishul to correlate to cooking"
Deleteeven people as (scientifically) primitive as you believe chazal to be, can clearly see that water doesn't change when heated and then cooled and then reheated (especially as it doesn't have to come anywhere close to the boiling point).
"point of Tanur Shel Achnai is that halachah is binding even if it does not correspond to objective reality"
the gemara says biferush that that the issue was "lo bashamayim he". in other words, in questions of halacha hashem does not privilege his "opinion" over ours. but in questions of fact? that doesn't make any sense at all.
unless you are making the brisker rav's argument that halacha is not determined by empirical facts, but rather by halachik facts (which is certainly not a rationalist point of view, is generally not accepted by the poskim, and undermines your entire thesis that chazal where ignorant of science, as they could easily be referring to halachik facts, once you decide that empiricism is irrelevant), there is no way to justify keeping a halacha based on an empirical mistake. the only reason to keep doing it is either "tradition" or societal need, which is the definition of orthoprax.
"I consider them absolutely binding"
DeleteReally? If so, you agree that one cannot take the life of a brain-dead patient under any circumstances - even to save someone else's life. I'm glad to hear you have retracted your previously-stated opinion on this matter.
I just want to point out that from Rabbi Slifkin's response to my comment at 10:51 June 20, it should be abundantly clear to everyone that he is wildly prejudiced against any solution I would offer that does not concede Chazal made a factual error.
DeleteHe has made it obvious that presenting my suggested resolutions in such an environment would be pointless.
David Ohsie's misconstruing of my position was already rectified by others. The Chasam Sofer is a perfect example of being logically consistent in practice with what we know to be the objective truth of the matter.
I actually think R. Asher Weiss and R. Eitam Henkin hy"d put it best when it comes to understanding why halachos based on realia that we know now not to be fully accurate are still binding. See R. Eitam Henkin's introduction to לכם יהיה לאכלה, which has been quoted on this blog before. Here's R. Asher Weiss' take:
Delete"The halachic process required of them to rule on these issues based on their perception of the world with the basic tools they had at their disposal. The halchis rulings they arrived at, then became the established halacha."
http://en.tvunah.org/2017/05/23/chazal-and-science/
"I consider them absolutely binding"
DeleteReally? If so, you agree that one cannot take the life of a brain-dead patient under any circumstances - even to save someone else's life. I'm glad to hear you have retracted your previously-stated opinion on this matter.
Shai, you assume that it is absolutely obvious from the Gemara that "brain death" is not death. In that, you assume your conclusion. The Gemara did not deal with the concept of "brain death" because there was no such phenomena at that time. Total cessation of brain function including the brainstem would have resulted in cessation of cardiac activity and all other physiological function for the simple reason that they did not have respirators and respiration ceases without brainstem activity.
I'd also point out that in matters of health, the poskim distinguish and say that you always go with the latest health knowledge. So Treifos of animals are fixed based on Chazal's medical knowledge, but Treifos of humans are not. For example, according to the Chazon Ish, if the animal has a non-fatal injury by current medical knowledge, but by Chazal's medical knowledge, the animal could not be saved, then the animal is a Treifah, but this would not be the case for a person. The reason is, I think, obvious: life and death matters trump halachah anyhow.
To David Ohsie:
Delete"You could also call the Chasam Sofer Orthoprax by your reasoning..."
No, you miss the point! The Chasam Sofer ruled in accordance with his understanding. He did not advocate believing "a" is true yet following "b" in practice. No comparison.
Really? Where does he say that we must re-examine or discard the p'sak of Rashi or Tosafos or Rambam in Hilchos Niddah because they had the wrong facts? He says that he won't quote any of their anatomy because they are wrong or unclear and you can better explain them from recent textbooks. He doesn't say to throw out their p'sak in halachah.
David Ohsie's misconstruing of my position was already rectified by others. The Chasam Sofer is a perfect example of being logically consistent in practice with what we know to be the objective truth of the matter.
DeleteWhere does he say that Rashi, Tosafos and Rambam have no authority in P'sak about Niddah issues?
BTW, this whole discussion is silly for another reason. What people mean by orthoprax is a phenomena where people keep halachah even though they don't believe it has a divine origin and/or because they don't believe it is actually binding. Instead they keep it to keep to the norms of the social group that they would like to continue to participate in.
DeleteThis has nothing to do with what to do with Halachos that appear to be based on mistaken science. Calling the Dor Revii and Rav Herzog Orthoprax seems quite insulting to them.
"how can this possibly be compared to tannur shel achnai? there the issue is lo bashamyim he, so the judgement of a properly trained scholar is as legitimate as god's (so to speak). here the issue is one of factual errors, not judgments or opinions."
DeleteYou wrote: "5. as such, the halacha as codified by chazal (in many instances) is not what god intended, and is therefore against his will."
Tanur Shel Achnai proves you that you are wrong in step #5. Rewrite your argument and we can re-examine it.
Everything. You basically wrote that even though accepting the conclusions of academic investigation which can undermine belief is unavoidable, one should still not express that disbelief in one's outward practice of Judaism.
DeleteBy this definition, lots of Rishonim were orthoprax. They interpreted Maaseh Merkavah, Maaseh Bereishis and Kabbalah as very deep, very important truths that should not be revealed to the masses so as not to undermine proper belief. The Chasam Sofer said explicitly that the Nistar should not change the halachah. (Not everyone agrees with this).
BTW, this whole discussion is silly for another reason. What people mean by orthoprax is a phenomena where people keep halachah even though they don't believe it has a divine origin and/or because they don't believe it is actually binding. Instead they keep it to keep to the norms of the social group that they would like to continue to participate in.
DeleteThis has nothing to do with what to do with Halachos that appear to be based on mistaken science. Calling the Dor Revii and Rav Herzog Orthoprax seems quite insulting to them.
Exactly what I was about to write! Thank you.
David Ohsie wrote - "Really? Where does he say that we must re-examine or discard the p'sak of Rashi or Tosafos or Rambam in Hilchos Niddah because they had the wrong facts? He says that he won't quote any of their anatomy because they are wrong or unclear and you can better explain them from recent textbooks. He doesn't say to throw out their p'sak in halachah."
DeleteHe mostly sides with the Rambam, and he clearly rejects the approach of Rashi and Tosafos. The practical ramifications of that discussion are quite minimal, as I recall, but there is no reason to think he would pasken like Rashi and Tosafos after he rejects their opinions so strongly - that is your assumption, and nothing else.
I see no reason why Rabbi Slifkin or anyone else must accept Rav Henkin z"l's or Rav Asher Weiss's definition of ANYTHING, be it bugs, brain death, techeiles, bliah in stainless steel kaylim, or apparent conflicts between realia and and any other halacha.
DeleteRather, our responsibility as Orthodox non-poskim is nothing more than to not make up our own piskei halacha.
We have no right to invent something called halachic brain death, but since there are legitimate poskim who accept it, we are entitled to do so as well, if we feel that approach makes more sense to us.
Ditto with bugs, bliyos in stainless steel keylim, techeiles, Zionism, etc.
Ay, It does say "Aseh l'cha Rav" -- and we should, at minimum, follow one posek consistently.
True, but don't call me -- and those like me -- Orthoprax because, while I always follow only legitimate poskim and never make up my own psak, I fail that one rule.
Rabbi Slifkin,
DeletePlease be so kind as to address my question: You have said that you consider Chazal's halachic determinations to be absolutely binding, even if they are (in your view) based on mistaken science. It would seem to me that, if so, one may not forfeit the life of a brain-dead patient to save another patient. This would, in fact, be retzichah, which is forbidden even in a case of pikuach nefesh. Do you agree or disagree?
And BTW, for those who wish to see an approach far more radical than what Rabbi Slifkin is even being ACCUSED of -- but not true (in his case) -- see the shiurim and writings of the prolific Rav Dr. Michael Avraham, a prominent thinker and serious educator, talmid chacham, and DEFENDER of Torah Judaism.
DeleteFor instance (and you can use Google Translate for a working translation, BTW):
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1/
Shai - as David pointed out, I do not accept that Chazal considered taking the organs of a brain-dead person to be retzicha. They never addressed such a case. I think that brain-death, if we are comparing it to something that Chazal did rule on, should be compared to decapitation - which they rated as death.
Delete"He mostly sides with the Rambam, and he clearly rejects the approach of Rashi and Tosafos."
DeleteCould you cite some examples of this phenomena? Long ago, I spent time on those halachos, but never studied the Chasam Sofer.
To David Ohsie-
DeleteWhat I meant is that in the citation you posted he basically sides with the Rambam against Rashi and Tosafos - not that he does so in general (sorry if I was unclear). I believe that, if it were relevant, he would rule like Rambam on the basis of his scientific understanding. But my impression is that this dispute does not have significant halachic ramifications, so it is hard to check.
The Chasam Sofer in Nidah is different than most other cases because no Psak was yet etched in the Talmudic stone prior to the discovery of a scientific error. In Nida where the disputants are *rishonim* it might be elastic enough to switch to the scientifically accurate Psak. In the case of Lice and others there is no scientifically correct ruling to switch to.
Delete"it should be abundantly clear to everyone that he is wildly prejudiced"
DeleteIt's been years -- if it ever happened -- since anything you said was abundantly clear to everyone.
The "mesorah" argument is bogus and hollow, and everyone knows it (including the ones who make it.) There are dozens of innovations in the charedi world; that whole world itself is an innovation. The only reason techelis isn't used is because the impetus for it came from other religious Jews, and the self-image of the charedi world, depends on convincing themselves that they are the sole source of authority on Jewish matters. It is that simple.
ReplyDeleteRNS - there's halacha and there's halacha. Suggesting wholesale changes in public matters, such as education, tefillah, Shabbos & yomtov, etc., is one thing. Making such changes is where Jewish movements go to die. Personal matters, like techelis or the size of a kizayis, is very different. I changed the amount of time I wait between meat and milk almost 20 years ago, and still haven't gone down the slope.
"The only reason techelis isn't used is because the impetus for it came from other religious Jews, and the self-image of the charedi world, depends on convincing themselves that they are the sole source of authority on Jewish matters. It is that simple."
ReplyDeleteI suspect that you are entirely correct.
I am not sure I understand this. The impetus came from the Radzhiner, a Chassidic Rebbe, so why is it that we find YU types wearing them and not the Chassidim?
DeleteThe impetus came from the Modern Orthodox and Mizrachi world, who brought the wearing of techeiles into the mainstream. The Radzhiner variety has remained a fringe element.
DeleteR Eisenstein pretty much explicitly says that the issue that those who are pro-Techeiles are Reformers. That is why he claims that the same Reformers that go up to the Har Habayis are the ones to push the Techeiles and you have to fight Techeiles to avoid further "reforms".
Delete1. The Radzhiner was among the first to argue for a modern revival of techelet. Unfortunately, he was duped by a chemist who took cuttlefish (the species the Radzhiner identified) and added Prussian blue (the chemical, not the neo-Nazi pop band) to make blue dye. With Prussian blue, you can make blue dye out of anything.
Delete2. Radzhiner hassidim continue to use his techelet. Most other hassidim never used it. Many hassidic leaders have idiosyncratic practices which do not spread to hassidism as a whole.
3. The techelet that "YU types" (and many others) use is derived from murex trunculus, which does not require external blue dye. This was identified in part by using archaeological and historical evidence. "YU types" are more likely than hassidim to find this kind of evidence convincing.
For a dissenting "YU type" opinion see (or rather, hear)
http://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/761970/rabbi-yisroel-reisman/techeles-hachodosh/
R' Reisman is far from being a "YU type."
DeleteNachum L: Torah vaDaas RY
Deletedavid, you are mistaken about the process for making a blue dye from cuttlefish. The Radziner hasidim still make that dye, and they don't add Prussian blue (a well-known blue dye that isn't really organic in nature). However, the process used converts the very strongly heated cuttlefish residue to Prussian blue, just as it would convert any organic material containing nitrogen to that dye chemical (ferric ferrocyanide). The actual cuttlefish dye use by that organism is sepia (brownish black), not blue. It is also a cephalopod (the same family as an octopus) rather than a sea snail (gastropod) like the Murex Trunculus which produces an actual deep blue color. The Radziner dye is clearly not techeilet, and those who wear it detract from the mitzvah of tzitzit rather than adding to it.
DeleteY. Aharon
There is zero torah requirement for dye substances to be chemically distinct. So long as the cuddlefish dye is a necessary part of the final result, it does not matter if it can be swapped for chemically identical other substances. Similarly, a heifer that has been worked is also of the same chemical composition as one who has not been worked; it is still assur to use. The fact that processing is involved is also irrelevant, as both dyes are processed.
DeleteAnd it does not matter if it is a gastropod or not.
R' Slifkin - If you're 100% convinced that this is the real techeles, wouldn't it be considered an 'issur asei' to wear tallis or tefillin without them? (I think R' Hershel Schecter makes that point)
ReplyDeleteThat is not the argument that he makes, IIRC. If you couldn't afford Techeiles, you could still wear white. He says that since we know what Techeiles is, someone that nevertheless consciously decides not to use it is violating Bal Tigra.
DeleteOk so you're changing the argument a bit but my point remains - according to R' Slifkin's approach, how do you get around that problem of Ba'al Tigra?
Delete(Also, I meant tallis or tallis kattan, not tefillin)
Yes, I agree that it doesn't address your question. I was just mentioning something interesting from when I listened to Rav Schachter.
DeleteActually R' Shachter holds that not wearing techeiles is a violation of בל תגרע as you are doing the mitzva in a bdieved way. This is not R' Shachter's chiddush, teh Beis Halevi says this in one of his teshuvos and in fact states that the only reaosn that we wear tzitzis is because of עשה דוחה לא תעשה. Now that we have techeiles that would not apply
DeleteI think Alex made an important point which is being overlooked. I listened to the interview after reading Rabbi Slifkin’s post and I was quite surprised. Rabbi Eisenstein did not yell, scream, or do anything which could be interpreted as exploding. He made his point calmly, if forcefully. I do not agree with his thesis - which was very similar to the argument made by Rabbi Bleich right before him – but there was nothing lacking in his delivery. It was far more grating to hear the host constantly talking over all three guests. Especially as he consistently repeated his historical anecdote about Murex dye discovered on tzitzis at Masada, which as Rabbi Barkin pointed out, was inaccurate.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Slifkin,
You of all people should understand the importance of making discussions about issues and not people. A רודף should not become a נרדף, and a victim of distortion should not become a distorter.
I certainly heard it that way, and so did others. See http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.co.il/2017/06/tcheiles-and-halachic-debate.html
DeleteI guess that it is in the ear of the beholder, but I also didn't hear the explosion. In contrast, in the podcast on learning and not working, he did explode in that he advocated figurative violence against someone who questioned the wisdom of having a large number of children when you don't have enough food.
DeleteI meant to say a נרדף should not become a רודף. I apologize for the mistake, it was not intended as a personal comment about Rabbi Eisenstein.
ReplyDeleteI listened to the interview and actually found it chilling davka because R. Eisenstein does not explode or scream. He is passionate. But he actually refers to Techeiles as a machla-an illness. To me, saying that in a [relatively] calm manner is far scarier than an angry temper tantrum.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, having had the misfortune of encountering R. Eisenstein a number of times over the last decade and a half or so, I'm not surprised. He is undoubtedly very knowledgeable in Torah, but is first and foremost a polemicist for R. Elyashiv era-Israeli-Litvish supremacy. He is merciless towards anyone who disagrees, and perhaps most dangerously portrays a world of blacks and whites, on which there are only the Gedolim [not even sure who that is at this point] and those who obey on one side and those who are violators of Torah on the other. It is not clear to me why Lichtenstein brought Eisenstein on his show. His official job title may be Rav but at the end of the day his actual mission is polemics.
Yehoshua- Re. DL CENSORSHIP OF RAV KOOK,
ReplyDeleteApparently you didn't carefully read what I wrote, but I pointed out that I certainly am aware of the suppression of certain writings of Rav Kook and I did state that there are those, in the DL community, who think some of his writings should be suppressed. But, these are only certain groups within the DL world that think this way. They may say they are the only ones qualified to explain his views, or that they are the only official guardians of his writings, but I don't see how you can compare this to the ideological, blanket erasure of Rav Kook and their turning him into a non-person that much of the Haredi world has done. The DL world is large enough and liberal enough to be able to prevent any single person or group from taking total ideological control of the community. Already in the 1990's, Haggai Segal wrote a seminal piece in the old "Nekudah" journal calling for the release of suppressed writings of Rav Kook. No one put him into herem for that and no one threatened him by saying "no one will marry your kids", even if it did displease certain circles. I do not see how you can compare the attitudes of the DL and Haredi communities regarding this matter.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. First, it is far more odious to actually change what Rav Kook wrote and print it in sefarim under his name, as has been done many times by the R' Tzvi Yehuda camp. Second, the chareidi censorship of Rav Kook is due to their viewing has opinion in many Torah matters a passul, and not wanting chareidi Jews to be drawn after his writings. In the dati world, you have people who purportedly hold Rav Kook in the highest regard, but feel that the can nevertheless "overrule" him and keep his opinions hidden.
DeleteRegarding the matter of the pronunciation of Hebrew vowels, I think the point is this.....I have encountered certain observant Jews who say, and I quote "I am an AUTHENTIC Jew", unlike the non-observant, or non-Orthodox, as you may prefer. Now, as far as I know, anyone born to a Jewish mother is an "authentic" Jew. There is no ideological test involved. Ben-Gurion is just as much an "authentic Jew" as this fellow who stated that. We CAN go into a discussion about what "authentic JUDAISM" is, but no Jew can, on his own, remove another Jew from his membership in the Jewish people. However, having said that, those who do go around saying they are "authentic Jews" based only on their observance of the mitzvot will then claim that all the peripheral characteristics of his Jewish culture also are part of this "authenticity", and this includes their pronunciation of Hebrew. In their eyes, saying "oy" instead of "oh" for the holam , is another manifestation of "authenticity". I believe Rav Slifkin was making a wry comment about this when he wrote the title of the thread the way he did, wanting to show that there are other "authentic" pronunciations besides the one the Rav quoted has and not just his alone.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to a free ebook that explains the multiplicity of pronunciations of Hebrew today and which one is most likely the correct one
ReplyDeleteB'kitzur - it's the Yemenite consonants (with the exception of ג like a J sound) with the Ashkenazic vowel system according to the Vilna Gaons writings
It is clear from an honest study that the 'oy' instead of 'oh' is grossly inaccurate and does not really have a mesorah
According to Rav Hamburger in Shorshei Minhagim Ashkenaz, saying 'oy' instead of 'oh' started around 500 years ago when there was a reformation of the polish language
https://avrahambenyehuda.wordpress.com/book/
While I disagree with the Rabbi, Ido give Rabbi Eisenstein a lot of credit for being honest. His point of view is the reason why most chareidim do not wear techeiles, and although there is a place to question whether the Murex is indeed the Chilazon, we all know it is not because of the questions that the chareidim do not wear.
ReplyDelete"I do not wear techeles (though I certainly don't object to others wearing it)."
ReplyDeleteI don't shake a lulav (though I certainly don't object to others shaking one).
"This is not because I have any doubts that the Murex trunculus is the correct source of techeles; I am certain that it is (for reasons that I discussed in my post about my murex-hunting expedition). Rather, it is because I am strong believer in being conservative with regard to halachic practice."
You can believe what you want. Unfortunately, G-d told you to wear tekhelet.
"Especially since my field of study - the intersection between Torah and the natural sciences - so often leads to the conclusion that earlier generations were mistaken in their beliefs, I think that it's particularly important for me to be conservative about halachah."
Let's all come up with specious reasons why we can disobey G-d. Here's one: I don't want to keep Shabbat this week because I'm busy.
What's your excuse for taking so long to rebuke the sinner? I was expecting
Deletesomething a bit sooner.
Busy. Didn't see the article till 5 minutes before I wrote that.
DeleteBusy... Sure. Kinda like "I don't want to keep Shabbat this week because I'm busy." ;).
DeleteRav Shachter needs to listen to gedolei yisrael and STOP wearing techailes And anyone who wears techailet is mocking the Gedolei Yisrael. So now its assur to wear techailes...
ReplyDeleteStart listening at 1:42
I think Rav Nachum needs to recognize that what he calls Gedolei Yisrael are actually Gedolei Charedim.
I think Rav Nachum needs to recognize that what he calls Gedolei Yisrael are actually Gedolei Charedim.
DeleteNot even that. Rav Belsky wore Techeiles.