String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 2009 exchange asks whether safek de’oraisa lechumra itself creates an obligation to wear doubtful Techeiles.
The first argument says yes. Even if wearing Murex does not resolve the underlying safek, that does not necessarily remove the usual rule of safek de’oraisa lechumra. The comparison brought from bentching suggests that one may still have to act stringently even when the action does not produce certainty, and Techeiles would seemingly be an even stronger case if wearing it carried no downside.
Micha Berger challenges precisely that last assumption. Wearing doubtful blue is not automatically a one-way chumra, because there is also a machlokes about the required color of the lavan strings. If the blue is not really Techeiles, coloring too many strings blue might itself interfere with fulfilling lavan, particularly according to the Rambam. His solution is therefore to minimize the competing risk: wear the most plausible Techeiles candidate, but dye only the smallest amount required — in his formulation, half of one string.
He contrasts this with R’ Hershel Schachter, who wears the Rashi/Tosafos arrangement of four blue and four white ends, either because those Rishonim carry greater weight for an Ashkenazi or because the Murex identification is strong enough that the problem should no longer be treated as an ordinary safek.
Bottom line: safek de’oraisa lechumra does not simply translate into “wear as much blue as possible.” Once doubtful Techeiles can create a competing doubt in lavan, the question becomes how to satisfy both sides of the safek. Berger therefore argues for a minimal-blue approach: preserve the maximum certainty of lavan while still giving oneself a chance to fulfill Techeiles.
Main Text
Message: 7
From: Saul.Z.New…@kp.org
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:42:03 -0700
Subject: [Avodah] tcheilet
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2009/06/should-you-wear-because_16.html
safek doraisah lechumrah?
Should you wear תכלת because ספק דאורייתא לחומרא?
The answer would seem to be yes. Many poskim today assume that the techeles that has been discovered is at least a ספק and therefore since tzitzis is דאורייתא we should be machmir to wear it based on ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
However, some want to say as follows in the name of R’ Chaim. We only say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא when by doing an action we can be מברר the ספק. Take the classic case of a person forgetting whether he benched, said shema, etc. or not. After doing the mitzva again he will be ודאי יוצא the mitzva and therefore he is חייב to do that.
However, in the case of techeles, even if a person is machmir and puts on techeles he is not מברר the ספק. He still may not be יוצא the mitzva. The only time you say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא is when by doing something you can be מברר the ספק; however, if doing something leaves you in the same state as before, ספק, the principle of ספק דאורייתא לחומרא doesn’t apply.
There are a number of problems with this analysis.
1. RHS and others claim that R’ Chaim never said it; it is not printed anywhere.
2. Even if R’ Chaim actually said it we don’t pasken like this. The Rishonim have a machlokes whether the first 3 berachos of bentching are מעכב one another. What is the din if you only know 1 beracha, should you say it? The Rif says no because they are מעכב one another and the Ramban says yes that they are not מעכב one another.
להלכה what should a person do in this situation? This is the same kind of situation as we described above with techeles. You have a ספק whether you need to say the beracha you know and even after you say it the ספק still stands; you still may have not been יוצא.
The פמ”ג says that in this situation you don’t say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא (like R’ Chaim). However, there is one extra wrinkle here by bentching. By bentching if you are not חייב you are saying a ברכה לבטלה which is an איסור. In other words here the chumra is not risk free. Therefore the פמ”ג says that you should not say the 1 beracha. However, wearing techeles is risk free, therefore it would seem that even the פמ”ג would agree that you should be machmir.
In any case, both the Mishna Berura and the Aruch Hashulchan pasken against the Aruch Hashulchan Pri Megadim and say that מספק you should say the 1 beracha. We see from here that they pasken that you do say ספק דאורייתא לחומרא even when you cannot be מברר the ספק even in a case where there is a ספק איסור!
Message: 18
From: Micha Berger <mi…@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:52:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tcheilet
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:42:03PM -0700, Saul.Z.New…@kp.org wrote:
http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2009/06/should-you-wear-because_16.html
safek doraisah lechumrah?
Focusing just on this question…
AISI, that requires only one side being a chumrah, and not (as is often the case) that being machmir in one place causes a qulah somewhere else.
There is a machloqes rishonim about the proper color for lavan strings. Teimanim, following the Rambam, wear strings the same color as the begged; a purple shamla would be adorned with purple tzitzis. Alternatively, perhaps they should be literally white even when the beged isn’t. Ashkenazim and Sepharadim (to an even greater extent — they don’t even have colored stripes) avoid the question by wearing white begadim. (BTW, this is a halachic problem with olive drab tallisos qatan sold in army surplus stores.) In either case, the preference isn’t for a blue string on a white beged.
Tosafos hold this issue is hiddur. According to the Rambam, the color is me’aqeiv.
So, one might argue that this chumrah risks one being yotzei lavan as well, and even causes one to of wear a four cornered garment that has no tzitzis on it.
However…. one isn’t talking about the usual lavan strings. Here one is talking about strings worn instead of techeiles in order to round out the number 8. Would the Rambam still require they be white, and other rishonim (albeit not Tos’) that they match the beged?
Li nir’eh, that this would require wearing the most likely candidate for techeiles — but only on the fewest number of strings possible.
According to Rashi and Tosafos, “gedilim” means two (mi’ut rabim 2) ropes, and thus two pairs of strings — one of each color. Thus, four white string-ends, four blue ones. The Raavad holds one string is the “pesil techeiles”, and thus 2 string ends. The Rambam defines pesil as a single string-end.
If one is chayav to wear white strings on a white beged, and tries to follow the Ashk rishonim with blue string, they could be eliminating any chance to be yotzei tzitzis altogether al pi haRambam.
Thus, I would argue that safeiq deOraisa lehachmir would require one only color 1/2 of a string, thereby not losing any chance of fulfilling lavan, and gaining some chance of wearing techeiles too.
Although, truth in advertising forces me to admit that if RSRH’s explanation of techeiles in CW III weren’t so moving to me, I wouldn’t be wearing murex-dyed strings at all (I tend to only break mimeticism for passion) and his explanation revolves around the eighth string being the blue one. (8 = beyond maaseh bereishis; blue = beyond olam hazeh.) So I have emotional reason to prefer this conclusion anyway.
RHS holds 4 blue, 4 white, arguing that as an Ashk, Rashi and Tosafos carry the day for him. I don’t know if it’s because he rejects the above line of reasoning about keeping the dye to strings worn as techeiles or instead of techeiles, or feels that murex is close enough to certainly the chilazon for it not to qualify as a safeiq.
Tir’u baTov!
-Micha
