AishDas Exchange on Techeiles Sept. 29, 1998 – October 8, 1998 – Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet

Subject Threads

• Ponim Chadashos
• RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency
• RE: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet
• Fwd: Avodah V2 #9-re: techeiles

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 23:49:27 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: Ponim Chadashos

Mechi Frankel thinks that Eli Clark got the better of me in the discussion of women as PC. Of course, while I admit that Eli won the first bout, I think that my final perspective was the correct one, but, I am of course nogei’ah ba’davar.

But, this much I think, in the wake of Mechi’s comment, needs to be clarified. Our shakla v’tarya here is largely, if not completely, theoretical. To the best of my limited knowledge – and I will be glad if someone disproves me – there is not a single eida or kehilla among Orthodoxy that has a mesorah to consider women as PC halacha l’ma’aseh, the Chasam Sofer’s remarks notwithstanding.

Therefore, unless one or more of the Gedolei Hora’ah (names happily furnished upon request 🙂 ) rules in this vein, I see no way to introduce such a leniency in Hilchos Berachos to the world of practical halacha.

Gmar Chasima Tova, YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 16:17:00 -0400

From: “Clark, Eli” <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

R. YGB writes:

To the best of my limited knowledge – and I will be glad if someone disproves me – there is not a single eida or kehilla among Orthodoxy that has a mesorah to consider women as PC halacha l’ma’aseh, the Chasam Sofer’s remarks notwithstanding.

Therefore, unless one or more of the Gedolei Hora’ah (names happily furnished upon request 🙂 ) rules in this vein, I see no way to introduce such a leniency in Hilchos Berachos to the world of practical halacha.

I too am unaware of any community with a specific mesorah regarding women serving as panim hadashot. But I am not sure I would invest that fact with the significance that R. YGB apparently does. As R. Chaim Brown has noted more than once, women in earlier generations often refrained from doing what they were permitted — often obligated — to do. Their forbearance generally resulted both from ignorance and various social conditions, not from a halakhic tradition to the contrary.

Take women’s zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome any information indicating otherwise). Yet, there is no doubt about the halakhic propriety of women’s zimmun. Does the lack of mesorah mean that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of practical halakhah?

This of course raises a host of questions, including: what constitutes a “mesorah” and when is it necessary? In its narrow sense, the term is generally applied to issues of identification (e.g.,the kashrut of various fowl, tekhelet), rather than halakhic practice (e.g., the recitation of birkot ha-mitzvah by women). Leaving such terminological niceties aside, once we have defined “mesorah” (or minhag), we must determine whether there is such a thing as a “negative” mesorah, i.e., a tradition to refrain from a certain activity. (For example, should Hasidic women refrain from going to shul because their mothers and grandmothers did?) Assuming that a negative mesorah can exist, would it apply in a situation like this one where, as R. YGB has argued, lo alah al ha-da`at (in other words, until recently neither women nor men thought about women serving as panim hadashot)? And, assuming we can be certain that a particular neglected activity was oleh al ha-da`at and therefore a negative mesorah was established, under what circumstances should such a mesorah override an otherwise unambiguous halakhic rule? (What if a woman claimed a multi-generational “mesorah” to refrain from covering hair after marriage?) Also, how relevant to this discussion is the principle “lo ra’inu eino ra’ayah”?

R. Mechy Frankel has broached the issue of consistency. So I pose the following question to R. YGB: Assuming you feel comfortable wearing tekhelet without a mesorah, why, in the case of women serving as panim hadashot, would you object to a person who chose to rely on the Hatam Sofer (and, in my and others’ view, rov Rishonim) without a mesorah?

Finally, I do not understand why R. YGB dismisses the concept as a “leniency.” As a different thread has I think conclusively indicated, it is rare to find a humra which does not involve a correlative kula. I believe this proposition is equally true when formulated in reverse. Indeed, R. Michael Broyde pointed out in his inital post on methodology how the “humra” of refraining from sheva berakhot when new women, but not new men, are present, could result in a kula in hilkhot berakhot.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 16:50:18 -0400

From: “Ari Z. Zivotofsky” <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>

Subject: Re: Lack of mesorah and consistency

I can’t speak for other girl’s schools, but when my wife was growing up the girl’s school of the yeshiva high school of greater washington always bentched with a woman’s zimmun.

Ari

Clark, Eli wrote:

R. YGB writes: To the best of my limited knowledge – and I will be glad if someone disproves me – there is not a single eida or kehilla among Orthodoxy that has a mesorah to consider women as PC halacha l’ma’aseh, the Chasam Sofer’s remarks notwithstanding. Therefore, unless one or more of the Gedolei Hora’ah (names happily furnished upon request 🙂 ) rules in this vein, I see no way to introduce such a leniency in Hilchos Berachos to the world of practical halacha. Take women’s zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome any information indicating otherwise). Yet, there is no doubt about the halakhic propriety of women’s zimmun. Does the lack of mesorah mean that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of practical halakhah? Kol tuv, Eli Clark

Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 17:40:17 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

Take women’s zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome any information indicating otherwise). Yet, there is no doubt about the halakhic propriety of women’s zimmun. Does the lack of mesorah mean that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of practical halakhah?

The truth is that zimmun is less of a problem, because there is no shem shomayim l’vatala involved. But, yes, definitely, it does require a gadol to introdice this to the world of practical halacha. Perhaps the MB’s psak here works adequately – but that does not exist in this area.

tradition to refrain from a certain activity. (For example, should Hasidic women refrain from going to shul because their mothers and grandmothers did?) Assuming that a negative mesorah can exist, would it

That is a good question. I think it can.

apply in a situation like this one where, as R. YGB has argued, lo alah al ha-da`at (in other words, until recently neither women nor men thought about women serving as panim hadashot)? And, assuming we can be certain that a particular neglected activity was oleh al ha-da`at and therefore a negative mesorah was established, under what circumstances should such a mesorah override an otherwise unambiguous halakhic rule?

No. But we here are not dealing with an unambiguous situation.

R. Mechy Frankel has broached the issue of consistency. So I pose the following question to R. YGB: Assuming you feel comfortable wearing tekhelet without a mesorah, why, in the case of women serving as panim hadashot, would you object to a person who chose to rely on the Hatam Sofer (and, in my and others’ view, rov Rishonim) without a mesorah?

Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one fulfills the mitzva of “lavan” with blue colored strings.

Secondly, R’ Herzog is a fine Gadol, and it was he who identified murex trunculus, and was only swayed from that opinion by the lack of knowledge at the time as to how to derive blue from the MT. The Radzhiner before him was also a fine Gadol – as were the Maharsham et al – who wore the Radzhiner techeles.

Finally, I do not understand why R. YGB dismisses the concept as a “leniency.” As a different thread has I think conclusively indicated, it is rare to find a humra which does not involve a correlative kula. I

I believe bracha l’vatala outweighs any countervaling possible kulla.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:05:03 -0400

From: cbrown@bestware.com

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

re: YGB’s position. Is every Rav and talmid chacham simply to parrot the opinion of those gedolim he respects with no ability to himself decide the issue based on knowledge of the sources AS WELL as knowledge of the unique shoel’s circumstances that can never be addressed in broad public policy statements? You are putting the cart before the horse by saying one must be a ‘gadol’ to decide a unprecedented sheila based on the sources . After all – isn’t it the act of psak and setting precedent that leads us to respect some people as gedolim, not magically attaining this stature which then gives them a license to pasken!

-CB

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 14:35:00 -0400

From: “Clark, Eli” <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>

Subject: RE: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet

With reference to women’s zimmun, R. YGB writes:

The truth is that zimmun is less of a problem, because there is no shem shomayim l’vatala involved. But, yes, definitely, it does require a gadol to introdice this to the world of practical halacha. Perhaps the MB’s psak here works adequately – but that does not exist in this area.

I am afraid that I disagree on the need for a gadol to re-introduce a practice with an unassailable halakhic basis. If a gadol would endorse the practice, I would be thrilled, but I don’t see it as necessary. Moreover, I don’t understand how a historical exigency can remove something from the world of halakhah le-ma’aseh. It seems to me you are giving history a veto over Halakhah. And I find that shocking, to say the least.

On the issue of the existence of negative mesorah, you write:

That is a good question. I think it can.

I wonder on what you base this view. Moreover, I do not understand how you can argue that women’s participation in a certain activity simply never occurred to generations of posekim (thus explaining the omission of Ritva/Nimukei Yosef by Mehaber and others), then tell me that a negative mesorah exists regarding the issue. Surely a negative mesorah has to be created consciously!

No. But we here are not dealing with an unambiguous situation.

Well, I think we are, but I don’t expect we’ll agree on that.

Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one fulfills the mitzva of “lavan” with blue colored strings.

A number of aharonim would disagree with that last statement. Also, if it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh ilan and its purveyors? If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye?

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:11:59 EDT

From: Joelirich@aol.com

Subject: Re: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet

In a message dated 98-10-02 14:35:24 EDT, you write:

it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh ilan and its purveyors? If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye? Kol tuv, Eli Clark

I think kaleh ilan is a much different issue-as I understood the issue it was much cheaper than true tchelet and allowed its wearer to pretend to frumkeit withour paying the price(tocho lo kboro). Unfortunately the generic problem of tocho lo kboro seems to reappear with great frequency-perhaps this accounts for chazal’s antipathy.

Shabbat shalom Joel Rich

Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:29:26 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

re: YGB’s position. Is every Rav and talmid chacham simply to parrot the opinion of those gedolim he respects with no ability to himself decide the issue based on knowledge of the sources AS WELL as knowledge of the unique shoel’s circumstances that can never be addressed in broad public policy statements? You are putting the cart before the horse by saying one must

Not every Rav. Just most Rabbonim 🙂 .

be a ‘gadol’ to decide a unprecedented sheila based on the sources . After all – isn’t it the act of psak and setting precedent that leads us to respect some people as gedolim, not magically attaining this stature which then gives them a license to pasken!

Certainly. But, there is a vicious cycle here. You must be an established Posek before you get to establish psak. This is definitely circular reasoning and gets us back to our discussion of who is a Gadol. But, there are people who have surmounted the hurdles of this circular reasoning and become respected Poskim 🙂 .

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:49:22 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: RE: Needing a gadol, mesorah/tekhelet

On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

I am afraid that I disagree on the need for a gadol to re-introduce a practice with an unassailable halakhic basis. If a gadol would endorse the practice, I would be thrilled, but I don’t see it as necessary. Moreover, I don’t understand how a historical exigency can remove something from the world of halakhah le-ma’aseh. It seems to me you are giving history a veto over Halakhah. And I find that shocking, to say the least.

There is an issue of public policy here, which can indicate a shev ve’al ta’aseh approach. It seems that this is the attitude that prevails, right now, in the majority of the Orthodox world.

I wonder on what you base this view. Moreover, I do not understand how you can argue that women’s participation in a certain activity simply never occurred to generations of posekim (thus explaining the omission of Ritva/Nimukei Yosef by Mehaber and others), then tell me that a negative mesorah exists regarding the issue. Surely a negative mesorah has to be created consciously!

I think women’s zimmun was a wonderful example. I think we might find a parallel in the “Minhag Yisroel” not to use any means of amplification – not even transistor microphones, or electronics – even solid state radios – on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

No. But we here are not dealing with an unambiguous situation. Well, I think we are, but I don’t expect we’ll agree on that.

We certainly won’t! 🙂

A number of aharonim would disagree with that last statement. Also, if

Who?

it were true, why does the Gemara express such hostility toward kaleh ilan and its purveyors? If you do not lose by using the wrong dye, then why was Hazal so fierce in its statements about using a wrong dye?

As several posters already noted, that was more a concern of ona’ah and hypocrisy.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 10:28:05 -0400

From: cbrown@bestware.com

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

YGB:Certainly. But, there is a vicious cycle here. You must be an

established Posek before you get to establish psak.<<< I raise the paradox it simply as a logical problem with your approach. YGB felt the need for precedent bec.: >>a. This is in the chiddushim, not the teshuvos. b. It seems to me, that if the Chasam Sofer held that way l’ma’aseh, there would have been an extant mesorah to use women as ponim chadashos. (and I won’t deal with the rest)<<

What about Pnei Yehoshua, Tzlach, R’ Akiva Eiger and hosts of other achronim whose chiddushim we live by without a need to see it in a tshuva? The second point is moot: can you really expect a historical precedent for allowing woman as panim chaddashot considering the role/place of women in the cultural world of Chasam Sofer? The point was theoretical to him not for halachic reasons (he mentions no reservations!), but practically the question was only theoretical in his day and age – even today, what are the odds of this being practical?

I can respect a psak against the Chasm Sofer based on the Piskei Tshuvah – I don’t see the need for these rules of hora’ah that have no precedent : -) -CB

Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 09:53:58 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency

On Sun, 4 Oct 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

YGB felt the need for precedent bec.: >>a. This is in the chiddushim, not the teshuvos. b. It seems to me, that if the Chasam Sofer held that way l’ma’aseh, there would have been an extant mesorah to use women as ponim chadashos. (and I won’t deal with the rest)<< > What about Pnei Yehoshua, Tzlach, R’ Akiva Eiger and hosts of other achronim whose chiddushim we live by without a need to see it in a tshuva?

Could we have some specific examples?

The second point is moot: can you really expect a historical precedent for allowing woman as panim chaddashot considering the role/place of women in the cultural world of Chasam Sofer? The point was theoretical to him not

I fail to understand this. do you think women were not invited to Shava Berachos in Pressburg – or hitherto, in Frankfurt?

Derech agav, one must remember that Frankfurt is German, and Pressburg (now Bratislava, I think, Slovakia) is Oberland – the more liberal part of Hungary, not Unterland, where the Satmers etc. were based. That the Satmers and Munkatchers adopted the CS is not his fault. We know, to the best of my knowledge, of no “regressive” policies of the CS.

for halachic reasons (he mentions no reservations!), but practically the question was only theoretical in his day and age – even today, what are the odds of this being practical?

Very good odds, both then and now. It would often be extraordinarily convenient to have women serve as PC.

I can respect a psak against the Chasm Sofer based on the Piskei Tshuvah – I don’t see the need for these rules of hora’ah that have no precedent: – ) -CB

I don’t need respect! But, I do most definitely see the need for precedent 🙂 .

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 14:13:50 EDT

From: JoshHoff@aol.com

Subject: Fwd: Avodah V2 #9-re: techeiles

Recently, in discussing the reply of the Beis HaLevi to the Radziner that the identity of techeilis needs a masorah and once it’s lost it can only be restored by a navi, Rav Ahron Soloveichek quoted Rav Chaim Brisker as saying that if someone would, today, wear what is claimed to be techeilis on his beged, he would be in the category of ‘hapatur min hadavar veoseihu nikra hedyot.’

Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 13:29:59 -0500 (CDT)

From: Shoshanah Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: Re: Fwd: Avodah V2 #9-re: techeiles

Recently, in discussing the reply of the Beis HaLevi to the Radziner that the identity of techeilis needs a masorah and once it’s lost it can only be restored by a navi, Rav Ahron Soloveichek quoted Rav Chaim Brisker as saying that if someone would, today, wear what is claimed to be techeilis on his beged, he would be in the category of ‘hapatur min hadavar veoseihu nikra hedyot.’

It is a pity that R’ Aharon (or R’ Chaim) would dismiss so “ke’le’achar yad”) an area in which there is much compelling evidence. The Beis Ha’Levi, btw, as recorded by the Radzhiner himself, said something entirely different than that which is attributed to him in “Shiurim l’Zecher Avi Mori.” Seeing that one of the Rav’s primary talmidim, R’ Herschel Schachter, is one of the prime backers of techeles, I think he must have found some way to reconcile matters!

BTW, the great chiddush that a mesora can only be restored al pi navi, would of course, preclude the consumption of turkey, as I think we have once discussed, and probably several other observances.

YGB

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 21:40:56 +0100

From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>

Subject: Re: Lack of mesorah and consistency

In message , cbrown@bestware.com writes

YGB:Certainly. But, there is a vicious cycle here. You must be an established Posek before you get to establish psak.<<< >YGB felt the need for precedent bec.: >>a. This is in the chiddushim, not the teshuvos. b. It seems to me, that if the Chasam Sofer held that way l’ma’aseh, there would have been an extant mesorah to use women as ponim chadashos. (and I won’t deal with the rest)<< This last is the bit that has been bothering me. I understand the concept of a mesorah in relation to techeles – ie either your father and your father’s father had all white strings or some blue ones, but I just don’t understand the concept of a mesorah in relation to women as ponim chadashos. After all, any case of using one lonesome man as ponim chadashos is, by definition, a bidieved situation. If you, in organising your sheva brochas – only invite one single new person, and thereby run the risk that they will have an emmergency, or not be able to come for some reason, then, it seems to me, you are an organisational idiot. You are basically leaving the chances of your sheva brochas in the hands of somebody who (in most cases) was not even important enough to the chosson kala to come to the wedding!! I fail to believe that anywhere you will find a jewish baalabos/baalabooster that is that stupid (or at least a community of them). Now arguably you may be able to glean the position on women as panim chadashos in a community by how many extras are invited, and of what sex. That is, if you take the average “safe” number as, say, three, if people are inviting three new people of a mixture of sexes, then that may indicate that they are prepared to rely on one woman if the worst happens, while if they are makpid to invite three men, then presumably they would not. On the other hand, the safe number will depend on how risktaking a baalabos/baalabooster you are (and the nature of the people you are inviting – if I was inviting friends who were all doing their medical internship, I would probably want half a dozen, because of the regularity of non-show for any given event) so it may not be so easy to get a fix on what precise risk a given person/community is protecting against. >- -CB

Moed tov

Chana

— Chana/Heather Luntz

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 20:01:32 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: Re: Lack of mesorah and consistency

I believe, in my experience at least, that the reverse is true quite often, especially when one “in-towner” marries another. Ponim Chadashos are hard to come by, and you are often in a situation where the minimum becomes the norm.

In any event, if indeed the CS allowed the use of women as PC, as you note, in some configuration it should have been utilized.

Mo’adim l’Simcha, YGB

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

After all, any case of using one lonesome man as ponim chadashos is, by definition, a bidieved situation. If you, in organising your sheva brochas – only invite one single new person, and thereby run the risk that they will have an emmergency, or not be able to come for some reason, then, it seems to me, you are an organisational idiot. You are basically leaving the chances of your sheva brochas in the hands of somebody who (in most cases) was not even important enough to the chosson kala to come to the wedding!! I fail to believe that anywhere you will find a jewish baalabos/baalabooster that is that stupid (or at least a community of them).

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 08:24:17 -0400 (EDT)

From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

Subject: comments from amutat p'til tekhelet

Saul Guberman, who is affiliated with Amutat P’til Tekhelet, asked me to forward the following to the list. (He’s a subscriber, but is in the midst of technical trouble.)

-mi

I am involved with P’til tekhelet. I have forwarded many of the tekhelet related posts to the group in Israel. Here is their response.

Saul Guberman

I have been reading with great interest your discussion on tekhelet. I am very impressed by what appears to be a real striving for the halachic truth, and wanted to share the following with you. We went to the ocean 8 years ago together with Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger who did modern halachic background work on tekhelet from the murex and we collected the first murex for tekhelet in about 1300 years. We did this after discussing it with the son of rav shlomo zalmin z”l. We made the first pairs and wore them with our individual ravs ok. The halachic process is slow and that is a sign of health, and an entire literature has evolved discussing the murex as well as contrasting it to Radzin.

I refer you to our web page http://www.tekhelet.co.il for a downloadable library of articles. We will soon have a 600 article database available to view and order articles or books including radzin, scientific and chemical and even some translated latin texts that help prove murex as the only possible source of tekhelet. Rav Shabtai Rappaport, the editor of the final iggrot moshe, has a compelling article on mesorah and Tekhelet on our web page. Without rewriting it here in detail with all sources here is the gist of what he suggests. The article in its entirety is very powerful.

He contrasts mesorah by birds, fish, chagavim, and etrogim. After an exhaustive discussion of the gemara, rishonim, and shuts he concludes that something that has simanim deorayta,like fish needs no mesorah and if you catch an unknown fish if it has fins and scales it is kosher to eat without a mesorah. The other items have no clear siman dorayta and therefore need a mesorah to ensure suitability. He then evaluates Tekhelet through the gemara and rishonim as well. The known siman is the color. A blue, indistinguishable from the fake kala ilan. The eye could not differentiate it from the real thing. Kala ilan we know from multiple sources, however most impressively, from the sefer ha-aruch ( a relatively early rishon) where he defines it as “indiko” or as we call it, indigo, a plant grown in the beit shaan valley 2000 years ago that was also indigenous to Israel at the time called Isatis. The rambam mentions Isatis relating to tekhelet in zitzit 2:2.

We have studied the kala ilan and it is chemically indistinguishable from the real tekhelet. For those of you with no chemical background let me explain how absolutely fantastic that is. I have searched and found NO OTHER EXAMPLE LIKE THIS IN ALL OF NATURE where a plant and animal secrete a substance that is exactly the same. Not the same in color only but theoretically indistinguishable even in the chem lab. So we have a halachically known plant dye mentioned in the gemara,that matches the supposed tekhelet perfectly. He feels that this is like scales by fish. I fear I have not done justice to the strength of the original article. I discussed the mesora issue with Rav Aharon Lichtenstien, who told me that in his opinion, mesorah is a strong chain of evidence, not necessarily mouth to mouth but compelling evidence would be similar. He even told the students that they may make a shehechiyanu the first time they wear their tekhelet. See Rav Shechter’s book nefesh harav on the issue of mesorah, where he discusses Tekhelet. Another difference with most of the previous cases is that you have an issur if you eat a not kosher bird or make a brocha on a non kosher etrog. So the mesora has a greater role to play. Whereas with tekhelet, as the Radziner decidedly proves, if it is wrong, you have lost nothing, but if it is correct and you don’t wear it, you are over on ” doche mitzvat ase beyadayim”. In a letter to me Rav Shecter said one should wear it metaam safek deorayta lechumra. He mentions the opinion that that klall applies only when you will definitively fulfill the safek nonetheless he says to wear it based on the klall. Rabbi Abraham Twerski paskened that it should be worn as well for similar reasons. In a recent article in the Journal of Contemporary society and halacha R. Yitzchak Twerski deals with the mesorah issue at great length as well. If one needs to choose a basis point for reference start with this. Lets look at the often quoted Beit Halevi that the Radziner quotes. Most people know of this and say that the beit Halevi requires mesora re. tekhelet.

He actually says, you Radziner are using a substance known to my father and grandfather, they did not know it was tekhelet and now you come and say that it is. It is almost as if you have a negative mesorah in that they knew of the squid for generations and yet did not know it was the T. source. Bring something” that it, or the process of dying with it was forgotten” and then we can talk about reinstituting the tekhelet. No where does he say one needs a mesorah rather he implies that to use the tekhelet one needs something that has been FORGOTTEN yet fits chazals’ description! Finally the mishna in Men. has a machloket if one does not have tekhelet if one fulfills the mitzvah of zitzit or not. Chachamim say tekhelet ayno maakevet halavan and we pasken that way and that’s why all jews wore zitzit without tekhelet for all the generations. Rebbe says it is meakev and without it one can’t wear zitzit and if one does the bracha is a bracha levatala and probably one is over baal tigra. The baal hameor makes an astounding comment. Even we, who pasken like chachamim, do so only when there is no tekhelet, but if there is, one is not mekayem the mitzvah of zitzit without it! Based upon that we had a group of chassidim from Meah Shearim who stopped wearing their tallit from the time they heard tekhelet was available. I leave it to you to understand the mashmaut of that statement. I have attempted in a very limited way to bring some of the important issues before you. Clearly a rav would not pasken on a practical schita question without seeing the bird with his eyes, so to this. We will provide a copy of any source anybody would like. I invite anybody to contact us for a demonstration and tiyul to the ocean with us to understand the practical aspects of the issue. All questions are valid and will be dealt with in a serious manner. Halachic truth is about learning the issues with open mindedness and without the encumbrance of preconceived notions. I commend you on yours in this discussion and hope to help you mekayem mitzvat zitzit beshlemuto.

Ari Greenspan ari@tekhelet.co.il www.tekhelet.co.il

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 17:49:14 -0400

From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #12 Teccheile & Mesorah

re: Techeiles & Mesorah

I am new to this list so I don’t know if this has been discussed before. I really enjoyed the process of isolating the Techeilis. however, without a mesorah what are the halachic implications. for example, can we reinstitute the kashrus of chagovim based upon laboratory analysis? To me pure reasons says yes. We can identify those insects who fall under that category. however, can we overturn the halacho/minhog based upon pure reason? I would say that we KANT follow pure reason to decide Halocho…

Regards, Rich Wolpoe

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:58:44 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: Ponim Chadashos

You know, it struck me that I did not clarify an important point, which may have lead people to misunderstand my position vis-a-vis the Chasam Sofer.

The Rama in CM 25 says that if Rishonim come to light that say differently from an Acharon, we may pasken like those Rishonim over the Acharon. If I recall correctly, he also says that the Acharon may have changed his opinion when confronted by the Rishon. My contention here is simple: The CS does not quote the Ritva and Nimmulei Yosef, then reject them. I think that when writing the Chiddushim he either did not see them or forgot them – otherwise he would have cited them. Had he seen or remembered them, he would have quoted them. True, I cannot prove this. But we cannot prove otherwise. Safek berachos requires us to be machmir. It’s that simple :-).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:45:41 +0100

From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>

Subject: Sustainable communities

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes

I believe, in my experience at least, that the reverse is true quite often, especially when one “in-towner” marries another. Ponim Chadashos are hard to come by, and you are often in a situation where the minimum becomes the norm.

To diverge from the halachic question onto a socialogical one, this is fascinating me, because it so totally diverges from my experience. In other words, while the situation you describe is how I imagine it was in the shtetl, where the whole shtetl was invited to the wedding, and you had to rely on out of town travelers such as peddlers and maggidim (almost certainly male, as it was too dangerous for women to travel the roads), I can’t think of a community today where this would be the case (and I have attended weddings on five continents). The closest I can think of was a wedding I attended in Auckland, New Zealand, where yes, the entire community attended the wedding. On the other hand, the reason that I was there was the fact that although the kala was very keen on having the wedding in her home town, where her father was a pillar of the community, she had moved to Melbourne because there was no way she was going to find a shidduch in New Zealand. Prior to her wedding, I was told that there hand’t been a wedding there for ages, and I doubt that precious few weddings before hers even knew about the concept of sheva brochas (my friend and her chossen of course moved to Melbourne for sheva brochas).

If anything my exposure has been to the opposite problem, how do you deal with the fact that, if you are talking about an in town wedding (ie both parties has significant numbers they have to invite – where one is out of town that party’s numbers are usually considerably smaller), the chossen kala cannot get away with under 300-500 without even inviting their real friends (and the whole issue is: is it nice to invite younger people to come for the supper and to dance afterwards or is that really cheap) (Ok ok, my mother’s cousin in Israel, where the problem is even more acute, solved it by having 1000 people at the wedding – and i assure you they were not short of panim chadashos for sheva brochas, but not everybody can afford to do that).

But be that as it may, the socialogial question that is interesting me is: is a community that is small enough that everybody can be invited to the one wedding a community that is capable of existing in isolation – and yet is of sufficient size to have endogomous frum marriages?

Back on Melbourne again – most people are surprised when I tell them that I know people where eg he is a Gerer Chassid and she came from Mizrachi. Because most frum communities around the world, each community is so large that such a meeting would never take place. In Melbourne of a generation ago, because the frum community was sufficiently small, and because travel was extremely difficult (at that time it would take anywhere up to a week – even today, it is 14 hours flying to LA) such marriages happened. Today, because of the ubiquitous nature of the aeroplane, people go overseas and meet people of their respective communities there. But a generation ago, each community was not large enough to survive on its own without the support of quite different hashkafic communities. And yet I don’t think that even then the community was so pushed that if it sent out invitations to a decent sized, or even large, wedding, it would have only a limited pool of panim chadashos left to invite.

But I am obviously missing a community configuration here if your experience is to the contrary.

Mo’adim l’Simcha, YGB

Mo’adim l’simcha

Chana

— Chana/Heather Luntz

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:03:00 -0400

From: gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)

Subject: Techeles

of what he suggests. The article in its entirety is very powerful. He contrasts mesorah by birds, fish, chagavim, and etrogim.

The article is only available in Word format, in Hebrew. Any ideas? Gershon

old one that no longer works. Can anyone tell me the proper way to tie the tekhelet or, failing that, a valid email address for someone who can?

http://www.tekhelet.co.il Gershon

You don’t need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:59:36 -0500 (CDT)

From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

Subject: Re: Ponim Chadashos

In v2n14, R’ YGB <ygb@aishdas.org> writes:: The Rama in CM 25 says that if Rishonim come to light that say differently: from an Acharon, we may pasken like those Rishonim over the Acharon.

My father once quoted R’ YB Soloveitchik saying the opposite one Tues night in Moriah. It was suggested that some halachah (I forget which) may need to be rethought in light of the Me’iri’s opinion. The Rav replied that perhaps there is a reason HKB”H allowed the Me’iri to be lost for so long.

-mi

— Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days! micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 – 8-Oct-98) For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light. http://www.aishdas.org — Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:16:56 -0500 (CDT)

From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

Subject: Re: Ponim Chadashos

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

My father once quoted R’ YB Soloveitchik saying the opposite one Tues night in Moriah. It was suggested that some halachah (I forget which) may need to be rethought in light of the Me’iri’s opinion. The Rav replied that perhaps there is a reason HKB”H allowed the Me’iri to be lost for so long.

Hmmm… One of the rare things that Beis Brisk and the Chazon Ish agree on…

But, seriously, while some saay this about the Me’iri, they haven’t said it about the Ritva and Nimukei Yosef.

YGB

-mi — Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days! micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 – 8-Oct-98) For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light. http://www.aishdas.org — Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Links

• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n007.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n008.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n009.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n010.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n011.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n013.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n014.shtml
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n015.shtml