String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This exchange sharpens the practical question: is doubtful Techeiles really “nothing to lose”?
R’ Moshe Sternbuch, as quoted by Daniel Eidensohn, says no. He raises several possible downsides—bal tosif, lo sisgodedu, falsely thinking one is definitely fulfilling Techeiles, and the Brisker argument that safek d’oraisa l’chumra does not automatically apply when the act may accomplish nothing at all.
Micha Berger pushes in the opposite direction: if the Murex really is Techeiles, then failing to wear it may itself mean actively missing a Torah mitzvah. R’ Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer likewise rejects the objections as decisive, says he does not see bal tosif or lo sisgodedu as serious problems here, and maintains that wearing probable Techeiles is essentially neutral—though not something he would instruct others to do without definitive proof.
Bottom line: the dispute is over where the halachic risk lies. One side sees risk in wearing doubtful Techeiles; the other sees at least as much risk in leaving off what may very well be a Torah mitzvah.
Main Text
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 13:50:46 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Subject: Techeles is not neutral
Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one fulfills the mitzva of “lavan” with blue colored strings.
Rav Sternbuch vol I #26 page 21-22. “The Radzhiner was surprised why it made a difference to the gedolim to be machmir to dye their tzitzis out of sofek and he found no answer…I am concerned for the following 1) that people will think they are actually fulfilling the mitzva of techeles 2) there is a problem of bal tosif to intend to the mitzva of techeles when it is not actually so. Ritva Rosh HaShanna 28b. Rav Chaim Volozhiner notes that wearing Rabbeinu Tam’s tefilin could be a problem of bal tosif. Besides it is known that the techeles that we have today might not even be the fish that the Radzhiner specified. But here in Israel there was a Rav z”l who examined and found according to his words the proper fish. Our practice is according to the poskim not to be concerned that this is techeles. There are other objections such as lo tisgodedu etc. The Radzhiner argued that this is a sofek doreissa. The Brisker Rav replied that we only say sofek doreisa l’chumra in the case that when we fulfill the mitzva now we definitely fulfill our obligation but here there is no guarantee anything is being accomplished.
In sum, staining with doubtful techeles is not necessarily a neutral act.
Daniel Eidensohn
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:33:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Techeiles is not neutral
R’ YGB writes:
Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one fulfills the mitzva of “lavan” with blue colored strings.
No, techeiles is a mitzvah d’Oraisa; while not a chiyuv, by no means just a chumrah. (Clearly in the days of the medrash about Korach’s “sh’aylah” about blue b’gadim, it was viewed as the ikkar of the din of tzitzis.) IF this is real t’cheiles, AND someone has an opportunity to use it and misses it, wouldn’t that qualify as “okeir mitzvah biyadayim”?
On the other hand, using blue strings for “lavan” is a bit of a loss, as you may be reducing your fulfillment of “lavan” to b’dieved status. There’s a machlokes as to whether l’chatchilah the strings ought to be white or the color of the begged. We avoid the machlokes by wearing white begadim.
Teimamin pasken that they should be the same color as the begged. Therefore, it may make sense to wear a white-and-blue begged when hanging safeik techeiles, as this way you fulfill the mitzvah lichatchilah at least lishitasam.
(According to the Tif’eres Yisrael, any indellible blue dye of the right shade is usable as techeiles. The importance of chilazon is that it was the only such dye known until modern times. In which case, there’d be no safeik — and therefore no lichatchilah vs. b’dieved — to worry about.)
About Daniel Eidensohn’s quote of R’ Sternbuch’s concern regarding lo tisgodedu, you can avoid that problem if you where this blue striped begged as your tallis kattan, strings inside your pants. We often avoid p’rishah min hatzibur issues by limiting personal observances to bitzin’ah.
-mi
PS: None of this is what I do. I have little doubt the dye on my string is techeiles. I see the situation as one of rov, not safeik.
—
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5938 days!
micha@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 – 2-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org — Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 20:26:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: “Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer” <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Techeles is not neutral
On Fri, 2 Oct 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
Rav Sternbuch vol I #26 page 21-22. “The Radzhiner was surprised why it made a difference to the gedolim to be machmir to dye their tzitzis out of sofek and he found no answer…I am concerned for the following 1) that people will think they are actually fulfilling the mitzva of techeles 2) there is a problem of bal tosif to intend to the mitzva of
I fail to understand why people should not hope they are fulfilling the mitzva of techeles. Perhaps you mean that they will not then be modeh al ha’emes if this is proven not to be the actual techeles. This is a legitimate concern, but more ethical than halachic.
techeles when it is not actually so. Ritva Rosh HaShanna 28b. Rav Chaim Volozhiner notes that wearing Rabbeinu Tam’s tefilin could be a problem of bal tosif. Besides it is known that the techeles that we have today
Yet many people – including R’ Moshe Feinstein and R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky (albeit the latter later in life) wore Rabbeinu Tam’s. I, however, fail to see how techeles can fall into the category of bal tosif. I am away from home and do not have a Ritva RH. I would appreciate a quote, if someone has easy access to it.
might not even be the fish that the Radzhiner specified. But here in Israel there was a Rav z”l who examined and found according to his words the proper fish. Our practice is according to the poskim not to be concerned that this is techeles. There are other objections such as lo tisgodedu etc. The Radzhiner argued that this is a sofek doreissa. The
I do not understand how lo tisgodedu is even remotely relevant here. is there lo tisgodedu if Chassidim wear long peyos, some Misnagdim peyos behind their ears, and others simple sideburns?
Brisker Rav replied that we only say sofek doreisa l’chumra in the case that when we fulfill the mitzva now we definitely fulfill our obligation but here there is no guarantee anything is being accomplished.
But, that is a great chiddush, which I never heard before, and I do not know where the Brisker Rav says it, and do not understand it.
In sum, staining with doubtful techeles is not necessarily a neutral act.
Daniel Eidensohn
With all due respect to R’ Sternbuch, from my perspective, as I note, nothing he has said diminishes my position that techeles is neutral. Nevertheless, I certainly would never be moreh to others to wear it, since neither I nor anyone else can definitively prove its validity – only that it is quite likely the real McCoy.
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
