String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 1998 exchange explains why P’til Tekhelet initially used the Raavad’s method as its default. R’ Eliyahu Tavger gives both a practical and a halachic reason. Practically, the Raavad’s method uses less Techeiles, making sets cheaper and faster to produce and therefore easier to spread.
Halachically, Tavger argues that the Raavad’s position best fits the sources. He presents the Raavad as a middle position between Rashi and the Rambam: on one question he follows the Rambam, while on another he follows Rashi, allowing him to be viewed as the machria, the deciding position between them. More importantly, Tavger points to the Sifri. One version gives Beis Shammai as requiring three white strings and one blue string, which matches the Raavad; another version gives four white and four blue, which matches Rashi. Tavger argues that the first version is the more accurate one and notes that the Gra also corrected the other text in that direction.
The bottom line is that P’til Tekhelet’s choice of the Raavad was not merely a cost-saving compromise. Tavger regarded it as the strongest reading of the classical sources while still acknowledging that other legitimate shittos exist. The post is therefore useful evidence for how P’til Tekhelet understood its own tying practice in the movement’s early years.
Main Text
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 16:41:57 -0500
From: Saul Guberman <sguberman@leshkowitz.com>
Subject: Tekhelet, Ravaad as default
Someone had asked a while back, Why the Ptil Tekhelet Association chose the Ravaad for its default option? I have gotten a response from Eliyahu Tevgar on this matter. He is the Rav associated with “P’til Tekhelet” and makes their final decisions.
Saul Guberman
To all who are interested:
Why has the “Ptil Tekhelet” Association chosen the position of the Ravaad for its default option?
There are two reasons for this, practical and halachic.
The practical reason being that the position of the Ravaad enables the production of more tzitzit sets within a shorter amount of time, therefore enabling more Jews to do the mitzva. The cost of the set according to the position of the Raavad is also cheaper than those sets according to other positions, which also causes a spreading of the mitzva.
The halachic reason is that the position of the Ravaad seems to be the most suitable according to the Sources. In reality, it is important to note that we honor any opinion, as we are interested only in the distribution of the tekhelet itself; but when our opinion is asked, we can only answer from our heart.
There are two ways of deciding in P’sak – a way of formality and a way of clarification.
In the way of formality, different rules are used – majority of opinion, latest Posek, “Mara D’athra” (Regional authority), not to base on commentators etc. In this way, there can be discussions how to to decide on our subject. Some can say that Ashkenazis have to go according to “Chachmei Ashkenaz” – Rashi, Tosaphot, Rosh. Others can say that they are only commentators and we must go according to the Rambam, the Posek.
We can add and say that halacha is like the Ravaad, according to the rule – “halacha k’divrei hamachria” (halacha like the Deciding). Rashi and Rambam disagree on two points:
- Is “ptil tekhelet” one string only or not?
- Does “ptil tekhelet” have a special function – to be the string wound or not?
The Ravaad, on one hand, accepts the opinion of the Rambam on the first question. On the other hand, he accepts the opinion of Rashi on the second question. If so, he is the Deciding. (By the way in Yad Mal’achi, in Klalei haRambam vehaRavaad, #41, it is brought down that when there is a disagreement between them, it should go according to the Ravaad.)
In the way of clarification, we check to which opinion the sources of Chazal are more suitable. In this framework, I cannot elaborate, and I therefore refer anyone interested to my book, “Klil Tekhelet”, where I have examined the subject. But, I will say here in short that the most central source relating to our question is from a passage in the Sifri, who brings a disagreement between Beth Shamai and Beth Hillel on this subject. The passage appears twice – in Parshath Shlach and in Parshath Ki-Thetze.
According to the version in Parshath Shlach, Beth Shamai (that for this question the halacha is according to them) is of the opinion – three white strings and one blue string. According to the version in Parshath Ki-Thetze – four white strings and four blue strings. The version in Parshath Shlach matches the position of the Ravaad. The version in Parshath Ki-Thetze matches the position of Rashi. It can proven that the version of Parshath Shlach is more correct (The G’ra also corrected the version in Parshath Ki-Thetze). Both versions do not at all match the position of the Rambam.
The position of the G’ra on the subject is complicated. In three different places he has three different opinions – Rashi, Rambam, Ravaad. I refer all those interested to my article, which is soon to be published in Yeshurun magazine, where I have tried to explain this difficulty.
Eliyahu Tavger
