R’ Moshe Shternbuch – Old Letter

Siman 25

Question: Should a tallis koton be worn over a t-shirt or over a regular shirt?

The Shulchan Aruch (Siman 8:11) writes that the ikkar mitzvah of a tallis koton is to wear it over one’s garments so that he sees it and remembers the mitzvos.

The Magen Avraham brings from the writings of the Arizal that it should specifically be worn underneath one’s garments. However, from the Shaar HaKavanos, it is clear that the Arizal would wear it over his chaluk (inner robe) but under his outer garments. It would seem that he meant specifically to wear it over the chaluk, but one should be mehader to wear it over a shirt rather than over a t-shirt, since according to the Mechaber, it should be worn over all one’s garments, as this garment is also considered significant for the mitzvah.

And even according to the Arizal, who held that the beged itself should not be worn over all one’s garments, but only the tzitzis should be visible outside, still, even according to him, it would seem that one should wear it over a chaluk and not over a t-shirt, since a t-shirt is made for absorbing sweat. And not only is this true regarding a short t-shirt, which does not cover the shoulders at all—where the tallis koton will then absorb sweat directly from the body, which is certainly not a hiddur mitzvah that a tallis koton, which is designated for the mitzvah, should become dirty from sweat—but even a full vest (which covers the shoulders) is still not considered a real beged, since it functions like an undershirt and is not considered a proper garment.

Therefore, it is proper to wear it over a shirt, as the mitzvah of tzitzis requires a choshuv beged. Furthermore, according to some poskim, the beged for tzitzis should be something that covers most of the body or should be specifically made of wool or linen.

Additionally, one should be mehader that the tallis koton should be clean and white, since a dirty tallis koton is a bizayon hamitzvah. Even though the mitzvah is in the tzitzis strings, there is still a hiddur mitzvah in a beautiful tallis, as stated in Shabbos 133b and Nazir 2b—that the tallis itself is also part of the mitzvah and should be made beautiful. The same applies here, that one should ensure it is clean and respectable for the mitzvah of Hashem.

All the more so, according to our approach, that the mitzvah is to wear it over the shirt so that it is visible, and not inside, where it is covered. In a covered place, there is no mitzvah of noi (beautification), as explained by the Rambam (Hilchos Tefillin 1:12) regarding the mitzvah of sirtut (inscribing guidelines for writing), which does not apply to tefillin since they are covered. However, in truth, even if the tallis koton is worn inside, it is still proper respect for the mitzvah that it should always be clean. Certainly, it should not be dirty, as that would be a bizayon hamitzvah, and one should ensure that the tallis koton remains clean and respectable.

Siman 26

Question: Is there a hiddur to wear the newly discovered Techeiles in tzitzis?

The Admor of Radzyn zt”l rediscovered and identified a fish that he held was the Chilazon and dyed tzitzis with its blood. However, as is well known, the other Gedolim of his generation did not accept this, even as a chumra. Only the Chassidim of Radzyn follow this practice. In recent years, another similar fish was found, and some claim that this is the true Techeiles. Even among Radzyn Chassidim, there are those who argue that it is not the same Techeiles that the Admor of Radzyn certified as the authentic one, as his grandson, Rav Leiner, pointed out (published in Otzaros Yerushalayim, vol. 40).

Here, a baal teshuva obtained Techeiles and wanted to wear tzitzis with one Techeiles string, to fulfill that shittah.

Regarding the fundamental question of whether this is truly Techeiles, we cannot pasken. However, in the sod (kabbalistic meaning) of Techeiles, which resembles the sky and reflects Hashem’s open hashgacha, it is understood that in the times of the Tannaim, when Hashem’s presence was more revealed, Techeiles was still available. But ever since, darkness has increased, and Hashem’s ways have become more concealed. Therefore, Techeiles disappeared, and it will only be revealed with the coming of Moshiach. It does not seem logical that specifically in our times—where the concealment is at its peak—we would suddenly merit the return of Techeiles. In Yeshuos Malcho (Siman 1-3), this is discussed at length, showing that even according to the Arizal, there is no place for this practice.

However, halacha is not decided based on this, but rather by the Gedolim of the generation, and they have ruled that we do not adopt this practice. They did not even consider it a chumra. I am concerned that someone wearing it in our kehillah, where this is not the minhag, is violating lo sisgodedu, as he is publicly acting against the minhag. Even though there is no halachic issue with tzitzis dyed with kala ilan (a non-kosher blue dye), since here it is known that he is wearing it specifically for the mitzvah of Techeiles, and against the minhag, there is a concern of lo sisgodedu. See Mishnah Berurah 131:6, where if one follows a different practice regarding where to drop the tzitzis during davening, he violates lo sisgodedu—kal v’chomer here, where the entire kehillah sees a single individual acting against the ruling of the poskim.

Among Radzyn Chassidim, this is permissible in their communities, but here, where no one has ever heard of wearing Techeiles, we do not allow someone to do so, as it is not even a minhag avosav.

The Admor of Radzyn zt”l himself wondered why the Gedolim of his time did not at least accept Techeiles lechumra, to fulfill the mitzvah out of doubt. He did not receive an answer to this question. However, I am concerned that they deliberately ruled not to dye tzitzis with Techeiles out of concern that people might assume they are definitely fulfilling the mitzvah and directly intend for the mitzvah of Techeiles, which does not exist in their view. This would pose a bal tosif (adding to the Torah) issue, as seen in Rosh Hashanah 28a and Ritva there, regarding mixed-up matanos (gifts to the kohen), where even a doubtful addition is considered bal tosif. Here, too, since one cannot make a conditional kavanah that excludes the possibility of bal tosif, this concern applies.

See also Shiltos and the minhag of Rav Chaim of Volozhin zt”l, who avoided wearing Tefillin d’Rabbeinu Tam out of doubt, due to concerns of bal tosif and bal tigra, as brought in Divrei Chamudos. Here, the concern is even greater, since the Techeiles in question is not even a strong safek, and yet people would specifically intend it for the mitzvah.

Furthermore, it is well known that the Techeiles available today is not definitively the same as the fish that the Admor of Radzyn used. Rather, a certain Rav in Eretz Yisrael zt”l investigated and found a fish that he claimed matched the signs and concluded that this is Techeiles according to his shittah. However, our minhag follows the poskim who did not consider this to be Techeiles, and based on what has been explained, we are careful not to wear it due to multiple concerns. See Hilchos HaGra U’Minhagav Siman 30, where we elaborated on other concerns as well.

Therefore, there is a real concern of lo sisgodedu when wearing this publicly, since it goes against the accepted minhag. The Admor of Radzyn zt”l argued that this is a safek d’Oraisa and should be followed out of doubt. However, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (the Brisker Rav) zt”l responded that we only apply safek d’Oraisa l’chumra when, if one fulfills the mitzvah out of doubt, he is definitely yotzei. But here, even if he wears Techeiles out of doubt, he is still left in doubt, and in such a case, we do not say safek d’Oraisa l’chumra. He brought proof for this from the Gemara at the end of Rosh Hashanah, and this is not the place to elaborate further.

Siman 27

Question: Those who use only one hole in the corner of the garment—should they tighten the tzitzis knot to the hole?

I have discussed this at length in a separate kuntres on the mitzvah of tzitzis, which includes this topic. There, it is explained that from the Sheiltos (Parshas Shelach, Siman 127), it is clear that the tzitzis should not be tightly attached to the beged but should be loose, with a space of about a thumb’s width between the hole and the knot.

The Sheiltos (Shelach, Siman 127) states:

“If one placed [the tzitzis] directly on the corner or on the gedil, it is kosher; however, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov invalidates both. What is the reason? Because it says ‘on the corners of their garments,’ meaning that the tzitzis should fall over the corner. And this follows the opinion of Rav Gidel in the name of Rav that tzitzis must be hanging down from the garment.”

From this, it appears that the tzitzis should not be tightly attached but should hang freely, with a thumb’s width of space between the hole and the knot.

This interpretation is also found in Sefer Zecher Avraham (Gaavad of Lachov), Siman 1, where he explains the Sheiltos similarly. He proves that the Torah’s wording “al kanfei” does not come to teach that the hole itself must be on the corner, but rather that up to a thumb’s width is considered the ‘corner’, and beyond that is “on the corner.” Since the corner (kanaf) means the edge of the square of the garment, if the hole is more than a thumb’s width inward, then it is already considered inside the kanaf rather than on it.

Thus, when the Torah says “al kanfei”, it refers specifically to the place of the knot, which should be tied near the square edge of the beged. The required thumb’s width of separation is derived from the phrase “me’al kanfei”, meaning that the tzitzis should dangle over the corner. Without this space, the corner does not force the tzitzis to hang downward. However, if the knot is tight to the hole, then the tzitzis would not be naturally dangling over the kanaf.

This properly explains the sugya in Menachos 42a—see there for further details.

An Alternative Girsa in the Sheiltos

However, some pointed out that in the Sefer Ha’itur, a different girsa of the Sheiltos is brought: “Kafay Kafuy” (loosely tied). Based on this, the Manhig explains that tzitzis should dangle over the corner and not be tied so tightly that the gedil (knotted portion) stands upright like a stiff piece of wood and does not fall over the kanaf.

According to this version, even those who make two holes in the beged would still be required not to tie the tzitzis too tightly, to allow them to fall naturally. Therefore, the Sheiltos might not be an absolute proof that there must be a thumb’s width of space between the knot and the hole. Even according to our girsa, one could argue that “loose” (rapuy rapuy) simply means not too tight, rather than requiring an exact thumb’s width.

Still, based on logic, it seems that “loose” should be taken literally, requiring at least a thumb’s width of space. See also Neshamas Adam (Klal 11:3), who questions the practice of tying the knot too tightly to the hole and cites Perek Beis of Chullin, where such tightness is considered cutting off (migeiz gayeiz). The Chayei Adam attempts to resolve this by saying that there, the Torah was particular, but this is difficult, since the Gemara’s language is migeiz gayeiz.

Based on this, one should not tie the knot too tightly to the beged, as this would disqualify the chiyuv of tzitzis.

Similarly, in the Sheiltos of Rabbeinu Chaim of Volozhin, it is stated that a tallis koton that does not extend to the knees does not fulfill the chiyuv of tzitzis and may not be worn on Shabbos. The reason could be that in his time, shirts were long, and a short beged would not be considered significant. However, for us, where people go out into the street wearing shorter shirts, a tallis koton that measures at least 60 cm in length and width in the front and three-quarters of an amah in the back would be considered sufficient for the mitzvah.

The Issue of a Dirty Tallis Koton

However, I find it difficult to understand why many people do not insist that their tallis koton remains clean. If a beged is too dirty to be worn in the marketplace, then halachically, it is not considered a proper garment. If it is unfit to be worn in public due to its filth, one could argue that he is not yotzei the mitzvah of tzitzis at all. If so, he certainly should not wear it on Shabbos either.

See Biur Halacha, end of Siman 16, and this is not comparable to a garment that is dirty but still worn underneath one’s outer clothing, which is still considered a garment for the mitzvah.

Furthermore, the Gemara in Shabbos 133b explicitly states that a beautiful tallis is part of the hiddur mitzvah, based on the pasuk “Zeh Keili v’Anveihu”—this is a Torah-level hiddur. Therefore, one should be careful and ensure that his tallis koton is clean and respectable, as this is part of the hiddur mitzvah.

Moreover, it is possible that one is only yotzei the mitzvah of tzitzis when wearing a beged that is suitable to be worn in public. Since if his tallis koton were exposed like a regular shirt, he would be embarrassed to be seen wearing it due to its condition, there is reason to suspect that he is not fulfilling the mitzvah at all.

Based on this, one should be particularly careful that when wearing a tallis koton in a public domain on Shabbos, it should be clean.

Siman 5

The Mitzvah of Techeiles in Tzitzis Nowadays

It is well known that the Admor of Radzyn, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner zt”l, publicized that he had discovered the Chilazon and identified it as the tintifish (a type of squid). He noted that this creature sprays blue dye when it is being captured. He wrote three seforim to establish his position, but the majority of Klal Yisrael did not accept it.

Their reasoning was twofold:

1. The Gemara in Menachos (44a) states that the Chilazon only emerges once every seventy years, whereas this squid is always available.
2. The Midrash in Parshas Ki Savo, as well as the Yalkut Shimoni (Eikev 859), describes that the shell of the Chilazon grows with it—which does not match the creature the Admor of Radzyn identified.

Additionally, Rav Yitzchak Herzog zt”l tested this dye and found that the blue color only developed when cooked, and was not the natural color of the dye extracted from the creature. Therefore, he proposed a different sea creature, the Janthina snail, as the Chilazon. However, his theory was dismissed since:

1. This creature is not found in Eretz Yisrael.
2. The dye extracted does not produce a clear blue color.

The Recent Discovery of the “Murex”

More recently, scientists and bnei Torah identified a new creature, the Murex, as the Chilazon. While the dye initially does not appear blue, exposure to sunlight transforms it into a Techeiles-like shade.

Beyond this, several other factors match the descriptions of the Chilazon:

• It is found buried in the sand near the seashore, aligning with the Gemara in Megillah 6a, which expounds on the pasuk “U’sfunei temunei chol” (Yeshayahu 24:22) as a reference to the Chilazon.
• The best time to extract the dye is while the creature is still alive, similar to the nature of the Chilazon, as explained in Shabbos 75a.
• It lives inside a shell, which grows with it, as described in Midrashim.
• It is found near Tyre (Tzur), in accordance with Chazal’s descriptions of where the Chilazon is located.

Given all these factors, the question arises: Why not at least be machmir to dye one string out of eight with this, as there is no loss in doing so? After all, this is a safek d’Oraysa, and we could fulfill the mitzvah of Techeiles with minimal risk.

The Issue of Lack of Mesorah

In my humble opinion, the answer is that the Torah did not provide all the identifying signs of the Chilazon, since its identity is fundamentally dependent on mesorah (tradition)—which has been lost for many generations. Where a mesorah is required, and simanim alone are insufficient, we do not need to be concerned about it, not even lechumra.

The reality is that in just the past hundred years, there have already been three different claims about discovering the Chilazon—who is to say more won’t arise in the future?

Furthermore, Kaballah from the Arizal teaches that Techeiles resembles the sky because it reflects Hashem’s revealed hashgacha. In the time of the Beis HaMikdash, when open miracles were commonplace, the mitzvah of Techeiles was accessible. However, after the Churban, with the diminished presence of the Shechinah, and especially in today’s times of hester panim, the loss of Techeiles is a natural consequence.

This is the meaning behind the Midrash Tanchuma (end of Shelach), which states that Techeiles was hidden away. Even after the Churban, the mitzvah continued for some time because the mesorah still existed. However, once the tradition was lost, Chazal never attempted to restore it, as it was completely forgotten. We are waiting for the Geulah, when Kavod Hashem will be revealed in the world—then, Techeiles will return to us, along with the knowledge of how to properly dye it.

A Hint from the Pasuk Itself

This is actually hinted at in the Parshah of Tzitzis itself:

“ועשו להם ציצית על כנפי בגדיהם לדורותם” – The general mitzvah of tzitzis applies in all generations.
“ונתנו על ציצית הכנף פתיל תכלת” – Regarding Techeiles, however, “L’dorosam” is omitted!

This suggests that Techeiles will not be available in all generations.

Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik, the Brisker Rav zt”l, stated that the Gedolim throughout the generations did not search for Techeiles, because they held that it requires mesorah, which was lost, and therefore, there was no reason to look for it.

Why Not Wear It as a Safek?

Some argue: Why not wear it out of doubt? Even if it is not real Techeiles, there is no loss.

However, according to what we have said—that the mitzvah is dependent on mesorah—without it, there is no safek at all!

Furthermore, Rashi in Megillah 6a says that the Chilazon rises from the sea to the mountains, and none of the proposed Chilazon candidates match this description.

Additionally, one who seeks to be machmir is actually being lenient in another serious matter:

• The Piskei Tosafos in Menachos 118 says that a person who creates two different Torah practices is considered a hedyot (ignorant person)—and there is a risk of violating “Lo Sisgodedu”, which prohibits dividing Klal Yisrael into groups with conflicting practices.
• There is reason to believe that Hashem orchestrated the absence of Techeiles due to His hidden hashgacha, and we should not attempt to change this reality.

Uncertainty Regarding How to Wear It

Even if one wishes to wear Techeiles, there is no clear method of how to do so:

• If he dyes only half a string, then according to the Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 1:6), this is sufficient.
• However, many poskim (including the Raavad) require a full string.
• Others, including Rashi, Tosafos, and the Tur (Siman 11), hold that two full strings are necessary.

If so, those who wear only half a string accomplish nothing, since according to many, this is not valid at all. The Gra also held that one should be concerned for the opinion requiring a full string.

Conclusion

Based on all this, the entire foundation of the argument for wearing Techeiles as a safek collapses.

Therefore, I cannot recommend the use of Techeiles for those who do not have such a mesorah. It is better to maintain our tradition and wait for the revelation of Kavod Hashem with the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu, bimheira b’yameinu!