R’ Yisroel Barkin’s Response to R’ Elyashiv’s Teshuva on Techeiles

B”SD

To HaRav … shlita,

After extending greetings of peace, I received a recording of the Rav’s shiur from Sunday of Parshas Vayakhel-Pekudei, in which the Rav raised several comments on my previous letter. In accordance with the Rav’s request, I am responding and discussing his points in the manner of Torah debate. With Hashem’s help, I will begin.

In the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnayos, Vilna edition, in the translation of R’ Nossonel ben R’ Yosef HaRofeh, in Perek HaTecheiles, he writes:

“It is not available to us today, because we do not know how to dye it. Not every type of techeiles color in wool is called Techeiles; rather, it must be a specific known Techeiles which cannot be produced today. Therefore we make only white strings.”

The Rav understands the Rambam to mean that we do not know the precise shade and durability of the color, and that there is no way for us to determine this without a mesorah.

However, even the Rav agrees that the Rambam retracted this position in the Yad HaChazakah, since there he writes simply that “the wool is placed into it until it becomes like the appearance of the sky,” without specifying any exact shade that would be me’akev. I therefore do not understand why the Rav uses this as a basis to exempt us from Techeiles nowadays. The Yad HaChazakah was written after the Peirush HaMishnayos, and if so the Rambam changed his position. Certainly the halachah follows what he wrote in the Yad.

Moreover, even regarding the Peirush HaMishnayos itself, I do not see any necessity to explain it as the Rav does. It is not at all difficult to explain it as Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi Herzog z”l did, as follows:

“We do not know how to dye it” means that we do not know how to produce Techeiles.

“Not every type of techeiles color in wool is called Techeiles” means that not every blue dye applied to wool, regardless of its source, is called Techeiles.

In fact, this is even clearer in the original Arabic. In the translation before us it says, “Not every type of Techeiles,” which could somewhat imply that even genuine Techeiles from the chilazon is not kosher unless it is the particular “known Techeiles.” But the Arabic original reads “lays kull lawn azraq” — “not every blue color” — and azraq in Arabic is simply the name for the color blue.

The Rambam is therefore only saying either that we do not recognize the chilazon or that, in his time, they did not know how to dye from the chilazon.

And even if one would argue that this explanation is somewhat forced, since the Rav’s explanation is also not compelled by the words, it would still be proper to explain it this way so that the Rambam does not contradict what he himself wrote in the Yad HaChazakah. Even when dealing with two different authorities we follow the principle that we do not multiply disputes unnecessarily.¹ The Chasam Sofer already wrote that “most forced explanations are true,” and certainly here, where nowhere in Shas is it stated that a particular exact shade or degree of colorfastness is me’akev.

The Maharil, in his newer responsa, siman 5, explicitly writes that it is possible for Techeiles to return through identification by simanim, and he was not concerned with the Rav’s objection. The Chemdas Shlomo, Even HaEzer siman 9, likewise writes that it is not impossible that Techeiles could be identified if it passes all the tests recorded by the Rambam. His only concern was that it pass the required tests.

The Levush likewise writes in his introduction:

“A person is obligated to wear Techeiles in his tzitzis every day if it can be found.”

He too was not concerned with this issue.

I already wrote in my previous letter that the Radzyner Rebbe z”l demonstrated from the words of the Radbaz, chelek 5, siman 1,421 [48], that several shades may be valid. He likewise brought a proof from R’ David Pardo in the name of the Arizal.

The Gedolei HaDor of the generation before us and the generation before them likewise did not reject the Radzyner Rebbe’s Techeiles because the proper color was unknown, but only because they did not accept that his creature was the true chilazon.

Maran HaGaon HaKadosh Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin and Rav Shmuel Salant zt”l likewise said that there was no basis whatsoever to exempt oneself from this mitzvah. They were merely cautioned by the dayanim of Vilna not to become involved in the matter, as related in the introduction to Ein HaTecheiles.

It is obvious that the dayanim of Vilna were merely informing them that, based upon their close familiarity with the facts, the creature in question was not the true chilazon. Surely those Gedolim were not lacking any necessary knowledge in halachah or hashkafah.

The Beis HaLevi zt”l likewise said that if it could be established that there was no mesorah against the identification, “we would be obligated to listen to him and wear it,” as quoted in the introduction to the above sefer and also cited in the teshuvah of Maran Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv [zt”l]. None of these Gedolim were concerned with the objections mentioned above.

Rav Herzog z”l writes as follows, as quoted in Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, chelek 5, p. 55:

“In my opinion, the Rambam’s intent in the Peirush HaMishnayos is not that Techeiles is unavailable to us today because we do not know the particular dyeing technique needed for Techeiles. Rather, since Techeiles is kosher only when produced from the chilazon, and we do not know the identity of the chilazon, we consequently do not know how to dye Techeiles.

“The proof is that in the Yad HaChazakah the Rambam does not even hint that there is any difficulty regarding the process or the additional ingredients. Rather, those ingredients are simply part of the normal dyeing process, and their function is to enable the wool to properly absorb the dye. This is known to anyone familiar with the craft.

“On this point I am in complete agreement with the holy Radzyner Rebbe zt”l.”

That is the relevant portion of his words. See there further on pp. 56-57, where two additional letters of his on this matter are printed.

Regarding the Rav’s inference from Rashi that Techeiles is not a complete obligation, in my humble opinion all the proofs can be answered. Therefore, chalilah to rule this way, or even to rely upon such a position.

Rashi on Menachos 38a, s.v. HaTecheiles einah me’akeves, writes that if one made all four strings Techeiles or all four white, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. The meaning is that he has fulfilled whatever obligation of tzitzis he is presently capable of fulfilling if he does not possess both types, and he is permitted to wear the garment. One is permitted to place himself in a situation of ones regarding the part of the mitzvah that he cannot perform while fulfilling the portion that is available to him. He has done everything within his ability, and there is no prohibition involved. More could be said on this point, but I believe this is sufficient.

The Rav also cited Rashi on 40a, s.v. Beis Shammai potrin, where Rashi writes:

“The primary mitzvah of tzitzis has Techeiles written in it,”

as support for his position.

In truth, the wording would seem to indicate precisely the opposite — that Techeiles is the primary component of the mitzvah.

But that is actually not Rashi’s point either.

Rashi was bothered by why the Tanna frames the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding whether tzitzis overrides kilayim specifically in the case of a linen sheet. The same dispute could seemingly arise where some of the strings are wool and others linen, whether the garment itself is wool or made of another material.

Rashi answers that in the case of a linen sheet it is certain that wool will be involved, because a sheet is made of linen and “the primary mitzvah of tzitzis has Techeiles written in it.” In other words, the basic form of the mitzvah as stated by the Torah includes Techeiles, even though there may be times when Techeiles is unavailable.

The standard meaning of the mitzvah, and of the term “tzitzis,” is therefore tzitzis containing Techeiles. Rashi’s point concerns the ordinary meaning of the word: when one simply says “tzitzis,” it means tzitzis together with Techeiles.

According to the Rav’s explanation, that Techeiles is merely a hiddur, Rashi has not answered his own question. Rashi’s answer assumes that in the case of the linen sheet there will certainly be wool present. But if Techeiles is not obligatory, why is it certain that wool will be present?

Regarding what the Shitah Mekubetzes writes on 40a, os 24, that the angel was particular about the ikkar mitzvah min hamuvchar, the explanation is as follows:

According to Rashi in a responsum, Rav Ketina wore a linen garment in order to exempt himself from Techeiles. He was therefore completely exempt from Techeiles because of a rabbinic enactment. Nevertheless, he still wore white tzitzis and did not completely abandon the mitzvah.

The Shitah therefore asks: according to Rashi, why did the angel say to him, “What will become of the mitzvah of tzitzis?” That sounds as though he was entirely abandoning the mitzvah.

The answer is that the complaint was not that he was abandoning the entire mitzvah, but that he was avoiding part of the mitzvah. The mitzvah min hamuvchar is to obligate oneself in Techeiles as well by wearing a wool garment. This explains the expression, “What will become of tzitzis?” — meaning the mitzvah of tzitzis in its complete form.

See also the Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha on 43b, s.v. Gadol onshah shel lavan. He asks why Rashi explained the Gemara as referring to one person who neglected both components. Rashi could have explained it simply as referring to two people: one who has white strings but does not attach Techeiles, and another who has Techeiles but does not attach white.

The Maharsha does not answer his question.

According to the Rav, he could have answered very simply² that there is no punishment for someone who fails to wear Techeiles. But such a mistaken idea never entered the Maharsha’s holy mind.

As to the Maharsha’s actual question, see the Shitah Mekubetzes there, who emends the text of Rashi. According to his reading there is no question at all. On the contrary, according to the Shitah Mekubetzes’s version, which speaks of two separate people, Rashi himself explicitly indicates that there is punishment for failing to wear Techeiles, since Rashi explains that “the punishment of Techeiles” refers to someone who has white tzitzis but does not add Techeiles. He is punished for this omission.

Regarding the teshuvah of Maran Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv [zt”l], the Rav told R’ … n”y that apparently Maran had seen all the proofs but did not find them conclusive.

I find it difficult to understand how this can be said. Rav Elyashiv explicitly wrote there:

“And I do not know regarding the discovery made by the researchers of our times whether the above argument applies to it as well.”

He explicitly says that he does not know.

Aside from that, the entire teshuvah raises serious questions.

Throughout the teshuvah he treats the matter as merely the claims of “researchers.” Yet the Chavos Yair states categorically that Techeiles comes from the purpura. There is also a strong proof from the Raavyah, in addition to several other proofs. This is therefore not merely a hypothesis of modern researchers.

Rav Elyashiv also writes that there were three identifications, with the middle identification being that of “researchers.” Apparently this refers to the Janthina identification attributed to Rav Herzog. But anyone who has read Rav Herzog’s English work knows that he never reached a firm conclusion in favor of it. Throughout much of his research, in fact, he leaned toward the Murex.

Similarly, Rav Elyashiv writes at the end that wearing Techeiles would negate the requirement that the tzitzis be the same color as the garment. But this view is brought in Shulchan Aruch only as a yesh omrim and as something practiced by the especially meticulous. The Rema apparently does not rule stringently on this at all.

Furthermore, the Malbim and the Chazon Ish both write that the requirement for the tzitzis to match the color of the garment does not apply to the two strings that correspond to Techeiles.

There are also comments to be made regarding the other points in the teshuvah, but this is not the place to elaborate where brevity was requested.

From all of the above, it would therefore appear that the correct factual background was apparently not presented to Maran [zt”l].

We will conclude with the words of the Levush:

“A person is obligated to wear Techeiles in his tzitzis every day if it can be found.”

And who can come after the king?

With great respect,

Yisrael Barkin