Main Text
(This article was written later.)
Just as there are three opinions regarding the number of Tekhelet threads—according to the Rambam, one out of eight; according to the Ra’avad, two out of eight; and according to Tosafot, four out of eight—so too, among those who wear Tekhelet, all three approaches exist within the community. However, the reasoning behind these rulings varies:
- Those who follow the Rambam do so because they consider the Rambam to be the greatest authority, or because they align with the views of the Ari z”l, his followers, and the maggid (heavenly guide) of the Beit Yosef, who also followed the Rambam. (Some also cite the Or Sameach, who claimed there is support for the Rambam’s position in the Jerusalem Talmud.)
- Those who follow Tosafot do so because they are Ashkenazim, and the majority of Ashkenazi Rishonim sided with Tosafot. However, they instruct Sephardim to either follow the Ra’avad or the Rambam. (Rabbeinu Chananel, Rav Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon, the Ramban, the Sefer HaChinuch, the Meiri, Rabbeinu Bachya, the sages of Lunel, the Ra’avad, and the Riaz all hold that there is only one thread of Tekhelet.)
- Those who follow the Ra’avad do so because the sources overwhelmingly support the Ra’avad’s position. This includes the Sifrei in Shelach Lecha, the plain reading of the Gemara, and all Midrashim and Aggadot—whether in the Gemara, the Zohar, or other Midrashim—which consistently mention only one thread. This directly opposes Tosafot. The Rambam’s position of dyeing half a thread is extremely difficult to accept, as it contradicts the straightforward understanding of all Gemarot. The only way to reconcile the Rambam’s position is to interpret it, with difficulty, as admitting that a full thread is also acceptable. Furthermore, nearly all Rishonim who hold there is only one Tekhelet thread believe it is a complete thread—whether those who preceded the Rambam, his contemporaries, or those who followed him (except for his closest disciples, such as his son Rabbeinu Avraham and Rabbeinu Perachyah).
Regarding the Rambam’s claim that Rav Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon held his view, we have Rav Shmuel’s writings, as cited in Rabbi Eliyahu Tavger’s Kelil Tekhelet. These do not provide evidence against the Ra’avad. Additionally, the straightforward interpretation of the verse and the general consensus of the Gemara align with the Ra’avad, as does the Gra’s ruling.
For example, a Midrash (Midrash Mishlei, Chapter 11, regarding Korach) states:
When Korach came home from the Beit Midrash, his wife asked him, “What new teaching did Moshe instruct you in the Beit Midrash?” He replied, “He taught us about the practice of Tekhelet.” She asked, “What is the practice of Tekhelet?” He answered, “This is what he explained: ‘I was commanded from the Almighty that you should make tzitzit on the corners of your garments, with one thread of Tekhelet, as it says: “And they shall place on the corner a thread of Tekhelet.”’”
In another version, following Tosafot represents a sectarian ruling. Following the Rambam reflects subservience to a particular perspective or mystical tradition. Following the Ra’avad reflects an original and grounded halachic decision.
We explained this at length in the article BeKanaf Ish Yehudi, analyzing these positions and why the teachings of the Ari z”l and the maggid of the Beit Yosef should not be followed. If their rulings stem from mystical revelations, we apply the principle, “The Torah is not in heaven” (Bava Metzia 59b; Tosafot ad loc.). If their rulings are based on halachic interpretation, their rulings rely on a mistaken version of the Ra’avad, as cited by the Kesef Mishneh, who misinterpreted the Ra’avad’s position as two threads of Tekhelet and two of white, rather than the correct version of two Tekhelet threads and six white threads.
The Kesef Mishneh led the Beit Yosef to conclude that the Ra’avad aligned with Tosafot and to assume that there was no distinct opinion from the Ra’avad. However, the Meiri (Yevamot 5a), the Aruch quoting Rabbeinu Chananel, the sages of Lunel, the Riaz, and the Gra all support the Ra’avad. The Bartinura and the SeMaG bring either Tosafot or the Ra’avad’s view, but not the Rambam’s. See Section 5, Subsection 4, which also cites evidence that Rav Amram Gaon, Rav Sar Shalom Gaon, and Rav Natronai Gaon disagree with the Rambam.
Those who follow the Or Sameach should see Section 5, Subsection 10, where it is demonstrated that his interpretation of the Jerusalem Talmud is highly questionable and does not align with the plain meaning of the text.
This article addresses the sectarian approach of ruling according to Tosafot for Ashkenazim and the Ra’avad or the Rambam for Sephardim. It argues that, in this case, such distinctions are inappropriate.
The practice of ruling differently for Sephardim and Ashkenazim arose because, in the regions of the Sephardi diaspora, they were more familiar with Sephardi Rishonim, while in Ashkenazi regions, they were more familiar with Ashkenazi Rishonim. This was based on the principle of following one’s primary teacher. This historical difference led to disagreements between the Mechaber and the Rema. Furthermore, established customs influenced rulings, as reflected in the principle that where halacha is uncertain, one follows the prevailing custom (Yerushalmi Pe’ah, Chapter 7, Halacha 5).
However, now that we have come to Eretz Yisrael, there are several reasons to eliminate these distinctions and decide based on the primary sources:
- Communities are now mixed, necessitating a unified ruling.
- In modern yeshivot, all Rishonim are studied equally—Ashkenazi and Sephardi—without preference for one tradition over another.
Nevertheless, this is difficult to achieve because it requires advanced scholarship, and the public may resist such changes. However, in the case of Tekhelet, which has been revived in our generation and lacks established traditions, we must rule based on the sources and reach an original, unified decision for all, rather than relying on customs from unrelated matters.
Therefore, the ruling should follow the primary sources, as determined by authorities like the Riaz and the Gra, who ruled independently of sectarian affiliations or communal customs.
Indeed, among the Rishonim, the Riaz already ruled decisively in favor of the Ra’avad’s position. The Riaz writes in Hilchot Ketannot:
“Most commentators say that half of the threads are white, and half are Tekhelet. Rabbeinu Moshe (the Rambam) says that seven threads are white and one is Tekhelet. However, this does not appear correct, as six threads are white and two are Tekhelet, as explained in Kuntrus HaRa’ayot, and this is also clear from the Sifrei.”
This is not merely a quotation of earlier views but a deliberate ruling, unlike some other Rishonim who present the position of Tosafot as students merely transcribing their teacher’s words.
See also the Chazon Ish (Yoreh De’ah, Siman 150, Se’if Katan 8, in a letter):
“Although we do not presume to decide between the Rishonim with absolute intellectual certainty, nonetheless, reasoned analysis often accompanies such decisions. Many times, Maran (the Beit Yosef) ruled in favor of one opinion because their reasoning was the clearest and resolved all difficulties.”
In Se’if Katan 10, the Chazon Ish elaborates on changes in the principles of halachic rulings. At one point, the Rambam was regarded as the primary authority in Eretz Yisrael. Later, this changed, and consideration was also given to other Rishonim. This is also a reason not to rule according to the Rambam, as he is a lone voice in this matter.
Original Hebrew Text: בראנד-הרב-יצחק-בדין-מספר-חוטי-תכלת-וסדר-הכריכות-והקשירה-www_techeiles_org-
