String Ratios Discussed:
Tags:
Bottom Line
- The Rebbe Rashab disagrees with the Radzyner attempt to restore Techeiles, and he cites Kabbalistic sources such as Likkutei Torah and Pri Etz Chaim which state that, after the Churban, “we do not have Techeiles.” This Kabbalistic aspect is a major part of the letter and is often emphasized in Chabad discussions of the subject. However, the Rebbe Rashab does not understand it to mean that the mitzvah itself was abolished. He explicitly writes that Techeiles remains a continuing mitzvah and that, if we are able to fulfill it, “it would seem that we are required to do so.”
- Much of the letter explains the deeper Kabbalistic reason for the disappearance of Techeiles. According to the Rebbe Rashab’s reading of the Arizal, Techeiles corresponds to a higher spiritual hamshachah (“spiritual influence (hamshachah)”) associated with Chochmah d’Imma which, after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, can no longer generally be drawn down in its original form. Thus, the post-Churban situation is not merely a physical loss of the dye or chilazon; it also reflects a change in the spiritual level accessible to Klal Yisrael. Nevertheless, the Rebbe Rashab explicitly states that this diminished spiritual effect does not by itself exempt one from the mitzvah if authentic Techeiles can actually be obtained.
- He develops this point through the example of shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos. The Rebbe Rashab explains that there are different levels of the spiritual influence associated with Shabbos: the ordinary level of Shabbos is present automatically, while the higher level of “Shabbos Shabbason” is ordinarily brought down more fully through shofar. In later generations, that higher level could no longer be drawn down in the same manner outside the Mikdash, even though the Torah obligation of shofar itself remained. Chazal could therefore suspend shofar on Shabbos because of an additional halachic concern. He suggests a similar framework for Techeiles: after the Churban, the full spiritual hamshachah associated with Techeiles is no longer generally accessible, but this alone does not cancel the mitzvah; an additional halachic basis would still be necessary to explain why it should not be practiced.
- The Rebbe Rashab even suggests that the Tannaim and Amoraim who continued to use Techeiles after the Churban may have been capable of drawing down its authentic spiritual effect because they themselves were on the level of a “Mikdash” — a dwelling place for the Shechinah. This reinforces his distinction between earlier generations capable of attaining that spiritual level and the ordinary post-Churban condition in later generations.
- The Rebbe Rashab therefore raises practical halachic concerns as well. He mentions the possibility of kilayim when Techeiles is used on garments not properly suited for the mitzvah, particularly if Techeiles were to become widespread among people who might not know the relevant halachos. At the same time, he questions whether the Radzyner identification had actually established the authentic chilazon and the correct dyeing process.
- He also rejects the idea that Techeiles disappeared from Klal Yisrael merely because it became too expensive or difficult to obtain. He argues that Gedolei Yisrael went to extraordinary lengths to obtain other mitzvah objects when necessary, and would presumably have done the same for Techeiles. In his view, the historical disappearance of Techeiles therefore points to a genuine loss of knowledge concerning either the chilazon, the dyeing process, or both.
- The letter’s central distinction is therefore between whether the mitzvah still exists, whether its original spiritual effect remains accessible, and whether authentic Techeiles had actually been recovered. The Rebbe Rashab holds that the full Kabbalistic hamshachah associated with Techeiles is generally no longer available after the Churban, but he expressly states that this fact alone does not remove the mitzvah. If genuine Techeiles is available, he writes that it would seem one is obligated to use it. His disagreement with Radzyn therefore also turns on whether the claimed Techeiles had actually been established as authentic and on the additional halachic and historical considerations he raises.
Main Text
A response from the Baal Lulaos HaTecheiles, R’ Shlomo Taitelbaum
ב”ה יום ב’ כ’ שבט תרס”ט לפ”ק וירצבורג
כבוד הרה”ג המפורסם נודע בישראל שמו לתהילה ולתפארת מעוז ומשגב יראת ד’ אוצרו כש”ת מו”ה מרדכי יוסף אליעזר ליינר
אחד”ש כת”ר שי’. את ספרי כבוד אביו הרח”צ ז”ל אשר כבדני בהם כת”ר קבלתי באהבה, וגודל ת”ח לכת”ר שי’ ע”ז כי מכבר רציתי לראותם אך כי על עצם הענין א”א לי להסכים. יען כ”ק אדמו”ר זצוקללה”ה נ”ע בלקו”ת בהביאור דוהי’ לכס לציצית דרוה”ב פ”ב תפס בפשיטות כהפע”ח דבזה”ז אין תכלת. ובדרוש הנ”ל כתב כ”ק אאזמו”ר זצוקללה”ה נ”ע כי ע”ז וז”ל ועמ”ש ע”פ מדלג כו’ ומקפץ דילוג ברגל אי בחי’ אהבה זהו לבן שבציצית קפיצה בשתיים אהוי”ר תכלת, ונודע דיראה בקושי יותר להשיג עכ”ל. ובדרוש קול דודי הנה זה בא מדלג כו’ בלקו”ת שה”ש פ”ד מבואר דבחי’ מקפץ על הגבעות זהו בחי’ הגילוי דלעתיד שיהי’ קול חתן וקול כלה כו’. ועמש”ש בהביאור דעל כל כבוד חופה בסופו.
מ”ש בע”ת פרט ג’ ס”א דלפי דעה זו כו’ ממצות תפילין של ראש מטעם זה. לפי דעתי בעניינים אלו אין לדמות מלתא למלתא ואין לנו אלא מה שנאמר בהם, ולפע”ד דהמשכה דתפילין בכלל הוא מבחי’ החסדים (כי היות דבתש”ר כתיב וראו כל עמי הארץ כו’ ויראו ממך, ובעבודה תשייר כענין שמו”ע בחי’ יראה וביטול, אך ההמשכה מלמעלה הוא הארתו נעשה ע”י מעשינו, בבחי’ חסדים כנלע”ד. ועמ”ש מענין וראו כו’ ויראו כו’ בפע”ח שער תפילין פ”ב) ועמ”ש בלקו”ת שח”ש ד”ה שימני כחותם וביאורו. ותכלת בחי’ גבורות דאבא, וידוע דהגבורות שרשן למעלה מהחסדים. וההמשכה היא בבחי’ תגבורת העצמות, ועמ”ש בלקו”ת בהביאור דשחורה אני פ”ה בענין מ”ש בזהר בראשית דנ”א ע”א ועל נהורא חוורא שרי’ לעילא נהורא סתימאה כו’.
והנה לפמ”ש בפע”ח דלאחר החורבן אין לנו תכלת כי אין אנו משיגים בחי’ הציצית דמוח חכמה דאימא, ומ”מ נמשכין מאליהן ומתלבשין בציצית דמוח בינה דאימא, בלתי ספק הוא לפמ”ד אשר בהזמן שאחר החורבן נגזר שהיי’ התכלת מ”מ לא היתה ההמשכה יותר ממה שנמשך אח”כ כשלא נמצא התכלת. כי במקדש תליא מלתא דבזמן שבהמ”ק קיים נמשך ג”כ בחי’ חכמת דאימא (י”ל לפי שבחי’ חכמת דאימא עילאה לכן נמשכו כל המדרגות דבחי’ בינה ג”כ חכמת שבה, וממ”ש אכן יש ה’ במקום הזה משמע דבבהמ”ק היי’ גילוי בחי’ חכמת ג”כ אוא”ס שלמעלה מהחכמה אלא שהיי’ בבחי’ אופן שזהו ע”י החכמה כמ”ש במ”א. ובבית שני ג”כ שחסרו ה’ דברים בחי’ ה’ עילאה, מ”מ בבהמ”ק עצמו להיותו שער השמים הי’ ביכולת להמשיך שם כל ההמשכות כמ”ש במ”א. ועמ”ש בלקו”ת בדרושי ר”ה דיו”ט של ר”ה פ”ה דגם בב”ש נמשך בחי’ בינה כמו בב”ר רק התחלקות הוא בגבולין, אך א”כ הי’ צ”ל ג”כ בזמן בית ההמשכה האמיתית דתכלת רק במקדש לא בגבולין. ואפשר הכוונה בפע”ח מ”ש בזמן שבהמ”ק קיים היינו בבית ראשון, ואיך שיהי’ אחרי שתלה הדבר במקדש נראה דאז דוקא הי’ אמיתית ההמשכה הזאת) אבל לאחר החורבן א”א להמשיך כ”א מבחי’ בינה דאימא לא למעלה מזה. לזאת גם כשהי’ תכלת ודאי לא היתה ההמשכה יותר מעכשיו (ועמ”ש לקמן) ומ”מ גם זאת א”א לומר דמשום זה יפטר ממצות תכלת, דודאי המצוה היא מצוה תמידית וכשיש ביכולתינו לקיימה נראה שאנו צריכים לקיימה.
אמנם ממ”ש בפע”ח שער הציצית תוך פ”ד וז”ל והנה די ציצית שאנו נוהגין אחר החורבן כו’ וכולן לבנים כי אין צריך לחבר עמהן את התכלת כו’ וכ”כ אח”כ ואין צריך אל התכלת להשלים המספר. מלשון זה משמע דא”צ עתה למצוה דתכלת וזה תמוה. וי”ל דמ”ש אין צריך היינו לענין השלמת המספר להדי’ ציצית דבחי’ בינה דאימא. ומה שאין התכלת נוהג בזה”ז העיקר הוא מפני שא”א לנו להמשיך בחי’ הציצית דחכמת דאימא. וגם עפ”י זה להשלמת המספר דליב חוטין דציצית דבינה דאימא א”צ לתכלת. לכן אינו נוהג. אך נ”ל להעיר ע”ז מענין תקיעת שופר בשבת דתנן במשנה פ”ד דר”ה דבמקדש היו תוקעין אבל לא במדינה, ובגמרא הטעם משום גזירה דרבה. דבאמת הדבר פלא לדחות מ”ע משום חשש רחוק כ”כ וכמו שהקשה ע”ז בלקו”ת בדרושי ר”ה בד”ה להבין המשנה. והתירוץ מבואר שם דלהיות בשבת בלא”ה יש המשכת האור שממשיכים ע”י השופר וממילא אינו נצרך לשופר, ומ”מ מן התורה מצוה וחיוב לתקוע ג”כ כשחל בשבת, מבואר שם, מפני שיש כמה מדריגות בבחי’ התענוג. וע”י השופר נמשך תענוג עליון יותר אשר מובדל בערך מהמשכת התענוג דשבת. ולכן צריכים שופר מן התורה בשבת ג”כ, אך רבנן דחו מ”ע זו בשבת בזמן בית שני לפי שאין ביכולתינו להמשיך ההמשכה האמיתית הנמשך ע”י השופר, ומ”מ במקדש היו תוקעין גם בבית שני דלהיותו שער השמים הי’ יכול להיות בו גילוי הנ”ל אבל לא בגבולין (עפ”ז י”ל בענין התכלת שנת”ל דנראה שאחר החורבן ג”כ שהי’ תכלת מ”מ לא נמשך ההמשכה האמיתית דתכלת היינו הציצית דבחי’ חכמת כו’, י”ל דתנאים ואמוראים שהיו אחר החורבן הנה הם עצמם המשיכו בחי’ ההמשכה האמיתית, להיות שהיו בבחי’ מקדש ומכון לשבתו ית’ וכמארז”ל בתוכו לא נא’ אלא בתוכם בתוך כאו”א כו’ והמה ודאי היו במדריגה זו) ובמ”א מבואר להיות שיש שבת ושבת שבתון בחי’ שבת עילאה, ובחי’ זו מאיר בשבת רק בבחי’ מקיף, ועמ”ש בלקו”ת ד”ה את שבתותי תשמרו ובהביאור. וע”י השופר נמשך ג”כ בחי’ זו בבחי’ פנימיות ולכן מצוה מה”ת לתקוע גם כשחל בשבת. ובבית שני נדחה מפני שגם ע”י השופר א”א להמשיך בזה”ז מדריגה הנ”ל בבחי’ פנימיות. ובחי’ שבת תתאה נמשך בלא”ה ג”כ בשבת בטבעיות. ומ”מ במקדש היו תוקעין רק הנ”מ היא בגבולין כנ”ל. ומה שתלו בתקיעת שופר בחשש שמא יטלנו כו’ יספיק כאן החשש דכלאים שלא במקוס מצוה, ובפרט בט”ק דכמה אנשים פשוטים נושאין שלא מצמר, ואם יהי’ ענין התכלת דבר השוה לכל נפש (אשר כן צ”ל אם נחשוב זה לחיוב) הוי חשש לא רחוק שיבוא לידי איסור כלאים. וה”ז ממש כמו שאמרו לענין תקיעת שופר, הכל חייבים בתק”ש ואין הכל בקיאין כו’.
גם הדבר הזה לתלות סיבת בטולה מכל ישראל גם מיחידי סגולה משום יוקר מציאותה של תכלת, קשה לקבל, ושמעתי אשר בימי כ”ק אדמו”ר זצוקללה”ה נ”ע הי’ באיזה אמן מלחמות גדולות בעולם והי’ חשש שלא יהיו אתרוגי איי גענאווא, ורצה כ”ק אדמו”ר זצוקללה”ה נ”ע לשלוח שליח מיוחד לאיי גענאווא להביא לו אתרוג, ואיך לא היו משתדלים גדולי ישראל בכל תוקף ועוז להשיג התכלת. ואם כי אינו דומה לאתרוג דבתכלת צריכים לידע אמיתת הדבר שזה תכלת האמיתי. מ”מ ודאי לא היו מניחים ידיהם מלהשתדל בהשתדלות יתירה להשיג החלזון או לידע אמיתת הצביעה. ובפרט לפי מה שהעלה שגם אם אינו תכלת האמיתי אינו מפסיד.
כפי שמצוייר החלזון במאמר פ”ת כמדומה לי ברור שראיתיו זה כעשרים שנה מלפנים באקוואריוס דברלין. ראיתי חי קטנה והיא מוריקה לעתים מיץ שחור שמשחיר את המים סביבה. ולפי שלא עלה על דעתי שזה יהי’ החלזון, לא שמתי לבי לעיין על כל פרטיו.
והשי”ת יעזור לנו לקיים מצותיו יתברך ויתן בלבינו לעבדו בלב שלם ונזכה לביאת מ”צ במהרה בימינו, ונעשה לפניו כמצות רצונו ית’.
והנני חותם מעין הפתיחה בתודה לכת”ר שיחי’ על הספרים בענין התכלת וס’ סדרי טהרות ויתר הספרים והשי”ת יעזור לנו להבין ולהשכיל בתורתו ית’ ונבוא אל עמקי סודותיה ולא ימושו מפינו ומפי זרעינו וזרע זרעינו עד עולם.
ויקבל כת”ר החוח”ש והברכה מאת”ד ויהי נועם ה’ עליו ויראה טוב באחב”י כנפשו הטהור וכעתירת ידידו המוקירו ומכבדו כערכו הרם והנשא.
Footnotes
נדפסה ביגדיל תורה חמ”ב סי’ סג, מכתי”ק (1167) בנו כ”ק אדמו”ר מוהריי”צ נ”ע ,העתק מכתב כבוד קדושת אאמו”ר שליט”א”.
כבוד . . אליעזר: ליינער האדמו”ר מראדזין, בנו של האדמו”ר רבי גרשון חנוך, מחבר הספרים שפוני טמוני חול; פתיל תכלת; עין התכלת (ועוד) שעליהם דו לקמן.
התשובה דלקמן נזכרה ע”י כ”ק אדמו”ר שליט”א בעת סעודת יום א’ דפסח תשכ”ז, וראה ס’ נשיאי חב”דובני דורם ע’ 98 ובהנסמן בהערות שם.
בלקו”ת . . פ”ב: שלח מה, ד: ולפי שתכלת מוחין דאבא ולבן מוחיז דאימא לכן בזה”ז אין תכלת לפי שלגודל מעלתו שהוא מבחי’ אבא א”א לירד בזמן הגלות.
ובדרוש הנ”ל: נדפס באוה”ת במדבר (כ”ה( ע’ איתריא, והוא בגוכתי”ק אדמו”ר הצ”צ )1039 פד, א
בע”ת: =בעין התכלת קלב, ב: ולפי דעה זו יש לנו לפטור גם ממצות תפילין של ראש מטעם הזה שאין
ושמעתי כו’: השוה לעיל אגרת כז (בסופה), ובהנסמן בהערות שם.
English Translation
A response from the Baal Lulaos HaTecheiles, R’ Shlomo Taitelbaum
B”H, Monday, 20 Shevat 5669, Würzburg
To the honored and renowned Gaon, whose name is known throughout Klal Yisrael for praise and distinction, a stronghold of yiras Hashem, the distinguished R’ Mordechai Yosef Eliezer Leiner,
After inquiring after the welfare of His Honor: I received with appreciation the sefarim of your honored father, the Rav HaTzaddik z”l, which you were kind enough to send me, and I am very grateful to His Honor for them. I had wanted for some time to see them. However, regarding the basic matter itself, I am unable to agree.
This is because the Rebbe, zt”l, in Likkutei Torah, in the biur on “Vehayah lachem letzitzis,” Chapter 2, takes it as a given, following the Pri Etz Chaim, that nowadays we do not have Techeiles. In that maamar, my holy ancestor, zt”l, writes regarding this as follows: “See what is written on the possuk ‘medaleg… u’mekapetz.’ Skipping with one foot represents the level of ahavah, corresponding to the white of tzitzis; jumping with both represents ahavah and yirah, corresponding to Techeiles.” It is known that yirah is more difficult to attain. And in the maamar “Kol Dodi hinei zeh ba, medaleg…” in Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, Chapter 4, it is explained that the level of “mekapetz al hageva’os” refers to the gilui of l’asid lavo, when there will be “kol chassan v’kol kallah,” etc. See also what is written there at the end of the biur on “Al kol kavod chuppah.”
Regarding what is written in Ein HaTecheiles, Part III, §1, that according to this view the same reasoning could be applied to the mitzvah of tefillin shel rosh: In my opinion, with matters like these we cannot simply compare one inyan to another. We only have what was actually stated regarding each matter.
It appears to me that the hamshachah “spiritual influence (hamshachah)” of tefillin in general is from the level of chasadim (the spiritual quality of chesed/kindness (chasadim)). Although regarding tefillin shel rosh the possuk says, “And all the nations of the earth will see… and they will fear you,” and in avodah tefillin shel rosh corresponds to Shemoneh Esrei, the level of yirah and bittul, nevertheless the hamshachah from Above, the illumination brought down through our actions, is from the level of chasadim, as it appears to me. See also what is written regarding “v’ra’u… v’yar’u” in Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar HaTefillin, Chapter 2.
See also Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, the maamar “Simeni kachosam” and its biur. Techeiles, however, is from the level of gevurot d’Abba, and it is known that the shoresh of gevurah is higher than that of chesed. Its hamshachah comes from the aspect of the increased revelation of the Etzem. See also Likkutei Torah, in the biur on “Shechorah ani,” Chapter 5, regarding what the Zohar says in Bereishis 51a, that above the white light rests a hidden light, etc.
Now, according to what is written in Pri Etz Chaim, after the Churban we no longer have Techeiles because we are unable to reach the level of the tzitzis of the moach of Chochmah d’Imma. Nevertheless, those lights are drawn down on their own and are enclothed within the tzitzis of the moach of Binah d’Imma.
It therefore seems certain that according to the view that Techeiles continued to exist for some time after the Churban, the hamshachah at that time was nevertheless no greater than what was later drawn down once Techeiles was no longer available. The whole matter depends on the Beis HaMikdash. While the Beis HaMikdash stood, the level of Chochmah d’Imma was also drawn down. One could explain that since Chochmah d’Imma is a higher level, all of the levels of Binah, including its Chochmah, were then drawn down as well.
From the possuk “Achein yesh Hashem bamakom hazeh,” it would seem that in the Beis HaMikdash there was even a revelation of Chochmah, and indeed of the Ohr Ein Sof above Chochmah, although it was revealed in a manner connected with Chochmah, as explained elsewhere. Even in the Second Beis HaMikdash, although five things were missing, corresponding to the upper hei, nevertheless the Beis HaMikdash itself was the “Shaar HaShamayim,” and therefore all hamshachos could be drawn down there, as explained elsewhere.
See also Likkutei Torah in the derushim for Rosh Hashanah, in the maamar “Yom Tov shel Rosh Hashanah,” Chapter 5, where it is explained that even during the Second Beis HaMikdash the level of Binah was drawn down as it had been during the First Beis HaMikdash; the difference was only outside the Mikdash. If so, however, one would seemingly have to say that even while the Beis HaMikdash stood, the true hamshachah of Techeiles existed only in the Mikdash and not outside it. Perhaps what Pri Etz Chaim means when it says “when the Beis HaMikdash stood” is specifically the First Beis HaMikdash. In any case, since it makes the matter dependent on the Mikdash, it would appear that only then did this true hamshachah exist.
After the Churban, however, it is impossible to draw down more than the level of Binah d’Imma and not anything higher. Therefore, even when Techeiles still existed, the hamshachah was certainly no greater than it is now. See further below.
Nevertheless, one cannot say that this would exempt us from the mitzvah of Techeiles. The mitzvah is certainly an ongoing mitzvah, and when we have the ability to fulfill it, it would seem that we are required to do so.
However, in Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar HaTzitzis, in Chapter 4, it says: “The tzitzis that we practice after the Churban… are all white, because there is no need to join Techeiles together with them…” And afterwards it again says, “There is no need for Techeiles in order to complete the number.”
The wording here seems to indicate that nowadays there is no need for the mitzvah of Techeiles, which is difficult to understand. Perhaps when it says “there is no need,” it means specifically that Techeiles is not necessary in order to complete the number of the tzitzis corresponding to Binah d’Imma. The main reason Techeiles is not practiced nowadays would then be that we cannot draw down the level of the tzitzis of Chochmah d’Imma. And according to this, Techeiles is also unnecessary for completing the thirty-two strands corresponding to the tzitzis of Binah d’Imma. Therefore it is not practiced.
Still, I think there is something worth pointing out here from the inyan of blowing shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos. The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 4, says that in the Mikdash they would blow shofar, but not outside the Mikdash. The Gemara explains that this was because of Rabbah’s gezeirah. In truth, it is surprising that a mitzvas aseh should be pushed aside because of such a remote concern, as Likkutei Torah asks in the Rosh Hashanah derushim, in the maamar “Lehavin HaMishnah.”
The answer explained there is that on Shabbos the light ordinarily drawn down through shofar is already present, and therefore the shofar is not needed for that hamshachah. Nevertheless, min haTorah there is still a mitzvah and obligation to blow shofar even when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos. The reason, as explained there, is that there are many levels within the aspect of taanug. Through shofar, a much higher taanug is drawn down, one completely beyond the level of taanug that comes from Shabbos itself.
Therefore, min haTorah, shofar is required even on Shabbos. The Rabbanan, however, set aside this mitzvas aseh on Shabbos during the time of the Second Beis HaMikdash, because we no longer had the ability to draw down the true hamshachah that comes through shofar. In the Mikdash itself they nevertheless blew shofar even during the Second Beis HaMikdash, because, being the Shaar HaShamayim, that higher gilui could still be revealed there. Outside the Mikdash, however, it could not.
Based on this, perhaps the same can be said regarding Techeiles. As explained above, it would appear that even after the Churban, while Techeiles still existed, the true hamshachah of Techeiles — the tzitzis of the level of Chochmah, etc. — was no longer generally being drawn down. Perhaps the Tannaim and Amoraim who lived after the Churban were themselves able to draw down the true hamshachah, because they themselves were on the level of a Mikdash, a dwelling place for Hashem. As Chazal say, the possuk does not say “I will dwell within it,” but “within them” — within each and every Jew. Those great people were certainly on this level.
Elsewhere it is explained that there is Shabbos and there is Shabbos Shabbason, corresponding to the higher level of Shabbos. This level shines on Shabbos only in a makif manner. See Likkutei Torah, the maamar “Es Shabsosai tishmoru” and its biur. Through shofar, however, this level is also drawn down b’pnimius, and that is why min haTorah there is still a mitzvah to blow shofar even when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos.
During the Second Beis HaMikdash this was set aside because, in that time, even through shofar we could no longer draw this higher level down b’pnimius. The lower level of Shabbos, by contrast, is drawn down naturally on Shabbos in any case. Nevertheless, they still blew shofar in the Mikdash; the difference was only outside the Mikdash, as explained above.
Now, just as the mitzvah of shofar was suspended because of the concern that someone might carry it, etc., the concern here regarding shaatnez when there is no mitzvah would be sufficient as well. This is especially so with a tallis katan, since many ordinary people wear garments that are not made of wool. If Techeiles were to become something practiced universally — as it would have to be if we consider it an actual obligation — then the possibility that people could come to violate the issur of shaatnez is not a remote concern. This is much like what Chazal said regarding shofar: everyone is obligated in tekiyas shofar, but not everyone knows how to blow it, etc.
It is also difficult to accept that the reason Techeiles disappeared from all of Klal Yisrael, including the yechidei segulah, was simply because it became expensive or difficult to obtain. I heard that in the days of the Rebbe, zt”l, there was a period of major wars in the world, and there was concern that esrogim from the islands of Genoa would not be available. The Rebbe, zt”l, wanted to send a special shaliach to Genoa to bring him an esrog. How, then, could the Gedolei Yisrael not have made every possible effort to obtain Techeiles?
It is true that the comparison to an esrog is not exact, because with Techeiles one first has to know with certainty that this is indeed the real Techeiles. Nevertheless, they certainly would not have simply given up. They would have made extraordinary efforts either to obtain the chilazon or to determine the true method of dyeing, especially according to what His Honor has concluded — that even if it were not the genuine Techeiles, wearing it would not cause a loss.
Based on the way the chilazon is pictured in the article on Ptil Techeiles, I am fairly certain that I saw one about twenty years ago in the Berlin Aquarium. I saw a small one alive, and from time to time it released a black liquid that darkened the water around it. Since it never occurred to me that this might be the chilazon, I did not pay close attention to all of its details.
May Hashem help us fulfill His mitzvos, place within our hearts the desire to serve Him wholeheartedly, and may we merit the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu speedily in our days, when we will serve Him exactly as He desires.
I conclude as I began, with thanks to His Honor for the sefarim on the subject of Techeiles, for the sefer Sidrei Taharos, and for the other sefarim. May Hashem help us understand and gain insight into His Torah, reach the depths of its secrets, and may the words of Torah never leave our mouths, the mouths of our children, or the mouths of our children’s children, forever.
May His Honor accept my warmest wishes and blessing. May the pleasantness of Hashem rest upon him, and may he see goodness among our Jewish brethren according to the desire of his pure soul.
With the heartfelt prayers of his friend, who esteems and honors him according to his lofty stature.
English Footnotes
-
נדפסה ביגדיל תורה חמ”ב סי’ סג, מכתי”ק (1167) בנו כ”ק אדמו”ר מוהריי”צ נ”ע ,העתק מכתב כבוד קדושת אאמו”ר שליט”א.
This letter was printed in Yagdil Torah, volume 42, siman 63, from the handwriting of his son, the Rebbe Rayatz, n”e, copy number 1167: “A copy of the letter of my holy father, shlit”a.”
-
כבוד . . אליעזר: ליינער האדמו”ר מראדזין…
“Moreinu HaRav Mordechai Yosef Eliezer” refers to Leiner, the Radziner Rebbe, son of the Rebbe Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, author of Sefunei Temunei Chol, Ptil Techeiles, Ein HaTecheiles, and other seforim.
-
התשובה דלקמן… סעודת יום א’ דפסח תשכ”ז…
The response below was mentioned by the Rebbe at the seudah of the first day of Pesach, 5727 (1967). See Nesi’ei Chabad U’Bnei Doram, page 98, and the sources cited in the notes there.
-
בלקו”ת . . פ”ב: שלח מה, ד…
-
The citation to Likkutei Torah is to Parshas Shelach, 45d: Since Techeiles is mochin d’Abba (intellectual faculty of Chochmah), and lavan is mochin d’Ima, (Binah) therefore in our time there is no Techeiles, because due to its great level, being from Abba, it cannot descend in the time of galus.
-
ובדרוש הנ”ל… אוה”ת במדבר (כ”ה)…
The maamar mentioned there was printed in Or HaTorah, Bamidbar, volume 25, page 11,301, and is in the original ksav yad of the Tzemach Tzedek. (manuscript reference 1039, leaf 84a).
-
בע”ת: =בעין התכלת קלב, ב…
“Ein HaTecheiles” refers to page 132b: “According to this view, we should also exempt ourselves from the mitzvah of Tefillin Shel Rosh for this reason…” (i.e., because of the high level of its kedushah).
-
ושמעתי כו’:…
The story he says he heard should be compared to the earlier letter 27 at the end, and to the sources cited in the notes there.
Additional Comments
Rabbi: Gershom Baraza
Context Behind Letter
A fuller context behind the letter, which was a response to a letter we have no access to, has been offered by Gershom Baraza here. This is a rough draft which will bli neder have a more polished version later.
Kabbalastic Concepts from the Letter explained:
1. The Sefiros and the Spiritual Worlds
In Kabbalah, Divine light flows through 10 Sefiros — channels or traits of G-dliness. These are divided into three intellectual and seven emotional qualities. Two important names:
Abba (Father) = Chochmah (Wisdom)
Imma (Mother) = Binah (Understanding)
Each of these has inner components: every Sefirah includes a full set of 10 Sefiros inside it.
So Imma (Binah) contains:
Chochmah of Imma
Binah of Imma
Daas of Imma
…and so on.
2. Tzitzis and Techeiles: What They Represent
Tzitzis are not just strings — they’re channels for drawing Divine light into the world.
White strings are connected to love and accessible spiritual light.
Techeiles draws from a much higher place — Divine awe, strength, and hidden wisdom.
This level requires a Temple, or at least people of immense spiritual caliber.
3. Why Techeiles Isn’t Fully Practiced Today (According to Kabbalah)
After the Churban (Destruction of the Temple), we lost access to Chochmah of Imma, which is the source of techeiles.
We are only able to receive spiritual influence from Binah of Imma — white tzitzis.
Therefore, the full spiritual function of techeiles isn’t operative in our time.
4. The Role of the Beis HaMikdash (Temple)
The Beis HaMikdash was “Sha’ar HaShamayim” — the gateway to Heaven.
Even in the Second Temple, though some spiritual levels were missing, the Mikdash could still access Chochmah-level light.
Outside the Mikdash, those levels could not be drawn down — unless someone was a Tzaddik on the level of a personal Mikdash.
5. Shabbos Tata’ah vs. Shabbos Ila’ah — The Two Shabbos Levels
Kabbalah teaches that Shabbos comes in two layers:
Normally, Shabbos Ila’ah only shines as an outer “surrounding light” (makif).
But through tools like the shofar, it can become internal (pnimi).
In the Mikdash, they blew shofar even on Shabbos because that higher light was accessible.
Outside the Mikdash, Chazal suspended shofar on Shabbos due to the risk of carrying — since the higher light wasn’t reachable anyway.
6. Halachic Risk: Kilayim (Forbidden Mixtures)
If techeiles were reintroduced today as a widespread obligation, many people might:
Wear it on garments that aren’t 100% wool (e.g., cotton), risking shatnez violations.
Wear it improperly or without intent, diminishing its sanctity.
This concern is similar to why shofar was restricted on Shabbos — to prevent mistakes among the masses.
7. Historical Observation: Why Didn’t Gedolim Chase After Techeiles?
The author notes that during his grandfather’s time, Gedolim sent messengers to distant lands just to secure etrogim during wartime.
Yet, they didn’t show the same urgency for techeiles.
Suggestion: They may have sensed spiritually that the mitzvah’s inner light wasn’t fully available, even if the dye could be produced.
8. First-Hand Observation of the Chilazon
The author recalls seeing a sea creature in the Berlin Aquarium 20 years earlier:
Small, living, emitted a black fluid that darkened the water.
At the time, he didn’t suspect it was the chilazon.
This possibly refers to Murex trunculus, which aligns with many Rishonic and modern descriptions.
9. Closing Blessing
The letter ends with heartfelt thanks for the seforim and a prayer:
That Hashem help us understand His Torah deeply,
That we reach the inner secrets of His will,
And that Torah never departs from us or our children, forever.
Conclusion
The letter presents a nuanced Kabbalistic position:
Spiritually, the ideal form of techeiles requires levels that may no longer be accessible.
Practically, the mitzvah may still apply — but with caution.
The author doesn’t reject techeiles outright but explains why it was suspended historically.