The Approach of Our (Chabad) Rabbeim Regarding Techeiles Today – Rabbi Isser Zalman Weisberg

The Approach of Our Rabbeim Regarding Techeiles Today

Rabbi Isser Zalman Weisberg
Lakewood, NJ

For over twenty years, a group in Eretz Yisrael has publicized their claim to have discovered the chilazon mentioned in the Torah and to have identified a method for producing kosher techeiles for tzitzis. Thousands of Jews, including many prominent talmidei chachamim, have started wearing talleisim, both large and small, with this techeiles.

Before getting into the details of whether their claim is valid and whether there’s an obligation—or at least an inyan—to wear this techeiles, it’s crucial to clarify the perspective of our Rabbeim regarding the possibility of rediscovering techeiles in our time.

We begin with a letter from the Rebbe in 5718 (published in Igros Kodesh, vol. 17, p. 233, and later in Shulchan Menachem on the halachos of tzitzis):

Regarding the chilazon and techeiles in practical terms for tzitzis nowadays: It’s well known that there was a great commotion and opposition to this idea, both in nigleh and from the gedolei olam, when this innovation was first proposed by the Radziner Rebbe. Furthermore, the Rebbe Rashab unequivocally rejected this innovation. While I don’t have his exact letter on hand, I recall that he wrote based on kabbalistic sources that techeiles will only be relevant in the times of Moshiach.

The Rebbe concludes: “We follow only the words of the Rebbe Rashab.” He adds a reference to Sukkah 32b, where it says that Rav Eliezer was meticulous about certain practices “because it came from (הואיל ונפיק) the mouth of Rav Kahana.”

At first glance, this needs clarification. What relevance does the principle of “because it came from…” have here? Since the Rebbe Rashab unequivocally rejected the Radziner techeiles, we have a clear ruling that we are not to use it.

The concept of “because it came from…” in the Gemara applies to cases where the rav agrees the practice is valid b’dieved (see Sukkah 32b). It seems the Rebbe sometimes used this idea metaphorically to describe scenarios where our Rabbeim followed a practice that, while technically acceptable, was more of a chumra or a departure from established custom. However, in this case, wearing techeiles offers no enhancement according to the Rebbe Rashab’s view, as he “did not agree to this innovation in any way.” Moreover, the Rebbe Rashab’s opposition was not unique, as most gedolei Yisrael at the time also rejected the Radziner techeiles, and it was not widely accepted among Klal Yisrael. If so, why did the Rebbe introduce the concept of “because it came from…” here? It would have been sufficient to state that since the Rebbe Rashab clearly ruled against it, that’s the end of the matter.

Consider this: Would it make sense to say that Chabad Chassidim should refrain from being stringent with Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion about the end of Shabbos because it came from the mouth of the Alter Rebbe that we don’t follow this view? Obviously, invoking “because it came from…” is entirely unnecessary when the Alter Rebbe explicitly dismissed Rabbeinu Tam’s view as “against observable reality and an unfathomable wonder.” For us, his ruling is final, and there’s nothing more to discuss.

The letter from the Rebbe Rashab referenced by the Rebbe is found in Igros Kodesh of the Rebbe Rashab, Letter 158, and more recently in She’eilos u’Teshuvos Toras Shalom (Kehot, 2013), Siman 1. To fully understand the intent, we will quote the relevant parts of the letter in order.

This letter was written in the year 5667 (1907) to Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Eliezer, the son of the Radziner Rebbe (the Ba’al HaTecheiles). The Ba’al HaTecheiles, Rabbi Gershon Chanoch Henoch, had passed away in 1891. The letter reads as follows:

“I received with love the seforim of your esteemed father, the righteous and holy man of blessed memory, which you graciously sent me… However, on the actual matter of techeiles, I cannot agree. This is because my Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe, of saintly and blessed memory, writes in Likutei Torah (Shlach, p. 45d) when explaining the verse ‘And it shall be for you as tzitzis,’ that he holds straightforwardly, like the Pri Eitz Chaim,[1] that in our times there is no techeiles.”

The Alter Rebbe writes explicitly:

“Since techeiles corresponds to the mohin d’Abba (wisdom of the divine mind), while white corresponds to the mohin d’Imma (understanding), therefore, in this time, there is no techeiles. Its lofty level, rooted in mohin d’Abba, cannot manifest in the time of exile.”

The Rebbe Rashab continues:

“It is beyond doubt, in my opinion, that after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, even though techeiles existed, its spiritual impact was no greater than what was later achieved after it was no longer available. This is because the matter is dependent on the Beis HaMikdash. When the Beis HaMikdash stood, it was possible to draw down the aspect of Chochma d’Imma. However, after the destruction, it is only possible to draw from the aspect of Binah d’Imma, and no higher. Thus, even when techeiles existed, it certainly did not achieve more than it does now.”

Despite this, the Rebbe Rashab adds:

“Nevertheless, it cannot be said that this exempts us from the mitzvah of techeiles. Certainly, the mitzvah is a perpetual obligation, and when it is within our capacity to fulfill it, it seems we are required to do so.”

The Rebbe Rashab then draws an analogy from the mitzvah of blowing the shofar on Shabbos:

“It states in the Mishnah at the end of the fourth chapter of Rosh Hashanah that in the Beis HaMikdash they would blow the shofar on Shabbos, but not in the provinces. The Gemara (29b) explains the reason is because of Rabba’s decree: ‘[Everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, but not everyone is proficient in it. The concern is that one might carry the shofar to an expert for instruction, violating the prohibition of carrying four amos in the public domain.].'”

This shows that practical considerations and halachic safeguards can influence the fulfillment of even a Torah-level mitzvah. Similarly, questions about techeiles today must take into account both its spiritual role and practical halachic concerns.

It is truly remarkable that a positive mitzvah could be set aside due to such a distant concern, as the Likutei Torah raises regarding the blowing of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbos (Likkutei Torah, Rosh Hashanah, Lehavin HaMishnah, 56a). There, it explains that on Shabbos, the light that is usually drawn through the shofar is already drawn through the sanctity of Shabbos itself, making the shofar unnecessary. Nevertheless, in the Beis HaMikdash, they would still blow the shofar, even during the Second Temple era, because as the “gateway to heaven,” it was capable of revealing such spiritual light, unlike in the provinces.

Based on this, one could suggest a similar idea regarding techeiles: that after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, even though techeiles was still present, its full spiritual impact (hamshacha) was not realized. The tzitzis with techeiles, which represent the level of Chochma, could no longer achieve its proper effect. However, the Tannaim and Amoraim who lived after the Churban themselves were able to draw down this level of holiness, as they were akin to a Beis HaMikdash—a resting place for the Shechinah.

As for the concern about carrying the shofar on Shabbos, it is paralleled here by a concern about kilayim (forbidden mixtures) in non-mitzvah contexts. This is particularly relevant for a tallis katan, which some simple people wear made from non-wool materials. If techeiles were to become common and widely accessible, there is a tangible risk that people could inadvertently violate the prohibition of kilayim. This is exactly akin to what the Gemara states regarding shofar: “Everyone is obligated to blow the shofar, but not everyone is proficient…”

Regarding the claim that the mitzvah of techeiles has been abandoned by all of Klal Yisrael—even by the elite—due to its rarity and expense, [2] this is difficult to accept. I have heard that during the lifetime of the Rebbe, the Alter Rebbe, there was a period of great wars in the world, and there was concern that the esrogim of Genoa would be unavailable. The Rebbe sent a special emissary to Genoa to obtain an esrog. How, then, could the gedolei Yisrael not have exerted similar effort to acquire techeiles, with utmost diligence, or at least to investigate the authenticity of the dye? Especially since, even if the dye were not genuine techeiles, no harm would result from using it.

This raises a difficulty: On the one hand, the Rebbe Rashab wrote that he could not agree with the Radziner Rebbe’s claim, citing the Alter Rebbe’s straightforward adoption of the Pri Eitz Chaim that there is no techeiles in our times. This suggests that, since the Arizal stated there is no techeiles nowadays, the Radziner Rebbe must not have discovered the authentic techeiles.

On the other hand, the Rebbe Rashab also references the Gemara, which proves that techeiles was used by the Tannaim and Amoraim even centuries after the Churban—approximately five hundred years! Techeiles was available in the time of the later Amoraim, as stated in Menachos (43a): “Mar from Meshan brought techeiles in the days of Rav Achai.”

Furthermore, the Rebbe Rashab explicitly writes:

“It is beyond doubt that even after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, while techeiles may have existed, its spiritual impact was no greater than what is achieved today without it.”

This creates a contradiction: If it is clear that techeiles was in use centuries after the Churban, how can this align with the statement that the Arizal ruled there is no techeiles in exile, thereby invalidating the Radziner Rebbe’s claim?

The Rebbe Rashab also adds:

“Nevertheless, it cannot be said that this exempts one from the mitzvah of techeiles. The mitzvah is perpetual, and when it is within our ability to fulfill it, it seems that we are obligated to do so.”

This raises another question: What is being added here? If he already ruled that techeiles cannot be authentic in our time, how can he imply an obligation to fulfill the mitzvah when possible?

The continuation of the discussion explains that the Tannaim and Amoraim who used techeiles even after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash were able to draw down the spiritual level of Chochma d’Imma through their wearing of techeiles because they themselves embodied the sanctity of a Beis HaMikdash. Based on this, one could argue—though it is a forced explanation—that techeiles could indeed exist even during a time when its spiritual essence could not be fully realized. The reason techeiles was accessible during the era of the Mishnah and Gemara was that there were tzaddikim then who were on the level of the Beis HaMikdash. In our time, however, where tzaddikim on that level are no longer present, it is logical to conclude that techeiles cannot be found.

However, this raises a significant difficulty. How can one base facts on the teachings of the Arizal to assert definitively that techeiles cannot be found in exile? Just as there was a reason for techeiles to exist during the era of the Mishnah and Gemara, there could also be a reason for it to be rediscovered in our time, as the Gaon of Kutno pointed out in his response to the Radziner Rebbe (Shu”t Yeshuos Malko, Siman 2): “Perhaps the redemption is beginning to shine.”

The letter then draws an analogy to blowing the shofar on Shabbos, which was suspended due to Rabba’s decree, even though the concern was quite remote. Just as a weak halachic reason suffices to suspend the positive mitzvah of shofar on Shabbos (since according to Kabbalah, no new spiritual light is drawn on Shabbos from the shofar after the destruction of the First Beis HaMikdash), similarly, a weak reason suffices to refrain from the mitzvah of techeiles in our times, since no spiritual essence is drawn through it today. The concern is that simple people might use techeiles inappropriately, such as attaching it to linen garments in situations where it is not a mitzvah (e.g., night garments or garments lacking the required size).

This parallels the concern regarding shofar, where Chazal were worried that a simple person might mistakenly think it is permissible to carry the shofar in a public domain on Shabbos to learn how to blow it.

That said, it is perplexing to suggest that a rabbinic decree was issued forbidding the use of techeiles in our time, as there is no mention of such a decree in the writings of Chazal, the Geonim, or the Rishonim. Furthermore, why do we even need this rationale? The Rebbe Rashab already concluded that since the Arizal stated there is no techeiles in our times, it is impossible to find it. Why, then, do we need an additional reason not to wear techeiles?

The simplest understanding is that the Rebbe Rashab’s intent is not as many have understood—that since the Arizal ruled there is no techeiles in our time, it is categorically impossible to find it or rediscover the dyeing process. Therefore, the Radziner techeiles cannot be authentic.

This cannot be correct for several reasons. First, techeiles was known to exist hundreds of years after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. Thus, even in exile, there can be circumstances where techeiles exists.

Moreover, it seems straightforward that one cannot use the teachings of the Arizal to establish halachic conclusions. If techeiles is identified according to halachic principles, it cannot be dismissed solely based on the Arizal’s statement that there is no techeiles in our time.

The Rebbe Rashab’s intent becomes clear at the end of his letter, where he quotes the Radziner Rebbe’s explanation for why techeiles was not pursued by Klal Yisrael, even by the elite, throughout the generations. The Radziner Rebbe suggested that the high cost and difficulty of obtaining it was the reason. To this, the Rebbe Rashab responds that this is difficult to accept, as the gedolei Yisrael would surely have exerted tremendous effort to obtain techeiles, just as the Chabad Rebbeim did to acquire mehudar esrogim from Genoa during times of great war and difficulty. This effort was for hiddur mitzvah alone, as other esrogim were not considered invalid. Certainly, then, the gedolei Yisrael would have gone to great lengths to obtain techeiles.

This aligns with what was written earlier: Although there was never a formal enactment or decree prohibiting the wearing of techeiles, the practical concern that it could lead to mistakes was sufficient to deter the gedolei hadoros from exerting themselves “with all their might” to find techeiles.

It seems that the Rebbe Rashab, like most gedolei Yisrael of his time, was entirely unconvinced that the Radziner Rebbe had identified the authentic chilazon. [3] The Radziner’s approach lacked sufficient evidence to firmly establish the identity of the chilazon, as well as a clear explanation of the dyeing process and the necessary mixture of components. Nevertheless, it would appear that the Rebbe Rashab, at the very least, should have taken an interest in the matter and investigated it further. After all, when a respected Torah scholar raises an important issue, it warrants serious consideration. (The same could be said regarding the other gedolei Yisrael whom the Radziner Rebbe and his son reached out to.)

This is where the Rebbe Rashab introduces a key insight: There is neither an obligation nor even an enhancement (hiddur mitzvah) to dedicate time and energy to this matter. Since, according to Kabbalah, techeiles is irrelevant in our times, and according to halacha, there are concerns about potential errors, the principle of shev v’al ta’aseh adif (better to refrain than to act) applies.

The conclusion is that the Rebbe Rashab was not categorically opposed to wearing techeiles in our time. Rather, he maintained that we are not obligated to involve ourselves with this issue or delve into it. If this understanding is correct, the implication is that now that techeiles has been rediscovered by others in a way that is rational and compelling, there is no basis to categorically dismiss it as false or claim it is definitely not authentic. Nothing in the Rebbe Rashab’s writings supports such an assertion, as he never ruled that it is absolutely impossible for techeiles to be rediscovered in our time.

On the contrary, the Rebbe Rashab explicitly wrote:

“It cannot be said that because of this [i.e., the Arizal’s statement that after the Churban we lack the ability to access techeiles, as we only grasp up to Binah d’Imma], one would be exempt from the mitzvah of techeiles. Certainly, the mitzvah is perpetual, and when it is within our ability to fulfill it, it seems that we are obligated to do so.”

This sheds light on why the Rebbe introduced the concept of “ho’il v’nofik mipumei…” (because it emerged from the mouth of…). We wondered earlier why this concept was necessary when we already have an explicit ruling that techeiles cannot exist in our time. Based on the above, it is now clear that the Rebbe Rashab never definitively stated that techeiles does not exist. Rather, he argued that we should not pursue it or invest effort in it. Since even the Rebbe Rashab acknowledged the possibility that the Radziner Rebbe was correct and that the techeiles he found was kosher for the mitzvah, there would be, at the very least, an element of hiddur mitzvah in wearing it.

The Rebbe was thus emphasizing that the hiddur of “because it emerged from the mouth of…” outweighs the potential hiddur of wearing [4] the Radziner techeiles. The Rebbe Rashab himself refrained from wearing the Radziner techeiles not because he categorically rejected its authenticity, but because he was unconvinced that it was genuine and chose not to dedicate time to investigate further, as explained earlier. [5]

However, the techeiles that has been discovered recently is an entirely different type, and our Rabbeim never refrained from wearing it simply because it was not available. [6] Therefore, the concept of “ho’il v’nofik” (because it emerged from the mouth of…) does not apply when discussing this techeiles, as no ruling can be derived regarding it. As for the idea of refraining from engaging in the search for techeiles altogether, there is no need for such hesitation, as it has already been rediscovered and is almost certainly authentic, as will be explained, G-d willing, on another occasion. Therefore, in my opinion, the Rebbe Rashab’s statement applies here: “Certainly, the mitzvah is a perpetual obligation, and when it is within our ability to fulfill it, it seems that we are required to do so.”

Furthermore, it is clear from the many sichos kodesh delivered during 1991–1992 that a new era began at that time in the development of the geulah. While the precise definition of this era according to the Rebbe’s view is subject to discussion, [7] its uniqueness is undeniable. The numerous signs indicating the nearness of the geulah and the emphasis on intensifying preparations for it were repeated many times in the Rebbe’s sichos during those years.

Who can say that the rediscovery of techeiles during that exact time—after being concealed for approximately 2,500 years—is not one of the signs of the geulah and a preparation for it?

And is there any more fitting fulfillment of the Rebbe’s directive during that period to “begin living with the geulah” than to fulfill a Torah mitzvah that has been inaccessible to us for most of our exile—one that, according to the teachings of the Arizal, is deeply connected to the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash, may it be built speedily in our days?

Buy the Chumash: The Gutnick Edition - All in one - Synagogue Edition Today!

Available in: US | CA | UK | FR