V'Nasnu Al Tzitzis HaKanaf Psil Techeiles, "And they shall place
upon the Tzitzis of the corners a thread of turquoise wool".
Bamidbar 15:38
The Mitzvah to include a strand of Techeiles among the other white
strands of the Tzitzis was performed by the Jewish People until the
hardships and suffering of our exile in the Diaspora caused the
identity of the fish from which this dye was produced to be
forgotten.
The Rambam, as well as other Rishonim, maintain that the absence of
Techeiles does not preclude one from performing the Mitzvah of
Tzitzis. It is this opinion that has traditionally been followed by
all of Klal Yisrael throughout the centuries, whereby, we perform
the Mitzvah by using only the white strands. (It should be noted
that the Ba'al HaMaor, however, maintains a dissenting opinion that
since we do not have Techeiles today we cannot correctly perform the
Mitzvah of Tzitzis.)
In the 1880's, the Gaon and Tzaddik of Radzin, Rav Gershon Henach
Leiner ZT'L, (1839-1891), publicized that he had rediscovered the
Chilazon, the fish identified by the Sages as containing the
integral ingredient necessary to produce the Techeiles dye. The
Radziner Rebbe approached many of the contemporary Halachic
authorities to elicit their agreement and gain support. He also
wrote a number of brilliant Halachic Sefarim to promote his
position, in addition to having devoted many years to arduous
historic and scientific research.
One great Posek of the time, the Brezhaner Rav, Rav Sholom Mordechai
Schwadron zt"l, was positively inclined towards accepting the
Radziner Rebbe's findings, and went so far as to direct in his will
that he be buried in a Talis that had the Rebbe's Techeiles .
Ultimately, the broad consensus of the Gedolei Hador was neither to
accept his findings, nor to consider them Halachicly binding.
Among the Torah giants the Radziner Rebbe approached, was the
venerable Sage and Tzaddik, Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik zt'l author
of, and colloquially known as, the Bais HaLevi.
Although the Bais HaLevi rejected the new Techeiles, he did not
directly rebut Rav Gershon Henach's Tshuvos L'Halachah, (Halachic
exegesis), or scientific findings. Instead he based his position on
a critical fundamental of Jewish faith; namely, Mesorah, or
tradition.
The Torah tells us in Parshas Haazinu, (Devarim 32:7), Sh'al Avicha
V'yagedcha Zkenecha V'yomru Lach, "Ask your father and he will tell
you, your elders and they will relate to you".
The Bais HaLevi explains that this Pasuk teaches us that all the
Halachos in our Torah must be based on an unbroken tradition passed
down through the generations. For example, the only way to identify
the Lulav that we use on Succos as being the correct species is by
relying on tradition and the knowledge that our ancestors performed
the Mitzvah in this fashion since the days of Moshe Rabbeinu. The
Bais HaLevi therefore concluded that since there is no uninterrupted
Mesorah that indicates that this is the correct Techeiles, there is
no compelling reason to accept it. He went even further by
brilliantly contending that since the sea creature the Radziner
Rebbe presumed to be the Chilazon was readily available to our
ancestors for generations, and despite this, they never used it to
produce Techeiles, this would constitute a reverse tradition that it
is not the true Chilazon since our forefathers did not use it!
The Bais HaLevi also pointed to the Midrash in this week's Parsha (Midrash
Rabbah 17:5) that states clearly that the Techeiles will be Nignaz,
or hidden, as opposed to being Ne'evad or simply lost. This
indicates that the loss of the Techeiles is not incidental, but is
the direct result of a Heavenly decree that it no longer be
available to us until such time as HaShem Yisborach Himself reveals
it to us once again.
The Gaon of Vilna zt'l as well as the Chasam Sofer zt'l both point
out that the Pasuk only uses the word L'Dorosom, (throughout their
generations), in reference to the Mitzvah of Tzitzis in general but
not in regards to the Mitzvah of Techeiles. This indicates that the
Techeiles was destined to be lost and not be used 'throughout their
generations'.
(This actually provides an answer to a question posed by the Torah
Temimah in this week's Parsha. He asks, if the purpose of Techeiles
was to remind us of our duty to Hashem, [as the Gemarah Menachos 43b
tells us that its color is similar to the sea, the sea to the sky,
the sky to HaShem's Throne of Glory, to evoke the fear of Heaven],
why, then, did Chazal disqualify the use of Kala Ilan, (believed to
be indigo), a commonplace dye, as a substitute to the extract of the
Chilazon fish? Since Kala Ilan is of the identical color and hue as
the dye extracted from the Chilazon, it would also evoke the same
desired images leading to the fear of Heaven? Although the Torah
Temimah's question can be answered in various ways, one Yishuv,
(solution), can be that since Chazal knew that the Techeiles was
elusive and destined to be lost by Divine decree, (as the above
mentioned Midrash states, and as well being indicated by the Vilna
Gaon's and Chasam Sofer's explanation of 'L'Dorosom' ), it was
evident that Kala Ilan could not be the genuine Techeiles, as its
prevalence and availability clearly demonstrated.)
May we merit the revelation of the Techeiles, along with the ability
to perform the many other Mitzvos that our exile prevents us from
performing, with the arrival of Moshiach Tzidkeinu Bimherah
V'Yameinu Amen.
A response from a reader:
Dear Editor,
I am writing you in response to Rabbi Avrohom Stolzenberg’s article on Parshat Shlach (June 9, 2007) wherein he discusses the mitzvah of tekhelet specifically with reference to its status today. Strangely, this article could have been published any time from the late 1880’s till the early 1980’s, before the candidacy of the Murex trunculus took on significant proportions.
The Murex trunculus was originally discussed by R. Herzog in his 1913 doctoral dissertation; however it wasn’t until the early 1980’s, when Prof. Otto Elsner discovered how to consistently produce blue dye from it, that it became the focal point of significant halachic and scientific research. This modern research has resulted in a vast amount of literature in these areas (see www.tekhelet.com/pub.htm), not to mention the fact that with each passing month, the dye from the Murex trunculus becomes more and more widely accepted by Jews from every sector of the Jewish people.
Regarding the points raised against the Radzyner’s dye, great emphasis was placed on the Beis Halevi’s response, specifically on the issue of mesorah. The article related that the Beis Halevi: “went even further by brilliantly contending that since the sea creature the Radziner Rebbe presumed to be the Chilazon was readily available to our ancestors for generations, and despite this, they never used it to produce Techeiles, this would constitute a reverse tradition that it is not the true Chilazon since our forefathers did not use it!” This argument, of course, works in favor of the Murex trunculus, because it was lost to humanity, by the most conservative estimates, for over 400 years.
Indeed the Beis Halevi’s response concludes as follows: “Only after it has become clear to us that this fish or the dyeing process ceased and was forgotten at any time during all this time, and therefore that the transmission was interrupted, only then will the halachic evidence serve as proof.”As such, the Beis Halevi would obligate the use of halachic evidence in the face of the broken mesorah. (For a treatment of the subject of mesorah and halacha see R. Twerski, “Identifying the Chillazon”, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society: http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/tw01.pdf; and R. Rappaport’s article “Simanim, Mesoret and the Identifying the Hillazon”: http://www.tekhelet.com/doc/ra01.doc).
Regarding the point that the tekhelet was “nignaz”, this term was applied to the era following the destruction of the Temple, though tekhelet was clearly available during the time of the Gemara. R. Tikochinsky thus explains: “Therefore it is understood that only during the time of the Temple it was found in abundance, following which it was nignaz, not that it was stored away completely, but that it was found less frequently.” (For a treatment of this subject see my article, “On History, Mesorah, and Nignaz”: http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/HistoryMesorahNignaz.pdf)
Finally, though it was pointed out that there is an indication that the tekhelet would be lost “throughout the generations”, the Yeshuot Malko (O.H., 2) indicated that tekhelet will be revealed as a harbinger of the Messiah, that is, tekhelet will be revealed before his arrival. Thus, though no one knows precisely when the Messiah will be revealed, it is incumbent upon man to do everything possible to bring his advent. Striving to fulfill all the mitzvot in the Torah, in their complete form, is indisputably (San. 97b) the ideal way to achieve the goal of creation, bimheira v’yameinu.
Mois Navon
Ptil Tekhelet Organization
mois@tekhelet.com
www.tekhelet.com
NCYI's Weekly Divrei Torah Bulletin is
sponsored by
the Henry, Bertha and Edward Rothman Foundation -
Rochester, New York; Cleveland, Ohio; Circleville, Ohio
