Compelling arguments to support Techelet

Question

I know a lot of arguments against the wearing Techelet from my research etc. and I would to now hear some arguments for the Techelet. Does anyone have any arguments that support the Techelet?

You may want to specify what you're talking about. Otherwise, I'm tempted to answer simply "Bamidbar 15:38." — Isaac Moses, Dec 25 '11 at 06:17
Have you looked at http://www.tekhelet.com/pub.htm ? Is there anything there in particular that you want a different answer to? — avi, Dec 25 '11 at 06:40
@issacmoses Well, it is impossible for me to wear Techelet because of what the Ben Ish Hai, Arizal, and Zohar say (see Ben Yehoyada Baba Mesia 61b). According to the Kabbala, the Techelet won't return until the Mashiah. This argument is mostly for Ashkenazim, not Sefardim. Also, because HaRav Musafi Shelita always uses the reason of "gedole hador" but sometimes I agree with people that that's not going to cut it. Because there are other Gedolim that say to wear. Whatever, I'm talking about the Petil Tekhlet specifically. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 15:28
Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/7554/why-is-techeles-not-universally-accepted — Double AA, Dec 25 '11 at 16:39

Double AA · Answer 1 · 2011-12-25T15:45:11.913

10

One argument is from Chazal's silence regarding animal dyes. Chazal spend much time lambasting Kalei Ilan (the plant based indigo), but never once complain about a fake animal based indigo (by 'indigo' I mean a dye that is the right color and does not fade). So either there was only one animal based indigo dye and that was it, or there were others, but all were kosher at least Bedieved as Techelet. Either way, if we can prove that Chazal knew about an animal based indigo dye, it must be kosher for Techelet. As this article points out, people were using the Murex to dye BLUE (not just purple) even before the times of Chazal, based on certain archaeological findings. If so, it is kosher. And if we have it, we should wear it because God said so!

edited Dec 25 '11 at 15:45

answered Dec 25 '11 at 07:42

Double AA

98,894
6
250
713

2

that's a great argument I never thought of or heard of before :) – avi Dec 25 '11 at 13:53
@DoubleAA I am arguing, with two arguments. Hazal didn't warn against the other Techelet because A) it would fade B) it would not be the same color. So it would be obvious that the other fake ones (fake animals) are no good. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 15:41
@H'Gabriel Those aren't arguments as much as clarifications. I've updated the answer accordingly. The logic, though, basically flows the same way. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 15:47
@DoubleAA I'm trying to say why Chazal wouldn't warn against something that is obvious. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 15:55
@H'Gabriel But if it was obviously wrong (ie wrong color) we would know so too! The murex dye does not look obviously wrong, hence they should have warned against it had it been pasul. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 15:58
@H'Gabriel your argument against makes little sense. There are three species of animals that people think might be Techelet. It's possible that all three are kosher if you are able to make them fulfill the requirements. If it's true that there is only 1 animal in existence that fits the requirements, then Murex is obviously the correct animal since its a snail used by Chazal to make blue dye. – avi Dec 25 '11 at 17:40
@avi We can't discount an undiscovered/hidden species from the equation. For those who hold it isn't coming back till mashiach, it makes some sense for the species to be hidden in the bottom of the ocean somewhere. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 17:56
@DoubleAA If there is only 1 option, then any animal we find which meet the criteria is by default the only option. And certainly, an animal we find that we see is used by chazal to dye things blue. Again, if only one option exists, then finding that chazal used an animal for dying things blue, means that it is by default the Techelet. If there are multiple options, then the fact that the gemora doesn't say anything means that they are all kosher. – avi Dec 25 '11 at 18:34
The murex btw, was undiscovered/hidden until recently. (the 1800s) – avi Dec 25 '11 at 18:35
@DoubleAA another question: how many times in history do we use NON-KOSHER ANIMALS to do Miswot? Why would this Misva be special to have an exception of using a non-kosher animal? Must be this murex isn't the correct one. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 18:58
1

@H'Gabriel What in the world is a Kosher Chilazon!?! Also, the Tachish was used in the Mishkan, and it wasn't kosher. – avi Dec 25 '11 at 19:16
Oh yeah, that snail...But its no a mitzva to cut things. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 19:25
1

@H'Gabriel Add to that the tolaat shani and peter chamor. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 19:27
@avi I agree with you that my argument covers the unknown species. I was just pointing it out because above you talked about the 3 species that people have suggested. That factor is irrelevant because a) it is not necessarily a conclusive list and b) it isn't necessary to prove the point. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 19:30
@DoubleAA ah, I see we misunderstood each other. I was using them as a 'worst case'. – avi Dec 25 '11 at 19:33
True, you got me. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 19:41
@avi according to Rashi the mixing of the chemicals would be Asur (I also know of the Rambam's opinion). Also, the Shulhan Aruch must also hold of the Zohar because he didn't write about things only when they pertained specifically to the Bet Hamikdash. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 19:50
1

@H'Gabriel The Shulchan Aruch does not discuss Yovel which has nothing to do with the mikdash. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 19:59
@DoubleAA that's a good question, but he also doesn't discuss Korbanot. So here's another question, why doesn't the S"A mention some specific things? – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 20:01
@H'Gabriel "according to Rashi the mixing of the chemicals would be Asur" I guess it's a good thing that the only thing that makes Murex blue is sunlight! – avi Dec 25 '11 at 20:03
1

@H'Gabriel Because they didn't apply! Neither Korbanot, Yovel nor techelet were around in the times of the Shulchan Aruch. But that doesn't mean they need to come back together. – Double AA Dec 25 '11 at 20:04
1

Sounds like your question about the S"A should be a seperate question. It really has nothing to do with this topic. – avi Dec 25 '11 at 20:04
@avi I heard a speech from Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz from YUTORAH.COM who says that they mix chemicals to make the Techelet (not the color) and I also saw a video called "the mystery of techelet" where they said chemicals are mixed in. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 25 '11 at 20:16
@avi as I just learned Murex is not from the kineret and therefore another disqualification. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14184&st=&pgnum=124&hilite= – Hacham Gabriel Dec 26 '11 at 04:47
2

@H'Gabriel The bavli Shabbat 26a says the hunters for chilazon lived along the Mediterranean coast. At best we have a machloket. At worst we have one person writing 1000 years after the loss of techelet and one person writing while wearing techelet. Either way, the Kinneret is so small that no species could be hiding in there and we know there is no species in there that makes a blue dye. If the chilazon ever spent time in the kinneret, it certainly is not there now. – Double AA Dec 26 '11 at 05:02
@doubleaa There are plenty Mahlokot between Kabala and Halacha (although I believe reading in the Nefesh HaHaim quoting the Gra that any dispute Halacha and Kabala is a misunderstanding). For example, Berachot 2:1 implies that one may learn mikra at night while based on the kabala of the arizal (as brought down in Kaf HaHaim Palagi) it is asur. Are you admitting that according to the Ariz"l it is not the correct Techelet? – Hacham Gabriel Dec 27 '11 at 03:49
1

@H'Gabriel No. I think R Chaim Vital would agree that this is techelet. I think he would explain it one of three ways: Either someone was misinformed, the chilazon moved, or most likely that there is a symbolic element about the chilazon relating to the kinneret, possibly in terms of it's connection to the Land of Israel. It is very clear that no fish currently lives in the kinneret that can give us a blue dye; I certainly don't think R Chaim Vital would argue with that fact. – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 04:20
@DoubleAA did you take every single fish/snail/etc. and check that using the method of the Arizal? We don't even know the method of the Arizal for making Techelet. You can't seriously believe that this Techelet fits according to ALL opinions. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 27 '11 at 04:25
@H'Gabriel First of all, it should be clear that I have never in my life picked up a single fish from the kinneret, let alone try to dye with it; I am simply standing on the shoulders of other yirei shamayim, and I think that they are highly qualified in their fields, much more so than you or I. Second, I can and do seriously beleive that this is the same techelet that Korach waved at Moshe. But it is important to realize that I admit I would have had no way of knowing this without all the research and work done by these other yirei shamayim over the last 150 years.... – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 05:51
1

In light of this, it should not offend anyone's sensibilities if every single rishon and achron who lived after the loss of techelet had the wrong idea about the chilazon. Now that's not to say that I think they all did! Certainly some mesorah stuck around regarding the color being blue and its being a maritime creature. But when you have contradictions between the rishonim and achronim, it shouldn't be so hard to say one got it wrong -- I would have too with the information they had! Now, there is value still in the texts anyway from two standpoints: ... – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 05:52
First, it's entirely possible and in some cases plausable that the rishonim were referring to some reality that has changed or at least we don't understand. Many times it's possible that a rishon reffers to some color and we don't understand his analogy properly or something like that. Second, it is part of our halachik masorah to read and understand the words of the rishonim. If a rishon thought that the chilazon lived in a mountain spring, we may know he is wrong, but he at least thought there was something to that, and understanding his reasoning contains Torah values.... – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 05:53
What was his hava amina? What evidence did he have? What message did he derive and impart from this fact? These are fundamentally important questions. So, do I think that all rishonim were at all times reffering to the murex having never seen one? Probably not. Do I think that they all were yirei shamayim trying to grapple with the reality that is Torah? Of course. Their thoughts and struggles are valuable in their own right. Would all the rishonim agree that Murex is the chilazon given the current evidence? I'd like to think so, but I can't prove it. – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 05:53
@DoubleAA as I said in my other question this would NOT fit according to the Arizal. There is no point of arguing that point. I'm not saying that the murex doesn't fit with any opinions (actually it fits with many) but specifically the with the Arizal it doesn't fit. And according to Sefaradim, if Maran doesn't write about something we follow Arizal. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 27 '11 at 15:13
1

@H'Gabriel Why would you follow the Arizal if he was wrong? Also, who said ancestry had anything to do psak in this case? Neither Ashkenazim nor Sephardim nor Teimanim have any mesorah in psak regarding how to deal with this case. None of us are tied to the poskim of a different country be it Spain or Germany. We (mostly) now live in the US and Israel. We do have to follow the psakim of the rabbis of our community who it so happens for the most part retained their previous minhagim. But that shouldn't affect uncharted territory. – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 20:00
1

Furthermore, I question your rule about paskining like the Arizal whenever Maran does not comment. Do you have a source for this? It seems a little far-fetched. Even Hacham Ovadya (who tries to always paskin like Maran) paskins against Maran regarding the timing of Bein HaShemashot in the case of a baby boy born 20 minutes after shkiya on Friday night (see Yabia Omer OC 7:41). We see that when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we can break rules of psak, al achat kamah vechama in the case of techelet for the reasons stated above. – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 20:01
1

So even if you are convinced that the Arizal would have rejected the murex had he known all the information that we do (which I am not), then I don't think that is halachically relevant for a Sephardi or an Ashkenazi. – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 20:01
It is relevant actually. According to the mainstream Sefardic opinion, when Maran doesn't say something practical- we follow the Arizal. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 27 '11 at 21:08
1

@H'Gabriel You just said that before. Did you read my comments? – Double AA Dec 27 '11 at 21:59
This is in the book Gevurat HaAri by Rabbi Yaakov Hilel, and yes I read the comments. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 27 '11 at 23:19
1

@H'Gabriel I'm afraid I don't see what you are trying to say. Who is Rabbi Yaakov Hillel? Can I find this book online? What does it say? How does it respond to what I wrote? This certainly doesn't sound like the mainstream Sephardi view. – Double AA Dec 28 '11 at 02:36
Rabbi Yaakov Hilel is considered the biggest Mekubal in the world today. This book is not found online. It is a book that brings down all opinions to when we follow the Kabala, and there he brings down the opinion that I wrote numberous times. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 28 '11 at 02:41
1

@H'Gabriel Then this confirms my suspicion that this is not the mainstream Sephardi view. It may be the kabbalistic view, but I'm pretty sure that kabbala is for kabbalists and not necessarily for the rest of us. Us common folk simply follow the words of the talmud and the halacha. So maybe for certain kabbalists, this rule would apply. I really can't comment about that. But for everyone else, I think my argument is quite sound. – Double AA Dec 28 '11 at 03:11
@DoubleAA I can't bring an exact source for this, but I think I remember Yalkut Yosef in Kitzur Shulhan Aruch (Rav Ovadia Yosef's son) writes this or something very similar. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 28 '11 at 03:15
@DoubleAA it is actually the method of the BET YOSEF! – Hacham Gabriel Jan 20 '12 at 03:31
@HachamGabriel I'm afraid it's been a while my friend :) Which method are you referring to? – Double AA Jan 20 '12 at 04:27
@DoubleAA that method that if the Rishon/Gemara doesn't directly pasken you go to the Zohar/kabala. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 20 '12 at 13:07
1

@HachamGabriel I don't see such a rule in the Hakdama of the Beit Yosef to the Tur. He says he goes by the majority of Rambam, Rif and Rosh. If one doesn't comment he goes to the schools of the Ramban and the Mordechai to get a third opinion. And if none of them comment he goes to "one of the famous sages whose opinion I brought down within" which seems to be referring to the large list of books he mentioned earlier that appear in the Beit Yosef. He doesn't mention kabbalah independently at all. – Double AA Jan 20 '12 at 15:37
@DoubleAA that is what it says in the sefer of Rav Yaakov Moshe Hilel (Gevurat HaAri). – Hacham Gabriel Jan 20 '12 at 15:47
1

@HachamGabriel Does he cite where the Beit Yosef said this? – Double AA Jan 20 '12 at 15:51
@DoubleAA I don't think he said it, but rather it was implied from his psakim. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 20 '12 at 15:51
1

@HachamGabriel I can't say I'm an expert, but I think it's very dangerous to extrapolate rules of psak from a posek onto other questions if he does not say them explicitly. There are too many factors going into each question to really derive a rule. It could be coincidence or a generally parallel weltanschauung. But that doesn't tell you how that posek would react to new cases. Every posek makes some exceptions so it's hard to really grasp their rules unless, again, they are explicitly told to you. – Double AA Jan 20 '12 at 20:11
@DoubleAA I understand your points, but I think Rav Yaakov Hilel knows what he's doing. And I also believe that he one time mentioned it in his pesakim. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 20 '12 at 20:26
The link no longer works. – magicker72 Sep 30 '16 at 00:54
@magicker72 I'm actually not sure what I intended to link to, but you can see examples of dug up murex-blue textiles at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/middleeast/28blue.html and http://tekhelet.com/wadi-murbaat-textiles-the-authentic-tekhelet-discovery/ Basically we know it's murex from the proportions of certain compounds in the dye. – Double AA Sep 30 '16 at 01:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63TCyKe2cY – Double AA Oct 31 '16 at 03:39
@magicker72 this is the textile i was thinking of originally i think, where you see clear contrast between blue and purple http://tekhelet.com/librarylisting/tekhelet-the-pazyryk-saddlecloth/ – Double AA Jun 21 '17 at 15:07

score 5 · Accepted Answer · edited Feb 05 '12 at 16:42

Numerous points were made here which need to be answered:

(1) Regarding the reasons we believe that the Murex trunculus is indeed the hillazon of hazal, please see my latest article: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/TekheletThreadsOfReason.pdf

(2) Regarding the Arizal's statement that after the hurban habayit tekhelet is no longer available, please see my article: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/HistoryMesorahNignaz.pdf

(3) Regarding the difference between Kela Ilan (Indigoferra tinctoria) and the Hillazon (the proposed Murex trunculus) - while the dyes today both produce the same color and are both fast to wool, in ancient times the dye processing most probably contributed to a difference in fastness; see http://tekhelet.com/pdf/testability.pdf

(4) Regarding chemicals, we use chemicals and indeed the Gemara itself says chemicals were used. For more on this, see: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/Sammanim1.pdf

(5) Regarding the Kinneret issue: Shlomo Moshe Scheinman (Solutions to Fundamental Problems Regarding Tekhelet) explains that the Kinerret is merely R. Yehuda's attempt to reconcile the fact that Zevulun, who is to be blessed with the hillazon, held that Zevulun’s territory did not get to the Mediterranean; but R. Acha in Zohar rejects this and holds that Zevulun did have Mediterranean access, so there is no need to postulate Kinneret.

http://emetlahacham.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/techelet-to-wear-or-not-to-wear/ Please see my post here. — Hacham Gabriel, Feb 05 '12 at 15:50
After the other post got deleted, I would like to welcome you to J.SE! Thank you for this answer. — Hacham Gabriel, Feb 05 '12 at 16:55

score 4 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 31 '13 at 17:07

Based on overwhelming physical evidence. and

1) We knew the color from the authenticated remains of קלא אילן that were found in Wadi Murabaat, and Hazal say that the two are indistinguishable.

2) The massive archaeological evidence that Baruch Sterman came up with was convincing.

3) Rabbi Moshe Tendler had said that if there are physical remains of a tradition, then one can't say the Mesorah was lost.

4) Rav Aharon Lichtenstein paskened that if you put techelet on your Tallis, you should say שהחיינו with a ברכה the first time you do so. This find confirms the truth in Rabbi Tendler's statement.

As an aside, while Rav Hershel Schachter doesn't eat Turkey because there's no Masorah on it, he does have תכלת in his tallis

How is 4 an argument to support Techelet? It's just reporting how one person Paskined. — Double AA, Oct 28 '16 at 18:03

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Dec 25 '11 at 18:32

Normally, I would not want to give mystical oriented answers on this site, since they can be easily misunderstood, and it's a topic that normally should only be discussed in person. However, since it was implied in the comments that mystical reasons are an argument against techelet, I will explain the real reason of why I DO wear techelet.

It says that only in the times of Moshiach will Techelet be revealed again.

The story of the Murex being the correct animal has the following history.

The first person to propose the idea was the first chief rabbi of in 1913 Israel. However, he was unable to make the dye blue, and so did not continue further.
In the 1960s a piece of fabric was found with a blue dye on Masada, however this piece of fabric was unknown and hidden in bins of artifacts until 2010.
In the 1980s the method to make the Murex dye blue was found.

Now, in the gemora in Sanhedrin, following a long list of statements about the age of Moshiach it says the following line (98a):

"R' Abba said: There is no clearere indication o the "end" than this, as it is stated: "But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and bear your fruit for My people Israel when they are about to come."

All the commentators say that this is the strongest proof for the times of Moshiach. The land will not produce fruit, but it will when the Jews come back to Israel.

Further (99a), Rav Shmuel says:

"There is no difference between this world and the Messianic Era except for Jewish independence from the dominion of foreign kingdoms."

(this is the opinion cited by Rambam)

Also cited in many places, is the fact that the "Times of Moshiach" will happen "bit by bit", and according to the Rambam, will happen naturally over time. Further, as cited in Daniel, and Isiah, the prophecies regarding the return of the Jewish people to Israel will become clear to those in that generation, even if they are not clearly understood in previous generations.

Now, in 1913, Israel was still fairly desolate. (see this picture here from 1917 of Tel Aviv)
In 1959, the new version of drip irrigation, which has preventive measures against dust and small particles, made it possible to use the technique in Israel, and in the 1960s, Israel started to make the "deserts bloom".
Then, in the 1970s and 1980s the movement to establish settlements and farms in the mountains and hills of Judea began in earnest, causing the prophecy of Isiah to be fulfilled without any doubt.
In 2010, the Jewish population of Israel (according to some counts), became the largest Jewish population in the world.

In other words, in accordance with the words of the Kabbalists, Techelet has returned to the Jewish people in the times of Moshiach, as defined by R Abba. (with no dissenting opinion recorded in the Messora)

All of the above (Except for the history and timeline, that is my own personal observations) is inspired by and parts taken from the sefer "Torat Eretz Yisrael" by Harav David Samson, based on the statements of Harav Tzvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook. If any of this isn't clear, I suggest reading that book where many many more sources are brought down to explain these ideas.

I'm sorry, no offense to you, but I think R' Yaakov Moshe Hilel Shelita knows this Gemara and every "kabbalistic proof" you can bring, but he still holds of that B"Y in B"M 61b. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 18:49
I want to write a Teshuva on this matter and I can't find any proof except "safek deorayta". I don't want to look like a fool by writing a Teshuva and not disproving ALL supporting reasons. I'm not dismissing you or Mossad HaRav Kook (I love their publications BTW) I am just taking Rav Yaakov Hilel OVER the rest. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 19:02
@H'Gabriel you clearly did not even bother to read my answer. — avi, Dec 25 '11 at 19:03
Does Rav Yaakov Hillel discuss the timeline of Techelet along with the timeline of the how Israel made the desert bloom? — avi, Dec 25 '11 at 19:04
I did, but I'm not looking for a counter to my answer of the Kabala, I'm looking for actual scientific/rabbinic proof. I'm not looking for someone to try and disprove my answer, just the other side. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 19:04
I'm not sure, I never read it inside, and I still can't find the source for his opposition to Techelet. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 19:05
Who said I'm trying to disprove anything? The REASON why I wear techelet, is because its a fulfillment of prophecy and statements of those who discuss the way in which it will be revealed. If you are not sure, then why did you respond as if he dissagrees with what I wrote!?! — avi, Dec 25 '11 at 19:05
I'm saying he obviously knows this Gemara and the Rambam and this whole calculation, and he still doesn't wear Techelet. What's the big deal? — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 19:12
Are you certain he knows the modern history? For all you know, he doesn't wear techelet because he doesn't want to burden his community with the price! — avi, Dec 25 '11 at 19:15
No, it's because of the Ben Ish Hai/Arizal I brought down. I read it somewhere. — Hacham Gabriel, Dec 25 '11 at 19:24
Since you are quoting the Rambam, it might be worth noting that he says the chilazon is a fish found in the Dead Sea. (Tzitzit 2(2)) — MichoelR, Apr 18 '21 at 20:09
@MichoelR all the meforshim of the Rambam understand Yam HaMelach in that halacha to mean the Mediterranean Sea. — Gershom Menachem, Jan 30 '23 at 01:54

Compelling arguments to support Techelet

4 Answers4

Linked

Related