Recently I have been looking into the "Efrat" tcheilis which has come onto the market in the past 7-8 years. It appears almost 100% positive that this techeiles (the snail kind, and not the Radzyner's squid, which has long been discredited) is the genuine item. I have asked a number of poskim both in YU and from Agudah kehillos and each has given me the same answer that it is certainly techeiles;
The only question they raised was whether we can wear techeiles without a mesorah. Now, this is very hard to understand because even though minhag oker halacha, the "minhag" not to wear techeiles was only because we didn't have it.
Aside from that, the gemarah says clearly that there is no prohibition of kala ilan (indigo) if there is a chance that it is real techeiles, and the Maharil paskened that we cannot wear linen tzitzis begadim today even though the whole takana was from a chashah of fake techeiles, because someone will find techeiles eventually and re institute it (this despite the Rosh, who permitted linen begadim since techeiles was unknown in his times, because that takanah was never nimnu in beis din and falls off when the reason is gone).
So, why, aside from price, (which is significant!) are people not flocking to be mekayem techeiles k'hilchoso? Surely if you can spend 100 dollars on an esrog you can afford $90 for a pair of Rambam tcheiles tzitzis, or 130 for tosafos! Many of the Rebbeim in YU have started wearing it, but even in circles where YU is looked down on, why aren't people interested in this mitzvah?
MODERATOR Posted - 13 May 2003 21:57
The Arizal says that techeiles only applies during the days of the Bais Hamikdahs. Rav Elyashev shlita wrote a lengthy, as-yet unpublished teshuva (as far as I know) about today's techeiles to Rav Feivel Cohen, explaining at length why we do not use it. The Arizal is one of the reasons he brings.
The Arizal is difficult to understand: what does the bais hamikdash have to do with techeiles?
There is an explanation on this by the Satmar Rav ZTL: Chazal say that the value of the techeiles color is that "techeiles is similar to the sea, which is similar to the sky, which is similar to Hashem's throne of glory." But Chazal also say that "since the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed, the sky has not been seen in its pure color". Ergo: Techeiles is no longer "similar to the sky" and therefore no longer similar to Hashems "throne of glory" after the churban.
PS -- The description of traditional Orthodox as "Agudah" types is an error found only among Modern Orthodox Jews. The Agudah is an askonus (lay) organization. They do not describe a movement in Orthodoxy.
jewboy2000 Posted - 15 February 2004 11:12
I believe that the Ari'zal said that techelet is only relevant in the times of the Beis Hamikdash, but that doesn't make sense 2 me. If this was so then why did the writers of the Mishna and the Talmud still wear techelet. A close reading of Menachos Perek Hatecheiles shows that they did. Please clarify.
MODERATOR Posted - 15 February 2004 11:27
I would imagine the reason is due to the fact that, as I mentioned above, the reason the Arizal said that because the entire institution of Techeiles is based, as Chazal say, on the idea that the techeiles is similar in appearance to the sky, which is similar in appearance to the Kisei Hakavod (and therefore by viewing the Tzitzis we will remember the Mitzvos). But after the Churban, the sky changed its appearance and is no longer similar in appearance to the Kise Hakavod.
However, the Gemora says that whether the sky changed its appearance since the days of the churban is a machlokes between the amorayim:
Brachos 59a: "Rav Yehoshua ben Levi says, if someone sees a clear sky, he makes the brachah oseh maaseh berrishis. And this disagrees with Rafram bar Papa, for Rav Chisda said in the name of Rafram bar Papa, since the bais hamikdash was destroyed, the clear sky is no longer able to be seen."
So the Arizal's statement is subject to a dispute among the Amorayim, which he rules like Rafram bar Papa, against RYB"L.
Thus, if there will be other Tamudic sages who used Techeiles, they would agree with RYB"L, arguing with Rafram bar Papa. We pasken like Rafram, against RYB"L, so it would not be a problem.
jewboy2000 Posted - 16 February 2004 12:50
thanx, its all cleared up, but i do wear techeiles, so am i doing the mitzvah in the fullest sense, or is it accomplishing nothing?
MODERATOR Posted - 16 February 2004 16:21
You're accomplishing nothing. And perhaps worse than nothing. Because if the great Tzadikim avoided using Techeiles because the Arizal says that nowadays its useless, to say you know better, or that you're more frum than them, is foolishness and arrogance.
jewboy2000 Posted - 20 February 2004 12:43
No, in no way am I trying 2 be greater than the Ranbam or the Gra, or any other great scholar who didn't use techeiles. but I mean there are many modern rabbis who do wear techeiles, the Radziner Rebbe wore his techeiles, and many prominent YU rabbi, and many prominent Israeli rabbis have begun 2 wear techeiles, why can I not follow their example.
And even if I'm not fulfilling the mitzvah isn't it still a good reminder of the mitzvah, Menachos says that false techeiles doesn't disqualify the tzitzis so what's the problem, cant i still remember the original halacha by wearing a blue thread in my tzitzit?
MODERATOR Posted - 20 February 2004 13:02
The Radziner Rebbe's Techeiles is not the same as yours.
As for the YU rabbis and the rest, what I am saying indeed disagrees with them. That's precisely what Rav Elyashev said - they are wrong. And he, being much greater than all of those Modern Rabbis, says its useless to wear the Techeiles, meaning, no, don't follow their example.
You're not "remembering" a Mitzvah by faking it - it would be kinda like painting tefillin on your arm and saying well, I don't wear Tefilin all day so this will remind me of the Miztvah. All you're doing is painting a picture of techeiles on your Tzitzis. And yes, Klall Yisroel for many generations has not been interested in wearing Techeiles, as Rav Elyashev said, due to the Arizal. If they - and he - don't think you're accomplishing anything by wearing it, then for you to say you are is foolish.
And there's a Mitzvah not to be foolish.
And who says there's a Mitzvah to "remember" the Techeiles anyway? Whats the deal with that? We're doing things l'zecher nishmas the Mitzvah? The Torah says that by having knots and strings equal to 613 we remember all Taryag Mitzvos by looking at our Tzizis. So whats with this business of making blue strings out of nowhere and "remembering" techeiles?
Why don't you tie a string around your finger to remind you of, I dunno, the Mitzvah of Eglah Arufah that we don't do nowadays?
Uh uh. the issue is simply whether halachicly this is techeiles, and if so, are we supposed to wear techeiles nowadays? This "remembrance" of Mitzvos is meaningless.
For the record, one of those modern rabbis is going around dismissing the Arizal because, as noted above, some sages in the Gemora after the churban wore techeiles. The fact that they use such reasoning - that the Arizal doesn't count based on what you see in the Gemora - is itself a reason not to follow them. We cant dismiss the words of the Arizal because we think we know better. Just because they cant think of an answer to the Arizal doesn't mean someone else can't. Bishvil kushya lo yishtaneh hadin - the Halachah doesn't change because you don't understand it.
(And even were we to accept their challenge to the Arizal, it is satisfactorily answered, as per above. So no more problem with the Arizal and the Gemora.)
Rav Shach ZTL writes regarding a certain issue, that if the Chazon Ish didn't think there is any reason to do it, and that doing it doesn't benefit you in any way, someone who thinks he knows better "needs bedikah".
The same thing applies here. If Rav Elyashev, after hearing the case for techeiles, said there's no reason to wear it, and more, that we should not, because Klall Yisroel throughout the generations apparently ruled like the Arizal, then we don't do it. (And its not as if these rabbis have any reason why we should not follow the Arizal - as I said, their "problem" with the Gemora is quite answerable).
jewboy2000 Posted - 22 February 2004 13:51
In the Radziner Rebbe's 1st treatise Sefunei Temunei Chol he explains the words of the Ari'zal. Of course such a great and holy Gaon is at least equal 2 Rav Elyashav. The Radziner writes "So too, we must certainly say that in order to explain the passage of the Holy Ari of blessed memory in Pri Etz Haim (Sha'ar Hatzitzith) who associated the reason for the cessation of the Mitzvah of Techelet with the destruction of the Holy Temple, may it be rebuilt quickly in our time, see there the secret of the matter, the Secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him. Since it is clearly evident from many passages that the Mitzvah of Techelet was fulfilled after the Destruction, we must therefore say that his intention of blessed memory is to provide the reason why the mitzvah of Techelet is not so abundantly available for all of Israel." So there is an explanation of the Ari'zal.
MODERATOR Posted - 22 February 2004 14:35
It's not a question of who is greater, but for the record, I am not certain at all that in Halachah the Radziner Rebbe ZTl was greater than Rav Elyashev.
Be that as it may, Rav Elyashev's point is that Klall Yisroel was not concerned over the Techeiles - he makes a list of specific Gedolim - and he is attributing that lack of concern to the Arizal.
The Radziner Rebbe, who clearly did believe in using Techeiles (though it was not the Efrat Techeiles) is explaining the Arizal that way. However, the rest of Klall Yisroel, who did not agree with the Radziner's concern about Techeiles, explains the Arizal differently, Rav Elyashev is saying, that the reason why Klall Yisroel was not accepting of the techeiles concern, is because they - klall yisroel - must have understood the arizal literally. However, he did not tell us what the pshat in the arizal is, nor how to answer the Radziner's issue.
But there certainly is an answer. And a possibility is above.
jewboy2000 Posted - 22 February 2004 17:46
Not all of Klall Yisrael agrees with the literal interperatation of the Ari'zal. The Radziner and his followers wore Radziner techeiles, and many modern Jews r wearing murex techeiles, and the # is growing. And even if the majority of Klall Yisrael don't wear techeiles still it doesn't mean that we shouldn't wear it. Let me share with u and exerpt from Otzar Sichot Tzadikim about the Radziner and Rav Yisrael Yehoshua of Koutnow, "The sage Rav Gershon Henoch, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing, from Radzin, met with the sage Yisrael Yehoshua, the head of the Rabbinical court of Koutnow, and discussed with him regarding the Techelet he had rediscovered, and desired that he would agree with him to wear his Techelet. The Rav of Koutnow did not want to agree with the Ba'al HaTechelet Rav Gershon Henoch quoting him a well known piece from the Talmud which says "Go out and see what the world is doing." He continued, "The whole world is not wearing Techelet, why must we invent new things that our forefathers have not imagined?" After they concluded their discussion they went outside and Rebbe Rav Gershon Henoch called over a person who was passing by in the marketplace carrying a bundle. Rav Gershon said to him, "Tell me; what was the difference of opinion between Rav Meir and Rav Yehudah regarding Chametz (leavened bread) and in what regard did they agree with each other?" The man stood there dumbfounded unable to open his mouth. Rebbe Rav Gershon Henoch said to the holy Rav of Koutnow; "In the tractate of Pesachim on page four, on the second side, our sages of blessed memory said that according to the whole world we agree that Chametz is forbidden from the sixth hour of the day." He continued; "And where is the whole world? You will find that the majority of the world to be like this shlepper of bundles who has no idea what the sages of the Talmud are saying. But the whole world is me and you and those like us, the sages and the students of the Torah. They are the world at large (the world that is the real world) and how can his honor say 'Look at the world and see what they are doing!' Who is the world if not your honor the venerable sage and the rest of the students of the Torah in the generation?"
Translated by R. David Herzberg
Put simply, Rabbi Gershon Henoch was saying; We have the obligation to care because we understand the depth of the issue, and just because the masses are not doing it, that does not excuse our not doing it. [Editor]" Also, tho I'm not sure where the MaHaral says that techeiles can be renewed whenever some1 discoveres the Chilazon (ill try 2 find out where), and he is surely a great posek who we can follow. As grend said many ppl are certain that we have the new techeiles, so we should try 2 fulfill it, and even if it isn't techeiles, it is no sin 2 where it, and G-d will surely reward us 4 our sincere effort.
MODERATOR Posted - 22 February 2004 17:57
I didn't say ALL of Klall Yisroel rejected it; the Radziner was a Daas Yachid. And his problem with the literal translation is far form insurmountable. Objectively, using the Halachic due process that we use with all other Halachos, we don't have to bother, which is what Rav Elyashev said.
If you want chumras, the Chazon Ish has a strong case for prohibiting using nails in your sukkah; a strong case exists for not opening and closing your refrigerator on shabbos; some people hold you are not allowed to wear glasses outdoors on shabbos.
If you really want to take on an important halachic behavior, follow Rabbeinu Tamn's shitah of Motzoi Shabbos - there you have the majority of Rishonim, plus the shulchan aruch, holding that if you end shabbos with the "early zman" you are a mechalel shabbos.
Let's get a perspective here.
If you want to take on chumras, at least take on those which make much more halachic sense. A good way to tell which are which, is to follow the lead of the great Gedolei Yisroel, those with the proper Yiras Shamayim and Torah perspective.
And that's exactly what Rav Elyashev is saying --- believe me, he is more religious than you or I, and he is much more careful about violating and minority shitos. This techeiles thing was not taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of our leaders. If you want to take on chumras, start with those that are not really chumras - first get rid of your kulos; then take on the chumras that are more halachicly weighty than this.
MODERATOR Posted - 23 February 2004 7:57
Here is a small, starting-out "Action plan" for you of behaviors that are more halachicly well-founded than the case for Techeiles. Some of them are things that you should actually be doing, as opposed to relying on minority opinions or precarious heteirim. Others are things that we apparently should be doing, but we don't simply because of historical precedent, even though we don't clearly understand the heter not to; still others are the opinions of some poskim, while others disagree.
1) Wait 72 minutes before you end Shabbos
2) Dont eat chodosh
3) Dont let your wife wear transparent stockings
4) Do Birkas Kohanim every day, even in Chutz Laaretz
5) Do hagbaah before leining also
6) Wash for a davar shetivulo b'mashkeh
7) Specifically designate 2 witnesses by the badeken, like you do under the chupah
8) Wear a talis, even if you are not married
9) Dont use nails to support the walls of your sukkah
10) Dont let anybody Jews use your credit card except you
11) Dont return something to a Jewish vendor for a refund, even if it was bought with a satisfaction-guaranteed, money-back deal.
12) In fact, don't even buy something with a 30-day (or whatever) satisfaction guaranteed or your money back deal.
jewboy2000 Posted - 22 March 2004 7:16
Ok. I get i get it. I'll try my hardest 2 take on some of these chimrahs, like ill wear a tallis everyday, I won't return things bought from Jews. I still c no valid reason not 2 wear techeiles. In fact i plan on buying a talis WITH techeiles 2 wear every morning. A person in my school said that i have 2 say a brachah of something before I change my families tradition (like waiting 72 min. 2 end shabbos), what is he talking about.
MODERATOR Posted - 22 March 2004 8:04
My list is only the beginning, only a small moshol. We're talking about an entire lifestyle that you are not living. Unless, you are one of the Gedolie Hador, and even then, Rav Elyashev doesn't think the case for techeiles is valid enough for him to worry about it.
The Chida writes that sometimes the Yetzer Horah convinces us to do a good thing. He has his reasons - maybe he wants us to become baalei gaavah, or maybe he wants you to think you're better than other Jews who don't do whatever it is you are doing, or maybe he wants to distract you from the real issues you should be focusing on, whatever.
The Chidah says the way to tell whether our action are Yetzer tov-driven or Yetzer Horah-driven is to see whether they are consistent with our general spiritual standard of living. If they are not, if a certain hanhagah or chumrah is inconsistent with our general lifestyle, then it is probably the Yetzer Horah's idea.
That's my point here. One of the olden-day Roshei Yeshiva in YU, Rav Ueruchem Gorelick ZTL, a Rebbe of Rabbi Hershel Schechter who I know is into this techeiles, used to give a moshol for this:
A guy is at a wedding and everybody is laughing at him. He goes over to one of those guys laughing and asks him why hes laughing. He said "look at you! you're missing your tie!". He as wearing a fancy tuxedo, but an open shirt with no tie.
That night after the wedding he gets undressed, gets into his pajamas and goes to bed, when he hears the doorbell ring. He gets up, goes to his drawer, puts on a black silk tie over his pajamas and answers the door.
At the door was the guy who was laughing at him by the wedding, standing there, laughing at him again.
"Why are you laughing at me now?" he says.
"Because you're wearing a tie" he answers.
"What? You must be crazy, the guy in pajamas says. First you laugh at me because I am wearing a tie, and now you laugh at me because I am not wearing a tie. Make up your mind!"
The answer is, if you're wearing a tuxedo, a tie is a goo thing. If you're wearing pajamas, a tie is weird.
Same thing with our nehsoma. Certain actions are nothing but weird even if they are chumras, because they make no sense in context of our lifestyle. Its like were in pajamas and suddenly we become so frum regarding this one little thing. It shows there's something wrong with the way we look at ourselves and our religiousness. If we had a healthy outlook, wed bother with other things first.
So if someone like Rav Elyashev shakes his head at this techeiles and says its nothing at all to be concerned about, that there's zero reason to bother with it, your "in case its a good thing" attitude is misplaced. And if you were living a lifestyle like that, it would still be unrealistic, but at least it would be consistent. As it is, I think you should reconsider the whole idea totally.
Oh, and of course certain doors need two mezuzos - one on each side, to fulfill disagreeing opinions.
(And I didn't even mention chodosh...)
This techieles wasn't even accepted as a real shitah. There are serious questions as to whether it is real, before you get to the Arizal. Its really not worth doing.
And you don't need any brachah to wait 72 minutes after shabbos. I think whoever told you think probably means hataras nedorim anyway, not a brachah. But you don't need any such thing. There's no minhag in anybody's family to do melachah right after shabbos. The majority of Rishonim, including the shulchan aruch and the nosei keilim, hold that shabbos ends 72 minutes after shkiyah. It is a question of sofek chilul shabbos.
jewboy2000 Posted - 30 March 2004 12:52
U DID MENTION CHODOSH, IT WAS #2.
MODERATOR Posted - 30 March 2004 12:54
You're right. My bad.
Looking at Rav Elyashev's teshuva again, I see that he mentions, apparently form the Yeshuos Malko, a shitah that the tzitzis and the beged of the tzitzis have to be the same color. So that if the beged is white the tzitzis must be white as well. This begin the case, if the techeiles is not the real techeiles, it is in violation of this halachah. So, like lots of unnecessary chumras, this techeiles is actually a big kulah as well.
jewboy2000 Posted - 09 April 2004 8:28
In Menachos Perek HaTecheiles it says that if one wears K'la Ilan ( false techeiles i.e. indigo than it should be considered if it was white since he did it by accident. I am not wearing false techeiles on purpose, I am 100% sure that this is the real stuff, therefore it is exactly the same case, and there is no problem.
MODERATOR Posted - 09 April 2004 18:43
You don't need to be wearing the wrong techeiles "on purpose" to violate this issur; even if you think you're wearing the right techeiles but it's not, you are still violating it, albeit b'shogeg. Thus, any element of question regarding the authenticity of your techeiles exposes you to this issur, and therefore unless we know for sure - not "probably" and not "OK it cant hurt" - you are taking a chance of violating this. Therefore, the usual "let's be machmir - why not?" attitude does not apply to techeiles.
And no, nobody is certain that your techeiles is the real thing. Several questions have been raised about it, and it boils down to "it cant hurt to do it!". But Rav Elyashev is saying it CAN hurt to do it.
Especially since the Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos says that nowadays we don't know the recipe to make the right color of the techeiles.
bjk Posted - 06 May 2004 7:51
Mod...In another forum, someone asked about taking on chumras that may be too difficult for him to handle, and you directed him here. I have the same question, and I read through this whole thread and basically didn't see anything relating to my question. For example, is it a bad thing if I want to start keeping 72 minutes after shabbos instead of 50 minutes, if there are still actually areas that are completely assur but I'm still not so makpid in (like taking medicine for acne, for example)
MODERATOR Posted - 06 May 2004 7:58
Look at my post of 2/23 above, and the ones around it.
Keeping 72 minutes is not a chumrah - keeping 50 is a tremendous Kulah, and according to the majority of Rishonim, including the Shulchan Aruch, is assur. The GRA of course permits, but where the issue is a safek chilul shabbos, you should - not as a chumrah, but as ikar hadin - follow the majority of rishonim who hold you have to wait 72.
I am not sure if you mean taking acne medicine on shabbos, or taking non-kosher medicine, or what, so I don't know what you think you're doing wrong there.
In any case, 72 minutes for motzoi shabbos you should keep regardless.
bjk Posted - 13 May 2004 8:13
Ok, I re-read your posts, and it kind of answered my question, but not really. You said that first you should get rid of your kulos and then start taking on chumros. So this means that if I haven't gotten rid of my kulos, then I shouldn't start taking on chumros (at least those that are widely accepted among leading rabbonim)?
What I meant in regards to the acne medicine thing was that I've learned that it is assur to take medicine on shabbos for something that you know is not life threatening, such as acne.
TheBster Posted - 30 July 2004 8:58
-According to the Shulchan Oruch it is an issur
Isn't a chumra by definition not doing something, or for that matter, doing something extra, because there are poskim that say its assur? e.g. the chazzon ish succah and the ariz'ls issur of cutting ones beard.
Elchonon Posted - 01 August 2004 7:23
Mod, the shittah of the Radziner Rebbe was disproved by the very group in Eretz Yisroel that found the techeiles. They also have an explanation of the 70 year thing. It is not as simple as you made it sound. They have years of research, biological, halachic, and aggadic, and more.
MODERATOR Posted - 01 August 2004 7:38
Right. It means that you should first focus on those things that you should be doing rather than adding things that don't matter much.
bster,It depends. Even in the case of a machlokes in halachah you first determine proper, or even preferred halachic practice, based on the halachic due process, and then, if the halachah allows you to be lenient, following the strict poskim is a chumrah. And even so, the amount that it is a chumrah depends on how strong the case was to begin with for the leniency.
Thus, if the shulchan aruch and nosei keilim and majority of rishonim hold like rabbeinu tam, which they do, then, at the very least, when we are talking about a safek chilul shabbos, or even any safek d'oriasa, the proper thing to do is to follow that shitah. this is not a chumrah - this is what you should be doing m'ikar hadin. Even though there are those who are lenient, but barring mitigating circumstances, you should not rely on them.
Sometimes a chumrah is for a different reason, such as a siyag or a minhag, and that means sometimes it even has no apparent reason, but if it customary we follow it anyway as a matter of minhag.
Elchonon,The shailah was brought to Rav Elyashev, who said it is quite simple, as I wrote above. He didn't even consider it a chumrah worth taking on. Halachicly, he said we follow the Arizal who says that after the churban techeiles is no longer applicable; he had other reasons as well, which I mentioned. Please note that he, too, has years of halachic background behind him (sigh).
DannyBoy67 Posted - 01 August 2004 12:29
#1- Minhag Avosainu B'yadainu. We cant just bring back T'chailus without a good reason. Minhag Yisroel Tohrah Hu (I will explain below how we did have instances in the past were much greater people than the Radziner discovered "real" Techeiles and were told by not to use it).
#2 Agoodos Agoodos. The accepted Minhag in Klal Yisroel is not to wear Techailas. All who do is breaking off from us.
#3 What is techailes?
Rashi in Menachos 42a says techeiles is from the chilazon which is "Ola min ha'aretz." (comes up from the ground).Sort of like a worm.
Rashi in shabbos 74b says the chilazon is a "Dug Katan" (small fish).
In Megila I think daf 6 and in Sanhedrin 91b Rashi there says its a "Tolaas she'ala min hayam" (A worm that comes up from the sea).
So many contradictions. You tell me how we know where Techailus comes from. But theres more.
The Aruch says on Shabbos yerushalmi perek 1 , chilazon doesn't have any bones or sinews - its a worm? a snail?
Midrash says that the chilazon has a shell that grows with it. Well the Rambam in Hilchos tzitzis Chap. 2 halacha 2 says that chilazon is blue with black blood.and it lives by the dead sea. 2 problems 1-snails arent blue and 2-we dont know of anything that lives dead sea (yam hamelach). People say its a taos sofer and he meant Yam Hagodal.
The Zohar on Parshas Teruma says it lives by the kineret (Sea of Galili). Problem, Zevulan owned the Techailus and he doesnt have his land anywhere near the kineret or yam hamelech. Some wanted to answer that Maybe Zevulan owned the Kineret too. The problem with that is that we need a source for that.
#4 Sheailos V'Tshuvas Yehoshua Malca- The Tiferes Yisroel (from mishnayos) and R Tzadik Cohen wrote saying that they found Techailes and wanted to know if they should wear it. The answer was that it was hidden by the Rabbonon for a reason and that we arent suppose to bring it back.
Why should YOU wear techeiles now?
Ask these questions to anyone who preaches tcheiles. If they can answer you satisfactorily than by all means. you are than only going against R' Elyashuv.
MODERATOR Posted - 01 August 2004 12:32
The agudos agudos and minhag aren't an issue really. They're claiming that our not wearing techeiles is not due to minhag but rather due to lack of availability; the agudo agudos issue is thus also moot. The Yeshuos Malko is quoted by Rav Elyshev in his teshuva.
There are even more contradictions and problems with the techeiles than just what you mentioned.
MODERATOR Posted - 01 August 2004 12:34
PS - Its Teshuvos "Yeshuos Malko
Elchonon Posted - 03 August 2004 8:59
Sorry mod. I forgot about R' Elyashiv.
DannyBoy67 Posted - 18 August 2004 9:40
It was hidden. That means we had it, but were not suppose to use it. That was the whole point of Tshuvas Yehoshua Malko. If you go against that, you are starting your own faction. That's Agudoos.
blue fringe knot Posted - 12 December 2004 17:11
Mod, Rav Elyashev's Teshuva has since been published. As you mentioned, he says not to even bother with this techeiles because of the Arizal and the Yeshuos Malko, and other reasons as well.
There is also a Teshuva on the topic from a Rav in my town, Toronto, Rav Shlomo Miller shlita, printed in Ohr Yisroel vol. 4 # 36 where he proves that in the Metzius their new techeiles cannot be real.
By the way, I love your answer to the kasha on the Arizal from the techeiles in the Gemora.