Parshas Matos: Is the Techeles Today "True Blue"? The Ground Breaking Halachik Conclusion

This Torah class is brought to you by torahanytime.com. Okay, going out of my side. Hope everyone had a easy tightness. Now we begin the three weeks and the grand finale for now of this topic of by the way until next year. The truth is there is a part six, but this is the Halakhic conclusion. And just by way of introduction, don't think that this came haphazardly or very superficially. I spent a lot of time going through many many sources, speaking to many skin, doing a lot of research. In fact, last time I gave this series I got a call from the Halakhic Institute. And they asked for permission to play these in the museum, although they completely disagreed with all my conclusions. But They did appreciate the research and the presentation. And as we're going to see, we asked the smile of Suki. Schmeitzer, Aliba, the Halakhic law. Because when it comes to any subjects, they always have to be presented and looked into in accordance with the Halakhic process. Meaning there is a Halakhic process and there's a scientific process and they're not the same process. And as any subject in Halakha, there is a process. The process is you have to be able to trace it back to the Gamara, to the and to the skin regardless of the definitions or identifications of naturalists or scientists. Although we always take into account the reality of of information that we have and we use everything at our disposal. But there is a very specific process that has to be used. So we're trying to present this without any agenda. We have no motives. There's this is not a political subject. This is a Halakhic subject and it should be treated in with the sanctity and the reverence of any Halakhic subject. Okay. So, the Gamara says in Maseches Sanhedrin daf 111, "Amar aleiha R. Ami A certain apikoros said to R. Ami, "Amri de shechvi chayei, you say the dead are going to live again, right? You believe in techiyas ha meisim. Ve hava afra, but they're dust. Ve afra mecha'i, dust can't live." So, he said, "Not true. Let me give you a parable what this is similar to. Le melech basar vedam, to a king of flesh and blood, he said to his servants, "Lechu banu li palton gedolim, go build for me a great palace be makom she'ein mayim ve afra, where there's no water and dirt." So, they went and they built it and they fell down. Amar aleihem, so the king said, "Chazu banu be makom she'yesh afra umayim, go build it where there is dirt and water." Amru lo, "Einan yecholim, we can't do it." The king said, "What do you mean you can't do it? If you were able to do it where there's no materials, then certainly you could do it where there is materials. So, therefore, the R. Ami said back to the men, "So, too, if you don't think Ribono shel Olam could create life out of something that never lived, he certainly could create life out of something that did live." Meaning, if Hashem was able to bring life in the first place, he certainly could be mechayei meisim. And then he says, "Ve im ata ma'amin, and if you don't believe me, go out to the valley and you'll see a rodent that's half flesh, half earth. Tomorrow, the earth half of the rodent will metamorphosize and transform and become completely rodent. Shema timmal is man meruba, lest you say it takes a long time, go up to the mountain and you'll say you'll see today there's only one chilazon, and the rain will fall and the next day the entire mountain will be full of chilazonice, chilazonice. So, the Yad Rama on this Gamara says, "What in the world is going on over here. The mountain will be full of chilazonites. How in the world will a chilazon get up to the top of the mountain? Wait, how is the chilazon going to get to the top of the mountain? By the way, the Yad Ramah's opinion is that a chilazon is a toilah, a worm. But the Yad Ramah concludes with a very important yediah when it comes to the subject of chilazon, and that is mistavrah d'hai chilazon d'hacha lav heich d'amina gabei chilazon. Not all chilazonim are created equal. Not every time it says the word chilazon in the Gemara doesn't mean the same creature. Ela mina achrina d'mifri may afra. This is a very important yediah. And that is just because a Gemara uses the word chilazon, it doesn't necessarily refer to the chilazon from which we make it chilazon. Not every Gemara in Shas that I that uses that terminology doesn't mean the same thing. There may be more than one chilazon found in Shas, although there's only one chilazon that produces chilazon. Okay. However, Rabbi Weiss says, let's approach this from a halachic uh perspective. If you want to identify something in Halacha, the approach is you go to the Rishonim and you see how do the Rishonim identify what is the chilazon? So the first thing is let's look in the Rambam. The Rambam in Hilchos Tzitzis, perek vov, halacha bais, says the Rambam, how do you dye the chilazon of tzitzis? You take wool and you soak it in lime, and then you wash it until it's clean, and you boil it with different chemicals so that it absorbs the color. And then you bring the blood of the chilazon. Says the Rambam, v'hu dog. What is a chilazon? A fish. What is a chilazon? A fish. Now I don't Now that off the bat is a very big problem. If you remember from last week, I have it in my car, we had a picture of the chilazon, which according to um the Radziner Rebbe was a cuttlefish, which was a squid. Is a squid a fish? No. Then according to the latest discovery which was originally discovered by none other than Isaac Herzog which I could not believe it. I was totally shocked. Today is the yard site of Herzog. So it's really apropos that we discuss the on his yard site. After all, this murex trunculus which is right now the the best case scenario for us was of Isaac Herzog which he dismissed. So what better could we do on his yard site than defend his dismissal of the murex trunculus as the uh as the So the says it's dog it's a dog. It's a fish. It's a fish. Now is the murex trunculus a fish? It is not a fish. It's a snail. It's a snail. A snail is not a fish. It has a shell. It has Imagine if you went to the store and you asked for a fish and they gave you a snail, it ain't going to go over only in Nevada you could do something like that. You know in Nevada you go to a fish store and you ask for nails, right? But if in a regular store if you ask for a fish if they give you a snail, you know they would be shut down by the FDA. This is not This is not a fish. And the says it's a dog. It's a fish. Who else says it's a dog? Look at number four. Don't say it is a dog. It's not a it's not a dog. It's a dog. So also says it's a dog. The says it's a dog. The says it's a dog. How in the world could you say the murex trunculus is the when say it's a fish? When say it's a fish? So you'll say well wait a second, not everybody says it's a fish. Because the continues The says says that it's oil every 70 years. So, Rashi Menacha says the oil of min ha'aretz. It comes out of the earth. No fish comes out of the earth. And in fact, Rashi in Sanhedrin says, "What's a chilazon?" A tolas, a worm. Now, I ask you, is the Murex trunculus a worm? It's not a worm, it's a snail. But at least a worm is closer to a snail than a fish is to a snail. So, if you want to make the case that the Murex trunculus is actually the chilazon, you're going to have to say it's not like the Rambam. It's not like Tosafos. It's like Rashi and you're going to stuff it into Rashi. Rashi says it's a worm and this is a snail, we're going to stuff it into Rashi. I mean, that's a pretty big doichek. Rashi says uh First of all, by the way, when do we ever pasken like Rashi? We have a Rambam, we have Tosafos. Rashi, we will sometimes pasken like, but Rashi did not write his commentary on Shas lehalacha. Rashi wrote it as a peirosh. Rashi is not the preeminent posek, Rashi is the preeminent mefaresh. It would be very difficult to make the case that we're not going to go like the Rambam, we're not going to go like Tosafos. If you're a Sefardi, raise your hand if you're a Sefardi. Come on, it's Queens. Raise your hand if it's if you're a Sefardi, right? No? No, it's not true. Only two people are willing to admit even I have some Sefardi, you know, going back. Yeah, so if you're a Sefardi, you follow the Rambam, and if you're Ashkenazi, you follow Tosafos. Who follows Rashi? So, I know what you're thinking. I know what you're thinking. There's the Gra, the famous Gra on Keilim. I know what you're thinking. The famous Gra on Keilim says that kosha b'yam mindagu, anything in the water you could call a fish. Anything in the water you could call a fish. Kosher beyond dog who called the Messiah light. Okay, now first of all, firstly Rabbi say, it doesn't mean that's what dog means. It just means if somebody uses the word fish, you could construe that it doesn't just mean something that has fins and scales but any aquatic creature. But it would be to say that it fits into the Rambam or twice as when they say explicitly it's a fish it would be even to say it fits into Rashi but you would have to fit it into Rashi at best. So I heard a sheer a couple years ago from Rabbi Yisroel Reisman Yeshiva in Tarvadas. The rabba of the Agudah Madison in Brooklyn and he gave a sheer about the Murex trunculus. And I called him up if I could um if I could see some of his notes on the subject. So he told me they had recently been printed and I asked him if if I could have a copy of them. So he was kind enough to email to me his personal copy of his notes and he had eight questions on the Murex trunculus from Shas and from the Rambam. So I brought over here three of his questions, the three questions that I felt were extremely compelling and just to share with you. So Rabbi Reisman says, wait a second. The Rambam says it's a dog. Twice as says it's a dog. The Murex trunculus is not a dog. So you'll say like the grow on the column that any aquatic any aquatic creature is a fish. That's not that's not a smooth reading of the Rambam and twice as that it's really referring to the Murex trunculus but it's calling it a dog. Now in one of the classic farm on called Lulav Tcheiles they bring notes not so bad because William Cole Cole William Cole writes in his writings that in Latin the word fish could include all aquatic creatures. Which is sort of laughable. Good for William Cole. What has William Cole got to do with the Rambam? The Rambam's not writing in Latin. The Rambam is one of the codifiers of halakha. So just because somebody claims that in Latin the word fish is an all-inclusive claim, that is a laughable argument to say that when the Rambam says dog, that includes all aquatic creatures? That would be That would be very difficult to say. So what do these What do those who um Okay, that's question number one. So question number one is the Rambam says dog, Tosafot says dog, this ain't no dog. Question number two, the Rambam says the dam of shakhak kediai that the that the um ink of the khilazon is black like blood. There's one problem. The the blood of the Murex trunculus is not black. Does anybody know what color it is? It doesn't have a color and sometimes it has a yellowish tinge, but it's not black. So how in the world does it fit into the Rambam? Oh, the answer is if you leave it out long enough, it will turn black. So will supper. So what? That's what the Rambam means? The Rambam says the blood of the khilazon is black like ink. So how could it be the Murex trunculus? The blood of the Murex trunculus is clear, it's yellow. It Yes, it turns black. So does everything in this world turns black eventually. That's what the Rambam means? So you know what they say? You know what the Sefer ha-Likkutim says? The Rambam was wrong. Why? Cuz the Rambam didn't have a tradition what khilazon is. The Rambam got it from Aristotle. I don't think I need to tell you that this is not the halachic process. That when you make a discovery, you say the discovery is correct and the Rambam is wrong. Me need come and may me, who gets pushed away? The snail or the Rambam? Who has stronger footing? A blob inside a shell or Maimonides? So you're going to say the blob is the and the Rambam was wrong? Or the Rambam is correct and maybe we don't have the right discovery. Not everything we discover means that it's the the sign. But where did the Rambam get that it's the the what is black? The same thing that the where the Rambam got every single thing that he got. Either from Shas or the Shami or the or a because when the Rambam gets something from secular information, he lets us know. For example, in the Rambam says, I have to tell you friends that I have no tradition about this. All of my information about calculating intercalation comes from the tradition of the Greeks. The reason why says the Rambam is the Jewish people used to have a tradition about from the the sons of and however, that tradition was lost. Therefore, since it was lost, I have no better source of information than Greek scientists. I says the Rambam how am I allowed to rely on them? So the Rambam says as follows that if it's not speculative, it's not thesis, it's measurable science. It's it's we could we could determine, we could authenticate whether they're accurate or not and therefore I'm entitled to rely on the Greek astronomers. So what do you see from that? That when the Rambam is getting information not from Yeah? When the Rambam is getting information When the Rambam is getting information from secularists, he lets us know. He's not embarrassed to tell us the fact that the Rambam says Shahar Kedia, you're going to say he got it from Aristotle and now that we found shells on the Mediterranean coast, we're going to say the Rambam is wrong and the Murex trunculus is the We don't know half of the thing the source of half of the things the Rambam says. Okay. That doesn't mean the Rambam got it from Aristotle. That We don't know. We don't know We don't know any of the Rambam sources. The Rambam never gave any That's why you have the castle mission and the Maggid Mishnah who struggle. What is the source of the Rambam? By the way, there are many things that the Rambam writes that there is no known so I'll give you one example. I'll give you an incredible example. The Rambam says Kol HaKoyes Kehilu Kol HaKoyes Kehilu No Everybody knows Kehilu Where does it say that by the way? Gamarra, right? There's no such Gamarra. There's no such Gamarra. The Gamarra says no where Kol HaKoyes The Gamarra says Kol HaMekareh Begadov Meshava Kehilu You may not Kol HaKoyes Kehilu If you break things that should be like But how does the Rambam know Kol HaKoyes Kehilu Where does it say that? Not one Gamarra, not one The only place that it says Kol HaKoyes The problem is the Rambam didn't have the Zohar. So there are many on this that the Rambam apparently had ancient documents that were Madrashim that we're not privy to. So just because the Rambam says Dom HaShahar Kedia, the Rambam I guarantee you did not get Kol HaKoyes Kehilu from Aristotle. So just like he didn't get that from Aristotle, he didn't get this from Aristotle. So that's question number two. The Rambam says the blood is black. The Murex trunculus, the blood is not black. By the way, the blood of the cuttlefish is black. But that that's not the Chilazon. But to say it's a Murex trunculus, number three. And this is one of the strongest questions of all. And that is if you want to get tekhelet, guess what color you have to get? Blue. But the Murex trunculus is not blue. It's purple. So guess what? They came up with a big discovery. You know why it's purple? Cuz they're doing it indoors. If you take it outdoors in direct sunlight, it turns blue. Meaning the only way to get blue is to do it in direct sunlight. I have a question. Here you have Maimonides. He's telling you how to do it. He says it's a dog. It looks like tekhelet. It's black, and you put it in the pot, and you and you put in spices like kamunya, and you you dye it. And the Rambam left out the most important ingredient. That you have to take it out in direct sunlight. Why would the Rambam leave out the main ingredient necessary in order to make a tekhelet? So you say, "Of course, where else are you going to do it?" Where else are you going to do it? Did anyone here ever go to a factory in their life? Do you know of any manufacturer that does anything outdoors in the Middle East? Nothing is manufactured outdoors in the Middle East, especially on the sea coast. You're going to burn. All the tekhelet, all manufacturing is done indoors in a factory. Therefore, how in the world could you say that the Murex trunculus is a hilazon? Number one, it's not a dog. Number two, the blood is not black. Number three, the Rambam left out the most important ingredient that you need, direct sunlight. Is that a refutation? I leave that up to you. These are three pretty compelling questions on the Murex trunculus. Again, number one, it's not a fish. Number two, the blood is not black. And number three, it's making purple dye. The only way to get blue is to bring it out into sunlight. So they answered, "You don't have to bring it out into sunlight. You could steam it." Does the Rambam say anything about steaming it? The Rambam doesn't say anything about steaming it. The Gra in general in Maseches Keilim says that when a Mishnah says the word dug, it could include all aquatic creatures. That doesn't necessarily mean that every time it says dug, it means all aquatic creatures. For example, when the Torah says dugim, it You're right. It's a doichek tarats, but you can't prove, you can't create, you can't identify positively that it is the Murex trunculus because dug could also mean an aquatic creature. Okay. Here is a fourth question which is almost impossible to answer. The Gemara says in number nine that somebody who traps a chilazon is chayav. Hatzad chilazon chayav. One who traps a chilazon is chayav. So it's very interesting. Right now Mishna Berurah, the Dirshu program was up to Hilchos tzod. So what's the halacha if you capture a sleeping deer on Shabbos? What's that What's the halacha if you catch a deer on Shabbos? You're chayav. What about a sleeping deer? You're also chayav because a deer will sort of realize that you're coming onto it and and and you get close, it will try to run away. A blind deer, you're chayav. A crippled deer, a sick deer, you're patur. Question. If you have a cow, if you have a cow, and the cow roam roams out of its pen, and you catch it, are you chayav? No. Cuz it doesn't need to be trapped. It's not going anywhere. That's not called trapping. Trapping means that it would run away. Real question. Anybody ever see a Murex trunculus? Yeah. Anybody see how Is a Murex trunculus a guy who gets around? He's a shell. He ain't moving anywhere. Could someone tell me what the hell a hobby if you catch if you catch a um a shell on Shabbos. You go to the beach and you catch a seashell. Are you liable? Of course not. What? With something in it. It does not moving anywhere. Are you liable? Of course not. So how could the Gemara say that if you catch the on your liable? If the isn't a Murex trunculus, Murex trunculus doesn't go anywhere, how could you be liable for trapping it and catching it? You're not liable for catching a shell. How could that be? What? Yeah. The No, either one. Either a hot sod or hot potzo. Um No. No, Ella If you do both you have one or who does say you have one. Okay. So the the actually in the institute they asked this question on the Murex trunculus. And they say that even though it doesn't really go anywhere, but since you need special scuba divers and special equipment and special nets and it's a Melachas Oman, therefore you're liable for trapping. Simply not true. You don't need special scuba divers and you don't need special nets. You stand in the Mediterranean, you go down, you lift it up and you take it. No special skill required. No training required. It's quite simple. It's not different than picking up any other rock on the bottom of the sea. How then can we explain that the Gemara says the on liable? These are very compelling questions. Again, if it's not that compelling to you, it still doesn't identify positively that the Murex trunculus is a on liable. Here's another question that Rav Herzog, zich tzaddik l'vracha, zechuso yagen aleinu, today is his yahrzeit, Rav Herzog himself asked this question in number 13, The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, and it was expanded upon in an article in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society number 14. I have a question for you. You know, the Gemara tells us about how to make tekhelet. But tekhelet was not the only ancient dye that they used. There's also something called argaman. Could somebody please tell me why the Gemara doesn't tell you how to get argaman? What species, what creature do we catch to make argaman? Why does the Gemara only talk about tekhelet and the Gemara doesn't talk about argaman? Raboisai, do you know why the Gemara doesn't talk about argaman? Because we know how to make argaman. How? The way they made it, the murex trunculus. They used the murex trunculus to make argaman, and everybody knew about it. So, it was not necessary for the Gemara to identify how to make argaman. This proof is called the proof by omission. There's a simple logic that argues against murex trunculus. At the times of the Gemara, purple dying with murex snails was pervasive. This may explain why the Gemara did not mention the source of argaman. Everyone knew. Murex snails were famous. By the way, in some areas, more than half the population was employed by dying with murex trunculus. It's like now that right now it it was like there were no accountants back then, so you were a dyer. That was what the main That was the main occupation back then, dying clothing. With what? With murex trunculus. Everybody knew what a murex was. It sold for more than its weight in gold. It The shell appeared on government coins, royal edicts were issued to monopolize of the use of dye. Even Pliny, one of the ancient naturalists naturalists, he writes about murex dying process. There was even a term known for it in Greek and Latin, porphyra, purpura. I have a question for you, friends. If that's the reason why Hazal don't talk about the argaman, and if it was in fact so popular, could somebody tell me is there any Gemara? What's a lion? Oh, you know what a lion is? It has a body of a tiger, and it has a head of of a cat, and it has paws like this, and in the sun it looks like that. No, a lion is a lion. We don't need a We don't need a whole lumdish of a description what a lion is. If the chilazon is a murex trunculus, why in the world do we have this cryptic Gemara with 90 different descriptions of what it is? Everybody knows what it is. It's a common It's the most common thing in the world. Do you have a Gemara? What's a horse? What's a horse? A horse, well, the legs are like this, and the head is like that, and it says neigh, and it runs. I mean, give me a break. Give me a break. We don't have any Gemaras that describe anything unless it's You don't need description unless it's something that is is obscure. The murex trunculus was one of the most well-known items that the ancients knew about. They even used it for argaman. That's why the Gemara doesn't discuss argaman. So, you say, "What about all of the archaeological diggings?" Okay, so one thing you have to say, "What about all the museums?" So, I I think everybody understands that the fact that something isn't a a museum, if anything is a raya that it's not it's check of a chazav. Thing you believe what you see in museums? You go You go to Museum of Natural History, you actually believe what they what they display over there? It's been the same displays there for 30 years. Despite advances in science, the the museum's the most backward places of scientific collection. Archaeological diggings, so let me explain something to you. This is very important to know. Where do they discover um the murex trunculus? Right, people want to know, is are there archaeological findings that the murex trunculus was used for dying? Absolutely. You know how many fossils of murex trunculus they found? Millions and millions and millions and millions. They're found everywhere. Where are they found? Exactly where the Gamara talks about, by the way. The Gamara says, let's take a look at number 15. The Gamara says that Nevuzaradan Umi Dalasa Aretz his share Nevuzaradan Rav Tabachim from the poorer in Israel. Nevuzaradan left over the chief executioner Lukarmim to tend to the vineyards Uli Yaigvim. Karmim Tani Rav Eli Malach they afar Samanim those who collected balsam from Ein Gedi. The Adramsa. Yaigvim are those who trapped the Chilazon. From where? Misilam Misilam Shel Tzur from the cliffs of Tyre Viad Haifa until Haifa. And in fact, that is exactly where they find all of the archaeological evidence of the use of the murex trunculus. The problem is, Raboisai, the fact that they find evidence that the murex was used for dying does not prove anything whatsoever. You know what it proves? That they used the murex trunculus for dying. Yeah, but it doesn't prove that they used it for dying tzitzis. I have a question for you. What do you think they're going to find more of? Things used to dye clothing or things used to dye tzitzis? I have a question. What do you have more of? More shirts or more pair of tzitzis? More pants or more pair of tzitzis? More socks or more pairs of tzitzis? More suits or more pairs of tzitzis? Your wife, who has more clothing, you or your wife? Your wife. She's not wearing trailers under tzitzis. Okay, this was a major the dying industry is a major industry. So, you're right, they find millions of murex trunculus cracked open in the exact spot that we crack it open today. How does that prove that they used the murex trunculus for tzitzis? What does that show what does that show? And it is very insulting if you actually if you're an intelligent person and somebody tries to use the archaeological findings to prove that this was used to cover tzitzis, that's insulting to your intelligence. Just because they found something that they used to color something, how does that prove that this is the chilazon? As if the only thing that was ever dyed was the chilazon. Everybody wore only white back then. Everything was white. There were no colored garments except for the one string according to the Rambam that was blue. Come on. Actually it was a really good time to wear royal purple. Yeah, yeah. Um now archaeological evidence, look what it's written in number 16, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society. There can be little doubt that murex trunculus was used in ancient dying. It has long been accepted that murex trunculus was used for dying purple in ancient times. There is significant archaeological evidence to support this. However, however, all of the evidence suggests that it was used for purple dying. There is no evidence to suggest that murex trunculus was used to dye blue. Take a look on the next paragraph. They found these shells, they're cracked in the exact spot to get the dye. This is a solid proof that murex trunculus was used in ancient dying but does not imply it was used for dying blue. A 13th century BCE potsherd from Sarepta has a stripe of dye from the murex trunculus. They found the stripe of dye from the murex trunculus. Guess what color they found it to be? Purple. A vat from a dig at Tel Shikmona has a purple murex dye on it. Not blue as the brochure of the institute says it was. Pliny speaks about the murex. You know what color he says? Purple, red and violet. So yes, there's a lot of archaeological finding. How does that lend that this is the is the chilazon? How does that prove it's a chilazon? Rabbi Reizin writes very strongly that in number 17, by the way, I asked him permission to put his notes on the Maran Hakolmos. He says, "Masha Perasumu, that which it's become widespread Sham Tsuba Maras Al Hamarkish Shana Sha Nishbatsu, the fact that they found in pits and caves thousands of these murex ain't the Maran Hasholmu. That doesn't add anything." V'im D'vorim Hanemurim L'valbel Hatsebur, this is just propaganda. B'shkorim Kilo Yesh B'halacha Kol Shahu V'eino Halacha, only that only thing it proves is that it was used. How does that prove it was used for tzitzis? Believe me, if you find for me an ancient garment of tzitzis dyed blue in the proximity of the murex trunculus, now we got something to talk about. But the fact that you find vats with snails cracked open for coloring, that proves anything? How does that prove anything? I mean, for real, that's really an argument? I'll tell you the truth. There's a very well-known Talmud Chacham. I'm not saying his name right now, who offered what he says is irrefutable evidence that the murex trunculus is tcheiles because they found on the shields of Bar Kochba, excuse me, on the coins of Bar Kochba, the image, the emblem of the murex trunculus. Would they put a tamei animal on Bar Kochba's coin? Um, of course not. It must be it was used for the chilazon. That's a proof that it was used for tzitzis? The murex trunculus was on coins before Bar Kochba. The murex trunculus was on coins after Bar Kochba. The murex trunculus was a status symbol. You know, some people they get a shirt and there's a little guy on a horse on it with playing a game that probably nobody ever played, right? Polo. Now, if you're going to get a polo shirt and they're going to say, "Here, you pay the same $50, but we're just going to take off the emblem." Who in their right mind would wear the shirt without the whole godless of the shirt the emblem? You want people to know that you you paid big bucks for the shirt. I have a question. You have a Yid, he's wearing a crocodile on a shirt, right? There's a crocodile on a shirt. It must be it's a kosher behema. Because if it was a kosher behema, why are so many Yidden wearing Izzat shirts? That's a raya? So now we could do shrita on it cuz somebody wears it on their shirt? Imagine somebody bought that shirt and we said, "Reb Yid, you could wear it, but we have to take off the emblem." He said, "No, the whole godless of the shirt is emblem." Somebody drive Imagine we tell you you could drive whatever car you want, but we're going to remove the behe the chaya from the name, right? Somebody buys a Jaguar, but we're going to take off the Jaguar. So the guy would say, "Then I might as well drive a Toyota. The whole The only reason I'm driving this car is I want people to know what I'm driving." So the fact that Bar Kochba in Bar Kochba's time they didn't have Izzat, they didn't have Lexus, they had Murex trunculus is a raya that's what tzitzis is made out of? I mean, the mechila skvoidi, that's a halachic argument because on the coin of Bar Kochba they had a picture of a Murex trunculus. That would seem rather weak. It was a status symbol. It was the major industry of the time. As we mentioned, some regions half the population was involved in dying from the Murex trunculus. Bottom line is there are a lot of serious questions on it. You want to answer them the Gra and Chayalim and we'll stuff it into Rashi and the Rambam meant you take it out to the sun. You're not You can't create and identify positively what tcheiles is with these types of the hook and these types of difficulty. In fact, now I'm only bringing this in for one point. I don't want anybody to think this is a case of paiskin versus scientists. So the scientists, they have modern research and they have analysis and they're dealing with the facts and the rabbis are basing themselves off the Gamara. So okay, we'll follow the rabbis because that's the way we do it, but really we know that if we would study it in a more up-to-date way, we would come to different No, I want you to just be aware that even in the world of academia, it is far from unanimous that the Murex trunculus is the chilies. Not every in fact here we have an article that the ident that um He brings down in summary the case of Murex trunculus as a chazan has little merit. Indeed, the evidence against Murex trunculus as chazan is overwhelming. Murex trunculus meets few of the secondary criteria. It does not meet any of the primary criteria. It depends on new interpretations of the Gamara that contradict classical mufarshim. It would seem odd that something that was so well known the Gamara wouldn't just say straight up it's it's the purpura that the same thing that argaman is. So therefore, just be aware that before you accept and you drink you take in what the what the defenders of this chilies are offering, you should know it's certainly far from unanimous that even the world of academia this is in fact the Murex trunculus. So you'll say Yeah, but what do I have to lose? So it's 50/50. Or even if it's 75/25, but maybe this is the chilies and if it is, you know, I'm I'm getting I'm fulfilling a mitzvah to say the right of Musa. So you know, it's worth taking the time. It's not like I'm losing anything. It's not like something bad will happen if I wear it and it turns out not to be the trey loss. Not so fast. The Gamara Bava Metzia talks about those who instead of putting on real trey loss, they get the color Elon, right? Color Elon is the imposter of the trey loss. And the Ben Yehoyada and the Ben Ish Hai wants to know, you know, why does the Gamara always talk about the imposter of the imposter of trey loss? Why doesn't the Gamara say, you know what? Be careful you don't put comic books in your t'fillin. You know, be careful you don't take a lemon for the dalet minim. Why always hooked up on the trey loss? Don't take the indigo, don't take the color Elon. So the Ben Yehoyada says actually that you know, of course when it comes to other mitzvahs, we're not as worried, we're not as scared. But color Elon is actually if you're not getting the real thing and instead you get color Elon, color Elon is actually very harmful and very dangerous. In fact, the Ben Yehoyada writes color is gematria 131, the same gematria as the samach mem. Samach mem is samach mem aleph lamed to indicate, to teach that if you don't get the real trey loss and you get the fake and you get the phony, you should know you're not just doing something harmless. On those strings, you know who's hanging on to those strings? The malach hamavet, the samach mem himself. And therefore says the Ben Yehoyada, the Gamara always warns be careful you get the real deal, be careful you get the real cuz if you don't get the real deal and you get the raw deal, then guess who's going to be hanging on to the corners of your garment? Somebody who you would really prefer not to be hanging around with you and that is the sar shel Esav. So in fact, it's interesting, they asked um Rav Miller, one of the big poskim today, he's poskin in Canada and and Lakewood, they asked him, you know, what do you say about the uh Murex trunculus? So, he said, you know, he doesn't agree that if you He doesn't agree that well, it doesn't hurt. Yeah, it does hurt. Cuz based on this ben Yiyada, if you're not getting the real deal, then instead of walking around with uh complete fulfillment of a mitzvah to say deoraisa, the angel of death is now permanently attached to your clothing. So, he says he does not recommend taking a chance when it comes to uh the tcheiles. Now, tell you the truth, one of the talmidei chachamim associated with uh tcheiles wrote back to him, and he would seem to be making a very correct argument. And that is, you know, in the scheme of things, if you have the opportunity to be mekayem a mitzvah to say deoraisa, but if you're not, there's a there's a jeopardy of this kabbalistic reason of kala ilan, which is associated with the malach hamaves, how could you How could you forego the possibility of being mekayem a mitzvah to say deoraisa at the expense of this svara? This is not a halachic svara. We can't entertain We can't bring this svara into the halachic arena. We're going to really tell people not to be choshesh for a safek deoraisa because of this kabbalistic reason? Kabbalistic reasons are nice if everything is equal, all things being equal. But if there's a possibility that we can be mekayem a mitzvah deoraisa beshleimus, we're not going to give it up because of this safek. And therefore, he writes that if somebody in earnest is putting on the tcheiles made from the Murex trunculus because he feels, you know what? You never know, maybe I'm being mekayem a mitzvah to say deoraisa, like in number 23, Rebbe Yoel Teitelbaum. Chas veshalom to say that in case he's not getting it right, he is, you know, drumming up the samach mem that might be associated with kala ilan. So, to say not to put it on because of its color, Elon, you're in danger of this Kabbalistic concern, that's a hard argument to make. Those who want to say that in fact the techeiles has been discovered, they invoke a prophecy from Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler. Who's Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler? Rav Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler was one of the great mekubalim in the 17th century. Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler, it's okay. I'm just stretching. Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler uh was one of the great uh mekubalim 1648-1649. And Rav Yitzchak Yosef in uh the Yalkut Yosef in Orach Chaim Siman Tet, page kuf yud gimmel, brings down that it's said in the name of Shimshon Mi Ostropoler from the Arizal that from the time the Beis Hamikdash has been destroyed, the techeiles has been nignaz. However, in the year taf reish taf reish is 1840 tzitzis techeiles will be discovered again. Like the Zohar says, "Uvechis meya ushnayim leshisha yiftachun tar'a dechachmasa." An amazing prophecy of Shimshon Mi Ostropoler that techeiles will be discovered in the year 1840, oh Zeriah, that the Murex trunculus is is the correct techeiles. First of all, the Murex trunculus was not discovered in 1840. You know what was discovered in 1840? The cuttlefish. And that ain't no techeiles. So then what So then you'll ask, "So what did Rav Shimshon Mi Ostropoler mean that the techeiles will be discovered?" I don't know. But guess what? That's not how halacha works. Just because a mekubal makes a prediction that something will be discovered in a certain year, that does not positively halacha identify something as the correct techeiles. So my rebbeim said, "Nothing we said so far is really a halachic imperative. We've had some very strong questions on the Mero Tzenkeles." And what I like to conclude with conclude with, but I need some time here, is halacha l'maaseh. What should an observant Jew do? Is there a strong case for the Mero Tzenkeles? Is there Is it a safek? If it's a safek, then l'chiyura a person should be choshesh for it. What is the correct and proper procedure for an observant Jew, a Jew who wants to fulfill the halacha in the best possible way? What should we do halacha l'maaseh? So, let's start with the Sefardim. Rav Yitzchak Yosef in the Yalkut Yosef Siman Tes writes that that which they claim that they found today, tcheiles in tzitzis, it is not clear. Therefore, we do not see too many gedolei hador that wear it. So, what should a Jew do? Whenever you don't know what to do, you should follow the gedolei hador. And do the gedolei hador wear tcheiles? They do not wear tcheiles. And if the gedolei hador do not wear tcheiles, believe me, they're rather astute people. They know the information. They've been around the block. And they're not ignoring the information. And they've obviously come to the conclusion that they're not convinced. And if the gedolei hador don't wear it, then neither should we. So, you'll say, "But who are the gedolei hador? How are you supposed to know who the gedolei hador are?" Says Rav Yitzchak Yosef, "I'll tell you who the gedolei hador are. I'll let you know. You want to know who they are? Let me tell you who they are." In the last generation for the Sefardim, we were zocheh to see the gedolei hador. Rav Ezra Attiya, Rav Akiva Adas, Rav Ovadia Hedaya. Not one of them was even concerned mashahu. They had no suspicion at all to wear the tcheiles. Even the gedolim in Bnei Brak, the Chazon Ish, when they brought him the Challeles, he said, "No, thank you." The Steipler, who I was Machmir in every single Chumra of Tzitzis, but now when it came to Challeles, says Rebbe Yisrael Yosef, "Who is the Kanim as Voinam?" If Rebbe If Rebbe Ovadia Rebbe Ovadia Attia, Rebbe Yaakov Addas, if the Chazon Ish, if the Steipler were not interested in this, then who are we to say, "Well, I think I'm smarter. I think I'm better." It would not be appropriate for an observant Jew to act out of line with the way the Gedolei HaDor have conducted themselves. Is it Ga'avah to wear a Challeles? Says Rebbe Yisrael Yosef, "No, because maybe those who have done research have a point of view. But should you wear a Challeles? No, you shouldn't do it. You shouldn't do it. Why not? The Gedolei HaDor have not worn Challeles. But maybe it's a Safek Deoraisa, so you shouldn't wear it. Yeah, the Gedolei HaDor are familiar with the concept of Safek Deoraisa LeChumra. So why didn't the Gedolei HaDor Because they don't They're not They don't have a Safek. Because of all these questions we've raised, they they think it's dead wrong. They think it's a scam. They don't buy the archaeological evidence. They think it's a This is not a fish. This is not black ink. This is not They You have to bring it out to the sun. Of all the questions. These Gedolei HaDor, they didn't care. The Steipler was concerned for every Safek DeRabbanan and every Chumra. That means this he did not buy. He was astute enough to realize that this is not the real deal. They once asked the Chazon Ish, "Well, it doesn't hurt." He says, "Also doesn't hurt to wear glasses with no lenses in it. That also doesn't hurt." He said it doesn't hurt to wear your hat upside down. A lot of things don't hurt. Doesn't hurt to put your socks on your ears. Doesn't hurt. Didn't never hurt anybody. Exactly. Since if there's a possibility, you should do it, the fact that they didn't do it means what do they think? That's not It's not a possibility. They asked Rav Ovadia Yosef, "Alvin, you're on the ball today." They asked Rav Ovadia Yosef, They asked Rav Ovadia Yosef, "Should you wear the tzitzit of the Radzyner Rebbe?" He said, "You don't have to." They said, "Rav Ovadia, is it assur?" "It's not assur." So he said, "So why don't we do it?" "Cuz we have a tradition from the Ari that we will not have until Mashiach comes." And then Rav Ovadia said the following in a shiur. He said, "For a thousands of years the tradition in Klal Yisrael has been that we will not have chilazon until Mashiach comes, and nothing has occurred to shake us off that tradition." Again, how compelling is all of this? Rav Yitzchak Yosef is not bringing a halachic reason not to do it. He's merely observing the fact that the gedolim didn't do it, and making that observation, he's saying, "Neither should we." Rav Ovadia did not wear tzitzit, and he told other people not to. As far as I'm concerned, as far as I'm concerned, the seminal teshuvah on this topic was penned by Maran Harav Elyashiv zt"l. This is the final, as far as I'm concerned, the case closed teshuvah on this issue. And the reason I say that is for a number of reasons. Rav the Rav Elyashiv did not write many, many, many teshuvahs like other gedolim. He selected very carefully what he wrote about. He wrote very bekitzur, and he avoided controversial issues. So if he if he um took the time to write a teshuvah about this issue, that must have been he was pretty confident about it, and he felt it was important for Klal Yisrael to know this. And we have to look at who wrote the teshuvah to him. Because people like to say, "Well, I know the Gedolei Hador don't don't do it, but I know big rabbonim who do do it." And I will not deny that. There are big talmidei chachamim who do wear techeiles. But the Gedolei Hador do not unanimously. And therefore, the point I'm making is as follows. Rebbe We have to look who wrote this chuva to Rebbe Elyashiv. Reb Feivel Cohen. Who's Reb Feivel Cohen? Reb Feivel Cohen is a great great great talmid chacham in his own right. He wrote the Badei Hashulchan. He literally was a machria on hundreds, if not thousands, of machlokesin on Yoreh De'ah. So why does he have to ask Reb Elyashiv? Why can't he just pasken like he does thousands of times? The answer is this is such a fundamental issue that affects all of Klal Yisrael. This is not a decision for a regular talmid chacham. After all, doesn't every Jew need to know how should my tzitzis be? And Reb Elyashiv wrote equivocally not to do it for five reasons. Reason number one, said Reb Elyashiv, "I'm no youngster," says Reb Elyashiv. "I've been around the block." And you see the tzitzis of Reb Elyashiv. He says one of the Gedolei Hadmorim. And you see the righteousness of Reb Elyashiv. He doesn't want to write who it is. We all know who it is. We've studied it extensively now. This is our fifth shiur on the subject. Thought he found the chilazon. He shook the world. He found the chilazon. And what happened soon after that? Reb Herschel came and clearly debunked the techeiles of the Radziner Rebbe. And Reb Herschel's techeiles, the Janthina snail, was clearly debunked. "So do you think," says Reb Elyashiv, "that just because scientists today think it's a Murex trunculus, who's to say that in 10 years scientists won't come" I have a question for you. Do you think we've maximized our knowledge of this planet or is there still a lot more to learn about science and biology? Very likely we don't know as much as we think we know. I mean every 10 years it's like we say, you know, it we were so primitive back then. Who's to say so Rebbi Yaakov? If the first discovery was disproved, if the second discovery was disproved, I mean come on. You know, you have to be aware of the historic trends. You can't get caught up in a fad. These This is This is the This is the verdict of history. Verdict of history is that when it comes to trying to identify the chilazon after a certain amount of time they prove that it is not correct. That's the first argument of Rebbi Yaakov. Number two. We all know the argument of the Beis Halevi. Now it's interesting in our second shiur we had two versions of the story and Rebbi Yaakov clearly is learning like one of them. The argument of the Beis Halevi was What was the argument of the Beis Halevi? That since the Murex trunculus was no Excuse me, since the cuttlefish was known for many many years and it wasn't used, that is tantamount to having a mesorah that it's not the chilazon. Says Rebbi Yaakov, I'm not sure. Why can't we use the same argument against the Murex trunculus? The Murex trunculus was known for many many years. Why don't we say that's tantamount to having a mesorah that it's not the chilazon. Number three. Number three says Rebbi Yaakov. The Gaon of Kutno, Rebbi Yehoshua Melech Kutno, said for a thousand years the presumption in Klal Yisrael was the techeiles was lost. So what changed exactly? Number four and this might be the strongest argument of all of all. Rebbi Yaakov says, you don't remember the machlokes Rashi and the Rambam? Rashi says that the chilazon is only the trelis is only kosher without ingredients, without without other additives. The Rambam says you must put in other additives. Who do we pasken like? We don't know. We don't know. That means however you do it, 50% chance you're doing it wrong. We are not capable, says Rav Elyashiv. Maybe someone else thinks they are capable. Rav Elyashiv says, I am not capable of paskening who is correct, Rashi or the Rambam. And possibly the strongest argument of all is that you do have a lot to lose. And what do you have to lose? The Rambam writes in Siman Tasef Katan Hey 28 In 28, 29, the Rambam writes in Siman Tasef Hey that the tzitzis must be the color of the garment, l'chatchila. I have a question for you. If I take my strings and I color them with a magic marker, are they kosher? Yeah? There are only three possibilities. Yes, no, or I don't know. If I take my tzitzis and I color them with a magic marker green, are they kosher? No. They're only b'dieved. L'chatchila they're not kosher. Why not? We pasken knaf min ha'knaf, which means l'chatchila the tzitzis must be the color of the garment. I say, how do you ever make trelis? Trelis is the exception, says Rav Elyashiv. If this is not trelis, your tzitzis are pasul, l'chatchila. B'dieved not. L'chatchila yeah. So you're going to take a far out shot and you're going to color your strings? If you do and you got it wrong and you bet wrong, you blew it. Cuz you're not even m'kayem you're not m'kayem the mitzvah l'chatchila. Therefore, says Rav Elyashiv, we are met sate to the salvation of Hashem that he should send us Messiah and Eliyahu to give us the correct sack, but until then, stick with your white strings. Cuz you don't have to wear two pairs of tzitzis. There's no such thing as wearing two pairs of tzitzis. No. On any issue, you can find rabbonim both ways. I'm telling you I'm telling you, my argument is that we don't know what to do. You follow the Gedolei Hador. And the Gedolei Hador unanimously have not worn the tzitzis. Rebel Okay, I'll I'm not done. I'm not done. As far as I'm concerned, this tshuvas of Rebel Yoshiv, Maran Yoshiv Shlita, Yoshiv, is the case closed tshuvas. Rebel Yoshiv did not get involved in controversy. He presented five compelling arguments not to do it. Now, I don't have a problem if your rebbe if you have a rebbe and he wears tzitzis, and he's a you could follow him. As long as you follow everything he says. Then you're going to tell me your rebbe who wears it, and I'm going to tell you other things he says that you don't do. Okay? So be careful before you say I follow this one and that one. I'm talking about a regular Yid. If he doesn't know what to do, you follow the Gedolei Hador. What? You you don't follow regular rabbonim. You follow the Gedolei Hador. Rebel Chaim Kanievsky is a great great talmid chacham, but he said this is not in my department. We're sending this to the top. We're sending this to the top. Now, let me ask you something. I want to ask you a question on Rebel Yoshiv. Rebel Yoshiv offered five arguments. Does it seem like Rebel Yoshiv left out the most compelling argument that all one of them that we gave in the second shear. And that is, remember we asked, "How in the world are you supposed to make techeiles? How do you do it? One string like the Rambam, two strings like the Raavad, four strings like Tosafos?" Why doesn't Reb Elyashiv say, "Well, you don't know how to do it anyway." The Razino Rebbe said, "Well, go like the Rambam." So, why doesn't Reb Elyashiv say, "We don't know how to pasken like that machlokes?" So, I saw in Rav Hershel Schachter's sefer, he makes a very good point. Because it happens to be on this machlokes of how many strings to make blue, we do have a psak. Mysteriously, the Mishnah Berurah paskens on this. And the Mishnah Berurah paskens like Tosafos, that if you would have blue wool and techeiles, you know how many strings you should make? Four. The Mishnah Berurah in Siman Tes of Katan Zayin, Mishnah Berurah there in Siman Katan Yud Dal, brings down from the Chofetz Chaim and the Malbim, that you make four strings blue and four strings white. So, Rav Hershel Schachter was correct. Regarding the machlokes, people say, "Well, you can't do techeiles cuz you don't know how many strings." We do know how many strings. That's something the Mishnah Berurah paskened on. But regarding, you see, look at the brilliance of Reb Elyashiv. Reb Elyashiv knew exactly what the arguments were. He didn't say, "Well, we don't know how many strings to make blue." Reb Elyashiv knew the Mishnah Berurah. If the Chofetz Chaim offers a psak, that you could take to the bank. But the Chofetz Chaim never offered a psak of whether you put in salmonim or you don't put in salmonim. Therefore, number one, says Reb Elyashiv, this is story is the oldest story on the hills. You know, this story is as is as old as the hills. Every time someone thinks they found techeiles, a decade later they disprove it. Number two, we knew about the murex trunculus for hundreds of years, we didn't use it. For a thousand years, the mesorah was it was nignaz. How do we do it? Rashi or the Rambam? And even if we know what to do, if we didn't get it right, l'chatchila your tzitzis won't be kosher. Now, did Reb Elyashiv say you're not allowed to wear techeiles? No. He just said, "Don't do it." He didn't say you're not allowed to. Comes with Chaim Kanievsky. And in the safer Das Neiter, he was asked in Shuva Resha and Gimel, is there any Makon La'achmer for those who say they found the true Chailas? Reb Chaim Kanievsky says, "No." In the Divrei Chaim Mamesh, they're no there's no substance into what they're saying. It is impossible to create new Halachas based on theory without a Kabbalah. But they ask Reb Chaim, but from many Poskim, it's Mevo'ar, like from the Artzos Chaim and the Radvaz, that it could be Chailas will come back. Says Reb Chaim, "That's right, when Mashiach comes, it could come back." So somebody emailed me a few times that there's a Ramban in Parshas Tetzaveh that seems to say that we do have Chailas Chaim, and they showed it to Reb Chaim, and Reb Chaim was so excited. If Reb Chaim tells me he's excited, I'll believe it. I'm assuming I'll give Reb Chaim the benefit of the doubt that he was familiar with the Rambans, and he still maintained that Nignaz means things. By the way, look in the footnote over here. Says Reb Chaim, "Did anybody hear of an institute the Institute of the discovery of the Man that they found a flask of Man, and they now have discovered what the Man looked like?" No, because the Man was Nignaz. Did anybody have an institute that they found they found the Aron? The lost ark. The only one who found the lost ark is not for the shear. Oh, that you're up for. Okay, good. Fine. So, um did anybody ever find create an institute for the staff of Aaron HaKohen? The answer is no, all these things are Nignaz Beroymi. And says Reb Chaim, "If all of these things are Nignaz, Nignaz is Nignaz is Nignaz, then guess what? Then when the when say the is that's what means. They asked what if you're on a desert island and you only have one pair of and it has on it? Should you wear it? No, can't put it on. You can't put it on. Why? Cuz you're going to fool people to think that this is really you know how to fool people. Better not to wear anything than to wear this. Are you over about this? No. No, you're not over any of them. But if you only have one pair of what's better not to wear it or to wear it? In this it says said don't wear it. Let's say you see somebody wearing it. Should you be huh? If you want to. However they came out with a from and was not so kind. They asked him are you over if you put on about this? He says probably. He said why? Why can you make a like by but if it's not the I don't want to be the the about this. He says probably it's only works if it might be the you can make a then in case it's not I don't be but if there's no chance that it's the right thing. Then it could be a doesn't help. The what about this of uh coloring it a color which is not a color of Torah never said. So is that wearing blue tzitzis or eight fine tzitzis? No, uh neither. Not wearing tzitzis. So it's both then? To uh color the tzitzis that's not mandated by the Torah, in his opinion, that's again, that's not normally Reb Elyashiv had no problem with Bal Tosif. Rav Chaim Kanievsky didn't have a problem with Bal Tosif. I'm just bringing in because people say, "Well, there's nothing to lose. There's nothing to lose." Not so fast that there's nothing to lose. Not so clear that there's nothing to lose. So living in America, I think a question that everybody should have is what did Reb Moshe hold? What did Reb Moshe hold? It's very hard to answer that question. It's not clear exactly how much of this research was available at the time of Reb Moshe. I asked Reb Baruch Mascots, who learns with Reb Dovid Feinstein every day, what does Reb Dovid hold? And at the time that he shared with this this with me, I don't think his second volume of Sha'alos u'Teshuvos u'Divrei Moshe Rabbeinu was out. This might be in his new volume, I don't know, but he shared with me his notes of his second edition of Divrei Moshe Rabbeinu that Reb Dovid Feinstein was taken to the institute and they showed him the whole process and he didn't buy it. He didn't buy it. No, when I say he didn't buy it, not that he didn't purchase it. He didn't that he had questions on it and he didn't accept it. He didn't accept it. And he said Reb Moshe didn't either. Reb Moshe didn't either and the Gedolei Yisrael have not The Gedolei Yisrael have not accepted it um as well. So therefore, his conclusion is shev v'al ta'aseh adif. Moreover, Reb Boaz says again, I'm not I'm busti, I don't come here l'hakantar. I'm not coming here to Sorry. I'm not coming here to uh instigate. I'm just coming to present what I think is normative halakha. This is a situation where there's a certain uncertain uncertainty, what is tcheiles? And the gedolei Yisrael, whenever we don't know what to do, we have to follow the Enei Ha'Eidah. Now, you're allowed to follow your rebbe if this is your rebbe and you follow him for everything. But if it's a matter that affects all of klal Yisrael and you see great people are machnia da'atam to the gedolei Yisrael, believe me, if Reb Moshe, if Reb Aaron Kotler, if Reb Ovadia Yosef, if Reb Elyashiv, if Reb Zalman Auerbach, if the Tzitze Eliezer, if you could find me one of the great gedolei ha'dor of the last century who said, "You know what? I wear tcheiles." Then and then there's something to talk about. But it's pretty unanimous that the top gedolei ha'dor of the last century, they don't wear it. And if they do, they don't let anybody know that they wear it. Reb Chaim Kanievsky, the Steipler, the Chazon Ish, they don't wear it. Reb Aaron Leib Shteinman didn't wear it. Shai, he wore 100 pairs. The fact that he wore one of tcheiles, I don't know, as you know. I I he probably did. As one of them. As one of them. It's interesting, the story goes like this. The story goes that in the times of the Radziner rebbe, so, you know, he was promoting and promulgating his tcheiles, and a chassid a chassid, excuse me, somebody who was anti-Radziner tcheiles, he came along and said, like, "Enough is enough." He ripped it off the guy, he tore it up, and he came to Reb Shmuel Salant and said, "Nu, what do I do?" He said, "Gevaldic! You're like Pinchas, you're a mechane kenas Hashem. Just find out how much it costs and you got to pay him back, you know? You still owe him the money." So, you'll say you'll say as follows, "So, what are we supposed to do if we don't have tcheiles? What are we supposed to do?" So, I'll share with you, somebody sent me an email, very interesting mareh makom. There's a Kava HaYashar in perek mem hei. Kava HaYashar tells us a little secret, a little side about the of he says is 850. I am is 130. I am is 70, you are the 10, no no 5130. The other I am is 13260. Sits is Sits is 590. Sits is plus I am plus I am is 850 the of meaning he says I have a holistic tradition that you should look at your sits is and be towards and it's you I am it. And I shall remove all of the impediments and all of the that covers this world. Let me end off with a beautiful idea that I write. He says like this. You know he's a talking in the context of Who is the great hero of Esther? Esther had no father, Esther had no mother. Why did I shall set it up that the great heroine in the times of was somebody who had no father, no mother cuz she had to counteract was coming with this was was of of him. Who could possibly counteract of of him? But there's a rule that someone who wants to be a of her and is limited by circumstance and yearns to fulfill the it's considered as if they will fulfill the in the highest possible way. Because they're not actually doing it. God is giving them and bestowing upon them the when God bestows upon you a he doesn't bestow on you an ordinary he bestows on you a perfect therefore in order to counteract God had to create the hero who not only doesn't have a father and mother, never saw her father, never saw her mother, yearns her whole life to keep it of and I shall treat it as if she was fulfilling the highest possible way. Says I shall we have very few this is a We don't have carbonites. We don't have mitzvahs that relate to our land, many of them. We don't have mitzvahs that depend on the base of mikdash. Even the great mitzvah of tzitzis, we cannot do bishleimus. This is our consolation, that whenever we're not able to make a mitzvah, anybody whose heart pains them that they're not able to fill the mitzvah fully, Hashem looks into their heart, and Hashem says, "You know what? I see the yearning you have to fill the mitzvah." Therefore, says Reb Yonasan Eibeschitz, it is an obligation on every person when you put tzitzis on, must think about the mitzvah of tcheiles. And you should moan, and you should groan almost nine that you can't fulfill it. And if you're able to do that, and if you're able to engender a real desire to make a kind of mitzvah of tcheiles, then Hashem will credit you with tcheiles in the most perfect, beautiful way. So, my rabbi say, is it correct to wear tcheiles? I believe it's more correct not to wear tcheiles. I'll tell you a personal thought, and you could agree with it, you could disagree with it. It's a free country. I have a question. Let's say it turns out that it is tcheiles, and somebody decided to wear it. Turns out it was tcheiles, and a person wore it. Do you think they get rewarded in shamayim? Question. Let's say the person you said, "Ah, the gedolim said not to do it. I'm going to wear it." And it turned out they were right. Are they going to get rewarded in shamayim? I'm not so convinced. I'm not convinced that they would. I have a question. If Reb Elyashiv paskened that it's not techeiles, then don't we say that the reality of halacha is determined by the Beis Din Shel Matah? However, the Beis Din Shel Matah paskens downstairs, then it's not techeiles, but it is. You know what I'm saying? The Torah doesn't depend on what they say upstairs. Depends on what the halachic process downstairs. If the gedolim for in general say not to do I'm not saying if your rebbe says to do it. A regular Yid who doesn't know what to do. Goes into the sefarim store, they're selling it. Should I do it? I don't understand. I I If the gedolim say not to do it and you do it, why would you walk around with a banner basically saying, "I don't listen to Gedolei Yisrael"? Again, if your rebbe says to do it, you could do it Of course you should follow him, but in general, I don't understand. What do you think God wants you to do? You don't know what to do. To take it upon yourself to say, "I know better than Gedolei Yisrael"? The purpose of tzitzis is to offer protection. What do you think offers more protection? To go out on a limb and be, you know, be a revolutionary and say, "Look, the scientists think they found it" or to listen to the Gedolei Yisrael? And I found Reb Shternbuch says that somebody who puts on techeiles, you know he's like Have a question. Let's say someone is machmir like Beis Shammai. What does the Gemara say? Lo asa klum. Lo asa klum. What do you mean? It's a shita. Try recent brochos. Be that as it may, this is my humble opinion that you know, everybody should follow their personal mar derech, but I think in general the Gedolei Yisrael have been pretty unanimous about this issue. And therefore, I think it is more correct sheva al tasah odef. And as Reb Yisrael Eibeshitz says, we await the goel tzedek and in the meantime we are misaneyach. And we we we thank with great gratitude of Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog, who this was his discovery, but ultimately he dismissed it, and we hope for Eliyahu Navi to be Megaleh to us the mitzvah of Bishul Akum. Yasher Koach. You've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by torahanytime.com.