Panel Discussion - The Techeiles Revolution

Good evening everyone and a good erev shabbos to you. Happy Thanksgiving to those who are observing. It's a pleasure and an honor to welcome you to our evening or night of learning together with some great talmidei chachamim and wonderful speakers. It's truly a privilege and a pleasure. We're so grateful to them for agreeing to be with us this evening. The topic is tcheiles. The topic is a tcheiles revolution. We all know the Torah obligates us to have tzitzis on the corners of our garment and tcheiles with them as well. The Gemara Menachos tells us in daf mem gimmel that Reb Meir used to teach man ishtana tcheiles mikol minei tivonim. Why was that color chosen of all the possible colors? Mishum she tcheiles domeh layom, veyom domeh lerakia, verakia domeh lekisei hakavod. Tcheiles reminds us, that color, that turquoise, that deep blue reminds us of the ocean, of the sea, which reminds us of the heavens, which reminds us ultimately of the kiseh hakavod, of God's divine throne. Tcheiles invokes the notion of imagination. And even though one looks at, when peers at one thing or eisam or so, one is supposed to look at the corner of their garment, there's what they physically see, the contrast of the blue and the white, but when one invokes the imagination and vision, you can see and you can dream and you can believe in so much more. We are right now in a pandemic, we're in a difficult time, and when we look at what is right in front of us, when we look at what's on the surface, we see one thing. But the Jewish people exist, our tenacity, our resiliency, we are here because the Torah, with its call for emunah, with its charge for bitachon, tells us to use our imagination, to not only look at what is right in front of us, but to allow the power of the imagination to bring us all the way up to the kiseh hakavod, to believe in something so much bigger, in something so much more. And that is the solution to redemption. And so on this day, on this weekend, and really for a Jew each and every day, as we're called Yehudim machkirei alum, a people of gratitude, we don't just see what is in front of us and feel pessimistic or sad, we see so much more that is beyond, we see the guiding hand of the Ribono Shel Olam and for that we feel so grateful. I want to thank our Rosh Beit Midrash here at the Dr. Isaac Balas Beit Midrash of Boca Raton Synagogue, Rabbi Simi Shabtai, for dreaming, for imagining this beautiful program on an evening when so many are not involved in learning to bring the learning to the masses. I want to thank him for his vision and I want to thank him for reaching out. There are 54 communities across North America and beyond who have partnered to come together for Torah learning tonight and that is an enormous statement. An extremely powerful statement and we're so grateful to all the communities, all the shuls, all the rabbonim who have partnered, who have joined with us, together with BRS 55 in total communities who are spending this evening in Talmud Torah and in learning on this important subject that reminds us to invoke our power of imagination. May we see the Kisei Hakavod right in front of us, not as if it's real, but because it's real and may we merit for the Kisei Hakavod, for the Ribono Shel Olam, to transform us from a period of darkness to the period of light, to be able to distinguish between the dark and the light and to know that it's day, that the sun will yet rise, that we will turn that corner on this period and experience his Geulah, Mitzvah Shem Bimheira Viyameinu. Our first speaker this evening, my dear colleague and friend, Rabbi Dr. David Shabtai, is the Rav of the Sephardic Minyan here at the Boca Raton Synagogue. He is a medical doctor who has written what is a very popular and important book called Defining the Moment on Brain Death. He's also the author of the forthcoming book on Purim called Hiding in Plain Sight. He's a rebbe in the schools in our community and it's a great honor and privilege to be able to welcome Rabbi Dr. David Shabtai. Thanks so much Rabbi Goldberg. Thank you Rabbi Simi Shabtai for putting this all together. I have the privilege of starting us off and giving some of the background. So, we're going to be discussing some of the history, the archaeology, the chemistry, what makes treif less treif. So, we'll start with some of the history. Cuz it's somewhat interesting. This is one of the few mitzvot in the Torah which we until recently really haven't had the opportunity to do. It's a mitzvah that seems to have disappeared somewhat. And so it's important to try to figure out when that happened, what happened, when, why, and what has happened recently to change all of that. And so we know that the Torah talks about the mitzvah of techeiles when it comes to tzitzis, when it comes to bigdei kehuna, it's an assumption that we know what this is. It's something that's available, it's something that each and every single person was required to have. So it sounds at the very least that techeiles is something that exists, it's something that's common, it's something that's well known. Um but it's also something that's unique. It's reserved for the bigdei kehuna, it's reserved for certain number of strings on the tzitzis, but it doesn't seem to be something that's all that common, but something that certainly exists. We know that when the Beis Hamikdash, the first Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, Neriah Hanavi um writes in Megillas Eichah, "Am hishir Nitzurim, Sar Hamarav Tavachim, Lechorim Uleyogvim." That Nevuzaradan left a number of people in Eretz Yisrael. He didn't He left He didn't exile everybody. And the Gemara explains who are these chorim and yogvim. Yogvim refer to those who made techeiles. They were on the coast, they were necessary for the techeiles production. As we'll see, techeiles production is not something that can be done everywhere. It has to be done only where techeiles is found. It comes from a snail, it comes from a sea creature, and so it needs to be found by that sea creature. Eretz Yisrael is on the coast, and it made sense to leave people there who knew what they were doing. It was a skill. It wasn't something that everybody could do. It's something that many, many people wanted. It was a sign of royalty and regality, as we'll see. I mean, it made sense to leave them there. So we know that certainly during the time of the first At the end of the first Beis Hamikdash it existed. During the time of the second Beis Hamikdash we know that the bigdei kehuna continued to have techeiles. And we know that the Gemara in Menachos, many hundreds of years later, talks about the fact that they know how to make techeiles. Says "How do you How do you dye techeiles?" And he tells him he has a recipe for how to dye techeiles, and we'll see some of the details of this as we go on. But, at the very least, we see that it was something that was at least known throughout the time of the Gemara. Meaning, even though even though the Jews had left Eretz Yisrael already, in the time of the Gemara this at least existed somewhat, that they were aware that this happened, and it seems like people were still aware of how to dye the techeiles, even though we'll show that already it seems to have been coming more rare. We get the idea that at the time of the Geonim, the period after the Gemara, that's when we sort of lost both the tradition for how to make techeiles, we lost any remnants of techeiles, we don't have the tradition, we don't know where it's found, and we'll see that it's during the time of the Geonim that we cease to have techeiles, and it ceases to be part of the mitzvah. It just disappears, and we just don't have anymore. And then the story of techeiles takes a huge huge gap in the timeline. Since the time of the Geonim after the Gemara until the 1800s, very little happens in the world of techeiles. And then comes along the Radziner Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, the author of many works. He has a fascination with techeiles, and he wants to reinvigorate and he wrote a whole bunch of sefarim on it. He has something called the Ptil Techeiles, Ein Techeiles, Tuvnei Techeiles, Sifnei Techeiles, a whole bunch of sefarim, and he wants to reinvigorate the mitzvah of techeiles. He wants to find out what it is. And he does a whole bunch of research, and according to him, he posits that it is a it's a crustacean called a cuttlefish. The problem is he doesn't know how to make dye from a cuttlefish. We know it has to be from a chilazon. The Gemara says that all techeiles has to be from a chilazon, as we'll see. It's a type of a sea creature, but we don't know what it was. We lost that tradition during the time of the late Gemara, during the time of the Geonim, we don't know what it is. He's trying to recreate it based on hints that we find in the Gamara which we'll see shortly. And he suggested it's a cuttlefish but he doesn't know how to extract dye from this cuttlefish. It's not his specialty. He goes to Italy to try to find a chemist who can help him extract dye from the cuttlefish. And as we'll see he suggests it needs to be a dark blue dye and he finds a chemist who's able to do it and he says this is the trelas and he then starts he then starts dipping his tzitzis in it. And for many years the tzitzis of the Chassidim wear his tzitzis. There was a lot of opposition to it back in the day both based on haskaphic, halachic, and later some scientific challenges as well. It turns out that the tzitzis that was made for the tzitzis of the Rebbe by this chemist in Italy, the blue was not actually an extract of the of the cuttlefish. What it was instead was in order to turn the fish to get the dye out, to get it onto the wool, a whole bunch of other chemicals need to be added and the process needs to be done. And it turns out that that process was what made the tzitzis blue. It wasn't actually the fish. If you left the fish out, it would still turn blue. And therefore many showed that this cannot be really what the tzitzis is because even without the fish it would be blue. And we know that it has to come from a fish. Here the fish isn't necessary to the process. And a little bit later in 1913 Rabbi Herzog who will then become the chief rabbi of Israel, currently then he was the chief rabbi of Ireland, writes a PhD thesis. He calls it porphyrology, the study of argaman of trelas, of dyes that were used in the Mishkan and the bigdei kehuna. And he also was at a loss to try to figure out how exactly is he going to figure out how to get from the snail or the fish to the dye. And he suggests in fact that it might be the murex trunculus. The murex trunculus is a is a snail. Uh he just doesn't know how to get it to be blue and he suggests that that's potentially a problem because he knows it needs to be blue and if it can't come from the snail he doesn't know how to figure it out. He should be it could be but he can't make it happen. And only much later in 1985 the Rav Avraham Tevger figured out this to figure out the secret of how to do it. Because you see historically speaking historically speaking the snail Murex trunculus was used to make both purple and deep blue. And the challenge was was that when anybody tried to do it in modern times all they could get was purple. And they didn't understand well if it needs to be blue. And so this seems to be an argument that the Murex trunculus could not be the snail from which Techeiles was made because it doesn't make blue. Until Rav Tevger figured out the secret to how it is which we'll see in the chemistry section. So in terms of archaeology how do we know what was what was this This suggestion is currently that it should be the Murex trunculus snail. So what evidence is there historically and archaeologically to prove that it's true? So we know that Techeiles was used for many things in the rest of the world aside from the big kahuna. The Rambam writes that this was what the royalty wore. It was something that was reserved for royalty and he says "Kidmut malachim bizman Torah." That's what they wore. And he even continues later and says even nowadays it's rare and it's only found among the aristocracy. The Gemara seems to indicate that it was used for other things as well and in fact it suggests that if a person finds Techeiles on Shabbos can he assume that it's made for tzitzis or not? But the assumption is the Gemara in Eruvin assumes that Techeiles was used for other uses also not just tzitzis. Meaning that the dying industry was the common dying industry. That which was used for Techeiles for the tzitzis was also used for other types of garments. And so it should be the same process. It should be the same snail that was used for tzitzit, was used for these other products, these other clothing. The Gemara in Eruvin wants to know different cloth that's found on Shabbos, what its status is, assuming that they were all done with the same they look all identical. Meaning that the tzitzit was used the dye that was used the snail that was used to produce the dye was the same all around. And it's interesting because the Gemara in Menachot assumes that there are only two things that could possibly make that same color. It could be trelas or something called kela ilan. It either comes from the chilazon from the snail that's used to make the for the mitzvah of trelas or something called kela ilan. The kela ilan, as we'll show a little bit later, is indigo. There's a lot of rishonim, geonim, the Aruch writes that kela ilan is indigo and we're pretty sure we know what indigo is. It's something that's been used as a it's a plant-based dye which is common and easy to use. And the Gemara assumes here that if you find something of this color, it's either trelas or kela ilan. There are only two options for what this color could have come from. So, it's either trelas or kela ilan. So, if we find that they were using this color, it must have been either for the for produced by the chilazon for trelas or for kela ilan. And those are the only two options there are for producing this color that the Gemara is aware of. Where was it found? So, pasuk in Yechezkel points out that trelas v'argaman miyei Elisha and the Targum explains mimedinah Italia, which we know from secondary sources is where a lot of dye production was used, particular particularly of this murex trunculus snail. This pasuk in Bereishit says Zevulun l'chof yamim yishkon uv'hu l'chof oniyot v'yarchato al Tzidon, that Zevulun, which was um heavily involved in the shipping and sailing industry, was on the coast in order to accomplish that, and from in the northern part of Eretz Yisrael until Tzidon. And the Gamoran Shabbos points out that you seem possible that we saw earlier of the yogavim in Yirmiyahu el say so where did the found me the odd Haifa in this very area where is the volume was found and if you take a look at the map of Israel from Haifa until Sur so Haifa is in the bottom on the bottom of the map tire is Sur on the top and precisely that is the lows are the locations where we found archaeological evidence of clay less and of snail produced dye industry and particularly of the merix trunculus snail. We've also found coins in those areas that depict the snail the merix snail on them as well if you take a look carefully you could see the merix snail on it and after remember this was a symbol of royalty this wasn't something that was so common and to wear the argaman to wear the clay less was something to be proud of and they put it on their coins and we found many of these coins in that area and that is precisely the shape of the snail that was used and we see from here that it was common this was the commonly produced dye the dye that was done for these purposes was from this snail. We see also in terms of the language that the term clay less is used as in the madrasha and the madrasha and many madrashim as porphyrin or porphera which is porphera which is the language that in Latin and in Greek which relates to this very snail. We see evidence in the the rabbi says that he's talking about clay less in the brochos and he says that the clay less is called porphyrin. We see in the he writes that it's from porphyr and that's the same color he says both of them are clay less ain't no blue he says it's a little bit different interesting but he still uses the same language to refer to Tcheiles, and we know from all over the secular literature that porphura or porphyr is referring to this murex trunculus. We see also in Kabbalistic works discussing other things also, where Tcheiles is referred to as porphura. At the bottom, "Kiseini Kaporfira d'Malka v'Nikra Beged Tcheiles." Regardless of what that means in spiritual terms, spiritual mystical terms, he's clearly using the word porphura and Tcheiles to mean similar things. And we know from secular sources that that's true also. We know from Pliny the Elder Natural History, he refers to porphura and these purples and blue dyes that come from the murex trunculus. We know from Aristotle a number of places who refers to these sea creatures, the murex, the porphura, the murex snails as the source of the blue and the purple. And in in other languages, in Greek and in German, I'm going to trust them that that's accurate, or at least that the Google Translate translation was accurate, that these things mean porphura or porphura, and they're also referring to this purple dye, the purple fish, the murex fish. Um and so we know that the Chazal when they refer to it, that's what they were referring to. The timing. So we know that Mar Me Mashke Aiteel Tcheiles b'Shneira v'Chai. That when Rav Achai, who's living towards the end of the Gemara period, someone brought Tcheiles, and it was something to be noted. It wasn't something that was available. It was something that someone brought it, and the Gemara took a note to say, "Hey, this is something interesting. This is not something that was very well established then." The Gemara in Sanhedrin points out that "Ha Shaliach l'Rabbah Zug b'Mi Rekes v'Taf v'Tafsu Nesher u'V'Yodam D'varim M'Nasa b'Luz u'Minyu Tcheiles." It was a miracle that the Zug, these two talmidei chachamim, came to visit Rabbah, also living towards the latter end of the Gemara period, and they came from Eretz Yisrael. Rashi writes on the bottom that Rekes is Tiveria. They were caught by the Persians, and they had cheiles with them. And this is something that was unique. They had to bring it from Eretz Yisrael. It's something that was notable. It was not something that seems to be terribly common, although it seems that they were familiar with it even during the time of the later period of the Gamara. You know, from the Ramban, we know that many Rishonim point out that they no longer had cheiles in the Middle Ages. The Ramban explicitly that Mimosa Gaonim nahagu lachateish betalish yesh belavan velo cheiles. That already from the Gaonim period, they no longer had cheiles. It was towards the end of the Gamara they did. And already towards the Gaonim period, they no longer did. And in second sources, we see something similar as well. In the 12 Caesars about Nero, that they were going to punish people who were producing cheiles for non-royal purposes. We know from Codex Theodosius, which is a a rule promulgated in 427 CE, which is towards the latter end of the Gamara period, that people were not allowed to use the dye, the imperial purple or the blues products of the murex trunculus snail to do regular mundane everyday things. It was only reserved for royalty. And we know in Codex Justinianus in 470 where, if you read the Latin carefully, referring both to the purpura and to the murex, that producing it for a non-royal purpose was punishable by death. Which is kind of interesting because it helps explain why a mitzvah min ha Torah was somewhat lost. How else could it's a mitzvah min ha Torah? It's shocking almost that it's something that we lost the mesorah for. Something that people may have given their lives for, but if there was a risk of death in doing these things, so it understandably fell away when the Jewish population moved to Bavel and there was no longer a significant Jewish population in Eretz Yisrael. And producing it was on the pain of death, it's understandable on some level why it was lost. And the timeline, the secular timeline, corresponds very well with our with Khazars. We even find we found um wool-based and uh and cloth-based Khazars dyes from those periods from early early on um to show that this was being done particularly in those locations. Um and that we know that it was around at that time and we don't really find it much thereafter. So, how does Khazars work? The color scheme, how exactly does it make sense and how it does it work? So, what's the chemistry behind it? So, what's the color? So, the color Khazars as Rabbi Goldberg mentioned earlier in the Khazars in Sota Khazars in Khulin, Rabbi Meir Omer money started Khazars because of the money. Why was Khazars picked as as unique? Khazars reminds us of the sea, the sea reminds us of the sky, and the sky reminds us of God's throne of glory. If I had to guess, then it sounds like we're talking about a type of a blue. It's true, the sky has a variety of hues and a variety of shades, but it's blue. The sea can have a variety of shades, it's reflecting the sky. This clearly seems to be blue. There are some who suggested that no, it means something else, but it would to my mind it would seem terribly misleading of Khazars to give us all of these analogies and say, "Hey, but it was red or it was purple or something else." If it's referring to the sky, it's referring to something that's blue. Now, the sky can change during the during the day, during the night time, as it gets evening, the colors do indeed change, but it's referring to blue. And so, we mentioned earlier it needs to be a blue. And we pointed out earlier that there are two sources of this blue dye. The first was Khazars from the Khazal, and the second was Khazal Elon from indigo. And the Khazal of Metzia says The Khazal points out that the Torah reminds us that we have to remember the Exodus from Egypt numerous times. One of them is by tzitzit. So, why does he have to remind us by tzitzit? So, he says, "I am telling us I knew I am the one who it's yes was able to differentiate who was a firstborn and who wasn't during the plague of the firstborn. So, too, I can tell the difference between me and the last line shatola kela ilan bigdo amart kela sum. Someone who dyes their tzitzit with kela ilan to produce the same color and says that it's kela. Because the colors are so similar that you could fool somebody. The colors are so very similar that you can't tell the difference by looking. Indeed, have some interesting type of a test in order to a bunch of chemicals put together in order to figure out how to differentiate the two from each other. Very hard to understand what that means. The says we have very difficult time understanding how these tests are used, but from a visual perspective, they look identical. And so, clearly they were you could have, in theory, dyed your tzitzit with kela ilan and produced the same color. You wouldn't have fulfilled the mitzvah. And the here is saying that seemingly it was something that could have been done. And clearly saying, "No, that's wrong. You must use the kela." Now, we know what kela ilan is. Kela ilan is indigo in the from the side of the from tons of we know that kela ilan is indigo. We know exactly what indigo looks like. We know how to produce it. It comes from a plant and we know exactly what it is. Kela is therefore should look very very very similar. And in fact, the dye produced by the murex trunculus snail is exactly the same chemical composition as kela ilan. It's as we'll see shortly, it's the same exact chemical and therefore it looks exactly the same. The only difference is the this source of the dye. Did it come from an indigo plant or did it come from a chilazon? And that makes all the difference when it comes to the mitzvah. In terms of the dying process, so we saw this before. What do you do? So how do you dye the chilazon? Cuz that's what we're going to need to know. What do you do to the snail to see could it be a snail from which you can produce chilazon? You have to bring the dam of the chilazon. And elsewhere Tosafot points out that it's not actually the blood of the chilazon. It needs to be in the separate It's not part of the circulatory system of the chilazon. It's a separate sack. Which in the murex trunculus it indeed is. It's called the branchial gland. It's a separate gland that has this dye. This ammonite and some other chemicals. You have to heat it up. And you have to test a little bit in an egg. And you test it. You get rid of that and you use chilazon. Something else. And the Rambam writes "Kaitzan sofi chilazon" when he when he summarizes this halakha, he says he says it's the normal way that we dye things. It was the regular dying process. It was the regular process used to dye things. Now the Gemara seems to indicate that chilazon is a color that is a it has is very fast. Meaning it doesn't come off easily. Which also means, if you think about it, it's very hard to get on. It doesn't dissolve easily in water. And so what you need to do first is a reduct It's called reduction in order to get it to be dissolvable in water and stick to the dye stick to the to the wool rather and that's why we heat it up. And that that the Gemara seems to be indicating there was a fermentation process that took place that they would use to reduce it. We can use chemicals nowadays. They would leave a little bit of the flesh of the snail in there with the bacteria on it which would reduce the dye and then it would be able to adhere to the wool. But this was the common way of doing of dying. It's called the vat dying. And in fact, there was a show um there was a show produced in England called The Worst Jobs in History, which actually tried to see could you do this? The people from the Tilted Hat Association were in touch with them about We understand that using our current methods, you could take this murex trunculus chilazon and produce trelas from it. Were Were they able to do it given the technology and the science available back in the day? And they go through a whole episode here and you unfortunately can't see the you can't hear it, but they show and you can watch it on YouTube how you can actually produce it using only tools and chemicals that were available to Khazal, it still works. Now from the dying perspective, and what was a challenge for Rav Herzog was okay, we can't get it to be blue though. For other generations, all they could do is get it to be purple. And it's sometimes called Tyrian purple. Tyrian from Tyre from Sur, Tyrian purple. So how do you get it to be blue? And this was a challenge that Rav Herzog says it can't be the murex trunculus because it doesn't turn blue. And so what Rav Eleazar Tauber found out in 1985 was it's true. There's a reduction um reaction that has to happen in order to get the dye to stick to the wool. But then it can get oxidized. Then there can be a photo reaction that happens afterwards. When you when you expose the trelas to light right after it was reduced the dibromo indigo goes away. The bromines the bromines release and what's left is blue. And so when you're dying when you're dying it, when you're producing the dye, it looks like this greenish blueish yellowish mix. It doesn't actually look blue at all. And this is perhaps what Khazal meant when they said you have to do a teima with an eggshell. So you take an eggshell cuz it doesn't look blue. They don't know what it's actually going to be because you have to expose it both to air and light. And so while it's in the liquid form, it doesn't look blue. And so they would take a little bit of they would take a little bit out in an actual and dip some wool into it and see will will it actually turn blue? Because you can't tell in the process, you can only tell from the from the final process. And this is the dibromo indigo molecule. This is what makes it look purple. And when it's exposed to air and light, the bromines, the two BRs on the edge, come off and it turns into a blue. And you see here as they're producing it on the Ptilcot website that it's yellow in the beaker. Once they dip the wool into the beaker, comes out and in front of your eyes it turns to blue. I've seen it. It's a fascinating thing to watch. It goes from yellow to blue. Um something you can't transmit exactly through the the zoom. It's a very stinky process. Um Cuz the snails kind of smell. But you can watch it happen in front of your eyes to turn from yellow into blue. And it's for that reason that the snail is assumed to be is the Ptilcot Association assumes and many poskim assume that this snail is the one that produces the chilazon. In fact, there's a there's a nice little contest called um L'vush Sha'ar Ha'aron by Rabbi Hellman who points out that in order to assume that the murex is not the chilazon, a lot of things have to happen. And the reason that you'd have to assume that the murex was around as so something else. It was somebody else was found exactly in those areas. Something else was referred to as purpura. Something else could something else could produce such a strong dye. Something else was identical to Kehilat Yaakov. Something else would only be able to be differentiated by a fading. Something else must be extracted while alive. You didn't mention it earlier. Coast with point the Gemara points out in Shabbos that the snail to be used for chilazon, it's better to use to extract the dye while the snail is alive or right after it dies. Otherwise, it doesn't work as well. And that's true with the murex trunculus. There's an enzyme in the branchial gland called purpurase that's you need in order for the reaction to take place. And soon after the snail dies, that enzyme starts to degrade and isn't useful anymore. It only works immediately after it was killed, otherwise it doesn't work. And you'd have to assume that all of these things were true in order to assume that this was not the snail that was used for trailers. However, only the Murex has documentation both in secular literature. Only We don't have any masorah on anything else. We don't have any information on any of the others. And then Hazal never mentioned something else. Hazal mentioned two sources, Murex trunculus or Chilazon, seemingly arguing that both the the history, the archaeology, and the chemistry would all support suggesting that the Murex trunculus is the snail that was used for trailers in antiquity. So, I'll pass the baton now over back to Rabbi Goldberg to transition to Rabbi Leibowitz. You did not hear any of that. I was on mute the whole time. Okay, I apologize to everybody. It is a great honor. Thank you so much for having Rabbi Ari Leibowitz, my dear friend and friend. Thank you so much everyone who is currently texting me to unmute. I appreciate that. Also, my dear friends, Rabbi Leibowitz is the Rav of the Beit Knesset of North Woodmere, the director of Smicha Yeshiva University, the machaber of two seforim, Kona Olam, two volumes. I'm sure many more are to come out and among the most prolific uh teachers of Torah in the world today offline and online sought out everywhere. And while Rabbi Dr. Shabtai offered a very compelling argument that the modern are in fact the they are there are points and counterpoints within the uh modern-day poskim. We're so grateful to Rabbi Leibowitz who's joined us this evening in order to share them with us. I apologize again for being muted. Thank you so much Rabbi Leibowitz. Thank you very much and thank you everyone for coming and learning with us this evening. Thank you Rabbi Dr. Shabtai for an absolutely beautiful presentation on all of the proofs and all of the explanations for why it is that we are so confident that we have in fact rediscovered the and I want to thank Rabbi Goldberg and the entire Boca Raton Synagogue community for their leadership in bringing all of these tools together for this wonderful learning opportunity. Now, when we go through all of the proofs, all of the wonderful that Rabbi Dr. Shabtai just mentioned, there's always one question that people ask at the end of all of it. And that is, if it's really true, if it's really right, if this is a that has reappeared and that we now have an opportunity to do, why aren't the all screaming that this is something that we have to do? Where are the Israel leading the path and telling us that of course it's a of course of course we have to wear after all it's a very healthy question for a Jew to ask that if there's going to be a change, a modification in the way we behave and the way we observe a it better be led by the by those who are those who are leaders those who are our and to the contrary if I personally might be convinced that something is true but the were to tell me otherwise so normally I have to trust their judgment if I know that my own judgment might be in error. I'll you small, but I'll show not if I know that they're for sure wrong. If they're for sure wrong, I have to do what's right. But if it seems that it's their judgment against mine, we have to trust the judgment of the So I want to discuss that question mostly. Why is it or that that there is a perception at least that so many of the do not wear and if they don't, why should why should I? So first off, just before we we address some of the arguments against, it's important to realize that it's it's really a a false question to ask. Why do the not wear because many of them in fact do. Me may I go to who's going to be joining us this evening and sharing with us in just a short time who wears the and who uses the and who's inspired so many of us to use the the great of the the son of the son of and who just passed away recently who just passed away recently was was someone who very clearly and openly wore the that also wore and many many others also wore some more secretly and privately some more publicly. So to suggest that there's like this consensus amongst Israel not to wear is not really true. It's a split amongst Israel. Well, let's discuss some of the reasons why not. And you know, I started thinking about this issue because it seems when you hear what Dr. Dr. just said, it it seems so compelling. You know, all of the assumptions one would have to make to assume that the die is not are are so far out. It just seems so forced to say that it's not the trelist. So, it really bothered me to try to understand why is it that so many people still aren't wearing this trelist. It's an opportunity for a mitzvah d'oraisa. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized that when you look only at the Gemaras and the Rishonim, if you look only at the uh the passages that we have in Chazal, you could probably read it one way or the other. You could read them in most of them in in both directions. There's no explicit Gemara that's against the idea that Murex trunculus is trelist, but it's possible to uh to read some of the Amora'i Chazal in the other direction as well. For example, the Gemara Maseches Shabbos daf daf ayin dalet tells us that they used to trap the chilazon with a net. That doesn't seem like the wisest way to trap these snails, and therefore many have suggested this is a proof that the Murex is not the trelist. The Gemara Maseches Shabbos daf ayin hey mem alef says that if a person traps a chilazon, he's chayav mishum tzeidah. It is a violation of the melacha d'oraisa on Shabbos if one were to do this on Shabbos of trapping an animal. But we know what the rule is by trapping an animal on Shabbos. If you can catch that animal in a single lunge, then you are not chayav mishum tzeidah. You didn't trap it, you just took it. You know, when I go to my fish tank I have to have a fish tank at home, a salt water fish tank with four chilazons in it right now. Who knows, maybe they'll reproduce and I'll have more. But when it when I want to pick up a chilazon, I don't have to lunge and go after it. And all I do is I stick my hand in and I pull out a chilazon. And that's it. And I have it. So, some have suggested that that's a proof that the snail that we have found is in fact not the chilazon because the Gemara says that you're chayav mishum tzeidah. Now, the the obvious response would be we didn't catch chilazons from my fish tank. It's from the bottom of the ocean that we get chilazons. And although they are slow-moving snails, they they are you watch them move around, they're very slow-moving snails, but to get to the bottom of the ocean and find them and catch them, it's a big avodah. It's not so easy. I'm sure some of the people who are on the Zoom this evening have gone scuba diving and done the the chilazon scuba dive to to find them at the bottom of the ocean floor. Not something that's easy to do without proper scuba gear. So you would imagine that would be that would qualify as as as in fact trapping. Or or for example, the Gemara Maseches Sanhedrin Daf Daf Samech Aleph tells us that the chilazon has the ability to climb up a mountain, which means that the chilazon was out of water could be out of water for an extended period of time and survive just in moist sand as it's climbing up a mountain. And it didn't seem that murex can do this. So it's just this one I was never really sure how to answer. And just a couple of weeks ago, I went to a fellow in Monsey who reached out to me. His name is Danny Israel, and he has a fish tanks full of chilazons. He's breeding chilazons in his in his fish tanks in in in Monsey. So he offered me a few of them. That's why I have four. I used to have just one. I picked up three more from him. And and and when when I was there, I asked him, "Where did you get all of these from? You know, you can't find them in America." So he said he had them shipped from Morocco. He had them shipped and the person who was shipping them to him told him, "I can't ship these. They're going to die. If I if I put them in in a package, you can't ship them in water. So they're going to die if they're out for so long." And and and as soon as they arrived and they were still alive just wrapped in some wet cloth, he said, "AHA! THE GEMARA IN SANHEDRIN WAS correct that they're able to survive outside of the ocean. They're able to survive in moist in in in in moist dirt outside of the ocean." The Gemara in Menachos Daf mem dalet tells us "Briaso domeh l'dag." That the chilazon is like a fish or it looks like a fish or it's its its shape is like a fish. And some who argue against the murex being the chilazon say, "I don't see a fish when I look at it. I see a snail when I look at it. It doesn't look anything like a fish." So, you know, that's also a judgment call. I happen to have a a shell right here with me. I have a few uh This is from This is a a deceased uh chilazon. The chilazon was no longer The shell is empty on the inside, but some look at this and say, "That's That looks nothing like a fish." Others say, "Don't you see the shape of its entire body, how it's narrow and then widens and then narrow at at the tail end? Isn't that exactly the shape of a fish?" This is all all a matter of judgment. Meaning, one can look at these Gemaras and say, "Yes, yes, that's exactly the murex." And one can look at these Gemaras and say, "No, that is not at all. That's not at all the murex." So, one of the reasons that I think many people reject the murex's techeiles is not does not really relate to the proofs from the Gemara itself, but many of the other proofs that Rabbi Dr. Schachter referred to before. And by that I mean the the proofs from chemistry, from archaeology, from linguistics, from history. As we pointed out, chemistry tells us how it's almost exactly identical to the color ilan, which we know is the closest approximation of techeiles. Archaeology tells us that the place where we found all of these shells, the digs where we found dying industries with all of these shells were exactly in the location where they used to produce techeiles. And the uh the the the fact that the that the dye is such a strong dye that the only way to get it off the wool is to destroy the wool entirely in a bleach solution. It's such a strong dye, which is exactly how they described the dye of techeiles. Or that uh in in archaeology, we know based on archaeology we know that they didn't have any other blue other that that dyes this color blue other than indigo dye than the color ilan and the murex, so it has to be that this is the the correct one, or based on linguistics that chilazon, the word chilazon doesn't mean fish, it means a snail like the murex, or based on history that the tzitzit was lost at exactly at the same time that that that we lost the ability to to extract blue from the from the murex, and it's the scientific proofs for from a an academic standpoint. If a person is not looking based purely on Torah sources, if a person is looking at from an academic standpoint, it's a slam dunk. It's going to be very hard to find someone who's going to take an honest look at all of these disciplines and come to the conclusion that this is not the real tzitzit. So, one group of people that rejected as tzitzit are generally suspicious of science and suspicious of any proofs that can be brought from science. For example, Rabbi Elyashiv zt"l in his Covid Kriyat Aleph Siman Bet writes a little bit of the history of Rabbi Doctor Schachter I mentioned how the Radziner Rebbe was sure that he had found the tzitzit, and he had all the proofs in the world that he was sure were absolutely positive to the to the identity to point to the identity of the of the of the chilazon being what he thought it was. And then later on, initially Gedolei many Gedolei Yisrael did not agree, and a short while later they proved that he was incorrect. It was pretty became pretty clear to everyone but Radziner Chassidim that that the Radziner Rebbe was in fact incorrect. And then says Rabbi Elyashiv, "Shuv acharei kufa yosiru cheres." Sometime later, "Kamo anashim yada." So, people who have knowledge of of sciences uh arose with that everything that you saw until now was was wrong. Only they know what the real one is. Says I don't know. Just like the original Rabbi was disproven. Probably give it some time and then and this will be disproven as well. Meaning the scientific proofs aren't going to capture his imagination and the sort they're not going to cause him to pass any differently because science changes with science knows. If you look at, you know, a medical chart in the 1940s of what a a perfect diet would be, a perfectly healthy diet, it's like a recipe for death nowadays. You know, the amount of red meat and maybe a cigarette after dinner to make it doesn't science changes and what we know changes. And therefore was very skeptical about this. A little less skeptical skeptical about science but also skeptical about is the wise who is who is who is who is who in his that of course of course we follow scientific findings to determine to determine what facts are what the facts on the ground are. But says archaeology archaeology is a pseudo science. Archaeology is based on what we find. He writes we're not dealing with a very precise kind of science. Allah Everything is guesses and estimations. Oh, if I found all of these shells here, it must be this is where a dying industry was. It lacks the precision of a science like physics or chemistry. The the science of archaeology is filling in a lot of the story because we only have pieces of evidence when it comes to archaeology. And that's I think the the first group of people who do not want to accept the Murex trunculus simply do so for a lack of of acceptance of the of the of the scientific proof, whether they're suspicious of of relying on science in general or specifically when it comes to archaeology. A second group is those who say, yes, I I I believe it and and and it fits all the Gemaras, and I understand how it could be, but there's no way that you can wear a pair of tzitzis that will satisfy every shita in Rishonim, that will satisfy every opinion that exists. And since these things weren't pasqened by the Shulchan Aruch, who are we to pasqen? For example, I'll give you four four examples actually. Example number one, how many strings should you have that are blue and how many strings should you have that are white? A three-way machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam, the Raavad, and Rashi and Tosfos. The Rambam says one out of eight, the Raavad says two out of eight, meaning one out of four, and Rashi and Tosfos, half of the strings. How are we supposed to decide between such giants among the Rishonim? Second, the the Rishonim disagree as to the exact color of the trunculus. They argue, the Rambam writes in the source that Rabbi Dr. Schachter put up on the screen earlier, the Rambam writes that it's the dam of the chilazon is black. It's black like ink. Rashi in Parshas Terumah writes that it's yarok. It's like a yellowish color. And most Rishonim assume that it's in fact blue. Now, this this question is not really such a major question. The Rambam describes the dam of the chilazon, not the finished product, not the dye that we turn into the trunculus. The dye itself as it's made is is blue. And yarok is also not so not so difficult to understand as you saw some of the pictures that Dr. Shaptai put on the screen. In the process it does turn a yellowish greenish color and until it finally settles back settles into a bluish permanent permanent color. A third we should have that we have. Can you have from a non-kosher animal? The tells us that for any mitzvah a person needs to use only those animals that are kosher to eat. The tells us that when it comes to when it comes to using items for a mitzvah and for the big and for the curtains in the Mishkan they had to use kosher animals. So says no is not related to the color of something it relates to the material of something. When we're talking about dyes that doesn't have to come from from from a kosher animal. But that too is a so how can I ever decide if something is or not? If according to some it has to be from a kosher animal and according to others it's not from a kosher animal. A fourth is points out in his in that there's a Rashi and the Rambam that according to Rashi you're not allowed to add in any other chemicals in the dying process. Whereas according to the Rambam they do put other chemicals in the dying process. So based on that a number of the were just hesitant to decide in these debates and the easy way out is to say we just we just won't use it because I don't want to go against any of these and them. No less a an authority than in the writes me between the Rashi and the Rambam. Who's Who's to make that decision? Well, this is a difficult difficult argument to understand. Me a who's going to make a difficult decision? That's why rabbis get paid the big bucks. That's why we have a post skin to make such decisions. We do it all the time. Meaning who's going to be between the shark and the ties? Who's going to decide EVEN NOWADAYS BETWEEN WHO'S GOING TO DECIDE? Who's going to decide? That's what we're supposed to do. That's that's the job. In fact, Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in a in Rav Moshe writes that even sometimes if a determines that the should be against some of the Achronim why is that a big deal? We're allowed to argue on the who does and and says Rav Moshe we even have right to argue on if we have proper proofs. And over here we're not even talking about arguing on we're talking about pasqualing like what we assume to be the most accepted view in so that's a second category of people that reject the so category number one those who do not trust the science. Category number two those were cannot decide in such a in so many issues that come up that relate to discussions in the category category number three are those who say you know what it's not even worth considering. It's not worth studying because it can't possibly be. And this is based on two two two subcategories. One that Moreno is going to discuss very soon and that is the issue of that perhaps there are those that argue you need a you need a tradition in order to do a mitzvah and the other that that will discuss briefly now is that there are those that argue that the hilus purposely hidden away and is not meant to come back until the days of Messiah. That the madras writes in rabba ain't no other love because the hilus was hidden away. Nignaz implies say a number of people that a Kurdish bar who purposely hid it away. The sifri writes that it's gone with the sadikim loss of love that it's hidden away for sadikim and based on these ideas they are reason and Shara Kovanos Indian citizens trust Allen writes that the was was was something that they used when we had a base on the dash but this man has there nowadays we don't have the ability to have hilus. We're not to the Kadusha that hilus represents and that hilus brings and that's an argument that it doesn't matter how how many proofs to bring and it doesn't matter how clear it is that this is in fact the genuine article. It can't be because the result tells us that it can't exist without a without a base on the dash. And this argument is difficult to accept as well because after all we do know that the hilus did exist as pointed out just before well after the Corbin of bias it existed well after the base of the dash. Remus Sternbach in his van Haggadah puts it a little bit differently and he says yes yes it may have existed in the times of the Amoraim. That may be true but how could we possibly be how could we possibly think the doors are in our generation and hester come on where there's so much hester where Hashem is hidden from us that you scale out that the hilus is going to be revealed. It's a difficult argument to accept. I don't know why Hashem runs the world the way he does. I don't know why Hashem chose to make it that we have hilus accessible us. One could equally ask the question, why should it be that in a generation of so much darkness, where we live in such a dark where we live where where where where so much is upside down and so much is going backwards, and yet there are more people learning Torah in Madras and Yeshivas than ever existed, how are we to such opportunities and to such Kadusha? I don't know, but we should say thank you. It's Thanksgiving, we should say thank you that we are to such things. A very difficult argument to accept that because we live in a time that lacks Kadusha, that it can't be that we have and even that of it could just mean that it wasn't available. It does not necessarily mean that that that it's was purposely by Hashem. In fact, even the who makes this comment about how we are not to the until we have a it's not so clear that we're supposed to follow the when he says things that are not meaning in his in writes as a rule rock in all that when do we follow the when he says it as a that this is what you shall do and writes in the and then you treat the like any other of the and where where he can be outvoted, but but but he only is is is he's only granted an opinion in when he's expressing it as an opinion in as something that one is supposed to do even if it's but it's but if you just say something that is not meant then that is not something that we are supposed to follow from the and And then there's a final group and this is perhaps the most uh smallest group, I would imagine, or at least on the books the smallest group, and the most um difficult to understand of all of them. And that is the group that would not wear treif less uh even after having seen all of the proofs, being convinced by all of the proofs that they are in fact correct, and and still, for whatever reason, would shy away from wearing the treif less. Now, why on earth would someone do that? If you're convinced that it's real, and you have an opportunity for a mitzvah d'oraita. Can you imagine if you were stranded on a desert island somewhere, and you didn't have tfillin with you, and then you were rescued, and you saw a pair of tfillin for the first time in years? Now, imagine that it wasn't just years, that it was thousands of years, or a thousand years. And it wasn't just you, nobody for a thousand years was able to do this clear mitzvah d'oraita. And you see that there's an opportunity for a mitzvah d'oraita, and you're convinced that this is it, that this is this is the real thing. How could you not jump at the opportunity? So, there are a number of poskim that said, "Well, I'll tell you how you how you could not jump at the opportunity." Rav Mendel Shafran, a chashuve dayan from Bnei Brak, wrote in a teshuvah, he says, "There's no doubt that that that these these murex snails are in fact the chilazon, and that they produce kosher treif less. There's no doubt," he says. "Anyone had divrei midaberim ba'al atzmam," he writes. The matter speaks for itself. But he says the reason that rov gedolei Yisrael do not use it is einam mishum shem efshar lekayem ba'amitas ha'inyan. It's not because they deny the truth and validity of it. Ela mishum shebema'asim shanah acharonim nikvah k'argashah pnimis shel am shanim dvarim, gam im min hadin hayah tzarich lanigam al lashon asam. That there's this intuitive sense that Godolim have had in the last couple of hundred years that we don't change things, that we don't change the way we observe our religion even if logic would dictate that you should change. Well, well, why not? If logic would dictate that I found a mitzvah d'oraisa, why not? And he explains, "V'zeh k'hagana neged macharshima minasim l'shana sh'la'atim, because there are those that want to change of other things as well. And there are those that want to change some of the basic beliefs of our religion, those that want to change some of the basic mitzvahs that we all agree one must observe. And once we give an inch, they're going to take a foot. They're going to take a mile. Once we give an inch into change, well, why can you change that? And why can't we change everything else?" And he said, "And therefore, this is b'geder chachamim okrim davar min ha'Torah b'shevia al ta'aseh, that the chacham will uproot something min ha'Torah by telling us to be passive and do a mitzvah." Interestingly, Rav Shafran in that teshuvah, Rav Shafran is a dayan in Bnei Brak, he said that applies to anyone who belongs to a traditional community. But if you belong to a newer community that is developing newer minhagim, then perhaps you can develop a minhag that you wear tcheiles. And he views the Dati Leumi community in Eretz Yisrael as a newer community developing newer minhagim, and he therefore says they are authorized to wear tcheiles. But the Chareidi community is unauthorized to do so. A very shocking assertion to make that that that would be the case. You have you have a similar argument that Moreinu HaRav Shach Shlita presents in the name of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan or was said in the name of Rav Yitzchak Elchanan. Rav Shach presents it in the sefer Ginas Egoz siman beis os vav, that even though he thought that the retzinas tcheiles was in fact the correct tcheiles, he refused to wear it because of political reasons. He was busy fighting the reform. He was fighting so many battles and if you start doing things that look funny and that look strange, then it's going to be very very difficult to fight those battles. So who very strange to say something like that. So in the event We do what we believe the Torah tells us we're supposed to do. I will take care of the rest. How can we ignore because we think it's going to affect our our abilities and I mean think about it for a moment. Who who is most successful in drawing in Jews from all walks of life to connect to Judaism in one way or another. Let's be honest about it throughout the world. People who dress in the most modern dress and who make sure that they're always clean-shaven look at them all over the world are are more successful at than probably almost anybody else. There's nothing that that they do that tries to conform to society around them. It's you do what you think is right and then everything else you trust that will take care of everything else. And then one final matter that maybe will discuss maybe about the idea that if no one else in is wearing it and I wear it isn't that a violation of and this was an argument that was put forth by and if no one else has a in and you have a it's not a violation of to use it. So again, just to quickly summarize, those who are against it it's not because there's any explicit against it and it's not even because you have anything to lose by wearing the either it comes from a suspicion of science in general or this particular science. It comes from a hesitation to pass gain in a we show them. It comes from an understanding that I'll be Kabbalah it must be hidden or it comes from a general hesitation based on political reasons or reasons relating to what what it might lead to even though it in fact is correct. And I feel that sometimes when studying the opposition were more the studying the reasons to be opposed if we're less if we're unconvinced by any of those reasons, it will leave us with no choice but to look at the evidence that is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that we should wear the I was talking to one of the great rabbonim of our generation who does not wear the and has given against it and he said, I really hope you're right. I really hope it is the real I just don't believe it but I really hope it is. And he told me his own son wears the because his son is convinced. He said, I'm not convinced. My son is convinced. I hope you're right and my son gets a mitzvah each and every day. And again with that I thank you so much for coming to learn together with me this evening and everyone should have a wonderful evening. Thank you so much thank you for giving us your time and thank you for all the Torah that you disseminate on a regular basis. Thank you for offering clarity on the on the point and counterpoint on this a very significant and complicated at times topic. It's now a great privilege and a great honor to welcome the this evening the final word not only the final speaker but the final word for us on this topic. I want to take this opportunity on behalf of Israel to thank for the leadership for the for the that have guided us over these eight nine months. It's not an exaggeration to say that we would have been lost without guidance not only but that sense of calmness and that sense of of peaceful and serene way of guiding us through to them and through difficult shylocks and for us to be at ease to know that we have a post and we have a God all and we have a Robin a Reb upon whom we can rely in in crisis and in difficult circumstances and in the best of times is a tremendous gift for which we are all incredibly grateful and I could have brought her which is continued to give Reb a only good strength and good health to continue to guide us to continue to teach us to continue to inspire us. Everybody knows that a shock there is a rush of Shiva rush color of a beautiful Hanan post sake of the OU and post sake for so so much more on this topic of a final and third perspective the question of wearing less within the Masada to be able to have one of the ballet on Masada of our generation present is truly an honor and a privilege. I'll never forget and in May Sham go all even when you walk into sperm stores that sell less and they have samples and models for the different ways that can can possibly be tied on a garment that has a hanging off the corner and example Rashi Rambam of Shafter among the examples of opinions of exactly what is the right way to tie and that in itself not that that's evidence that we need of a shock there's authority in this area and in so many others. Maybe thank you so much for being with us this evening without any further ado out of shock there's sleep. Shalom aleichem good evening everybody. I found this very educating. I didn't know all these uh uh ideas that the first two speakers presented. Uh and this is a wonderful idea. This should be a hot scholar every Thanksgiving we even when we'll have Shalom Tikun we should organize you and why not? That's a beautiful way to celebrate uh Thanksgiving. Uh when there are dinner Reb uh came up with his finish regarding the Halazon he thought that he had identified which is the correct Halazon. So as the previous speakers pointed out many Rabbanim agreed with him and many disagreed. So it's known that the base of lady that was the great grandfather of Rabbi Joseph Dov Halevi Soloveitchik who used to teach in Yeshiva University thereof. His great grandfather after whom he was named, Joseph Dov Halevi, he was opposed. But there were two totally different versions of why he was opposed. So the Radzyner Rebbe put out three different s'farim. Now they print all three s'farim in one volume that's called Shlosha Sifrei HaTecheiles. And the third sefer, he has all of the reactions of the various rabbonim from all over Europe to his chiddush, to his discovery of the chalazon. So he has a letter from uh a person who claims to be an acquaintance, a close acquaintance of Bezalel Leibi, doesn't give you the name of the person, and he sends a letter to the Radzyner Rebbe to say why the Bezalel Leibi, why Rabbi Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik was opposed. And he says the following. This uh what they say, the cuttlefish or whatever, the squid fish. Uh he said this fish was known to our parents and our grandparents, and they knew that it spits up uh black uh fluid, and they never used it. So how can you tell me that this is the chalazon? And the fact that our parents, our grandparents knew about this fish, that it's that has this black uh fluid uh in it, and they didn't use that fluid to to as chalazon, indicates that we have a masorah that it's wrong. That's why we can't accept what you said. But if you would come up with some other fish and give us a historical explanation as to why the techeiles disappeared in the days of the Geonim, he says, "I'll be the first one to go along with you, and I'll use the the techeiles. But it cannot be this fish, cuz it's like we have a masorah that it's wrong, cuz our parents knew about this, and they didn't use this diet. The Soloveitchik family, both the family in Eretz Yisrael, the children of Rav Velvel Soloveitchik and his grandchildren, and the Soloveitchiks in America, the children of Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, and I think the Soloveitchik family in Switzerland as well. They all have a totally different version of what the Beis HaLevi said. Their version is that in order to identify what the halacha is, you have to have a masora. And a masora has to be ish mi peh ish, has to be an oral transmission from one generation of a religious person to the next generation. You cannot restore a masora if a masora was lost. You cannot restore a masora by looking at a dictionary or by archaeological proofs. Even if archaeology is emes, but that's not called a masora. You have to have a masora, you have to have a tradition from religious people telling over other religious people what the what the halacha is. And in fact, this is the way Rav Soloveitchik used to say, the Gemara says that if you eat orez, um there's one opinion, Rav Yechezkel ben Nun is of the opinion that there are not just chamishas minei dagan, wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt, that orez is also mine dagan. So, Tosafos So, we don't pasken like Rav Yechezkel ben Nun, orez with dagan. We don't pasken like Rav Yechezkel ben Nun, but a little bit we accept as a bit. So, the Gemara says in Berachos that if you eat orez, the bracha in the bracha before you eat it is borei minei mezonos, and the bracha after you finish eating it is not al hamichya, but rather borei nefashos. So, what is orez? So, Tosafos says only orez, not dagan. So, the question is so what is orez and what is dagan? So, one opinion is orez is rice, and dagan is millet or something else. And the other opinion is no, dagan is rice. So, if you ask I live in Washington Heights, if you ask any of the neighbors here, we have a lot of Puerto Rican neighbors. Everybody knows arroz is rice. Yes, any Arab in Israel arroz is rice. In different languages all over the world. Arroz is is something like arroz is arroz. Is right. So, the Soloveitchik say no. Since the masorah was lost, what is arroz? And halakha distinguishes between arroz and dochan. It's only arroz that you say the brachah bishaina is borei minei mezonos and the brachah acharona is borei nefashos. Since we don't know which one is arroz, even though you have all the dictionaries in the world to indicate that arroz is the rice, we don't follow the dict- we lost the masorah. So, it's a safek d'oraisa, so you don't say borei minei mezonos on rice. You say borei pri ha'adamah cuz it grows from the ground. This is what they insist. So, whenever Rav Soloveitchik would say this over, when he said in yeshivah, so the students we used to tremble. When he said the shiur, so we no one ever asked him we really asked any kashas in the middle you can't say no one ever asked. We didn't dare to ask kashas in the middle of shiur. When he used to say this for the ba'alei batim, the ba'alei batim didn't sit there so much. So, remember the ba'alei batim when he used to give the shiur every Tuesday night at Maria. Maria was a shul in the middle of Manhattan on Broadway in the corner of Broadway and 80th Street. So, every Tuesday night Rav Soloveitchik gave a shiur there for many, many years. So, when he said it there, the ba'alei batim were free to ask kashas. So, they said, "How can you say that? That you don't if you don't have a tradition uh you can't restore a tradition based on archaeology." The Gemara in the middle of Bava Basra tells about Rabba bar bar Chana who was taking uh he had an Arab, a hutaya, sounds like a plain Arab, was giving them a guided tour of the midbar with a masai midbar worth. He was showing Rabba bar bar Chana where the dead Jewish bodies were who died in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu, the bodies were still there. And then he showed them where blew it Korach, where Korach got eingezunken, where they were swallowed up in the under the ground in the earth. So and then and Rabba bar bar Hana leaned over and he heard them screaming at Moshe, "Am Yisrael, Am Yisrael, Nachman bar Doyn." So that when Rabba bar bar Hana came back to the Yeshiva and he was telling all the talmidim in the Yeshiva about his summer tour, where he traveled in the summertime, and the Arab showed them the Meisei Midbar, so they asked Rabba bar bar Hana, "Did you check the tzitzis to see who's right?" Because there's a machlokes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel how many strings they put on tzitzis. So Beis Hillel are of the opinion takes three long strings, you fold them over, it turns out to be six. And Beis Shammai are of the opinion takes four long strings, you fold them over to make eight. This is one of the there are many disputes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Rubba the Rubba the overwhelming majority of the cases we pass like Beis Hillel, but Tosefos points out in the beginning of Sukka daf gimmel that there are six cases. We have a tradition from this Rabbeinu Gershom writes in the siddur that the there are six cases in Shas where we pass like the Beis Shammai. In addition to the Yud Ches Gezeiros, where we also pass like Beis Shammai. The Yud Ches Gezeiros the next day when the Beis Hillel came back to the Beis Medrash, so the Beis Hillel agreed with the Beis Shammai. So that the those 18 cases don't count, but there are six cases where there's really a dispute Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, and we pass like the Beis Shammai. So one of them is you take four strings, you fold them over, you make eight. So they asked Rabba bar bar Hana, "Did you look at the tzitzis of the Meisei Midbar to see in the days of Moshe Rabbeinu, did they do like Beis Hillel or like Beis Shammai?" So he says, "It didn't occur to me to look to try to be poshet the machlokes who's right." So they said to him, "What an idiot, you're a Rabba bar bar Hana is so stupid. He see the Meisei Midbar and not even try to check to see." But if Rabbi Soloveitchik is right, if the way they say from the Beis HaLevi, that if you don't have a masorah, you can't restore a masorah in a halakha by archaeology period. No masorah is about it's wrong and even even if it's right, it's wrong. If you don't have a masorah, so what why were they angry if it is not going to help at all? Then there's also a Gemara. The Gemara has in the days of the Tanaim who were discussing the issue, there it was already no Beit Hamikdash. So the Tanaim had a machloket is they can't go to the supposed to wear the tzitzit. Al yam mitzcha tamid. Al mitzcha we usually assume means on his forehead. And Tosefta quotes that the Targum Onkelos translates al mitzcha benei Noach sounds like tefillin is supposed to be Or you need to tie this benei Noach benei Noach means above the hair. The tefillin shel rosh is over here. So Tosefta says it would appear from the Targum Onkelos that the tzitzit was over here. It wasn't on the forehead. Al Al mitzcha rather means over here on the hair, wherever. So that So the the Chumash says that you have to have engraved on the tzitzit two words, Kodesh LaHashem. So there's a machloket of the Tanaim. None of these Tanaim lived in the time of the Bayit and they're discussing something that they never saw. Each one had a tradition from earlier generation. What did it look like? So one opinion is that the two words were straight in a row, Kodesh LaHashem. The other opinion is no, very strange. It said Kodesh Lamed and on a higher line above that it said Yud Key Vav Key. So that Shem Yud Key Vav Key should be above the line where it says Kodesh La. Kodesh La and Yud Key Vav Key higher. Machloket of the Tanaim. So one Tanna says, "Don't tell me I was in Rome." The Gemara tells the whole story what he was doing in Rome. He was in Rome and he and he did a favor to the emperor. He saved the emperor's grandchild or something like that or his daughter. I forgot the whole story. And then they asked him whatever he wants, he can go in the in the in the in the Vatican and take whatever he wants from the from the base of that they have. So he saw that they had the that came from the base of had the and the had one line. It wasn't on two lines la and you'd give above. So he quotes this as a raya. What he's he's proving what the din is based on archaeology. So I see the fetish the do believe in there was no there was no there was no there was no clear how you're supposed to write and they're being pushed in the based on archaeology. So you see that it is legitimate. It is a way to restore a master. What's strange is that the passes against that. The says he saw the in Rome and it's on one line and then the passes supposed to be on two lines. So the guess of mission if you ask his commentary on the how does he pass against the but they saw it in Rome they they saw the it's on one line. So the guess of mission says every had to wear it sits that would fit his head or his forehead wherever he's supposed to put it. So some of the had a wide head some had a narrow head some some were taller than others some were fatter than others and so on. So there must have been many many there were many there must have been many so just because they found one that had la on one line does necessarily mean that they were all made like that. That's what the guess of mission says. The thinks the din should be should be on two lines and they happen to find a quirk of a just like there was a so through the generations there was a of of the how you're supposed to make the sits. So some of them made it in one line and the says more correct it's supposed to be on two lines. That's what the guess of mission says. But don't you see from the whole discussion of the time I'm that you can reconstruct uh you can revive a masora based on archaeology. And then the Rishonim quote there was a machlokes Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam about the seder ha parshios in the tefillin, Kadesh viyakha, Sh'ma viyam Sh'ma, or Kadesh viyakha, viyam Sh'ma Sh'ma. How do you How do you How do you arrange the four parshios in the shel rosh? So the Rishonim quote, the Mordechai quotes this in the in the Tur, they quote it, the Prisha quotes it in the Tur, they found in Kever Yechezkel Hanavi, I think he's buried in Bavel, they found in Kever Yechezkel Hanavi, they claim they found a pair of tefillin there Rabbeinu like Rabbeinu Tam, the two of Vihaya im in the middle, and it's an old pair of tefillin from from from the days of the Bais Rishon, from the days of Yechezkel Hanavi. So doesn't that show that the that the Rabbeinu Tam is right, that that's the correct seder ha parshios? So the others claimed maybe they were pasul in the tefillin, that's why they That's where they were going with them. And the And the Kever Yechezkel, maybe they were pasul. Who says that they were kosher? Maybe they were pasul. Or others suggest that's in the Torah Shleima, he has a suggestion, maybe the din that the seder ha parshios is mi'akev, maybe that was a din derabbanan that was developed in the later generations in the days of the Gemara. Maybe because otherwise you don't understand how could they be a machlokes Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam? What's the seder ha parshios? Nobody knows what they did last year. A mitzvah that you do every single day of the year, how could it be that they forgot what's the seder? So that's what the Rav Mendel Kashi suggests in the Torah Shleima, that the maybe the din always was you have to have dalet parshios, whatever order you have is acceptable. And then in the days of the Amoraim, they came up with a din derabbanan, the no chiyuv has to be davka in a certain order, and that's machlokes Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, what's the correct order. It's not going to help that you're going to find from the older generations a pair of tefillin like the seder of the Rabbeinu Tam, like the seder of Rashi, because in the older generation the seder wasn't mi'akev. anywhere any any say that you're going to have is going to be good. But from the fact that they take this whole discussion seriously what's the whole challenge in the first place if you say that you you don't follow you don't follow archaeology you have to have a masora fish Moshe Rabbeinu and if you don't have a masora even if you're writing not right by definition everything has to be with masora. So what was the old problem that they found filling the Rabbeinu Tam and Kevi Chizkuni So this these are the two versions of why the Beis HaLevi why Beis HaLevi was opposed to the Radziner Rebbe's treilus. The Soloveitchik family claims all of the American branch and Israeli branch they all claim in the name of the Beis HaLevi because the masora was lost and you can't reconstruct the masora. So it has to be Ish mi Pish a Moshe Rabbeinu that we heard from religious Jews in the earlier generation this is the going to do it. You can't reconstruct the masora. And the other say and then that and and the acquaintances sent a letter to the Radziner Rebbe and the Radziner Rebbe printed their letter. He says if you come up with a different fish and and you'd explain historically why the treilus disappeared in the days of the Gaonim I'll be the first one to go along with you. But you tell me that it's this the cuttlefish that can't be because our grandparents knew about that fish and that it spits out the black dye and they didn't use it so if we have a masora that you're wrong. But he says you don't need a masora since it's a glaring contradiction what what the Beis HaLevi said. There's a very big talmid chacham he used to be in Flatbush by Feivel Cohen the author of the Shulchan Aruch Ha Ba'al Ha Shulchan. So he was the rabbi in a shul in Flatbush and he used to give shiur every week and he wanted to go spend time he wanted to spend a year in Eretz Yisrael to get shimush to pick up shimush by Rabbi Elyashiv. So he told his balabatin that he wants to give up his rabbinus. So, they said, "Why? Everybody gets up and they like him." So, he said he wants to get shima by Rabbi Yashiv and it's not fair that he should ask them to hold his rabbinical position for him for a year and then he's going to come back. He's going to go away for a year. So, they loved him so much that he said, "You go to Eretz Yisrael, spend as much time as you want and it's your position. When you come back, you'll continue to be our rabbi." He spent the year there by Rabbi Yashiv. He's a very big talmud chacham. His form are exceptionally beautiful. So, when he came back, he maintained the kesher with Rabbi Yashiv. He used to correspond with him. Rabbi Yashiv hardly writes to anybody. So, he maintained the kesher with him. So, he sent him a letter regarding this trailers. He said he explained the two versions of what the Beit HaLevi said, which version does he think is correct? And so, then Rabbi Yashiv said he doesn't understand the version of the Soloveitchik family does not make sense to him. He thinks that the other version is more correct. Not that you need a masorah in the Gemara. You see, you can restore a masorah based on archaeology. He thought that that's not He thought that the Soloveitchik family version is not correct. The other version is more correct. So, then Rabbi Feivel Cohen asked him, "So, what do you say about the new trailers? If you don't have to have a masorah, so what do you say?" So, he said he doesn't know. He has to think about it. He doesn't know. So, the story goes that the people from the trailers factory in Eretz Yisrael went to Rabbi Yashiv. They made an appointment. They gave him a whole presentation. So, he asked them, "How much does it cost for a pair of trailers?" So, they said something like whatever, $100 for a pair of trailers. Then he said, "Do you have 50,000 uh Do you have available 50,000?" So, they said, "No." So, then he said, "What's going to happen if tomorrow 50,000 people will ask for trailers, how much will it cost? So they said we don't have 50,000, we're going to have to charge much more money. If it's going to be such a great the demand and we had hardly any supplies, it's going to cost more. He said I can't put on trailers. I can't put on trailers because I'll be putting people's lives in danger. And he explained what he means. He says, "People always want to know what do I do? There are people in Mayasharan, there are people in Bnei Brak, he said there are 50,000 people who want to know Dafke what he does. And whatever he does, they're going to spend money. He says, "As it is, they don't make enough money to give enough nourishment to their children, to their family. And they're undernourished. And he says, "If people will find out that I'm wearing trailers, tomorrow 50,000 people will spend all the money that's necessary to buy the trailers. And as it is, they're undernourished, they're not healthy because they spend that they don't spend enough money on on healthy food. So I can't do it. I'll be putting people's lives in Sakana." So I said, "That's a beautiful explanation." So one of the Hachamim, one of the brilliant people who was there at the meeting, put out a book and he wrote up the whole story in the book. The Rabbi Elyashiv said the reason why he's not using trailers is is because he's going to put people's lives in Sakana, saying that the if you're not worried about your Sakana, so you should wear the trailers. So they told Rabbi Elyashiv that someone who was there by the meeting wrote up the whole thing. So it doesn't help that he's not wearing the trailers. So he asked them, he has no time, please someone write in my name that I don't hold from the trailers. So someone wrote that chuva that was that was printed that was mentioned earlier. Rabbi Elyashiv said someone wrote that chuva. And then they publicized it. It was printed in some Torah journal. So then the next day after it's printed, someone meets Rabbi Elyashiv and he says, "I saw your chuva that you quoted the Ariza that it only makes sense to wear tzitzit when there's a Beit Hamikdash. So he said, "I didn't write that chuva." What do you mean he didn't write that chuva? It has his name. He is someone writing in my name that I don't hold from the tzitzit. So the person wanted to smelt it up. So he said, "Because the Arizal says it only makes sense when there's a Beit Hamikdash." So Rabbi Yisrael Salanter can't be the Arizal is not is not going to say something against halacha. The Arizal is coming to explain historically how did Hakadosh Baruch Hu allow such a tragedy to occur, that the that the identity of the chalazon and and the ability to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzit was lost. How can Hakadosh Baruch Hu be so mean to us to allow such a tragedy to occur? He should have seen to it that it should be preserved. So the Arizal is just explaining the ikar to el of the tzitzit only makes sense when there's a Beit Hamikdash. After the churban habayit, you're still muchal. The Tana'im and Amora'im lived after the churban habayit. Until the days of the Gaonim, they still had tzitzit. He's just explaining historically, but not saying halachically that there's no mitzvah to put on tzitzit when there's a Beit Hamikdash. What does it mean that the that the historically it's not such a great tragedy if the tzitzit is lost when there's a Beit Hamikdash? So they explain, I think the Satmar Rebbe has this in his one of his essays that he published, that there's a Gemara in Berachot that says, "When you see the beautiful sky above, so you say a certain bracha." So then the Gemara says, "But we don't say that bracha anymore cuz since the days of the churban Beit Hamikdash, the sky is not the right color blue. When there's a Beit Hamikdash, the blue sky was a different color blue." So that's what the Arizal says, that the tzitzit is supposed to be done with the rakia, and the rakia has the wrong color blue, so that's why the the din of tzitzit still applies even when there's a Beit Hamikdash. But since it's a different color blue, so the ikar to el is not there, so it was lost. But he never he never really said that the Arizal never meant to say at all that the mitzvah doesn't apply. I remember when one of the representatives from the Hebrew who make the trailers when he came to the Yeshiva he wanted to give me a presentation one day of the trailers. I said why only give to me? Let's announce that at the end of the seder today I'll give a presentation the last 45 minutes of the last hour of the color seder. So he said fine. So he gave a presentation. After gave the whole presentation I said okay I agree that it's at least a suffix. I don't know if it's a valid. I agree it's at least a suffix. I want to buy the trailers. Maskem I want to buy it. So they said they don't have it yet. They didn't begin to process it yet. They're planning to do it. So I said when you when you do it I want to buy it. So that's when I started to use it. I think it's at least a suffix that I said the homer. It's at least a suffix even if it's not a valid. A suffix that I said the homer some of you suffix you have to use trailers. There are some who argue the point and say that suffix that I said the homer only means the following if I have a suffix whether I have a heave to do a mitzvah so I should go the homer and do it so I know for sure that I was yet to the mitzvah. But here even if you're putting the trailers you're still not sure even after you use the trailers still not sure whether you have accomplished anything. So some possible that suffix that I said the homer doesn't apply in such a case. It only applies in a case where after after saying the homer then you know for sure that you were yet to the mitzvah. So Ram Nachman Zember who was killed by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto writes about this in one of his forum and he writes that idea appears in the Shulchan Aruch of the Baal Hatanya Shulchan Aruch that the only applies and other possible also have it. They only apply suffix that I said the homer in a situation where after going the homer you know for sure that you will have fulfilled the mitzvah. But he said that's not the accepted opinion in the big Shulchan Aruch. He quotes before fact the first day of Sukkot and you didn't shake first day of Sukkot, mitzvah to shake the lulav is min haTorah. The rest of Sukkot only mid derabanan outside of the Beit Hamikdash. So, the first day of Sukkot if you didn't shake lulav a whole day long and now it's already bein hashmashos of the end of the day, that then we say safek derabbanan l'chumra. Maybe bein hashmashos is yom and you're mechuyav to shake the lulav during bein hashmashos b'li bracha. But even if you shake the lulav bein hashmashos, you don't know maybe you didn't fulfill anything. Maybe bein hashmashos is layla, you have accomplished nothing. So, the So, Rabbi Nachman says in his sefer in the Shulchanah Aruch that you apply safek derabbanan l'chumra even in such a situation where after going l'chumra, you still don't know whether you have accomplished anything or not. I remember many years ago I must have spoken about treifos, I don't know. Someone meets me in in Los Angeles. I was there for the OU weekend, that was in the end of December uh for many years I used to go. So, uh someone asked me, are there any sources in the Talmud that the treifos uh is poisonous? So, I said, "What do you mean?" He tells me he works for the federal government. Uh there are regulations that you're not allowed to put use dye in a jacket or a sweater or a tie that has poison cuz little children will chew on their sweaters. And if it has poison, then they get sick and then they may get sick from sucking the poison. So, that's what his job is to test all the dyes and all of the clothing to make sure nobody's violating this federal law. So, he added for the heck of it, so he tested the color of the chalazon uh of the dye that they use now that they call treifos and he says it is poisonous. It is a little dangerous. So, after I understood what he's talking about whether the chalazon is poisonous, I told him that Rashi in his comment, I don't know if any time you read passages, said Rashi in his commentary on Chumash has an argument with the Rambam, what color is the chalazon? What color is the treyblis? Is it dark blue or is it light blue? So the Rambam writes it's the color of the sky in the afternoon. Rashi says it's the color of the sky at night, at midnight. Why? Chalazon is lashon techla, death. And chalazon is supposed to represent makas b'choros that took place v'yibach tzei halayla v'Hashem hikah kol b'chor. We should be by looking at the dark dark blue, the dark of the midnight, we should reminisce about makas b'choros. So I said maybe according to the what Rashi interprets, I don't know where Rashi got it from, maybe that's in a midrash, I don't know. Maybe according to that it makes sense that it should be that it should be poison. The Beis HaLevi has an interesting comment, maybe I'll close with this. Beis HaLevi has a teshuvah about treyblis. He discusses the din of bal tigra. When does one violate bal tigra? So Rashi on Chumash sounds like he says if you have a tallis that has four corners, you only put tzitzis in three out of the four corners, you're in violation of bal tigra. If you have tefillin instead of having four parshiyos, you only have three, that's a violation of bal tigra. So the Beis HaLevi quotes the Rashba and I think in Maseches Rosh Hashanah, based on the Rashba, he's not happy with that Rashi al haTorah. He thinks that that's not bal tigra. If you wear tefillin that only has three parshiyos, you just not yoitze. So you didn't That's not bal tigra, you didn't you have a battle of tefillin. If you wear tzitzis that only have tzitzis in three corners, doesn't have in the fourth corner, so the Mishnah has a machlokes tanayim. Rabbi Shmuel holds that you have three corners of the yom hakaim. Each corner is another mitzvah, so you make aim three mitzvahs and you miss one mitzvah. We pasken against Rabbi Shmuel that the tzitzis in the four corners are not achaf m'zeh u'zeh. So if you're missing tzitzis in one of the four corners, you have zero kiyum mitzvah. You're not yoitze anything at all. So we pasken like that. So that's what the Beis HaLevi says, that's not bal tigra. If you're not yoitze in the mitzvah, you're not yoitze. So when do you violate baal tigra? So, one example he gives is uh the Mishnah has an example. If you have a carbon chata'os that's supposed to have z'rikas on four corners of his beged and you only do one z'rika. So, we pasken b'di eved that's a machlokes b'Shammai and b'Hillel. We pasken b'di eved only one matana, one z'rika is ma'akev. So, he did one z'rika, the carbon is kosher, but you only yotzei b'di eved. So, the Mishnah and the Rishonim said that's an example of baal tigra. The Beis HaLevi says the same by tzitzis. If you have techeiles and lavan, that's a mitzvah b'shleimus. If you put in lavan without techeiles or techeiles without lavan, you're only b'kiyum a mitzvah shelo b'shleimus. So, that's a violation of baal tigra. So, how did they do How did the Jews wear tzitzis all the generations? They wore techeiles without lavan. So, the Beis HaLevi says that was assei docheh lo assei. Since the techeiles was not available, so under the circumstances, the mitzvah to put in lavan is docheh the aveira of baal tigra because we had no choice. It's assei docheh lo assei. But, if you live in a generation where the techeiles may be available, it could be that what they have is techeiles. So, I'm not convinced that's absolutely the case. And it's at least a safek. So, if you have techeiles is available, you don't use it, then you'll be in violation of baal tigra. So, wouldn't it be better not to wear tzitzis at all? Those who are afraid yesh ke'ach b'yado l'chacheil l'chabed min ha'Torah b'shevi'i al ta'aseh, they're afraid to get involved. So, let them not wear arba kanfos at all. Because by wearing arba By wearing arba kanfos, if you don't wear a garment with four corners, you're not muchyaf to wear tzitzis. If you wear garment with four corners, then you're muchyaf to put in tzitzis. And you're not putting in tzitzis when you could have. We have the techeiles available, you don't put it in. So, that's that's a that's a violation. So, shouldn't Beis HaLevi not to wear the whole arba kanfos in the first place? That's what the Beis HaLevi writes. So, I think uh it's what to consider seriously that uh it's not really right that uh people don't um avail themselves of the trailers. We live in a generation that Baruch Hashem things are picking up for the Jewish people. There's more learning and in a certain sense is more schmear as I mix with this and I shall mind the Zaka's. I enjoyed the presentation before. How can we decide based on the historical proof? How can it be that they're not going to give our generation this who says? We have this close that we got Medina Israel. It's a fantastic Whoever believed that we got Medina Israel. Thank you very much. I enjoyed the evening. I listened to all the brushes from the beginning to the end. And I hope mine was also a bit of a contribution. Everyone should be healthy and next year you should have again a Yaki Kallah on Thanksgiving. I want to thank Rabbi so much for Rabbi's time tonight and Rabbi's insight. In fact, we're listening to Rabbi right away because we already have another program planned for the evening of January 1st what they call New Year's Eve. Again, to not waste it or allow it to pass us by, but another night of total learning. So Hashem will promote and will share soon about the lineup for that evening. I want to thank Rabbi Kushlita. I want to thank Rabbi Leibowitz, Rabbi Dr. Shabtai. It was an incredible evening and by the outpouring of participation live tonight and I'm sure that will follow when people will listen to the recording. I think it's a testament to our speakers, a testament to the topic and most of all a testament to Israel and the thirst for Torah. Yasha Koach to all and wishing everyone a wonderful Shabbos.