Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 008

Friday, October 2 1998

• atem k'ruim adam
• Revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: "...v'nakeh lo y'nakeh..."
• RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency
• Re: Our Brothers
• Re: T'cheyles
• RE: Artscroll and history
• Re: Lack of mesorah and consistency
• Re: Strange B'ris
• RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency
• Re: Our Brothers
• Shechter Schools
• Conservative future
• Re: Our Brothers
• Mesorah, Halacha v'Ein Morin Ken, Davar ha'Tamu'a la'Rabbim
• Techeles is not neutral
• RE: Lack of mesorah and consistency
• Re: Techeiles is not neutral
• Re: Techeiles is not neutral

In following the readingo of Yonah yesterday I was struck by the last
verse of the book.  

V'ani lo ahus al ninveh ha-ir ha-gedolah asher yesh bah harbeh mi-shtem
esreh ribo adam . . .

Is anyone aware of any discussion of the clear textual contradiction of
one of my least favorite drashot of Chazal "atem k'ruim adam v'lo umot
ha-olam k'ruim adam" by this verse and the even clearer subtextual
contradiction?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

David Glasner wrote:

> Let's assume that you're right and Rebi didn't produce a written version
> of the Mishnah.  The basic point still stands.  Rebi mobilized the great
> majority of the sages of his generation in a vast undertaking:  to produce
> from the many scattered oral traditions and private manuscripts an
> authoritative collection of Mishnayot roughly organized by topic.  Implicit
> in this project was the expectation that the project would bring a kind of
> closure. ...  .So, regardless of when the Mishnah was finally written down, the
> position of the Dor Revi'i  dovetails quite nicely with that of the Keseph
> Mishnah in that the editorial process that led (ultimately) to the writing down
> of the Mishnah and the other Tannaitic traditions reflected the consensus of
> Rebi and all the Sages of his generation that the time had come to bring to
> closure the creative process reflected in the Tannaitic traditions.

I think your new version of the Dor Revi'i is correct. In fact, contrary to the
main point of the Dor Revi'i - you are proposing that Rebbe did not need to have
written down the Mishna. You have changed the Dor Revi'i's position  - that the
_writing_ down by Rebbe caused the authority of the Mishna to  - that the setting
in movement of the process that ultimately led to the writing down of the Mishna
was the basis of its authority. That would mean that you are essential
transforming the Dor Revi'i into the Kesef Mishna and  Rav Elchonon and/or the
Chazon Ish's position. That is great but would the Dor Revi'i appreciate your
tampering with - or  rather destroying the foundation of his whole thesis? We can
thus say according to your revised theory that there was acceptance of the Mishna
because of the recognition of the greatness and superiority of the Rebbe and his
beis din. Thus the Chazon Ish. Or alternatively it was accepted because of the
consensus of the scholars at that time for the need for such an authoritative
compilation  - which is the Kesef Mishna and Rav Elchonon. The Dor Revi'i takes
pains to distance himself from the Kesef Mishna. His point is that the radical
move of turning the Oral Torah into a written document by Rebbe himself created
the authority of the Mishna. Or perhaps you mean to preserve the Dor Revi'is
point but now extend it into the future - that it was not actually authoritative
till it was actually written down - which means that Amoraim could freely
disagree with it until the precise moment the ink hit the parchment!?

In sum, after your revision  - what was the chidush of the Dor Revi'i? I also
apologize for any perceived slight of the Dor Revi'i but I really don't see how
your interpretation of his amazement at Rashi is more correct than mine.

                                        Daniel Eidensohn

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>  There have been a number of discssions among friends re: some of these
     pesukim.

     Shmos 34, 7 vnakeh lo yenakeh,  seems to me al pi dikduk that the lo
     goes on both halves and that this is an emphatic lo yenakeh - and that
     the nakeh we use in the 13 middos is al pi drush only... <
On the contrary, the ta'amei ha'mikrah reveal that "v'nakeh" is a separate
phrase, as it is graced with a ta'am mafsik -- the next ta'am mafsik is the
zakeif katan gracing "y'nakeh", leaving us with "lo y'nakeh" as the next
phrase.

                                         Michael

R. YGB writes:
>To the best of my limited knowledge - and I will be glad if
>someone disproves me - there is not a single eida or kehilla among
>Orthodoxy that has a mesorah to consider women as PC halacha l'ma'aseh,
>the Chasam Sofer's remarks notwithstanding.

>Therefore, unless one or more of the Gedolei Hora'ah (names happily
>furnished upon request :-) ) rules in this vein, I see no way to introduce
>such a leniency in Hilchos Berachos to the world of practical halacha.

I too am unaware of any community with a specific mesorah regarding
women serving as panim hadashot.  But I am not sure I would invest that
fact with the significance that R. YGB apparently does.  As R. Chaim
Brown has noted more than once, women in earlier generations often
refrained from doing what they were permitted -- often obligated -- to
do.  Their forbearance generally resulted both from ignorance and
various social conditions, not from a halakhic tradition to the
contrary.

Take women's zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in
which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome
any information indicating otherwise).  Yet, there is no doubt about the
halakhic propriety of women's zimmun.  Does the lack of mesorah mean
that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of
practical halakhah?

This of course raises a host of questions, including: what constitutes a
"mesorah" and when is it necessary?  In its narrow sense, the term is
generally applied to issues of identification (e.g.,the kashrut of
various fowl, tekhelet), rather than halakhic practice (e.g., the
recitation of birkot ha-mitzvah by women).  Leaving such terminological
niceties aside, once we have defined "mesorah" (or minhag), we must
determine whether there is such a thing as a "negative" mesorah, i.e., a
tradition to refrain from a certain activity.  (For example, should
Hasidic women refrain from going to shul because their mothers and
grandmothers did?)  Assuming that a negative mesorah can exist, would it
apply in a situation like this one where, as R. YGB has argued, lo alah
al ha-da`at (in other words, until recently neither women nor men
thought about women serving as panim hadashot)?  And, assuming we can be
certain that a particular neglected activity was oleh al ha-da`at and
therefore a negative mesorah was established, under what circumstances
should such a mesorah override an otherwise unambiguous halakhic rule?
(What if a woman claimed a multi-generational "mesorah" to refrain from
covering hair after marriage?)  Also, how relevant to this discussion is
the principle "lo ra'inu eino ra'ayah"?

R. Mechy Frankel has broached the issue of consistency.  So I pose the
following question to R. YGB: Assuming you feel comfortable wearing
tekhelet without a mesorah, why, in the case of women serving as panim
hadashot, would you object to a person who chose to rely on the Hatam
Sofer (and, in my and others' view, rov Rishonim) without a mesorah?

Finally, I do not  understand why R. YGB dismisses the concept as a
"leniency."  As a different thread has I think conclusively indicated,
it is rare to find a humra which does not involve a correlative kula.  I
believe this proposition is equally true when formulated in reverse.
Indeed, R. Michael Broyde pointed out in his inital post on methodology
how the "humra" of refraining from sheva berakhot when new women, but
not new men, are present, could result in a kula in hilkhot berakhot.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

First, some administrivia:
The discussion of the threat of Conservative Judaism teeters in and out of
being on topic for Avodah. For that reason, I haven't spoken up yet. But as
the discussion seems to show real longevity, I'd like everyone to watch that
we keep the topic religious, and not political. (To whatever extent that
distinction really exists.)

1- I'm curious to know if anyone has repudiated the applicability of R' Moshe's
p'sak with regard to Conservative and Reform "Rabbis". From what I've seen on
soc.culture.jewish (es chata'ai ani mazkir hayom), this generation's ordinees
aren't educated enough to qualify as minim, and are tinokos shenishb'u just as
the lay people.

2- Which raises another question: How could a "Rabbi" who is raised
Conservative be anything but a tinok shenishba, no matter how much Torah
he learned? Book knowledge does little to change attitude, particularly if
taught by someone of similar slant. Yet, so R' Moshe seems to say.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5937 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 1-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

About theoretical discussions vs. actual p'sak...

It may take us back to halachic pluralism vs. singular truth.

If you believe that the job of a poseik is to find a singular correct p'sak,
then there should be no difference between theoretical discussions and
rendering a p'sak. In both cases, you are trying to find what the halachah
truly is.

However, once you introduce pluralism, the two differ greatly. A p'sak is no
longer entirely about ascertaining truth. Among the various opinions found to
be truly divrei Elokim, one is chosen to the exclusion of the others and that
now becomes The Halachah (in caps) for all involved.

Again, I'm not sure that this metaphysical event can occur without a true
case on the ground.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5937 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 1-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

R. D. Eidensohn worte:

>In all fairness to Artscroll - they do in fact discuss in detail the above
issues.
>I did not mention it because it was not relevant to my point.

Thank you for pointing out the accuracy of the account in Artscroll's
From Yavneh to Pumbedisa, which I have not seen.  Notwithstanding my
critique of some ArtScroll publications, ArtScroll deserves praise when
they do things right.  In fairness, I would add that I have found "The
Rishonim" (edited by Hersh Goldwurm) to be accurate and reliable.  The
only portion of the book which raised my eyebrows was the introduction,
where R. Goldwurm (I think) tries to explain the value of the book in
the face of the general tradition among gedolim to denigrate historical
study.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I can't speak for other girl's schools, but when my wife was growing up the
girl's school of the yeshiva high school of greater washington always bentched
with a woman's  zimmun.

Ari




Clark, Eli wrote:

> R. YGB writes:
> >To the best of my limited knowledge - and I will be glad if
> >someone disproves me - there is not a single eida or kehilla among
> >Orthodoxy that has a mesorah to consider women as PC halacha l'ma'aseh,
> >the Chasam Sofer's remarks notwithstanding.
>
> >Therefore, unless one or more of the Gedolei Hora'ah (names happily
> >furnished upon request :-) ) rules in this vein, I see no way to introduce
> >such a leniency in Hilchos Berachos to the world of practical halacha.
>
>
>
> Take women's zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in
> which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome
> any information indicating otherwise).  Yet, there is no doubt about the
> halakhic propriety of women's zimmun.  Does the lack of mesorah mean
> that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of
> practical halakhah?
>
> Kol tuv,
>
> Eli Clark

What about the reverse question: The Jewish child of a non-Jewish father is
born on Shabbos, and is healthy.

Is the b'ris bizmano, or not?

In other words, does the precedence of the eighth deal fall to the Jewish
community at large, or is it particular to the father? In which case, when the
father is a non-Jew, there'd be no grounds to be docheh Shabbos.

I actually was involved in a case like this l'halachah, where the only mohel
available on Shabbos would have been much more money than the one available on
Sunday. (The latter was Rav of a shul an hour's drive away, but had a b'ris in
his own shul to do the same day.)

My poseik ruled that the b'ris could be Sunday.

Since then, my boss (who can speak for himself, as he's a subscriber) showed
me a list of mar'eh mikomos that say otherwise.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5937 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 1-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Take women's zimmun, for example. I know of no eidah or kehillah in
> which women regularly made a zimmun among themselves (I would welcome
> any information indicating otherwise).  Yet, there is no doubt about the
> halakhic propriety of women's zimmun.  Does the lack of mesorah mean
> that we now require a gadol to introduce the practice to the world of
> practical halakhah? 
> 

The truth is that zimmun is less of a problem, because there is no shem
shomayim l'vatala involved. But, yes, definitely, it does require a gadol
to introdice this to the world of practical halacha. Perhaps the MB's psak
here works adequately - but that does not exist in this area.

> tradition to refrain from a certain activity.  (For example, should
> Hasidic women refrain from going to shul because their mothers and
> grandmothers did?)  Assuming that a negative mesorah can exist, would it

That is a good question. I think it can.

> apply in a situation like this one where, as R. YGB has argued, lo alah
> al ha-da`at (in other words, until recently neither women nor men
> thought about women serving as panim hadashot)?  And, assuming we can be
> certain that a particular neglected activity was oleh al ha-da`at and
> therefore a negative mesorah was established, under what circumstances
> should such a mesorah override an otherwise unambiguous halakhic rule?

No. But we *here* are not dealing with an unambiguous situation.

> R. Mechy Frankel has broached the issue of consistency.  So I pose the
> following question to R. YGB: Assuming you feel comfortable wearing
> tekhelet without a mesorah, why, in the case of women serving as panim
> hadashot, would you object to a person who chose to rely on the Hatam
> Sofer (and, in my and others' view, rov Rishonim) without a mesorah? 
> 

Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one
fulfills the mitzva of "lavan" with blue colored strings.

Secondly, R' Herzog is a fine Gadol, and it was he who identified murex
trunculus, and was only swayed from that opinion by the lack of knowledge
at the time as to how to derive blue from the MT. The Radzhiner before him
was also a fine Gadol - as were the Maharsham et al - who wore the
Radzhiner techeles.

> Finally, I do not  understand why R. YGB dismisses the concept as a
> "leniency."  As a different thread has I think conclusively indicated,
> it is rare to find a humra which does not involve a correlative kula.  I
>

I believe bracha l'vatala outweighs any countervaling possible kulla.

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Micha Berger wrote:

> 2- Which raises another question: How could a "Rabbi" who is raised
> Conservative be anything but a tinok shenishba, no matter how much Torah
> he learned? Book knowledge does little to change attitude, particularly if
> taught by someone of similar slant. Yet, so R' Moshe seems to say.

This summer I gave a presentation on the relationship between Religion and Science
to a group of visiting Amercian medical students. They were from either
Conservative or Reform background. After explaining that all systems of thought
have unprovable axioms, I concluded that both Religion and Science contained
dogmatic beliefs. One young lady objected to my observation and said, "I don't have
any dogma I am just confused". The rest of the group agreed. I would postulate that
the layman are not heretics because they are just confused. In contrast the
leadership - might be fairly ignorant - but they are more confident in what they
espouse.

Additionally the term tinok shenishba, contrary to popular belief, is not some one
who did not have a yeshiva education. Reb Moshe was asked (vol 8 O.H. 28.22 page
103) about whether it was necessary to make an Eiruv to save people who are
mechallel shabbos from the issur of carrying? "...the majority of machelel shabbos
are kofrin in the entire Torah and perhaps everyone agrees there is no obligation
to make an eiruv for them. But perhaps for the sake of those that know nothing
because  their rishus and kofira come because of their upbringing and perhaps there
is some significance or mitzva to make an eiruv for them - since they are
considered shogeg? Even though it is not actually shogeg - even though they were
raised by their parents in their rishus and kofira - HOWEVER they nevertheless see
and know about shomrei Torah and Mitzvos and they know that there are people who
are greater and more  intelligent than their parents - therefore it more reasonable
that there is no  obligation to save them  from sin...."

One final observation, the chareidi world especially in Israel is much more willing
to publicly describe Conservative and Reform as heresy. In contrast, the Modern
Orthodox are more concerned with what Rabbi Clark has described as hurting people's
feelings. The blunt comments of Reb Moshe are not to be found in public statements
of the Modern Orthodox  - though they are readily found in the Jewish Observer or
Yeted. There are parts of the the latest Jewish Action that are almost apologetic.
I am not asserting that the Modern Orthodox especially as represented by Rabbi Lamm
are less concerned with Mitzvos or that the Chareidi are not aware of the issue of
hurting feelings - but they have taken different approaches to this problem. Before
proclaiming that there is one correct way of dealing with this problem - it is
important to see how respected and sensitive people from the various parts of the
Orthodox spectrum are dealing with it. I don't think that Rabbi Clark is any more
sensitive to Chilul Hashem etc than was Rav Moshe or the Chofetz Chaim nor am I
claiming that he is less aware of the Mitzva of Tochacha than they. There are two
different approaches - unfortunately neither seems to be making much impact.

                                                           Daniel Eidensohn

>

In the discussion of the pros and cons of the Conservative Shechter Day
Schools, two issues have been overlooked. 
First, there seems to be an assumption that Shechter schools draw their
students from children who would otherwise be attending public schools, or
private secular schools. While this may be the case in areas where there is no
Yeshiva Day School, that circumstance is rare. Most Shechter schools have been
created in communities where a Yeshiva Day School already exists. Shechter
draws the bulk of its students from families who find the Day Schools "too
religious" (read, orthodox) or have other issues with the existing school. All
too often, Shechter becomes the alternative, weakening the existing Yeshiva
Day School. 
Secondly, the Shechter Schools compete within the community for the limited
financial resources available for Jewish education. This is especially true
when it comes to financial support from the local Federations, which has
become a primary financial resource for many Day Schools. With the advent of
Shechter, the financial pie is split. 
	Ask any Yeshiva Day School administrator and they will tell you, their world
would be much better if Shechter Schools never existed.

While we can feel triumphant in the integrity of our Torah versus the dogma of
the Conservative movement, in the broader Jewish world, they still have far
more "adherents". I think we should not delude ourselves because we have
created vibrant communities in certain areas, with all the modern amenities of
Orthodoxy. In reality, the Teanecks and "Five Towns" are few and far between.
Go to the non-Orthodox areas and see who is struggling and who isn't. To the
vast, vast majority, we are worse than irrelevant. We are nonexistent. So
let's be careful before we start patting ourselves on the back. 
	That being said, our future is brighter, but not because of anyone's flawed
philosophy. The reason was brought home to me by a college student from a
Conservative background. You might call her "committed Conservative". After
spending some Yomim Tovim with us, she remarked that to her the major
difference (aside from doctrine) was that Orthodoxy was not just based upon
synagogue, but upon a community of like-thinking and like-practicing people.
As a "committed Conservative", outside of JTS and some other isolated college
campuses, there is no place that contains a community of Jews actually
practicing according to Conservative teachings. ---IMHO, our future is
brighter because of our communities, our ability to find a place to live with
those who believe and practice like us that gives us the strength and the
ability to continue and grow. The Conservative movement never developed enough
commitment to their own philosophy to actually be a religious community.

I found Rabbi Eidensohns post insightful as usual. It made me think of
where the right wing cam up with this approach. It struck me that the
Tannaim and amoraim did not deal kindly with the heritecs of there day. If
we can compare reform and conservative with the minnim and cutim and
sadukies you don't find chazal too worried about Chillul Hashem when
dealing with these sects. So if we follow chazal it would seem that the
approach taken by the right wing is more in accordance with our mesorah.
Maybe the MO is mechalek because conservative and reform are considered by
many as tinok shenisbah whereas chazals enemies were true minnim. Maybe
this difference is reflective of the greatest difference between the MO
and The right wing, ie influence from western society. We live in a
society which
teaches everyone to respect everyone else and people have rights to their
opinions and it's not nice to offend people. Thats not to say that the MO
accepts conservative as a legitimate form of Judaism,it just says that
there attitudes towards dealing with them might be more reflective of
current society, something which doesn't exist so much in the right wing
and for sure not in Charedi Israel which rejects all western culture
beshitah. I'm not sure either of these are causes to the difference of
approach cited by Reb Daniel, but they make sense to me and I'd like to
know if anyone knows with any certainty what is the true cause for the
difference in approach. I guess that if it is political then it doesn't
really belong on Avodah and should stop there, but if its a religious or
Torah difference than I think it would be interesting to explore.
Elie Ginsparg

One more point, for now, on our discussion on Ponim Chadashos, Women's
Zimmun, Techeles, et al.

There is a difference between what one may pasken for oneself and one's
household, and what is proper to instruct on a global basis.

While I do believe that murex techeles is very likely the real thing, and
that one does not lose by wearing it, I would never make a public hora'ah
that everyone should wear it. I simply am not on the level to determine
what is halacha u'morin ken and what is not - in new vistas of Judaic
observance.

On the other hand, someone like R' Herschel Schachter *is* on that level.
Those who consider him their moreh derech are probably obliged to wear
techeles, as he holds there is a bal tigra problem involved in not wearing
it, if I am not mistaken.

R' Elyashiv, on yet another hand, seems to hold that techeles *does* fall
into the category of halacha v'ein morin ken, due to several factors.

In application hereto, if a major moreh hora'ah had taken issues of morin
ken vs. ein morin ken into account and determined that women can serve as
ponim chadashos, then, despite the relatively greater gravity here, as
previously discussed, we could contradict prevailing mesorah of "shev v'al
ta'aseh." Perhaps someone would like to present the issue to someone in
that class.

But all this does not prevent individuals from following what they regard
as a halachic emes privately. I am not sure, however, if ponim chadashos,
by its public nature, can be considered a private matter.

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one
> fulfills the mitzva of "lavan" with blue colored strings.

Rav Sternbuch vol I #26 page 21-22. "The Radzhiner was surprised why it made a
difference to the gedolim to be machmir to dye their tzitzis out of sofek and
he found no answer...I am concerned for the following 1) that people will
think they are actually fulfilling the mitzva of techeles 2) there is a
problem of bal tosif to intend to the mitzva of techeles when it is not
actually so.   Ritva Rosh HaShanna 28b. Rav Chaim Volozhiner notes that
wearing Rabbeinu Tam's tefilin could be a problem of  bal tosif.. Besides it
is known that the techeles that we have today might not even be the fish that
the Radzhiner specified. But here in Israel there was a Rav z"l who examined
and found according to his words the proper fish. Our practice is according to
the poskim not to be concerned that this is techeles. There are other
objections such as lo tisgodedu etc. The Radzhiner argued that this is a sofek
doreissa. The Brisker Rav replied that we only say sofek doreisa l'chumra in
the case that when we fulfill the mitzva now we definitely fulfill our
obligation but here there is no guarantee anything is being  accomplished.

In sum, staining with doubtful techeles is not necessarily a neutral act.

                                                   Daniel Eidensohn

re: YGB's position.   Is every Rav and talmid chacham simply to parrot the
opinion of those gedolim he respects with no ability to himself decide the
issue based on knowledge of the sources AS WELL as knowledge of the unique
shoel's circumstances that can never be addressed in broad public policy
statements?  You are putting the cart before the horse by saying one must
be a 'gadol' to decide a unprecedented sheila based on the sources .  After
all - isn't it the act of psak and setting precedent that leads us to
respect some people as gedolim, not  magically attaining this stature which
then gives them a license to pasken!

-CB

R' YGB writes:
> Firstly, techeles is a chumra, and one cannot lose by doing so, as one
> fulfills the mitzva of "lavan" with blue colored strings.

No, techeiles is a mitzvah d'Oraisa; while not a chiyuv, by no means just
a chumrah. (Clearly in the days of the medrash about Korach's "sh'aylah"
about blue b'gadim, it was viewed as the ikkar of the din of tzitzis.) IF
this is real t'cheiles, AND someone has an opportunity to use it and misses
it, wouldn't that qualify as "okeir mitzvah biyadayim"?

On the other hand, using blue strings for "lavan" is a bit of a loss, as you
may be reducing your fulfillment of "lavan" to b'dieved status. There's a
machlokes as to whether l'chatchilah the strings ought to be white or the
color of the begged. We avoid the machlokes by wearing white begadim.

Teimamin pasken that they should be the same color as the begged. Therefore,
it may make sense to wear a white-and-blue begged when hanging safeik
techeiles, as this way you fulfill the mitzvah lichatchilah at least
lishitasam.

(According to the Tif'eres Yisrael, any indellible blue dye of the right shade
is usable as techeiles. The importance of chilazon is that it was the only
such dye known until modern times. In which case, there'd be no safeik --
and therefore no lichatchilah vs. b'dieved -- to worry about.)

About Daniel Eidensohn's quote of R' Sternbuch's concern regarding lo
tisgodedu, you can avoid that problem if you where this blue striped begged
as your tallis kattan, strings inside your pants. We often avoid p'rishah min
hatzibur issues by limiting personal observances to bitzin'ah.


-mi

PS: None of this is what I do. I have little doubt the dye on my string is
techeiles. I see the situation as one of rov, not safeik.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5938 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 2-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 98-10-02 10:33:12 EDT, you write:

<< 
 (According to the Tif'eres Yisrael, any indellible blue dye of the right
shade
 is usable as techeiles. The importance of chilazon is that it was the only
 such dye known until modern times. In which case, there'd be no safeik --
 and therefore no lichatchilah vs. b'dieved -- to worry about.)
  >>
According to a tape I heard from the Rav, he felt that what you described as
the Tiferes Yisrael's position was actually the Rambam's position as well(I
don't remember the citations)

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]