Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 010

Friday, October 5 2001

• Tznius and Bnei Noach (was:WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem)
• Re: Hoshana Rabba-a day clouded in mystery
• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• RE: WTC and Tzniut
• RE: WTC and Tzniut
• Kiddush for daughter
• Re: succah/arba minim
• Lulav in the Succah
• Hakhel
• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• RE: Kiddush for daughter
• Re: WTC and Tzniut
• RE: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• Re: WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• Re: WTC and Tzniut
• Re: WTC reactions from eyewitnesses, faith after 9/11
• Re: bracha on arba minim-sukkah or shul
• Hoshanos
• RE: WTC and Tzniut
• Reactions to WTC terrorist attack
• Re: WTC and Tzniut
• RE: WTC and Tzniut
• [none]

R' Carl sherer asked [on Areivm] <<< Does a Ben Noach have a chiyuv to
act and dress in a tzniusdik manner? >>>

Depends on what we mean by "tznius". AIUI, bnei noach must avoid arayos,
but have no specific laws about how much of their bodies must be covered.

On the other hand, they are obligated to set up a legal system with the
goal of enforcing the other 6 laws, such as arayos. It could easily be
argued that the current society condones arayos to such a degree that
it has failed to set up an adequate legal system. We can quibble about
the phraseology of "setting up batei din" vs. "the behavior of society
at large", but I think that the point is that one way or another, the
pritzus of general society has gone overboard and that has got to stop.

IMHO, of course.

Akiva Miller

Hoshana Rabbah strikes me as a day which warrants a lot more
attention. The tefilah includes Hallel, Hoshanos, Musaf , Selichos and
Chibut aravah. In Williamsburg, the davening is quite long, as opposed
to some minyanim where the 13 Midos are said as fast as the 10 sons of
Haman, to paraphrase R Nebenzahl.

The mkor of the day are a few Gemaras in the last perek in Sukkah. The
Gemara quotes R Yochanan that the source of this day is either a Halacha
LMoshe Misinai, a minhag neviim or takanas neviim( see Rashi for the
differences- nafaka nina - saying a bracha). the Gemara solves the
problem by saying that the Halacha Lmoshe miSinai only applied to the
Mikdash and that the minhag neviim was outside the Mikdash.

When was the chivut done? Rashi -at the end of the hakafa, Rambam- at
the beginning. Who performed it?- Rashi and Rov Rishonim- kohanim only ,
Rambam-all Klal Yisrael.

For more insights, check out Hareri Kedem by R Shurkin 

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:13:12 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>A second issue is HKBH's "culpability". As I see it, even if we follow
>the Rambam's "olam keminhago holeich" ..., HKBH still stood back and
>allowed the world to follow teva. Even if one wants to say that HKBH
>didn't actively kill all those people, He was omeid al damam....

But God did not stand back. How many more warnings about specific
terrorist cells and front groups operating in the USA did our country
need?  Terrorism experts inside and outside the govt new about them
for years.  Did God tell the airlines to skimp on security?  Did God
tell the INS to be lax about visas and enforcement?  Did God tell our
govt and people to be complacent?

[snip]
>Others took the "large tapestry" approach, that we lack the perspective
>in which judgement is meaningful.

>As I'll address below, I think this particular question is simply
>unanswerable by man. This is difference than the lack of perspective
>issue -- I'm suggesting that man is inherently incapable of ever gaining
>that perspective and ability, not even as the event passes into history.
>As per Hashem's words at the end of Iyov.

I could not agree more.  In addition, the reading of Kohelet tomorrow
addresses the questions arising out of the WTC atrocity.

>A side issue to this, but a very important one, is whether that
>"culpability" implies anything about one's Avodas Hashem. To put it
>somewhat better: do we need to dismiss HKBH's role in passively allowing
>tragedy to occur in order to justify shemiras hamitzvos?

While I believe that God did not actively cause the WTC atrocity, He
was not entirely passive.  He endowed a number of human beings with
the discernment to understand the immediacy of the terrorist threat.
It was the rest of us who were passive.

Moadim leSimcha,

Jay S. Lapidus     http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to, 
       as long as you're ashamed of it." 
            - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg

From: Shinnar, Meir [mailto:Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu] on Areivim
> First, I am not quite sure that your understanding of the 
> Rambam's notion of hashgacha is correct - olam keminhago holech.

See Rabbi Shalom Carmy's article in the Orthodox Forum volume entitled
"Suffering" and Dr. David Berger's article on Nachmanides & miracles.

> There is a long tradition of using personal and communal tragedy as a
> method of hitorerrut.  It is the presumption that we can identify which sin
> that is problematic.  Furthermore, hitorrerut is always better when done on
> oneself - the sins that one does rather than the sins that others do.  

But you have to explain why the tradition of hisorerus exists.  If the
deaths are unrelated to sins we have done, then why should the deaths of
innocents cause hisorerus?  It must be that there is a link between those
deaths and the sins we have done.  The link may be direct (as others have
argued) or indirect (as I have argued).

I do agree with you that given our lack of nevuah, we cannot identify with
certainty the sins linked to the tragedy.  We can only do our best to
identify areas requiring tshuvah.


From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> on Areivim
>> [Moshe:] We can simply ask ourselves: "if I had been in the WTC on
>> Sept 11, would I have been deserving of Hashem's direct intervention?"

> The problem with this line of reasonining is that it brings you to the
> conclusion that those who died were *not* righteous.

I responded:
> No, your conclusion is incorrect.  First, the according to 
> the Rambam/Ramban even relatively righteous people do not 
> merit divine intervention 100 percent of the time (just some 
> of the time).  Second, Hashem may have decided that a 
> righteous person's time on earth should expire at that time.

I just want to throw out another possibility: following the
Rambam/Ramban's view that Nature is a reality (unlike Rav Dessler's view),
maybe a Hashem would allow perfectly righteous people to die as part of
the WTC disaster in order to send a message to the klal because of the
klal's sins. We do have a tradition that Hashem can allow tzaddikim to
die because of the sins of the generation.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

RM Feldman wrote
>But you have to explain why the tradition of hisorerus exists.  If the
>deaths are unrelated to sins we have done, then why should the deaths of
>innocents cause hisorerus? ...

>I do agree with you that given our lack of nevuah, we cannot identify with
>certainty the sins linked to the tragedy.  We can only do our best to
>identify areas requiring tshuvah.

See (among others) Kol Dodi dofek. Evil and suffering has to evoke a
response from us to improve the world. Furthermore, (IMHO) improving the
world always starts with improving oneself. That does not mean that the
lack of the response prior to the evil is in any way causative of that
suffering, or that our response retroactively justifies the evil.

It is not that there are sins linked to the tragedy (Yesh mita bli het)
Rather, it is up to us to give meaning to the tragedy by focusing on
areas that we can improve ourselves and the world.

Meir Shinnar

I have been told that if a daughter is having trouble finding a shiduch it
may also be the result of the parents not having paid shadchan gelt.I m
unaware of the source for this idea. The idea of shatchan gelt I believe
is based upon Yalkut Shimoni that the Or bestowed upon Moshe after the
second Har sinai experience was the basis for this minhag; That Moshe
acted as the shadchan between KBHU and Klal Yisroel. (I wonder why there
was no such gelt after the first dibros.)

Menachem brick

In Avodah V8 #9, MBerger wrote:
> I wonder if we should be looking for a parallel: na'anu'im dimeyushav
> vs na'anu'im dime'umad. By shofar too, the Rambam holds that the ikkar
> is during the Amidah. No?

I'm notail the 4 Minim in the Sukkah ASAP in the morning (i.e. not before
the earliest time for donning tallis u't'filin) because z'rizin makdimin
(and, to be honest, because it's my custom to drink something before going
to shul in the morning and I don't want to do so before performing the
n'tilah). See BT Rosh HaShanah (IIRC, it's in the 20's) for two reasons
why the t'kiyos dim'yushav aren't blown earlier in the day mishum z'rizin
-- those reasons don't apply to this mitzvah (or to most mitzvos).

All the best (including wishes for a wonderful Shabbos!) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

This minhag I believe is based on the Zohar ,requiring that we bench
Lulav in the Succah. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik and perhaps the Rav were
makpid to bench Lulav immediately prior to Hallel in order that the
kiyum hamitva of the nanuim be connected to the bracha since that was
the ikar of the mitzva. The Rav once commented that we hold the esrog
and lulav together as a sign of our desire to put the esrog back on to
the Eitz hadaas. I wonder if that could also be part of the rationale
to the minhag to benching in the Succah. The scach being gidulei karka
and not being of any material that could be mekabel Tumah.

Menachem brick

In a message dated Fri, 5 Oct 2001 9:37:11am EDT, Gil Student
<gil_student@hotmail.com> writes:
> The Ramban I've seen R. Hershel Schachter quote ...  From the fact that we 
> cannot leave the land desolate, it is inferred that there is a status to 
> Jewish "control" over the land i.e. malchus.

> I heard R. Feivel Cohen explain this Ramban differently - that the Ramban is 
> saying that there is a mitzvah on the gavra to conquer Eretz Yisrael and a 
> mitzvah on the cheftza to be conquered....

Obviously there are a number of opinions on the status of melech and the
current status of the mitzvah of Hakhel. What is the argument against
doing it, even msafek, as a zecher lmikdash?

KT
Joel Rich

From: Shinnar, Meir <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> on Areivim:
:> There is a long tradition of using personal and communal tragedy as a
:> method of hitorerrut....
:> that is problematic.  Furthermore, hitorrerut is always better when done on
:> oneself - the sins that one does rather than the sins that others do.  

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 10:51:51AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: But you have to explain why the tradition of hisorerus exists...

I would have said that the his'orerus is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Lima'aseh, yissurim make us unhappy with the status quo, they change our
perception of the reality we're dealing with, and they therefore shake us
out of complacency.

The gemara in Ta'anis is obligating us to utilize that feeling.

Despite our inability to link cheit to it. After all, yissurim shel ahavah
are also called yissurim, and there one has no cheit to link!



On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 10:47:28AM -0400, Jay Lapidus wrote:
:>                                        ... HKBH still stood back and
:> allowed the world to follow teva. Even if one wants to say that HKBH
:> didn't actively kill all those people, He was omeid al damam....

: But God did not stand back. How many more warnings about specific
: terrorist cells and front groups operating in the USA did our country
: need?  Terrorism experts inside and outside the govt new about them
: for years.  Did God tell the airlines to skimp on security?  Did God
: tell the INS to be lax about visas and enforcement?  Did God tell our
: govt and people to be complacent?

Sounds like the old, "I sent you a rowboat, a door you could have
used as a raft and a helecopter. What more do you want?"

That's just shifting the question from how He allowed the terrorists
to act, for their actions to be successful, and successful to a given
group of people and not others. Now you have the same philosophical
dilemma of how he allowed the gov't, the airlines, etc... not to act,
for their inaction to allow for disaster, etc...

If I understand your position correctly, I already stated my problem
with it in the paragraph after the one you quote:

> One is at first glance left with the conclusion that HKBH values the
> bechirah of 19 suicidal individuals over the lives of thousands....

But then, I have a problem with taking any position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Friday, October 05, 2001 12:01pm, Leah and Menachem Brick 
<levaynim@optonline.net> wrote:
> I have been told that if a daughter is having trouble finding a shiduch it
> may also be the result of the parents not having paid shadchan gelt.I m
> unaware of the source for this idea.

Probably from an unhappy shadchan.

> The idea of shatchan gelt I believe
> is based upon Yalkut Shimoni that the Or bestowed upon Moshe after the
> second Har sinai experience was the basis for this minhag; That Moshe
> acted as the shadchan between KBHU and Klal Yisroel.

The idea of getting paid cash for performing a mitzvah came from Moshe 
Rabbainu who never touched a shekel for 40 years of service as an abused 
tour guide through the midbar, not to mention negotiating a general release 
from Paroh? Sounds strange.

> (I wonder why there was no such gelt after the first dibros.)

To teach us not to pay the shadchan until you see how well the marriage is 
working?

kt
sk

Jay Lapidus wrote:
>Nowhere have I stated or implied that God does not punish sins. I do state 
>that God does not punish unjustly. See Ber. 18:19. Are you arguing that God 
>deliberately caused the deaths of innocent firemen and others because there 
>are Jewish women with exposed midriffs, knees, or shoulders?!

First of all, who knows if everyone in the building was innocent?  Second, 
they may have simply died because their time came (cf. I Shmuel 26:10).  
Many would argue that there is a reason that every person in the building 
died.

However, this is not just a tragedy for the families of those killed.  This 
is a national, or maybe international, tragedy that affects many, many more 
people than were in the building.  Indeed, practically the entire nation has 
been traumatized by this.

You are claiming that this countrywide fear and mourning, not to mention the 
very real danger of repetition, is for no reason at all.  Where in Tanach, 
after being faced with a plague or crushing defeat, did people say that it 
was just "free will"?  Nowhere.  They looked for the reason that G-d was 
punishing them.

Again, you are minimizing the problem of (partial) nudity and its effects on 
people.  Read some of the feminist literature against beauty pageants.  This 
goes much deeper than just some women wearing comfortable clothes.

Micha Berger wrote:
>R' Yerucham would say that we'd still have to serve Him. That Judaism rests 
>on hakaras hatov, and the fact that Hashem created us is
>sufficient to obligate us to serve Him.

Just to give more authority to this viewpoint, the Chovos HaLevavos in 
sha'ar avodas ha'Elokim was probably his source.

Gil Student

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Lima'aseh, yissurim make us unhappy with the status quo, they change our
> perception of the reality we're dealing with, and they therefore shake us
> out of complacency.
> The gemara in Ta'anis is obligating us to utilize that feeling.

> Despite our inability to link cheit to it. After all, yissurim shel ahavah
> are also called yissurim, and there one has no cheit to link!

On the contrary, the fact that the gemara terms certain yissurim as
yissurin shel ahavah implies (as the gemara itself does state) that all
other yissurim are linked to cheit. The gemara Brachos 5a says that if
one sees yissurim coming on him, yifashfesh b'maasav; if he sees that
he is free of cheit (including bittul torah), then these are yissurin
shel ahavah.

While I dislike your proof from yissurin shel ahava, I do like the
concept in your first paragraph.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 01:04:48PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> Despite our inability to link cheit to it. After all, yissurim shel ahavah
:> are also called yissurim, and there one has no cheit to link!

: On the contrary, the fact that the gemara terms certain yissurim as
: yissurin shel ahavah implies (as the gemara itself does state) that all
: other yissurim are linked to cheit....

I was overly brief. I was speaking of "our inability to link cheit"
in particular, not whether or not such a link exists.

My point is that all we know about an event is that it's yissurim. We are
unable to know what kind -- what the cheit was, or even if it exists and
that it's not yissurim shel ahavah. The fact that they're both called
yissurim could very well be because both forms of yissurim demand the
same response.

The gemara you quote:
:                                     The gemara Brachos 5a says that if
: one sees yissurim coming on him, yifashfesh b'maasav; if he sees that
: he is free of cheit (including bittul torah), then these are yissurin
: shel ahavah.

... shows that one is expected to find something to use this emotion on,
nothing more. First he is told to look at chata'im that require ma'aseh,
then the one cheit that is the most common omission, then to "merely"
reflect the love Hashem is asking from him.

(BTW, who could find themselves free of cheit including bitul Torah? Ein
tzadik ba'aretz asher ya'aseh tov velo yechta...)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

> You are claiming that this countrywide fear and mourning, not to mention the 
> very real danger of repetition, is for no reason at all.  Where in Tanach...
>                        Nowhere.  They looked for the reason that G-d was 
> punishing them.

> Again, you are minimizing the problem of (partial) nudity...           This 
> goes much deeper than just some women wearing comfortable clothes.

One can agree that there is a message to us in the attacks and we have
to ask "how" to respond (as Micha discussed in prior posts) without being
certain as to the proximate cause (eg is it tzniut in womens dress or in
our lifestyle or perhaps one of the other ususal suspects). I wonder if
the discussion of hashgacha klallit versus pratit also informs on our
response (ie individual cheshbon hanefesh versus identifying one issue
for the kahal)

SS
Joel Rich

Please define an eyewitness. I was in downtown Brooklyn, saw the black
smoke, the glass, the fire and walked to the LIRR to take a train to
Jamaica. Believe me, I felt like a refugee. While I respect those who
say that tznius is a communal priority, WADR, what about the singles,
the well known increasing divorce rate, inadequate pre marital education,
spousal abuse and kids at risk? Sure, simchas are way too expensive ,
but that's like apple pie. Sure, there are examples of short skirts,
slits, short sleeves and exposure to the wrong newspapers and Netsites,
but that is a miut shbmiut.

As RYBS pointed out, we should be thinking along the lines of what should
be our reaction. Remember, KOl Dodi Dofek was presented in the similar
aftermath of the Shoah/Churban Europe when many asked the same questions
and either kept or lost their faith. Is not the same answer as equally
intellectually honest as it was after the Shoah?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

This is an old machlokes . Take a look at Arba Mimin HaShalem . he
argues that the normative practice should be making the bracha before
Hallel. RYBS and RYZS argued that since the ikar kiyum hamitzva is
connected to hallel, one should make the bracha as close to Hallel as
possible. See also Mikraei Kodesh by RTzi Pesach Frank who writes about
this at length.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Does anyone have an explanation for the choice and the order of Hoshanos
in nusach Ashkenaz?

The only consistency is that Lma'an Amitach is said on the first weekday,
and E'eroch Shuee is said on the first Chol Hamoed weekday.  Is there any
reason for the different orders and the different Hoshanos that are said,
depending on which day Sukkos begins?

Sadya N. Targum

Here is a radical idea: Every time one of us sees a picture of ground
zero s/he should think about what s/he as an individual has done that
might have contributed to the tragedy and what have s/he has done as an
individual since 9/11/01 to prevent it from happening again. If you think
the cause was pritzus, then consider the way you dress (men: how much you
notice how much pritzusdik the woman in the street are dressed). If you
think it was because of sinas chinam figure out one or two people you
could have had over last pesach for a meal and invite them for shmini
atzeret/simchas torah.

Let's get away from figuring out the big picture because we can't fix it
anyway which makes all the pilpul of the last few days about the tznius
of Osama'a wife a big bitul zman. We can however fix ourselves and hope
that is enough to keep the Empire State building standing.

kt
sk

With due respect to rabbinical leadership, the message that we should
learn from the terrorist attack to be more careful about tznius troubles
me. It makes as little sense to learn from the religious values of the
terrorists as it does to learn from the commitment to the poor of the
Communists and the loyalty to one's nation of the Nazis. The holocaust
should have taught great caution in deriving specific lessons about the
behavior of victims.

The fact that the message is essentially the same as it would have been
if the terrorists' attacks had not occurred should lead us to question
whether something additional is involved.

Perhaps we can learn from the bravery and sense of unity of those who
tried to help the victims.

No one is thinking about how such commitment to a monotheistic faith
and tznius could be accompanied by such hatred and violence, but isn't
that worth thinking about too? It is the interaction of many values,
not the exagerration of one, which distinguishes halakhah.

Yosef Blau

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:06:18PM -0400, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
: Here is a radical idea: Every time one of us sees a picture of ground
: zero s/he should think about what s/he as an individual has done ...

Are you suggesting that the gedolim named were only throwing out a
suggestion to aid people in such a cheshbon hanefesh?


On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 07:13:06PM +0000, y.blau@att.net wrote:
: With due respect to rabbinical leadership, the message that we should
: learn from the terrorist attack to be more careful about tznius troubles
: me....

Which raises the same question I was asking about RSK's comment.

Yes, I firmly agree with this sentiment. But...

Giving due kavod torasam means that even if my rav suggests a different
approach, I can't just dismiss what they said. Still, "ulelamdah ani
tzarich".

So yes, it troubles me too. But can I just walk away with the assumption
that no teirutz exists?

: The fact that the message is essentially the same as it would have been
: if the terrorists' attacks had not occurred should lead us to question
: whether something additional is involved.

I don't think so. Because the attacks brought the contrast and made it
quite vivid. Knowing something and having it lucidly and emotionally
demonstrated are very different things.

: Perhaps we can learn from the bravery and sense of unity of those who
: tried to help the victims.

You remind me of the famous R' Lazer Silver story, where (bekitzur,
as I assume you all know it) he tells the survivor to stop focussing on
the one man in the cam who rented rights to pages from a siddur, and to
look at those dozens who were willing to give up half their bread for
a moment to commune with G-d.

: No one is thinking about how such commitment to a monotheistic faith
: and tznius could be accompanied by such hatred and violence, but isn't
: that worth thinking about too? It is the interaction of many values,
: not the exagerration of one, which distinguishes halakhah.

And yet Yirmiyahu's warning about communities that slip into roles
of following one and overlooking the other: of bringing korbanos and
yet cheating the poor; of spending $120 dollars on an esrog but paying
under the table; still holds.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:06:18PM -0400, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
>: Here is a radical idea: Every time one of us sees a picture of ground
>: zero s/he should think about what s/he as an individual has done ...

On Friday, October 05, 2001 3:29 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
wrote:
> Are you suggesting that the gedolim named were only throwing out a
> suggestion to aid people in such a cheshbon hanefesh?

As I mentioned in several posts yesterday I believe that what the gedolim 
quoted meant to say must not have traveled well when transferred to the 
print media. There is no doubt that they had in mind a much deeper message 
and indeed by making us think about what they really meant they have 
achieved the goal of getting us each to make an individual cheshbon 
hanefesh. For the reasons I harped on yesterday, their message cannot have 
been as simple as the problem can be solved by getting the audience (in one 
case woman in Lakewood, NJ, a place not known for pritzusdick dress!) to 
wear longer skirts. To accept their words so simplistically would be to 
deny their very gadlus.

kt
sk

I had intended to post on Avodah a list of my responses to the
identification of t'kheles with Murex trunculus indigo dye. My thanks
and congratulations to R. Mendel Singer, who in his post last week not
only covered most of my points, but did it better than I should have
been able to.

There are just a few things I would like to add.

First of all, as R. Micha has noted, the subject has become somewhat of
a "religious" belief by certain individuals and groups. Some of those
who wear the P'til T'khelet dye and some Bratslave chasidim view it
as almost a holy campaign to convince all Jews to start wearing their
t'kheles. So it is proper for anyone writing about it to reveal his own
biases. I am an agnostic regarding this subject. I first investigated
the subject some 25 years ago, and have gone back to it 5 times since,
and I am still waiting to be convinced.

Back 25 years ago what was available were the 3 things published by the
Radzyner Rebbe, R. Leiner, and R. Herzog's work. I had access to a library
that had them all, and waded my way through them. In line with R. Micha's
comment about religious biases on the subject, it is and was clear
that the Radzyner Rebbe was a true believer, and his material naturally
reflected his belief that he had rediscovered t'kheles. R. Herzog, OTOH,
attempted to objectively discuss all the pros and cons for identifying
the hilazzon and t'kheles. I still recommend his work above all others
for anyone who wants to see an analysis of all of the issues. The proof of
his objectivity was that he himself never produced t'kheles dye, despite
the fact that he had settled in his work on a certain kind of mollusk,
Janthina, as the most likely candidate. He specifically considered the
Radzyne t'kehles and murex trunculus dyes and rejected them, both for
several reasons. [The P'til Tekhelet brochure misleadingly states that
he "realized that all the evidence pointed to Murex trunculus as the
most likely cnadidate for the tekhelet source. Two problems, however,
prevented Rav Herzog from positively identifying that snail with the
Chilazon." This is an example of where their status as "true believers"
have led them to exaggerate. When you read R. Herzog's work you see that
there are more than two problems that he had with the Murex trunculus, and
he never thought that "all the evidence" pointed to that identification;
just that the work of Lacaze-Duthiers and other chemists convinced him
that the Murex trunculus and brandaris and Thais haemastoma were the
sources of the royal purple dyes.] The Radzyne chasidim made claims that
R. Herzog clandestinely wore Radzyne t'kheles on his tzitzis, but this
remains an unconfirmed chasidishe mayse, since he never did so in public,
and his widow never publicly stated that he did so clandestinely.

This leads me to a general comment. A case where one group of Jews and its
talmidei hakhomim have preserved a tradition about something (e.g. the
Teimanim with the kinds of grasshoppers/locusts that are kosher) is,
to my mind, completely different from a case where NO Jewish group has
preserved a masorah. In the former case, one can argue about whether the
group's traditions are trustworthy and whether members of other Jewish
groups would be permitted to rely on it. However, in the latter case,
there is an agreement among all Jews who observe Torah that we DO NOT
KNOW. Quite apart and separate from the position of the Beis haLevi as
preserved by RYBS that we cannot and may not create a masorah where
there is none, at the very least we would need clear and convincing
proof for the identification. There was no clear and convincing proof
at the time of R. Herzog; there were just a number of possibilities,
each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

So when the movement arose in the 80'sto identify Murex trunculus as
the source of t'kheles, and spread to several rabbis at YU, I was very
interested to learn what had changed from the time of R. Herzog. The
answer given by P'til Tekhelet and by Rabbis Lamm and Schachter was 1)
chemical discoveries, and 2) archeological discoveries.

The chemical discovery was the discovery by Prof. Otto Elsner with Ehud
Spanier that trunculus dye, normally blue-purple, is converted into
pure blue by exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The major problem with
that is that the dye is converted to pure indigo, the same chemical that
is obtained from the indigofera tinctoria plant. It is obvious that if
the dyes are chemically the same, then the method the g'moro gives of
distinguishing them will never work, regardless of the chemical details
of how the test is supposed to work. So the discover was a ma'aseh listor.

The archeological evidence was the discovery of massive piles of Murex
and Thais shells, all broken near the gland that would produce the
blue-purple dye. But this evidence was not new. As P'til Tekhelet notes,
the original discoveries were made in 1864, and Dedekind in 1898 deduced
that the dye produced was the royal purple. R. Herzog know all about this,
and the only thing new since his time was that more piles were discovered.

Now P'tel Tekhelet makes a big issue about all of these piles, the
dye industry, and the fact that t'kheles was mentioned as coming from
northern Israel, near Tyre. They mention the well-known historical fact
that Tyrian purple was a very expensive and sought-after dye, and was at
certain periods under Roman imperial control. But they fail to discuss
some of the implications of this. The historical evidence predicts the
archeological discovery of huge dye facilities with the source of the dye
nearbye. But we are looking for t'kheles, not royal purple. The Jewish
dye industry would have been small (remember, fake t'kehles was rampant,
so a lot of the frume Yidden who wore t'kheles were sold a fake). If,
in fact, t'kheles was produced at the same facilities that produced royal
purple, we would expect to find almost no evidence of it. The quantities
of it would have been miniscule in comparison to the royal purple,
unless t'kheles was a dye commonly used by gentiles. That is possible,
but there is no evidence. The g'moro certainly gives no indication that
t'kheles is a common dye used by gentiles. If the t'kheles were produced
at separate, Jewish facilities, they have not yet been discovered,
and since they were likely small, they may never be.

P'til also makes much of the fact that the Murex brandaris and Thais
haemastoma shells are found together, apart from the Murex trunculus. So
the former were both used in the royal purple, and the latter in something
else: it must be t'kheles. But the Murex trunculus produces a beautiful
purple-blue dye, and when you gather Murex brandaris you also get a lot of
Murex trunculus, so for sure the dyers would have used them for some dye.
T'kheles? Perhaps, perhaps not, but the quantities of the shells are far
beyond what would have been required for the Jewish t'kheles industry.
So at the end of the day, we are where we were at the time of R. Herzog,
and the reaction the g'dolim at that time was a refusal to start wearing
any sort of t'kheles dye, because there is NO convincing evidence. I am
not going to say that the g'moro's simanim prove that Murex trunculus
indigo cannot be t'kheles, but they certainly don't prove that that it
was, and as R. Singer has shown, it is a big stretch to reconcile the
g'moro with Murex trunculus.

We still have no conclusive proof of any sort about what constitutes
t'kheles. All of R. Herzog's points remain open.

Now to R. Micha's comments:

<FYI, I wear murex trunculus derived indigo on my tzitzis. I do so because
I feel the identification likely enough to warrant spending the money --
not that I feel it is vadai. As the Radziner Rebbe asked, what do you
lose if you're wrong?)>

A ta'ana argued at great length by the Radzyner Rebbe: why not wear it?

But, R. Micha, the g'dolim of the time did NOT wear it, despite the
Radzyner. None of them, and there were giants at that time. The Chofetz
Chayyim, R. Chayyim Brisker, the Alte of Kelm, of Slabodka, of Novardok,
the heads of Telz, Mir, Slabodka, Lomzhe, Novardok, R. Yitkhok Elkhonon
in the misnagdishe velt. None of the many chasidishe g'dolim.

I do not claim to know their reasons, but LAD there is a simple one: if
you are wearing the wrong color, you have lost the mitzva of lovon. There
are two shittos among the rishonim about what lovon is. The Rambam says
it is the exact color of the garment on which the tzitzis are to be hung.

Ashk'nazi rishonim say it is colorless: undyed wool. If you died some of
the hutim of tzitzis red, for example, and put them on a white beged,
you would not have lovon, nor would you have t'kheles. In the case
of the modern t'kehles, if you dye one/two/four strings with the dye,
then you have one/two/four strings that are not lovon, and if they are
not t'kheles, then you have no mitzva at all.

<Li nir'eh the list is one of explaining the significant features of the
chilazon. Not the identifying ones. They therefore need not be unique.>

I agree. But at least they should match. They match Murex as closely as
they match cuttlefish or octopodes or Janthina, and match many species
of fish much better. The only thing special about Murex is that we know
produces a good dye.

<we're only warned about a single alternative dye of that color. Chazal
knew of the murex dye. They didn't warn about tzitzis dyed with indigo
made from the murex when they warned about kala ilan. If it isn't
techeiles, why not?>

As I believe R. Singer has since pointed out, you would have to be
crazy/m'shuggener/a member of xxx [fill in the blanks: MO, RW, L, Tikkun]
to make fake t'kheles with the Murex, if it indeed is not t'kehles. The
Murex dye industry was controlled by powerful merchants even before
imperial control, and they operated like mafiosi in the time of the
g'moro: you open up a Murex dye operation, and very unfortunate things
would happen to your workers and equipment. Totally coincidentally,
of course. That's the way business operated during the late lamented
Roman Empire. Besides, you would need 8,000 snails for one gram of dye. A
money losing operation, for sure, besides being dangerous to your health
and during some times illegal. The only way an honest cheat could make
fake t'kheles dye AND make money at it was using the old reliable plant
source. Very low tech, too: just take some leaves of the indigo plant,
put them in water until they rot, add some lye. Very cheap, very reliable,
and indistinguishable, according to the g'moro, from the real thing.

<This is news to me. I did not see any mention of cycles in Sefunei
Temunei Chol. Li nir'eh he is saying that usually it's rare, and on
certain occasions it isn't. "Once in 70 years" is a usual idiom in gemara,
such as in the famous statement about misas beis din. It never crossed
my mind to take it to mean anything but "very rare".>

Yes, very rare, but not rare in the sense that it is continuously present
at a low frequency. A Bes Din Qatlonis would not "kill" people by 10%
continuously every year. Once every 70 years would mean that the hillazon
is more available at periodic intervals, even if not 70 years exactly,
even if it was present to a lesser degree at other times. The cuttlefish
of the Radzyner, the Murex of P'til, are available all the time, with no
known cycle at all. At least R. Herzog's Janthina lived in the middel
of the sea, and only were available on shore after a big storm. Not so
the Murex snails, who live at the sea bottom and are never blown ashore.

Finally, what to me is very convincing. Why did R. Herzog conclude that
the Radzyner was wrong? To a large extent because he discovered that the
Radzyner t'kheles was Prussian blue, and could be made from any organic
source. Yes, you could make it from squid ink, but you could also make
it from squid, snails, snakes and steaks. So why was the g'moro insistent
that it was rare because you could only make it from the hillazon? P'til
Tekheles makes a lot of this proof.

But they fail to point out that Murex trunculus is not the only source of
indigo dye. Murex brandaris and Thais haemastoma normally give dibromide
indigo, which is purple, but is converted to pure indigo by ultraviolet
radiation, just like from Murex trunculus. So according to P'til,
you would have three recognizably different species that produce the
same dye. Are you then to claim that any of the species are the elusive
hillazon? I would need a lot more proof before I would do what all the
European g'dolim at the time of the Radzyner would not.

Seth Mandel

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]