Tassel and blue thread today
Is it necessary to wear a blue thread these days?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When you cast a tzitzit of only white, you nullified the act of a blue-green color, but it did not delay the white that existed. If there is doubt as to whether it is a blue-green color, the normal laws of spikot apply.
See details in my articles Here . —————————————————————————————— Asks: But that is exactly the point. Since the blue does not hinder the white, and there is doubt about the correctness of the blue, there is no obligation here and that is precisely why this halacha exists. After all, it is impossible to obligate a person with a mitzvah that he cannot fulfill, and according to the laws of doubt, he is not obligated at all because as soon as there is doubt about a mitzvah, there is no obligation to fulfill it. The parable/example from tefillin is a distortion of the matter because we have no doubt about what tefillin are or whether the head separates the hand, etc. The correct example/parable is to ask whether there is an obligation to put on tefillin of the rabbinate. And the Gra’s answer is also acceptable here. 16 When there is more than one method of the blue, and unlike tefillin, it is impossible to fulfill all the possibilities. horizon —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: Hello Ofek.
I explained things, and I will come back again.
First, we must examine the situation when there is definitely azure. In such a situation, the fact that the azure does not inhibit the white certainly does not mean that the azure is voluntary. Agreed? That is why I brought the “distorted” example of tefillin. I would be happy if you could explain to the poor in mind like me what is distorted here (apart from the interpretation you gave to my words).
So when there is doubt about a blue sky, it must be performed with the same certainty as any other mitzvah. It has nothing to do with the question of delaying the white. This is a doubt about a regular positive mitzvah. Whatever you say about a positive doubt (and I mentioned that the latter differed on this, but according to the vast majority of them, one should also be strict about a positive doubt) you should say here as well.
The existence of several methods for Techelet is also irrelevant. The connections and bindings, even if they are incorrect, do not hinder almost any method. So what is the point of this, Landon Didan?
The example of Rashi’s tefillin is not relevant here, since you could equally well ask about Rashi’s tefillin. But what? It is clear that the accepted custom does not consider this a doubt, but rather that there is a ruling by Rashi, and the question is only whether to be stricter by Rashi. This is not a question in ordinary spikot laws. —————————————————————————————— Asks: Thanks for the additional explanation, but you didn’t bring anything new that I didn’t understand from the previous points. First, as is known, doubt from the Torah is a serious matter. There is doubt that it is a tzeitze, and the moment a person wears a tzeitze with a tzeitze that is doubtful, he enters the law of doubt that cancels certainty through the existence of doubt, or in other words, wearing a tzeitze that is not tzeitze causes the certain to be canceled by the existence of doubt. Therefore, in this case and others like it, doubt should not be maintained at the expense of certainty, and as mentioned, since there is no proof that it is a tzeitze, it should not be worn and the reason is clear. Regarding what you wrote regarding tefillin, “that the accepted custom does not consider it a doubt, but rather there is a ruling as a Rashi, and the question is only whether to tighten as a Rashi…” This is completely incorrect. There are many poskim, from the Arizal to Rabbi Ovadia zt”l, who state that it is not a doubt, but an obligation. So as you wrote, there is no ordinary doubt in this, but not in the way you intended, and again, it is not an acceptable metaphor. horizon —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: I didn’t understand what you said. Even if the Tekhel is not real, it did not cancel the commandment of tzitzit. And regarding tefillin, I disagree. But as I commented on your statement, I could also ask about Rashi’s tefillin.
One way or another, this entire discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the delay, and that’s what I was talking about.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Where did we get the Tekhelet that we are in doubt about?
How can Tekhelet be re-validated in a halachic way?
Look at the articles written about the new Tekhel. You can find them online.
I know it's from a snail and all, but in terms of Kabbalah in tradition, how was the information transmitted? In similar words - how much can we trust that it is Tekhelet as the Creator intended.
B. If the sages "legalize" Tekhelet in a similar style but less complicated and more accessible - is that possible?
The information was not passed down in tradition regarding this specific snail. There is an identification of a snail that is based on several indications. It is not a question of trusting but of seeing the arguments in favor of the identification. In my opinion, they are quite convincing, and there is certainly at least some doubt from the Torah.
Honorable Rabbi, don't you see how many problems are created because of problems in tradition - how did the Creator not think in advance to erase all these problems. This is the alphabet of the commandments, and Nada - two thousand years people have not known what Tekhelet is and two thousand years or a little less there has been no real tradition anywhere about Tekhelet - why does He do this to us if all the commandments depend on the tzitzit whose function is to remind us of each mitzvah in its time. I am ashamed and embarrassed
Honorable Rabbi, if the Sages could abrogate the Torah by the majority of the Sages because it is not in the sky, what is the problem in doing this again (to establish a new law regarding the substance of the color Tekhelet) and depart from the Torah, what is the problem? Especially if it is not the LBM
God did not do this to us. It happened for various reasons unrelated to Him. What happens in the world happens because of the laws of nature and people's choices. If He causes what happens in the world, the least difficult question is why He removed the Tekhel.
The Sages do not abrogate the commandments of the Torah, and this is certainly not related to the absence of the sky. The Sages only interpret the Torah, and regarding this it is said that it is not in the sky (what determines is the interpretation of the Sages and not Bat Kol). The absence of the sky does not mean that the Torah does not determine.
I understood that yes, Your Honor, even if there is a rule of law that uproots the Bible, if it is not about a mitzvah from the Torah, then why did they say this? And since when do they say “halacha” about a (casual) interpretation of the Torah that is not a mitzvah?
By the way, the Rabbi, until that day the oven was truly impure, the voice of the woman admitted it, and they changed the commandment of the Torah and replaced the law of the Torah, and there is no difference between the law of the Torah (because it is a commandment) and the Torah, so that their authority also stems from this. The majority determines the law, and this is kosher according to the law, and there is no rape.
Are you with me, Your Honor? After all, you saw how they broke everything that R’ Eliezer made legal, and this is a sign to you that the majority's law also determines the past! Yes - to that extent. So that there is no problem for the sages today to make legal another tekhel without a problem - why prevent this mitzvah (by revising it), then?
Moshe, we repeat ourselves. You need to look at the sources before you start grinding water.
Sages cannot change any law written in the Torah, except in one of three ways: 1. The LBM (which also came from Sinai). 2. Interpretation/sermon. 3. Rabbinical regulation/decree (and there are some limitations on that too).
Akhnai's oven does not appear in the Torah if you haven't noticed. There was a dispute over the terms of his law, and in an interpretive dispute the Sages have absolute authority (not in heaven). But this is not the authority to change a verse in the Torah because they feel like it. Where did you come up with that?
And beyond all of that, there is no reason to change anything in Teshelet. I really don't understand why you bothered with it.
I come with good intentions, you said above that the sages have the authority to interpret the verse: ” (what determines is the interpretation of the sages and not a voice). Not in the sky, she does not mean to say that the Torah does not determine”, and I did not say to change the Torah but only to define a new (temporary) interpretation of the (ancient) blue in order to ease the mitzvah and so that many will put a blue thread on their tzitzits as is lawful and proper. Shall we address it?! Because it hurts me when I see people with white tzitzits without the blue thread and I read here that it should not be like that. They cancel “do” because of the omission of ”blue”.
If you see that I am mixing things up, then do not answer me. I will understand the matter. Or I will not understand the matter either. Thank you anyway.
There is no such thing as a new and temporary interpretation. If that is the interpretation they see fit, they will say it. And if not, then no.
Okay, thank you very much.
I would love to understand how there is a prohibition on eating a crimson snail with blunt spines on Shabbat. It barely moves. And is it forbidden to remove worms from food on Shabbat because of “eating”? Of course it is permitted. From those who are not lacking in eating.
Alice, the prohibition of setting aside is because the snail is in the depths of the sea, hidden from view and one must prepare bait for it and hunt it, and it is not visible and is not available for picking up by hand.
See Rambam, Laws of the Sabbath of Yom Kippur, 15:7 and Rabbah, there.
Meir, thank you. Who is the first to pay?!
With apologies to Makhtar, you did not answer what the difference is between this and worms, which are also hidden from view.
And the worm is not at all like fish, which when hidden from view also fall from the hand, i.e., "My servants are my slaves."
They haven't come close to each other yet. The snail is hidden and elusive on the seabed, so catching it is a chore. It's like worms that are easily accessible to us. And simple.
“Elusive” is not.
“Hidden” – Yes, but it still does not make an animal devoid of prey.
According to you, who admit that if the snail is seen without effort that it has no prey in its grasp, what would you say if two people dived into the sea, one made an effort and saw the snail and showed it to his friend, and his friend caught it, which of them violated the prohibition of hunting? Perhaps there was even a being like two that did it? Aren't these things considered as foreign.
Do you know this snail and its appearance in the sea? I have no information about its elusiveness, but I assume that such a sea creature is elusive.
Either way, you remain in the category of “and it is difficult to settle in a hurry”. As we know, people who are difficult to settle in a hurry may get along, but it is difficult to settle in a hurry is just babbling. And if the difficulties you bring up here seem less foreign to you than the simple explanation written here, our logic is probably structured differently.
Your logic is very sound.
But with all due respect, one cannot obligate anyone because of another's logic.
To answer, all the excuses given about the aside question are not satisfactory.
I want to say that they remain in the realm of “reason” without evidence.
And therefore they do not obligate anyone, except the owner of the reason.
May you be blessed for everything. Righteous as a wise man. Alice.
Hi dear Alice
I don't understand in general why something that remains an opinion without evidence would bind the owner of that opinion? Where did you come up with that!
I see that the course of the discussion needs to be mentioned. There are very good reasons for identifying the blue sky with this snail. You have challenged the policies of the Tsid, and you have been answered. You do not accept the answer, you are left with a dilemma. Yes, you did - excellent. Who do you think wanted to oblige whom here, and why, and by virtue of what logic? What is this about?
So why don't all the tzidzi sold contain a blue thread?
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
