[Avodah] ID of chilazon and chagavim

[Dov Kay]

RMB wrote: <<The simanim for chilazon don't define what source may be used for a dye (IOW, the claim is not that anything that gufo domeh layam etc... can be used), they are the gemara's description of the source. They are descriptive, and thus one can argue that they only serve to confirm a mesorah.>>
 
If I understand him correctly, R. Weingort argues that where we have a secretion emanating from a fish which dyes wool fast with a colour identical to indigo (ie kalah ilan, which the Aruch identifies with indigo), we have techeles, because these simanim are “gor’mei hadin”, unlike the “gufo domeh layam” and such other similar simanim, which are not prescriptive but descriptive.  
 
He therefore argues that, given that the murex trunculus techeles has the same colour and molecular structure as run-of-the-mill indigo, the murex trunculus techeles must be techeles.  So the argument goes.  As it happens, I am not entirely clear on what basis R. Weingort determines which simanim are d’oraisa and which are d’rabbanan (or, to follow RMB’s terminology, prescriptive and descriptive).   Of course, when it comes to techeles, one has nothing to lose by wearing it. (Whether you are m'chuyav to do so is another question.)  Obviously, there are other areas where we need to know for certain, eg is the food kosher or not? 
 
I generally side with RRWolpoe by coming down on the side of minhag over halachic innovation.  However, when it comes to techeles, there is clearly no minhag either way, because no-one claimed to have discovered the techeles until recently.  RHS makes this point in his introduction to B’ikvei Tzon - sometimes it is more traditional to do something different because the world has changed, eg we know something we simply didn’t know before, or circumstances have changed.
 
On the question of mesora, RHS argues that Ashkenazim who now wear techeles should follow the opinion of Rashi and the baalei Tosefos that 4/8 strings are blue, as opposed to the Raavad (2/8) and Rambam (1/8).  I find this fealty to the chachmei Ashkenaz in this case a bit puzzling.  I understand that where there is a longstanding Ashkenazic custom in accordance with the chachmei Ashkenaz in a particular halacha, that should be followed by Ashkenazim.  However, why should the chachmei Ashkenaz carry more weight when their p’sak has never been practically implemented?  After all, we Ashkenazim follow the opinion of the Rambam over Tosefos when lighting chanukas neros mehadrin min hamehadrin.  It would never occur to me to revisit this halacha.  True, in that case, there is a minhag Ashkenaz against the chachmei Ashkenaz, whereas with techeles, there is simply no minhag at all.  However, I don’t find RHS’s argument persuasive.  RHS says that, even though the Vilna Gaon held that Tosefos’s shita is definitely incorrect, only those who always follow the Gaon’s opinion should do so in this case.  Again, why should this be the case where there is no prevailing minhag?  (By way of disclosure, I currently await delivery of my Rambam-shita techeles from Israel to attach to my arba kanfos, so this is on my mind.)
 
Kol tuv
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Win New York holidays with Kellogg’s & Live Search 
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/107571440/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080812/2225ff43/attachment-0001.htm>