Halachah: Wearing Techeles Today
Parsha Pages | June 25, 2024
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Halachah: Wearing Techeles Today

Parsha Pages | June 27, 2025

Based on dafyomi.co.il (Menachos 44)

QUESTIONS: Nowadays, a number of organizations produce a form of the Techeles dye for Tzitzis according to the various opinions (see previous Insight). None of the opinions have yet been proven correct beyond a doubt (and hence the existence of multiple opinions). Nevertheless, it is possible that one of them might be the same Techeles that the Torah commands us to wear and that our ancestors wore.

(a) Since there is a rule that in a case of a doubt concerning a Torah obligation one must conduct himself stringently, should one wear Techeles out of doubt?

(b) Even if there is no obligation to wear Techeles because of the doubt, is there any reason to specifically not wear Techeles?

ANSWERS:

(A) The BEIS HA'LEVI wrote a response to the RADZINER REBBE's question about the Techeles that the Rebbe was producing from the dye of a squid (the cuttlefish). He wrote that in a doubt regarding matters that involve a Mesorah, an oral tradition, the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra does not apply. This argument is understood in two different ways.

  1. The Radziner Rebbe understood the Beis ha'Levi's argument to be that the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra does not apply because there is a tradition that contradicts the hypothesis of the Radziner Rebbe that the Chilazon is the cuttlefish. The Radziner's squid was known and available throughout the generations, and yet none of the Chachamim considered it to be the Chilazon. This is tantamount to a negative tradition that this is not the Chilazon, and therefore there is no reason to be stringent and wear Techeles from such a creature.
    This negative tradition, however, does not apply to a species which were not known by the Chachamim throughout the generations. The lack of any positive tradition identifying this species as the Chilazon does not disqualify it. Accordingly, the identification of the Chilazon as the Murex Trunculus, or as the Janthina snail, is not subject to a negative tradition that it is not the genuine Chilazon, and thus there should be grounds to be stringent, following the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra. (Indeed, some feel that it is obligatory to wear Techeles from the Murex Trunculus in our time because of this reasoning.)
  2. The descendants of the Beis ha'Levi have a different tradition regarding the intent of the Beis ha'Levi's argument (as recorded in "Shi'urim l'Zecher Abba Mori z"l," by the Beis ha'Levi's great grandson, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, vol. 1, p. 228). They claim that the Beis ha'Levi required a positive tradition regarding the identification of the Chilazon. With no known tradition that the Chilazon is the cuttlefish, or the Murex Trunculus, or any other species, the possibility that this particular species might be the authentic Chilazon is not considered a Safek d'Oraisa and does not warrant acting stringently. The accurate identification of the Chilazon will have to wait for Mashi'ach.

(B) The Poskim have given a number of reasons to suggest that Techeles not be worn today.

  1. RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV (cited in KOVETZ TESHUVOS #1) writes that one should wear only white Tzitzis on a white garment. Regarding the identification of the Techeles, he is quoted as saying, "It is known that more than one hundred years ago, one of the great Admorim thought he found the [identity of the] Chilazon... and he caused a great stir in the world, questioning, 'Why are you refraining from doing a Mitzvas Aseh d'Oraisa [to wear Techeles]?' However, the great sages did not agree with him, and after some time researchers came and negated his findings. They decided that something else was the Chilazon. After some more time, certain scientists asserted that their predecessors' conclusions were inaccurate, and that only they have discovered the true identity of the Chilazon. We do not know if, after a few more years, other people will come and negate what these researchers are saying.... The YESHU'OS MALKO (#1) points out that it is written in the Sifri (Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah), as well as in the teachings of the Arizal, that Techeles can be present only when there is a Beis ha'Mikdash."
    With regard to Halachic problems with processing Techeles, Rav Elyashiv is quoted as saying, "The process of the dyeing has not been clarified, as Rashi maintains that only the blood of the Chilazon can be in the pot without any other chemical agents, while according to the Rambam one puts other chemical agents into the same pot. Who can decide this question today?"
    With regard to Halachic problems with wearing Techeles, Rav Elyashiv is quoted as saying that by placing doubtful Techeles on the Tzitzis, one neglects fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tzitzis in the proper way. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 9:5) writes that it is preferable that the Tzitzis be the same color as the garment, and the BACH (OC 24), quoted by the MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 9:16) writes that one's Talis and Tzitzis should be white like the "garment" of Hash-m (as depicted in Daniel 7:9). If the Techeles that one wears is not actually Techeles, then, according to the Shulchan Aruch, the strings are not the same color as the garment, and, according to the Bach, the string are not all white (see Insights to Menachos 41:2).
  2. RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH shlit'a (in TESHUVOS V'HANHAGOS 1:26) writes, "I am concerned that one who wears it (Techeles) in our community, where people have not been accustomed to be stringent [to wear Techeles], is transgressing the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' by acting differently [and wearing Techeles). Even though there is no Halachic problem when wearing false Techeles (Kala Ilan), because it is known that he is doing this with intention to fulfill the Mitzvah of Techeles, albeit in opposition to our custom, nevertheless one should be concerned about the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu.'" According to this argument, one would be permitted to wear Techeles in private, or in a community where Techeles is commonly worn (as Rav Sternbuch himself mentions).
    Rav Sternbuch adds that there is another Halachic concern: "Unlearned people will think that they are definitely fulfilling the Mitzvah of Techeles, and having such intentions may raise questions of 'Bal Tosif'" (see Rav Sternbuch's Teshuvah at length). (Y. Montrose)
    (For arguments supporting the opposing viewpoint, see SEFER LULA'OS TECHELES by Rav Shlomo Teitelbaum.)

More “debate” on this subject, see http://techeiles.org/debate.php

Based on dafyomi.co.il (Menachos 44)

QUESTIONS: Nowadays, a number of organizations produce a form of the Techeles dye for Tzitzis according to the various opinions (see previous Insight). None of the opinions have yet been proven correct beyond a doubt (and hence the existence of multiple opinions). Nevertheless, it is possible that one of them might be the same Techeles that the Torah commands us to wear and that our ancestors wore.

(a) Since there is a rule that in a case of a doubt concerning a Torah obligation one must conduct himself stringently, should one wear Techeles out of doubt?

(b) Even if there is no obligation to wear Techeles because of the doubt, is there any reason to specifically not wear Techeles?

ANSWERS:

(A) The BEIS HA'LEVI wrote a response to the RADZINER REBBE's question about the Techeles that the Rebbe was producing from the dye of a squid (the cuttlefish). He wrote that in a doubt regarding matters that involve a Mesorah, an oral tradition, the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra does not apply. This argument is understood in two different ways.

  1. The Radziner Rebbe understood the Beis ha'Levi's argument to be that the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra does not apply because there is a tradition that contradicts the hypothesis of the Radziner Rebbe that the Chilazon is the cuttlefish. The Radziner's squid was known and available throughout the generations, and yet none of the Chachamim considered it to be the Chilazon. This is tantamount to a negative tradition that this is not the Chilazon, and therefore there is no reason to be stringent and wear Techeles from such a creature.
    This negative tradition, however, does not apply to a species which were not known by the Chachamim throughout the generations. The lack of any positive tradition identifying this species as the Chilazon does not disqualify it. Accordingly, the identification of the Chilazon as the Murex Trunculus, or as the Janthina snail, is not subject to a negative tradition that it is not the genuine Chilazon, and thus there should be grounds to be stringent, following the rule of Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra. (Indeed, some feel that it is obligatory to wear Techeles from the Murex Trunculus in our time because of this reasoning.)
  2. The descendants of the Beis ha'Levi have a different tradition regarding the intent of the Beis ha'Levi's argument (as recorded in "Shi'urim l'Zecher Abba Mori z"l," by the Beis ha'Levi's great grandson, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, vol. 1, p. 228). They claim that the Beis ha'Levi required a positive tradition regarding the identification of the Chilazon. With no known tradition that the Chilazon is the cuttlefish, or the Murex Trunculus, or any other species, the possibility that this particular species might be the authentic Chilazon is not considered a Safek d'Oraisa and does not warrant acting stringently. The accurate identification of the Chilazon will have to wait for Mashi'ach.

(B) The Poskim have given a number of reasons to suggest that Techeles not be worn today.

  1. RAV YOSEF SHALOM ELYASHIV (cited in KOVETZ TESHUVOS #1) writes that one should wear only white Tzitzis on a white garment. Regarding the identification of the Techeles, he is quoted as saying, "It is known that more than one hundred years ago, one of the great Admorim thought he found the [identity of the] Chilazon... and he caused a great stir in the world, questioning, 'Why are you refraining from doing a Mitzvas Aseh d'Oraisa [to wear Techeles]?' However, the great sages did not agree with him, and after some time researchers came and negated his findings. They decided that something else was the Chilazon. After some more time, certain scientists asserted that their predecessors' conclusions were inaccurate, and that only they have discovered the true identity of the Chilazon. We do not know if, after a few more years, other people will come and negate what these researchers are saying.... The YESHU'OS MALKO (#1) points out that it is written in the Sifri (Parshas v'Zos ha'Berachah), as well as in the teachings of the Arizal, that Techeles can be present only when there is a Beis ha'Mikdash."
    With regard to Halachic problems with processing Techeles, Rav Elyashiv is quoted as saying, "The process of the dyeing has not been clarified, as Rashi maintains that only the blood of the Chilazon can be in the pot without any other chemical agents, while according to the Rambam one puts other chemical agents into the same pot. Who can decide this question today?"
    With regard to Halachic problems with wearing Techeles, Rav Elyashiv is quoted as saying that by placing doubtful Techeles on the Tzitzis, one neglects fulfilling the Mitzvah of Tzitzis in the proper way. The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 9:5) writes that it is preferable that the Tzitzis be the same color as the garment, and the BACH (OC 24), quoted by the MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 9:16) writes that one's Talis and Tzitzis should be white like the "garment" of Hash-m (as depicted in Daniel 7:9). If the Techeles that one wears is not actually Techeles, then, according to the Shulchan Aruch, the strings are not the same color as the garment, and, according to the Bach, the string are not all white (see Insights to Menachos 41:2).
  2. RAV MOSHE STERNBUCH shlit'a (in TESHUVOS V'HANHAGOS 1:26) writes, "I am concerned that one who wears it (Techeles) in our community, where people have not been accustomed to be stringent [to wear Techeles], is transgressing the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu' by acting differently [and wearing Techeles). Even though there is no Halachic problem when wearing false Techeles (Kala Ilan), because it is known that he is doing this with intention to fulfill the Mitzvah of Techeles, albeit in opposition to our custom, nevertheless one should be concerned about the prohibition of 'Lo Sisgodedu.'" According to this argument, one would be permitted to wear Techeles in private, or in a community where Techeles is commonly worn (as Rav Sternbuch himself mentions).
    Rav Sternbuch adds that there is another Halachic concern: "Unlearned people will think that they are definitely fulfilling the Mitzvah of Techeles, and having such intentions may raise questions of 'Bal Tosif'" (see Rav Sternbuch's Teshuvah at length). (Y. Montrose)
    (For arguments supporting the opposing viewpoint, see SEFER LULA'OS TECHELES by Rav Shlomo Teitelbaum.)

More “debate” on this subject, see http://techeiles.org/debate.php

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Parsha Pages | June 25, 2024