Mesora and Techeiles

In honour (I still spell it the Canadian way) of this week's parsha, I present one argument against wearing תכלת on our ציצית, as well as the weakness of the argument, in my opinion. (There are more arguments in both directions, but it would make this post way too long if I cited everything.)

R' Soloveitchik defines, in one of his Yahrtzeit Shiurim for his father*, two aspects of מסורה, which he summarizes in the following short paragraph:

שתי מסורות ישנן: א) מסורה אחת המתיחסת כולה למסורה של לימוד, ויכוח, משא ומתן והוראה שכלית, זה אומר כך וזה אומר כך, זה נותן טעם לדבריו וזה נותן טעם לדבריו, ועומדין למנין, כמו שהתורה מציירת לנו בפרשת זקן ממרא. ב) מסורת מעשית של הנהגת כלל ישראל בקיום מצוות וזו מיסדת על הפסוק שאל אביך ויגדך זקניך ויאמרו לך". (שיעורים לזכר אבא מרי ז"ל חלק א' עמ' רמ"ט)

There are two [types] of Tradition: 1) One type of tradition relates entirely to the tradition of learning and intellectual arguments. This one says this, and the other says this. This one gives his reasoning, and the other gives his reasoning. The matter is put to vote [in the Sanhedrin], just as the Torah puts forth in the portion of the Zaken Mamre. 2) The active tradition of the practices of Jewry in keeping the Commandments. This [type of tradition] is based on the verse, "Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders and they will say to you".

Based upon these two ideas of Tradition, R' Soloveitchik quotes his grandfather, and namesake, the Bais Halevi, in his opposition to the תכלת of the Radziner Rebbe, which was derived from the cuttlefish (which you can see at The Aquarium in Toronto). There are two versions of the opposition of the Bais Halevi. R' Soloveitchik quotes his grandfather as follows:

"ידוע מה שאירע בין זקני הגאון רבי יוסף דוב הלוי ובין האדמו"ר הגאון מראדזין בנוגע לתכלת שבציצית, שהרבי מראדזין חידשה וציוה לכל חסידיו להטיל תכלת בציציותיהן. האדמו"ר ניסה להוכיח על יסוד הרבה ראיות כי הצבע הזה הוא באמת התכלת. רבי יוסף דוב טען כנגד ואמר שאין ראיות וסברות יכולות להוכיח שום דבר במילי דשייכי למסורת של שאל אביך ויגדך. שם אין הסברא מכריעה כי אם המסורת עצמה. כך ראו אבות וכך היו נוהגים וכך צריכים לנהוג הבנים". (שם)

"The matter between my grandfather, R' Yosef Dov Halevi and the Admor from Radzin regarding Techeles is known. The Rebbe of Radzin introduced and commanded his Chasidim to wear Techeles on their Tziztis. The Rebbe performed tests and brought many proofs that this dye is the authentic Techeles. R' Yosef Dov argued against him, and said that proofs and logic are not valid in deciding any matters that depend upon the tradition of "Ask your father and he will tell you". In this realm, logic can not be the deciding factor, rather, only tradition itself. This is how we saw our fathers, this is what we do and this is how the sons must do." (Ibid.)

However, some points can be made:

1. How do we know that the identity of תכלת is dependent upon the tradition of שאל אביך ויגדך? Perhaps it falls under the umbrella of  the tradition of learning and intellectual argument, where logic and proofs are certainly acceptable. In fact, the מהרי"ל explicitly considers the possibility of rediscovering תכלת in שו"ת מהרי"ל החדשות סימן ה, as does the חמדת שלמה in אבן העזר סימן ט. One can find others who implicitly state that תכלת may be rediscovered.
2. A similar case can be made to forbid eating turkey, as we do not have a מסורה that turkey is a kosher bird. Yet most people eat turkey based on the fact that it has the signs of a kosher bird.

Regarding the second point, R' Herschel Shechter is apparently inconsistent. I am told that he does not eat turkey, consistent with R' Soloveitchik's argument, yet on the other hand, he wears Techeles. Perhaps he is choosing to be מחמיר in both cases. With turkey, he is מחמיר not to partake, because there is no מסורה. But with תכלת, although the מסורה would exempt him, he wishes to be מחמיר and wear תכלת based on proofs and logical argument.

R' Soloveitchik himself may have been inconsistent here, though I don't really know if he ever ate turkey or not. (I was once pressured by my peers to ask R' Ilson about R' Soloveichik's opinion of celebrating Thanksgiving in America. His answer was, "What do you care? You're Canadian!", to which laughter from the audience ensued.) I have heard that R' Soloveitchik personally ate turkey, though I have not confirmed that. If that is the case, then R' Soloveitchik understood that the מסורה of kosher animals falls under his first definition of tradition, which is subject to halachik argument, whereas the identity of תכלת falls under the second definition of tradition. On what basis did he make this distinction? [edit: see my father's suggestion in the endnotes, here.]

Finally, what exactly the Bais Halevi meant when he said that תכלת is dependent upon the מסורה, is a matter of dispute. In a letter cited in one of the Radziner Rebbe's seforim on תכלת**, the argument is presented in a slightly different fashion. There he argues not that it is impossible to rediscover תכלת without a מסורה. Rather, he argues that there is a negative-מסורה on the cuttlefish. His reasoning is that the cuttlefish was not a newly discovered fish, and it was well known throughout the generations. Yet, it was never used to produce תכלת dye for ציצית. Therefore, he argues, it is as though we have a מסורה that the cuttlefish is not the חלזון, for otherwise we would have been using it for centuries. (Perhaps the Bais Halevi used both arguments, so the two are not necessarily contradictory.) This argument would seemingly not apply to the most common תכלת dye nowadays, which comes from the Murex Trunculus snail, a snail that was not readily available since the time of the Gemara (and even then, it became scarce already by the days of אביי ורבא).

* Should be required reading for every yeshiva student. Woe is to me for being born too late to attend the shiurim in person!
** I don't have the Radziner's seforim at home, so I am relying on its citation in קונטרס חותם של זהב and others.