Techeiles - Is a Specific Chilazon Required?

In the last post, I discussed the potential of rediscovering the חלזון התכלת in this day and age. For one who accepts the argument of R' Soloveitchik, the debate is entirely academic, and even if you could ascertain what the חלזון is, there would be no practical application, and you would continue to wear only white strings on your ציצית. If you accept the alternative approach, which rejected the Radziner תכלת only because of a negative-מסורה, then there is a potential practical application, should you find a חלזון that has no problem of a negative-מסורה. With respect to the Murex Trunculus, which is commonly used today as the source of תכלת, we can ask two questions:

1. Is the Murex Trunculus the חלזון that was used in the times of Chazal to produce תכלת?
2. In the event it is not the actual species that was used, is it kosher to be used to produce תכלת? In other words, when the תורה says that תכלת must come from a חלזון, is that referring to a specific חלזון, or could you use any species that classifies as a חלזון, assuming there exists such a species?

Let us begin by examining a Tosefta in the ninth chapter of Menachos:

"תכלת אין כשרה אלא מן החלזון, הביא שלא מן החלזון פסולה"

"Techeiles is not kosher unless it is from the Chilazon. If one brought [techeiles] which is not from the Chilazon it is invalid". 

The Tosefta is very particular in stating both the conditional and its converse. Not only do we stress that תכלת from a חלזון is valid, we stress that if it comes from a different creature it is invalid.

Now, let us explore our options. Either there exists only one creature named "חלזון" in the universe, or it is a generic name, and there may be two or more types of חלזון. Suppose for a moment that exist two or more חלזונות in the world. In that case, they are certainly both valid for תכלת, for if one was valid and the other invalid, the Tosefta could never have made a statement such as the one above. Alternatively, suppose there is only one type of חלזון in the world. In that case, should you discover a creature that classifies as חלזון, you can be certain you have discovered the חלזון התכלת. But we can safely reject this possibility, as we know of at least three types of חלזון:

1. The חלזון התכלת, which lives in the sea.
2. The Talmud in Sanhedrin (91a), in a completely different context states, "Go up to the mountain and see - today there is but one חלזון. Tomorrow it will rain, and the mountain will be filled with חלזונות. The Yad Ramah (ad. loc.) comments, "It is logical that this Chilazon is not the one mentioned with respect to Techeiles... Rather it is logical that we speak here of a different species... It is called in Arabic 'Chalzum'"
3. The Ritva (Shabbos 75a) mentions a third type of חלזון in the context of the laws of killing an חלזון on Shabbos - "The Chilazon is differen since it has no limbs. Rather it is a sealed body, like the Chilazon [that lives] in the garbage dumps.

This leads us to the conclusion that חלזון is a generic term, in which case, any species of חלזון that produces a תכלת dye (with specific requirements which we will not address here at this time) must be valid as per the aforementioned Tosefta. The same conclusion can be drawn from the following story recorded in the Talmud (Menachos 43a):

"מר ממשכי אייתי תכלתא בשני רב אחאי, בדקוה בדרב יצחק בדר"י ואיפרד חזותיה, בדרב אדא ואישתני למעליותא. סבר למפסלה. אמר להו רב אחאי, אלא הא לא תכילתא היא ולא קלא אילן היא?! אלא שמע מינה שמועתא אהדדי איתמר, היכא דבדקנא בדרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה לא איפרד חזותיה כשרה, איפרד חזותיה, בדקינן לה בדרב אדא בחמירא ארכסא, אישתני למעליותא כשרה, לגריעותא פסולה"

"Mar of Mischi, brought Techeiles in the days of Rav Achai. When subjected to the test of Rav Yitzchak it faded [i.e. failed], but when subjected to the test of Rav Ada [its colour] improved [i.e. passed]. Rav Achai exclaimed, 'This is neither Techeiles or plant indigo?!' Rather, both tests are used together. [First] when you subject it to the test of R' Yitzchak, it its colour does not fade it is valid. If it fades, then subject it to the test of R' Ada. If it improves, it is valid, if it fades [more] it is invalid".

We see from this Gemara, that any fabric dyed the colour of תכלת was assumed to be either plant indigo (i.e. invalid) or authentic תכלת. This is so, to the extent that Rav Achai was flabbergasted when the fabric passed one test, but not the second. From this they concluded that the two tests (which are described in the Gemara there) are to be used in tandem. From this we may conclude, that any dye that we know was used in the times of the Gemara to produce תכלת-coloured garments, as long as it can be proven that it is not plant indigo, can be assumed to be valid for תכלת. Otherwise, Rav Achai would have been worried that the תכלת-dye came from a חלזון that is invalid.

That leaves us with two questions, to be addressed in future posts: Is the Murex Trunculus the חלזון that was used in the times of Chazal for producing תכלת? And if not, does it classify as a species of חלזון, in which case it is valid, regardless of what the historical חלזון התכלת was? If you answer yes to either of the above, then you should be wearing תכלת on your ציצית, unless of course you accept the מסורה argument, in which case, even if it was valid, you wouldn't wear it because your father didn't, שאל אביך ויגדך*.

* On the topic of שאל אביך ויגדך, my father suggested that R' Soloveitchik's argument works only when there is a מקום ספק. When there is some degree of uncertainty, the default position follows מסורה**. But if there would be 100% conclusive evidence that the Murex is valid for תכלת, even R' Soloveitchik would agree. (I would add, that for R' Soloveitchik, 100% evidence would need to include 100% halachic evidence.)

** The implicit assumption in my father's suggestion is that the מסורה of שאל אביך ויגדך is a הכרעה, not a בירור.

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.

Excessive Praise and Narcissism

Here is an excerpt from a Scientific American article that I saw linked somewhere, titled "Too Much Praise Promotes Narcissism":

"Two prominent but nearly opposing schools of thought address how narcissism develops. The first attributes extreme self-love to a lack of affection from parents; the other implicates moms and dads who place their children on a pedestal by lavishing them with praise."

R' Chaim Kanievsky, in his section on Chinuch in ארחות יושר weighs in on the matter:

והורים שמכניסין בלב בניהם שהם בעלי כשרון ומצוינים והם מהכי טובים ומוצלחים אע"ג זה נכון ואע"ג שכונתם לטובה כדי לזרזם ללמוד אעפ"כ יצא שכרם בהפסדם כי מכניסין בלבם גאוה ומדות רעות וגורמין שמתנכלים לחבריהם ופוגעין בהן וסופן שיהיו שנואין מכולם. והנערים האלו כשנכנסין אח"כ לישיבה ושם יש הרבה טובים מהם ואין מסתכלין עליהם כמו שהיו רגילין נכנסין למשבר כידוע, ומהם מפסיקין ללמוד, ומהם נכנסין לשגעון וכו' כידוע כל זה, ואח"כ יש מהם צרות צרורות...

"And parents who instill in their children that they are geniuses and among the best and most succesful, even if it is true, and even if their intent is pure, to encourage them to learn, nevertheless the negatives outweighs the positives. For they instill in their children haughtiness and [other] poor character traits, and they cause their children to look down upon others. In the end, they will be the most hated. And when the child enters Yeshiva (I think he means high school, or post-high school. A.J.), and discovers that there are students much stronger than him, and they pay him none of the attention that he is accustomed to receiving, he becomes broken, as is known. Some of them stop learning altogether, and others become depressed etc. as is known. Afterwards they will have great troubles..."

R' Chaim quotes no sources for this, which is quite noteworthy, for if you were to peruse through ארחות יושר, you would notice that he rarely makes an original comment. It is mostly a compendium of sources from Chazal, Rishonim and some Achronim on various topics, with perhaps a line here and there from R' Chaim himself. But in this paragraph he quotes nobody.

What does Scientific American conclude?

"In a March issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, the Dutch researchers report that children of excessively praising parents were more likely to score high on narcissistic qualities but not on self-esteem. They also found that lack of parental warmth showed no such link to narcissism."

"The correlation shows that positive feedback should be tied to good behavior in a child rather than piled on indiscriminately, says psychologist Luke Hyde of the University of Michigan, who did not participate in the work. A 2008 meta-analysis of 85 studies showed that narcissism is on the rise in young adults in the West, which could stem in part from a cultural emphasis on praise, with the goal of boosting high self-esteem, notes Eddie Brummelman, lead author of the PNAS paper. 'It might be well intended,' he adds, 'but it actually backfires.'" 

So while praise is intended to boost self-esteem, excessive praise moves out of the realm of self-esteem and into the realm of narcissism. At first glance this seems indicative of the Rambam's "golden middle road", always keeping character traits in check, and never straying to the extremes. But a second glance is necessary, as it is unclear exactly what the Rambam's stance is when it comes to גאוה and ענוה. (See הלכות דעות פרק א, ובלחם משנה שם, וראה גם בהקדמה למס' אבות פרק ד)