Techeiles 7 – Conclusion: Living and Dyeing by the Words of Chazal

Author’s note – Yes, this is the grand finale. If you haven’t read earlier posts, please at least see the opening post of the series (HERE).
Links to the teshuvos from the poskim mentioned in this post can be found HERE.



At long last we can discuss the Murex trunculus and the position of HRHG Rav Yisroel Reisman, Shlita.

I want to start by restating my own personal position. And it is more or less, exactly that of HRHG Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L.  This is basically that we do not have enough information to positively identify any known creature as the Talmudic chilazon and there is no current obligation to “search” for one and to accept any candidates no matter how probable. Likewise, I consider myself a Talmid of HRHG Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, Shlita. He likewise holds that there is not enough evidence to positively identify the Murex. Hence, I have no inclination to want to wear techeiles as a “shita”.

That said, my techeiles-enthusiast son, Eli, gifted me a tallis kattan with techeiles and, based on my positive leanings, I do indeed wear it on Shabbos, just like Rav Yisroel Belski, A”H, did. One thing I can tell you, in line with the Ramban I expounded in my last techeiles post, it does indeed make a big impact on looking at the tzitzis and remembering all the mitzvos of Hashem. It is no simple matter.

Moreover, as much as there is not enough evidence to validate the Murex, there is not enough evidence to rule it out, either.

Most gedolim are silent on the matter. Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L, does indeed refer to the Beis HaLevi who rejected the Radziner cuttlefish because [paraphrase]: “If its existence is known and the process is known and still, the Jewish people have not been producing it all these generations, it cannot be the right species.” He guardedly suggests it may apply to our current candidate as well. But it is only a suggestion.* Besides, the Beis HaLevi’s argument may stand as an “indication” but it kind of falls short of being “proof”. As for the Murex, it is difficult to say that the existence and process of the Murex have consistently been known through the ages.

*[One major distinction - I couldn’t find any evidence that the cuttlefish was known as a source of dye in ancient (Talmudic) times. Its status as a dyeing agent is a more recent phenomenon. Conversely, it is more than clear that the Murex snail was used as a source of dye in ancient times.]

After this, Rav Elyashiv makes a reference to the Yeshuos Malko and other sources that contend that the identity of the chilazon is “nignaz” (concealed) and is not slated to be revealed until the times of Moshiach. Rav Asher Zelig Weiss elaborates on these sources and gives them a lot of clout. He even admonishes those who want to undermine the strength of Midrashim and say that we do not learn Halacha from Midrashim. His argument is that this is not Halachah but metzius.

Nevertheless, these Midrashim are far from clear and far from consensual. Rav Yisroel Barkin, a firm techeiles advocate, illustrates that the Midrash quoted in the Sifri cannot be taken literally and must be viewed allegorically. It would be self-contradictory to say that the techeiles is concealed but this individual can produce it and everyone acknowledges that this is genuine techeiles.

In my eyes there is a bigger issue with the “nignaz” concept in line with my previous posts that anything that is “here today and gone tomorrow” such as the self-generating lice and mice and missing male and female reproductive parts, has to contend with chronology. When did they disappear, how, and why?

The Midrash quoted in the Sifri is placed during the era of the Tanna Rabi Yosi. Every indication we have is that there was certainly techeiles at that time and this is what the Roman emperors actually banned. Then we know that the gemara in Menachos 42b-43a not only gives us a vague description of how to make it but also relates actual stories of those who tested it out and bought and used it (e.g. Rav Yehudah, Rav Achai, Rav Ada).

Clearly, techeiles was alive and well and in circulation during the times of the Amoraim in Bavel. Moreover, despite the Midrashim that tell us no more than that “it is now nignaz”, and the assertion of HRHG Rav Asher Weiss that all divrei chazal come from “one shepherd”, there is no mention of such a concept as nignaz in the Talmud which is undisputedly the main artery of our mesora. Everything else are just “tributaries”.

So, it doesn’t really look like the techeiles was nignaz in the times of the Tanaim or Amoraim. If so, when was it “nignaz’ed”? In the times of the Gaonim? Rishonim? Arizal?

And what does “nignaz” mean? Does it mean that the creature went into hiding as Rav Elyashiv and Rav Asher Weiss seem to maintain? When? Why? Or is it that we just lost track of its identity and process but it is still where it’s always been?

In my opinion, Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L,  and Rav AZ Weiss, Shlita, are only employing the “nignaz” argument to point out that we are not meant to identify and reinstitute the techeiles until “yemos haMoshiach” when we will be zocheh to “Tishbi yetaretz kushyos u’sfeikos”. But as an argument to rule out the Murex trunculus, it is on very shaky ground and may be “ta’un geniza”.

The “nignaz” issue will come up for review when we discuss the shita of the Rambam and other Rishonim.

I want to focus on some of Rav Reisman’s other proofs to rule out the Murex trunculus. I think some of them are a bit disturbing.

Let’s start with the vexing problem of the location of the portion of shevet Zevulun from Sefer Yehoshua 19 versus the prophecy of Yaakov Avinu. Rav Reisman points to the gemara in Megilla 6a and promotes it as a proof against the Murex and an example that it does not “shtim” with Chazal. The only problem is that the Murex shtims perfectly with the gemara in Megillah and it stands as one of its fiercest allies. The only thing that does not shtim with Chazal is the description of Zevulun’s portion in Sefer Yehoshua. This is indeed a major problem. But not for the Murex.

In his 2011talk, Rav Reisman notes the shita of the Gr”A who says that despite the description in Yehoshua 19, Zevulun indeed had a small stretch of shoreline. He goes on to dismiss it, I suppose as being farfetched, and goes with another explanation which he thinks is less far-fetched. This is that bnei Zevulun lived remotely from the shore but they liked sailing anyway so they commuted to the ports and did all of the far-off sailing and, thus, the chilazon could only be a deep water fish. None of the shevatim that did live on the shore, primarily Asher, liked to sail or fish or do business, only to cultivate olives which, by the way, were more plentiful in Zevulun’s inland territory.

I am a bit perturbed at how crassly he dismisses the shita of the Gr”A. Firstly, the Gr”A himself is known as the חכם מכל אדם of the past 300 years. We can’t just wave him off. But, it’s not only that. It’s not like the Gr”A is the first or only chacham to make such a suggestion. Reb Yisroel Barkin wrote an essay on this. He notes the Radak and possibly Rabenu Shmuel Bar Chafni Gaon who take this approach as the simple meaning of the pasukim in Yehoshua. Even if this “stretching” shita is a bit of a stretch, it certainly shtims with Chazal (Megilla 6a). He presents a map from Otzar Hachachma that allots to Zevulun quite a respectable stretch of shoreline – using a lot of wiggle-room.

Yet, Rav Reisman chooses to dismiss this view and take on that Zevulun had no portion on the shore. Thus, he posits that Zevulun were sea-lovers from the inland. He sees this as less of a stretch. I don’t. Even though this may “shtim” with the simple pshat in Yehoshua, it doesn’t shtim with Yaakov Avinu’s bracha (the pasukim in Vayechi) nor with the Gemara in Megillah. And didn’t Rav Reisman say [paraphrase], “If it doesn’t shtim with Chazal we cannot accept it”?

Neither approach is ideal and there is no justification to invalidate either approach in favor of the other. And certainly, no justification to rule out the Murex. When Eliyahu HaNavi comes and we will learn the true identity of the chilazon, we will also find out the true meaning of the pasukim in Yehoshua and how to reconcile them with Yaakov’s bracha and the gemara in Megillah. Perhaps there is a third more plausible approach. If there is, it must be nignaz.

Let us turn our attention to some of the technical things that Rav Reisman complains about.

·      The Murex snail does not involve the melacha of kosher (tying) because they are not caught with nets (only with baskets).

·      Catching a snail is not considered tzad (trapping).

·      If we are discussing the Murex, there would be an additional melacha of gozez which is not mentioned in the gemara.

I am not a Rosh Yeshiva or a Posek. Even so, I humbly assert that he is wrong on all three accounts.

The first claim is just plain wrong. Though I don’t speak French, I know a net (Annette?) when I see one and I see one being used clearly at about 1:30-1:40 of the embedded video. (If the video is not embedded in the emails it can be seen HERE.) Even if they used baskets, they were probably net-like baskets and in any case, one would need to tie a rope to it to haul it up from the depths, so there would be plenty of meleches kosher in all cases.



The second claim is that a snail, being mostly immobile is not subject to the melacha of tzad (trapping). Here I can speak with a bit more authority being a student, neighbor, and shul member of HRHG Rav Yitzchak Mordechai HaKohen Rubin, Shlita, author of Sefer Orchos Shabbos. Harav Rubin devotes chapter 14 of his monumental work to the melacha of tzeida. He defines it as, “Depriving the freedom of movement of a living creature.” Especially one that is customary to being hunted down and trapped.

In his third paragraph he writes:

A creature that is found in a place that is defined as already trapped [this is that it can be caught in a single motion and with no need to use a net] does not have this prohibition…

Note the disclaimer in the brackets. This disclaimer tells us that anything that is out of immediate reach of a person (e.g., because it is 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 feet beneath the surface) and one needs a net to catch it, does indeed fit the bill as a free creature subject to the issur of trapping.

The third claim (mentioned in the Mishpacha magazine article in December 2018) is that the gemara indicates that the only problem with catching a chilazon and breaking it open is tzad. He claims that for a Murex, there would also be a problem of gozez (shearing). I think this is shear sheer fantasy.

I looked up the Melacha of gozez in Orchos Shabbos (Chapter 17). It seems to mean the cutting off of hair, nails, or feathers. There is no snail that has any hair, nails or feathers. As we can see in the above video, (3:00-4:00), after cracking open, the gland is punctured and the secretion is removed with a tweezer or something similar. The closest this looks like in the 39 melachos would be dash (threshing or removing a substance from its place of growth). Lo and behold, the gemara itself (Shabbos 75a) entertains the idea that it is dash and only dismisses it because dash only applies to plants. Hence, no dash and no gozez. Incidentally, if this procedure is indeed gozez, one has to wonder for what reason gozez will not apply to any other candidate for the authentic chilazon?

To be kind, Rav Reisman, Shlita, clearly erred in these three points and as much as I respect him as a Talmid chacham and yarei shamayim, it is very hard to take him seriously when his claims are so outlandish.

While we are on Shabbos 75a, the Mishpacha magazine textbox adds another anti-Murex proof from Rav Reisman from Tosefos (s.v. Hatzad Chilazon). Rav Reisman claims that Tosefos contends that the chilazon shakes before it dies. This is a proof against the Murex because it does no such thing.

Problem is that Tosefos says no such thing – at least as a surefire fact. Tosefos proposes it as a suggestion that perhaps it shakes before it dies. For Rav Reisman to overextend the suggestion of Tosefos and relate is as a fact is exceedingly irresponsible and unbecoming of someone who claims to be taking an honest, objective examination of the sugya. This is already four strikes.

Interestingly, this very same Tosefos ends off by being puzzled by the Yerushalmi who wants to claim that there is no tzeida by a chilazon. Although the Bavli and Tosefos do not understand this, this indicates that the chilazon is an in-between creature that can support the idea of not being subject to tzad. Some people will hold it is tzad and others not. Ironically, this fits more to a creature like a snail as opposed to some deep-water fish which must certainly be tzad. Ergo, this Tosefos does more to support the Murex than to disprove it. Somehow, Rav Reisman doesn’t notice this.

The argument about the indigo plant (kela ilan) has already been dealt with by the known protagonists. The protagonists want to validate the Murex because the chemical composition is identical to the indigo plant dye and the gemara in Bava Metziah 61b tells us that only HKBH can really know if someone is using plant indigo instead of techeiles.

Rav Reisman wants to turn this proof on its head since the gemara in Menachos distinctly provides methods of distinguishing the two. He posits that the real techeiles must therefore be made from a substance that is not chemically identical because these methods of distinguishing won’t work on two identical substances that are not distinct.

He admits that there are ways to answer this, such as that even if there is no difference in the chemical composition of the pigment, there may be a difference in the dyeing process of those who dye using plant indigo and those who dye using animal indigo that enables the animal indigo to hold better than the plant indigo. He still says that this argument is not a proof in favor of the protagonists.

Despite this, I remember seeing a counter-argument in one write-up that contends as follows:

We know undeniably that the Murex indigo was in production in Second Temple and Talmudic times. Hence, if it is not kosher for techeiles, why does the gemara in Bava Metziah exalt that HKBH can tell if a shyster puts kela ilan (plant indigo) on his garment instead of real techeiles? Why doesn’t it exalt that HKBH can determine if a shyster puts Murex trunculus indigo on his garment instead of techeiles? The implication is that the gemara doesn’t go this route because Murex techeiles is indeed kosher.

I am very impressed by this argument. Except that one could say that the whole crux of this exaltation is because the shyster is saving money by using plant indigo and the “non-kosher” Murex techeiles was priced as high as real techeiles so no shyster would gain by doing this.

But do you mean to say that Murex indigo was being produced, it cost the same and looked the same as real “nignaz” techeiles and still wasn’t kosher? Does this make sense? (More on this later.)

Another issue brought by Rav Reisman and I believe by HRHG Rav AZ Weiss, Shlita is that the only way to get the sky-blue color in the Murex techeiles is by exposing it to sunlight. This seems to be an essential step in the process. However, the gemara in Menachos and several Rishonim discuss the process and no one makes the slightest mention of exposing the substance to sunlight.

The question is a good question but it is far from a knockout type of question. Firstly, a sin of omission is never as strong as a sin of commission. If we are given more details to a description of a creature or a process than what we know the creature has or the process takes in practice, this is a serious indication that we are not discussing the same creature or process. But if we are given less details, we can easily say that the description is merely incomplete.

One suggested answer is that the gemara is intentionally hiding from us the full picture. This may be the meaning that it is nignaz – the creature is here but we don’t know the process. Another suggestion is that since this was normally produced in daylight and there was no artificial light in those days (it wasn’t made by candle-light at night), the standard color was indigo blue and they did not think of the sunlight as a step in the process. To the contrary, they may have known that just in case you really want the original Tyrean purple (argaman) be careful not to expose it to sunlight. Another remote possibility is that perhaps there is some natural chemical agent that they were aware of and we are not that has the same effect as exposure to ultraviolet so there was an alternative to leaving it exposed to the sun.

Of course, if you want to take the “nignaz” theory very literally, as does Rav Reisman and Rav Weiss, and say that even in Talmudic times it was not in production, it could be that Chazal were talking from mesora and not first-hand knowledge and even they were unaware of the sunlight requirement.

At this point, all that I can see is that the Murex trunculus shtims perfectly with many more divrei chazal than Rav Reisman gives it credit for and, perhaps, not as perfectly with some others. Yet, personally, I have seen nothing in chazal that gives cause to rule it out. There is only one more plateau left to reach. And this is Rav Reisman’s assertion that the Murex does not “shtim” with the shitos of numerous prominent Rishonim and Achronim.

Among the Rishonim, Rambam is singled out as the most incompatible. For Rambam, Rav Reisman assesses a 0% chance of compatibility and seems to hold that this decides the issue. He also recruits Tosafos (Shabbos 75a) and, according to Mishpacha magazine, Rashi in Yevamos 4b. Lower down in that textbox, it says that Re’ah, Ramban, Ran, Ritva, and Meiri all say that “techeiles is from the chilazon’s circulatory blood.” As for Achronim, he recruits Maharsham, Rav Yehoshua Kutner, Beis HaLevi, Chofetz Chaim  and Rav Moshe Feinstein as allies. Evidently, the Murex trunculus does not match their description.

This may come across as sounding irreverent and audacious, but I am afraid that we cannot rely on the descriptions we find in any Rishonim or Acharonim. All of them. And why?

Because none of them ever saw the “chilazon” that they may be describing!

Who told me?

Rav Reisman did. And Rav Elyashiv, ZT”L and Rav Asher Zelig Weiss the AriZal and quite a few others. They say that the chilazon is “nignaz”.

We discussed this previously. This may mean that the creature went into hiding or it could mean that we just lost the means to positively identify it. Either way, it would appear that this condition took effect way before the era of the Rishonim. If so, no Rishon can claim to have seen it any more than the mud mouse.

The descriptions that they present are what their Rabbanim taught them in cheder (or after). It is their perception of how they interpret the same divrei Chazal that we have and, in general, their manner was to take these divrei Chazal at face value. The Rishonim were all interpreting the words of Chazal but they were not describing a creature that they actually saw. Same goes for the Maharsham (note - Rav Reisman mentions this fact openly in his 2011 talk), Chofetz Chaim, and Rav Moshe Feinstein.  

Interestingly, Rav Elyashiv, ZTL, yl”ch Rav AZ Weiss, Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Sternbuch probably have all seen the Murex. In all cases, even by Rav AZ Weiss who is the most skeptical, their main argument is along the lines of “we can’t know for certain”, “ the truth will not be revealed until the times of Moshiach (it’s “nignaz”)”, “who can say that a better candidate won’t show up tomorrow?”. No one is so adamant to overtly reject it as Rav Reisman is.

Let’s look at the Rishonim:

Rashi (Yevamos 4b) – I looked over this amud about 2 or 3 times and, thus far, I cannot locate this Rashi. Aside from this, Rashi’s mantra throughout Tanach and which he seems to adhere to in the Talmud, as well, is: ואני לפרש פשוטו של מקרא באתי (I have only come to give an explanation for the written word). Rashi takes everything at face value.

Tosafos (Shabbos 75a) – To explain why there is no inevitable melacha of netilas neshama after catching a chilazon, Tosafos make a suggestion that perhaps the chilazon shakes and contributes to its own death. What do they mean “perhaps it shakes”? Does it shake or doesn’t it? Quite obviously, Tosafos never saw one and they have no idea. It’s just a guess.

Re'ah, Ramban, Ran, Ritva, Meiri – They are all interpreting the term “blood” from Menachos 42b and 44a as regular circulatory blood. Well, of course. If one only learns the gemara and never sees a Murex or a cuttlefish and the whole sugya is in no way relevant “l’maaseh”, why should anybody think otherwise? I was a kid in day school in the 1960s and nobody heard of a Murex trunculus (or even cuttlefish). When we were learning Parshat Terumah or Shelach and we were told that the techeiles comes from the blood of a creature called a chilazon and that we don’t know what this is today, what were we expected to think? Blood is blood. (Although I was curious why is this the only creature whose blood is blue?)

Rambam (Tzitzis 2:2) – This is the great one of whom Rav Reisman smugly tells us that according to him, there is 0% chance that the Murex is our chilazon. Is that so? What does the Rambam tell us:

One brings the blood of the chilazon, and this is a fish that its color is similar to the color of the sea {pause}

How does Rambam know this? Well, we look at Keseph Mishna (Rav Yosef Karo author of Shulchan Aruch) and he points us to the renowned Braitha in Menachos 44a. So Rambam is codifying the Braitha in Menachos. We already know that Chazal speaks in riddles. Rav Reisman conceded this in his talk. What’s more, the primary objective of this Chazal is not to give us a clear description of the chilazon but to explain why the techeiles is so expensive. But now, let’s go on:

{unpause} and its blood is black like ink and it is common to the Sea of Salt (Yam Hamelech – Dead Sea??).

How does Rambam know these details? They are nowhere in the gemara in Menachos. Where does he get this from? Keseph Mishna brings down these words and stops dead in his tracks! It looks like he’s pointing us to the gemara in Menachos 42b but there is no mention of these “details” there in the gemara. So, how does Rambam know this? Is there any authority prior to the Rambam who tells us that the blood of the chilazon is black as ink and hangs around Yam HaMelech? To date, I haven’t found one.

There are only two possibilities. Either Rambam (a) actually saw the creature he is describing or (b) he did not. If he did not, how does he know it?

If he did not see it, somebody must have told him. Who? His Rebbe? Could be. And who told his Rebbe? His Rebbe’s Rebbe? How far are we going? And none of them actually saw the genuine article? In any case, if Rambam did not see it, he is not telling us what he knows from observation. He is telling us what he thinks based on what he had heard.

I did some research and discovered that this notion (blood black as ink and Yam Hamelech) and numerous other innovative views of the Rambam are recorded in a work called Midrash Hagadol. The problem is that this work was only first published by a Teimani Jew (David HaAdeni) in the early 14^th century or about 150 years after the passing of Rambam. It is unclear who influenced who. In any case, if this Midrash was a “written” source that pre-dated Rambam, it says to us that Rambam was telling us what he saw or heard from a [little-known] Midrash but not from actually seeing this creature.

The other possibility is that Rambam actually did see some creature that looks like a fish and has blood-like ink and he was convinced is the chilazon. It goes without saying that the cuttlefish does fit the bill on this detail. I am not familiar with the writings of the Radziner Rebbe but it makes sense that he draws on the Rambam to support his claim.

But to say that Rambam saw such a fish and knew it was the chilazon puts to rest the concept that it is nignaz. He saw it and identified it, how can it be nignaz?

Perhaps a better idea is to say that Rambam saw such a fish and thought it was the chilazon. Just like the Radziner Rebbe did. But It seems that the Radziner Rebbe never saw the Murex and the supporting evidence that it has to challenge the candidacy of his cuttlefish. We can assume that, if he did, he would have either ruled out the cuttlefish or at least called a draw. And I think we need to say the same thing about Rambam.

Most likely, Rambam didn’t actually see any type of “chilazon” creature and was only drawing on his Rebbanim or other sources. Alternatively, he saw the cuttlefish but not the Murex. It is hard to think that the Rambam saw the Murex and ruled it out. So, at best, I can agree with Rav Reisman and HRHG Asher Weiss that the Murex does not match the creature that the Rambam describes. But we cannot say that the Rambam holds a 0% chance that the Murex he never saw is the chilazon.

Incidentally, the Yam Hamelech claim is also a puzzle with no known source. Most scholars understand it to mean any salt-water sea such as the Mediterranean, but not the real Yam Hamelech. The real Yam Hamelech would be a direct contradiction to the gemara in Shabbos 26a and Megillah 6a and any other indication that the chilazon is a Mediterranean creature. Hard to think that Rambam did not know those gemaras. Also, in case Rambam really did see the cuttlefish, he would have been apprised of where it came from and know that it is not from Yam Hamelech. The idea of the real Yam Hamelech is more of a proof that the Rambam did not actually see any type of chilazon.

Bottom line is that even though Rambam’s description may not match the Murex trunculus, we cannot assume that the Rambam rejected a creature he probably never saw. As such, the detractors cannot use Rambam as an ally. Same with Rashi, Tosafos or any Rishon along with Chofetz Chaim, Rav Moshe Feinstein or whoever. In fact, Harav Weiss openly dismisses the support of the Yaavetz, Chavos Yair and Minchas Ani by claiming that “none of them ever saw it and dealt with it Halacha l’maaseh” but it does not seem to bother him that this claim applies to every single Rishon and Acharon that quote descriptions that don’t match. (Incidentally, the Yaavetz, Chavos Yair and Minchas Ani do not vouch for the “purpura” they only mention that it is widely suggested.)

So, at the end of the day, we haven’t proven that the Murex trunculus is the Talmudic chilazon, but we have neutralized all of Rav Reisman’s and even Rav Asher Weiss’s proofs for rejecting it. Every single one.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Rav Yisrael Reisman. But not one of his “proofs” to rule out the Murex holds water. It hurts me to see someone as sincere and learned as Rav Reisman invoke such flimsy arguments.

Sof davar, a rational person needs to look at what he sees. חכם עיניו בראשו! Nobody can argue about the following:

·      The Murex snail is native to the Mediterranean shore between Chaifa and Zidon.

·      A blue techeiles dye can be made from it.

·      A blue techeiles dye was made from it in Second Bayis and Talmudic times.

·      The cloth found at Massada was apparently confirmed to be Murex blue.

·      One edition of the regional Roman coin shows a Murex snail. I will assume that no other marine creatures appear on any other Mediterranean Roman coins. Of the “thousands” of competitor marine creatures, living or extinct, that HRHG Asher Weiss claims may be the true genuine article instead of the Murex, only the Murex made it onto the local currency.

·      Evidently, a Temple era Murex dye factory was discovered in Yerushalayim itself.

I must repeat what I said earlier: whereas Chazal fully knew that Murex dye can be made indigo blue and that there were Murex dye factories all over the coast and in Yerushalayim, it is absolutely totally untenable to suggest that this snail could be an imposter for the genuine chilazon, and yet, not one Mishna, gemara, Bavli, Yerushalmi, Midrash or anything we have even hints that there is a pasul imposter snail currently being processed at ground zero that we need to beware of. Not a hint of such a thing!!!!! The only pasul techeiles we ever hear about is from a plant, not a snail!!

No, we haven’t yet found a pair of Talmudic tzitzis. We don’t have conclusive “judicial” proof to “convict” the prime suspect.  But this doesn’t mean we don’t know who the killer is. As Rabi Shimon ben Shetach (Sanhedrin 37b) said to the man with the bloody knife next to the quivering victim, “Rasha! Who killed this man? It could either be you or I. But, what can I do? The Torah says, ‘[only] upon the word of two witnesses can one be put to death’.”

If it walks like a chilazon and talks like a chilazon and lives like a chilazon and dyes like a chilazon…it’s a chilazon. Or, as we said when I was a kid: If the shell fits, wear it!

After all this, I personally agree with Rav Elyashiv and Rav AZ Weiss and Rav Sternbuch that we really don’t know conclusively and that we don’t need to know as long as we don’t have Malchus Beis Dovid and the binyan habayis, urim v’tumim, a navi and a Sanhedrin.

Meanwhile, we have to chalk this up as a machlokes l’sheim shamayim. 

Hopefully, it is sofo l’hiskayem.

Tova HaAretz Meod Meod 2 – Update for 2020

Author's note - Please see the previous post on this topic if you have not yet done so.


Rabbi Zechariah Wallerstein has a message for us. This made a bit of a splash last week. Apparently, it was an hour-long schmooze but this is the excerpt I got in my inbox.

(Note – Embedded video may not appear in email version. You can get an audio segment HERE).

Essentially, he is telling us that "It is time to go [to E"Y]" while acknowledging that he cannot bring himself to do it as of yet.  He is really struggling. So was I - 23 years ago. It isn’t easy.

We made aliya to Eretz Yisrael in 1997 and all I can say is that I am sure glad we did.

Why did “I” make Aliyah? (I am talking about myself right now, not my wife.)

·       Firstly, as the narrative in my previous post relates, it was my wife’s dream. You could say I did it for shalom bayis. And, yes, we are still talking.

·      Secondly, as the son of a Holocaust survivor and a “student” of holocaust history, I knew only too well how the comfort of the tolerant “Western” society is a mere illusion that could vanish in a moment. At the time, in 1997, my father asked me why I want to make Aliyah? In addition to the previous point, I told him, “Look, we are in golus here just like we were in Europe. Sooner or later there is going to be a mahapeicha (upheaval) here just like there was in Spain and Europe and everywhere else. There has always been. HKBH sees to it. So there will have to be another one. It’s only a question of ‘when?’.  Why should I stick around here and entrench my family and wait for it to happen?” He could not disagree with me on this. (Incidentally, his immediate goal after liberation was to get to Eretz Yisrael. However, he was stymied by the Zionist anti-religious bureaucracy and wound up in the US instead.)

·       Thirdly, the religious Zionist Bnei Akiva indoctrination of my youth left a lasting impression on me and a sense on nationalistic pride – ahavas ha’aretz – even though I had long felt that they fell quite short in ahavas Torah and I had to move on to “blacker” pastures.

·       Fourthly, we had six children at the time and had no plans of shutting down the factory (we have since more than doubled). The excessive tuition and health care costs made it impossible for a large growing family to get ahead financially by natural means. It would always be a struggle. And, as many other olim have said. “If we’re going to struggle anyway, may as well struggle here in E”Y.”

·       And, finally, because I could.

This last point has several connotations. At its simplest level, it means that the door is open in ways that did not exist in previous generations.

At a stronger level, it means not only that I can, but that this is a very auspicious opportunity and it is not likely to stay this way. I was at the prime of my life and the prime of my financial strength and the Israeli economy and international standing (post-Oslo) were in their prime as well. I felt it is sort of a “now or never” situation.

But at the most profound level, I saw it as a responsibility. The conditions were so favorable that it was as if I saw a “heavenly” neon light with an arrow pointing to Eretz Yisroel blinking as if to say, “Go this way >> Go this way >> Go this way >>”. I honestly felt that I would be betraying the fulfillment of the aspirations of generations of ancestors if I did not capitalize on this opportunity.

I also felt a responsibility to my diaspora neighbors. If people like me who have such an opportunity don’t take advantage of it and go, why should anybody go? If I can set an example for others, I need to do it.

So we did. No regrets. I can’t stop thanking my wife, and my Dad, and HKBH.

So last week, Rav Zechariah Wallerstein got onto the Net and told us like it is. It is time to go. He’ll shut the lights.

We all know that the United States of today is not the United States of yesterday. It may not be a communist country, but it is getting closer every day to George Orwell’s Animal Farm – with genuine two-legged animals. In Animal Farm, the mantra “All Animals are Created Equal” was amended to say, “All Animals are Created Equal – but some are more Equal than Others.”

America is a bit different. The mantra “All Men are Created Equal” has been amended to say, “All Men and Women and Children and Animals and Illegal Aliens and Criminals and Straights and Gays and Democrats are Created Equal”. America has become much too equal.

The American masses are starting to discover that we Jews are not created equal. All the non-law-abiding moslems are created equal. All the LGBTQIXYZ are created equal. Black Lives Matter, M-13 Lives Matter, sexual deviants’ lives matter and any chicken’s life matters – but your Jewish life doesn’t matter. Not to them.

More and more distinguished people are saying that it’s time to go (or time to come). Until now it was easy to brush off. Now, it’s getting serious. The most common excuses are: (1) “I have my parnassah here. I have no idea how I will make a living in Israel” and (2) “My extended family is here. How can I disconnect myself?”.

Enter Covid-19! (May it exit just as fast.)

Covid-19 has wiped out the parnassah of 25% of the population. And it has made a significant dent in that of everyone else. It doesn’t answer the question of how one will make it in Eretz Yisroel but, “If we’re going to struggle anyway…”

Covid-19 also introduced may of us to Zoom and its clones. After faxes, emails, electronic banking and online purchasing, distance doesn’t matter as much anymore. I have been more “in touch” and “face to face” with my parents in the US since this crisis began than ever. Of course, I wish they were here, but I am not out of touch. Sure we can’t all be at all the weddings and bar mitzvas, but lately a lot of us have been missing weddings and bar mitzvas even while living in the same town!!!

Moreover, as I wrote in my essay which is displayed in my previous post, Aliyah causes a snowball effect – one sibling goes, then another, then the parents decide they may as well go and be near the siblings who went…and then the rest of the siblings go.

No, it’s not easy. But it isn’t going to get any easier. Right now, the planes aren’t flying. But I believe HKBH will give us (i.e., you) another chance. The planes will get back up there…for a while. But the next time they go down, you may need to pump those bicycle tires like in Roy Neuberger’s 2020 book.

What do you need to do? And what does Rabbi Zechariah Wallerstein need to do?

You need to contact Nefesh B’Nefesh and open up an Aliyah file even if you have no current plans to go. Just go through the motions. Make believe. It only costs $65 to open a file and maybe $130 for a mandatory FBI clearance check (we did not need these). Get the letter from the Rabbi and a photocopy of the wife’s/mother’s kesuba (nobody asked us to show ours when we landed.) And update all of those passports!

If you don’t go through with it, you can always renew the file. NBN will tell you all the rules. You probably won’t even need to set a date up front because the planes aren’t flying anyway. Just be ready for when they are.

Another thing you can do is to open a bank account here in shekels. Not a big one to give you tax issues but enough to have something to come to. Incidentally, the dollar has been slipping against the shekel for the past ten years. If it totally collapses, the shekels will be here.

My dear parents already own an apartment here and they bought karka on Har Hazeisim years ago. But they still live in the US as do two of my married siblings. We want very much for them to come for good on the upper part of the plane with all the seats. So, I asked my father, the Holocaust survivor whose 60 year diamond business was finally KO'ed by Corona, why he doesn’t just come? He told me if “this shmegega” (Joe Biden) reaches the White House, then he’s done with the US.

I told him, “Just for this, I am going to vote for him!”

The only way to succeed at making Aliyah is to commit yourself to making Aliyah. There are no shortcuts!

When I announced my intentions to make Aliyah to my community, some people came and asked me if we are only going on a trial basis to see if we manage or going full steam and burning my bridges?

I answered that we are uprooting a house with six children aged one to ten packing things, selling things, buying things, and shipping things all being subsidized by the Jewish agency. It’s a monumental undertaking. Imagine if in a number of years I have seven, eight, or nine kids and I feel like undoing it all and coming back without any subsidies from the Jewish Agency. Would I be able to manage such a thing? 

So we are here in Eretz Yisrael. We are still here. Yes, I am out of work (lots of time to learn!), which is why I write, but I am far from hungry, B"H. We eat mahn and we drink mei be'er and we are here watching our loved ones in the US trying to stay afloat. We are concerned. We don't like what we see. Decay never reverses itself.

We always tell ourselves, "Someday, we would love to move to Eretz Yisrael." For years, the Jewish Never Again activists have been crying "Never Again is now!" And we (including Rabbi Wallerstein) are crying, "Someday is now!"

Listen to me. Listen to Rabbi Wallerstein. Let Rabbi Wallerstein listen to Rabbi Wallerstein. 

I guarantee you that you will all thank me…in much less than 23 years.

Tova HaAretz Meod Meod 1 - Repost of Original from June 2009

This is from my blog eleven years ago. Next post will be an update...

Anyone who has ever made aliya will tell you that you will never get here by talking about making aliya, no matter how much talking you do. There is only one way to make aliya – you must (figuratively) open a calendar and throw a dart at it. When the dart hits a date, you mark it as the day that you are going, and don’t pull out the dart! Our “dart” hit at July of 1997...

The above paragraph did not make it into the final cut of my book but, maybe, it should have. In any case, for those of us already here in Eretz Yisrael, Parshas Shelach is up this week. You folks still straggling behind in Chutz l'Aretz are - well - still straggling behind.

Parshas Shelach represents the challenges in bitachon that are part of living in Eretz Yisrael. Though I can attest that moving an established family to Eretz Yisrael is no small feat, once done, it is no small achievement, either. Not everybody is zocheh. But everybody can be zocheh. It depends on why you want to come. The key is bitachon and emunah. To make a successful Aliya one must be willing to feel like a grasshopper. But then he can become a giant.

In honor of Parshas Shelach I am presenting the complete Aliya story from my One Above and Seven Below autobiography. Some parts made it into the book but most of it did not. Some people will be able to relate to it, and others will say that their personal circumstances are not as favorable as ours were. Still, one thing I must tell everyone: if you have a serious opportunity to come here, it is a message to you. Do not ignore it. Don't get yourself wait-listed for the last flight out.

Still, at the end of the day, everybody winds up where HKBH wants him to. One thing I said over at my daughter's sheva brachos was:

40 days before the yetziras havlad, a bas kol goes out and says בת פלוני לפלוני . Taken at its word, this chazal is saying that sometime about 25 years ago, a bas kol went out and pronounced that the daughter of Yechezkel Hirshman is destined to be the wife of this young man. The interesting thing is that, 25 years ago, Yechezkel Hirshman didn't happen to be married! He was hanging around Lakewood, New Jersey and telling shadchanim that he needs a girl who is willing to follow him to Natwich (pseudonym for my home town) so he could go into the wholesale diamond business. Meanwhile, this fellow was a zygote by some family in Beit-El (not exactly the chareidi capitol of the world)! Yet, here we are 25 years later in Yerushalayim celebrating the sheva brachos of the new couple. How did we get here from there?

Well, here's how:

Aliya Story by binhersh on Scribd

Techeiles 6 and Taryag Mitzvos-Part 2: Hashem Echad

I still have not directly addressed the objections of HRHG Rav Yisroel Reisman, Shlita on the validity of the Murex trunculus snail. This will, b’li neder, be addressed in an upcoming post.

Since it is Parshat Shelach Lecha here in Eretz Yisroel, I thought I would write about why this topic is so important.

The proponents of the Murex techeiles are pushing the product on the pretext of the “opportunity” (or obligation) to fulfill the mitzvah in shleimus. But few of us really understand, nor appreciate, what this really means. What is techeiles and why is it so important? After all, the Mishna in Menachos tells us that it is not מעכב the mitzvah. So what is all the hullabaloo about?

Coincidentally, the answer to this question was elucidated in my book in Part 2 of the chapter about Taryag Mitzvos (Getting to the Heart of the Matter). Therefore, this segment has dual loyalties. If you have not already read Part 1, please do.

Here we go:

In Part 1 we discussed that, in reality, we only have two mitzvos: the positive commandment of Anochi Hashem and the negative commandment of Lo Yihiye Lecha. As Hillel says, all the rest are the “details”. In G-d’s realm, all of the mitzvos are one (Loyalty or Yichud Hashem via Anochi/Lo Yihiyeh), so we can accurately construe that G-d’s oneness fuses all of the specific mitzvos together. In our earthly realm, each mitzvah takes on a distinct characteristic and is relegated to its specific time, place, and constituency. Yet, Chazal tell us of certain mitzvos that apply to all of us (men, at least) and their intrinsic value is, of itself, equivalent to all of the other individual mitzvos. On this note, three mitzvos are singled out for special recognition: Shabbos, Tzitzis, reciting the Krias Shema. (Note – There may be a few others and, of course, we always say Talmud Torah k’neged kulam, but these three are interrelated as we shall see.)

Why are these three so special?

Based on our discussion, the answer is self-explanatory - but I will explain it, anyhow: they all explicitly symbolize Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh.

First, let us examine the Shema. 

In chapter 3 of my book, I noted that the recital of Shema is a realization of ameilus b’Torah and that it can single-handedly entitle the reciter to the accompanying benefits. At that point, I was at a loss trying to explain why the reciting of the Shema is such a potent feat. But now, once we have determined that the entire body of mitzvos is the advancement of the concepts of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh, we notice that this declaration encapsulates this ideal, and does so repeatedly.

Hence, the opening line:

Shema Yisrael – Hear O Israel
Hashem E-lokeinu – Hashem is our G-d	>>>>	Anochi Hashem E-lokecha – I am Hashem your G-d
Hashem Echad – G-d is One	>>>>	Lo Yiheyeh Lecha elohim acheirim – There shall not for be for you any other gods before me

Here we have it, all 613 mitzvos in one breath. We have just now recited the complete body of Law as it exists in G-d’s realm. This is clearly expressed in Mishna Berura O”Ch 61:1 MB 2.

Let us examine the three parshiot of Krias Shema.

In the first paragraph of Shema, we dwell a bit on this ethereal concept that we must love G-d with all our heart, soul, and strength and we must study the Torah and teach it to our children. Although this paragraph introduces to us the mitzvos of tefillin and mezuza as a way of affirming our commitment, it really makes no mention of any general requirement for performing physical mitzvos. This is because, in this paragraph, we are discussing the mitzvah at the ‘receiving end’. There is but one two-part mitzvah and it is not physical. Indeed, in many prayer books, it is annotated that when reciting the first paragraph of Shema one should bear in mind that he is fulfilling the mitzvah of Yichud Hashem as well as Kabbalas Ohl Malchus Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven).

The second paragraph brings us down to our neck of the woods. Here HKBH speaks to us in our physical language and tells us what we must do "over here" to fulfill the one mitzvah "over there". There are three parts to this diktat: (a) the requirement to fulfill positive mitzvos – to love G‑d and to serve Him (Anochi) - and the reward for compliance, (b) the admonition against transgressing negative mitzvos – the focus is on worshipping foreign powers (Lo Yihiyeh) – and the punishment for said transgression, and (c) a repetition of the requirement to study the Torah, to teach it to your children and to post these instructions on one’s person (tefillin) and on the doorposts (mezuzah). For this paragraph, the user-friendly prayer books instruct us to bear in mind Kabbalas Ohl Mitzvos (acceptance of the yoke of obligation to fulfill the mitzvos).

Finally, we recite the passage of the mitzvah of tzitzis. The gemara in Berachos (12b) asks why this paragraph qualifies as the closing paragraph of the declaration of Shema (perhaps it is bothered that it does not deal with the generalities of love of G-d and of studying and teaching Torah.) The gemara answers that the parsha of tzitzis features five matters that one must internalize on a daily basis – (1) the mitzvah of tzitzis, (2) recalling the exodus from Egypt, (3) acceptance of the yoke of performing mitzvos, (4) the prohibition to entertain thoughts of kefira and avoda zara, and (5) not to entertain thoughts of sinfulness. 

Despite this five-point list, Rambam cites only two of these features – numbers 2 and 3 (in reverse order) – as the primary reasons for including this parsha in the Shema. Specifically, to explain why Chazal appended this parsha to the other two parshiot, he remarks that this paragraph “also entails the command to recollect all of the mitzvos” (Feature #3). In his following Halacha, he validates why we recite this third parsha even at night by explaining that it mentions the exodus from Egypt (Feature #2) and, by reciting this passage with the Shema on a daily and nightly basis, we fulfill our obligation to “recollect the day of your exodus from the Land of Egypt all of the days of your lives”.

Of these two qualifications that are cited by Rambam, Keseph Mishna seems to favor the second qualification as the more comprehensive one since he asks why Rambam even bothers to cite the first qualification. He answers that the second qualification serves to explain only the significance of reciting this parsha but it does not explain in what way this passage is linked to the other two. The first explanation illustrates how this passage is related.

I thought it a bit curious that according to Rambam, and more so in light of the comments of Keseph Mishna, the first of the five features that the gemara mentions as to why this parsha is included – the basic mitzvah of tzitzis – being completely left out, does not seem to figure significantly (or at all) into the equation. Additionally, the gist of Keseph Mishna’s comment (why does Rambam cite the first qualification?) seems to suggest that Rambam’s first qualification by itself would be insufficient cause to include this parsha. Perhaps it is because, although this parsha “also entails the command to recollect all of the mitzvos”, it would still be only a “distant relative” to the first two paragraphs since there are other pasukim that underscore this concept that are much closer in proximity (i.e., in sefer Devarim and not in Bamidbar) and linguistic style to the other two – in other words, there are “closer” relatives (for example Devarim 7:12).

Our current trend of thought, however, casts a new light upon this matter and helps us to realize that this parsha may be more closely related to the first two than it appears and that the concept of the tzitzis is vitally significant.

The Torah commands that the tzitzis should include a string of t’cheiles. Thereupon, one should gaze upon the tzitzis and thereby “recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem”.

How does the tzitzis inspire one to recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem?

Herein lays a dispute between Rashi and Ramban. Rashi posits that the gematria of the word tzitzis is 600. The traditional number of strings (after they are doubled) is eight and the traditional number of knots is five. 600 + 8 + 5 = 613 or the total number of mitzvos.

Ramban is not comfortable with this explanation because (a) the Torah’s spelling of the word tzitzis omits the second ‘Yud’ thus reducing our numerical count by ten and (b) the number of strings and knots, although they are traditional, are not mandatory. Ramban opines that the impetus for recollection is the string of blue wool as the word t’cheiles is a consonantal of the word tachlis which means "all encompassing purpose’"  Furthermore, he quotes the gemara in Menachos 43b that states that the reason for the color blue is that “t’cheiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory”.

The words of these Rishonim are sufficient to us and “kol hamosif goreah”. Yet, if I may be so bold, I wish to suggest two additional ideas, in line with our discussion; one is a complement to Rashi’s opinion and the other is a complement to Ramban.

Idea #1 – We have just previously stated that the entire body of mitzvos from G-d’s realm is condensed into the two mitzvos that were heard directly from Hashem: Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. We further stated that Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha are themselves condensed into the two phrases of the opening line of Shema: Hashem E-lokeinu (Anochi) and Hashem Echad (Lo Yihiyeh). There is room to suggest that these two edicts can be further condensed into the two words – Hashem Echad: Hashem ≈ Anochi Hashem and Echad ≈ Lo Yihiyeh elohim acheirim.

Aside from the tradition of five knots and eight strings, there is also a tradition to the number of coils between each knot. The accepted Ashkenazi custom is the following order (see Note): Top knot → 7 coils → Second knot → 8 coils → Third knot → 11 coils → Fourth knot → 13 coils → Fifth knot. The most popular explanation for this sequence of coils is that the first three groups, 7 + 8 + 11, add up to 26 which is the numerical equivalent to the four letter name of G-d (the one that appears in Shema which we mask by colloquially saying “Hashem”). The last group, 13, is the numerical equivalent of the word “Echad”. Hence, the 39 coils in total say to us “Hashem (26) Echad (13)” which, according to my thesis, is a condensed version of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. Ergo, we have a reminder of all of the mitzvos "of Hashem" - of which, there are only two: Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha.

(Note - The Sephardim have a different tradition for sequence of coils so this idea won’t apply to them. I thought it sort of fanciful that this idea works in consonance with Rashi’s “gematria” explanation as Rashi was Ashkenazi. Ramban, who opts for the more “colorful” explanation (Idea #2), was Sephardi.)

Idea #2 – Rav Chaim of Volozhin in Ruach HaChaim in Avos (3:1) makes the following observation: The gemara in Menachos 43b (the Chazal that Ramban is referring to) sets out to explain why, of all colors, t’cheiles (light blue) is chosen for the special string? The gemara does not bother to first ask why it is that any special colored string is mandated to complement the white strings in the first place. The implication is that, in the eyes of Chazal, the impetus for having one colored string in the company of uncolored strings is patently obvious, the only question is: why this particular color? He asks, what, then, is the impetus that was so obvious to the sages of the Talmud?

He goes on to explain that the purpose of the tzitzis is to cause us to recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem. We know that there are two forms of mitzvos – positive and negative. Positive mitzvos entail some form of action. With this action we create, build, or remedy some spiritual entity that must be created, built, or rectified. A positive mitzvah is often referred to as an assiah (action or deed), but, additionally, is characterized as the manifestation of a זכירה zechira (commemoration). Negative mitzvos entail restraint. With this restraint we obstruct a potentially dangerous force – which would come about if we commit the prohibited act – that would damage or destroy a ‘healthy’ spiritual entity. In other words, we fulfill negative mitzvos by protecting or guarding what is spiritually intact against destruction (kilkul). A negative mitzvah is referred to as a שמירה shemira (safeguard).

White represents what is spiritually pure, clean, and intact. It says to us that we must stand on guard and protect the white from becoming sullied or colored. Color (any color) represents the converse of white. It is something that contains some degree of darkness, something that is spiritually “tainted”, something that is not completely pure or intact, something that requires tikkun. Color says to us that we must do something positive to dispel the darkness and to bring it closer to white. In this way, the white strings represent all of the negative mitzvos that are characterized as a shemira from kilkul. The colored strings represent all of the positive mitzvos that demand some form of zechira (and assiah) to enact a spiritual tikkun.

Now we understand why it is so fundamentally essential that one string must be colored and the remainder should be white. It is by gazing on this contrast of color against the white that we can simultaneously recollect all of the mitzvos of G-d – i.e., the negative mitzvos represented by the white strings and the positive mitzvos represented by the colored string. This was well understood by the sages of the Talmud. Their only question was why, of all colors, was t’cheiles the color of choice to represent the positive mitzvos? To this they answer that t’chelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory.

With this explanation we can look at the words of the parsha of tzitzis with added clarity. The parsha states:

“…and you shall place on the ציצת at the edge a string of t’cheiles. And it will be for you for a ציצת and you will view it and you will recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem and you will perform them and you shall not explore after your hearts and after your eyes, as you are prone to following after them. In order that you should recollect and perform all of my mitzvos and be holy for your G-d. I am Hashem your G-d that I have redeemed you from the Land of Egypt; I am Hashem your G-d.”

And you shall place on – along with - the ציצת –the white strings that comprise the ציצת – a string of t’cheiles - a string of a contrasting color which is to be colored t’cheiles. And it will be for you for a ציצת – the white and the t’cheiles combined – and you will view it – the contrast of blue on white – and you will recollect all of the mitzvos of Hashem – both the positive and the negative mitzvos - and you will perform them - the color will inspire you to carry out the zechira and the assiah and to perform the positive mitzvos - and you shall not explore after your hearts and after your eyes, as you are prone to following after them – the white will enjoin you to observe the shemira and not to transgress on the negative mitzvos. The pasuk repeats: In order that you should recollect (tizkor) and perform (va’assitem) all of my mitzvos – zechira/assiah, the positive mitzvos - and be holy for your G‑d – shemira, the negative mitzvos. I am Hashem your G-d that I have redeemed you from the Land of Egypt – Anochi Hashem E-lohecha asher hotzeiticha…; I am Hashem your G‑d – Lo Yihiyeh elohim acheirim.

As I indicated, the first of these two ideas, the one that deals with numerical symbolism, is akin to Rashi’s explanation which is, likewise, premised on gematrios. The second idea which focuses on the supplement of the blue colored string is akin to Ramban who, likewise, emphasizes this feature. But, aside from that, within the scope of our discussion, there is another quite noteworthy distinction between these two ideas. The first one describes how the tzitzis remind us of all of G‑d’s mitzvos, i.e., G‑d’s two spiritual mitzvos of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh as represented by the phrase “Hashem Echad”. The second idea describes how the tzitzis remind us of all of G‑d’s mitzvos, i.e., the physical positive and negative mitzvos that exist in our realm.

We can now turn our attention to the third “special” mitzvah – the keeping of Shabbos. Two concepts that we “discovered” in connection to the tzitzis come back to visit us when we examine the essence of Shabbos. The first is that the positive mitzvos, the Anochi, are characterized as a zechira and that the negative mitzvos, the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha, are characterized as a shemira. The second concept is the significance of the number 39 as the numerical value of the phrase Hashem Echad which we posited as a reference to Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh fused together.

In the first version of the Luchos, the fourth item reads, “Remember (Zachor) the day of Shabbos to sanctify it.” In the second version of the Luchos, it reads, “Guard (Shamor) the day of Shabbos to sanctify it.” Chazal explain that when HKBH uttered this mitzvah to Moshe (which only occurred once), He sounded both words in a single utterance “what a human mouth cannot pronounce and what a human ear cannot discern”. If Man cannot perceive such an utterance, what is achieved thereby?

Here, once again, HKBH is “laying down the law” on His terms (more accurately – using His terms). We are taught that Shabbos observance is an אות, a sign of acknowledgment, that Hashem created the world and is the Master over all of creation, that all that we accomplish during our working days is by His will, and, consequently, our achievements will not be one iota more productive by working “overtime” nor will they be any less productive if we conform to His work schedule and take a day off. In short, it is a declaration of faith and loyalty, an embodiment of the single mitzvah of Emunah (faith or loyalty) that underwrites the entire fleet of 613 subroutines á là the prophet Chabakuk. 

Of course, to us multi-dimensional beings, there must be a positive aspect and a negative aspect; but to Hashem, they are one and the same. Therefore, HKBH instructs us to observe the Shabbos in His non-dimensional superhuman terminology – to do the zachor, the Anochi, and to observe the shamor, the Lo Yihiyeh Lecha (see Rashi Devarim 33:9 Ki Shamru) with a single utterance (which, most likely, did not ‘occupy’ any unit of time). Of course, this is way too abstract for us, so, we must break it down into discernible physical components.

Chazal tell us that Shabbos is מעין עולם הבא - a microcosm of the World to Come. It is an ethereal time wherein we are visitors in G‑d’s domain. As such, we truly only observe two mitzvos – Zachor and Shamor, a variation of Anochi and Lo Yihiyeh Lecha. The regular part of the week is olam hazeh, this world, where we have 611 other mitzvos to observe. We perform our obligations during the weekdays by utilizing 39 types of activities. In other words, during the week, we sanctify the 39 types of activities by executing them to carry out the mitzvos and to pursue our livelihoods. On Shabbos, we sanctify the same 39 types of activities by refraining from their execution. In this way, throughout all seven days of the week we can make 39 declarations of G‑d’s supremacy; with our (weekday) actions and our (Shabbat) inactions we scream out, “Hashem Echad”.*

*Note - Though I do not pretend to speak for the composer, I believe that this concept may be aptly represented in the words of the acclaimed Lecha Dodi poem of the Kabbalist Shlomo HaLevi Alkabetz that we all recite on Friday evenings. The opening stanza states:

שמור וזכור בדיבור אחד (Shamor and Zachor in a single utterance) / השמיענו א-ל המיוחד (was sounded to us by the Unique G‑d) / ה' אחד ושמו אחד (Hashem is One and His name is One) / לשם ולתפארת ולתהילה (For renown, for majesty and for praise).

End of Taryag Mitzvos Part 2. But we are not finished. There's more…