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
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 14th 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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment