Techeiles: Short Response to Rabbi Shraga Kallus

First, listen to the shiur here (only the first 25 minutes).

As Rabbi Kallus says himself, he has a detailed shiur against Techeiles elsewhere. And he notes (I think) Rabbi Rosenberg’s rebuttal we posted here. This one is just his general argument.

(Speaking of “kallus”, I only listened to this once (see B.B. 98b), but this is a blog… And I don’t recall his more detailed arguments right now.)

Two short points from Hyehudi Editor in response (based partially on Rabbi Y. Brand, as is usual):

One, it’s not about so-called “Simanim” for so-called “Techeiles”, as the rabbi continually misframes the question. The Tosefta says: “תכלת אין כשרה אלא מן החלזון, שלא מן החלזון פסולה”. No one disputes the kindergarten-level marine science that this is a type of “chilazon” (and, by the way, the Radzin specimen is not, which is why it doesn’t belong in the debate). So, for example, the seeming contradiction about it coming up every 70 years, or certain disputes among Rishonim about the details, and so on, hardly matter. Case nearly closed.

Two, those who wear Techeiles are following the rules of deciding halacha (כללי הפסק), no different than the rest of the Torah. And, yes, Mashiach can cast doubt on this or any other pesak. Mashiach can “even” say our Esrog Mesorah went awry (Pop Quiz: Did the Chazon Ish have a mesorah for his esrog, especially as regards מורכב?). But we would still have been 100% retroactively justified in going with present human knowledge, in this as in any other new topic. And turkey-eating opponents of Techeiles with their ad hoc meta-halacha would still be absolutely unjustified. (The rabbi sometimes says “Eliyahu” and sometimes “Mashiach”, by the way. I truly don’t know how he understands the gemara of אם יבא אליהו ויאמר חולצין במנעל, etc.)

(By the way, and this may be unfair since Rabbi Kalllus’ words here aren’t “סוגיא בדוכתה”, but I don’t get the sense the rabbi even understands what “mesorah” in the specialized (Chagav, Zebu, etc.) sense means, namely, the assurance we are applying Chazal\Torah simanim (which theoretically should be enough for any child in the middle of a desert) correctly in a given case. In more words, no one learns from the rabbi what mar’eh is tahor (a simple reality in most cases), but only gradually acquires the beki’us of any adult female human in lining up his sights with the corresponding Shulchan Aruch, אכמ”ל).

Rabbi Kallus can say what he likes, but murex is truly not even a safek, so we can produce bigdei kehuna today with shatnez for practical use, too.

P.S., Rabbi Kallus is highly doubtful (or at least overconfident) in his many extras and asides (which, unless the rest of this rabbi’s Torah recall is this rotten, proves how unseriously (in the best case) he and his ilk take this sugya!): “All” the “Gedolim“, what the Arizal actually says, the absolute obligation or Issur Aseh בזמן דאיכא תכלת, Rabbi Kanievsky’s final view, Rabbi Elyashiv’s juvenile “מין כנף” humor, Brisker belief, the baseless “tzad” one needs mesorah here at all  — Lekula! (and this has nothing to do with the steelmanned version of the Beis Halevi). Not to mention, one can define what we know as approximating mesorah, anyway, e.g., the minuscule number of fast, natural dyes in existence, the same dye being common in the time of Chazal (and no mention of fakes except קלא אילן), the Achronim we follow, the millions of shells exactly where Chazal said Techeiles was dyed; כאן נמצא כאן היה, etc.

Let it be clear I intend no disrespect for this rabbi who, I am informed, is a Torah scholar, no matter how well he hides the fact. I believe his tone (forgetful of אהוב את השמא ושנא את המה בכך) amply justifies my own.

האם התורה יכולה לנהל את החברה? – שאלה שנשאל החזו”א והרב מבריסק, להבדיל

ציטוט מתוך מאמרו של ישראל פרידמן ב”יתד נאמן” (משנת תשס”ג):

לבן תורה, כמו גם מי שנאלץ לעזוב את ספסלי בית המדרש אך חבל שייכותו טרם נותק, לא יכולה להיות שייכות לעולם החיצון. לבן תורה, אין בעולמו אלא ד’ אמות של הלכה. בן תורה אינו יכול להיות מי שמביא אל תוך השקפת עולמו הבית-מדרשית את רוחות העוועים הנושבות מלבר. בן תורה הוא זה שנוטל עמו את בית המדרש גם את החוץ. מי שנושא עמו את חומות המבצר המגונן, שמכסה את שדה הראייה ומונע את הרעייה בשדות זרים.

לא מדובר בהוראה לתלמידי ישיבה. באיור המצורף לכתבה מופיע אברך שיוצא ממוסד הכולל אל “העולם הגדול” – הוא צועד על ציור של גלובוס שלם – עוטה מסכת גז (מימי מלחמת המפרץ) ולבוש כיסוי ניילון הרמטי, כשבידו רשימה של “סידורים הכרחיים דחופים”. האמרה הברורה היא שהזירה שלנו – זירת החיים של כל אדם חרדי, בין מי שתורתו אומנותו ובין מי שלא זכה לכך – היא זירת בית המדרש בלבד. מחוץ לבית המדרש אין אפשרות לנשום. העולם אינו מקום יישוב. אין שם חיים. ואם אין שם חיים, הרי שאין שם גם הלכה.

ד’ אמות של הלכה מצטמצמות אפוא לד’ אמות של בית המדרש. כמובן, גם בבית המדרש צריכים לאכול, ולכן עלינו לעסוק בהלכה הנוגעות לסעודה ולשאר העניינים והפעולות שמתרחשים בו. ואולם, אין מקום בבית המדרש לשאלות הגדולות של החברה האנושית או של מדינת ישראל. שאלות אלו שייכות לעולם שבחוץ, העולם שמחוץ לתיבת הנוח של הישיבה. ושם, הרי, אי אפשר לחיות.

בהקשר הזה, קשה שלא לצטט את המשך מאמר המערכת, המביא את עמדת הרב מבריסק זצ”ל בשאלה שרבים שואלים: כיצד החרדים היו מנהלים את המדינה אילו היו הופכים לרוב? תשובתו הייתה כי:

אף אם אני עצמי אהיה שר הפנים ואף אם מרן הג”י אברמסקי יכהן כשר הביטחון, כיון שמדבור בשאלה הרת גורל והכרעה על יצאה למלחמות – וזו שאלה של פיקוח נפש, ואין לנו ש”ך וט”ז בסוגייה זו, הרי שלא נוכל לנהל את המדינה ולקבל את האחריות”.

לדעת הרב מבריסק זצ”ל, גם אם העולם שבחוץ הופך להיות עולמנו אנו, כאשר אנחנו הרוב במדינה, עדיין נצטרך להתנהל מולו בניכור מוחלט ולהעביר את מפתחות הניהול לאחרים. אין לנו חלק ונחלה בעולם.

המאמר מציין את עמדת ה’חזון איש’. ה’חזון איש’, בניגוד חריף לעמדת הרב מבריסק – ניגוד שכותב הטור מעדיף להתעלם ממנו גם כשהוא נוקט בבירור כעמדת הרב מבריסק – נתן תשובה אחרת לשאלת “מה נעשה כשנהיה רוב”: “קודם שיתנו לנו להכריע, ואנו נדע להכריע על פי דין תורה”. כלומר, לדעת ה’חזון איש’ בוודאי שיש לנו עמדה תורנית, לא רק “דעת תורה” אלא דברי תורה כפי שמקובל בכל סוגיה הלכתית. המדינה היא בהחלט הזירה שלנו, אלא שלאותה העת – כנראה בשנות החמישים המוקדמות של המדינה – השאלה טרם הייתה רלוונטית. אף אחד לא שאל אותנו.

תיעוד נוסף ומפורט יותר לשו”ת עם הרב מבריסק והחזו”א, ניתן לראות בטור דעות בעתון “יתד נאמן” גם לאחרונה:

How the Soviets Created an Austrian School Economist

Yuri Maltsev, R.I.P.

My old friend Yuri Maltsev passed away on Thursday.  As many LRC and Mises.org readers know, Yuri was part of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika staff until he defected from the Soviet Union in 1989 and came to America.  He earned a Ph.D. at Moscow State University during the Cold War and, lo and behold, became an Austrian School economist!  I met Yuri soon after he arrived in the U.S. and asked him how he became familiar with the Austrian School.  His answer was that part of his job for Gorbachev was to read and criticize the literature of the bourgeois capitalist exploiters.  As such, he was given special permission to access that literature, some of which came with a long prison sentence to any ordinary Soviet citizen caught with it.

Yuri said that he read a contraband copy of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom in mimeograph form, and passed it on to someone else immediately after he finished it.  Everything in the book was absolutely true about collectivism and government planning, he said.  Years later, in 2009, right after the crash of 2008, Yuri and our friend Tom Woods appeared on the Glenn Beck television program to discuss The Road to Serfdom.  After that discussion, the sales ranking of this 1943 book went to #1 on Amazon.  I then put together a five-week online course on the book for the Mises Institute that attracted several hundred students from all over the world.

Having spent so much of his life in socialist hell, once he got a good-paying job in America Yuri reveled in consumerism.  He would buy a $3,000 car, drive it for a while, then sell it back to the dealer he bought it from.  He said he did that about thirty times.  He also bought foreclosed real estate from HUD and rented or resold them, typically offering say, $5,000 for a house listed at say, $35-50,000 – and succeeding!

Yuri was associated with the Mises Institute for many years as a guest speaker at conferences and a lecturer at the annual Mises University.  What an amazing time it was for me in the early days of Mises University to sit around at a place like Stanford University shortly after the worldwide collapse of socialism talking with such people as Murray Rothbard and Yuri Maltsev.  He was always an extraordinarily popular speaker because of his wit and his unique knowledge of both Austrian economics and real-world experiences of having lived much of his life in the former Soviet Union.  No one in the world was better able to explain in such vivid detail why Mises was right about socialism all along.  If anything, Mises may have understated the barbarity of socialism which, in the Soviet case, was “all about mass murder,” as Yuri said.

When I first met Yuri I asked him what he thought the biggest difference was between life in the Soviet Union and life in America.  He said that in the Soviet Union no one believed anything the government said, but Americans believe everything the government says.  The response of at least 90 percent of Americans to covid totalitarianism is the most recent example of this truism.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Ron Paul: The Dastardly ‘Russia Disinformation’ Hoax

The Real Disinformation Was the ‘Russia Disinformation’ Hoax

Thanks to the latest release of the “Twitter Files,” we now know without a doubt that the entire “Russia disinformation” racket was a massive disinformation campaign to undermine US elections and perhaps even push “regime change” inside the United States after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.

Here is some background. In November, 2016, just after the election, the Washington Post published an article titled, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.” The purpose of the article was to delegitimize the Trump presidency as a product of a Russian “disinformation” campaign.

“There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in US democracy and its leaders,” wrote Craig Timberg. The implication was clear: a Russian operation elected Donald Trump, not the American people.

Among the “experts” it cited were an anonymous organization called “Prop Or Not,” which in its own words claimed to identify “more than 200 websites as peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season, with combined audiences of at least 15 million Americans.”

The organization’s report was so preposterous that the Washington Post was later forced to issue a clarification, even though the Post provided a link to the report which falsely accused independent news outlets like Zero Hedge, Antiwar.com, and even my Ron Paul Institute as “Russian disinformation.”

The 2016 Washington Post article also featured “expert” Clint Watts, a former FBI counterintelligence officer who went on to found another outfit claiming to be hunting “Russian disinformation” in the US, the “Hamilton 68” project. That project was launched by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a very well-funded organization containing a who’s who of top neocons like William Kristol, John Podesta, Michael McFaul, and many more.

Thanks to the latest release of the “Twitter Files,” Matt Taibbi reveals that the Hamilton 68 project, which claimed to monitor 600 “Russian disinformation” Twitter accounts, was a total hoax. While they refused to reveal which accounts they monitored and would not reveal their methodology, Twitter was able to use reverse-engineering to determine the 600-odd “Russian-connected” accounts. Twitter found that despite Hamilton’s claims, the vast majority of these “Russian” accounts were English-speaking. Of the Russian registered accounts – numbering just 36 out of 644 – most were employees of the Russian news outlet RT.

It was all a lie and the latest Twitter Files release confirms that even the “woke” pre-Musk Twitter employees could smell a rat. But the hoax served an important purpose. Hiding behind anonymity, this neocon organization was able to generate hundreds of media stories slandering and libeling perfectly legitimate organizations and individuals as “Russian agents.” It provided a very convenient way to demonize anyone who did not go along with the approved neocon narrative.

Twitter’s new owner, who has given us a look behind the curtain, put it best in a Tweet over the weekend: “An American group made false claims about Russian election interference to interfere with American elections.”

The whole “Russia disinformation” hoax was a shocking return to the McCarthyism of the 1950s and in some ways even worse. Making lists of American individuals and non-profits to be targeted and “cancelled” as being in the pay of foreigners is despicable. Such fraudulent actions have caused real-life damages that need to be addressed.

From LRC, here.

מוצ”ש באשדוד: אסיפה לכבוד הרב ישכר שלמה טייכטל זצ”ל

לרגל יומא דנשמתא

של הרה”ג ר’ ישכר שלמה טייכטל זצ”ל הי”ד

בעל ה”אם הבנים שמחה”

החל בשב”ק פ’ בשלח, י”ג בשבט

נתאסף במוצאי שבת קודש פ’ בשלח

לדיבוק חברים והתחזקות בדרכו הקדושה

באהבת ארץ הקודש והשתוקקות לגאולה

בראשות נכדיו הרבנים הגאונים

הגאון הרב יוסף צבי ברייער שליט”א

ראש ישיבת בעלזא בית חלקיה

הגאון הרב ידידיה ברנדסדורפר שליט”א

מראשי ישיבת חידושי הרי”ם תל אביב

ובהנחיית הרב בצלאל גנז שליט”א

מראשי ‘קדושת ציון’ ועורך המדור ‘אם הבנים שמחה’

באולם שע”י בית הכנסת נר מערבי

רחוב חטיבת הנגב 9 רובע ג’, אשדוד

נטילת ידים לסעודת מלוה מלכה, בשעה 21:00

Download (PDF, 182KB)