Mori Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron

This is the week of TeSawweh (that’s Tetzaveh for the un-initiated in ancient Hebrew pronunciation) – the Torah portion about sacred clothing, the clothing that would distinguish the Kohen-priests, particularly the High Priest, in their sacred duties. It is also the week I was interviewed by Tamar Yonah (a true honor) about the dubious origins and halakhic problems (according to Torah law) with the relatively late, European custom of dressing up in costume for Purim. How fitting it is for me, then, to teach about one of the more poorly-known aspects of Torah: the importance of a distinct, Jewish dress.

Consider one of the fundamental 613 Commandments of the Torah, in Wayyiqra (Lev.) 18:3:

After the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelled, you shall not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, to where I am bringing you, you shall not do; neither shall you walk in their statutes.

The following is a summary of the Oral Torah (the actual halakhah) on this Divine Commandment from the Mishneh Torah, the Code of Jewish Law (Laws of Idolatry chapter 11:1)

One is not to walk in the statutes of the gentiles, and not to resemble them—not in their dress, and not in their hairstyle, nor in anything else of this sort, as it is written: “neither shall you walk in their statutes.” And it is written, “be careful of yourself, lest you be ensnared after them.” [Deut. 12:30] All this is warning about one thing: That one not resemble them; but rather, that the Israelite be distinguished from them and known in his dress and in his other ways, just as he is distinguished from them in his wisdom and his character. And thus it is written, “and I shall make you distinct from the nations.”

In the miSwath lo-tha`aseh (Torah Prohibition) #30 in Sepher ha-miSwoth, we learn that the prohibition against copying the statutes of the gentiles not only pertains to their present customs, but those of their ancestors as well. Now it is possible that RaMBaM changed his opinion since his youth, when he wrote sefer ha-miSwoth, deliberately leaving this detail out of Mishneh Torah. This way the Hamburg-hatted, frock-coated Hassidim and Lithuanian-style Jews could claim that today they have a distinct Jewish look — certainly now that the Christian clergy have moved on to new modes of dress.

To me, it’s a stretch. I could be mistaken, but I see no reason to fight what seems clear: Jews are not to dress in uniquely gentile dress — neither that of the present, nor that of the past. (Note: Whatever I say about Haredi dress is said with the deepest respect for the Haredim and their [our] fierce dedication to Torah. I am one who personally identifies as a Haredi Jew, living in a Haredi neighborhood with children learning in a fine Haredi institution.)

One friend of mine shared with me an additional insight: The black garbed Polish look and black hats/streimels (and I add to that the modern, tight-fitting Western styles of non-Haredim) make us look foreign to this land. It is hostile clothing to the climate, and we look like aliens, foreign oppressors who don’t belong here, imported from Europe.  The Arabs pick up on it, as does as the rest of the world. Noting our non-native styles, they say, “See?  These Jews came and stole our land. They don’t belong here – go back to Europe!”

What I believe the nations understand subconsciously, somewhere deep in their souls, is something that pains them greatly: This is not the look (and in many cases not the behavior) of the “kingdom of priests” Israel is supposed to be for us. Barukh HaShem (thank God), I see numerous signs of positive change underway.

How, then, are Jews to ideally dress? Believe it or not, the traditions of our unique dress have not all disappeared. We can still learn them from the Jews of the Orient, very few of whom maintain them to this day. From my own great-great-great grandfather HaRav Yehudah Ha-Levi from Dubrovnik, Serbia, to the senior Hakhamim of Baghdad (below [1]) to the Torah teachers of Yemen: formal-wear for Jewish men varied little.

Among our warriors, the style differed. Below is a photograph of YaHia Habbani of blessed memory, close family to Ya`aqov Mosha (Awad bin Brihim), father of the esteemed Aluf Abir, Mori Yehoshua Sofer shlit”a. The late uncle is dressed in classical Habbani style, which goes back millennia.

The Aluf Abir himself, an expert on ancient clothing of the Near East, once taught me in the name of his father (who is presently well over 100 years old, may HaShem preserve him in good health) that a picture of Arabs 100 years ago would be nearly identical to the way Yishmaelites looked one thousand years ago, and so on back to the times of the Tanakh (Bible). It was no different among his own clan, whose distinguished lineage hails back to the times of Dawidh ha-mmelekh (King David). The style varied per activity, including casual styles such as a very long over-shirt over loose, short white pants — much like the breeches of modern Hassidim. Sometimes the large `tallith was worn as a main garment; among the Habbani warriors it could be wrapped to gird up the entire torso like a rope-belt, criss-crossing the body. [2]

Whatever the style, from the Beth Midrash to the battlefield, across the Middle East, we maintained our distinct dress. If we are to receive the lesson from our ancient Oral legends (midrash), this is a matter of no small importance: It was partly in the merit of our steadfast loyalty to our traditional Hebrew dress, that HaShem redeemed us from Egypt. The sages even ordained a special blessing for us to make each morning specifically when we wrap our heads turban-style:  “Blessed are You, HASHEM our God, King of the Universe, who crowns Israel with splendor.”  The Babylonian Talmud (tractate Berakhoth 60b) is clear, and so is Mishneh Torah (Book of Love, Laws of Prayer 7:4) the blessing is made when on “puts his sheet [or cloth] on his head”.  (Note that both Talmud and Mishneh Torah do mention hats in other places.  This blessing appears to be specifically for authentic Israelite headgear.)

Now before you run for your nearest tailor and wager how quickly you are likely to lose your job, your friends, or worse; what is the practical halakhah (Jewish law)? Today, modern dress is standardized all over the world into a basic, universal “human dress”. In our day, most modes of dress that are uniquely gentile, are also outlandish enough to be a Purim costume. Besides that, although we maintained a distinct style, the truth is that Jews though the ages wore what was comfortable to them in their surroundings. My understanding is, according to my training, that for men – on a basic level – so long as one’s clothes are sufficiently modest, the kippah on our head and fringes at our sides give us a clearly unique and distinct look, and satisfy the basic halakhah (practical Jewish law).

However, to my humble understanding (with no disrespect intended towards those who disagree), there may be two common exceptions to this for men: the 3-piece suit and tight pants — particularly tight jeans. Unlike casual suits, the 3-piece suit is a traditional garment also known as the “Sunday’s best.”  Reaching its present form in the last century, it appears to have been — in its original cultural ambient — a special garment set aside by the common gentile for weekly, Sunday idol worship. As for tight pants or jeans, unless they are way oversized so that they sag like the ‘gangbanger’ look (which itself may constitute a distinctly gentile style), this is specifically mentioned in Talmud as prohibited to Jewish men. To my reading, RaMBaM had no need to mention this – would it not be included in the general prohibition of imitating gentile customs?!

As for myself, I am personally unsatisfied with the universal “human dress” code; my soul yearns for more. It doesn’t sit well with me that for over 3,000 years our fathers, our great rabbis, prophets and warriors had distinct Jewish dress styles and haircuts that we can comfortably toss aside in favor of the styles of yuppie-ville and the American mall. In a modern Israel where Buddhist monks, nuns, and Ethiopic Christian priests roam freely in their traditional garbs, must I, a Jew, feel confined to styles out of GQ magazine, that are technically permitted?

Now I rarely delve into mysticism in my articles, but I cannot hold back this time. Tefillin [3], by Aryeh Kaplan, is one of the most inspiring books I ever read as a Jew growing into Torah observance, years ago. In it, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan of blessed memory writes:

Physical space exists only in the physical world. In the spiritual domain, there is no concept of space as we know it.

But still we speak of things being close or far apart in the spiritual world.   What does this mean?  We cannot be speaking of physical distance, for there is no physical space in the spiritual realm. But in a spiritual sense, closeness involves resemblance.  Two things that resemble each other are spiritually close.  On the other hand, two things that differ are far apart in a spiritual sense.

It follows that if we desire to be spiritually close and similar to the greatest men of all time, Avraham our forefather, Mosha Rabbenu, Dawidh ha-mmelekh, Rabi `Aqivah and so on, we should resemble them as much as possible. That is, of course, first and foremost in our deeds: how we relate to others, how we pray, how we learn and practice Torah, how we fight. But it is so difficult in a mundane world where we are so categorized, labeled and limited by those around us. Yet, as I explained above, we create our image – the way we are perceived – and invite those labels, to a degree, by the way we dress and cut our hair.

The foremost reason why, in the Haredi world, Jews wear black hats and suits, is the foremost reason I try to dress more Hebrew: They know how much clothes make the man of God. When passing by a thumping disco alone, a young teen wearing a black hat and suit will feel and react differently than a young man in jeans with a half-dollar sized kippah on his head. Dressing more Israelite can have the same effect. The difference is that the black galuth (diaspora) garb subliminally gives him the feeling of a European arrival from 60 years ago, an exiled man in his own land. Carefully ironed, restricting clothes meant for air-conditioned rooms and paved sidewalks give us a different sense of what is natural and what is foreign.

Moreover, as I discussed above, any dress besides our ancestral one fits a certain negative stereotype in the eyes of the nations, to whom we are to be “a kingdom of priests.” Whether it is as small a step as wearing a large `talith while relaxing and working at home, wrapping one’s head for prayer for Morning Prayers when one is alone, or making a bigger change such as growing one’s beard and side-locks, I highly recommend it. Should you choose to put on tephillin (phylacteries) even for a short while outside of prayer to learn some Torah, you are actually fulfilling the Torah commandment to strive to be in tephillin throughout the day. If you are living outside of Israel, just wearing a large kippah to distinguish yourself as a Jew can be an awesome step.

May the day come soon when kohen-priests will daily don their priestly garments in a rebuilt Beth ha-miqdash (Holy Temple) and Yisra’el (the rest of the nation) will don ours for all the wonderful activities there are for us to do in our ancestral heritage. In the meantime, let’s increase our awareness of the Godly type of people our traditional clothing can help us aspire to become.

[1] Photograph from ”The Sassoon’s Return Visit to Baghdad: A Diary by Mozelle Sassoon” published in The Scribe: Journal of Babylonian Jewry ISSN 14 74 – 0230, Issue 74 – Autumn 2001, www.thescribe.uk.com.  Posted at  http://www.dangoor.com/TheScribe_74a.pdf.

[2] Special thanks to the Aluf Abir Mori Yehoshua` Sofer shlit”a for the ethnographic data and photograph.

[3] Kaplan, Aryeh, Tefillin, published by NCSY, distributed by Mesorah Publications, 1975. pp. 42-43

2 Heshwan 5770 (20 October 2009)

In the spirit of parashath NoaH 5770, Jeremy Gimpel and Ari Abramowitz interviewed me on their radio show, “A Light Unto the Nations” regarding the launch of my new book, “Guide For the Noahide” and surprised me with a question regarding my work to restore the Abir/Qesheth Hebrew Warrior Arts. 

Although I am not a professional speaker with no radio experience to speak of, I agreed to appear on the show to promote this important work.  The interview can be found on the segment “The Unwavering Faith of Noahides” on Arutz 7 Radio’s show, “A Light Unto the Nations”, at:  http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1508

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

It should be noted that although they called me a “halakhic decisor according to the RaMBaM”, I am not comfortable with that title.  I regard myself as a student and teacher, not a halakhic decisor. 

According to the tradition I received from my mori, the RaMBaM himself remains our halakhic decisor par exellence.   The awesome work he composed leaves us with the purest halakhic guidance possible for all generations until the Sanhedrin will be restored.  It literally puts the entire breadth of practical Torah law even into the hands of laymen, women, and children – besides Torah scholars.  (Laws of Foundations of Torah 4:21)  

This is not a simplistic, anachronistic approach:  it is the very stated purpose for which the Mishneh Torah was written.   (See Mishneh Torah, Introduction 42, and RaMBaM’s Epistle to his student, Rav Yoseph Ben Yehudah, QapaH edition, points 24-25).     The best way to learn, practice and teach halakhah in our times is straight from the Mishneh Torah with no “halakhic decisor” in between.

In practice, however, some measure of Torah guidance is necessary.  If this is true for Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars, how much more so for Jewish laymen, and even more so for non-Hebrew speaking Noahides!  However, following even a rabbinical figure of the highest repute does not exempt the follower from his rabbi’s mistakes.  Every human being is personally responsible for practicing HaShem’s Law correctly, and is punishable for his mistakes–even those he learned from his rabbi.  For the serious student, even the greatest rabbi is a poor alternative to taking responsibility for his own learning.   It is to aid the non-Jew in this goal, that “Guide For the Noahide” was written.  

That being said, I reiterate what I wrote in the book (Author’s Preface page xi):

“Lastly, as comprehensive as we tried to make this guide, it was not meant to take the place of a competent rabbi or Torah scholar in the field of Noahide Law.  In a case of doubt, a competent Torah teacher should be consulted.” 

When I can be of service to anyone in that regard, I undertake it as a sacred privilege and responsibility.  

With Torah blessings,

Mori Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron

A CRISIS OF PRIORITIES

We approach a Passover holiday that should stand out in our memories from all other Passovers in our lifetimes:  The eve of this Passover happens to coincide with a unique astrological event that occurs every 28 years:  According to ancient tradition, it is the beginning of a new sun cycle, in which the sun assumes the position in which it appeared at Creation.  Millions of Jews worldwide will go out in the morning to witness this spectacle and make bless HaShem, who made all Creation. (hil. berakhoth 10:20[18])   

In fact, a great many of religious Jews will wake up before dawn n order to view the sun and make the blessing in a minyan at sunrise—even though there is no legal obligation to do so—, unaware of the great importance the Sages gave to ending the Shema` and beginning the `amidah prayer at that precise time. (hil. Q”Sh 1:12[11], tefillah 7:17)  In fact, the failure to recite the Shema` prayer at its precise time (about 6 minutes before sunrise, leading immediately into the `amidah) is counted in Talmud as one of the reasons for the destruction of the Temple.  But consider the attention being given to the “overriding” sun blessing… There is a whole class being offered locally, and whole books and booklets being published about the significance of this very regular blessing (the beginning of a new sun cycle)… a subject to which RaMBaM devotes half of one halakhah (about 2-3 lines of text). 

It is a sign of the times: what the early sages taught as minor details are blown up into issues of overriding importance, while outright halakhic obligations such as Shema` and prayer—to which RaMBaM devotes whole chapters—are pushed aside as being of minor importance. 

The prophet Yisha`yahu (Isaiah) foresaw a time when the light of the Jewish people itself will “break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy rear guard.” (Isaiah 58:8)  We will break out of our stubborn paradigms—such as the belief in fasting from food and drink as an end in and of itself—to pursue what truly matters to HaShem on a fast day:  soul-searching, pursuing justice and deeds of loving-kindness.  In short, it will be a time when we finally get our priorities in order. 

In my neighborhood, I see another priority anomaly among small children… Two weeks before Passover, and with their parents’ full sanction, children are preparing for another holiday altogether… They are ‘beating the rush’ to collect wood for Lag ba’Omer—holiday of the Kabbalah—in another six weeks.  That day and the days from pior, hundreds of thousands of Torah observant Jews will gather to the grave of one of the greatest of the Tannaim, reaffirming their dedication to a book that he is widely believed to have authored–the Zohar. 

Lag Ba’Omer fires burn so high and hot, there is scarcely a year without burn victims, often children.  It is a phenomenon that did not exist in the childhood-days of their no-less pious or kabbalistic-minded parents and grandparents:  Not long ago, Lag ba’Omer was a joyous time for families and friends to enjoy a homely campfire, and sing about the awesome wisdom of Shim’on ben YoHai.  Over the years, it has reached the point where a few years back, the television newscast showed a few misguided pseudo-kabbalists throwing silken sheets on to fires as an offering to demons.  Who would imagine that the Torah’s scathing rebuke (Devarim 32:17) was aimed at our late 58^th century, as much as any other time?

Consider those who weren’t satisfied in praying there to HaShem in the merit of Shim’on ben YoHai, but directed their prayers to the Sadiq himself, which is pure idolatry.  And even that pails in comparison to the creation of a new ‘Jesus’ out of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe Schneerson (if you think I am exaggerating, visit http://www.rebbegod.blogspot.com/.)  Sheer, unabashed idolatry.  HaShem-forbid that we should ascribe such beliefs to all or even most of Chabad, but the silence over this from the Chabad world is deafening.  How can anyone be so blind, reading and hearing the eternal curses for such behavior, year by year, in parashath, BuHuqothai:

DEMONIZING THE ZOHAR:  NOT A SIMPLE EQUATION

News of these things can drive some to the opposite extreme: a camp of those satisfied with only a half-story… those who brand the Zohar itself as a medieval book of idolatry. 

Belief in the authenticity of the Zohar is considered a fundamental tenet of faith in nearly all sectors of the Orthodox Jewish world.  Respected as holy writ by such a geniuses such as the Vilna Gaon and Ben Ish Hai, it has been so in nearly all Jewish communities for centuries.  In my perspective, not only do those who vilify Zohar show imprudence by isolating themselves from the Jewish world, they cultivate a hate for something they don’t truly understand.  Moreover, they do not understand the root of the very real problem they see—which is actually a fundamental mistake that Jews have been making for thousands of years: a crisis of priorities.  That is, an emphasis on the mystical and esoteric studies, as a way out from the harsh reality of the literal Word of HaShem, according to the revealed Oral tradition.   

RaMBaM poignantly describes how this crisis in priorities led to our downfall towards the end of the Second Temple era: 

וזו היא שאבדה מלכותנו והחריבה בית מקדשנו והאריכה גלותינו והגיעתנו עד הלום. שאבותינו חטאו ואינם, לפי שמצאו ספרים רבים באלה הדברים של דברי החוזים בכוכבים, שדברים אלו הם עיקר עבודה זרה, כמו שביארנו בהלכות עבודה זרה, טעו ונהו אחריהן, ודימו שהם חכמות מפוארות ויש בהן תועלת גדולה, ולא נתעסקו בלמידת מלחמה ולא בכיבוש ארצות, אלא דמו שאותן הדברים יועילו להם ולפיכך קראו אותם הנביאים סכלים ואווילים .  ודאי סכלים ואווילים היו, ואחרי התוהו אשר לא יועילו הלכו.  (רמב”ם, איגרת לחכמי קהל עיר מארשילייא, צרפת)

(מנוסח האיגרת המופיע ב-http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/mekorot/igeret-2.htm(

This is why our kingdom was lost and our Temple was destroyed and why we were brought to this; for our fathers sinned and are no more because they found many books dealing with these themes of the star gazers, these things being the root of idolatry, as we have made clear in Laws Concerning Idolatry. They erred and were drawn after them, imagining them to be glorious science and to be of great utility. They did not busy themselves with the art of war or with the conquest of lands, but imagined that those studies would help them. Therefore the prophets called them “fools and dolts” (Jer. 4:22). And truly fools they were, “for they walked after confused things that do not profit” (I Sam. 12:21 and Jer. 2:8).   

(RaMBaM, Epistle to the Sages of Marseilles, France)

Demonizing Zohar-mysticism as medieval and pagan not only misses the point, it is also not as simple an equation as some scholars would have you believe. 

Anti-Zoharists often mention Sepher HaYuHasin, which claims the widow of Rav Moshe de Leon admitted that her late husband had personally authored it, falsely claiming the authorship of Shim’on Ben YoHai in order to sell the work.  However, it is difficult to believe a widow would incriminate her own husband in those times.  It is even harder to believe that an author who sought to forge a work in the name of a Tanna in order to increase its buyership would write it in a difficult dialect of Aramaic that only the most advanced Torah scholars could understand.  Wouldn’t he author in the authentic Hebrew of the Tannaim in the Land of Israel at the time?  That would truly increase its readership by making it understandable to the lay scholar.  Furthermore, the “lie” would be accepted more easily—it being easier to fool lower-level scholars than those who are more advanced.   Even advanced scholars would be impressed:  The Mishnah and Pirqei d’Rabi Eli`ezer demonstrate that Hebrew was the language of the Tannaim in the Land of Israel at the time.  Why would Rav De Leon have chosen to use a language that it was known Ribi Shim’on would not have used? 

Now consider that, by Moshe De Leon’s time, Aramaic had been the language of Torah scholarship for centuries.  If Zohar were an Oral tradition that had been passed down through the golden age in the schools of Bavel, it would likely have been preserved in Aramaic.

The greatest anti-Zoharist work is MithpaHath Sefarim, by Rav Ya`aqov Moshe Emden (1697-1776), the Ya`avetz.  This Torah giant exposes literary inconsistencies in the Zohar: misquoted sections from Talmud and even Scripture.  He cites ritual observances in the Zohar that were ordained by later rabbinical authorities, and a mention of the crusades against the Muslims.  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#409   

But wouldn’t a forger who went to the efforts of inventing such an enormous work as the Zohar be at least careful enough not to misquote, and certainly not to mention later historical events?  On the other hand, an organic Oral tradition written down could have misquotes:  Not an oral tradition of halakhah or midrash in the mouths of thousands of scholars, but an organic, esoteric tradition on the subject of Ma’aseh Merkava (the mysteries of the Divine Chariot) and Ma`aseh B:reshith, passed down orally through a very thin chain of students: it is not unlikely that such a tradition would contain a few misquotes, and include applied references to later events. 

What is considered the most convincing, damning evidence against the Zohar is the use of a 13^th century-Spanish word “esnoga” for synagogue.  How would Shim’on ben YoHai use such a word?  To me, this very point might be evidence for the integrity of the work:  Why on earth would Rav De Leon, writing a work intended to fool the Torah giants of the world, put a contemporary Spanish word and misquotes in Shim’on ben YoHai’s mouth?  In short, this is the same faulty assumption that Bible critics use to attack the authenticity of the Humash—lehavdil.  They assume such a stupidity on the part of the author; as if the author himself was unaware of the ‘problems’ and contradictions.   It doesn’t take great a great linguist to know that “esnoga” is closely derived from “synagoga”, the Greek term from which the English word is derived.  Ever since the Hellenist era, nearly all non-Hebrew Torah literature is peppered with Greek and Roman words that crept into the lexicon.  Is it so hard to believe that a Spanish-Jewish copyist would prefer to write “esnoga” in place of “synagoga”?  

Besides this, people are generally unaware of how words from much later periods can appear in the writings of the Sages from centuries ago.  Our tradition contains many secrets about future times.  HaRav Yonatan Dawid sent me an incredible source from HaRav Abarbanel (500 years ago), quoted by haRav Elbaz:

According to the words of R’ Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, in the future there will be something that will want to harm the world, which the Abarbanel refers to as “אטומתא” (atomta), and this is the flame of black fire which will hang in the sky.

The Abarbanel apparently learns this from the Zohar:

In the year sixty-six the Messiah will appear in the land of Galilee. A star in the east will swallow seven stars in the north, and a flame of black fire will hang in the heaven for sixty days, and there shall be wars towards the north in which two kings shall perish. Then all the nations shall combine together against the daughter of Yaakov in order to drive her from the world. It is of that time that it is written: “And it is a time of trouble unto Yaakov, but out of it he shall be saved” (Jeremiah 30:7).  (Zohar, Wayyera 119a)

Should scholars 700 years from now assume the Abarbanel’s writings were written in our 58^th century, the era of the atom bomb?  Now I haven’t personally seen this in the Abarbanel, and it should be investigated before believed, but if it’s there (and I assume it is), that puts the “esnoga” issue (which is perilously close to the Greek “synagoga”, which goes back 2,000 years) in a different light.

Loyal students of RaMBaM who champion the Ya`avetz’s perspective on forgeries of old books don’t realize how they shoot themselves in the foot:  Rav Emden “maintained that The Guide to the Perplexed could not have been written by Maimonides, as he could not imagine that a pious Jew would write a work accepting and promoting what Emden saw as a non-Jewish theology.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Emden  The chief work that de-legitimizes the Zohar de-legitimizes the Guide for the Perplexed as well.

A key, bottom-line question is, what drove the brilliant Ya`avetz to attack the Zohar?  A very similar and noble drive that has pushed the Yemenite “Dor Da`im” in the direction they took:  A century ago, in the time of Mori YiHia QafiH (grandfather of Mori Yusuph QafiH), there were those who worshipped a stellar constellation as HaShem Himself.  They based their idiocy on a verse in the Zohar.  Similarly, Rav Emden was an ardent and vocal opponent of the followers of Shabbethai Tzvi.  Fittingly, he wanted to prove that the work on which the fake-Messiah based his doctrines, was false. 

We can find the same problem with Talmud:  It is no less than an esoteric teaching in tractate Sanhedrin on which Chabad messianics “prove” that the Messiah can be a resurrected soul from the dead.  The existence of such colorful, strange, and sealed lines in the Talmud, does not bring erudite Torah scholars to dismiss the authenticity and importance of Talmud.  However, it did drive RaMBaM to author a simpler work that he hoped would replace it.  (RaMBaM, Epistle to his student, Rav Yoseph Ben Yehudah)     

In fact, how many false doctrines are based on the Tanakh, using and abusing the words of prophets, lehavdil, which were truly composed for the masses to study? 

It is written in Talmud that Menashe, king of Y:hudah had Yisha`yahu the prophet tried by the Sanhedrin as a false prophet, because he wrote, (Yisha`yahu 6:1):

Likewise, Daniel describes HaShem (7:9) as follows:

How many simpletons have stumbled over such verses and fell through the ages.  Yet we do not turn around and claim these prophets were false, or that the prophecies in their books are not really theirs, HaShem forbid.  Rather, we understand that these verses are allegorical, and not to be understood according to the simple meaning.  Now if this is true regarding the Prophets, whose writings were meant for every Jew to study, and destined to be translated into the 70 languages of the world, how much more so the ‘Torah she-be-Sod’, which was forbidden to be written down in the first place, but taught only to one’s choice student through hints and chapter headings?! 

The Talmud Bavli in Hagigah 15a might itself be teaching the folly of attempting to view the most sublime inner secrets of the Torah according to principles of logic.  It is the well-known story of the the four Tannaim who entered “PaRDeS” (the root of the word “paradise”).  They did so through the highest and most powerful and dangerous meditation.  “PaRDeS” is an acronym for the four levels of Torah understanding: “P`sha`t” (simple meaning), “Remez” (hints) and “D‘rash” (derived meaning), and “Sod”.  It is understood (I cannot recall the source) that each of the four represents a different gate that each entered—four different levels of understanding.  Of the four, Ben Azzai died, Ben Zoma went insane (“nifga`”) and Elisha ben Avuyah (“AHer”) became an apostate.  The only Tanna who entered and left in peace was rabi `Aqivah, who entered through the path of ”Sod.”  Considering what we know about the mystical genius of Rabi `Aqivah (who derived halakhah from the crowns of the letters), this interpretation is solid. 

Now here’s the point:  If the high and pristine Torah knowledge the first three had mastered could not have prepared them for what they would perceive through the eyes of the naked soul in the supernal realms, who is anyone today to assume the ability to judge the authenticity of highly esoteric verses that are only intended for the most mature scholars, who had already mastered the entire Written and Oral Torah–on the basis of halakhic codes that were written for everyone,  including women and children?  For this reason, it is written in the introduction of “`ES haHayyim”, the teachings of the Ar”i z”l, that the Zohar can only be studied after mastering Shas (Talmud) and Posqim (halakhah).  Ashkenazi schools put up further fences: only a married man with children, and after the age of forty.

I am not claiming to know for a fact whether or not the Zohar is an authentic tradition directly from Rabi Shim’on ben YoHai.  There is a middle position taken by Moshe Idel.  I hear that he recognizes the multi-layered nature of the text before us today, but demonstrates that it is based around a core from the era of the Tannaim.  After all, the tradition is that Zohar is an oral tradition that was written down much later, based on an oral tradition—and oral traditions are organic.  I continue to learn and question honestly, to the degree I am able. 

One thing has become clear to me: mocking the Zohar based on shallow arguments is an ignorant thing to do.  Consider another example of illogic used to “prove” the forgery of the Zohar:  The Jewish encyclopedia (see the web source above) claims:

“To determine the country in which the work originated and the time at which its teachings began to develop, it is necessary to ascertain where and when the Jews became intimately acquainted with the Hindu philosophy, which more than any other exercised an influence on the Zohar. As an instance of Hindu teachings in the Zohar may be quoted the following passage:  (Zohar, iii. 9b).

“In the book of Hamnuna the Elder we learn through some extended explanations that the earth turns upon itself in the form of a circle; that some are on top, the others below; that all creatures change in aspect, following the manner of each place, but keeping in the same position. But there are some countries on the earth which are lighted while others are in darkness; and there are countries in which there is constantly day or in which at least the night continues only some instants. . . . These secrets were made known to the men of the secret science, but not to the geographers”

In other words, if Jews had knowledge that only Hindus are known to have had at the time, then the Jews—who never really knew much anyway—must have got it from the Hindus…!  Clearly the “expert” here who wrote this did not consider that the earth as a sphere on which its tiny inhabitants dwell is mentioned in Yisha`yahu 40:

The first recognized references to a spherical earth are the works of Pythagoras (who was familiar with Jewish wisdom) and Aryabhata (India), both of whom lived two centuries after Isaiah.  Does that make the Book of Isaiah a forgery from later times because the Greeks and Indians are supposed to have known this fact first?  In fact the scientific wisdom of the peoples of the East likely originated in none other than our own ancestor, Avraham (see Rashi on Genesis 25:4-5). 

I wonder where the above-mentioned “expert” from the Jewish Encyclopedia would assume the author of the Zohar learned the date the Jewish People would be returning to EreS Yisra’el—(5)708  (1948).  In parashath Behar (Wayiqra 25:10), the word “tashuvu” appears “Haser wow” (lacking a letter “vav”).  The Zohar derives from this, that “tashuvu” (tow–400, shin–300, veth–2, wow–6… = 708) will be the year that the Jewish People would be returned to their ancestral heritage.  Perhaps scholars 700 years from now might suggest the book was written in the last century!

ZOHAR IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE

What cannot be emphasized enough is that belief in the Zohar’s authenticity has no practical halakhic implications whatsoever.  The legal traditions that hail from the last Great Courts of the Sanhedrin in Tiberius and the Amoraim in Babylon, codified succinctly in the Mishneh Torah of Maimonidies are the law, regardless of whatever divergent opinions the historical Ribbi Shim`on ben YoHai may have had.     Consider the humility of the great Tanna in an incredible source, found in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Berakhoth 6b):  (1)

ר’ שמעון בן יוחי עבד עובדא בשמיטתא חמא חד מלקט ספיחי שביעית אמר ליה ולית אסור ולאו ספיחין אינון אמרו ליה ולא את הוא שאת מתיר אמר ליה ואין חבירי חולקין עלי וקרי עלוי (קוהלת י) ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש וכן הות ליה. 

Rabbi Shimon ben YoHai proved a point about Shemittah. One came to pick sephiHin [produce that grows of its own during the Shemittah year--not planted. He had previously ruled it to be permitted to pick these during Shemittah, but the Sanhedrin overruled his opinion].

He [the sage] said, “isn’t it forbidden [what you are doing]?  And aren’t those sephiHin?”

“Yes, but aren’t you [the one] who permits it?!”

“Yes, [the rabbi answered] but didn’t my colleagues disagree with me [and overrule my opinion]?!“  And he recited over him [the verse from Qoheleth/Ecclesiastes 10], ‘he who breaks a fence [of the rabbis], a snake will bite him.’ And so it happened. [HaShem fulfilled the word of the Sadiq, and a snake bit the man.]”

This source is so precious because it proves that Ribbi Shim’on ben YoHai, no matter what he taught and wrote, subjugated himself to the majority opinion of the Sanhedrin.  He may have privately held opinions that veered far from the view his colleagues. But he NEVER would have agreed to future generations relying on his words against the accepted halakhah as it was codified.   Were he alive today, I have little doubt he would have us following the Mishneh Torah of RaMBaM as practical halakhah.  And that requires that we master “the small thing”—the entire halakhah in order to fulfill it—before moving on to “the great thing”—the mysteries of the Creation and the Divine Chariot.

That being the case, I sincerely doubt he would have written those mysteries down, contrary to Sanhedrin legislation.  The Sages instituted great limitations on who could be taught the mysteries of the Creation and the Divine Chariot and how much.  These teachings were and remain utterly forbidden to be written down until today.  Fittingly, what is written in Zohar bothers some Godfearing scholars much less that the fact it was written down in a book for the masses to study and understand however they will… 

This issue is hinted at in one particular teaching from the Torah of Moshe Rabbenu that has been a guiding light in my own relationship with HaShem: 

In the book of Devarim (29), Moshe teaches prophetically of what will be the reaction of non-Jews when they visit the Land—which have will long been left desolate after the people would be exiled from the Land due to their sins.  The non-Jews will be astonished at its desolation, and will be moved to ask:

It will be understood by the straight horse-sense of a non-Jew that the Israelites had abandoned the covenant (the actual laws and statutes of HaShem) for foreign gods, which we know to mean a foreign style of worship, and foreign values and teachings.  Now what is the final, bottom-line moral lesson that Moshe drives home at the end of this—which must be learned from the future failure of the nation (which, from our vantage point today is our past)?

HaShem demands that, after all is said and done, that his laws be fulfilled with goodness of heart.  That is the eternal, authentic Torah message of the prophets which repeats itself continually in Tana”kh (Bible).  Over-emphasis on serving the Divine through the study of holy, esoteric secrets – while minimizing the role of law, legislated ethics and pure goodness of heart – is the very opposite of that approach.  Today it is kabbalistic secrets, while in yesteryear it was beliefs such as in fasting as a magical ritual that automatically catalyzes HaShem’s forgiveness and blessing.  Or the belief in the Temple Service as a magical-ritual that guaranteed HaShem’s protection and blessing.  No matter how great their sins, they were—after all—tending the one and only Temple to HaShem: surely HaShem would not destroy His own Temple!  Both prophets railed against such thinking.   To those who fasted as an end in and of itself, Isaiah railed:

Now we can understand how concentrating on the revealed Will of HaShem—the Commandments of the Written Law according to their authentic codification in Oral Law—is the rectification of our serving our foreign worship.

In other words, it is not an issue of how authentic the Zohar is, versus another ancient aggadic work; but an issue of priority.  Is encouraging the masses of Jewish People to delve into these secrets the answer to our nation’s woes… masses who have no solid grounding in the law? 

Today mystically-minded Jews search for the ultimate “tiqun” (reparation) for their souls.  What they too often fail to discover is that, in the broadest sense, the “tiqun” of our nation after our being exiled from our land, is to leave the secret things to HaShem, and concentrate on the revealed matters—the Written and Oral Torah teachings that have belonged to us forever—that we may actually fulfill all the words of HaShem’s Law.

When this will finally be understood by the masses who yearn for spiritual, mystical teachings, I believe the Name of HaShem will cease to be profaned, and—as Isaiah promised–our light as a nation of priests will shine (“Zoher”) brilliantly.  Moreover, the Temple will be rebuilt, the Shekhinah (the palpable, awesome Presence of HaShem) will return to the Land, and the world will enjoy a spiritual ecstasy it has never known.

Shabboth Shalom and a Hagh PesaH kasher wa-sameyaH,

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Beith Midrash Ohel Moshe

________________________

(Based on O’M 23: “Searching for the Truth about Zohar” from the original Ohel Moshe series, 5767)

(1)  Quotes from Bible and the quote from Talmud Yerushalmi were copied from the manuscript editions found at the ‘Mechon Mamre’ website, www.mechon-mamre.org.  The English translation is original, but close to the electronic text (c) by Larry Nelson.

A Fresh, New, Orderly Presentation of the Facts
Establishing the Common Cuttlefish as the true Hilazon for tekheleth
over Murex Trunculus, the source for the Bibilical color Argaman

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Beith Midrash Ohel Moshe

* * *

I bow my head and prostrate fully before the Almighty in gratitude
for the generous support of my parents,
the selfless help of my wife Levana,
the friendship and gracious help of HaRav YaHad Yosef haKohen Witt,
the scholarship of Dr. Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D,
the G-dfearing Torah scholars who witnessed every detail of the chemical test,
the guidance of Mori Shelomo ben-Avraham,
and for the Torah student whose important question catalyzed this project.

They all have my heartfelt gratitude.
May the proofs in this work, resting on the shoulders of those greater than I, be acceptable before You HaShem,
and may my words find grace in Your Eyes as a vehicle of Torah truth and clarity.

I trust that You have Saved me from error, but if I have indeed erred,
please Cause me to learn where and how, and I will swiftly correct the work.

* * *

In Dedication to the Memory of HaRav HaGaon Gershon Hanokh Leiner ז”ל,
Grand Rabbi of Radzin, rediscoverer of the long lost Hilazon for tekheleth

* * *

May HaShem see our sincere pursuit of Torah truth
and have compassion on His People in these stormy, troubled times.
May He raise up a redeemer to be the true Messiah-king, swiftly in our days.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. WHAT CAN BE KNOWN BASED ON FACTUAL DEFINITIONS
3. WHAT THE TORAH SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY
   • REGARDING THE BODY OF THE HILAZON
   • REGARDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HILAZON
   • REGARDING THE FLUID FOR PRODUCING TEKHELETH
4. ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DIONUN
   • A REMINDER OF THE EXODUS
   • A REMINDER NOT TO STRAY AFTER OUR HEART AND EYES
     • Warning us about the heart’s temptation to apostacy
     • Warning us about the eyes’ temptation to forbidden sexual intercourse
5. CONCLUSION: PUTTING RADZINER TEKHELETH TO THE TALMUD’S CHEMICAL TESTS
   • WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE INITIAL TEST
6. FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT THE HILAZON
7. AFTERWORD: A WORD OF RESPECT, A CALL FOR UNITY

I. INTRODUCTION

Tekheleth is a complex subject that most observant Jews avoid. They make one of the following choices: (1) to blindly follow their rabbi, (2) to ignore the commandment altogether, seeing that most rabbis only wear white, (3) to read a attractive pamphlet about it or attend a one-sided lecture and allow themselves to be convinced without studying the other side with the Talmudic sources with an open mind. That is unfortunate, because those options can lead us to make a wrong choice and invalidate our SiSith (fringes). Even if our studies do not lead us to wear any brand of tekheleth, being aware of the actual sources can transform SiSith-an otherwise dry commandment-into a beautiful means of higher awareness. After all, besides being the object of a commandment, SiSith are a tool to help us maintain the lofty focus that HaShem expects of us throughout our days. I hope that this article will help many to that end.

Now how can the wrong tekheleth choice invalidate the miSwah? The prevailing modern opinion is that one suffers no loss if the tekheleth you are wearing turns out to be a fake. After all, so it is claimed, there is no prohibition in wearing a colored thread in your SiSiyoth (fringes): If it’s not the true tekheleth, then it is merely kosher string dyed blue…

This position contradicts both RaMBaM’s Mishneh Torah and rational thinking. Tekheleth can actually be passul-legally invalid. Let’s consider what that means: One fact that needs to sink into our heads is taught in both Laws of SiSith-fringes 1:2, and 2:1: (1)

…ולוקחין חוט צמר שנצבע כעין הרקיע, וכורכין אותו על הענף; וחוט זה, הוא הנקרא תכלת.

…and one takes a string of wool that is dyed the color of the [dark] sky… and this string is called tekheleth.” (1:2)

תכלת האמורה בתורה בכל מקום, הוא הצמר הצבוע כפתוך שבכוחל…

The tekheleth mentioned in every place in the Torah is the wool that is dyed a shade of blue… (2:1)

We learn here that tekheleth is not merely the special color derived from a unique creature. Rather, it is the wool itself that is dyed that special color. Therefore, if your tekheleth happens to be passul (invalid) for SiSith, your whole dyed string tied into your garment is passul. Understand why:

In the same law above (2:1), we see that even if it is the proper shade of blue, tekheleth derived from indigo or other dark hues, is פסול לציצית-”passul for SiSith”: It must be the dye derived from the Hilazon-fish (2:2). This an ancient law indeed, rooted in the Tosefta, MenaHoth 9:6:

תכלת אין כשרה אלא מן החלזון, שלא מן החלזון פסולה.

Only tekheleth from the Hilazon is kosher; what is not from the Hilazon is passul.

Note now the exact same wording for the string made from the wool of a worshipped animal (1:11): המשתחווה לבהמה, צמרה פסול לציצית-”If one prostrates himself to an animal, its wool is passul for SiSith.”

It is clear that one who incorporates such a string into his SiSioth has invalidated them: He is wearing only six kosher strings instead of eight (since each string is doubled); halakhically it’s as if the invalid string does not exist. It makes no difference if the string is from idolatrous material or invalid tekheleth: both are “passul”-invalid-leaving the garment incompletely fringed. From the moment one dons such a garment, he has transgressed the commandment to be wearing proper fringes on a four-cornered garment. The blessing he recites is a blessing in vain-a grave sin (Laws of Blessings 1:15, Talmud in Berakhoth 33a). And if he goes out while wearing it on Shabboth, his fringes are considered a burden being carried; he is liable (Laws of Shabboth 19:20).

Now it is an iron-cast rule that whenever we are in doubt regarding a case of a possible Torah prohibition (as opposed to a rabbinical prohibition), we are obligated to be strict, and refrain from the doubtful act. (Laws of Rebels 1:9) Now consider the fact that when truly-kosher tekheleth is unavailable, one may fulfill the Torah commandment of SiSith with white strings only (1:4). Is it not prudent to carefully study the sources before making a hasty decision that entails such risk?

I do not hide that this article is biased in one direction, but that is only after years of highly un-biased research. HaShem has blessed me with friends and teachers in both camps. I confess that over the years, I have worn blue dyed strings according to both opinions. But back in 5760, when I came to learn of the danger involved, lacking the proper tools to judge, I backed out of the tekheleth debate and returned to wearing white. Then, two years ago, a colleague showed me new evidence, causing the scales to tilt decisively in one direction… I began to learn the facts anew in earnest. The result of HaShem’s help and my own efforts is this guide, meant to present the facts and Torah sources in a clear and simple way, so that anyone can retrace the steps to the conclusion.

There are two main opinions regarding possible sources of kosher tekheleth. These have generated two products being sold today. My intention is not to promote either one at this time, but only to compare the sources of their respective dyes-both of which are claimed to be the authentic ‘Hilazon’ for tekheleth.

First, is the “Radziner tekheleth”, according to the opinion of the Rebbe of Radzin, that Sepia Officinalis, the common cuttlefish, (dionun, in Hebrew), is the lost Hilazon. This opinion, adopted early on by the Breslover Hassidic movement, is the most-commonly derided opinion. It is the opinion commonly thrown out of hand in the ivory halls of the yeshivah world.

Second is the more popular, rabbinically-espoused opinion claiming a solid scientific base, that Murex trunculus fits the bill. It is the source of the product of the Petil Tekhelet organization. Enjoying generous financial support, it is promoted in impressive multimedia, traveling lecturers, and a “tekheleth” factory with guided tours to visitors and groups.

However, when we actually study the sources objectively, we find that the good intentions and strong funding behind the Murex movement are working to prop up an untenable halakhic position… one that twists or ignores most of the few marks of identification left to us by our Sages.

II. WHAT CAN BE KNOWN BASED ON FACTUAL DEFINITIONS

Before I begin with the Torah sources, I’ll reveal the known, true identity of Murex trunculus: It is none other than the source of the biblical color argaman, which is red-purple. We know this from the dictionary definition of “Helzon ha-Argaman”-the creature from which biblical purple was derived-in the exhaustive Avraham Even-Shoshan Hebrew dictionary, haMilon ha’Ivri haMerukaz. (2)

The definition states:

חלזון-הארגמן, חלזון שוכן-ים בעל קונכיה עבה ומפתלת. חלזון-הארגמן הוא בעל בלוטה המפרישה מיץ צהבהב ההופך באור לאדם-סגול. מיץ זה שמש בימי קדם לצביעת בגדים בצבע ארגמן. למשפחה חלזונות-הארגמן שיכים הסוגים: ארגמן (Murex) וארגמנית (Purpura).

Helzon ha-argaman: A sea-dwelling snail with a thick, convoluted shell. ‘Helzon ha-argaman’ has a gland that secretes a yellowish liquid that turns to reddish purple in light. This liquid served in dyeing clothing in the color argaman in ancient times. Belonging to the argaman-snail family are the types: argaman (Murex) and argamanith (Purpura).

From this we can know that the Murex cannot be the same ‘Hilazon’ that was used for tekheleth. Like tekheleth, argaman too was a very important color to the Sages; it was required to fulfill the Torah injunctions regarding the clothing of the kohen-priests, parokhoth, etc. If the same creature yielded both argaman and tekheleth, then the sages would not have spoken about it exclusively in terms of its role in producing tekheleth, but in its dual role in producing argaman as well.

-The dionun is a small squid. This, by the way, is no contradiction to the fact that the simple meaning of the word Hilazon in Hebrew is “snail.” According to the article Cuttlefish Basics, in “The Octopus News Magazine Online”: (3)

Cuttlefish are much more closely related to garden slugs and snails than they are to fish! They belong to the same group of animals as the octopuses, squid and nautilus and like a snail they are all mollusks.

Therefore, any ancient mention of Hilazon that refers to snails is no contradiction to the dionun being a type of Hilazon.

III. WHAT THE TORAH SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY

REGARDING THE BODY OF THE HILAZON

1) In Mishneh Torah, RaMBaM refers to the Hilazon as “dagh” – a fish. The Talmud teaches that its form resembles that of a fish, and that its actual body resembles the sea. (Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2; Talmud in MenaHoth 44a, see Rash”i ad loc and Rabbenu Gershom)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea… (RaMBaM)

ת”ר חלזון זהו גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג…

The Rabbis taught: The Hilazon‘s body resembles the sea, and its form resembles that of a fish… (Talmud)

A wide variety of sea-life can fit the general category of “fish” or fish-like in form. A basic requirement to fit this description, however-the only quality that can render a sea-creature “fish-like”-is that it must swim. If it didn’t swim, the Hilazon could never have been referred to as a fish. At least it should have fish-like features, such as a fin-like appendage or eyes.

Murex trunculus, a sea-snail, sits and plods slowly on the rocks and sea floor. It has no eyes or any fin or flipper-like features; rather it is fully enclosed (from the time it is hatched) inside an odd-shaped shell (4) with asymmetrical spines… If the Sages wanted to find the best description of the Murex in few words for the benefit of future generations, would they have chosen “fish” or “fish-like in form”?

Pro-Murex scholars claim that “b’riyatho” refers to “its formation”; i.e. that the Murex trunculus spawns like a fish. However, since all bi-valve mollusks (including cuttlefish) spawn (5) why would the Sages have chosen this mark of identification for future generations? It does not help. They were clearly referring to something else that distinguishes the Hilazon from most other mollusks.

- The dionun swims freely and swiftly through the water all its life: truly a fish-like creature. It has a long fish-like fin encircling its body and two large eyes as fish do. As we wrote earlier, the root of the Hebrew name is “nun”, meaning “fish”. The same goes for its English name: Although it is a mollusk, it is called the common cuttlefish.

The Murex literature claims that Talmud’s comparison of the Hilazon to the sea was understood by the RaMBaM to refer to its coloring-that it’s coloring resembles the sea (see point #2 below). However, the Talmudic source says nothing about color: it compares the physical body of the creature to the actual sea itself. When compared to the dionun, there is little about the body of the Murex or its shell that warrants being compared to the moving water.

-On the contrary, the dionun‘s long fin that wraps around its long, flattened oval (in cross-section) body from behind its head. This fringe continuously ripples with waves along the creature’s length, giving the creature a body that truly resembles the wave-action of the sea. Nothing proves this better than an actual video of the dionun in its natural environment. (6) Another must-see is this video of the dionun feeding. (7)

2) RaMBaM teaches that its color is that of the sea. (Laws of SiSith-fringe 2:2)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea… (RaMBaM)

Murex trunculus is brown. Only with its “sea-fouling” is its color blue. However, the RaMBaM never wrote “whose color is blue“, but rather “whose color is like the sea“. In seconds, the dionun‘s color changes ( 8 ) dramatically to suit its surrounding color background, camouflaging it in the multi-colored undersea environment, wherever it may be. That is truer to the wording “whose color is like the sea“.

One of the ironies of the tekheleth controversy is that Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Hertzog, oft-presented as the champion of Murex trunculus as the Hilazon, rejected Murex trunculus as he did the dionun. One chief reason he had for rejecting both is clearly based on his usage of the corrupt version of the Mishneh Torah printed in Vilna. It reads (see the above source) “…whose color is similar to the color of tekheleth”. Rabbi Hertzog recognized that neither the dionun nor the Murex is blue. Had he been aware of the authentic Yemenite manuscripts which show the Hilazon‘s color being compared to that of the sea itself, it is probable that he would have had more respect for the identification of the Hilazon with the dionun than with Murex trunculus..)

3) The dionun has an outer covering referred to as a “malbush”-a garment.

The Sages taught, “when it grows, its malbush grows with it“. [Midrash Devarim Rabbah 7:11] “Malbush”, meaning “garment”, seems to imply a softer covering. In his excellent work Understanding the Criteria for the Chilazon (9) for which we’re greatly indebted, Dr. Mendel E. Signer writes:

“The term malvush [sic], garment, seems to imply that is not merely attached, but covers the body of the chilazon, or surrounds it. Murex trunculus has a shell of its own, but doesn’t seem to have anything else that could be termed a malvush.”

When you look at the dionun from above or the side, it literally looks like it is wearing an external coat of some sort, a garment. You can clearly see this feature at this video link. (10) And that soft covering indeed grows with it from birth: Click here (11) to see the little “malbush” of a fetus already flapping like a coat with the beating of its heart before it has hatched.

4) The Sages describe the Hilazon as having a type of skeleton and sinews. (Talmud Yerushalmi 8a 1,3).

It is hard to imagine what “bones” or “sinews” the Sages could find in a frail, jelly-like murex specimen, needing a thick shell to house its limp body.

Now it seems that the Sages needed to formally establish the above fact (regarding the “bones and sinews”), because it was not readily perceivable. Although it is not immediately apparent, the dionun, having an inner shell (the “cuttlebone”), fits this criteria. The Sages would have referred to the cuttlebone as a skeleton: Its purpose is to give the creature shape, support, and protection of its internal organs. Furthermore, its limbs must have sinews of some kind since it can control its limbs to swim and catch prey.

REGARDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HILAZON

5) The Hilazon, rises up (to the shore) every seventy years; that is why it is expensive. (MenaHoth 44a, se also Rashi ad loc) It emerges from the sea onto the mountain cliffs, burrowing in the sand. (Meghilla 6a and Hulin 99a, see also Rashi ad loc)

ת”ר חלזון… ועולה אחד לשבעים שנה ובדמו צובעין תכלת לפיכך דמיו יקרים. (מס’ מנחות מד.)

The Hilazon… and it rises [to the shore] once every seventy years and with its blood tekheleth is dyed; therefore its cost is high [or "its blood is expensive"]. (MenaHoth 44a)

We spoke to the fisherman Shaul Kaplan, who harvests both the murex for the “Petil Tekheleth” organization and the dinonun. While he personally does not consider the dionun to be the Hilazon, he admitted candidly that Murex trunculus never rises up on the shore. They can be so difficult to harvest that divers are hired to vacuum the mollusks out of their shells that grip the undersea terrain.

Marginalizing this point, the P’til tekheleth literature claims that what made tekheleth expensive is that each snail yields so little dye, that it took as much as 8,000 snails to yield only one gram of dye. According to Dr. Singer’s landmark article: (9)

Rabbi Herzog [whom the Murex-adherent scholars cite as their champion when it is convenient] indicates that this requirement implies that the quantity of dye in the chilazon was not very small, which is inconsistent with murex trunculus.

Now, consider the reading of the Talmudic verse above:

Rashi explains what seems clear from a straight reading of the text: The Sages cited the Hilazon’s rare appearance as a reason for the high value of tekheleth. They say nothing about the minute quantity of dye they yield. And regarding Murex trunculus, we should rather speak about its non-appearance altogether… A further question: Today, Murex snails are harvested almost exclusively overseas, off of foreign shores. Was it ever possible from the shores of Israel to regularly harvest the inestimable number of Murex snails required to support the needs of a tekheleth-wearing nation?

Regarding the dionun, Kaplan told us that a few generations ago the tide brought up a whole slough of them up to the shore. This corroborates with reports of mass strandings of dionunim, (12) “sometimes by the thousand” (see entry for 22 May 2000) on the shore during years when they are more abundant. Moreover, the Radziner Rebbe learned that this happens between Haifa and Tzor, this being the very coastal region navigated and fished by the seafaring tribe of Zevulun. According to Talmud (see point #5 below) – Zevulun had the exclusive role of harvesting the Hilazon for tekheleth.

These mass strandings on the sea cliffs of Haifa are specifically referred to in terse, enigmatic verses in Talmud and rabbinical commentary that the Hilazon were found in the mountains (Sanhedrin 91a), and that it “rises up from the sea up to the mountains” (see Rash”i both in Meghilla 6a and Hulin 99a). This criteria is greater fleshed out in the Radziner Rebbe’s magnum opus, Sefunei Temunei Hol (“Treasures Hidden in the Sand”) (13) the foundational work on the subject. (In the online English translation, (14) see from the words “The Explanation of where the Hillazon can be found”.) Until the Radziner Rebbe rediscovered the dionun-Hilazon equation, these verses were poorly understood for centuries.

6) The Hilazon can only be a fast-moving creature that can flee. It required “Sida” (capture) like fish by expert seafarers. One who does this trapping of the Hilazon on Shabboth is fully liable for the melakhah (forbidden labor) of trapping. (Talmudic sources cited below)

We know this because harvesting the Hilazon for tekheleth was exclusively the industry of the tribe of Zevulun, the one sea-faring tribe. (This is clearly during the times when the Hilazon does not rise up to the shore-something that happens only on very rare occasion (see point #5). In this they had no competition from the other tribes along the Mediterranean coast, Dan and Asher. (Meghillah 6a). If harvesting Hilazon were as simple as collecting (“asipha” in Hebrew) sea snails off the rocks and shallow sea bed, why was the expertise of Zevulun required? It is clearly a fast-moving sea creature that demanded more experienced fishing techniques. This is why Talmud refers to those who harvested it as “Saiadei ha-Hilazon”-trappers of the Hilazon (Shabboth 26a), not “os’phei ha-Hilazon”-collectors of the Hilazon.

Now it is a principle in the laws of Shabboth that only one who traps a fast-moving creature that can flee (like fish) is liable for trapping. One who “traps” a creature that is “meHusar Sida”-unable to flee- is not liable. (hilkhoth Shabboth 10:19) Consider what is taught in Shabboth 75a:

הצד צבי וכו’: ת”ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת… אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר”ש בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שאני הכא דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה:

CAPTURING A DEER, etc. Our Rabbis taught: He who traps a Hilazon and crushes it is liable to one [sin-offering]… But Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Shim’on admits in a case of ‘cut off his head but let him not die!’ Here it is different, because he is more pleased that it should be alive, so that the dye should be clearer.

(a re-translation by the author based on the Soncino translation of the Talmud [15] )

We see here an established law that one who traps and kills a Hilazon (in the process of removing its dye-producing fluid) on the Shabboth is only liable once: he transgressed Torah law on account of only one forbidden labor… Abbaye and Rabbah explain he is not liable for killing the creature, since that was against the intentions of the dyer (see point #7 below!). One might ask: what about the “labors” of swimming and carrying it to the shore? The answer: The surface of the sea is a zone designated in Torah law as “karmelith”: (16) While it is forbidden by the Sages, swimming in the sea and removing an object from the water and carrying it to the shore does not entail any of the 39 classical forbidden Torah labors. The only forbidden labor he has done is trapping-meaning that he must have caught a fast-moving creature that can flee.

The Murex, a sea snail, cannot flee; it is “meHusar Sida”-it cannot be “trapped” as such. It need only be collected by hand from the sea floor.

The dionun, on the other hand, a highly-active predator, is a fast-moving creature and needs to be trapped like any fish, except for the rare occasion when they are found stranded on the shore.

REGARDING THE FLUID FOR PRODUCING TEKHELETH

7) Tekheleth is derived not from an internal vital fluid, but from fluid ejected from its body. (Rash”i on BaMidbar 15:38)

…וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת. (במדבר טו:לח)

…and they shall place upon the fringe of each corner a string of tekheleth. (15:38)

תְּכֵלֶת: צבע ירוק של חלזון. (פירוש רש”י שם) (17)

tekheleth: the spat out [or "ejected"] color of the Hilazon. (Rashi’s commentary)

Remember that Rash”i’s common tradition with RaMBaM as to the visual appearance of lost, ancient artifacts is established in the case of the menorah (both understood that the arms were straight, not curved). In his commentary on the term “tekheleth”, he defines it as Seva’ yaruq shel Hilazon”-”spat out [or "ejected"] color of Hilazon“. According to this translation (as opposed to “yaroq” meaning “green”), the blood the Sages are referring to is not a vital secretion from the creature’s innards, but the color it ‘spits out’ (from the verb “yoreq”)… Obviously, this has no meaning for the murex, which is not a squid, but a sea-snail.

Some scholars, reading the above term as yaroq-green-connect the term with the ominous teaching (Talmud, MenaHoth 43b):

What distinguishes tekheleth from other colors? ‘tekheleth resembles the sea, sea resembles grass, grass resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory, as it is written “and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. (Shemoth 24:10)

They say that the blue spoken of here is blue-green: turquoise. I believe this is a mistake. The correct reading is “yaruq”, not “yaroq”. Furthermore, I understand the Talmud to be describing a meditation that ‘ tekheleth’ lends itself to, which other colors do not as easily: The color first reminds you of the sea’s waves. This resembles the tall, waving grass rippling in the wind (our ancestors were describing tall prairie grass-even bluegrass, (18) (native to Israel’s greater region of the world as well), which is vividly blue. (19) This, in turn, reminds us of the sky with its rippling wave-like cloud formations. This, in turn, reminds us of prophetic visions of Heavenly sapphire…

If the Murex adherents insist that the reading is not “yaruq” (spat out, ejected) but “yaroq” (green), they undermine their own theory, since their product is neither green nor turquoise! However, when they claim that their dye turns to green on its way to blue, consider what we learned on a visit to the Radziner tekheleth-dyeing center in B’nei Brak: We saw green strings hanging. When we asked, we were told that the woolen strings turn out green when the dye is poor quality. Even if one believes that “ירוק” means “green” and not “ejected”, the Murex dye has no greater proof than the ‘dionun’.

On the other contrary, Radziner tekheleth is not derived from any such secretion of a vital gland. On the contrary, it is produced from the black ink-like color it ejects-precisely as the Sages wrote.

8) RaMBaM declares in plain language, “damo shaHor”-”its blood is black like ink”. (Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים ודמו שחור כדיו, ובים המלח הוא מצוי…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea, whose blood is black, and is found in the Mediterranean sea.

As we see from the dictionary definition above (2), the “blood” of the Murex is “a yellowish liquid that turns to reddish purple in light”, and a deep blue in bright sunlight. It is never black or even close to it. This is the clearest and simplest proof that the Murex cannot be the same Hilazon for tekheleth that our Sages wrote of.

-The very name “dionun”, meaning “ink-fish” in Hebrew, expresses in a word the key points of RaMBaM’s definition of the Hilazon (hilkhoth SiSith 2:2) in the above source: a fish whose “blood” is ink-like. The color derived from the dionun is a dark brown (which was a shade of “shaHor” ["black"] in the simple color spectrum of the ancient Hebrews), and was actually used to produce the ink called sepia in ancient times. In the language of my son’s science book, (20) its ejected color is “shaHor ki-dio”-black like ink-, the precise words of the RaMBaM regarding the “blood” of the Hilazon.

9) The dye is the best quality when removed while the Hilazon remains alive. (sources cited below)

The Talmud teaches us that the actual dye that comes out is clearer and thereby superior, when it is extracted while the Hilazon is alive. (Shabboth 75a) This is so significant that whoever kills it on Shabboth is not liable for the forbidden Shabboth labor of ne’tilath neshamah (ending a life), since his intention is that it remain alive and not die. In his crucial article clarifying the criteria for the Hilazon, (9) Dr. Singer explains how this makes little sense in context of murex trunculus:

Petil [pro-murex 'tekheleth'] followers argue that the murex secretion (mucus) loses its dyeing power a few hours after the snail’s death. This doesn’t help since the Gemara is speaking not of a few hours, but mere moments after death. Another problem is Pliny’s statement that the murex discharges its dye upon death. If so, the reason not to kill the murex when removing the gland containing the dye is because otherwise the precious few drops of dye will be lost!

In short, the Sages speak about the quality of the dye; not about the danger of losing the dye altogether. If it was not clear until now, it should now be now: the Sages were not discussing Murex trunculus.

10) Although the Hilazon has a hard shell, it is only necessary to squeeze its soft side to remove its dye.

How is it possible to remove the dye-producing fluid without killing the creature (see points 6 and 9 above)? The murex experts always point out that the Talmudic sources using the term “poS’o”, refer to “breaking open” the Hilazon. (Tosefta, Shabboth 9:2, Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabboth 52a) This seems to only make sense with the murex-a shellfish-which needs its shell to be broken open to harvest is dye. However, “PoS’o” can refer to wounding the body in general. In B’nei Brak, the Radziner dyers are usually able to harvest the ink without cracking the cuttlebone. Furthermore, even if “poS’o” truly refers to cracking or breaking, this does occur sometimes if the ink is removed from the back…

Dr. Singer (9) writes (italics and bold added for clarity):

Rashi says [ad loc] that the person squeezes (docheik) the chilazon in his hand to get out the blood (dye secretion). From Rashi’s comment we can only infer that squeezing the chilazon can make the dye come out. Rashi’s use of the word “squeeze” is difficult to understand since it seems to imply a soft substance, not a hard shell. This difficulty in understanding Rashi might be resolved if the chilazon, while being held in the hand, has a shell on one side, and flesh on the other. Thus, the person squeezes the fleshy side of the chilazon, and in the process may crack open, or crush, the hard shell on the other side. Murex trunculus has a hard, external shell that is cracked in order to get the dye out. The shell almost completely encloses the body. This would be consistent with the usual understanding of potzea, but not with Rashi’s docheik.

11) In order to derive the proper dye for tekheleth, ‘blood’ of the Hilazon must undergo mixing and boiling together with special samamanim-additives-in a process only known to expert dyers at the time. (MenaHoth 42b; Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2)

With the murex, the blood naturally achieves its tekheleth-color and dye-like properties simply by exposure to the sun. No herbal additives, no boiling… THAT IS ALL. This clearly can not be the tekheleth described by RaMBaM, quoting the early Sages, citing vivid details of something that was obviously very well-known to them.

The dionun, on the other hand, produces a color that must truly undergo an intricate process of boiling with additives (namely iron filings), to achieve its blue dye properties. While this is the dionun‘s main source of derision by the Murex followers; to anyone who has studied Mishneh Torah seriously, it is actually a sign that this is the right creature.

A Terrible Misunderstanding:

To delegitimize Radziner tekhelet, the P’til Tekhelet organization gives the following version of the truth:

Rav Herzog obtained a sample of this dye and had it chemically analyzed. The chemists concluded that it was a well-known synthetic dye “Prussian blue” whose color is produced from iron filings, with the cuttlefish merely supplying nitrogen which could have as easily been supplied from a vast array of organic sources (e.g., ox blood). R. Herzog thus rejected the cuttlefish as the chilazon and some suggest that had the Radzyner Rebbe known this fact, he too would have rejected it based on his explicit criterion that the blue color must come from the animal and that all other additives are permitted solely to aid the color in adhering to the wool (P’til Tekhelet, p.168). (21)

This badly misrepresents what the Radziner Rebbe wrote, as well as its halakhic context: Mishneh Torah. How could anyone dare attribute such an opinion (that the other additives “are permitted solely to aid the color in adhering to the wool”) to the man who plainly writes the opposite? In criterion 7 of S’funei T’munei Hol, the Rebbe explains why RaMBaM gives us a sign that is not written in the Talmudic literature, that the ‘blood’ of the Hilazon is black:

…כי אם לא הודיע לנו הרמב”ם ז”ל את זאת והיינו מחפשין רק על פי הסימנים שבש”ס, אפילו היינו מוצאים ומשיגים אותו היינו מתישאין ממנו ונאמר כי ודאי אינו החלזון כיון שדמו שחור והרי אנו רוצין לצבוע זבע התכלת. ולכן הודיענו זאת שבאמת דמו שחור כדיו ורק על ידי הסממנים נוכל לצבוע בו זבע התכלת… (13)

…For if Rambam did not make it known to us (regarding its black blood) we would search for it relying solely on the signs in the Talmud. And even if we would find it we would lose hope saying that since its blood is black this is certainly not the Hillazon needed to dye the Techelet, Therefore he made it known to us that in truth its blood is black and only by adding of the substances is it possible to dye it the color of Techelet… (14)

Nowhere does the Radziner Rebbe write that the additives cannot be instrumental in deriving the color itself. He would not do so, since this would contradict the RaMBaM (Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:2), his halakhic base. Here are RaMBaM’s words, describing the dye preparation process:

כיצד צובעין תכלת של ציצית: לוקחין הצמר, ושורין אותו בסיד; ואחר כך מכבסין אותו, עד שיהיה נקי; ומרתיחין אותו באהלא וכיוצא בו, כדרך שהצבעין עושין כדי שיקלוט את העין. ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים, ודמו שחור כדיו, ובים המלח הוא מצוי. ונותנין את הדם ליורה, ונותנין עימו סממנין כמו הקימוניא וכיוצא בה, כדרך שהצבעין עושים; ומרתיחין אותו, ונותנין בו הצמר, עד שייעשה כעין הרקיע. וזו היא צורת התכלת של ציצית.

How is tekheleth for SiSith-fringes dyed? Wool is taken and soaked in lime. Afterwards it is laundered until it is clean and boiled with ohala and the like, in the way of professional dyers, in order for it [the wool] to accept the color [for the dye to adhere to the wool].

[Note that here ends the preparation of the wool. What RaMBaM writes now about additives is related to the preparation of the dye itself...]

And afterwards Hilazon fluid [lit. "blood"] is brought… And its fluid is placed in a vat, and herbal additives are placed with it, such as kamonia and the like, in the way of professional dyers. Then it is boiled and the wool put inside, until it becomes the color of the sky [after dark].

RaMBaM initially describes one process for preparing the woolen string to accept the dye (so the color will not fade), with no mention of samamanim (herbal additives) whatsoever. The addition of other ingredients is written purely in the context of preparing the color itself-in order to achieve the right blue. One or more of those herbs must have been a natural source of iron or something else that interacts with sepia to produce blue.

Based on my basic understanding of chemistry, I seriously question the chemist who told Rabbi Hertzog that the only chemical ingredient with which the additives used in ‘Prussian blue’ react, is nitrogen. Can we trust that chemists from nearly 100 years ago, with limited time and budget, successfully understood all the ways that sepia interacts with its additives for producing tekheleth, according to all the properties of those chemical compounds? Secondly, there is no proof of this hypothesis ever being tested; it is an unproven statement. But it is pointless to pursue this argument any further: Even if it were true, it would make no difference: the miSwah is to use specifically the one true Hilazon-that special creature-to make the blue dye (Tosefta, MenaHoth 9:6), even though the same color can be more easily derived from other sources, such as indigo. Since when does the Torah care how large or small is the Hilazon’s chemical contribution to the chemical reaction in the laboratory?

In Section IV below, I will share my contemplations as to why-what are the very deep and powerful reasons-that HaShem mandated that we use this Hilazon specifically, the dionun, to dye tekheleth.

12) An externally-applied treatment for hemorrhoids is derived from a valuable substance from within the Hilazon‘s body.

Here is perhaps the greatest proof for the dionun-Hilazon equation. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 28b) teaches how the hemorrhoids of Rav Yaaqov were treated with the “inner fruit” of the Hilazon, as it is written:

בפיקעא אורי ליה רבי אמי ואמרי לה רבי אסי אורי ליה ליתי שב ביני אהלא תולנא וצייר ליה בחללא דבי צוארא וליכריך עילויה נירא ברקא וטמיש ליה בנטפא חיורא וליקליה ובדר ליה עילויה… ואי לא לייתי תלת טרפא קרא דמייבשי בטולא וליקלי וליבדר עילויה ואי לא לייתי משקדי חלזוני ואי לא מייתי משח קירא ולינקוט בשחקי דכיתנא בקייטא ודעמר גופנא בסיתווא

R. Jacob was suffering from an open wound in the rectum and R. Ammi – some say R. Assi – directed him to take seven grains of purple colored alkali, wrap them up in the collar of a shirt, tie it round with a white thread [of cattle-hair], dip it in white naphtha and burn it, and apply [the ashes] to the sore… Else one should take three melon leaves which have faded in the shade, burn them and apply the ashes. In the absence of these, [let one apply] ‘almonds’ [the inner 'fruit', i.e. sepia, the therapeutic ink] of Hilazons, or else take olive-oil mixed with wax and let him be covered with rag of linen in the summer and cotton wool in the winter.

(an improved translation by the author, based on the Soncino English translation of the Talmud [15] )

Murex trunculus was never known to be a therapy for this malady. Moreover, based on the writings of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, Dr. Singer writes, (9) “as for murex trunculus, in ancient times it was considered to be bad for the bowels.”

Here is something powerful: According to the author at www.chilazon.com (see Section V):

“It is well documented that cuttlefish ink (sepia) was used for that purpose in ancient times (as noted in 1^st century texts by Pliny the Elder, Celsus and Dioscorides) and is still used today. Thus, it seems clear that the Talmud was referring to the cuttlefish when using the term chilazon as a treatment for hemorrhoids.”

Confirming the author’s point, I discovered that sepia (dionun fluid for tekheleth) is a basic ingredient in every homeopathic medicine for hemorrhoids I could find on the internet. Find it on the following homeopathy web-pages:

• http://www.pronto.com/HEMORRHOID-RELIEVER-2-oz-KING-p_766636962-PP# (22)
• http://www.xomba.com/how_to_treat_hemorrhoids_naturally (23)
• http://www.1-800homeopathy.com/products/details.html?productid=W167 (24)

What are the chances of finding a mollusk that fits all the above Talmudic criteria, whose blue-dye producing fluid has the unique chemical properties to be a medicine for the same specific physical malady for which the Talmudic Sages prescribe “Hilazon fruit”… and this mollusk not being the real Hilazon? Next to none.

Even before proceeding to points 13 and 14, we can only conclude that the dionun is indeed the true, long-lost Hilazon for tekheleth.

(Point #13 is one of the signs introduced and explained in Sefunei Temunei Hol. (13) It is not as readily obvious as the above criteria are, but requires a deeper look. Nonetheless it is a noteworthy and important clue.)

13) The Hilazon has tentacle arms shaped like bent hooks, or itself has the the shape of a bent hook.

The Mishnah in Kelim 12:1 describes a chain hanging on the wall, with an attachment called a “Hilazon” at the end. It reads:

מסכת כלים פרק יב
יב,א טבעת אדם, טמאה; טבעת בהמה, והכלים, ושאר כל הטבעות–טהורות. קורת החיצים, טמאה; ושל אסירים, טהורה. הקולר, טמא. שלשלת שיש בה בית נעילה, טמאה; העשויה לכפיתה, טהורה. שלשלת של סיטונות, טמאה; של בעלי בתים, טהורה. אמר רבי יוסי, אימתיי, בזמן שהוא מפתח אחד; אבל אם היו שניים, או שקשר חילזון בראשה–טמאה.

A person’s ring becomes impure. A ring for an animal, for untensils, and all other rings remain pure. A beam for arrows [RaMBaM: for target practice, on account of its metal projections] becomes impure. The ‘beam’ [RaMBaM: fetters] of prisoners remains pure. The [iron] collar of prisoners becomes impure. A chain that has a lock-piece becomes impure; while one that was made for tying down [immobilizing, i.e. a living creature] remains pure. The [specialized] chain of wheat merchants becomes impure; while the [simple] one of common folk remains pure. Rabi Yose said, “When is this? -When it has a single attachment [on one end]. However, if it has two interlocking ends, or if he attaches a Hilazon-hook at its end, it is impure.

(an improved translation by the author, based on the new English translation by James Neusner [25])

The Radziner Rebbe quotes Tifereth Yisrael, a commentary on the Mishnah that explains how this “Hilazon” was an iron hook attached to the end for hanging the chain. RaMBaM (who wrote his Commentary on the Mishnah in his youth), expresses an early opinion of his (before he realized the Hilazon is a “fish”-see point #1), that “Hilazon” here refers to a shell (as if the shell of a sea mollusk could serve as hook strong enough to effectively lock a chain…).

According to Dr. Singer, [9] the other key rabbinical commentaries (Idem, Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura, and Melecheth Shlomo) correctly understand that the attachment was called “Hilazon” because it was shaped like the Hilazon for tekheleth. This likely refers to the dionun’s two longer, drooping side tentacles, which are bent inwards like hooks. According to the Radziner Rebbe, the Arukh haShulHan drew a picture of the Hilazon, proving he was familiar with the creature, and knew full well that it had tentacle arms shaped like bent hooks at the end of a chain. The Mishnah might also be referring to the overall shape of the Hilazon from the side as it swims: with its eight drooping arms, it has the shape of a large hook. Whichever is correct, as Dr. Mendel Singer points out, “no part of a Murex snail would fit this description.”

14) Although authentic tekheleth must prove to be colorfast, this is only to a degree: It fades when laundered with strong detergent. (MenaHoth 41b, see Rabbenu Gershom Me’ir haGolah)

On the subject of the tekheleth string in a garment, the Talmud teaches:

רב יהודה מסר ליה לקצרא רב חנינא עביד לה סיסא רבינא חייט להו מיחט.

“Rav Yehudah would give it to the launderer. Rav Haninah would make it into a tuft [wrap it as cluster of strings]. Ravina would sew it up.”

Rabbenu Gershom Meir haGolah (13) clarifies the terse language of the Talmud:

רב יהודה מסר גלימא עם תכלת לקצרא ומפייסו שיזהר שלא יקלקל מראה התכלת, רב חנינא עביד לי’ סיסא הי’ כורך התכלת בחוטין אחרים שלא ישנה מראהו בכביסה, רבינא חייט להו מיחט תפרו בטליתו.

“Rav Yehudah would give a garment with tekheleth to the launderer and would beg of him that he take care not to damage the appearance of the tekheleth. Rav Hanina made for it a tuft-meaning that he wrapped the tekheleth with other strings in order that its appearance would not change in the laundry. Ravina sewed it up-he sewed it up into his tallith.”

(an original translation)

Again, as in point #11, a major source of ridicule of the Radziner tekheleth promulgated by adherents of the Murex dye, is an actual proof for the dionun as the true source of tekheleth, and another blow to the Murex-Hilazon equation. Radziner tekheleth is routinely derided because it fades in the laundry. The fact that it does fade is actually another hint that it is comparable to that used by the great Amoraim Rav Yehudah, Rav Hanina and Ravina. That the Murex dye is so colorfast that even today’s strong laundry detergents do not cause it to fade easily is a sign that it is another chemical altogether.

And that is why, rather than directing us to test tekheleth by giving it over for laundering with strong detergent, the Sages provided special tests to check if our tekheleth is kosher or not. They include the check of Rav YiS’Haq and Rav Ada (MenaHoth, bottom of 42b-43a), both of which are clearly explained in Mishneh Torah, Laws of SiSith 2:5:

ה כיצד בודקין אותה עד שייוודע אם נצבעה כהלכתה, אם לאו: לוקחין התבן וריר של שבלול, ומי רגליים שנתחמצו ארבעים יום; ושורין התכלת בכולן, מעת לעת. אם עמדה בעיניה ולא כהת, כשרה. ואם כהת–לוקחין בצק של שעורים שמעפשין אותו למורייס, ונותנין את זו התכלת שנשתנת בתוכו, ואופה הבצק בתנור; ומוציאין התכלת מן הפת, ורואין אותה: אם כהת ממה שהייתה, פסולה; ואם הוסיף עינה, והושחרה יתר ממה שהייתה קודם האפייה–כשרה.

“How is it [tekheleth] checked so it can be known if it was dyed according to halakhah or not? [the test of Rav YiS'Haq:] One takes straw, the slime of a slug, and urine that has been left to ferment for 40 days. Tekheleth is then soaked in this mixture for a 24-hour period. If the color remains as it is and doesn’t fade, it is kosher.”

[Rav Ada's test:] If it fades, one takes barley dough fermented for fish brine. The faded tekheleth is then placed inside of it, and the dough is baked in the oven. Then the tekheleth is removed from the bread and inspected: If it has faded even more than before, it is passul [legally invalid]. If its color was intensified and became darker that it was before the baking, it is kosher.

Now consider the precious words of the Rebbe of Radzin in another of his three seminal works, Ma’amar Pethil Tekheleth: (13)

וכן אנו נוהגין לעשות בדיקת רב יצחק בשני האופנים, הן לפי פירש”י והן לפי פי’ הרמב”ם, ואחר כך גם בדיקת רב אדא לצאת מידי כל ספק… לזאת נהגנו להבחין בבדיקת רב אדא לבתר בדיקת רב יצחק [כדברי הרמב"ם]. והגם דבלא איפרד חזותיה בבדיקת רב יצחק לכולי עלמא אין צורך עוד לבדיקת רב אדא, אכן לאשר הרב בעל ת”י גמגם ומספק עלינו את הדרך בבדיקת רב יצחק הגם שלא נראין דבריו לע”ד. בכל זה מהיות טוב נהגנו לבדוק בתרוויהו.

“Therefore our practice is to do the check of Rav YiS’Haq in both ways, both according to the interpretation of Rash”i and according to the interpretation of RaMBaM, and afterwards the check of Rav Ada in order to remove all doubt… Because of this, our practice was to test according to Rav Ada’s check after the check of Rav YiS’Haq [as RaMBaM teaches]-despite that fact that according to all opinions if its appearance doesn’t fade in the check of Rav YiS’Haq, there is no need to do Rav Ada’s check. This was according to what the author of Tifereth Yisrael muttered, supplying us with “the way” to do the check of Rav YiS’Haq, even though his words don’t make sense according to my limited understanding. In any case, to be good and proper, we checked according to both.”

We have proven thus far that Radziner tekheleth is derived from the one creature that fits every one of the detailed criteria we can glean from the primary sources of the Oral Law, in light of its authoritative commentators through the ages. Now we can also be assured that the product derived from that creature passed both of the tests that our Sages of blessed memory recorded for future generations, to ascertain whether or not tekheleth was truly dyed according to law, beyond a doubt.

It makes no difference, of course, if the Murex dye happens to pass these tests, remaining perfectly colorfast: the fact that it comes from a patently invalid source for tekheleth defeats the purpose of such a test to begin with. Similarly, if it should be discovered, HaShem-forbid, that a worthy member of a Jewish community was born of a non-Jewish mother, it makes no difference if kosher witnesses conclusively testify that the person lives a perfectly righteous Jewish lifestyle. Until the individual converts, he or she is patently a non-Jew. The difference, it should go without saying, is that there is no “conversion” process for Murex trunculus, or the blue dye derived from it.

IV. ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DIONUN

As mentioned above in point #11; even though dyes of the same blue color tekheleth can be derived even more easily from other sources, there is a special Torah requirement to use the Hilazon-the dionun. Why could this be? What is so special about this creature?

What amazes me about the dionun is how, by contemplating its nature, we easily recall the Torah’s purpose in the Commandment of SiSith with tekheleth: to remember the exodus from Egypt and not to go astray after the evil inclination. These lessons are vividly illustrated in the very nature of the dionun:

A REMINDER OF THE EXODUS

If tekheleth is blue, as the sources dramatically describe (see point #6 above), why is it not called kaHol or koHal-names for the color blue? Rashi teaches that the word “tekheleth” comes from the same root “tikhlah” meaning “finish” or “end”. The dark blue color (which the Sages remind us resembles both the dark sky and navy-blue sea) remind us of the Egyptians’ “end”, their demise in the Red Sea in the middle of the night.

Now consider the dionun: When it is being pursued by predators, it ejects its brownish-black ink from behind, creating a dark cloud between it and its pursuing predator. The predator is blinded, and the ‘dionun’ escapes. Here the dionun replays the role of the Israelites, as we escaped our enemies in the midst of the sea, when HaShem created a cloud of darkness between us and them. We can perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that can directly remind us of our Redemption from Egypt.

A REMINDER NOT TO STRAY AFTER OUR HEART AND EYES

The Torah source for the miSwah of SiSith-fringes that we read in the Shema’ twice daily hints that the specifically tekheleth in our SiSioth is meant to serve as a powerful reminder not to stray after the heart and eyes.

לח דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל-כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם; וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת.	38 ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.
לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.	39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

In the Talmud’s discussion (MenaHoth 38a-b) on the words “u-r’ithem otho”-”that ye may look upon it”, we see how this refer to the SiSith-fringe together with tekheleth. About what specifically is it meant to warn us? The Sages taught that straying after “your heart” refers to the temptation to minuth (apostacy), while “your eyes” refer to the temptation to ‘zenuth’ (forbidden sexual relations). (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 2:6). The anatomy, biology and behavior of the dionun-Hilazon-facts that are easily observable to anyone-remind us of these Torah lessons.

Warning us about the heart’s temptation to apostacy

RaMBaM teaches us that the mindset of minuth (apostasy) is idolatry (Laws of Idolatry 2:9). This is a simple enough equation: both are a denial of HaShem‘s Kingship. The ‘dionun’ is the clearest example there could be of a creature whose very form declares its purpose-and by extension, the existence and wisdom of its Creator. With a long striped body with eight string-like arms on one end, the ‘dionun’ actually looks like an animated SiSith fringe-with its eight strings. Its zebra-like stripes suggest the windings of tekheleth stripes around the upper section of the fringe. Most incredibly, its color camouflage-constantly changing to match its surroundings-recalls the law that the SiSith fringes must match the color of the garment: If the garment is green the fringes must be green; if it is red, they too must be red. (M.T. Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:8)

This creature declares to us plainly from the depths of the sea: the Creator of this Creature and the Giver of the commandment of SiSith are ONE AND THE SAME. It is a powerful, living anecdote against luring thoughts towards apostasy.

In fact, considering the form of this 8-limbed creature might even lead us to contemplate our own form… What does it declare? We are a five-limbed creature (with a head, two arms, two legs). Each of our legs and arms have five limbs of their own (fingers and toes), while our human face has five apertures (two eyes, two nostrils and a mouth). Our sages taught: “Who knows five? I know five-Five are the books of the Torah.” (from the ancient Passover song) If the ‘dionun’ was designed for the complete fulfillment of the commandment of SiSith, then we were designed for the complete fulfillment of the precepts of the Five Books. Like the dionun, our form, too, declares our purpose and-by extention-the existence and wisdom of our Creator…

As we learned above in point #5; once in a period of many years, Hilazon are thrown up by the sea on to the land. Stranded, they attempt to burrow in the sand. They can live like that for a short period of time, but eventually die. At that very time when the sea-their “homeland”-vomits them to their doom on the inhospitable land; they are a blessing to us, enabling us to fulfill the commandment of tekheleth. Here they replay the epic tragic pattern of Jewish history:

When HaShem‘s long-suffering and patience is exhausted and the Heavenly scales tilt against us, a chain of punishments begin, as detailed in the Torah portions buHuqothai in Wayiqra and Ki thissa in Devarim. If, Heaven forbid, Israel doesn’t repent from our idolatry and apostasy, the Land literally spits us out (Wayiqra 18:25). That Land-whose very air, the Sages teach, makes one wise-was given to us to be a bastion of Torah (“for out of Zion the Torah shall go forth” -Isaiah 2:4), which is related to water (M.T., Laws of Torah Study 3:8). The Talmud relates (Berakhoth 61b) how Rabi Aqivah explained to Pappus ben Yehudah how Jews removed from Torah are comparable to fish out of water. Yet even when we are dispersed among the nations, this is but the fulfillment of HaShem‘s promise to Jacob that just when we are likened to “the dust of the earth”, spread out among the nations, we will be a blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Bereshith 28:14)

We can now perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that must warn us to be careful not to allow our hearts to be led astray towards apostasy and idolatry.

Warning us about the eyes’ temptation to forbidden sexual intercourse

We saw above how the commandment of SiSith with tekheleth is also meant as a reminder not to “stray after the eyes” (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuvah 4:4). We see this in real life in the Talmud’s dramatic account (MenaHoth 44a) of one student of Rav Hiyya, who was particularly careful with the miSwah of SiSith. Sadly, he sank to the level of visiting a famous Roman prostitute after prepaying an enormous sum. But then, at the moment of truth-as he undressed-his four SiSith-fringes slapped him in the face, like four witnesses to the crime he was about to commit. In sudden fear of Heaven, he sank down, unable to continue. Inspired by the Torah student’s fortitude, the prostitute left all she had and came to Israel to convert to Judaism. The Talmud relates that they then married, and the very beds she used for sin could now be used with full permission.

The dionun has large, protruding, partially forward-facing, roving eyes. These, of course, call to mind our own eyes that we must guard. Its snake-like body can remind us of the snake from the Garden of ‘Eden that cast its lustful eyes on Hawwah (Eve). (Rash”i on Bereshith 3:1 [17]) Shortly after mating and the female lays her eggs, both dionun parents die; their life cycle complete. This reminds us of the laws of Sotah: We learn that when an Israelite adulteress was put to death in a ‘trial by water’, the adulterer would die independently at the same time, wherever he happened to be.

Again we can perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that must remind us not to allow our eyes to lead us to sin.

Although it might not be mentioned explicitly by the Sages, “Going astray after the eyes” can also refer to the craving for forbidden foods when we see them. As you can see in the above video clip; (7) the dionun seizes its prey (often a non-kosher creature such as a sea crab [26] ) with a powerful double-handed grasp by stretching forward two specialized arms (of the eight). For an instant, it resembles a small child who, with eyes cast on an irresistible treat, reaches with both hands to devour it.

Of course, the dionun is a perfect and blameless creature: Unlike human beings, who are expected to perfect ourselves, it is just as HaShem meant for it to be. And according to that nature, we can derive from it a beautiful, colorful reminder for our clothing that humans were meant for a distinct and elevated role above the animal.

V. CONCLUSION: PUTTING RADZINER TEKHELETH TO THE TALMUD’S CHEMICAL TESTS

In this work, I have presented a clear, reorganized list of our Sages’ teachings by which the true Hilazon–lost to the Jewish people for many centuries–can be identified. Point by point, I have demonstrated how the dionun (the Common cuttlefish) fits these criteria precisely, and how Murex trunculus falls short.  To do so, I have used straight logic and presented evidence never before available to past generations–scientific videos–as well as other factual sources. The original interpretations I presented are not forced, but true to the simple facts without stretching them.

I also show the testimony of the Radziner Rebbe as to how the process he employed produced the blue dye from the dionun, passed both chemical tests of our Sages-the tests they recorded for all future generations to ascertain whether or not tekheleth was actually dyed according to law.

Therefore, to my humble understanding, anyone who has been using Radziner tekheleth, trusting that his Hassidim have not veered from the original formula over the last 110 years, was making a rational and intelligent choice.

However, to remove all doubt whatsoever, we needed to ask an uncomfortable question: Can we know for a fact that, over the last 110 years, the process has remained perfectly intact, so that the Radziner product being sold today stands up to the same halakhic standard as the original?

In their attempt to discredit Radziner tekheleth, The P’til Tekhelet Organization gives the following account in their brochure: (27)

“As an interesting side note of history, during World War II with the destruction of East European Jewry, the tekhelet factories of Radzyn were ruined and the process lost. When the survivors of Radzyn made their way to Israel after the war, they asked Rabbi Herzog for the correspondence between himself and the Radzyn dye makers, and through those letters reestablished a tekhelet industry in Israel which still flourishes to this day. Thus Rav Herzog is responsible both for discrediting Radzyn’s tekhelet and at the same time for rescuing their process from destruction.”

I therefore ‘girded my loins’ and, with the help of fellow Torah scholars whom I trust, set out to attempt to establish the truth about the process once and for all. Although there is no such requirement in halakhah, I recruited two reputable Torah scholars, Rav YaHad Yosef Witt and Rav Yehudah Bolack, to rigorously scrutinize and carefully witness every step of a new experiment: the chemical test of Rav YiS’Haq (see point #14 above) in our own time, according to the instructions of RaMBaM in Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:5.

Preparation of the strong chemical solution began on the 13th day of Kislew 5769 (December 10, 2008). Then in strict accordance to the written instructions of our Sages of blessed memory, the chemical test commenced exactly 40 days later, on the 23rd day of Teveth (January 19).

Under the watchful eyes of the witnesses, the ingredients of slug slime and straw were added to the 40-day solution.

Slime from local slugs (left) and fresh straw brought from Hevron (right) were added in.

The test commenced when a new packet of fresh Radziner tekheleth was opened, and one string was fully immersed in the solution.

The new packet of tekheleth (left), and the complete solution with immersed tekheleth.

This occurred at 12:40pm Monday, and ended with the removal of the blue-colored string at 1:10 pm Tuesday, according to the words of RaMBaM, “מעת לעת”-from one time of the day to the same time the next day. (Laws of SiSith-fringe 2:5).

At first, we were suprised at how clearly the color faded:  It faded remarkably from a bright blue to a greenish grey.   That is the photograph that was posted in this article over the last few weeks.   However, what we did not take into consideration was that we were comparing a totally soaked test string to an original string from the package that was completely dry.  Two weeks later, I decided to taker another look, to contemplate the color change.  When I opened up the white paper package they were wrapped in (the original white paper background for the original test photograph) I was in for a great surprise:  Now that the string was completely dry, the color made a dramatic return to a dark turquoise blue (see below). 

After it dried completely, it appears that--although the dark blue hue changed to dark turquoise--the test string (left) has the same intensity in its modified hue as an original string from the same packet (right). The additional element of green is natural, after being soaked in a strong yellow-green acidic solution for 24 hours. The question--to our understanding--is a matter of intensity, of brightness or strength of color within the new hue. We also recognize that the dark blue string "remains in its beauty" in that it remains a blue of the color of the sky after starlight, that is of the same, original intensity and uniformity. (Laws of SiSith-fringe 2:1, 2:5). The above photo was taken with a flash of bright white light. The remaining dark-blue beauty of the string is even clearer when viewing the string properly in person, in daylight.

WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE INITIAL TEST

After painstaking efforts were made that the test be done accurately and completely; not missing a single point of the halakhah, we conclude that the color has not clearly lightened.  Although the hue has shifted somewhat, we conclude that the string remains a dark blue of the sky after starlight, with the same original intensity and uniformity in its modified hue, as the original color in its hue.  We have come to a preliminary conclusion that the test was a success:  Radziner tekheleth appears to have passed the test, which would make it ‘kasher’ according to RaMBaM.  This is not yet a final ‘pesaq’ at this time.

*****WHY THE CHANGE WE OBSERVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SHINUI” IN THIS CONTEXT*****

Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur present us with the opportunity not merely to return to galuth (exile)-Judaism as it is commonly practiced, but to go further, to return to our Berith –our actual Covenant– with HaShem. That means, or course, His sacred laws according to the authentic living Oral instruction, faithfully passed down through the ages, and codified by our Sages of blessed memory.

In this message, I will present teachings of RaMBaM regarding Rosh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur, and teshuvah (repentance) in general. They are simple and profound, and they enable us to transform the fear and awe we naturally feel on those days into wise, practical action. Then I will explain the dangers of certain widespread customs that have crept into our Orthodoxy, dragging us down for centuries.

THE REAL MEANING OF TESHUVAH AND HOW IT’S DONE

According to the tradition of Rabbenu ha-RaMBaM (hilkhoth teshuvah 3:6), the righteous are inscribed and sealed for life on Rosh HaShanah; while the wicked are inscribed and sealed for destruction on that very day. It is average people, the “beinonim” whose judgment is postponed until Yom ha-Kippurim, when their judgment is sealed. We take the days between Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom ha-Kippurim with great seriousness, and do our best to repent properly because we do not view ourselves as so righteous: Rather, we are to see ourselves at all times as perfect “beinonim”: that our merits and sins balance each other exactly. At any given moment, we are to view our very next act, be it a miSwah or `averah (sin), as the key factor that will tip the scale for ourselves, for our city, for our country, even for the entire world—either to the side of merit and salvation, or the side of destruction. (ibid. 3:8)

Let us be reminded of what teshuvah really means. Its simplicity is so powerful:

ב,ג [ב] ומה היא התשובה–הוא שיעזוב החוטא חטאו, ויסירנו ממחשבתו ויגמור בליבו שלא יעשהו עוד, שנאמר “יעזוב רשע דרכו, ואיש אוון מחשבותיו” (ישעיהו נה,ז).  וכן יתנחם על שעבר, שנאמר “כי אחרי שובי, ניחמתי, ואחרי היוודעי, ספקתי על ירך” (ירמיהו לא,יח); ויעיד עליו יודע תעלומות שלא ישוב לזה החטא לעולם, שנאמר “ולא נאמר עוד אלוהינו, למעשה ידינו–אשר בך, ירוחם יתום” (הושע יד,ד).  וצריך להתוודות בשפתיו, ולומר עניינות אלו שגמר בליבו.

What is teshuvah? It is that the sinner leaves his sin, and removes it from his thoughts, and concludes in his heart not to do it again, as it is written, “Let the wicked abandon is way, the sinful man his thoughts.” (Yisha`ya 55:7). And so he must regret that he sinned, as it is written, “for after I turned back, I regretted; and after I became aware, I struck my thigh.” (Yirmiyahu 31:18). And [even] the ‘One Who Knows all Hidden Things’ can testify that he will not return to that sin ever again… And he must confess verbally, and say these ideas he has concluded in his heart. (hilkhoth teshuvah 2:3 ¹)

Therefore, on Yom Kippur all the piyutim (poetry and songs in the siddur), all the long standing on our feet, all the spiritual feeling, cannot replace the true `avodah (service) of teshuvah that is so necessary. And that is that each person, having examined his or her ways and done real soul-searching, actually goes through the real ‘teshuvah’ process over his or her actual sins. That involves the following three-step confession before HaShem:

א,ב כיצד מתוודה–אומר אנא ה’ חטאתי עוויתי פשעתי לפניך, ועשיתי כך וכך, והרי ניחמתי ובושתי במעשיי, ולעולם איני חוזר לדבר זה.  זה הוא עיקרו של וידוי; וכל המרבה להתוודות ולהאריך בעניין זה, הרי זה משובח.

How does one confess–he says, [1] “Please HaShem, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have committed crime before you, [2] and I have done such and such, [3] and behold I regret and am ashamed of my actions, [4] and I will never repeat this thing again. (ibid. 1:2)

In other words, after the opening line of confession, we must state what we did (the more we elaborate, the better). We must then feel and express genuine remorse and shame. (Tears are definitely in order.) Finally we utterly conclude in our hearts never to repeat the sin again.

Note that besides the language of the formal confession that we find in Mishneh Torah, there is no necessity for lengthy poetry and song to “convince” HaShem to forgive us. Rather, it is an internal process that we are to go through. When we seriously follow these instructions, we have done our part. According to the severity of what we have done, we may suffer punishment to fully expiate the sin—but we are ultimately forgiven.

Finally, let’s remember that this teshuvah process is not only for the Days of Awe and Yom ha-Din. Rather, it is something that an observant Jew is expected to do any time he sins against the Torah, be it a small matter or great, throughout the year. This may seem too heavy to some people, and that’s sad, because it’s that an immature attitude that prevents them from getting the most out of their life (ibid. 7:2):

ז,ב לעולם יראה אדם את עצמו כאילו הוא נוטה למות, ושמא ימות בשעתו ונמצא עומד בחטאיו; לפיכך ישוב מחטאיו מיד, ולא יאמר כשאזקין אשוב–שמא ימות קודם שיזקין.  הוא ששלמה אומר בחכמתו “בכל עת, יהיו בגדיך לבנים” (קוהלת ט,ח).

A person should always see himself as though he is about to die, and lest he die at that very hour and remain in his sins; therefore let him turn back in repentance from his sins immediately, and not say, “I’ll repent when I’m older”—lest he die before he becomes older. This is what Shelomo, in his wisdom, said: “At every time, let your clothes be white” (Qoheleth 9:8)

The worst thing is for a person to feel so far gone, so depraved, that he cannot come back to HaShem. Consider the RaMBaM’s teachings on this:

התשובה מקרבת את הרחוקים:  אמש היה זה שנוי לפני המקום, משוקץ ומרוחק ותועבה; והיום הוא אהוב ונחמד, קרוב וידיד…  אמש היה זה מובדל מה’ אלוהי ישראל, שנאמר “עוונותיכם, היו מבדילים, ביניכם, לבין אלוהיכם” (ישעיהו נט,ב).  צועק ואינו נענה, שנאמר “גם כי תרבו תפילה, אינני שומע” (ישעיהו א,טו).  ועושה מצוות וטורפין אותן בפניו, שנאמר “מי ביקש זאת מידכם, רמוס חצריי” (ישעיהו א,יב), “מי גם בכם ויסגור דלתיים” (מלאכי א,י), “עולותיכם ספו על זבחיכם, ואכלו בשר” (ירמיהו ז,כא).  והיום הוא מודבק בשכינה, שנאמר “ואתם, הדבקים, בה’, אלוהיכם” (דברים ד,ד).  צועק ונענה מיד, שנאמר “והיה טרם יקראו, ואני אענה” (ישעיהו סה,כד).  ועושה מצוות ומקבלין אותן בנחת ושמחה, שנאמר “כי כבר, רצה האלוהים את מעשיך” (קוהלת ט,ז).  ולא עוד אלא שמתאווים להם, שנאמר “וערבה, לה’, מנחת יהודה, וירושלים–כימי עולם, וכשנים קדמונייות” (מלאכי ג,ד). (הל’ תשובה ז-ח)

Teshuvah brings near those who are far. Yesterday, he was hated before G-d, despicable and abominable; and today he is beloved and dear, close and a friend… Yesterday he was separated from HaShem G-d of Yisra’el… He would cry out and he wasn’t answered… He would do miSwoth, and they would be torn up in front of him… And today he is attached to the Shekhinah [the Divine Presence]… He does miSwoth and they are accepted with grace and joy… and not only that, but they are greatly desired… (ibid. 7:7-8)

Complete teshuvah requires not only repentance on the part of the individual, but on the part of the nation. Part of cleaning up our own house, the great House of Israel, entails looking beyond the religion as it developed (deteriorated) in ‘galuth’ (exile), to Torath Moshe, our actual ‘Berith’ (Covenant) with the Master of the Universe. And that requires looking honestly at the customs we’ve accumulated of dubious origin.

This year I want to take no chances that people be left unaware of two corrupt customs that have crept into our practice of Rosh HaShanah and Yom ha-Kippurim over the centuries.

PRAYING FOR SUSTENANCE IN THE NAME OF A FOREIGN GOD

Please beware of a frightening custom that has crept into “Orthodox” practice, and spread to nearly every ethnic community of the Jewish People I am aware of: the ‘tefillah la-parnasah’ (prayer for sustenance) before the open ark, in the “merit” of a secret name, whose meaning I will soon reveal. Being the name is not remotely Hebrew, but clearly Spanish, this custom clearly crept into Jewish practice in pre-Inquisition Spain, during the well-documented partnership between pseudo-mequbalim (pseudo-Kabbalists) and the Christian church.

(The following sources are taken from those quoted in Prof. Rabbi Jose Faur’s work, “A Crisis of Categories: Kabbalah and the Rise of Apostasy in Spain.” pp.31 While I do not identify with all the views of the author, some of which I find extreme and unbalanced, the sources he quotes from are greatly important.  Namely, I do not share Rabbi Faur’s blanket attack on mystical kabbalah.  I believe that both confirmed rationalists and mystics see important sides of the same coin.  It is the extremists on both sides of the divide who refuse to consider the other side who frighten me.)

One example of this wicked partnership is seen in the letter written by Rav David Qamhi to Rav Yehudah al-Fakhkhar (d. 1235), the leader of the anti-Maimonideans in Toledo. One of the greatest Hakhamim in Western Europe at the time, he reported on Rav Yonah’s instigation of the burning of RaMBaM’s Book of Knowledge and Guide to the Perplexed. (It must be noted that Rav Yonah spent years in devout teshuvah for evil he’d done. His later remorse is reportedly the inspiration behind his work, “Sha`arei Teshuvah”.) Rav Qamhi wrote:

…he [Rav Yonah] is evil and unlearned…. And became an informer and an enemy collaborator. Because when he realized that the Rabbis in France had rejected him and regarded him as an unlearned person… he turned to the graven images and idol worshipers [i.e. the Church], and implored of them and they consented to help him since he was denouncing the Jews. First he went to the Franciscans telling them: ‘Look, most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were duped by Rav Moshe of Egypt [Maimonides] who wrote heretical books. You exterminate your heretics, exterminate also ours!” Thereafter they ordered to burn those books, which were the Book of Knowledge and the Guide. His uncircumcised heart, however, did not rest until he also told the same words to the Dominicans and the clergy…

This relationship between the church and pseudo-Kabbalists appears to have gone beyond book-burning: The idolatrous concepts of shi`tuf and deification of abstract concepts—hallmarks of Christianity—found their way into “Jewish” thought. The famous mequbal Rav Avraham Abul`afya (1240-1291) remarked:

Accordingly, let me inform you, that the masters of mysticism [and] the sefirot thought to profess the unity of G-d, and escape the doctrine of trinitarianism, and [in fact] they made him ten. In the same fashion that the gentiles say, “He is three and the three are one,” some masters of mysticism say that the divinity is ten sefirot and the ten are one.

Certain quacks from Ashkenzic mystical circles (whose ideas were adopted by mystical quacks from Sefaradi circles) came to believe that the trinity itself represents the truest form of monotheism, Has wa-Shalom (G-d forbid). Rav Solomon ibn Verga (d. ca. 1520) reported on this apostasy, quoting one of their polemics:

But the trinity is not polytheism but simple monotheism to those who understand. And I saw three great men from the Ashkenazic sages and I learned from them in the books of mysticism, and I saw how from there it becomes evident how the trinity is monotheism….

So it should not be too great a surprise that in the ‘tephillah la-parnasah’ (prayer for sustenance) found in about every High Holiday maHzor (prayer book) —Ashkenazi, Sepharadi, even neo-Yemenite— people are praying for sustenance for the coming year in the name of DICARNOSA. Look it up in your maHzor—it’s almost certainly there.  (In some Sefardic siddurim it appears as an optional prayer that may be inserted daily in the Amidah, the standing prayer.)  Now note how the Artscroll siddur instructs you NOT TO SAY THE NAME, just to scan it with the eyes… Since the most sacred Name of HaShem, Y-H-W-H, may not be pronounced except by the High Priest on Yom Kippur in a functioning Holy Temple, most Jews don’t see anything abnormal here.

However, anyone who speaks a Latin-based language would be amazed to consider the meaning:  

*  “Di”, is identical to the Latin “deo”, or in English, “deity”–meaning “God”.

*  “Carne” is Spanish for meat or flesh, to this day. It is the root of the word “carnivore”—a meat-eater.

*  The suffix “-oso” marks “carne” as an adjective, so that it means “meaty”, “fleshy”, or “corpulent.”   This is clear when you see the same suffix in other common Spanish adjectives that end in “oso” or “osa”, such as in “maravilloso” (marvelous), or “delicisioso” (delicious).

In other words, in simple Spanish, DI-CARNOSA simply means, “God in the flesh”.

– The religion that teaches how God Almighty became flesh and lived on earth as a physical man, of course, is Christianity.

– It is the same religion whose tentacles penetrated penetrated European Jewish scholarship, censoring the sacred Oral Torah literature, namely the Talmud and Mishneh Torah. This is well known.  (Besides removing negative references to Jesus, the Church’s agents — usually Jewish scholars who converted — ensured that laws offensive to Christians would become worded as “`ovde kokhavim u-mazaloth”  — star worshippers — removing Christianity from a negative light.)  It is the

– It is the same religion that influenced the spiritual doctrines taught by corrupted Jewish scholars in Spain and France, as we see above.  That is why those who maintained the ancient mutsa`arab prayer tradition — namely Jews of the Andalusian and old Yemenite schools — never recited this prayer of the Franco-Northern Spanish Jews.

All evidence points to DI-CARNOSA being another name for Jesus.

Nearly all evidence, that is.  In fairness to the brilliant scholar, it must be noted that Rabbi Faur understands “Dicarnosa” to be a form of “Dea Cornosa”, meaning “fleshy goddess” in Spanish.  His logic is as follows:  Latin for god is “deus”, not “deo”.  Hence Mozart’s middle name “Amadeus”.  Pre-Christian fertility/grain goddesses were often portrayed as corpulent women.  Therefore he understands “corpulent goddess” to be the origin of the name of the foreign divinity in the prayer for sustenance.

However, considering that this practice hails from the lands where Jews were so greatly intimidated, pressured, scrutinized, and influenced by the powerful Catholic church — and not by pre-Christian pagan cultists — I believe it is “God in the flesh” that penetrated the siddur: not “corpulent goddess.”  

In truth, it makes no difference whatsoever.  Is one of the above possibilities preferable over the other??

Please don’t say this prayer. Besides the well-known, recorded invasion of Christian theology into certain quack rabbinical, mystical circles; it appears nowhere throughout the whole breadth of the Written Torah [Bible] and Oral Torah literature. Even if you still have a doubt — insisting on believing in all innocence that this must be a “sacred Name” that somehow sounds just like “God in the flesh” or “corpulent goddess” — this is no matter on which to be lenient. We’re talking about unwittingly praying to HaShem in the name of a foreign deity.

May HaShem bless Israel with a year of prosperity—but if He does, it will certainly not be in the merit of a name from idolatry. In fact, according to the Rambam, we are not to make special requests for anything on Shabboth and Haggim, outside the prayers instituted by Haza”l (the Talmudic Sages), except for specific, dire emergency situations.

THE CUSTOM OF KAPPAROTH

Another frightening custom, called “kapparoth” is practiced in all innocence by the bulk of the Charedi Jewish world on the eve of Yom Kippur. And they have no clue where it comes from. It is a custom that was repeatedly branded by ruling sages of Israel between the 9^th and 16^th centuries as “the way of the Amorite”, a custom that must be stopped. (This does not mean it was necessarily a tradition from the ancient Amorites; “way of the Amorite” refers to a custom with roots in idolatry.)  Note that I teach this as someone who identifies as Haredi, living comfortably in a Haredi neighborhood. There is nothing hidden about these issues; they are discussed in books studied by all. Consider the teachings of the AHaronim (latter-day sages) on this matter ²:

The following is a quote from commentary of the Beth Yoseph (HaRav Yoseph Karo, zSq”l) on the Tur (written by the grandson of the Rabbenu Asher, “The Rosh”):

יש מקומות שנוהגים לשחוט תרנגול לכפרה וכן יש בתשובת הגאונים המורדכי  ב-מס’ יומא כתב “המנהג הזה וכל מ”שכתוב בסימן זה, הוא בפסקי הראש למס’ יומא” וקצתו למורדכי ומנהג זה כתוב “גם בתשב”ץ וכ’ שם שננוהגים ליקח תרנגול לזכר ותרנגולת לנקבה:  והרשב”א כתב בתשובה בעניין הכפרה שעושין לנערי’ בעי”ה מנהג זה פשוט בערינו אפ על פי ששמעתי מאנשים הגונים מאשכנז שכל ארצם עושים כן.  וגם שמעתי שנשאל רבינו האיי ואמר שכן נהגו עכז’ מנעתי מנהג זה מערינו. וכתוב בא”ח שהרמב”ן אוסרו משום דרכי האמורי.

There are places where they are accustomed to slaughtering a rooster as kapparah [an atonement], and there is a responsum of the Gaonim “The Mordekhite” on tractate Yoma… And the Rashb”a wrote in a responsum on the subject of kapparoth that they do it for children in the holy city [or 'our holy cities']. This custom is spread out throughout our [Spanish] cities, even though I heard from decent men from Germany that all their land does so [too]. And I also heard that it was asked to Rabbenu Hayye [the Gaon], and he said that “this is how they practiced; even so, I have stopped this custom from our cities.” And it is written in the OraH Hayim that the Ramban [Nachmanides] forbade it because [it is one of] the ways of the Amorite.

Note that Rav Hayye Gaon was such a pillar of ancient tradition, that his rulings reached the Spain of HaRav Shmuel haNaggid, and the students of the Rav YiS’Haq Alfasi (the Ri”f), who sent him their queries. When Rabbenu ha-Rambam only heard from sages in the Land of Israel who had seen the t:phillin of Rabbenu Hayye Gaon, he ruled against even his own father’s tradition, the prevailing practice in his times, regarding the preparation of skins for the parchments of tephillin and mezuzoth. In our times today, a noted scholar on the ancient traditions of EreS Yisra’el, HaRav Dawidh Bar Hayim of Makhon Shilo, hails Rabbenu Hayye Gaon as the greatest authority on the pure ancient traditions of EreS Yisrael (the Land of Israel). This Gaon used his power to utterly stop the custom’ of kapparoth in Bavel (Iraq). Likewise, Ramba”n, himself the recognized leader of Spanish Jewry in his day (and quite a mystic and astrologer, I might add) forbade it, declaring it to be an idolatrous custom.

In case Rav Karo’s words still seem a little ‘parve’ (neutral) in the Tur, merely citing various sources, he gives a definitive ruling in the ShulHan ‘Arukh (OraH Hayim, siman tow-resh-heh–705):

מה שנוהגים לעשות כפרה בערב יום כיפורים לשחוט תרנגול על כל בן ולומר עליו פסוקים, יש למנוע המנהג.

What is customarily practiced on the eve of Yom Kippur to slaughter a rooster over every son, and recite verses over it, this custom should be stopped.

There are various later opinions that permit the custom, hailing the custom as ancient and beautiful, claiming it is idolatrous only if done in a particular way.

The mainly Chassidim and Sefaradim (how ironic) who hold on to this custom claim it is not performed as a ‘sacrifice’, but that’s not so simple.  Even in HaRav Moshe Isserles’ gloss on Rav Karo’s words, he explains how one his to lean his hands on the bird, ‘demuth qorban’—for “the appearance of a sacrifice” and after the slaughtering one throws/sprinkles the innards (comparable to the sprinkling of blood). Even the Mishneh Berurah admits that there are those who forbid leaning one’s hands on the bird beforehand, since it has the appearance of offering sacrifices and slaughtering outside the Temple (see the M”B note on 705:8). Other sages who wrote about the importance of the custom in their eyes (such as the Ari ha-qadosh) taught that one must intend that he should see the rooster as a replacement for himself; that he is personally worthy of the four death penalties of the Torah. This is, of course, a qawanah (intention) fitting of a sin-offering. Consider Ramban’s powerful argument with RaMBaM over the true purpose and meaning behind sacrifice (I personally find the Ramban’s reasoning here far more convincing):

צוה השם כי כאשר יחטא ויביא קרבן יסמוך ידיו עליו כנגד המעשה, ויתודה בפיו כנגד הדיבור, וישרוף באש הקרב והכליות שהם כלי המחשבה והתאוה, והכרעים כנגד דמו בנפשו כדי שיחשוב אדם בעשותו כל אלה כי חטא לאלהיו בגופו ובנפשו, וראוי לו שישפוך דמו וישרף גופו לולא חסד הבורא שלקח ממנו תמורה וכופר הקרבן הזה שיהא דמו תחת דמו, נפש תחת נפש, וראשי אברי הקרבן כנגד ראשי אבריו… (רמב”ן על ויקרא 1:9, חלק הראשון)

HaShem Commanded that when one sins, he shall bring an offering, lean his hands on it according to his [wicked] deed, and confess orally… in order that man should think in doing all this that he sinned to G-d with his body and soul, and it would be fitting for his blood to be spilled and for his body to be burned—were it not for the kindness of the Creator who took from a substitute and this ransom offering; that it be its blood instead of his blood, a life for a life, and its body parts for his body parts… (Ramba”n on Wayiqra 1:9)

That is true Jewish sacrifice. Now consider the traditional recitation of Kapparoth (taken from the The Complete Artscroll Machzor Yom Kippur, Rabbi Nosson Scherman, Messorah Publications ltd. 1986). The comparison should make practicing Kapparoth-swingers very concerned:

זה חליפתי, זה תמורתי, זה כפרתי. זה התרנגול ילך למיתה. [זה הכסף ילך לצדקה.] ואני אכנס ואלך לחיים טובים ארוכים ולשלום.

This is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement. This rooster will go to its death [this money will go to charity] while I will enter and proceed to a good long life, and to peace.

As we see above, in an attempt to avoid the idolatrous element, many Jews use coins for kapparoth instead of fowl. Many Orthodox Jews, Barukh HaShem, avoid it altogether, and this is the practice of most traditional Yemenite Jews, who never had such a custom to begin with. What upsets me, is how the “commentators” (nos’e kelim) on the page of a modern ShulHan `Arukh—whose aim should be to clarify the words of the sage; not to neutralize them when they conflict with their own customs—will not even allow the warnings of Rav Karo, the Ramba”n and HaRav Hayye Gaon to put a doubt in their heart as to the ‘kashruth’ of their custom.

There are a few rabbinical figures who put forth alternative explanations as to what is the “way of the Amorite”; others don’t even bother—they plainly direct the masses to do kapparoth. Now following idolatrous customs is a severe Torah prohibition, a miSwath lo-tha`aseh (a “don’t do” Commandment). We should all know that even in a case of doubt; regarding a Torah Commandment, we must be strict. Isn’t there room here for a little fear of Heaven?

What great mystical effect can people be having on the Heavenly scales on the eve of the awesome Day of Judgment, swinging chickens or money around people, paying no attention to the warnings of some of the greatest sages of post-Temple history…? I understand their values and priorities to be far away from what they should be. Our history remembers an anointed king of a united Kingdom of Yisra’el who lost his dynasty over a similar blunder:

Rather than slaughter the sheep and cattle of `Amaleq (Amalek) per the Commandment of HaShem through Shemu’el (the prophet Samuel), King Shaul (Saul) spared the best of them to be given up as a sacrifice. In other words, he reasoned that he could serve HaShem by transgressing His commandment,,, How fitting to remember his lesson on the week we read the Commandment to remember `Amaleq… These are the words the prophet answered him: words that should echo in our ears forever (1 Shemu’el 15):

Pay attention to the next verse, where we learn that transgressing the laws of sacrifice puts us in the realm of idolatry

Consider how lack of fear for the parameters of proper sacrifice, and failure to obey HaShem‘s Word spelled the end of Shaul’s throne: Accordingly, our Torah leadership today must fear the end of their own ‘reign’ in our day, and help restore us to the proper path.

A clear line of comparison between Shaul and contemporary Torah leaders is the role of public pressure:

So too today: the main argument repeated throughout the commentaries that surround the ShulHan `Arukh today, defending kapparoth, is how popularly widespread and old the custom is—as if that should make a difference… as if old-time idolatrous customs, having had centuries to spread across the Jewish world, have preference over modern ones. It is high time someone admits there is at the very least a ‘sapheq issur de’oraitha’ (a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition) and stands up for Torath Moshe against the stream.

However, although HaShem rejected him as king, Shemu’el agreed to honor the king before the people and the elders. How much more so should we show respect for the only Torah leadership there is until the rise of a true Sanhedrin, may it be speedily in our days:

It is we, the People of Israel, who wickedly demanded a king in order to be like the other nations. HaShem begrudgingly acquiesced. Perhaps if we just begin to clean up house in true teshuvah, to begin the difficult return en masse to authentic Torath Moshe, ready to leave corrupt customs and secular beliefs behind, and demand a king who will remove the bad influence of idolatry on us, who will elevate us to our unique priestly role in the world… A king who will implement the laws of Torah and not fail to wipe out `Amaleq… It might only be then that HaShem will agree, and our mashiaH (messiah-king) will finally be revealed, and the memory of `Amaleq truly wiped out forever.

CONCLUSION

The above are clear examples of how much teshuvah not only we need to do as Jews, but how much Judaism itself must do ‘teshuvah’ to ‘Torath Moshe’, our pure tradition.

For the individual and for the nation, no teshuvah is complete without dedicating ourselves to learning the ‘halakhah’ (Law) properly. It is high time we dedicate ourselves to the study of Mishneh Torah of Rav Moshe ben Maimon in order to fulfill the Law of our Creator, our Father, our King—His unfathomable Oneness.

With Torah Blessings and hope for a safe, healthy year and the defeat of HaShem’s enemies,

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Beith Midrash Ohel Moshe

(A new article based on his articles O”M 32 and O’M 34 of the original Ohel Moshe series)

_______________________________________________________________

¹ Quotes from Bible and Mishneh Torah in this article were copied from the authentic Yemenite manuscript edition posted on www.mechon-mamre.org.  The English translations in my articles are original. The Bible translations often bear influence and borrowings from the JPS Bible based on the electronic text (c) by Larry Nelson, and the The Living Torah: The Five Books of Moses by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Maznaim Publishing Corporation, New York, 647 pp.

² Sources from the AHaronim were taken from the standard ShulHan `Arukh series Sefer Maghinei EreS: ShulHan `Arukh OraH Hayyim, part three, Brukhman Barukh Inc. 1995, Jerusalem.

1. Torah is a G-d-given constitutional law whose 613 Commandments are eternal and can never be changed. Even the domains of ethics, spirituality, and the basic principles of faith are included within the Commandments. Relating to Torah Law as a whole, and striving to obey the entire Law in the proper spirit (see Principle 12)-nothing more- is the essence of our Covenant with HaShem. Failure to keep the Law, or acting as if any part of it is no longer binding, breaches the Covenant.

2. The Torah was given to Moses in two forms: an oral form (the Oral Law), and a written form (the Written Law). It is impossible to fulfill the written form of the Law without the oral; the Oral Law is absolutely fundamental to the Covenant.

3. At the Command of HaShem, Moses instituted a Supreme Court of Torah sages, the Sanhedrin, to be the guardian and absolute authority on the Oral Law for all future generations. Only the form of the Oral Law that was faithfully transmitted down to the last Sanhedrin is valid and obligatory. The Talmudic literature, the legal writings of the Tannaim and Amoraim, is the final repository of the legal traditions of the last Sanhedrin. While there are Torah traditions and oral knowledge that have been forgotten over the ages, the authentic Oral Law of Moses is in our hands today, well in tact.

4. Just as the Sanhedrin of 71 sages has the sole authority to interpret the Torah, it is also the only court with the authority to legislate decrees and institute customs (rabbinical law) that are binding on the entire Jewish People and the rest of the world, including Gentiles.

   The only post-Sanhedrin court whose legislative authority was universally recognized, was the unique court of Rav Ashe and Ravina in Babylonia. After the last Supreme Court was disbanded, disputes arose regarding authoritative legal traditions that appeared contradictory or had become unclear. The law was given a final recodification by Rav Ashe’s court: the Talmud Bavli. Although it includes new decrees and customs that were not instituted by a Sanhedrin, it is recognized as the final and most authoritative written source from which the Law is determined.

   Even the Babylonian sages never had the power to contradict the authoritative legal traditions established in the Land of Israel. Their new decrees and customs were only intended to safeguard the law. Their authority was based on their unique ability to determine and officially codify what the original law was, and the fact that its rulings were accepted by the majority of the Jewish People-which no later court could claim.

   It is still a question, however, as to whether any original Babylonian legislation truly obligates the Jewish People or not. In either case, it is practically impossible to distinguish with certainty between their decrees and the authentic Israelite law. In the context of the rest of Talmudic literature, the Talmud Bavli remains the primary source of the Halakhah (official Jewish Law).

   If there is a question regarding original Babylonian legislation, certainly no post-Sanhedrin court or individual after Rav Ashe has the authority to add to, or give an alternative ruling to rabbinical law as it was written down by the time the Talmud Bavli was formally sealed, about 500 C.E. Since then, only authentic Talmudic Law-based purely on the written word from the original Talmudic literature-is the Halakhah.

5. Over 1500 years have passed without any single, nationally recognized, compulsive legal authority over the Jewish People. As times changed, it may have been desirable to consider the reasoning behind the law, and reinterpret the written sources contrary to the Halakhah as it was instituted. New rabbinical decrees may have seemed necessary according to the needs of the times. However, since post-Talmudic legislation was made without the proper authority, it does not have the status of Halakhah. In the absence of a Sanhedrin, new rabbinical legislation and customs cannot obligate the Jewish People (except in a specific area of law which the Halakhah explicitly left to follow the local custom, such as monetary law). The reasoning behind the Law or “spirit of the Law” may not interfere with the practice of Halakhah.

   Over the centuries, it is natural that certain traditional customs have developed and spread among the common masses of religious Jews, even though they contradict the Halakhah. Since modern rabbinic rulings may not conflict with Talmudic Law, popular custom certainly has no authority to contradict the Halakhah, even if it is in agreement with the majority opinion of currently recognized rabbinical sages. (The majority opinion of Torah sages only rules in the context of the Sanhedrin.)

   There is a widespread opinion that the above only applies to popular customs that are more lenient than the Halakhah, while prevalent custom that is stricter or adds to the authentic Halakhah is obligatory. We differ with this position. However, regarding customs and traditions that are more lenient than the Halakhah, there can be no argument: they must not be followed.

   In short, without a Sanhedrin, Talmudic Law is a closed system. What the Talmudic sages decreed and recorded in the Talmudic literature is legally binding, even if the reason for the decree no longer exists. Likewise, if they didn’t record any ruling on a particular case, then no ruling exists; there is no Halakhah on that case.

6. Talmudic literature contains Halakhah (law) as well as Aggadah (legend). There are schools that insist on an absolute, literal understanding of Aggadah, and a figurative interpretation of Halakhah. We strive to understand these in the spirit in which they were originally written: Halakhah according to the plain and simple meaning of the text, and the Aggadah figuratively, so that it does not seem to contradict the Halachah.

7. Whenever there is doubt regarding any matter of Halakhah (for example, if the text is unclear, or there is a difference of opinion between two reliable sources), one must always be strict on Torah Law, and lenient on rabbinical law.

8. The terrible suffering of the Jewish People over the millenia is a direct result of our having failed to keep the Halakhah properly as a nation. The gentile nations are not ultimately to blame for our terrible suffering. Rather, those nations that afflict us are agents of HaShem that will eventually be punished.

   The weight of the blame of our suffering falls on the shoulders of traditional Jewish leadership: Rather than assuming the authority to innovate new customs or reinterpret the Halakhah, post-Talmudic sages have the responsibility to serve as role models of proper halakhic behavior, to teach and show how the authentic Halakhah applies to their generation, and to enforce the Law to the extent of their power, rebuking the people when they stray from it. They also have the responsibility to guide the Jewish People towards the fulfillment of the entire Covenant, which includes restoring the Sanhedrin.

   Failure to guide the Jewish People properly is largely rooted in three problems:

   1. A failure to educate the common masses of Jews-including laymen, women, and children-in practical Halakhah and train them in the art of warfare (see Principle 14). Instead, there is an exaggerated emphasis on spirituality, which is widely perceived as separate from Jewish Law, and on the study of mysticism. Simplistic interpretation of kabbalistic teachings not only leads many to transgress key points of Halakhah, but emphasizes the importance of theology over practical action: the opposite of the authentic Torah approach.
   2. A feeling of obligation and mandatory confinement to the majority-accepted custom and halakhic interpretation. In classical yeshiva training, independent, critical study of classical texts for the letter of the Law is discouraged. Future leaders are groomed to pursue Torah study as a highly sacred academic ritual.
   3. This narrow approach to Halakhah fails to relate to the Torah as a whole. Halakhah that cannot be practiced outside of Israel, or without a Temple, has often been dismissed as not practical in our times and either reinterpreted, or largely ignored. (As mentioned above, acting as if any part of the Torah is no longer actively binding breaches the Covenant.)

9. The Mishneh Torah written by RaMBaM (Maimonides) is the only code of Jewish Law that relates to the entire Torah as a whole, and practical for every generation. It was written in order to put the entire breadth of Halakhah in the hands of laymen, women, and children, besides Torah scholars. The best way to learn, practice and teach Halakhah in our times is straight from the Mishneh Torah. It is also the only comprehensive summary of the entire Talmudic literature.

   Theoretically, the entire Halakhah can be completely learned, successfully practiced and taught straight from the written sources: Bible and the sum total of Talmudic literature (Mishnah, Tosephta, Mekhilta, Sifrei, Sifra, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Talmud Bavli). Practically, however, this is very complicated. Many years of intense learning are required to master this vast literature. The most authoritative work, the Talmud Bavli (Gemara), is written in a difficult dialect of Aramaic mixed with other languages. Furthermore, in our times, we no longer have texts of the Gemara that are uncensored and totally accurate. We no longer have the tradition required to identify non-authoritative conclusions added into the Gemara by post-Talmudic sages. We no longer have the ability to accurately distinguish between the authentic traditions received by the Geonim-which were not included in the Gemara-and their non-authoritative conclusions.

   RaMBaM, one of the greatest masters of Talmud ever, was a highly critical researcher, who possessed all of the above. Mishneh Torah preserves the most authentic understanding of that literature from 850 years ago. Written in relatively simple, clear Hebrew, it requires far less time to master.

   Normal, healthy, and serious individuals with proper discipline and guidance have the ability to master the entire Halakhah, using the Bible and the RaMBaM’s Mishneh Torah alone-without any other source, outside of any formal rabbinical training or yeshiva program. This is the very purpose for which the book was written.

   (The RaMBaM’s earlier sources do not reflect his final understanding as the Mishneh Torah does, since the latter was written in his maturity, and the work continued to be revised until his death. Furthermore, only Mishneh Torah editions from Yemenite manuscripts should be used. The European printed editions are notorious for their numerous censorships and countless unintentional copyists’ errors.)

10. The only alternative to learning for oneself with a teacher is choosing a halakhic guide-such as a rabbi-to dictate how one should practice Halakhah. However, following such a rabbinical figure does not exempt the follower from his rabbi’s mistakes. Every Jew is personally responsible for practicing the Law correctly, and is punishable for his mistakes-even those he learned from his rabbi.

    For the serious student, even the greatest rabbi is a poor alternative to taking responsibility for his own learning; for him, there is no viable alternative to learning in Hebrew, in the Land of Israel.

    Although independent study is ideal, some measure of guidance is necessary. Unlike more recent rabbinical works, the early authoritative rabbinical sources were written in order to be read in their entirety, and understood in the context of the whole text. Mishneh Torah must be read several times in its entirety, in order to gain the most accurate understanding of any part of the Law. Until one has completed the whole text several times, one should have the guidance of a teacher who has.

11. Learning Torah must only be done with the intention of putting into practice what one learns: Therefore, there is no such commandment as “to learn Torah” (as an intellectual exercise), but rather “to train in Torah”-to practice according to the plain and simple meaning of the text. Likewise, the opinion of most recognized Torah scholars-who mainly relate to Talmudic literature and Mishneh Torah on a theoretical level-cannot be compared to that of scholars who literally live by the authority of what is written in these sources. The latter are clearly more reliable than the former.

    Although it is less common today, this pure independent learning and practice of the Halakhah straight from the original sources is not a modern invention or theory. It has been the authentic tradition of Yemenite Jewry for centuries, as it was passed down to the former Chief Rabbi of Yemen, HaRav Yihia Qafih z”l, and his grandson, Rav Yoseph QapaH, z”l, renowned Torah giants in their respective generations. The torchbearers who continue in this tradition not only include Rav QapaH’s faithful students of many years, but serious, independent scholars of RaMBaM and Talmud-including non-Yemenites. Among these are those who have revived the old Andalusian (Spanish-Portuguese) school of tradition. The same general approach to Torah learning also continues outside the small RaMBaM world, namely among the serious students of the Vilna Gaon.

12. Accurate practice of the Halakhah must not be done mechanically, without feeling (like a robot), not in a morose or melancholy spirit, and not in arrogance, with an air of superiority. Rather, the Commandments must be practiced in a spirit of joy, and in a way that they influences one’s character, so that one fulfills them in a spirit of genuine goodness of heart. Accordingly, in the above-mentioned tradition, Torah learning and service of HaShem are only possible in the spirit of humility. Honest study of Torah can bring a person to challenge modern Jewish practice. Unless he is careful, one is in danger of looking down on his fellow Jew and holding other Torah scholars in contempt, G-d forbid. Anyone who joins this tradition just to be different from others, in a spirit of rebellion against the mainstream, or for any purpose other than to serve HaShem properly could bring a curse upon himself and others, rather than a blessing.

    Furthermore, there is absolutely no permission given or reason to look down on any traditional Jewish community, be it Ashkenazi, Sefaradi, etc. When measured against the standard of the authentic Halakhah, every group has kept certain laws better than others, and every group has ignored or remained ignorant of laws that others faithfully kept. Every Jewish community has important lessons to teach and many to learn.

13. The Torah is the inheritance of the entire Jewish nation, not only one community or school of thought. Just as there are Commandments that obligate each and every individual and even whole communities, there are Commandments that obligate the entire nation as one, such as rebuilding the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Without a proper Sanhedrin, many national obligations are practically impossible to fulfill. Therefore, even living according to the most rational and authentic understanding of Talmudic law (Mishneh Torah) is not a long-term ideal. Nothing can replace the Divine Commandment to form a Sanhedrin, whose rulings must be accepted by the entire Jewish People and the rest of the world. Living in a Torah state under a Sanhedrin, with a Holy Temple and a righteous Jewish king, is our long-term ideal.

    That being said, the only practical way for true rabbinical ordination and the Sanhedrin to be restored in our times, HaShem-willing, is through careful adherence to the rules set forth by the RaMBaM.

    The greatest challenge to be faced by a restored Sanhedrin in our day, is consensus: Effective judicial leadership of the nation requires general agreement among 71 Torah sages on literally hundreds of basic, critical legal issues from the outset, before they can even approach the enormous backlog of issues and challenges of the modern age. Over the centuries of exile, the range of rabbinical opinion has grown too broad, and the ideological rifts that divide the Torah world too deep for meaningful consensus to be reached over any practical span of time.

    Besides being the common legal base of all rival sects and communities in the modern Torah world, the Mishneh Torah is the only authoritative Code of Law written, covering whole areas of Law that become applicable for the nation under a Sanhedrin. Only by accepting Mishneh Torah as the initial baseline of the Halakhah, the general foundation and framework of Jewish Law, can the future Sanhedrin hope to fulfill an otherwise insurmountable task: unifying the Torah world and restoring Israel‘s national observance of Torah after 1600 years of exile.

14. Since no one can serve HaShem properly with a sick body, it is a fundamental Torah value to keep the body in good physical condition. Similarly, in every generation there are Jews who cannot live- much less practice the Commandments freely-without constant fear. A weak Jewish People that does not invest in Jewish warrior training for its army certainly cannot fulfill HaShem‘s Commandments to the nation. Therefore it is fundamental principle of Torah that Jews be trained in warfare-on the individual, communal, and national level. The RaMBaM teaches us that our kingdom was lost, our Holy Temple destroyed, and our exile prolonged for this very reason: that we did not involve ourselves in the study of warfare and conquest of lands. (Epistle to the Sages of Marseilles)

    Many fall into the error that modern warfare has done away with the need for comprehensive martial arts training. However, recent wars have proven an already universally-recognized principle of warfare: it is well-trained foot soldiers that secure victory in battle-not merely bombs and missiles. Except for the residents of border towns, the main terror threat being faced daily in Israel is by unarmed citizens being accosted by attackers on foot-armed and unarmed. In many-if not most of these cases-the police are unable to respond in time. Even worse, we are seeing more and more that it is the police whose training is inadequate to handle serious incidents.

    All the Commandments, including the establishment of kingdom and Temple, were given by HaShem to be fulfilled in a hostile world that is often hateful towards Him, His Torah and His Chosen nation of priests. Fittingly, the nation’s forefathers bequeathed their descendants with a unique art of warriorship, according to the twelve tribes of Israel, referred to as Qesheth in the Bible and Aggadah.

    (From the works of Josephus, the Mishnah, Talmud, down to the writings of Rash”i, RaMBaM and Malbim; references to this unique martial tradition in antiquity is running theme throughout post-biblical literature- both rabbinical and secular. Hints to its continuation in the communities of the Diaspora are also found in the writings of RaMBaM, HaRav Shmuel HaNaggid, and travelers to Yemen. The memory of the special fighting prowess of the Habbani, Kafkazi, Kurdish and Benei Yisraeli (Indian) Jews up until the recent past is preserved in the stories of their elders.

    For over two thousand years, Qesheth (also known as “Abir”) was continuously and rigorously maintained by the Habbani Jews of the Hadramaut region (including Yemen), until two generations ago, particularly in the Bin Awel-Sofer/Maatuf-DoH clan. Over a period of over twenty-five years, the chief of this clan and his son ensured that this tradition was passed down in its entirety to the grandsons, Yehoshua Sofer and his brother. As scion and elder of his warrior clan, Mori Yehoshua Sofer adapted Abir/Qesheth to the modern age on every level: from the individual up to the largest military groupings. This was done partly under the auspices of the Israeli Defense Forces, and even includes techniques against suicide bombers and airplane hijackers. Today, Abir/Qesheth is a living tradition available for Jews in Israel to learn, and as relevant as it ever was in the past.)

    Training in foreign martial arts is not the fulfillment of this Torah principle: The Bible is replete with negative examples of kings and armies who were defeated due to their fighting in the G-dless manner of gentiles: They trusted in pure military strength alone, with the corrupt belief in “my strength and the might of my hand.” (Deut. 8:17) Ultimately it is by the blessing of HaShem that wars are won; not physical might. Sadly, today’s widely-marketed martial arts are all taught in this same G-dless mindset, and/or they are the customs of idolatry, or even idolatry in and of themselves. Besides the legal and spiritual implications, they are taught as sport or past-time: they cannot provide the deadly effectiveness and comprehensive scope of the authentic Hebrew warrior tradition, together with its unique, ancient Torah wisdom and proper spiritual focus. That is aside from the special health and exercise benefits for young and old that are unique to Abir/Qesheth.

    It is for these reasons and more that warrior training in Abir/Qesheth is no less than a fundamental principal of our Torah tradition, as King David exhorted the tribe of Judah: “(The principle) to teach the sons of Judah Qesheth; behold it is written in The Book of Yashar.” (Shmuel II, 1:18)

If there are any questions, please e-mail mori Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron: torathmoshe@gmail.com