The Viewpoint of the Vilna Gaon On The Subject of the Number of Tekhelet Strings

[edu]

Many Kahanists wear some form of Tekhelet, either the new tekhelet of Amutat Petil Tekhelet made from the [murex] trunculus mollusc or Radzin Tekhlelet. Given the interest in the subject of Tekhelet, I thought I would offer some background info to help you decide how many tekhelet strings to wear.
 The following is a quote from a larger article on Tekhelet at http://www.vilnagaon.org/solutions.htm
An Introduction
There are Rishonim, such as, Rambam, that ruled that one thread out of the eight (after it has been tied) will be Tekhelet and the rest will be white (or other colors).

    There are Rishonim such as,  Meiri, who held that two out of the eight threads be Tekhelet.

    Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Rosh and Baal Ha'itur, and more, held that four out of the eight threads be Tekhelet.

    Rabbi Tzvi (Hershel) Schachter established that for practical halachic purposes the ruling is four out of eight threads.

    As sources for  his opinion he brought Mishna Brura, Chapter 9, siman katan 7 and the author of the Shulchan Aruch, to chapter 12, siman 1, on the matter of torn threads, who brought the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam*, as halacha, that we always use two threads of Tekhelet and two of white [before tying them into eight]. And so too, see the Mishna Brura, Chapter 9, siman katan 14, in the name of the Malbim, that with two threads [before tying] that are like the garment  and two threads that are made from wool, he has done properly, for there are two separate parts to the commandment regarding Tzitzit, two strings of white and two strings of Tekhelet.

    *In my humble opinion, although Mishna Brura rules that two out of four strings be Tekhelet, he leans more towards Rashi's view on why  two Tekhelet strings should be used and not Rabbeinu Tam's view [see comment #11 of the Mishna Brura to O.C. chapter 12].

    Also the Tur and the Chazon Ish (and in the view of the Beit Yosef {Rabbi Yosef Karo}, even the Raavad) stated that we should make the strings of Tekhelet in accordance to the amount mandated by Rashi and Tosafot {Rabbeinu Tam was one of the Tosafot} and so too does the author of Aruch Hashulchan {Rabbi Epstein}  lean (but not in an absolute way). However, I must admit the truth, that currently, from what I see on the street, the majority (who are in actual way using Tekhelet) seem to be going by Meiri's viewpoint and in accordance to the textual version of Raavad's critiques of Rambam that we have (namely two out of eight). And some important Rabbis (for example, Rabbi Dov Lior, Shlit"a) act in accordance with Rambam's viewpoint.

    Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger, Shlit"a wrote:

    On the question of the position of our Rabbi, the Gaon of Vilna, on this issue, we seemingly have a great confusion. In three places our Rabbi relates to the subject, regarding the number of strings of Tekhelet, and in each one, he expresses a different opinion. In his commentary to Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 12:5) he holds like the view of Rashi and Tosafot and shows support for their views from various sections of the Gemara and Sifri. In his commentary to Safra Dtsniuta (chapter 5, on the words Shiva Rehitin) he explains in accordance to Rambam, and in his commentary to the Zohar, Yahel Ohr (Parshat Pinchas 228b), he explains according to Raavad's opinion {comment: that in his critiques of the Rambam, it is written in the texts that we have, that we use 2 Tekhelet strings out of the eight) and he writes that viewpoint that should be accepted is as he {Raavad} says.
    For Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger's explanation for the contradiction within the words of the Vilna Gaon, see the internet article in Hebrew at http://tekhelet.com/pdf/hagra.pdf . But in my humble opinion, there is another way to explain the words of the Vilna Gaon.
    In the commentary of Tifferet Yisrael to Menachot Chapter 4, the author of Tifferet Yisrael establishes:
"That it is a mitzva to put on the each corner 4 strings. One or two strings of Tekhelet and the rest white. But if all of them were white or all of them were Tekhelet, he has fulfilled his obligation".
    Now it appears to me that in the opinion of Tifferet Yisrael there is an option either to use one Tekhelet string or two. For in his opinion, from the verse "G'dillim {a Hebrew term defined by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as, bound or doubled tassels} you shall make for yourself", we learn just that there is an obligation to put 4 strings (before tying into eight) on every corner. But we don't learn from this verse at all, how many strings out of the 4 have to be Tekhelet.
    And if so it is possible to fulfill the obligation of the verse "and the corner is a P'til {a Hebrew term to be defined later on}of Tekhelet", either by one string of Tekhelet or by two.
    Now many ask, how is it possible that P'til  of  Tekhelet be more than one string, for seemingly, there would have been a need to write P'tilei {which denotes the plural form of P'til} if the intent was for two?
    Now one can respond that this is an ancient dispute. For Beit Hillel and seemingly Targum Unkelos to Numbers 15:38 indeed held that P'til= a string. However, Beit Shammai (and the halacha is in accordance with Beit Shammai on this matter) and the Targum Yerushalmi explain that P'til = a twisted ply as shown in the attached picture (and does not instruct us on the amount of Tekhelet strings that we should use).
 I partially unravelled a Tekhelet string for this picture to show that each Tekhelet string is a twisted ply.

    And so too, Rashi in his commentary to the Torah (Exodus 39:31) proves that the term P'til Tekhelet is not limited specifically to one string. Now here is a translated quote:
    "And do not be surprised that it didn't say {in the text that discusses the strings that fasten certain garments of the Temple priesthood} P'tilei Tekhelet {which more simply denotes multiple strings} since they are multiple {strings}, for behold we have found regarding the breastplate and the Ephod -'They laced the breastplate ... with a P'til Tekhelet' (Exodus 39:21) and you are compelled to agree that there were not less than two, for behold at the two edges of the breastplate were two rings of the breastplate and on the two shoulders of the Ephod, that were opposite them, and according to the way of tying, there were four strings, but in any case less than two is not possible", {end of quote.}
      One should further add that also the Hebrew word Oto {or Oso depending on your accent}spelled  אותו
that appears in the section describing the mitzvah of Tzitzit (Numbers 15:39)  And it shall be for you for Tzitzit and you shall see  אותו
where the word Oto is either defined in English as the word, it or as the word, him, although it is in the singular form, still is not a proof that one should use only one string of Tekhelet, for our Sages used  this word to derive the Torah's viewpoint on other issues regarding Tzitzit {not connected to the issue of how many Tekhelet strings to use}.
    Therefore it appears to me, that as far as the absolute truth is concerned, the Vilna Gaon held that it is sufficient to use one string out of the four {before tying} for Tekhelet, however because there is an option similar to the viewpoint of the Tifferet Yisrael to use either one or two, for practical halachic action, we are obligated to be stringent in accordance to the views of Rashi and Tosafot (who demand that two out of the four strings be Tekhelet).
 

[muman613]

I have a couple of friends who have tzit-tzits with the fringe of blue {techlit}. But I still only wear tzit-tzits which are all white. I know the discussion about what is considered the original source of the Techlit but most rabbis today are still not convinced of this [or so it seems].

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/kitzur/05kitzur.doc
TEKHELET
The third paragraph of the Shema, which contains the commandment of tzitzit, admonishes that we should gaze at them "so that you should perform ALL of My commandments."  It is ironic that this very act of gazing at the tzitzit reminds us that we are NOT performing all of the commandments - there is a conspicuous omission in the fringes themselves!  This is because for over a thousand years it has been impossible to fulfill the commandment of "tekhelet" - that the fringes should include not only white fringes (or those dyed with regular colors) but also "tekhelet" ones, which are dyed with the blood of the "chilazon."

Recently, the research of many Torah scholars has come to concur with the near-consensus of secular scholars who have identified the chilazon with a particular species of conch.  (3)  While it is too early to assert that a definite identification has been made none that would carry with it a definite obligation, in the meantime thousands of Jews are doing their best to "perform ALL of My commandments" according to the best information they have.  This explains any sky-blue fringes you may have seen.

[edu]

There are a number of reasons why many Rabbis still don't wear Tekhelet
I'll give some but not all.
1] Many Rabbis say to me your arguments sound good on paper, but I am waiting for Rabbi Elyashiv or perhaps one of the other big Gedolim.
2] The Gedolim on the other hands have their reasons for not wearing Tekhelet. Rabbi Shlomo zalman Auerbach, according to the story of Rav Menachem Burstein as brought in Lulaot Hatechelet [by Teitelbaum] said that Rabbi Auerbach would have worn Tekhelet if the new Tekhelet had come while he was younger, but now he is too old for this. What I understand from that is that as a youngster, he was not yet considered, the Gadol, and therefore could do things more as he saw fit to do; but as an old man who was a Gadol, who many people refer to, when they want to know what does Judaism have to say on a subject, in his position as Gadol, he could not do it.
This could be understood in several ways. Some say this means [because I've heard this argument raised on other issues] that if he would come out to support this innovation, he would lose his status as a Gadol, for more important life and death issues. I have even heard from a strong Kahanist, that certain Kahanists would not take up the cause of Tekhelet, so as not to drive away certain allies from the core nationalists issues stressed by Rabbi Kahane.
Another way, to understand this is that he considered it a "hiddur" to be stringent, if only he was involved. But as a Gadol, he feared causing either an economic loss to the poor for his stringency, or he was afraid some people might be too convinced, that it was absolutely Tekhelet and would stick with it even if new proof for a better candidate for Chilazon emerged in the future.
3 Rav Elyashiv himself wrote that on such issues we have to wait for "Moreh Tzedek" {Ie. Mashiach or Eliyahu} He also raises some reasons, which in my opinion are very weak, of why not to wear any Tekhelet, no matter what the proof.
4 Some Rabbis are waiting for some method to make durable dye from a different candidate for the chilazon, the Talmudic source for Tekhelet or at least find some fault matching the characteristics of the chilazon with the attributes of the creatures that are currently candidates to be the chilazon.
5 One big Rabbi that I talked to said he purposely did not want to read the proofs for the new Tekhelet, because as long as I am ignorant of the facts I am not obligated