REPLY: Revenant Mitzvot

In his recent “Tradition Questions” column, Rabbi Chaim Strauchler presented an interesting set of mitzvot that have surprisingly regained popularity in our own era (TraditionOnline.org, March 14, 2024). “Ghost Mitzvot” as he calls them, are mitzvot that were hovering around in the background but had fallen out of practice; there, but not quite there. However, an important distinction must be made between the examples given by R. Straucher. In the case of the Matnat Kehuna and Hadash, there was nothing that prevented anyone from keeping those mitzvot over the generations. Regarding Tekhelet, however, Jews were completely unable to fulfill that commandment since the identity of the Hillazon (sea-snail source of the dye) and the processes required to produce Tekhelet were forgotten, most probably due to Roman persecution and other historical circumstances. This distinction is halakhically crucial, as reestablishing the former two mitzvot goes against an existing tradition, whereas with Tekhelet, that is not the case. That difference forms the basis of the Beit Halevi’s famous challenge to R. Gershon Leiner of Radzyn who, in the late 19th century, attempted to identify the Hillazon with the cuttlefish, a species that had long been known as a dye-producing mollusk. The Beit Halevi wondered what new information was being brought to bear by the Rebbe. “However, if we say that this fish was in existence and also the process for extracting the dye was known at all times past since Tekhelet was lost to Israel,” the Beit Halevi contends, “and still our fathers and their fathers did not wear it, then it is as if we have a tradition and legacy from our fathers that this fish and dye are not the Hillazon and Tekhelet, even though they fit all the descriptions that our Sages characterized. For even if the proofs are as numerous as the sands, they will not overcome the legacy and tradition” The Beit Halevi concludes and clarifies his position: “Only after it becomes clear that this fish or that dye process was lost and its existence or knowledge was forgotten, only then will we look to proofs in the halakha” (as cited by the Radzyner in the introduction to Ein HaTekhelet). Any mitzva that was available but not practiced is suspect, as it violates tradition. Only something unable to be performed can be reinstated based on logic. Perhaps a better term for Tekhelet would be a “Revenant Mitzva”—a mitzva brought back to life.

One additional small point to clarify is the general misconception, suggested in the article, that “the Modern Orthodox seem to have more ardently embraced tekhelet” than their Haredi brothers. While this may have been true in the early days of the revival of Tekhelet, it is certainly no longer the case. In fact, the Haredi community in all its diversity has begun to accept murex Tekhelet, surpassing the Modern Orthodox community both in absolute numbers and in the rate of adoption, if not (yet) in relative percentages.

Baruch Sterman is the CEO and Co-Founder of Ptil Tekhelet, and author of The Rarest Blue.