Beis Havaad, Le’arechat Kitvei Rabboseinu, ed. Yoel Hakoton and Eliyahu Soloveitchik, (Jerusalem, 2003); 272 pp. Beis Havaad is a collection of articles based on a series of lectures that were delivered in Yerushalayim dealing with many aspects of the proper way seforim should be published. Beis Havaad was originally intended to be a journal but, to date, no other issue has appeared. With its focus on books, it is only proper that a review of this book should appear at the Seforim blog — albeit somewhat belatedly — and discuss some of the many important points raised in this book. This book is a collection of articles from many of the top names in the field of printing and editing of seforim and includes articles by both rabbanim and professors. This sefer is basically a must have for anyone who wants to understand how seforim are printed, how to write them, how to find information and the importance of printing proper texts. Although I believe it is currently out of print, The sefer is available at Beigeleisen and many of the articles can be accessed online here. I will list some of the many points of interest raised in the various articles in the book. The book begins with an excellent article by Professor S.Z. Havlin regarding the importance of establishing the correct text of the seforim and using manuscripts. He gives some great practical samples demonstrating his points. Havlin also explains and examines the Hazon Ish’s position regarding the use of manuscripts and the need (or lack thereof) to establish a correct text. At the end of the article, Havlin highlights a source not typically used in the discussion about manuscripts etc. Havlin notes that the topic was touched upon in Chaim Potok’s novel The Promise. Havlin is not the only one to deal with this topic in Beis Havaad, R. Eliyahu Soloveitchik, in his article also discusses this topic. Both of these discussions add some more points to this ongoing discussion amongst talmidei hakhamim and scholars alike regarding the use of manuscripts and correcting texts. [I shall return to this topic at greater length in a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.] Professor Havlin also mentions a bit about the derech halimud of R. Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Additionally, included in this journal is a reprint of much of R. Kaplan’s work on the topic. This work of R. Kaplan is a very special blueprint of how to print an extensive commentary on shas. [This great goan and his works will be the subject of a forthcoming post at the Seforim blog.] With permission of the family, they printed parts of this fascinating project which unfortunately never came to full fruition. Another important article in this journal is from R. Hillel Parush of Machon Harav Herzog and deals with other aspects of the nusach of the Talmud. Amongst the topics that he discusses is the the Hagahos of the Maharshal on the gemara, if they were from based on logical deduction or manuscripts. [For more on this topic, see Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel, Amudim b’Toldot Sefer HaIvri, Haghot u’Maghim, pp. 279-85.] There are at least three articles discussing exactly how one should edit seforim. Each of these articles contribute different, yet offer very important points for discussion. The first is from R. Y. Weiss who was the editor of the excellent journal, Tzefenous. He gives many practical samples on mistakes found in various classical seforim and how he would suggest these mistakes be corrected. Following R. Weiss’s article on the topic is another article on the topic from Professor Robert Brody of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, famous for his work on the geonim. Specifically, Brody’s article discusses how after tracking down all the manuscripts of a specific sefer, the next step is to establish which manuscript is the most accurate text to base the actual text of the sefer. He also points out how one has to be very careful to be crystal clear when printing a sefer to note one’s methods in coming to the decision of which manuscript to use. [As Prof. Brody notes, this whole topic is a very complicated one, one that takes him a few months to teach how exactly this is done. Here, however, he provides an outline of some of the more salient points.]

R. Yoel Koton, co-editor of this volume and editor of the Hamaayan, has an in-depth article with all the rules of writing an article or sefer. Amongst the topics are all rules of grammar and how to quote the sources exactly. This is an extremely important article and anyone who is printing anything for the public should look at it as he raises many important issues. Amongst the points he raises are: the need to cite exactly what source is being quoted, including the edition used as many times there can be many works with the same name or even of the same author with different printings and one trying to track it down has great difficulty doing so; and, consulting experts on particular topics. Koton gives the example of if one is working on Mesechtas Rosh Hashana and comes to the topics relating to Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh, he should consult people who are familiar with astronomy. [One who looks at the work of R. Chaim Kanivesky on Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh will see how he consulted an expert on these topics.] As R. Zev Lev writes, in his introduction to Marchei Lev, how he used to explain and discuss the various aspects of science with R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach when he was working on his teshuvos about opening a refrigerator on Shabbos.

Another article of interest is from Benjamin Richler where he discusses the history of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM), situated in the Manuscripts and Archives Wing on the ground floor of the Jewish National and University Library, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[2] Richler writes that 95% of the Jewish manuscripts in the world can be found there, either through microfilm, or actual text. This was written a few years ago. More recently, Richler writes only 90% can be found here. Be that as it may, an extremely large percentage of the Jewish manuscripts in the world are found there. He writes that a very large percentage of the halachic works of the Rishonim have been printed. But on kabbalah and other topics there are still many works in manuscript. Richler encourages anyone working on a work of the Rishonim or Achronim to check if perhaps there’s another manuscript that will help them print a more accurate text of the work. See also Benjamin Richler’s posts (here and here) offering some examples on the benefits of the JNUL manuscript room. The catalog is available online, and it is very easy to navigate through. The staff of the manuscript room is very helpful.

Another article is by Ezra Schwat, also of the JNUL Manuscript Room. His article has a list of all the different helpful websites for one to find different manuscripts. These sites are very helpful for all different kinds of research related to all Jewish areas. Another article is from Professor Spiegel, one of the heads of the Bar Ilan Responsa project. He writes that it is very important for any person working on a sefer to use the Bar Ilan program and similar programs, as they are extremely helpful, especially for locating sources. This article was written before the waves of hard drives from Otzar Hachochma, Otzar Haposkim, Otzros Hatorah, and Hebrewbooks.org which are also important to use.

Another important article was written by Rabbi Mordechai Honig. This article is a continuation of an article from Professor Simcha Emanuel, available here, about the great necessity of an updated version of the sefer Sarei Haelef from Rabbi Menahem M. Kasher. The last updated print edition of the Sarei Haelef was in 1979 and much has been printed since then. Emanuel began to list in his article some of the updates and Hoenig gives another few hundred additions. The work is extremely important. Many times when one is working on a topic, one is curious to know if a work quoted by a Rishon was actually printed, or if there was any historical information about the Rishon. One can turn to this reference. But, as both Emanuel and Hoenig show, Sarei Haelef really requires an comprehensive update.

Included in this journal is an article from Rav Yitzchak Shilat dealing with one of his pet projects, the reprinting of the Perush HaMishnah of the Rambam. There is also an article describing the important project of Halacha Berurah based on R. Kook.

One of the articles which seems to be completely out of place of the spirit of this journal is written by R. Yehuda Liba ben Dovid. This author has written many excellent articles in different Torah journals, some of which he collected and printed in a very interesting sefer called Shevet Mi’Yehuda. Reprinted here is an article that was printed many times before, which is his macha’a (objection) on the way many frum authors write their works. His first problem is on two works printed from Machon Ofek, one called the Teshuvos Hagaonim Hachadashos by Prof. Simcha Emanuel and another called Teshuvos R’ Naturnai Gaon by Professor Robert Brody. His main complaint is that both of these works use Christian, Greek, Karai and Maskilic sources. He says that there’s no reason for a frum work to quote any of these works today. He writes that there is a reason why these works aren’t found in the local beis medrash or yeshiva library. Another example he gives is Ahavat Shalom reprinted a work on minhagim called Kesser Shem Tov from Shem Tov Gagen. This author also brings quote in his work from Christians, Karaim, and Reform Jews. Again, R. ben Dovid writes that he doesn’t understand how a respected publishing house could reprint this work. He goes on to list some other examples and complaints.

In my humble opinion I beg to differ on this point. The basic problem with R. ben Dovid’s article is that what he is suggesting runs directly counter to a significant portion of Beis Havaad and general common sense. As the Rambam teaches: Halomed Mikol Adam. Even if the sources aren’t religious or Jewish at all, if they have a good point, they may be quoted. Granted, this approach has been debated throughout the generations by many. In litvish circles, most notably, R. Yosef Zecharia Stern held that one may quote all sources as long as one realizes who he is quoting. Today in the field of Jewish academics and printing new seforim, there’s much to be learned from the way scholars, even non-Jewish ones, have presented their works, and sometimes they might have good point or two that’s beneficial for the work at hand. For example, if one is working on medical halakhic questions, he can’t just rely on the words of the poskim, but he must be familiar with updated studies in the scholarly world of medicine and to be at least aware of what they write about the various medical conditions before he reaches his conclusions. Knowledge of history is also very important especially in learning halakha as one needs to know who learnt by whom and who was born first, all of which plays a great role in deciding halakha. It is quite obvious to all that the Chida in his classic work Shem Hagedolim was not wasting his time when he wrote it.

There are many other examples of why this is important. For another example, see the excellent Haskamah of R. Shlomo Cohen to the Otzar Haseforim [a bibliography of Hebrew books] by Ben Yakov a Maskil – yes, a maskil – how, according to R. Yehudah, could he give a haskamah to such a work. So to in printing these works of Gaonim, Rishonim and even Achronim many times it is very helpful to be aware of history of the time in order to understand there words. Many times statements of the Geonim it has been proven how many things they wrote were specifically against the Karaim (there are numerous examples of this). Of course, no one is suggesting to pasken based on these Karaim or Christian sources, but it just helps one understand the specific words of the Gaonim and Rishonim. Great people had no problem using works that quoted such sources just to list a few: R. Mordechai Gifter, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg and R. Reuven Margoliyot all quote Prof. Saul Leiberman in their writings, as they did not seem to be bothered by R. ben Dovid’s concern. (many others have hid it see Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox).

Another example is when Professor A. Sofer, who also taught at JTS, passed away late at night. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who was a good friend of his, was feeling very weak than yet he made it his business to attend the funeral as a hakarat hatov for all R. Sofer’s work on the Meiri’s writings. (See Yeshurun, vol. 15, p. 501). When one works on minhagim it’s very helpful to be familiar with the history of the time in order to understand the development of certain things as Professor Daniel Sperber ably demonstrates time and time again in his now-eight-volume set of Minhagei Yisrael. Recently an excellent work on minhaghim came out from the ultra-Orthodox — as opposed to academic — circles called Mihnaghei Hakehilos by R. Yehiel Goldhaber. R. Goldhaber also uses such sources and he has received many haskamot from various gedolim. In sum it is important to use all available sources to understand what ever topic one is working on.

Of course, there is the very important point to all this which Professor Lieberman said many times, that the most important thing is to learn real Torah. All of these things are helpful but only a tafal to the learning. All of Professor Lieberman’s excellent writings on Greek in Jewish Palestine were on the side his main learning goals was to complete his works on the Tosefta and Yerushalmi.

In all, Beis Havaad, is an extremely important collection of articles on the topic of seforim in general.

ועשו להם ציצת – What to Make of Tzitzit

By Joseph Wertzberger [1]

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה
דבר אל־בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם ועשו להם ציצת על־כנפי בגדיהם לדרתם ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת
והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם
למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם
אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם
במדבר ט׳׳ו, ל׳׳ז – מ׳׳א

And HaShem said to Moshe as follows.
Speak to the people of Israel and tell them they should make themselves fringes on the ends of their garments, for generations, and place on the end-fringes a techelet-thread.
And they shall serve you as glance-objects – when you see them you’ll recall all HaShem’s orders and do them, and you won’t follow your hearts’ and eyes’ explorations, after which you tend to stray.
So that you recall and perform all my orders, and are ordained to your god.
I am HaShem, your god, that took you out of the land of Egypt to be your god, I am HaShem your god.

Numbers 15, 37-41

_________________

Archeologists recently published[2] new findings regarding the history of Tel Shiqmona, a site near present-day Haifa that was a large-scale production facility for techelet and argaman,[3] the deep blue and purple dyes used in ancient Israel and throughout the Near East during the First-Temple period and later.

Understanding techelet and its role in the ancient world can help us better appreciate how it, together with tzitzit, may have been viewed in early First-Temple Israel, and to more clearly recognize some of the ideas presented in its parsha and in related parshiot in the Torah.

Techelet was produced from the glandular excretions of the Murex trunculus sea-snail using an elaborate production method, and was the most valuable dye in the ancient Near-Eastern world — by some sources it took two-hundred and fifty thousand shells to produce one ounce of dye, which was then worth, by weight, three times the value of gold.[4] Due to its prized status and high cost, it was used in priestly vestments and royal garments[5] across the ancient Near East, including in Israel’s temple vestments.[6]

Techelet’s role in tzitzit can be understood as a signifier that, in contrast to other ancient Near-Eastern religions, in which the priestly class served as intermediaries between the people and their gods,[7] in ancient Judaism the entirety of the Jewish people and all of its members were conceived as a semi-priestly class, with each individual given direct access and communion to God, and all people required to serve him,[8] with sexual, dietary[9] and clothing rules applicable to each of them and signifying their special status.

Like the Israelite priesthood itself, which utilized techelet extensively in its raiment, and also perhaps in similitude to royal garments, individual Jews wore an article of clothing that included a small amount of techelet as a miniature priestly or royal vestment, reminding the wearer that they belong to a class of people vested with particular rules, and requiring maintenance of a higher order of behavior.[10][11][12]

Tzitzit and techelet are not simply objects randomly chosen to serve as reminders to keep the mitzvot. Rather, they signify the wearer’s membership in an elevated class of people to whom the mitzvot apply as part of class membership.

______________________

The root-word ציץ refers to a bud or a blossom,[13] to fringes or tassels,[14] and to the act of peeking,[15][16][17][18] and in its variants can be used in both noun and verb format.[19]

Understanding this reveals the beautiful and poetic wordplay-based meaning of parshat tzitzit, which juxtaposes two conceptions of the root-word ציץ playing off each other to provide the fuller meaning of the word ציצת, and the message of the passage and of the מצוה itself.

In the word’s initial appearance in verse 38, the Jews are told to make ציצת, bud-like thread-fringes, at the ends of their garments. In the next verse, the meaning of the word based on its sentence-context changes to the noun version of the work peek – an object to peek at.[20] The tzitzit together with their techelet are symbols of Israel’s special relationship with God, and thus serve as reminder-objects to regularly look at — “They shall be for you glance-objects,[21] for when you see them, you’ll recall the commandments…”.[22][23]

___________________________

All of which adds color to our understanding of the story of Korach and his arguments against Moshe and Aharon.

The reason the incident of Korach is placed directly after the chapter of tzitzit in the Torah is because Korach’s arguments flow directly from the ideas presented in that chapter. The foundational concept in the parsha of tzitzit is that all Jews are a royal and priestly class, all are קדשים לאלקיכם – sacred and dedicated to God; that God took the Jewish people out of Egypt, להיות לכם לאלקים, to be directly a God of all of the Jewish people – אני ה׳ אלקיכם. Comes Korach and argues, if all Jews are uniquely members of a royal and priestly class in direct communion with God, then why are separate priestly and ruling classes needed to lord over them and to mediate between them and the divine. Korach notes, כי כל העדה כלם קדשים )based on והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם); ובתוכם ה׳ )paralleling אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם) and therefore ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה׳. The words in Parshat Korach, and Korach’s message, directly address the words and the message in the chapter preceding it.

Many readers are now surely recalling the well-known midrash, a version of which appears in Rashi on the first verse in Parshat Korach, according to which Korach used tzitzit and techelet as a metaphor in his arguments against Moshe and the priesthood’s rule over Israel, contending that an article of clothing made entirely of techelet should not require tzitzit.[24] The meaning of the midrash is made clearer through our understanding of the parshiot. The crux of Korach’s argument is based on techelet’s inclusion in tzitzit as a symbol of priesthood and royalty, signifying the elements of priesthood and royalty carried by all Jews. The midrash elucidates this, and highlights the Korach story’s placement immediately after tzitzit, by elaborating on Korach’s arguments and their premises in the ideas behind techelet. Like a royal garment all of techelet should not need another strand of techelet to make it royal, the Jewish people, who are all part of a royal class, as signified by their own techelet, should not need another royal class to lord over them. Since all Jews have priestly status and are connected to God, what sense is there in adding another priestly appendage? Like a royal or priestly garment does not need an additional purple thread to signify and manifest its meaning, a nation that is itself entirely royal and priestly, should not need other superior and ministerial classes added to it.[25]

___________________________

To round out the discussion, let’s take a look at another midrash that discusses tzitzit and touches on many of the ideas and themes mentioned above.

ועשו להם ציצת על כנפי בגדיהם. זה שאמר הכתוב אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי לב שמחה (תהלים צ׳׳ז – י׳׳א), ה’ חפץ למען צדקו (ישעיה מ׳׳ב – כ׳׳א). זרע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה ואת המצות לישראל, כדי להנחילם חיי העולם הבא, ולא הניח דבר בעולם שלא נתן בו מצוה לישראל. יצא לחרש, לא תחרש בשור ובחמור, לזרע, לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, לקצר, כי תקצר קצירך בשדה… נתכסה בטלית, ועשו להם ציצת

תנחומא, שלח, סי׳ ט׳׳ו; רבה, במדבר, סי׳ י׳׳ז

“And they should make themselves tzitzit”: Regarding this it is written, “A light shines for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted” (Tehillim 97-11), “God desired the sake of his righteousness” (Yeshaya 42-21). God sowed Torah and mitzvot for Israel, in order that they inherit eternal life, and he did not leave a thing in the world regarding which he didn’t give a commandment to Israel. A person goes out to plow, “Don’t plow with an ox and donkey”; to sow, “Do not sow your vineyard mixed varieties”; to harvest, “When you harvest in the field”… [the midrash then mentions many other mitzvot that apply to various tasks, and ends with] he covers himself with a cloak, “they should make themselves tzitzit”.

Tanchuma Shelach 15; Rabbah Bamidbar 17.

To better understand the midrash and the significance of its two introductory verses, one needs to see the fuller context of those verses.[26]

אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי⁠ לב שמחה. שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו. תהלים צ׳׳ז, י׳׳א – י׳׳ב

A light is implanted for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted. Righteous, rejoice in God, and praise the recollection of his sacredness. Tehillim 97, 11-12.

החרשים שמעו והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי וחרש כמלאכי אשלח, מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. ישעיה מ׳׳ב, י׳׳ח – כ׳׳א

Deaf ones, listen, and blind ones, look and see. Who is blind, but only my servant, who as deaf as the messenger I send; who as blind as the wholesome, as blind as the servant of God. Seeing much and paying no heed, open-eared and hearing not. God desires the sake of his righteousness, let the directives be great, and more mighty. Isaiah 42, 18-21.

We can recognize numerous allusions and references to tzitzit, which help us understand the midrash’s message.

אור זרוע לצדיק – Mitzvot, of course, are Ohr Zarua because they are a light that guides our path, and were implanted into the activities of the world; but tzitzit, representing all of the mitzvot, are particularly so – titzit’s root-word includes an allusion to shining light, and to planted blossoms, and it protects the person from sinning, assisting to make him righteous.

ולישרי לב שמחה — In reminding the person of the mitzvot, the tzitzit assist to keep the person’s heart straight, protecting it from straying. (ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם)

שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו – That righteous person who thereby kept the mitzvot should praise and be grateful for the tzitzit, the reminders of sacredness – למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם.

Now on to the verses in Yeshaya…

והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי… מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר… – The midrash exposits these verses as a reference to the person who looks at and sees his tzitzit but whose eyes are at the same time blind to other temptations. As commanded in the verse in Bamidbar, he looks at his tzitzit, recalls and performs all of the mitzvot, is a servant of God, stays wholesome, and becomes righteous, while blind and paying no heed to the things that would otherwise lead him astray (והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי… עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם.).

ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – God desires the sake of righteousness,[27] and therefore he made the Torah and its commandments greater by making them more numerous and all-encompassing, so that they serve to protect us against sinning and keep us righteous.[28] And the tzitzit are what serve to remind us to keep all of those commandments – [29]למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי.

Looking back now at the verses in the chapter on tzitzit, one notices how many of its words and ideas are presented and cross-referenced in the two passages in Tehillim and Yeshaya as exposited by the midrash: the meaning of the word Tzitzit as a blossom, and as a shining light, tzitzit assisting their wearer and seer to remain righteous, to recall all of the very many mitzvot, to serve God and keep them, to remain wholesome and righteous, not to stray after one’s heart, and not to stray after one’s eyes.

והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם

Almost everything in these two verses on tzitzit is cross-referenced somewhere in the passages mentioned in the midrash.

___________________________

Having said all of this one cannot help but end with the well-known Mishna that closes Tractate Makot:

רבי חנניה בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב”ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. מכות ג׳ – ט׳׳ז

In light of the midrash just discussed, we recognize that the word לזכות as used in the Mishna means to purify (rather than to provide merit, the more common contemporary translation of the word as used in the passage). The numerous mitzvot serve to keep those who perform them pure, to help stay them from sin, and to maintain their righteousness.[30]

This also helps explain the Mishna’s placement at the end of the last chapter of Makot, which is comprised of lengthy lists of sins and descriptions of their punishments. In light of that, and also so as not to close the tractate with all of that negative material, the Mishna quotes this teaching regarding how mitzvot’s abundance serves to protect us from the many sins, and leads us in their stead to good.

[1] The author is the creator of the YouTube channel, Understanding Kohelet.
[2] Shalvi G., Sukenik N., Waiman-Barak P., Dunseth Z.C., Bar S., Pinsky S., et al. (2025), Tel Shiqmona during the Iron Age: A first glimpse into an ancient Mediterranean purple dye ‘factory’, PLoS ONE 20(4): e0321082 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321082); Shalvi, G., & Gilboa, A. (2023). Between Israel and Phoenicia: The Iron IIA–B Fortified Purple-dye Production Centre at Tel Shiqmona, Tel Aviv, 50(1), 75–110 (https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2023.2190283).

See also, Mihailo S. Zekic, The Secrets of Tel Shikmona, Let the Stones Speak Magazine, July – August 2023, (https://armstronginstitute.org/933-the-secrets-of-tel-shikmona); Lidz, Franz, In Israel, a 3,000-Year-Old Purple Factory, NYTimes, March 5, 2024, (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/science/archaeology-tyrian-purple-murex.html); Margolis, Andrea, Archeologists Uncover Ancient “Factory” Used to Produce Coveted Purple Dye Mentioned in Bible, Fox News Online, May 10, 2025 (https://www.foxnews.com/travel/archaeologists-uncover-ancient-factory-used-produce-coveted-purple-dye-mentioned-bible).
[3] Argaman is also known as Tyrian purple.
[4] Zaria Gorvett, Tyrian Purple: The lost ancient pigment that was more valuable than gold, BBC Online, November 24, 2023 (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231122-tyrian-purple-the-lost-ancient-pigment-that-was-more-valuable-than-gold#).
[5] E.g., Esther 8-15.
[6] E.g., Shemot, Chapter 28.
[7] See, for example, Ada Taggar-Cohen, Priests and priestesses, ancient near east (June 30, 2015), in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25085).
[8] ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. שמות י׳׳ט ו׳

And you will be dedicated to me, a nation of priests, and a consecrated people. Shemot 19-6.
[9]  רמב׳׳ם, משנה תורה, סדר קדושה.
[10] This is alluded to in וראיתם אתו… ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם, which expresses tzitzit’s role as a representative sign of the Jewish nation’s sacredness as a people dedicated to God and ordained to serve him.
[11] It may also be that fringes at the ends of garments themselves also signified royalty or the priestly class. See Stephen Bertman, Tasseled Garments in the Ancient Near East Mediterranean, The Biblical Archeologist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1961); Jacob Milgrom, Hems and Tassels, Biblical Archology Review, Volume IX, No. 3 (May/June 1983). Turning the weft that remained at either end of a garment into ornamental tassels would have been a way of indicating the significance of the wearer, contrasting with ordinary garments which would have had the ends of their wefts sewn into a straight hem, to make the clothing more utilitarian and also more durable. See also, Kelly Olson, Fringed Clothing in Roman iconography and written sources, Chapter 11 in Textiles in Ancient Mediterranean Iconography (Oxbow Books, 2022), and Ancient Fashion: Fringed Clothing in Roman Iconography and Written Sources, at https://brewminate.com/ancient-fashion-fringed-clothing-in-roman-iconography-and-written-sources.
[12] Another area where a parallel exists between the service of Israel’s priestly class and that of the ordinary Jewish “semi-priesthood”, is the prohibition on leaven in the Temple (Shemot, 34-25, and elsewhere), which applies to all of the Jewish people during their Pesach sacrifice and subsequent holiday.
[13] והיתה ציצת נובל צבי תפארתו, אשר על ראש גיא שמנים כבכורה בטרם קיץ, אשר יראה הראה אותה, בעודה בכפו יבלענה. ישעיה כ’’ח ד׳

הבאים ישרש יעקב, יציץ ופרח ישראל, ומלאו פני תבל תנובה. ישעיה כ’’ז ו׳
[14]  וישלח תבנית יד ויקחנו בציצת ראשי. יחזקאל ח׳ ג׳
[15] דומה דודי לצבי או לעפר האילים, הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו, משגיח מן החלנות מציץ מן החרכים. שה’’ש ב׳ ט׳
[16] Consider also the interesting example of, .בפרח רשעים כמו עשב ויציצו כל פעלי און… ותבט עיני בשורי
[17] Of course the word ציץ‘s meanings of blossom and peek are related, since blossoms are the first peeks of a plant’s flower and color.

It’s interesting to note that just like the English word peek is used to refer both to the thing that is just barely seen peeking out of a crack, and to the person that is peeking and just barely sees something, the Hebrew word מציץ can have a similar dual use, as seen in the poetic utilization of the word מציץin the verse in Shir HaShirim referred to in note 15, where the lover peeking through the cracks in the verse can be understood as the lover looking at his beloved through the cracks (see, for example, Rashi, Rashbam and ibn Ezra), but also as the countenance of the lover just barely appearing to his beloved through the cracks (R’ Yosef Kimchi, Metzudat David and Ho’il Moshe, as well as Rashbam in Shemot 28-36) — the woman gets a glimpse of her lover, who then disappears, and later in verse 14 she beseeches him to appear again.

See also Me’or Eineyim, Bereshit and Pinchas, in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov, that the concept of מציץ מן החרכים alludes to a person’s tendency to want to do the right thing due to the perception that people are watching and paying attention to them, and that this is in fact a manifestation of what in reality is the person’s desire to do the right thing due to their perception of God observing them. We feel and respond to our perception of human observation, but we are really perceiving God’s essence, so to speak, observing us; manifesting through our perception of humans’ perception – God is, so to speak, מציץ מן החרכים.

Here too, the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation of the passage as reflected through this teaching can be understood as reading the word מציץ in the verse both as God observing us and watching us through the people that surround us, as well as God appearing to us through our sense of people’s observation.

The teaching contains a similar idea to the Baal Shem Tov’s well-known teaching regarding ה׳ צלך, that not only is God a shadow over the human, protecting them, but also a shadow of the human, appearing to the human as the human understands God; and is also typical of many of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings in that it contains several layers of meaning that are related to one another and nest inside each other.
[18] With regard to the ציץ of the High Priest, there are various interpretations regarding the source of the word, for example ibn Ezra interprets it as similar to ויקחנו בציצת ראשי (see note 14), while Rashbam says it was called ציץ because it was seen, similarly to מציץ מן החרכים. It’s also possible that the source of the word was due to the shine glancing off of the ציץ, and how it added aura to the appearance of the High Priest, and made it ‘pop’, similarly to ועליו יציץ נזרו in Tehillim 132-18 (see also Chizkuni with a similar explanation). Again, of course all of these meanings are related, and it’s quite possible that the source of the word יציץ’s usage as shine and glance is itself based on light’s bursting forth from the shining object. In a similar light, R.S.R. Hirsch explains that the root word ציץ signifies something that protrudes and pops out of a surface, and that this is the source of the word’s usage for blossoms, fringes, peeking, as well as for the High Priest’s ציץ. See also Sifri, Bamidbar, 15-32, אין ציצת אלא דבר היוצא, ודבר כל שהוא, which supports to R.S.R. Hirsch’s interpretation. See also Divrei Yirmiyahu on Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, 1-1.

Speaking of which, it interesting to note that the ציץ, just like ציצת, incorporated a פתיל תכלת.
[19] אנושׁ כחציר ימיו, כציץ השדה כן יציץ. תהלים ק׳׳ג ט׳׳ו
[20] Rashbam and Ri Bechor Shor also note this change in the word’s meaning between verses 37 and 38. Interestingly, Rashi notes both fringes and looking as possible meanings of the word in verse 37, seemingly not taking the view that the word has different meanings in the two sentences.

The interpolation of the instruction to put techelet on the fringes coming between the two mentions of the word tzitzit, meshes well with reading a change in the word’s meaning between its two appearances, because it’s the techelet that makes the tzitzit a symbol of the Jews’ elevated status, thereby turning it in it into a handy reminder of its associated status’ accompanying behavioral requirements. ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת –> והיה לכם לציצת In this reading these are not two unrelated phrases in sequence, but are in fact intended to be meaningfully read together, one related to the other.
[21] Unfortunately there is no English-language word equivalent to this concept, so I coined the word glance-object, or alternatively, look-object, somewhat similar to the word looking-glass.
[22] See also Tanchuma Bamidbar 15, Rabah Bamidbar 17-5 – והיה לכם לציצית, שתהא נראית… וראיתם אותו, פרט לכסות לילה. The word tzitzit itself already includes in its meaning the concept of being seen, even without the addition of וראיתם אותו.

Interestingly, this interpretation is first provided by the midrash in verse 38, and not in verse 37, while the Sifri’s exposition of the word tzitzit as signifying anything that protrudes, mentioned in note 18 above (and which seemingly contradicts the continuation of the midrash here in Tanchuma that provides a minimum length for tzitzit based on the requirement for it to be seen), is provided in verse 37. This seems to lend support to the idea that the meaning of the word changes between the two sentences.

Reading the first two uses of the word as fringes, and the third as referring to a larger mitzva of tzitzit with a broader meaning that encompasses both the fringe element and the techelet element works very well with the Rambam’s reading of tzitzit as two elements of one larger mitzva. Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, Chapter 1, Sections 1-5. Furthermore, with this perspective in mind we can also posit that the fringe element of the mitzva does not require a particular length, in accordance with the Tanchuma, while the combined fringe-techelet full mitzva of tzitzit requires a particular length, in accordance with the Sifri, since it is predicated on being seen. And in fact we must reconcile the Tanchuma and Sifri’s two readings halachically, and cannot read them as conflicting opinions, since the Sifri cites the elders of Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel as concurring on the point that tzitzit can be of any length as long as they protrude, while the Tanchuma cites a disagreement between Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai regarding different required lengths for tzitzit based on the requirement for them to be seen. In consonance with the Rambam’s reading and the explanation provided here, the two readings do not in fact contradict each other, neither halachically nor as a literary reading of the text, both of which support each other.

Incidentally, this is a case where one can follow the thread of halachic development very well. The Torah itself simply states in straightforward terms that one should create fringes at the ends of garments, and place techelet on the fringes, to have it be seen and serve as a reminder of the mitzvot. Chazal then flesh out the parameters more precisely based on the passages’ words and contextualized meanings — explaining tzitzit’s baseline concept as a simple protrusion, while noting that fulfillment of the fuller concept and its service as a seeable reminder requires a minimum that can be seen. The Rambam then forms the mitzva into a categorical set of parameterized components and rules tracking the requirements and concepts set out by Chazal. At each stage the mitzva and its details are presented using the language and conceptualization familiar to the Torah and expositors of the particular period, while expressing the same underlying ideas.
[23] Another interesting bit of wordplay in the passage is the juxtaposition of the words tzitzit and mitzvot. Both are somewhat similarly-sounding, and indeed, the tzitzit stand in as a reminder of the mitzvot.

I recall noticing as a child in shul, that when we got to the end of Keriyat Shema, you’d suddenly hear a lot of tz’s, s’s and z’s in the room, which had an interesting sound and ring to it. I used to think it was just a kind of funny random thing a child notices, but it turns out that the particularly perfusive profusion of sound in the passage is not an accident but in fact a feature of the passage’s poetry and wordplay (not dissimilar, for example, to the line צבאות צאנך יצלצלו בקול in Hakalir’s אדירי איומה, recited by Ashkenazim during shacharit on the first day of Rosh Hashana, or the line אלו ואלו בצפצוף מצפצפים in the similarly styled כל שנאני שחק, recited in the same place in the service on the second day).

And if we want to stretch the exercise further we might even say that the ז׳ in זכרתם also serves as a poetic counterpoint to the ז׳ in זנים – the tzitzit pull one back to the mitzvot, acting as a reminder to keep the mitzvot and not wander after the temptations pulling one away.
[24] The midrash is as follows, “’And Korach took…’ What is written prior to this matter, “Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make themselves tzitzit”. Korach jumped on this point and said to Moshe, “does a garment all of techelet require tzitzit?” Moshe said to him it requires tzitzit. Said Korach, “a garment all of techelet does not exempt itself, and four threads exempt it?” Tanchuma Korach, Siman 2. Another story with a slightly different spin on how Korach arranged talitot and tzitzit to illustrate the ideas behind his argument is presented several lines later in the same midrash.

Note that the midrash also seems to be explicating the phrase “Vayikach Korach”, which is anomalous in that there is no object connected to the subject and verb. The Midrash explains that Korach “took” the chapter and the ideas that immediately precede the word “vayikach”. See also Tanchuma at the start of Siman 3, which states “ויקח קרח – לקח טליתו”, which seems to be phrasing the idea in a similar way, explicating the word “vayikach”.
[25] This is a good example of how classic midrash analyzes and identifies the literary references, and the larger ideas, meanings and messages, that underlie the Torah’s words, phrases and narratives, and their relationships and connections; and explicates and illustrates them using memorable story-form, metaphor and allegory.
[26] This is often the case with midrash. Our written versions of a particular midrashic teaching may quote only a brief snippet of the relevant verse being analyzed, while the full breadth and point of the midrash’s teaching become evident only in the light of, and often apply to, a much fuller extent of the quoted verse(s).
[27] The word צדקו in this verse also serves as a cross-reference to the word צדיק in the Tehillim verses.
[28] An additional connotation of the teaching is that the greater the Torah is (יגדיל), and the more commandments and rules it has, the mightier it is, and the more effect it has (יאדיר).
[29] The verse ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו as exposited in this midrash can also be read as a reference to the verse regarding tzitzit in Devarim 22-12, where tzitzit are called גדלים. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – in order to increase His desired righteousness, God represented the Torah and mitzvot in the gedilim, so that their wearers may perform the many mitzvot in the Torah and become great. And in fact the verseגדלים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך in Devarim 22 – 12 comes directly after several of the other verses quoted in this midrash regarding the many and various mitzvot – the four verses directly preceding גדלים תעשה לך are all directly quoted in the midrash.
[30] This Mishna’s teaching reflects very well Chazal’s own project of building and enlarging Torah shebe’al peh as a means of clarifying, sharpening and expanding the contours of mitzvot and of the Torah, so that they serve as a stronger spiritual lattice and framework for the Jewish people, particularly after the loss of the Temple and its symbolic and ritualistic role as an identifying marker and base for Israel and for its connection to God, and following the exilic loss of the Jewish people’s identity tied to a land and a governing nation. מיום שחרב ביהמ”ק אין לו להקב”ה אלא ד’ אמות של הלכה בלבד (ברכות ח.) – the laws and rules of halacha act as a framework on which the Jewish people’s relationship with God establishes itself and is based upon, thereby serving as a space for God in this world, so to speak, in place of the Bet Hamikdash which had previously served this role.