הלכה על מנחות 87:22

I found in the work of the brilliant Sephardic Rabbi David Pardo of Blessed memory, in his precious book Sifre Deve Rev, who brings up the point in connection with the above mentioned Sifre and asks regarding the query of Rabbi Yose 'is it to be found, 'was it not found during the days of the Amoriam? And he answers that 'since the old man told him that his livelihood comes from the Hillazon, and did not say (that it comes from) the Techelet, it was implied that his work is not the dying of the Techelet or the selling of the Techelet, that he was always hunting the Hillazon itself, and it was from this that he made his livelihood. And this was Reb Yose's question; "How was he able to make a livelihood from the Hillazon," because this implied that he was able to track it down at any time; Is it so common? And the old man answered him "indeed it is not to be found except in a certain place, in the seas." And he explained there 'that only the choicest is hidden for the Righteous," see there. It seems that the meaning of this scholar's words, of blessed memory, that it is only because he (the old man) said that his livelihood was from the Hillazon, that Reb Yose asked, 'is it (so easily) found.' This is in accordance with what is written (Menachot44a) that it (the Hillazon) surfaces only once in seventy years, see there. And since it only surfaces once in seventy years how can it be so common as to be captured at any time? However, the dye of the Techelet (on the other hand) was readily obtainable for although the Hillazon only surfaced once in seventy years, nevertheless, at the time that it surfaced, they prepared enough Techelet dye for seventy years. This seems to be the meaning of his words of blessed memory. And perhaps he himself said this explicitly, however his book is not in front of me now, so that I can look at it, I am merely quoting from memory.

1. The color of the body of the Hillazon resembles the color of the sea as the Rabbis in Tractate Menachot (44A) taught that the color of the Hillazon resembles the color of the sea. Rashi explains that the Hillazon emerges from the sea and the Techelet resembles the sea, that is to say that the sea it is found in and that it emerges from is the cause of its color.

It is already well-known that there is a command to cease work on Shabbat and that it was repeated twelve times in the Torah. Would you see someone who counts the commandments saying that they are included as commandments of resting on Shabbat, and that they are twelve commandments? And likewise does the prohibition of eating blood come seven times. Would any learned one also think to say that the prohibition of blood is seven commandments? And this is something that no one would err about - meaning that resting on Shabbat is [only] one of the positive commandments. And you should know that even when you find the expression of the Sages, that one who transgresses prohibition x has transgressed so many negative commandments or when he who negates matter y has negated so many positive commandments - it does not necessarily come out of this that you should count each one of those negative commandments or positive commandments individually; for it is the same content and there is no [true] multiplicity. Indeed, they [are saying] that he transgresses so many positive or negative commandments on account of the repetition of the command or the prohibition of that commandment; for he transgressed many [statements of the] prohibition. This is unless you find that they say, he is given two or three [sets of] lashes. For then, each one is counted individually. For one cannot be given two [sets of] lashes for one category (shem), as is clarified from that which is made known in the Talmud in Makkot (Makkot 16a) and Chullin (Chullin 82b) and other places. Indeed one receives two [sets of] lashes for two categories - meaning for two matters about which a prohibition comes for each one. And that is the difference between their saying, "He transgresses for this and that," and their saying, "He receives two [sets of] lashes," or "three [sets of] lashes." And the proof to that which we are saying is their saying (Menachot 44a), "Whoever does not have tzitzit (fringes) on his garment violates five positive commandments" - since the language of the command is repeated five times (in Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12): The first is, "let them attach to the tzitzit at each corner." The second is, "make for themselves tzitzit." The third is, "That shall be your tzitzit." The fourth is, "You shall make tassels for yourself." And the fifth is, "on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." But we found a clear statement from them that tzitzit is [only] one commandment, as I will explain when I discuss it (Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments 14). And in this exact way do they say (Menachot 44a), "Whoever does not don tefillin violates eight positive commandments" - because of the repetition of the command about them, of the head and of the arm, eight times. And likewise their saying, "Any priest who does not go up on the platform (to bless the congregation) violates thirteen positive commandments" - because of the repetition of the command about it thirteen times. And none of those who count the commandments would be so foolish as to say that the blessing of the priests is thirteen commandments, that tzitzit is five commandments and that tefillin is eight commandments. And had it been so, it would have been appropriate for us to count abuse of a convert as three commandments, because of the repetition of the prohibition about it - on account of their saying in the Gemara in Bava Metzia (Bava Metzia 59b), "One who abuses the convert transgresses three negative commandments and one who oppresses him transgresses three negative commandments." But they are only two commandments - do not abuse and do not oppress him - however their prohibition was repeated. And this is clear and there is no doubt about it. And in explanation, they said in the Gemara, "For what reason are we warned in the Torah in thirty-six places with regard to a convert? It is due to the convert’s inclination being evil." Would it be possible for one to say that this is thirty-six commandments out of the 613 commandments? No one would be foolish enough to say it!

And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males, but not by females; because it is a positive commandment determined by time. And nonetheless, if they want to lay tefillin, we do not protest [against them] and there is reward for them; but not like the reward of a man - as the reward of someone who is commanded [something] and does [it] is not similar to the reward of someone who is not commanded [it] and does [it] (Kiddushin 31a). And in Tractate Eruvin 31a in the chapter [entitled] Hamotseh Tefillin, they, may their memory be blessed, said that Michal the daughter of Shaul would lay tefillin and the Sages did not protest [against her]. And there they [also] said the wife of Yonah would go up in pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest [against her]. And one who transgresses this and does not lay tefillin of the arm and of the head has violated eight positive commandments (Menachot 44a); as behold, Scripture commanded about the tefillin of the arm and of the head in four sections.