Why dont the Poskim reinstate Techelet now [closed]

I heard somewhere that they have discvoered beyond a shadow of a doubt which fish is the Chilazon from which we get Techelet. If so why dont the Psokim and the Gedolim start wearing it? Is there some minhag which has stopped its practice? I thought we stopped because we didnt have it anymore.

There are absolutely gedoilim and talmidei chochomim who wear techeiles today (for example, Rav Avraham Twersky). I think Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rav Shlomo Zalman zatzal's son-in-law, also wears it today and I know Rav Dov Li'or and many dati leumi rabbonim do as well.) The reason it's not an outright chiyuv (according to the majority of poiskim, at least) is bec. unfortunately there's no mesora today to prove this is it. That's why most people who do wear it do it mi'sofeik.

Much of the Charedi world is poor enough as it is without real jobs. If they had to spend an extra 200 shekels per beged that would be an excessive hardship. The gedolim are accounting for the social reality as well.

I once heard that the reason Techelet died down is that it was used for Kings in the olden times. The kings generally issued a decree that no one was allowed to own Techelet, it was a kingly garment. This is why it died out of circulation. I dont think it was because of any Halachic reason!

I recently spoke to a big talmid chacham. He explained although the most rabbanim are certain that we indeed fond the chilazon. However there is a dispute how to apply it. The are many ways, like the middle 3 or the entire shamash etc. So if you where to apply it one way, it could be an issur Baal tosaf - meaning you could be adding to the Torah, witch is forbidden .

The question why don’t the psokim and gedolim start wearing tcheiles, is based on the assumed premise “they have discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt which fish is the Chilazon from which we get Techelet”.

I’m not the spokesperson for the “poskim” or “gedolim”, but simple research of the subject will reveal that the premise of the above question is incorrect. Despite the various claims of the researchers, it has NEVER been identified “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.

The identity of the “chilazon” has been the subject of controversy since the Radziner Rebbe, R’ Gershon Henoch Leiner, identified the “chilazon” as a squid, the inkfish or cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), circa 1888.

Imagine the excitement which must have swept across the Jewish world. Wow! Look, Hashem is getting ready to build the Beis Hamikdosh, and He’s showing us the “chilazon” which we’ll use for “bigdei kehuna”. Moshiach must surely be around the corner!

Unfortunately, Moshiach hasn’t come yet, and R’ Gershon Henoch’s identification was attacked by Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Hertzog, in his doctoral thesis, London 1913.

Rabbi Hertzog then proceeded to name the Janthina Pallida Harvey and the Murex trunculus as theoretical candidates for the source of tcheiles.

Many contemporary researchers have adopted Murex trunculus, as their “chilazon of choice”, while the Radziner chassidim follow their rebbe’s identification of the chilazon as the Sepia officinalis.

The objective observer is therefore left unconvinced that the “chilazon” has been identified “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. Will the “real” chilazon please stand up?

Thus, even without going into issues of whether a “mesora” is necessary to identify the “chilazon” or not, a more fundamental response to the tcheiles wearer is, why do you think that “your” tcheiles is more authentic than the other two? Further, perhaps there is actually a totally different species which remains undiscovered, which is actually the “real” chilazon?

A good resource on the subject can be found here: http://dafyomi.co.il/menachos/insites/mn-dt-044.htm