Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

Viewing 50 posts - 651 through 700 (of 738 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1058093

    ikno
    Member

    mi keamcha yisrael

    #1058094

    Sam2
    Participant

    PAA: What Midrash said Nignaz? Maybe that was written in the times of the Geonim when it had been forgotten by then?

    #1058095

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    My point is that granted it would be a shtickle dochek in the gemaras if murex trunculus is not the chilazon, but it seems that the proofs using kala ilan related arguments are not ironclad. All things taken into consideration, there is a very strong case for the murex trunculus but I don’t know if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But then again I don’t think it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; if anything it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s not the chilazon.

    #1058096

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Sam2: Both the midrash rabba and the midrash tanchuma say “?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????”. They were written/redacted several hundred years before the rishonim. Which means that well before the shiltei hagiborim came around it had already been forgotten. Unless like I said earlier, you say some other pshat in what the midrash means.

    #1058097

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    By the way the gematria of ??? ????? is ????? ????????.

    #1058098

    Redleg
    Participant

    In the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol 40, Sukkos, 2001. Dr. Mendel E.Singer of Case Western Reserve University makes a very compelling case for the Murex Trunculus NOT being the chilazon and the source of techeiles. The article is available on RJJ’s web site.

    #1058099

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I have read Dr. Singer’s article several times. What is his compelling case?

    #1058100

    Redleg
    Participant

    Dr. Singer’s position is that:

    1. The Murex Trunculus in no way resembles the desciption of the chilazon as cited in Menachos (P.S. the Radzyner’s cuttlefish certainly comes closer.) and 2. Most compelling is that Murex dye is chemically the same as kla ilon (indigo) and will not pass the practical test described in Menachos loc. cit.

    #1058101

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Redleg: The description of the chilazon in menachos is ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????

    ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????

    ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????

    Pliny describes it as resembling the sea in a tempestuous state. As for ???? ??? check out this picture http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/hellmann.pdf it’s on page 60.

    As for ???? ??? ?????? ??? no one knows what that means. Science knows of no such thing by any creature. The Radvaz writes ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????. The fourth and fifth descriptions are not really descriptions but rather statements of fact both of which the murex trunculus fits with.

    #1058102

    Sam2
    Participant

    PAA: R’ Schachter gives several Pshatim in what Oleh Echad L’70 Shana means and how it can fit with the Trunculus (or any creature).

    Redleg: It does pass the practical test because, while the color is the same chemical makeup, there are two extra molecules on the end that allow it to form much stronger bonds.

    #1058103

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Also at the same link that I just posted on page 88 there is a picture showing the difference between murex trunculus dye and (ancient) plant indigo after the chemical test was performed.

    #1058104

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Another argument in favor of the murex (which has not yet been mentioned in this thread) is made by Menachem Epstein PhD. He points out that a ???? ????? ????? is relied upon to identify things (e.g. dead bodies, lost objects). The ??? ???? in E”H 17:74 defines a ???? ????? ????? as something which less than one in a thousand have. Dr. Epstein proceeds with the following argument: “Of the thousands of fish and mollusks that were studied to date, no other fish has been found that can produce the tekhelet color. Seeing that the ability to procure a tekhelet dye from a given fish is an occurrence of one in many thousands, we can consider this property as a ???? ????? ????? that identifies the murex snail as the true hillazon.”

    #1058105

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Chacham and Ri Hakodesh: Regarding Ba’al Tosif, there are like three giant Biur Halachas in siman 34 that go through the inyan of ba’al tosif and how it may relate to safek mitzvos/pasul mitzvos, and whether or not you need kavana etc.

    #1058106

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “PAA, and sam2 about the lashon of chut lashon yachid and shittas tosfos, the tosfos harosh yevamos 5b also uses the lashon chut shel techeiles to refer to the mitzvah of techeiles even though he holds like tosfos.”

    I don’t know if this is a good raya. No one ever suggested that the rishonim who held of four strings never saw this gemara. Obviusly they either held it was lav davka or they had some other way to get out of it. So proving that the Rosh thought that it was lav davka doesn’t really accomplish anything. The point that was being pointed out is that the gemara taken at face value seems to say that there’s only one string of techeiles. The Torah Temima in fact brings this gemara as support for the Rambam’s shitta (although he does explain that Rashi would interpret it differently).

    #1058107

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Here is the original text of the Rabbeinu Yonah that I quoted a few pages ago.

    ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ??, ????? ?????

    ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??????.

    ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??, ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ?????

    ????”? ?? ???? ???? ????, ????? ???? ( ????? ) ???? ??? ??

    ???? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???????

    .???? ??? ???? ????

    (???? ?????? ??? ? – ??? ?)

    #1058108

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    And the Radzyner Rebbe’s ha’ara:

    ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?”? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????, ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???

    (“????? ????? “??? ?????)

    #1058109

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Torah Umadda: I think the Rambam in Yesodei Torah 9:1 is a major kashya on your position. “??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????. ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ????. ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????????. ????? ?? ????? ???. ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????. ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??’ ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????. ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???. ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?’ ??? ?? ????. ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????”

    #1058110

    avihsey1
    Participant

    @hello99. First off I read that rav belsky does wear ???? and second of all, when you say gedolim you are referring to a very specific group of rabannim. There are many great rabanim who wear techeiles; they just dont fall in your definition of gedoli. And you can call me mizrachi if you want.

    #1058111

    avihsey1
    Participant

    @patur aval assur

    My Rebbe, r. Schachter says that the pshat in it comes up once in 70 years means it washes up on shore and you don’t have to dive for it, but you can get it all the time. In terms of mesorah It’s not clear if we lost the source of the dye or the process of making the techeiles [seeing as blue dye was banned]. If we didn’t lose the source, there shouldn’t be a problem to start wearing it in 5774

    #1058112

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    avihsey1:

    I think it’s clear that at some point the source of the dye was lost, because when the Radzyner Rebbe first got started, nobody knew what the chilazon was. You say that if we didn’t lose the source then there would be no problem of wearing Techeiles. My whole point is that even if we did lose the source there would be no problem of wearing it.

    #1058113

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “well the shiltei giborim knew techeiles was from murex and still said it was blue.”

    That doesn’t necessarily mean that he knew how to get blue dye from the murex. It could just be that he knew the murex was the chilazon (based on simanim etc.) and knew that Techeiles is blue, and therefore assumed that the murex trunculus gave a blue dye. Either he never had a murex trunculus, or if he did why did he not make Techeiles?

    #1058114

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I know I’m a little late reporting on this but a couple of months ago chemical analysis was done on a Wadi Murbaat textile and showed that it had been dyed blue via Murex Trunculus almost 2,000 years ago in Israel.

    #1058115

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    son:

    Ready when you are.

    #1058116

    HolyMoe
    Participant

    I heard a rumor of something very significant that happened last week.

    A few kollel guys from Yerushalayim dissected the sac of the Murex and found that it consists of two inner sacs the large one contains a yellow liquid and the small one contains a minute amount of black liquid. When you break the Murex open the sacs also break and they mix.

    However, if you carefully seperate the liquids before they mix, only the black liquid makes wool turn blue.

    Why is this significant? Because the Rambam says that the liquid coming out of the Hilazon is black like ink.

    If this finding is true, then it is another overwhelming proof of the authenticity of Murex as the actual Hilazon according to all understandings of the Rambam.

    Can anybody verify if this is actually happened last week?

    #1058117

    PAA-To answer your question: Rav Soloveitchik was once approached with information about a certain ancient and rediscovered text of the Torah, that contradicted the Torah that we have. The Rav responded to his questioner “What is your opinion of the founder of the Reform movement”? The man responded “He is an idiot, an am haaretz d’oraysa!”. The Rav said back “Do you think we have a monopoly on ameratzim deoraysa”!?

    My point:Insert moral of story here.

    Another point: who says it is tzitzis at all?

    #1058118

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    PulsingFlower:

    I don’t get what you’re trying to say.

    #1058119

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    HolyMoe:

    This is the first I’m hearing about it and it does sound odd that for thirty years no one noticed this.

    #1058120

    MachaaMaker
    Member

    Pulsing flower what are you saying? Also, I’ve heard of the black part well before last week

    #1058121

    Chacham
    Participant

    PAA- the shitei giborim prob. only knew of murex based on the sifrei umos haolam. Therefore he must have translated that hyacynth, which is recorded to have been dyed from the murex, to be techeiles.

    Holymoe- I can confirm the story. I heard it from one of the avreichim involved.

    As for bal tosif which was brought up in the other thread, i am willing to argue that point

    #1058122

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “As for bal tosif which was brought up in the other thread, i am willing to argue that point”

    There are two seperate potential bal tosifs: 1)If it’s not real Techeiles 2)If you have extra techeiles strings. Which one do you want to talk about?

    (By the way this thread has been very lonely without you. As you can see I’ve been talking to myself for a while.)

    #1058123

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “PAA- the shitei giborim prob. only knew of murex based on the sifrei umos haolam. Therefore he must have translated that hyacynth, which is recorded to have been dyed from the murex, to be techeiles.”

    So you are granting that he may not have known how to make blue dye.

    #1058124

    charliehall
    Participant

    ‘Rav Soloveitchik was once approached with information about a certain ancient and rediscovered text of the Torah, that contradicted the Torah that we have. The Rav responded to his questioner “What is your opinion of the founder of the Reform movement”? The man responded “He is an idiot, an am haaretz d’oraysa!”. The Rav said back “Do you think we have a monopoly on ameratzim deoraysa”!?’

    This was probably referring to the Qumran manuscripts, which do differ slightly from our texts of the Torah (and much more from out texts of Nach). The Rav was being kind; the Qumran community were not amei haaretzim, they were out and out heretics if for no other reason than they observed the holidays on different days. This is particularly notable given today’s Daf Yomi.

    A bigger challenge is that Chazal and some rishonim appear to have texts that differ slightly from ours; the resolution is that Chazal did not believe that we had perfectly accurate texts.

    #1058125

    charliehall
    Participant

    “That doesn’t necessarily mean that he knew how to get blue dye from the murex.”

    This was probably said 3 years ago, but Rav Herzog z’tz’l was convinced that the Murex was the right animal but that the dye was indeed blue. Rav Herzog z’tz’l died in 1959 but the rediscovery of how to get blue dye from it was not until over two decades later.

    #1058126

    MachaaMaker
    Member

    The topic of techieles is an incredibly “charged” topic it’s amazing. It confronts so many issues and such, like creating new mesorah and doing things that were or done for thousands of years, also the idea of an area of Judaism where science may be more convincing then the protests of rabbinim or Daas Torah. Also the techieles “movement” was started by people who arent the most frum guys(I heard from a yeshivish guy who’s trying to start his new brand of techieles but present it in a more yeshivish way, I’m curios to see if that will have a better effect) and even (as silly as it may sound) the blue and white of techieles is seen as a tzionish thing

    #1058127

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Charlie:

    I still don’t understand what the story with the Rav has anything to do with Techeiles.

    #1058128

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “The topic of techieles is an incredibly “charged” topic it’s amazing”

    I think “sad” would be a better adjective than “amazing”. There is no reason for it to be a charged topic. It’s a sugya. Why can’t we just learn up the sugya and come to an honest conclusion?

    #1058129

    MachaaMaker
    Member

    Patur- I agree with you a thousand percent I think that we have to put all the shmutz away and look only based on a purely torah and halachic perspective

    #1058130

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    MachaaMaker:

    I’m glad you agree. For the record, do you wear techeiles?

    #1058131

    MachaaMaker
    Member

    I do not although the rest of my family does. I have not yet officialy learned through the sugya(just heard bits and pieces) but at some point I will and decide if I should wear it or not. How about you?

    #1058133

    MachaaMaker
    Member

    Wow that’s intense. Just curious what type of hashkafa are you?(if that’s tmi you don’t have to answer)

    #1058134

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Just curious what type of hashkafa are you?”

    None.

    #1058135

    Chacham
    Participant

    I am b’ikur willing to argue against bal tosif when wearing wrong techeiles, kneged the entire shtikel tora in teshuvos vhanhagos chelek 6. But i have what to say about extra chutim too.

    [And I really don’t understand how Reb Moshe Shternbuch uses Bal tosif of extra chutim as a tziruf not to be choshesh a tzad rachok of techeiles, he writes :

    ???? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ????”? ?? ????? ??? ???, ?????”? ??? ???, ?????’ ??? ?????, ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???’ ????”?, ????? ????’ ????’ ?????”? ???? ??? ????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????’ ?? ?????”? ?? ?????”?, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? , ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????.

    Mima nafshach, if it isn’t techeiles and there is no chiyuv to wear (like he writes in that teshuva) that means there can’t be b”t since you were not mosif on chutei techeiles. The only way it is shayich to be b”t if it IS techeiles and if so there is no reason not to wear. lchoira he is being poseach al shnei si’ifim.

    Patur, I do not usually have internet access, but i randomly checked this site and saw this topic was live again.

    did you ever see the new techeiles.org?

    #1058136

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Chacham:

    What about R’ Shternbuch’s chiluk between Techeiles and other mitzvos with a safek cheftza? It didn’t seem compelling enough to me mechaadesh it in order to not wear techeiles.

    Also if it’s bal tigra to have too few tceheiles strings then it is certainly bal tigra to not have any techeiles strings, so I don’t understand that argument.

    Regarding bal tosif on the number of strings, I have a lot to say but for now I’ll just point out R’ Eliyahu Tavger’s chap – according to the Rambam the mitzvah of Techeiles is to wrap a string of techeiles around the other strings. So making some of the other strings techeiles is not adding to the mitzvah because the mitzvah has nothing to do with the other strings.

    I have seen techeiles.org although several sections of it are not yet active.

    #1058140

    Chacham
    Participant

    By R’ Sternbuch’s chiluk, do you mean the one in chelek 4? I don’t understand why Matan Damim is more like tzitzis, as opposed to Lulav. The mitzva is to do the nesina, a din on a gavra.

    As for Bal tigra, see Moadim Uzmanim 1, 25 in footnote and you will see R’ Sternbuch is Lshitaso, however it is clear from what he wrote there that he does not know of the Bais Halevi.

    Rav Tavgar’s point is only in the Rambam and it won’t help for the Raavad. And also it is very debatable, because the Mishkenos Yaakov and others learn the rambam 1,4 that all techeiles is passul. If the mitzva is only the wrapping, how is it possible to make all techeiles? [But there are many strong reason not to learn the rambam like that]

    And yes, I am curious to see your paper, and hope something can be arranged

    #1058141

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Rav Tavgar’s point is only in the Rambam and it won’t help for the Raavad”

    That’s assuming that the Raavad disagrees with the Rambam. But it’s possible that the Raavad agrees with the Rambam but he just holds that a pesil is a full string. If I recall correctly R’ Soloveitchik understands the Raavad as such (in his shiurim on menachos). I will try to find the exact quote and post it.

    #1058142

    Chacham
    Participant

    The Raavad holds the ?????? were done from techeiles and lavan together, whereas the Rambam holds all of the ?????? were from techeiles except for first and last. So the pashtus is they disagree id the mitzva of techeiles is to wrap or if it is a din in the strings. See Emek Bracha Tzitzis 1

    #1058143

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    PAA, so I used to think you probably knew what you were talking about here regarding the metzius, and sources, etc.

    But then I read this thread http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shmuly-yanklowitz-novominsker-and-oo-theology

    And decided you just like being contrarian.

    #1058144

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    PBA:

    I don’t think I was being a contrarian. I was pointing out a certain aspect that may have been overlooked. But even if I am a contrarian, why does that affect whether I know what I am talking about here regarding the metzius and sources?

    #1058145

    popa_bar_abba
    Participant

    The two contrarian activities are: (1) changing the position you are arguing, without acknowledging it, and (2) ignoring responses while pretending to respond.

    It affects whether I trust you.

    #1058146

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “The two contrarian activities are: (1) changing the position you are arguing, without acknowledging it, and (2) ignoring responses while pretending to respond.”

    I was not under the impression that I did either of those things. If you point out a specific example, I will be more than happy to (attempt to) clear up the confusion.

Viewing 50 posts - 651 through 700 (of 738 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.