Techeiles πŸ”΅βŽπŸŒβ˜‘οΈπŸŸ

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Techeiles πŸ”΅βŽπŸŒβ˜‘οΈπŸŸ

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 738 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1057567

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Patur aval assur: Those who wear techeles for the most part (Rav Schachter is an exception) hold that they are doing it to be yotze a safek. “

    Why would you do something to be yotzei a safek if you don’t have to.(There’s a famous Reb Chaim which postulates that the rule of safek d’oraisa l’chumra would not apply in this type of situation

    #1057568

    Chacham
    Participant

    About the test being that ???? ??? ??? ????, ????”? ??”? ??. ???? ???”? ?”? ????, ??? ???”? ??????? (????????, ??? ?’ ???? 333) ??”? ??”? (???? ?????”?) ??”? ??:)] all clearly say that kla ilan is indigo and the test does not work we are obviiously doing the test wrong which means the test is lo maaleh vlo morid.

    However, I did hear from one of those osek in this inyan that they did the test on some old kla ilan and it got lighter and the way they extract the kla ilan today is different. See also the above post from HOlymoe

    Now regarding your original point about the dye deteriorating I will quote you from the ”tekhelet” site

    “We performed an experiment, wherein groups of snails were killed on

    15 minute intervals, the being extracted dye after death. Thus we had samples of dye extracted from snails that had been dead for 15min, 30min, 45min, etc.. The results showed that the greater the elapsed time the more severely the dye was reduced until the dye was no longer viable. This was explained physiologically based on the fact that the dyestuff from the Murex is composed of two components extant in the gland – (1) the dye precursors, (2) the dye enzyme (purpurase). The enzyme acts on the precursors upon exposure to oxygen (i.e., when the gland is squeezed). The purpurase, however, deteriorates in a short amount of time subsequent to the death of the snail. So, if one tried to squeeze the gland after the snail was dead, the purpurase

    would no longer exist to act upon the dye precursors.”

    The gemara is not a contradiction at all. The time when you are chayav for netilas neshama according to the GEMARA 107B (and see the rambam 11,1 in Hilchos Shabbos) is when you make the animal a goses not when it dies. ??”? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????

    #1057569

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The following is a quote from an article written by Baruch Sterman,Ph.D. in which he attempts to prove the validity of the Murex Trunculus as the chilazon.

    “The enzyme required for dye formation quickly decomposes upon the death of the snail, and so the glands that hold the dye precursor must be crushed while the snail is alive or soon after. In experiments, we have seen that as soon as two hours after death, the quality of the dye is severely degraded.”

    #1057570

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Thus we had samples of dye extracted from snails that had been dead for 15min, 30min, 45min, etc.. “

    To prove me wrong you would also need a sample of dye extracted from snails that had been killed mere moments ago and show that the dye is worse than from a live snail

    #1057571

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “The gemara is not a contradiction at all. The time when you are chayav for netilas neshama according to the GEMARA 107B (and see the rambam 11,1 in Hilchos Shabbos) is when you make the animal a goses not when it dies. ??”? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????”

    And according to Rabeinu Tam you can be chayav netilas neshama by merely drawing blood. But what does that have to do with anything?

    #1057572

    Chacham
    Participant

    “Keep in mind that the braisa was trying to describe a chilazon. If one was asked describing the murex trunculus, saying that it is the color of the ocean is a very poor description.”

    Well, being that the chilazon dies once it is out of the water for a short time whenever you will find a chilazon that you can use it will be domeh lyam. Hence the siman is a very good siman.

    About fish being domeh ldag. Let us make a hanacha that the chilazon is a snail*. If so the shape of one snail will be more ‘domeh ldag’ than the other snails. Now I request permission of the moderators to allow the following link to show my point. Please see page 58 of the following pdf file for some pictures http://www.tchelet-net.022.co.il/BRPortalStorage/a/31/86/54-EnqP9QK36s.pdf

    What I intended with the radvaz is to show that coming up every 7 years is derech nes and after the churban that stopped happening. This is his lashon ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? see his full lashon in siman ???”?

    * ( I can make an arichus out of this with many rayos but for this point and maybe I will do so later. but this is the hanacha of many achronim

    ??????? ??? ????: ????”? (???’ ?????? ?’ ????? ???”?), ????”? ??? (??? ????”?, ???’ ?? ???? ????? ??”?), ?????? ????? (?????? ???? ????), ??????? ???? (?”? ?”?), ??????? ????? ???? ???? (?????? ???

    #1057573

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “What I intended with the radvaz is to show that coming up every 7 years is derech nes and after the churban that stopped happening. This is his lashon ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? see his full lashon in siman ???”?”

    Pliny the Elder who lived well before techeiles was lost and even before the churban writes about the Murex Trunculus. He mentions a seven month harvesting cycle, but nothing about coming up once in 70 years(or any cycle of abundance). Thus we see that even before the churban, the Murex Trunculus did not fit this criterion.

    “If so the shape of one snail will be more ‘domeh ldag’ than the other snails.”

    While that may be true, the braisa is describing the chilazon to someone who doesn’t yet know that it is a snail. Saying that it looks like a fish is only helpful if we already know that it is a snail.

    Furthermore, in almost every picture on that page(save one or two) the Murex did not look like the color of the sea.(And it was on page 52 not 58, but I’ll forgive that)

    #1057574

    Chacham
    Participant

    ”Why would you do something to be yotzei a safek if you don’t have to.(There’s a famous Reb Chaim which postulates that the rule of safek d’oraisa l’chumra would not apply in this type of situation”

    Well being that nobody knows the source of this ”reb chaim” and the gemara and all the achronim are mevuar farkert than lhalacha we follow the psak of the mishna berura that safek deoraysa applies here.

    The gemara in rosh hashana 34b ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? and this is brought down lhalacha in siman ???’? and the mishna berura is clear the reason is because of safek deoraysa lchumra.

    Also see the ran in succah 22b ?”? ???

    and the mishna berura in Siman 32:50, 33:5 in Biur halacha ?”? ??? and MB 39:26 and Biur halacha in 648 ?”? ????? (page 136)

    ???? ???? ???. ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????”? ??????? ????”? ???? ?? .

    #1057575

    Chacham
    Participant

    patur – I am not famillier with what pliny wrote, i will try to look it up. However, once you are coming on to Pliny and assume he is talking about techeiles than there is no way he is not talking about the murex. ( and generally speaking [without sparking a huge hashkafa debate] we only listen to these chachmei umos haolam as long as they are not being soiser chachmei yisrael like the radvaz)

    About what you say that the simanim should really tell us it is a snail. I am assuming that the word Chilazon literally means snail therefore the gemara will not tell us it is a snail.

    ?? ???? ?? ???”? (????? ? ?) [?????? ????? ????? ??? ??”? ?????? “?????” ???? “????”,[1] ??”?: “??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???”, ???”? (????? ?? ?, ?????? ??.) ????? ???? ?????”? ?????? ?? ?????[2] ?? (??? ??:, ???”? ?:)];

    ??? ??’ ??”? ????? (?”? ??:) “????? ??????: ???”? ???”?”[3]

    ??? ???? ????”? (??”?, ????? ?”? ?, ?????? ????? ??”? ?????? “?????” ??? “?????”).

    [1] ?????? ????? ?????? ??”? ?”? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??????, ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???”?.

    [2] ???’ ??????? ??? (??’ ?? ?) ?????? ????? ????? ??????.

    [3] ?”? ??? ?????? ?? (????? ?’), ??”? ???? ????? ???? (??? ?????) ?”? ?”? ????; ?????? ???”? ??? ???? “????”, ?????? ?”?????” ????? ???????, ???? ?”?????” ????? ??????.

    And by the way it is page 52 of the kuntress but it is page 58 of the pdf file. and the picture in which the shell is white the caption says clearly that it is a picture after it dries up

    #1057576

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    First of all, Pliny was most definitely not discussing techeiles. He was discussing the Murex Trunculus and was in no way soseir the chachmei yisrael.

    I don’t quite understand your raya from Rosh Hashana, although Rav Shlomo Miller Shlita has a teshuva where he explains why the Ran in Succa is not a raya(It is way beyond the scope of this forum, however you can easily find it by googling Rav Shlomo Miller techeiles teshuva).

    And once we’re hocking on lashon, I would point out that the braisa says Gufo Domeh L’yam meaning its body. Had the braisa been referring to the shell, it would have used a word that means shell such as nartik. (I assume that you are maskim that it is only the shell which even has a hava amina of being domeh l’yam, and not the actual body of the Murex.)

    And finally, there are other descriptions of the chilazon which Murex does not meet such as the fact that the chilazon is supposed to have “tentacles bent like hooks” and “snake like extensions” (the Rahdzyner Rebbe himself was maskim)

    #1057577

    Chacham
    Participant

    Do you like Mendel Singer’s argument so much?

    #1057578

    Chacham
    Participant

    Ok. Now please see the radvaz this is his full lashon

    ??”? ???”? ?”? ??’ ????

    ???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????.

    ?????: ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ????”? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????, ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????.

    So the fact that the chilazon came up was a nes and only happened ini the chelek of zevulun, so how in the world should Ploni know about it?

    #1057579

    Chacham
    Participant

    About rabbi millers teshuva, I have seen it and have seen the response from Rav Tavgar. Likewise, I have seen most of the literature on techeiles, so I am not hearing any chidushim here.

    About “Reb Chaim”, I have no idea why that sevara is accredited to him being that it is not written anywhere from him, and is not a mistaber sevra at all.

    The gemara in Rosh Hashana is poshut telling us in the maskana of the gemara that safek deoraysa will be mechayev you to go somewhere which is a safek if you will be mekayem a mitzvah, even at teh cost of a vadai drabanan. And see the way the Mishna berura explains it in siman 595. About the ran, there is a lot to sasy about Rabbi Miller’s tayneh, but being that all the other mareh mekomos are clearly applicable I will not elaborate.

    Once again please see the above mareh mekomos.

    About what you said about the lashon gufo, and you are assuming it must mean the outer layer, then maybe ein hachi nami it could have used the word nartiko. To me, this point is not the sslightest nit shver.

    #1057580

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I do like most of what he said especially since he seems to be agreeing with most of what I said

    #1057581

    Chacham
    Participant

    ”seems to be agreeing” more like you are quoting him. Most of what I am saying I am taking right out of the kuntress I linked to before.

    #1057582

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Also look in Tosfos on that gemara in shabbos where he seems to indicate that the chilazon is a fish that when taken out of water would flop around and hasten its own death.

    #1057583

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    To answer one of your previous kashyas:

    I didn’t realize this earlier – Rav Shlomo Miller wasn’t saying that plant indigo is not kala ilan. He was saying that since murex trunculus is the same exact chemical(s) as plant indigo, mimayla murex trunculus is also kala ilan. This answers your kashya of why the gemara didn’t warn against using murex. It did. The Gemara warned against using Kala Ilan, which includes Murex Trunculus.

    #1057584

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The only things that I quoted from Dr. Singer were: Pliny, the lashon kashya, and the tentacles/extensions kashya

    #1057585

    Chacham
    Participant

    “I didn’t realize this earlier – Rav Shlomo Miller wasn’t saying that plant indigo is not kala ilan. He was saying that since murex trunculus is the same exact chemical(s) as plant indigo, mimayla murex trunculus is also kala ilan. This answers your kashya of why the gemara didn’t warn against using murex. It did. The Gemara warned against using Kala Ilan, which includes Murex Trunculus.”

    1. We know they are NOT chemically identical and I must have said that 5 times since the begining of this “thread”. Rav Tavgar writes that in his response to Rabbi Miller. http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/tavger_miller_2.pdf

    2. Based on what they have found, indigo was weaker.

    3. The rishonim I listed above all say that kala ilan is from a PLANT called indigo. See the aruch.

    So Mheichi teisi to argue on rishonim and say that murex is kala ILAN.

    And back to our fist argument on this thread, being they did not warn against the Murex obviously it is techeiles.

    About those mishnayos in bechoros and keilim, you quoted me from the radzhiners “understanding” of them, which he naturally interpreted to mean his thing, so I am not meshubad to your (or rather dr. singer’s) understanding of it as snake shaped extensions or whatever else. In fact look in sefer Luloas Techeiles where he explains that the radziner’s interpretation on CHilazon NAchash was based on an empty space in his aruch in which there was meant to be a picture. The Radzhiner assumed what they shape was meant to be. However in lulaos techeiles he showes what the picture of original printing and how it shtims with the murex. ???? ??

    #1057587

    Chacham
    Participant

    “First of all, Pliny was most definitely not discussing techeiles. He was discussing the Murex Trunculus and was in no way soseir the chachmei yisrael.”

    ummm well like I said I looked up Pliny and it is in Plin. Nat. 9.60 and let me give you some details of pliny’s description of the murex. I got it from some translation online that I found through google.

    Keep in mind the techeiles was valuable to the Umos haolam.

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

    1. “In Asia the best purple is that of Tyre.”

    hmmm… ???”? ?????, ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? (??? ??., ????? ?., ???? ?’ ???? ????? ?? ??, ?????? ????? ??).

    2. “…the colour itself is harsh, of a greenish hue, and strongly resembling that of the sea when in a tempestuous state.”

    3…. “colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight”, ????”? ??? ???? ???? ????

    4 …”the habit of paying enormous prices for them”…

    Also lishitas patur that the gemara will only give us simanim that identify the murex, like domeh lyam and domeh ldag ( once in 70 years which is a nes lfi haradvaz) than what in the world is the gemara telling us ubdamo tzovin techeiles ( dam can mean any juice as in ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???) how is that a siman that its blood is used to dye techeiles, isn’t that what we are looking for? ella mai it is telling us that it is used to dye tcheiles as in what the umos haolam used

    I can go on and on but being that the yaavetz and the shiltei hagiborim (the rishon) already assumed that the dye mentioned in the chachmei umos haolam is techeiles, I will be soimech on them.

    But lshitas Patur aval assur, there were two snails that died blue of the exact same color of techeiles both were a strong dye, both were expensive, both were found in the same location, both seemingly fit with the gemaras simanim (yes it is domeh lyam and domeh ldag as I stated before) yet chazal specifically warned us of a plant which was similar and made no explicit mention of this Murex which is so likely to be mistaken for techeiles. In fact they even wrote in the tosefta ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? , ??? ?? ????? ????? which is mashma that as long as it is chilazon that works it is kasher. hmmm, and do you still hold we won’t say safek deoraysa?

    #1057588

    Just wanted to throw this in, even though it’s not completely relevent. I am in one of R’ Scheinberg’s zatza”l yeshivos and saw him on a regular basis. Although I never saw them with my own eyes, many of my freinds have seen his techeiles tzitzis. I have a freind who was very close with R’ Scheinberg for the past year, and he told me he has seen them with his own eyes. I have multiple rabeim who married grandchildren or R’ Scheinberg and have also told me that he has at least 1 pair of techeiles tzitzis.

    #1057589

    Chacham
    Participant

    onegoal- It still does not necessarily prove so much being that most of his tzitzis did not contain the techeiles he obviously does not hold it is meikar hadin. Also the talis he was buried in did not have techeiles. see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/photos.php?albumid=5722271979718336529&photoid=5722389502844175698

    #1057590

    Chacham
    Participant

    Alright now let me clean up some points that might have not been addressed clearly. I may repeat some things I have already wrote for the sake of clarity.

    1. What I meant when I answered with rabeinu tam about the dam mifkad pakid: It is clear from Rabeinu tam that it is more than just blood that is called dam, being that he says there is two parts one mifkad pakid and yet he calls both of them dam. And they are not the same thing as he says only one of them is used for the dyeing. Also the chavos yair calls this dam and he is clearly talking about the Murex. ??? ?? ????? ?? ??????

    2. Coming up once in seventy years, according to the radvaz was a nes that only happened in the chelek of zevulon, explaining why Pliny and others might not bring it down. It is a siman muchachas being that during the time this nes occurred (bizman hamikdash) it only happened to the chilazon. It is interesting to note that this is the only siman of the chilazon the rambam does not bring down.

    4. About the time of the when the blood goes bad all that is mevuar from the gemara that as soon as the chilazon dies the blood starts going bad, a point that applies to the Murex. If every extra little bit it is dead the dye is worse, than clearly it is lo niche lei for it to die. And this process of it deteriorating obviously starts from the death and does not start fifteen minutes later, being that there is no chemical change except when it is being killed . So if I were to know from samples every 15 minutes it keeps getting worse, I would then know that it is better when alive and it starts to deteriorate on death. I therefore CAN prove you wrong even from the samples that they have, unlike what you said above.

    5. So what about the stira, that according to Rav Yochanan it will appear that you dye it after it is dead and according to Rava it can be done while it is still alive? I quoted a Chasam Sofer (I relized I did not say it bshmo) on this gemara says that it is pashut that they are not arguing on metzious. Rather all Rav Yochanan is saying that you are not oiver for netilas neshama (the gemaras kashya) being that it became a goses during the petzia and therefore is already considered dead. Vayin shum. It would appear, however, that the chasam sofer is arguing with tosafos.

    6. Your question from the lashon gufo as opposed to the lashon nartiko, is not even a haarah. We have already discussed that it is definitely a snail. It has a shell ( see ????? ??? ? ??, ??”? ??? ? ??, ?????? ??? ???? ?’ ????, ???? ????? ?’ ?? “?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???”, ??”? ????? (??? ????? ?’, ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?’) ???? ????, ??? ????? ?????”? ?????”? ???? ?’ ?? ?, “?? ???? ????? ?????: ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????”) and you have already decided the gemara will only tell us a siman that helps us identify it. So there is no way gufo does not mean the shell. And if your hanacha is right and it indeed should say nartiko it has nothing to do with the Murex being the chilazon, rather it is a haara on meseches MEnachos 44a.

    8. Tosafos does not indicate it is a fish, rather he uses the example of a fish nogea netillas neshama.

    Now I think I have addressed all the issues you have raised, and explained why somebody will wear this techeiles. And I still stand by the position I took earlier that I am open to debate whether this is the chilazon or not. But you may say that there are many docheks ( I agree there is a few) involved in assuming the murex is techeiles, This may be true but there is a reason we are so sure of this hanacha. The Yaavetz assumed that techeiles is what the chachmei umos haolam wrote about. The Shiltei giborim (a rishon quoted by the ramban not to be confused with the acharon on the side of the rif) perek 79 “…??? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????”. The ????? ???? in Mekor Chaim 18:2 says: ???????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???’ ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? . The Aruch that I quoted above also translates Purpur as the Chilazon.

    All this is besides for the fact it fits with most simanim. So even If there is a few not muchach problems there is still raglayim ldavar, and definitely still a safek to which we say safek deoraysah lchumra.

    #1057591

    Its great to see this wonderful conversation about techeiles. I spent a lot of time learning about it last summer, reading the articles for and against. In the end of the day no one can say that it is certainly wrong and no one can say it is certainly correct. It’s a safeik. Some argue safeik deoraysa lchumra so one should wear techeiles. Some give some reasons why it may be problematic if it is not real. Everyone should follow a respected posek who has researched the matter (I personally thought I should wear, but was told by a posek not to based on the brikser approach that a mesorah is needed.)

    Earlier people were discussing what gedolim wear techeiles. A number of massive talmidei chachamim in the dati leumi world wear techeiles and some Hareidi gedolim wear as well. Here is a list of those who wear:

    Rav Tendler has also written pro-techeiles, although I have no information regarding whether he actually wheres it.

    #1057592

    realtchelet
    Member

    hey jon doe… why do you call me a hippy”? and where do you get this.monesense about rav nachman? do you enjoy slanddering me in public? yours truly… saul kaplan

    #1057593

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    1)The Murex Trunculus is not rare and hard to aqcuire; it is expensive simply because of the minute amount of dye contained within each one. Thus it does fit into Rashi’s pshat.

    2)Tosafos says that the chilazon flops on the ground hastening it’s death. I don’t know of any snail that does this.

    3)The Gemara warned against kala ilan. Kala Ilan has the same chemical formula as the Murex Trunculus dye. It is plausible that the Murex Trunculus dye is included in the warning against kala ilan, considering that both dyes are the same thing just one comes from a plant and one comes from an animal.

    4)The Ya’avetz never saw Pliny nor did he ever see a “real” chilazon so when he says that Pliny was talking aboout techeiles, that is an assumption not a halachic psak.

    5)According to Rav Shlomo Miller’s pshat in Reb Chaim we would not apply the rule of safek d’oraisa l’chumra in a situation where acting l’chumra does not resolve anything. In the case of Lulav and shofar (which are brought as kashyas on Reb Chaim) by acting l’chumra there is nothing more that can be done hence we say safek d’oraisa l’chumra. But in our case, even after you don your Murex Trunculus dyed techeiles the safek has not been resolved, and there is still more that can be done namely using any of the other suggested possibilities(I know of two others). And obviously you can’t wear three different pairs of tzitzis because then two of them will vadai not be techeiles. Therefore in our case we would not say safek d’oraisa l’chumra.

    #1057594

    RebRY
    Member

    I have not yet to see a real erliche Yid wearing techeles only breslov baalei teshuva and mizrachim. I wanted to learn more so I went to the “Ptil Tekhelet” website and watched their documentary on techeles there was not one Chareidi Yid their just a bunch of modern people with “Dr” in front of their name.

    #1057595

    Sam2
    Participant

    RebRY: There is a fairly long list of Gedolim who wear the trunculus T’cheiles. And R’ Herschel Shchachter is well known as a very strong advocate of it.

    #1057596

    RebRY
    Member

    Which gedolim wear it? I heard that Abraham J. Twerski wears it and I ask a nephew of his about it and he told that just because he wears it does not give a raya that it is a good thing to do.

    #1057597

    RebRY
    Member

    Also Hershal Schachter is the Rosh Yeshiva at YU, also not someone that would make me want to get Techeiles

    #1057598

    hello99
    Member

    Anyone interested in researching the subject can find an abundance of information at ShaareiHoraah.org. They also have info on other interesting topics in Halacha.

    #1057599

    hello99
    Member

    RebRY: Rav Belsky and Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp are probably the most prominent yeshivishe Rabbonim who wear Techeiles, at least publicly.

    #1057600

    HolyMoe
    Participant

    I am a Chassidic Jew and I wear trunculus tcheiles even though my Rebbe doesn’t.

    My Rebbe probably doesn’t want to do anything different than his father, I never asked him.

    I ask his advice about shidduchim, and minhagim and ask him for Brochos.

    Many times in the Mikva I have seen others also wearing tcheiles and we give each other a knowing wink. (We wear a langge rekkel so we can’t know otherwise)

    Because trunculus tcheiles is the real thing.

    We know it.

    The arguments against are so flimsy that it is hard to see anyone rationally accepting them.

    Just because the Mizrachim accepted it first, is turning this into a political issue.

    All I can say is that it takes a very powerful imagination to say that Chazal prohibited Kla Ilan because it so resembles tcheiles from some fish that was hidden away. While – at the same time – totally ignoring a snail (the persian word for a snail is chilazon) which was caught in the millions for dye and whose color is exactly like Kla Ilan.

    So if you want to be an ostrich, bury your head in the sand. Or be worried about what will the other person say.

    If you want truth and to be mekayem what the Ribbono Shel Olam asks us in the Parsha of Tzitzis, you can do it today.

    The choice is yours.

    #1057601

    Sam2
    Participant

    RebRY: You should go ask Mechilah from one of the Gedolei Hador for what you just said and you are probably Chayav Nidui for being Mevaze a Talmid Chacham.

    #1057602

    Chacham
    Participant

    Patur aval assur- here we go again

    1- It is more available today after not being harvested for 1500 years. Not a raya to what it was.

    2- Could be a good taayne. But lmaaseh tsafos says it as a shema to be metareitz a kashya. And see maharsha and nimukei hagriv (PRINTED UNDER THE MAHAsha).

    3- You are wrong on the metzious. In the words of one of the big oskim in this inyan. ” The colorant found in both dyes it identical, and if we were to isolate them, and be left with crystals of non-organic indigotine, the two would be identical. Up until then, however, they are different. A similar case in point, for illustration: There are many iron based red dyes, and all iron is identical. Blood is red because of it’s iron based hemoglobin structure, but is quite distinct from ochre, which is a red pigment made of iron ore (hematite)!

    Presently, the dying method isolates to indigotine in the dying process, something that was not done in early times, and the simplest proof for this is that it is now an extremely fast dye!”

    I found out a test was indeed done with some ancient indigo and it passed with flying colors ( couldn’t help the pun) and the ancient indigo faded. I think this is the fifth time in this thread we went through this.

    4- The yaavetz obviously saw Pliny inside and felt it was neeman enough to upshlug a rambam and write Zeh aino. see mitpeches sofrim 4

    5-I woulnd’t say RSm pshat in Reb Chaim rather I would say RSM’s Reb chaim, since rav chaim himself never said such a silly thing and it is simply brought down in the radzhiners sefer as chacham eched.

    The mishna berura in Siman 32:50, 33:5 in Biur halacha ?”? ??? and MB 39:26 and Biur halacha in 648 ?”? ????? (page 136) says safek deoraysa lchumra by teffilin and esrog which are exactly the same as techeiles not like the ran. Also the case of shofar IS only a safek if you are being mesaken not like you assumed. see rh 34b and every other mareh makom i was already metzyein but you failed to be mayin ( even after 3 months!!!)

    About three kinds as safek two of them are only hashaaros with no strong rayas (see yeshuas malco 2 ???? ????? ?? ?????”? ??????? ????”?, ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????) and the murex has many rayas some which i already stated above.

    And your ikar hanacha is wrong since you could be yotzei all of them the way the beis yosef says to be yotzei one and 2 holes at the same time- by making a tnai that whichever is real is tzitzis and the rest is nothing.

    And maybe you could explain how his hesber in “rav chaim” makes any sense.

    1- It is a machlokes achronim if safek deoraysah lchumra by an asei is lkulei alma deoraysah. he assumes the chavos daas opinion when the Milei Harooim and sfas emes (RH 34b) and pri megadim 695 and r akiva eiger argue

    2- i don’t understand bichlal why it will be talui if is midaroysa or not and how is it even a dimyon to the ran in teshuvas that the shmaisa brings down. maybe you can atemp to explain.

    Hatzlocha and thanks for keeping this topics only during bein hazmanim

    #1057603

    Chacham
    Participant

    Rebry- if you will read this entire thread you will see many big names. If you are interested in being meayin al pi halacha try a site called tchelet-net.022.co.il

    sam2 – you wear?

    #1057604

    sbeph
    Participant

    “The gemara in Rosh Hashana is poshut telling us in the maskana of the gemara that safek deoraysa will be mechayev you to go somewhere which is a safek if you will be mekayem a mitzvah, even at teh cost of a vadai drabanan. And see the way the Mishna berura explains it in siman 595. About the ran, there is a lot to sasy about Rabbi Miller’s tayneh, but being that all the other mareh mekomos are clearly applicable I will not elaborate”.

    I saw a discussion from 3 months ago about the Reb Chaim that a safek mitzvah is not ????.

    This has always been my prime example what happens when not lomdanim get involved with PSAK. They end up embarrassing themselves. Ive seen this Ran etc quoted so often and it is a total error. Nothing to discuss. The briskers have a Mesora that if the fulfilling of a Mitzah one will still remain in a Matzav of Chiyuv it is useless. Therfor if one performs a Mitzvah in a way that he will still have to do it again because of ??? ??????? ?????? then he accomplished nothing. So if you have a ???? that was ??? ???, there is no point in taking it because ??? ??????? will tell you do it again. However if you are ????? if you are ???? in a ???? or could possibly fulfill it for sure (the case of ??? ????) then of course you have to do it (The radziner quotes someone that say you would be ???? but this in NOT the Reb Chaim) The Ran is talking about Bein Hashmeashos which is a ??? whether you are ???? and by taking it you will fulfill that requirement nothing else to do, no different from a tumtum who is ???? I hate to say it, but anyone quoting the Ran either totally missed Reb Chaim or is completely embarrassing himself.

    #1057605

    hatzolajew
    Member

    Holymoe- 2 thumbs up. MRHG R’Lichtenstien doesn’t wear but says it is perfectlly mutar to do so, if not preferable

    #1057606

    sbeph
    Participant

    I’m sorry you cant find the Reb Chaim. I think Reb Moshe Sternbauch brings it down. It makes total sense you just have a wrong version of it. This is not the Chacham Echad from the Radziner.

    Truth be told however the mishna berua by ?????? does disagree and i dont think the Reb Chaim is normative ????. Also the Briskers are the ones that take 20 ???????.

    #1057607

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    In his sefer Teshuvos V’hanhagos, Rav Moshe Shternbuch brings down this Reb Chaim (he actually says it b’shem the Bais Halevi). Ironically he quotes the gemara in Rosh Hashana as a raya to this svara although he does not explain how. ??? ????? ???? cannot explain how it is a raya, but I will try to explain how it is not a kashya according to Rav Shlomo Miller’s pshat. Parenthetically, I don’t know if Rav Shternbuch agrees with Rav Shlomo Miller’s pshat; it’s very likely that he doesn’t.

    There are three types of Safek D’oraisa (that I can think of):

    1)A safek whether or not you have already performed a mitzva – in such acase it is pashut that you do it again, thereby resolving the safek.(E.g. you don’t remember if you put on tefillin)

    2)A safek whether by doing a certain action you will be able to perform a Mitzva D’oraisa. The case in Rosh Hashana would fall under this category.

    3)A safek whether a certain action is a fulfillment of a Mitzva D’oraisa. Both The Ran’s case and techeiles fall into this category.

    Rav Shlomo Miller’s pshat is that we apply Safek D’oraisa L’chumra any time where it will end the situation. Therefore in category one we for sure apply it. In ctegories two and three it depends on the individual case. In the Ran’s case, there is a safek whether there is a chiyuv D’oraisa to take Arba Minim. Once you take them, the situation is over – it was either the first day of Succos and there was a chiyuv, or it was the second day of succos and there was no chiyuv. Either way there is nothing more to be done. Similarly in the case in Rosh Hashana once you travel to the shofat city the situation is over – either they will be able to be motzi you orthey won’t. Either way there is nothing left to do. Therefore in both of those situations we would apply the rule of Safek D’oraisa L’chumra.

    However, when it comes to techeiles, even after donning your murex trunculus tzitzis there is still a safek whether or not you are fulfilling the mitzva of techeiles. And unlike the other two cases the siyuation is not over because you can still make “techeiles” with any number of other potentially viable creatures(e.g. cuttlefish, janthena etc.) In such a case we would not apply the rule of Safek D’oraisa L’chumra.

    The only problem that I can think of with this pshat is that I don’t know of any other case where this svara would apply. However that is not such a dochek because accornding to Rav Shternbuch, the Bais Halevi specifically said this svara in response to the Radzyner so it is very possible that this is the only case where the svara is relevant.

    On a side note, it would seem according to this pshat that Lu Yetzuyur there were no other snails/fish in the world then we would apply the principle of Safek D’oraisa L’chumra and use murex trunculus techeiles.

    #1057608

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Furthermore, everyone agrees (you can check on any pro techeiles website) that the murex trunculus and plant indigo produce the same dye. It is molecularly the exact same thing. The only differnence is how the dye is harvested. When both are harvested the same way (vat dyeing or something like that) they are equally fast and adherent. Accordingly, no test will be able to tell them apart. The techeiles people perform the test after using a different process for the plant indigo and that is why it is not as strong. They base this on the claim that in the ancient times they probably did not use vat dyeing for plrant indigo.

    #1057609

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    And all the cases of Tefillin which you quoted are also situations where once you go l’chumra the situation is over.

    #1057612

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    According to sbeph this reb chaim is actually in stira to all those cases by tefillin.

    #1057613

    Chacham
    Participant

    patur—mheichi teisi. give me a sevara. rav miller at least tries explaining it with a sevara. also the fill in the blank who said it never heard of the other minim. and what constitutes a safek? Any fishy is a safek or maybe it needs some rayas and cannot just be a hashara ( that is the opinion of the yeshuas malco and chazon ish maseh ish 1,132)

    #1057614

    Chacham
    Participant

    sbeph- go ahaid make fun of lamdanim when you can’t understand a gemara. the case in rh is talking about a safek deoraysa being mechayeva halicha to a makom that is a safek mitzvah even at the cost of being mevatel a derabanan. get it ? It is a safek if there is a mitzvah in the first place. Not a safek that you are mesakein like the ran. just are you mechayev to do a maaseh because of Safek doraysa that is not mesaken whachout , MR> sbeph you might embarrass yourself…..

    Ain hachi nami the ran is different however being that rav moshe shternbuch ( in chelek 4)throws in the pri megadim 194,3 the ran disagrees with the pri megadim ( as well as the machatis hashekel shulchan aruch harav mishna berurah aruch ahshulchan the levushei serad and the pri megaim himself in countless other places ( like the end of siman 39). If you want the pri megadim then you have the ran ( which is paskened lehalcha by the mb)

    And yes the Mb and everyone else disagrees ( like the biur hagra in 32 5 and many achronim spread out in hilchos tefilin)

    And when I say i dont know where rav chaim comes from teshuvas vhanhagos won’t help. He does not either know where it is from. In chelek one he says the bais haleivi and in chelek 4 he says the maharil diskin ( he also adds how the radzhiner brings it down mishmo in his sefer)

    about 20 esrogim – you are right and even patur will say no safek lchumra there.

    #1057615

    sbeph
    Participant

    I didn’t mean to get so personal. Sorry. I’ve just seen the Ran Thrown around so many times it was frustrating. Most Reb Chaims are a Mesorah and this one is no different. Any of the Brisker Mishpacha knows it. I can’t help if it has gotten misquoted.

    Reb Chaim, as i understand it, is saying that an action that will leave you in the exact place you started is useless and can’t require you to do anything. For example, if its Succos and I have only a fruit that is a ??? ?????, taking it will be of little help. Before I take the fruit I am ???? to take an ????? and after I take the fruit, since there is a ??? ??????? ?????? I’m still obligated to take the fruit. What did I accomplish in taking the fruit and you enter in to a circular world. In the case of Rosh Hashanah In the end of the day you will know if you accomplished the Mitzvah and end the circle. It makes a lot of sence .

    With that said I do agree by Tefillin this is certainly not the case.

    Also you are confusing two points. There are those that ague one MUST wear ????? because of ??? ???????? ??????. Rabbi Miller is just saying according to Reb Chaim you don’t have to. However all this does is explain why one is Not ???? to wear ?????, there still might be what to gain. If its my only esrog, while not ???? to take it, I still might be ???? the ???? ( I don’t honestly believe that any one that was stranded on a desert Island with only a ??? ????? wouldn’t take it.) And anyways many think there is not much of a ??? as you point out.

    #1057617

    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: No. I debate it with myself every day. My father still doesn’t wear them though and he knows all of the Lomdus and the Metzius. Of course, he says that he probably should wear them too but doesn’t say why he doesn’t. So I’m kinda stuck. I’ll probably end up buying a pair soon, wearing it under everything, and still have my normal all-white Tzitzis sticking out. I think that’s the plan for now.

    #1057618

    sbeph
    Participant

    The case of tefilin is where the one dropped the ?????? in water and is not sure its ??? the ???? ????? says to still wear it. Please stop quoting cases where you will no longer remain with a ??? (or better said anything to do)

    #1057619

    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2 what about bal tigara?

    sbeph safek deoraysa is telling you to go somewhere. Going there is the maaseh. therefore the safek is still there after the maaseh Vdoik.

    And as you pointed out lhalacha we pasken by tefillin ( in 7 places) and by esrog Biur halacha in 648 ?”? ????? (page 136) that you must go lchumra Upashut dhu hadim hacaha

    #1057621

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    In the case in siman 648 there are other factors at play besides safek d’oraisa l’chumra (e.g. rov)

Viewing 50 posts - 151 through 200 (of 738 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending