Techeiles šŸ”µāŽšŸŒā˜‘ļøšŸŸ

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Techeiles šŸ”µāŽšŸŒā˜‘ļøšŸŸ

Viewing 50 posts - 201 through 250 (of 738 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1057622

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Maybe you could dochek out of this by saying that even in the case where you only know one sound, the state of chiyuv that you remain in would only obligate you to blow the two other possibilities and lu yetzuyur you knew how to you would vadai be yotzei.

    But even if you say that, you still have the problem that in various cases of safek kosher tefillin the halacha is that you wear them.

    #1057623

    Chacham
    Participant
    #1057624

    sbeph
    Participant

    I don’t understand your proof regarding the Gemara Rosh Hoshanah. you are obligated in the mitzavah and the possibility of fulfilling it trumps the certain Deraban. I pretty sure the fact there is a ????? there is irrelevant to your proof. You understand that according to Reb Chaim EVEN WITHOUT the ????? you would not have to go to the place since there is no ??? ??????? ?????? there. This as I understand it has nothing to with Reb Chaim. If i have ??? if there is a Esrog in a certain place I need to go find out since I might fulfill my mitzvah 100 percent. Please tell me how you are definitely ending up in a never ending circle like I mentioned earlier.

    I also can’t understand why I have now twice agreed this probably is not normative halacha and you keep telling me that. I am trying to discuss the Reb Chaim. That’s all. Relax and please try to explain your proof from the Gemara so i can appreciate what you are saying.

    #1057625

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Furthermore, the whole premise of sbeph’s pshat is that if I was mechuyav to take a safek kosher esrog then I would also be mechuyav to take another safek kosher esrog for the same reason. Now why should that be true? The first time there is a safek d’oraisa. the second time it’s a sfek sfaika because there’s a safek if you were already yotzei, and even if you weren’t already yotzei there’s a safek if you will be yotzei by taking the second one.

    #1057626

    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: I was told that the Rashba’s Shittah on Bal Tigrah (even though R’ Schachter Paskens by it) is a minority opinion in the Rishonim. But yes, that bothers me quite a bit too. R’ Elyashiv had a response to it though, according to one way the story goes.

    #1057627

    Chacham
    Participant

    Patur

    1.First of all we Do say safek deoraysa by a safek esrog. the biur halacha that discusses rov is only to be somech on the rov to make a bracha. however, the bikurei yaakov holds that we don’t say rov there and still he holds you take without a bracha. There is no tzad in all the achronim there not to take an esrog. This is pashut just like by tefillin not one of the achronim (published) argue .

    2. Ok so you agree according to sbeph and Rsm and RMS there is no excuse not to wear techeiles. Good. After a year and a half we finally got somewhere. And you agree that if there is only one safek of techeiles we all must wear it. Good. So explain what falls into the geder of a safek.

    See the Chazon ish in Maseh ish http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51554&st=&pgnum=132&hilite= which clearly says we say safek deoraysa lchumra by techeiles just he felt the radziner was not even a ?? ??? of a safek. Today kyedua it was upshlugged that it lkulei alma is not a safek and the only people who wear it is only because they are chassidim.

    I personally do not either see the janthina a safek as rav herzog only suggested it because of problems he had with the murex, which we now know are clearly not problems. Also you will have a hard time answering it up with most chazal and there is no raya to a janthina rather a hashara in which the yeshuas malco 2 writes

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

    see also rav tavgar http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/kuntreis2008_2.pdf

    Now Rav Chaim only knew of one type of techeiles and RSM is also only talking about the Murex as the only candidate. so they have no excuse (Lulei the chazon ish which won’t help today)

    3- I like the additional raya you brought from tekious against the way the velt says rav chaim.

    4- you can wear all three sefeikos at the same time. I already pointed out you can make a tnai. Therefore you can be mesakein since you have done everything possible to bem ekyam the mitzva.

    #1057628

    sbeph
    Participant

    Im going to look over some of the ?????? again, but Im wondering if you believe the underlying reason for all these ????? is ??? ??????? ??????. If on the second day of ??? ???? would one not need to blow ???? according to one opinion. Or second day of ???? not need to take the ?????. I’m not sure yet all the sources say You are ABSOLUTELY ???? to take the ????? in a case of ??? because of ??? ??????? ?????? but as the Mishna Berura says by Shofar It cant hurt because you might be ???? (and i Beg of you not to tell me the same arguement applies to ????? I know, this is not my point)

    #1057629

    Chacham
    Participant

    Sam2- See the teshuvas beis haleivi 1,42 on bal tigara and it would seem that the biur halacha learns the same way ???”? ??’ ??, ?”? ???? so the MB holds it is halacha lmaasa.

    #1057630

    Chacham
    Participant

    Patur- good chap about sfeik sefeika being a mesakein.

    sbeth-

    Alright I hear what you are saying. The way i understood rav chaim is that any mitzvah that you are vadai chayav in than safek deoraysa will not be said unless after doing it you vadai will not be chayav. therefore my case ( actually not my case i FOUND IT BY RAV MOSHE SHTernbuch who brings it as a ??raya??? farkert) in Rosh hashana is shver being that you are chayav to do a safek in the chance you are being mekayeim a mitzvah.

    But you are right. If the vort is because the torah is not mechayeiv safek deoraysa which you will not know if you will be mekayeim the case from rosh hashana is not a raya.

    But this is all needless as you pointed out we clearly do not pasken like this.

    #1057631

    Thinking
    Member

    First of all i think it’s a ??? that r kalman epstein wasn’t listed as being one who wears tcheiles.

    second of all the mishna brura paskens against the ???”? that is brought as a raaya to r chaim’s yesod in hilchos birkas hamazon if one only knows the first bracha, should he say it.

    Acc. to r chaim since it is a safek whether ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? and even after he says that one bracha he still is not finished, one does not need to, but the ???”? paskens that one should cuz of safek deoraisa lchumra

    I am so happy that a lively debate about the heiligeh mitzva is finally being discussed at length on yeshiva world. this topic was neglected for so long.

    #1057632

    sbeph
    Participant

    I’m going to stop now my end as I relooked at the ????? of Rabbi Miller and also just saw the second one he wrote for the first time. He addresses these issues and also admits there are many ?????? not like Reb Chaim, he just says not too dismiss it to lightly. The real place to look at this topic in length is the ????? quoted there of the ??? ???? ?????.<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37145&st=&pgnum=160&hilite=&gt;

    I don’t understand the point made about ??? ????. You might not gain from taking a ??? ?????. But you are still obligated to take a ???? ????? so you are still im a ??? of ????

    #1057633

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    1)I do not agree that there is no excuse to not wear techeiles. I was merely demonstrating that sbeph’s pshat cannot be correct, because it is against the shulchan aruch/mishna berura, in which case we would not pasken like Reb Chaim, in which case we would not be able to rely on reb chaim to not wear techeiles. However, since respectable poskim bring down this reb chaim as a reason to not where techeiles, it would seem that it is reliable. I was merely using this as a hechrech to say a pshat in which reb chaim fits in with the SA/MB. However afterwards I saw that Rav Shlomo Miller writes that there are rayos against it from ??? ?????? but it is still b’etzem a svara yeshara and you can’t just knock it off easily. I don’t know what to make of that because it does seem very clear from all the afformentioned halachic literature that we don’t pasken like that.

    2)My point with the sfek sfeika was that if you take a safek esrog you wouldn’t remain in the same state of chiyuv i.e. you would not have to take a second safek esrog because it would be a sfek sfaika. But you would have to take a vadai esrog so maybe reb chaim considers that as still being in a state of chiyuv. But Lemaaseh I may have to retract the whole sfek sfaika thing anyway because I saw that the radzyner writes that (according to the teshuvos mutzal me’aish, I don’t know if anyone argues) by a mitzvas asei we even say sfek sfaika l’chumra.

    3) As to whether or not the murex trunculus is a safek, that would be taluy on the previous four pages of rayas that were mentioned both ways.

    4)Can you please explain what tenai you would make.

    #1057634

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Rav Shlomo Miller says befeirush that the pri megadim by birkas hamazon has nothing to do with reb chaim’s svara.

    #1057635

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I think the Bikurey Yaakov was using the rov. The biur halacha is the one who tries to extend the rov to allow you to make a bracha.

    #1057636

    Chacham
    Participant

    I looked up the bikurei yakov. His tzad to use rov would be machshir the esrog lgamri with a bracha. However he is not sure if rov applies therefore he says to take it without a bracha. If he is unsure about rov it is vaiter a safek ( or maybe a sfeik sfeika)

    The tnai is in the bais yosef at the end of 11 bsheim the mahari abuhab. the tnai is used to be yotzei the ittur of two holes and the shita of rov rishonim.

    sbeph what is your question from the second day of rosh hashana?

    #1057637

    Chacham
    Participant
    #1057641

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur said “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”.

    ????? ?????? ???? see page three of this link: torashatcheiles.blogspot.com. It is as ???? ??? as it gets.

    If Chilazon was an ordinary word for any snail, as the Rishonim assume (and that’s what it means in every Semitic language and Persian till today) why would anyone assume it’s not a snail?

    Furthermore, the hanacha that the braisa is coming to describe a Chilazon in order to find it is baseless:

    1) we’re talkimg about a time when the chilazon so common use that ?????? ???? ???? must assume ????? ?????? ???????.

    So why would the Braisa say how to find it?

    2) If they were talking to a future generation looking for it and the simanim are so simply understood why didn’t we find it yet?

    3) The ??? ????? bring hilchos tcheiles why did they skip this Braisa which is the one most relevant to their generarions (to know what isn’t tcheiles)?

    4) The ??? ???? selects the ?????, why dose he brings this Braisa?

    #1057642

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So if you would actually wear three types of techeiles on the same beged, maybe that would constitute doing everything possible… or maybe not. But even if it is it might not help because it very well could be that Reb Chaim holds of his svara because you are still mechuyav mitzad safek d’oraisa l’chumra, it’s just that in practicality there is nothing more that you can do. I.e. even after putting on all three types of techeiles you are b’etzem still chayav to put on more, except that we don’t know of anything else that you could try.

    #1057643

    Chacham
    Participant

    zvei dinim-

    the rambam does brings down the simanim. And the maharil seems to think the simanim will make it easy to find.

    And yasher koach for the link to the updated ???? ???? ???????. Is the ???? going to make its way around like the last one? And btw the third and forth pages are not so clear.

    #1057644

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Zvei Dinim – A direct quote from Mendel E. Singer Ph.D. regarding the lashon of chilazon: “Petil followers offer some linguistic arguments in attempting to support their position. The word

    chilazon is a general term for snail, not only in modern Hebrew but in some other languages as well. Aside from not

    pointing specifically to murex trunculus, it is not clear which species chilazon referred to at the time of the Gemara.

    It may have been a general term for mollusk. Did it only include gastropods, or could it have included cephalopods

    purple or murex). Rabbi Herzog raises this issue and dismisses it rather handily.67 He points out that everywhere

    else (including that same chapter) the Septuagint uses iakinthos for techeilet and porphyra for argaman, and shows

    how the Hebrew text they must have been given could not have matched our Masoretic tradition, and that the

    translation was probably given for argaman, not techeilet. Some have suggested that Raavya (Berachot 9b Siman 25) equates techeilet with porphyrin, the Greek

    word for murex, though they do not supply a full explanation of this statement by Raavya and do not mention that in

    both Greek and Latin the word for murex and the word for purple are the same. Let us examine the passage in

    question. Raavya quotes a Yerushalmi (a part that is no longer extant) explaining the time for reciting the morning

    [from the time when one can distinguish] between techeilet and karti, between porphyrin and parufinen,

    comparison bein porphyrin bein parufinen is a color distinction that would be as hard to tell apart in the dark as blue

    consistent with the hagahot where this color is equated with argaman. Thus, bein porphyrin bein parufinen might

    mean to distinguish between the purple border of a robe and the rest of the garment. Petil suggests that this Yerushalmi is equating murex with techeilet. Obviously they cannot mean that

    techeilet is the murex, but rather the source of techeilet is the murex. However, this logic would render the

    it is difficult to see how a purple coat could be the source of karti. Karti is usually understood to be green, like a leek.69 There is a minority view that karti is not green, but a different color close to techeilet.70 However, even if

    you rely on this view, which is based on a citation from Aruch which is no longer extant, to explain a Yerushalmi

    as equating murex with techeilet.”

    #1057645

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Your question number two bears no relevance to anything. We have not found it because we don’t know of any creature which perfectly fits the simanim. That does not mean that there is none.

    #1057646

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “the rambam does brings down the simanim.”

    Does that mean the purpose of the Braisa is l’Halacha? Couldn’t the Rambam have written it based on a Aggada? (Which means that surely it dose have to meet the meaning of the Braisa, but not the way Patur wants it to be a finder’s manual.)

    “And the maharil seems to think the simanim will make it easy to find.”

    The Maharil says “??”?”, meaning it’s MORE LIKELY to be found now that we have some sort of description.

    “And yasher koach for the link to the updated ???? ???? ???????. Is the ???? going to make its way around like the last one?”

    Likely. Do you think it’s improved enough for that? What do you think should be changed?

    “And btw the third and forth pages are not so clear.”

    When you download it it’s clear.

    #1057648

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur Aval Assur, all I was saying was that it’s not a kasha even if you’ll assume that 1) Chazal were giving instructions for finding the chilazon. 2) ???? ??? only helps you find the murex if you know the chilazon is a snail.

    Mendel E. Singer Ph.D. argues that we for no reason should consider a wildly wide definition for Chilazon (even though all other languages using that word use it narrowly). Granted! For argument’s sake: there’s no raya that chilazon means only a snail!

    But the point is that if you learnt Gemara you can’t ask a kasha based on a Hanacha. Let alone an unlikely hanacha w/o a shred of a raya!

    #1057649

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “Your question number two bears no relevance to anything. We have not found it because we don’t know of any creature which perfectly fits the simanim. That does not mean that there is none.”

    See Rav Tavger’s Maamar Hatcheiles where he writes that we have a list of all snails on the coast of E”Y and Sinai (I checked it, it’s about 900 species) and the proof that we didn’t miss any is that nothing new is ever found.

    L’fi your tzad that Chazal gave stark and clear Simanim in order to find it, it’s impossible it wasn’t found.

    Unless you’ll say it’s ???? ??? ???? ????, then you’ll have to answer about all the ??????? who learn otherwise, and then you can’t say Chazal was saying how to find it if it can’t be found.

    #1057650

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur Aval Assur, here’s the link: ???? ????? (Hebrew) (800K)

    Published in K’lil Tekhelet, 5753

    by Rav Eliyahu Tavger

    tekhelet.com/pdf/ta01.pdf

    #1057651

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I don’t know why the Rosh and the Rif don’t bring down the braisa. It could be that since it is merely a description it doesn’t qualify as “halacha”. But in the absence of any other explanation of what the braisa is doing, we have to assume that it is describing the chilazon, kipshuto. Go look at a picture of a murex trunculus and think how you would describe it to someone. If you are intellectually honest, I don’t think “it looks like a fish” and “it is the color of the sea” would be high up on the list. Yes I know that when it is covered in sea fouling it is indeed the color of the sea. But it is very unlikely that the braisa would describe a creature by some external thing which b’etzem has nothing to do with the creature. And anyway, any creature covered in sea fouling will be that color. So that is tantamount to the braisa saying that if the chilazon was painted yellow then it would be yellow.

    #1057652

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “in the absence of any other explanation of what the braisa is doing, we have to assume that it is describing the chilazon, kipshuto”.

    Did you ever hear of an ????? Please search ????? ???? for “??? ????” and see how many descriptions of natural phenomena there are in a ways westerns would not describe it.

    See ???? ?? ?????? ?????”?.

    #1057653

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    If you look you will find that the Maharsha apparently did not think it belonged in the Chidushei Aggados.

    #1057654

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    And your point about the list of 900 snails is only relevant oce you have decided that the chilazon is in fact a snail.

    #1057656

    Chacham
    Participant

    an example sotah 48b

    ?”? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????

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

    #1057657

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “If you look you will find that the Maharsha apparently did not think it belonged in the Chidushei Aggados.”

    The Maharsha is about shinuyei girsaos. Note that the Maharsha changes the girsaos of aggados in chidushei halchos, ?”?.

    #1057659

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “If you are intellectually honest, I don’t think … “it is the color of the sea” would be high up on the list.”

    It’s generally green underwater, as far as the many pictures I saw (you must note that many photos are UV florescent and from fish tanks which don’t give an accurate color). Now see Chazon Nachum Berachos 1:2 who has no problem with the color being green.

    “It is very unlikely that the braisa would describe a creature by some external thing which b’etzem has nothing to do with the creature.” ???? ????? the Rambam writes the sky is not ???? blue either.

    “any creature covered in sea fouling will be that color” but most are not, the algae doesn’t stick to other species that way. Murex trunculus’ shell is rather rough.

    #1057660

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “And your point about the list of 900 snails is only relevant oce you have decided that the chilazon is in fact a snail”

    Of course. But Dr. Singers attempt to include a squid into an ancient term used for snail, based on evolutionary terminology, is ?????? ?????!

    #1057661

    hello99
    Member

    Chacham: I downloaded it and unzipped it using Stuffit, and the filenames are all in legible Hebrew.

    #1057662

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    If you want to bring in the Rambam to defend the Murex Trunculus’s right to be green then you should probably look up the Rambam (hilchos tzitzis 2:2) where he says that the chilazon is the same color as the techeiles. Yet I have never seen anyone wearing green techeiles.

    #1057663

    Chacham
    Participant

    patur- please see ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???”? which quotes from kisvei yad and the smag and other rishonim quoting the rambam which has the girsa of ?? ????? ???? ???.

    #1057664

    zvei dinim
    Member

    ?????? ?? ???? ????? brings the ???? ????? (the ??? ?? we have with the Rambam’s actual signature!) saying ???? ???? ???? ???.

    #1057665

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Eleven lines prior to stating “gufo domeh l’yam” the gemara quotes R’ Meir “Techeiles Domeh L’yam”. Now if the chilazon and techeiles are both domeh l’yam then they should probably be domeh to each other. Regardless of any girsa changes you want to make in the Rambam.

    #1057666

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    And the Kesef Mishna quotes the Rambam as “?? ????? ???? ???? ????? “

    #1057667

    zvei dinim
    Member

    “Eleven lines prior to stating “gufo domeh l’yam” the gemara quotes R’ Meir “Techeiles Domeh L’yam”.”

    Are you arguing with the Chazon Nachum (????? ???? ?’ ?’. ???’ ???’ ??’ ??”? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????”? ?????? ???????) who learns it’s body can be green?

    Also see ??”? ??”? ??? that blue is ???? ????. So it’s not so shver if it’s ???? to both.

    Also see

    ???? ????? (??????) ?’ ?

    “??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????..”

    Also keep in mind that the “eleven lines prior” is not part of the argument. The gemara which brings different braisos for different reasons. The inyan of ???? ????? came from ??? ????? ?? ???. Now why should we cut out part of a Braisa?

    In addition the 1st braisa says

    ???? ??? ?’ ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???????

    which is obviously a much higher ???? of ????. It has to be different than everything else in that sense.

    #1057668

    Chacham
    Participant

    Patur-

    Generally when someone changes a girsa it means that there was a mistake and people had the wrong girsa. It does not matter who they are as it is not a chisaron in them. Unless it is just a ???? ??, but when you are coming from kisvei yad that are neeman (such as this case) then it means we change the girsa. Besides the Adnei yad hachazaka on hebrewbooks and others there also change the girsa.

    #1057669

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I am not arguing with the Chazon Nachum. In fact Rashi says that techeiles is green. I was merely pointing out that l’shitascha you should wear green techeiles.

    Chacham: My point about the girsa was first of all that there are respectable meforshim that don’t change it (which presumably means that they did nit think it was a mistake) and secondly that it’s irrelevant if the girsa was changed because I still brought a raya from the gemara.

    If my girsa is right then the Rambam is a kashya on you. If your girsa is right then at best the Rambam is not a kashya on you although the gemara still is.

    #1057670

    zvei dinim
    Member

    Patur-

    The Chazon Nachum holds that tcheiles is blue and the Chilazon’s body is green!

    Rashi says tcheiles is ???? not green ??”?.

    “there are respectable meforshim that don’t change it (which presumably means that they did nit think it was a mistake)”

    Don’t you know that you need strong ra’yos to change a girsa.

    #1057671

    twisted
    Participant

    The Rambam also has ” vedamo shachor” (citation eludes me), though in treifos, Rashi and Tos make “ukma” “k’kuchla” to differentiate form kediuta (ink black).

    As posted by Y.T. in the old techeles thread, techeles is referenced (citation in old thread) as nignaz. So the great palette (npi) of sources on techeles is not a “how to find it” manual. No one, other than the replacement experts at the Temple Institute, has gone looking for the Aron, the hatzosros, the ketores, or the nechash hanechoshet.

    Tangential to the safek esrog, I have cut open large selections of esrogim, with sample batches from different pardessim, and roughly one in thirty present with a full fruit center, i.e. murkav. One has to say that there is either a latent murkav gene in many strains from past parentage , or there is “murkav bidey shamayim, by cross pollination. Food for thought this comming Succos.

    #1057672

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I looked up the Chazon Nachum. I didn’t see anywhere in that piece that he said that techeiles is blue. Furthermore he is a daas yachid saying ???? to make the Mileches Shlomo jive with a Tosfos in Chulin (which I don’t know why that’s such a kashya since Rashi said the same thing) and is against a valid girsa of the Rambam, as well as the mashmaos of the Gemara in Menachos. So I’m not so nispael from your raya.

    I’m not sure what your point is that you need strong rayos to change a girsa. If anything that’s better for me.

    What does ???? mean?

    #1057673

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The citation is the very next words after he says “?? ????? ???? ???? ????? “.

    Regarding the Techeiles being nignaz, this was already discussed on page two.

    #1057674

    Chacham
    Participant

    “The Rambam also has ” vedamo shachor” (citation eludes me), though in treifos, Rashi and Tos make “ukma” “k’kuchla” to differentiate form kediuta (ink black).”

    Ok. Pliny the elder when describing the Murex Trunculus writes ” ….when it has exactly the colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight”

    If this is not enough for you than there is pictures in back of a kuntress called ???? ?? ??? which is available by a quick search.

    “As posted by Y.T. in the old techeles thread, techeles is referenced (citation in old thread) as nignaz. So the great palette (npi) of sources on techeles is not a “how to find it” manual.”

    Who says Nignaz means you cannot find it? Rashi psachim 62b (and the eitz yosef on the Medrash of nignaz quotes rashi) that nignaz means forgotten. BUt the rosh and rif bring down the halachos of techeiles. And the MAharil and chemdas shlomo and Malbim clearly write how it can be found bizman hazeh…..I think we were already maarich on this topic in another thread see : http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/techeiles-1

    “No one, other than the replacement experts at the Temple Institute, has gone looking for the Aron, the hatzosros, the ketores, or the nechash hanechoshet”

    Well is there a mitzvah to wear an aron on your tzitzis?

    Patur- about needing strong rayos I think the ksav yad of the Rambam is the best raya you can get.

    Yarok= ??’ ????’ ???? ??: ?”? ????? ?????, ??’ ????? ???? ?? ??? ????, ??”? ???”? (??”? ??? ?), ??? ??’ ?????? ???? (?? ????”? ??”?, ??”? ?????; ???’ ??? ????? ??’ ? ??? ? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? “??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? [????] ??? ?????”, ???”? ?”? ??, ???? ??”? ????? ??? (?? ??”? ??) “??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???

    #1057675

    Chacham
    Participant

    Keep in mind that Lshitascha that the color of the shell is blue than what do you do with the

    ???? ????? (??????) ?’ ?

    “??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????..”

    And being that we have a mesora techeiles is blue ( you need mareh mekomos for that? I think CHosem shel zahav has 5 pages with hundreds of mareh mekomos )

    So how can the shell be blue and green?

    Well we can simply say that when covered in fowl then they assume the color around them. Therefore you have some blue and some green.

    And stam in the inyan of domeh it is useful to know

    ??’ ???”? ??? ??? ???? “???? ?? ??? ????? ???? “????” ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??

    and after this he gives domeh lyam as an example

    #1057676

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    So let me get this straight. Techeiles is blue and the ?? is green. The Braisa says that ???? is ???? ??? which in turn is ???? ????? which in turn is ???? to the throne of glory. Now as explained there the comparison is due to the saphire. Saphire is blue. So according to you the braisa is saying that blue looks like green which looks like blue instead of saying blue looks like blue i.e. the braisa should have just said that ???? is ???? ?????, just like the Rashi you just quoted.

    #1057677

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Although it does seem that that is what the midrash in tehillim is doing.

Viewing 50 posts - 201 through 250 (of 738 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending