- This topic has 737 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
mi keamcha yisrael
PAA: What Midrash said Nignaz? Maybe that was written in the times of the Geonim when it had been forgotten by then?
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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
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?
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?
Pulsing flower what are you saying? Also, I’ve heard of the black part well before last week
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
‘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.
“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.
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
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
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?
Wow that’s intense. Just curious what type of hashkafa are you?(if that’s tmi you don’t have to answer)
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?
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
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
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.
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.