Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

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

Do you like Mendel Singer’s argument so much?

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.

”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.

“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. ???? ??

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

“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.

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 ???????.

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.

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.

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