- This topic has 737 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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=>
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 ????
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?
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?
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.
“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.
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!
“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.
Patur Aval Assur, here’s the link: ???? ????? (Hebrew) (800K)
Published in K’lil Tekhelet, 5753
by Rav Eliyahu Tavger
tekhelet.com/pdf/ta01.pdf
“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 ???? ?? ?????? ?????”?.
an example sotah 48b
?”? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????
????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??????
“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, ?”?.
“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.
“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 ?????? ?????!
Chacham: I downloaded it and unzipped it using Stuffit, and the filenames are all in legible Hebrew.
patur- please see ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ???”? which quotes from kisvei yad and the smag and other rishonim quoting the rambam which has the girsa of ?? ????? ???? ???.
?????? ?? ???? ????? brings the ???? ????? (the ??? ?? we have with the Rambam’s actual signature!) saying ???? ???? ???? ???.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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= ??’ ????’ ???? ??: ?”? ????? ?????, ??’ ????? ???? ?? ??? ????, ??”? ???”? (??”? ??? ?), ??? ??’ ?????? ???? (?? ????”? ??”?, ??”? ?????; ???’ ??? ????? ??’ ? ??? ? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? “??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? [????] ??? ?????”, ???”? ?”? ??, ???? ??”? ????? ??? (?? ??”? ??) “??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???
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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.