Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟

You are absolutely right. There is no reason to assume that domeh l’rakia is green. But as I have explained, that’s not a problem. Nowhere in Talmudic era literature(as far as I know except for one medrash in which the mefarshim change the girsa back to how it is everywhere else,) does it say that Techeiles is Domeh L’rakia. It is always prefaced by Domeh L’yam V’yam Domeh L’rakia. Now I think evryone here agreed a long time ago that the Yam can be blue-green or even green. I have no problem with saying that green is domeh to blue or saying that blue is domeh to green. The problem is saying that blue is domeh to green which is in turn Domeh to blue. According to you that is exactly what the Medrash and Yerushalmi are doing, wheras according to me the Medrash and Yerushalmi are merely expressing a journey across green and blue on the color spectrum.

Sorry, part of my last statement somehow got cut out. In between my third to last and second to last statements I had said the following: (Therefore, even if it would say Domeh L’rakia it wouldn’t be a problem.)

Anyway, Meseches Tzitzis does not say that Techeiles is Domeh L’rakia, rather it says that the chilazon is Domeh L’rakia (which ironically is worse for the Murex Trunculus). The Medrash Rabba in several places syas “Domeh L’yam…” but at the end of Shelach it does say “Domeh Lrakia”, However as I have already pointed out, the Maharzu emends it to conform with all the other places. (Also if Techeiles is Domeh L’rakia then it’s shver on all the mefarshim who explain the Gemara that it’s not directly domeh L’rakia but rather a step by step progression from Techeiles to Yam to Rakia.)

Since there seems to be some confusion as to what my point was, I will restate it:

Focusing only on Talmudic era literature descriptions of Techeiles, it makes more sense to say that Techeiles is green rather than blue because if you say that Techeiles is blue thwn there are several places where the comparison is “blue resembles green which resembles blue/green (depending on how you view “Yam”) which in turn resembles blue”. That does not sound very logical. However if Techeiles is green then there are several places where the comparison is “green resembles green which resembles green/blue which resembles blue which resembles blue…

which makes perfect sense, even more so when you consider the opinions that Techeiles is not directly Domeh to the rakia/kisei/sapir.

The point of focusing on Talmudic literature is that none of the rishonim had Techeiles, so anything they say is merely an educated guess albeit filtered through their knowledge of the afforementioned Talmudic literature.

I am merely trying to explain why it doesn’t make sense to say that Techeiles is blue. Do you disagree with my assesment or do you agree with it but we just have to follow the Rishonim? If uo disagree then please provide an answer.(Changing every girsa is not an answer.) If you agree but feel threatened by Rishonim, then as I have already pointed out Tosfos says befairush that the Yerushalmi implies green. Tosfos doesn’t change the girsa nor reject the Yerushalmi because of Kala Ilan or historians(I don’t if they were accessible then) or the abundance of Rishonim that say that it’s blue. Also bear in mind that the definition of Kala Ilan that you are using comes from the Rishonim and they may have defined it as indigo because they held that Techeiles is blue as opposed to holding that Techeiles is blue because Kala Ilan is blue. So it could very well be that anyone who hold sthat Techeiles is green would also hold that kala ilan is something else or even that kala ilan is a general term for any non chilazon dye (probably plant dyes specifically based on the word “ilan”).

First of all, not all Rishonim had complete access to Yerushalmi. Granted Tosfos agreed that the Bavli is mashma blue, but that is in a vacuum, meaning that it’s more logical that the Bavli means blue than green. But once you have the Yerushalmi, we have a problem: There cannot be a machlokes as to what color Techeiles is as I have explained earlier. But for some reason the Yerushalmi decided to describe it differently than the Bavli. So now you either have to fit the Bavli into the Yerushalmi’s description or the Yerushalmi into the Bavli’s description. Now to interpret the Bavli as green is less logical than to interpret it as blue. Whereas to interpret the Yerushalmi as blue is illogical. So head to haed it seems like a much better option to say that Techeiles is green.

As for the fact that the Gra changed the girsa, that is completely irrelevant because no one else does and Tosfos quotes the girsa as is.

So now you can probably understand why I have a hard time understanding the Rishonim who say that Techeiles is blue unless they address the Yerushalmi which they don’t.

I don’t think the pesukim indicate that they are the exact same color. The prefix ? can mean that they are similar but not exact. Since the Bavli does not compare Techeiles directly to the Rakia, there is no Mefurash Bavli. Also according to you why does the Gemara bring in Yam? (You could answer like Rashi that Techeiles is not so similar to Rakia but it is to Yam, but then there would be no Mefurash Bavli.) Maybe you will try to answer that even though the Yam serves no purpose in identifying the color,the Gemara wanted to bring bring it in for the symbolism of the nisim done at the sea (which Rashi mentions), but then the Gemara should have said that Techeiles is Domeh L’yam and Domeh L’rakia. But that’s not what it said. So if anything, there’s a mefurash Bavli that Techeiles is not directly Domeh L’rakia.

And again, you can’t disregard the Yerushalmi, it has to fit in with the Bavli.

What are some of these many explanations?

It’s clearly not a mefurash Bavli because your conclusions are disputed by Rishonim and Acharonim. The Yerushalmi is Mefurash. And what about those explanations for Yam?

And again there are several Midrashim which also say Asavim.

Yet there are also plenty of places where it says Asavim. For instance a Yerushalmi, a Medrash Raba, two places in Medresh Tehillim, and a Yalkut Shimoni. And even if there are more times that it doesn’t say Asavim, that’s not a reason to change the girsa since it’s not a stira (if you say that Techeiles is green. It’s only a stira if before reading the Talmudic sources you already have presupposed that it’s blue, which is probably not a good way to approach a sugya.

Tosfos is a rishon and most definitely does not agree with the Gra. (Perhaps Tosfos agrees halacha limaaseh that Techeiles is blue, but that is a horse of a different color.)And I don’t think the Marey Panim is learning it as a machlokes. He’s learning it as a stira in mashmaos. In fact he quotes Tosfos and Tosfos also says it as conflicting mashmaos.

Regarding the test, I quote from Dr. Baruch Sterman, the pre-eminent advocate of Murex Trunculus Techeiles: “On the basis of current understanding of the dye chemistry and the standard interpretation of the Talmudic tests, those procedures would not cause any change in cloth dyed with plant based indigo, kala ilan, which was meant to fade under their influence. If one wants to uphold the chemical efficacy of the tests, one would have to posit that there are some yet-to-be-understood reactions that involve, perhaps, the methods by which the ancients dyed. If this is true, then one can take that reasoning further and apply it ti murex dyeing as well. After all, there are significant amounts of many other substances along with indigo in murex-derived dye. Even if those additions are too small to be detected by the eye and change the perceived hue, they may play some little understood chemical role that is picked up via the Talmudic tests.” (The rarest blue endnote 57)

In the writing of the Radzyner which you quoted http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41254&st=&pgnum=27&hilite= there are several issues. He is maskim that the colors do not have to be the same as the next thing on the list. He also is using the Yam as blue. So how in the world does he explain saying that blue is domeh to blue which is domeh to green which is domeh to blue? Furthermore if you hold (like he does) that it’s ok to compare blue to green, then there’s no reaon to change the girsa of “Asavim domeh l’yam” to “yam domeh l’asavim” since it’s not a stira – in one place the comparison is green to blue and in one place the comparison is green to green.

Rashi and the Bartenura say that Techeiles is close to the color of leeks. The Mordechai says that Techeiles is a little similar to leeks.

Notice how Tosfos does not say “there must be something wrong with this Yerushalmi because kala ilan is blue”. And if it’s so pashut that kala ilan is only plant indigo and that Techeiles is the exact same color/shade, why don’t any of the Rishonim simply explain Techeiles as “exactly the same as kala ilan”?

The difference is that the Mordechai who says that Techeiles is blue says that it’s ketzas domeh to leeks, whereas Rashi and the Bartenura say that it’s karov to leeks.