avihsey1:

I think it’s clear that at some point the source of the dye was lost, because when the Radzyner Rebbe first got started, nobody knew what the chilazon was. You say that if we didn’t lose the source then there would be no problem of wearing Techeiles. My whole point is that even if we did lose the source there would be no problem of wearing it.

And the Radzyner Rebbe’s ha’ara:

???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?”? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????, ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ????? ??, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????, ????? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???

(“????? ????? “??? ?????)

“PAA, and sam2 about the lashon of chut lashon yachid and shittas tosfos, the tosfos harosh yevamos 5b also uses the lashon chut shel techeiles to refer to the mitzvah of techeiles even though he holds like tosfos.”

I don’t know if this is a good raya. No one ever suggested that the rishonim who held of four strings never saw this gemara. Obviusly they either held it was lav davka or they had some other way to get out of it. So proving that the Rosh thought that it was lav davka doesn’t really accomplish anything. The point that was being pointed out is that the gemara taken at face value seems to say that there’s only one string of techeiles. The Torah Temima in fact brings this gemara as support for the Rambam’s shitta (although he does explain that Rashi would interpret it differently).

Another argument in favor of the murex (which has not yet been mentioned in this thread) is made by Menachem Epstein PhD. He points out that a ???? ????? ????? is relied upon to identify things (e.g. dead bodies, lost objects). The ??? ???? in E”H 17:74 defines a ???? ????? ????? as something which less than one in a thousand have. Dr. Epstein proceeds with the following argument: “Of the thousands of fish and mollusks that were studied to date, no other fish has been found that can produce the tekhelet color. Seeing that the ability to procure a tekhelet dye from a given fish is an occurrence of one in many thousands, we can consider this property as a ???? ????? ????? that identifies the murex snail as the true hillazon.”

Redleg: The description of the chilazon in menachos is ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????

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

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

Pliny describes it as resembling the sea in a tempestuous state. As for ???? ??? check out this picture http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/hellmann.pdf it’s on page 60.

As for ???? ??? ?????? ??? no one knows what that means. Science knows of no such thing by any creature. The Radvaz writes ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????. The fourth and fifth descriptions are not really descriptions but rather statements of fact both of which the murex trunculus fits with.

By the way the gematria of ??? ????? is ????? ????????.

My point is that granted it would be a shtickle dochek in the gemaras if murex trunculus is not the chilazon, but it seems that the proofs using kala ilan related arguments are not ironclad. All things taken into consideration, there is a very strong case for the murex trunculus but I don’t know if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But then again I don’t think it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; if anything it has to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s not the chilazon.

“my point about bais halevi is that all he needed was a sibah why it stopped and to this the ramban is an answer since he says there were gezeiros.”

I hear. But why limaaseh did the acharonim not make techeiles from the murex? The gezeiros ended hundreds of years ago. Unless you say that by the time the gezeiros had ended they forgot how to get the dye to turn blue or even how to make the dye altogether. Or that they knew the whole time but they were never able to actually do it.

But it is a bit odd that the midrash would say that techeiles was nignaz if in fact nothing about the metzious or knowledge had changed. It doesn’t sound like the midrash is saying that we have the chilazon and know how to make techeiles but we can’t do it because of gezeiros. Unless you say that it was in fact forgotten/lost and the shiltei hagiborim rediscovered it.

Even if kala ilan is only one color you still have that kasha on the gemara – maybe we just discovered a new min. So this is irrelevant to our discussion.

So you have to assume that rishonim knew about it and wrote that it was murex trunculus but didn’t wear it because of gezeiros and therefore it was forgotten and none of the acharonim ever saw the writings. If the shiltei giborim is the only one who says it and it’s a recently discovered manuscript then that would address the bais halevi. Is that the case?

Sam2: I think I mentioned that Tosfos in shabbos towards the beginning of this thread and Chacham responded that Tosfos was saying it as an efshar in order to answer a kashya. Besides we’re not as meshibad to the rishonim’s descriptions since they didn’t actually have it.

Chacham: I think we are understanding the kesef mishna differently. The way I understood it is that his question on the Rambam is that the Gemara only said that you can’t use kala ilan and the rambam for some reason broadens this issur and applies it to shachor as well. So the hechrech that kala ilan is more than one min is that the kesef mishna says that kala ilan is the color of techeiles made from other dyes. And if in fact murex trunculus is included in kala ilan it would still fit perfectly to say “this is not techeiles or kala ilan?!”, the only problem being that murex passes the test, but like I said earlier that is not what I’m questioning.

“the kesef mishna never meant that everything is called kla ilan, rather everything that color is nichlal in DINIM the gemara says for kal ilan.”

That would seem to be a rather forced reading of ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? .

Ant the gemara in menachos is only muchach that kala ilan is a specific thing if you make the hanacha that murex trunculus is not kala ilan. Why can’t it be that there are three levels: Techeiles, Kala Ilan (which would be any “perfect” imitation of techeiles), and then everything else. And correct me if I’m wrong but I think the nimulei yosef did not say “plant indigo”, he just said indigo. And anyway the fact that the rishonim don’t mention murex trunculus as part of kala ilan is very reasonable considering they didn’t know of any blue dye from it.

“so all rambam (and k”m) means if something else besides isatis is domeh to techeiles it has the din of kala ilan (i.e. it isn’t techeiles, can’t be used for lavan on tallis shekula techeiles) But it doesn’t mean that in the times of the gemara they had something else. Just lidoros if they find something else it has this din.”

But we know that in the times of the gemara they had murex trunculus. So if the chilazon was some other creature and the murex trunculus was around and could dye the same color as techeiles (which we know it could because it’s the same color as plant indigo) then according to the kesef mishna the murex trunculus would be nichlal in kala ilan. And therefore when the gemara indicates that there is no blue besides techeiles and kala ilan, it wouldn’t be a raya that techeiles has to be from the murex trunculus, because kala ilan includes the murex trunculus.

Sam2: The Griz has a pshat that there are three levels. Techeiles, Kala Ilan, and other dyes. Techeiles never comes out, other dyes come out completely and Kala Ilan comes out but not completely. According to this pshat (feel free to have a different pshat)I think that it could be plant indigo. My only question is does it have to be specifically limited to plant indigo.

“whats an example of something thats “patur avul assur”??”

puncturing an abcess to remove the pus (on shabbos) when you’re not doing it because of tzaar

“Take a look at the levush mordeachai hakdama to bava kamma”

I assume you are referring to where he says that the words of the Rishonim are like mishnayos and a closed book. No one here is claiming that every Rishonic statement is abundantly clear and easily understandable. (Just open up to any daf in shas and you’ll find a tosfos that is anything but so.) However, that does not mean that when Rishonim make pashut basic statements we have to assume that the pashtus doesn’t make sense and they really mean something alltogether different. You can reverse engineer anything to make the gemara and rishonim support it but that is not intellectually honest. The intellectually honest approach is to figure out what the rishonim say, and if you have a gadol/posek/rosh yeshiva/rabbi who says something not in accordance with them then instead of automatically assuming that the rishonim must have meant the opposite of what they said, first ask youreslf if the gadol/posek/rosh yeshiva/rabbi is familiar with the rishonim under discussion and if it’s possible that he is arguing (perhaps based on other rishonim/acharonim).

The first issue doesn’t exactly sound like a reason to not wear Techeiles. The second issue has been addressed by the dozens of sources that indicate that it is possible to find. The third issue is answeres because the previous generations never knew how to make the dye blue(assuming that techeiles is blue, ayin pages 7-9 b’arichus). The fourth issue also does not sound like something which would prevent wearing techeiles. The fifth issue has been addressed by the sources that show that on the strings in place of techeiles there is no problem.

This should not chas v’shalom be construed as a lack of kovod hatorah for R’ Elyashiv; I am merely presenting the responses.

“There are no dissenting opinions, hence I don’t quote them.

Wow. This is beyond arrogant. But at least now you’ve made it abundantly clear that this is agenda driven, and that you’re uninterested in hearing anything else to the contrary. “Don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth.”

Beyond arrogant? I claim that in 13 pages of discourse on this topic there has not been any dissenting opinion that says that there is an inyan to keep the status quo. Go find one such dissenting opinion in the 13 pages and I will retract my statement.

(Your anonymous rosh yeshiva who may or not hold this is not a dissenting opinion)

“Mr. big talker, patur aval assur, do you actually wear techeiles?”

Yes.