Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“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.”
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. for example on a talis shekulo techeiles kla ilan can’t be used as chutei lavan so too anything else that color. and anyway the gemara in menachos is muchach that kla ilan is a specific thing.
about the ben yehoyada that says based on arizal there is ??”? on anything not real techeiles the sefer hakanah is mevuar that the mekor of the ??”? on kla ilan is talui on the fact it grows from the ground.
sam2- we already answered your kasha ????
patur. rambam 2:1 (?”? ?????)
??? ??? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ??????: ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??????
Isatis means indigo kayidua.
than in halacha 8 rambam says
???? ???? ??’ ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??’. ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????.
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.
And of course the rayos from the gemaros are very muchach that there was nothing else known to be like indigo. The Murex was around Bizmanum memeila Ba harug braglov
tora umada-
I am just curious whatdid your posek say bsheim rav elyashiv ?(especially since he supposedly heard it directly from rav elyashiv)
can you fill me in?
i know many different claims bsheim rav elyashiv.
(including hearing from someone reliable that when asked if he wrote a teshuva that says it is a problem of min kanaf, he answered that there is no problem and he never wrote such a teshuva and he doesn’t know who did)
one thing vadai is that Rav MM Karp who is a talmid muvhak of Rav Elyashiv ztvk”l wears techeiles.
“it isn’t muchach poskim know those exotic sources. I spoke to many tremendous talmidei chachamim who didn’t know they exist.
I assumed R’ Elyashiv knew of at least some of them.” (
it isn’t muchach bchlal that rav elayshiv zatzal knew a teshuvos maharil mksav yad.
“The one I asked answered with R’ Elyashiv’s shitta, that he heard from him personally.”
just curious what did he say is rav elyashivs shitta?
mechaber doesn’t mean the strings bemakom techeiles acc. to maharshal malbim mishna berura chazon ish. and nobody can argue on that since what they are saying is muchach kana”l
anyways lulei this even if mechaber meant the strings bemakom techeiles a lechatchila can’t go kneged a safek deoraysa (see oc 595) besides for the fact the rama has a kpeida not to be makpid on the mechaber
“Because I managed to find and ask a posek pretty easily.”
a posek par with mahari”l?
did you ask him what he does with maharil, chemdas shlomo, malbim, olas tamid, kli chemda etc.?
it isn’t muchach poskim know those exotic sources. I spoke to many tremendous talmidei chachamim who didn’t know they exist.
it makes zero sense to anyone who learned the sugyos to say there is a psul based on rambam and rashi on color.
1. rama says we aren’t noheg like that shita ???? ?????.
2. the gmara says bfeirush on someonne wearing kla ilan bmkom techeiles ” ??? ??? ??? ???”
3. there is no din min kanaf on techeiles, because otherwise if the talis isn’t tzemer you will never be yotzei min kanaf.
4. also poskim say so mefourosh see yam shel shlomo yevamos 3, mishna berura 9, 14 chazon ish 3, 25 and others.
5. also many assume that even acc. to rambam and rashi it isn’t pasul if isn’t min kanaf
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
Tora Umadda-
Is there anybody who saw the Maharil in teshuvos Chadashos and still thinks mesorah is a valid tayneh? Do you have any reason to believe the roshei yeshiva know the Maharil? I recently showed it to my RY and he was maskim you can’t be soimech on a (safek) beis haleivi lkula kneged it. The sefer was recently printed. The Bais Haleivi never saw it. If Achronim who say a shitta kneged rishonim they did not know, certainly it is not a valid shittah and we always say ???? ??? ??? ????
And there is no 2 ways of understanding it. I quoted the leshonos above.
Also ???? it is a machlokes if Nignaz means forever. We find many times that if metzious is muchach one way than the metzious can be machriah. The rayos to the Murex are overwhelming, so it is a raya muchachos to the maharil
to quote the rambam
?”? ?”? ?????? ????? “??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????… ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???. ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???. ?????? ????
Hi. I am back
torah umada vchulo,
Regarding that point We have the maharil chemdas shlomo artzos chaim kli chemda olas taimd etc. saying it IS possible to identify it. And also we have the Chavos yair, Shiltay Hagiborim, Toefes Haream, Yaavetz, Minchas Ani, Reb Shamshon Refoel Hirsh (and tiferes yisrael) who do identify it.
Also there is another point. I will copy from something I wrote in Hebrew
???? ?????? ??. “…??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???'” ?????? ??”? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????, ??”? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??”?. ?????? ??? ???? ??”? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????.
???? ???????? ??: ” ?”? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????” ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? (???’ ???????? ???’ ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????). ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????.
???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? (?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???) ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???. ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????????. ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?”? ????????, ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? (????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???’ ?????? ???’ ????? ??? ?????, ?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???????).
???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??”? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????. ???? ???? ????? ????? (?????, ???????, ??????, ????????, ????????? ????) ???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??”? ???? ?”? ????? ?????. ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???, ??”? ????? ?? ?????. ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ???? ?”? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??????.
[????] ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??”? ????”? ?”? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? [????? ???? ???”?].” ??”? ????? ???? ???’ ?’.)
Regarding the second point, that we only do mitzvos because we have a mesorah you should know this is not the tayne of brisk, and has nothing to with it. To say it eloquently it is your ‘own methodology of understanding Torah concepts and textual statements’ But i think my Rosh yeshivas example stands here. Yidden didn’t do mitzvos hateluyos bearetz for years…..
Regarding Rav Chaim’s opinion see an earlier post on page seven from Zvei dinim where he posted a link of a recording of rav chaim saying
“???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????”
also the tiferes yaakov in chulin explains it to mean the sechar of avraham is that on something as simple as a string you can have shechina. ayin shum- lfi this the lashon of chut isn’t necessarily lashon yachid
patur-
the beis yosef was gores the raaved to say like tosfos.
also 2 retzuos and it says retzuah lashon yachid
sam2
where is an excerpt of what i wrote on that
. ???”? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?”? ????’ ??? ???? ???[1], ?? ?”? ???? ????? ?”? ??? ?? ??? ?’ ?? ????[2] ??’ ?? ???. ?”? ????? ?????’ ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????”?. ???”? ?????”? ?????”? ?? ???? ????’ ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ????.
[1] ????? ????? ??? ????’ ?????? ?? “?? ??? ???? ??????”, ???”? ??”? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ??’ ??”? ??”? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ????”? ???? ???? “????” ????”?.
[2] ??”? ??? ??? ?”?????? ????” ???”? ???? ????? ????”? ????? ????.
Where did you see this thing about the old shul. I once saw it referenced to, but never got to the bottom of it.
As for the strings in Torah Treasures in Lakewood they sell tosfos.
They sell there ones that are not made by petil tekhelet company, but by avreichim in Bnei Brak. They call it Techeiles Lchosvei Sh’mo.
oy. Sorry for being Choshed Bksheirim. ???”? should be yimalei kol mishalos libcha ltova.
Since when? and how many strings
the chiluk is if the yechidim are the leaders or stam hamon am
[There is also the “water Hyacinth” which is a weed that grows in seas and rivers. the flower itself is generally light pink, purple or white. However, all the flowers have blue in the middle. Someone once told me that perhaps this is pshat in the yerushalmi that says ???? ??????. Keyadua, all old Kisvei yad don’t have much of a space in between words so maybe the yerushalmi actually said ???? ???? ?? referring to the water hyacinth that is the grass of the sea.
It is very mechudashdik and doesn’t answer the domeh lwilan in the medrash.]
I saw other attempts to explain the yerushalmi but they are all dochkim.
Speaking of “hyacinth” it is good to quote Codex Justinian (in levush haaron pg. 32)
“No private person shall have power to dye or sell purpurae goods,
Shtait Duh hycinthina (techeiles) comes from murex
Lmaaseh why don’t you wear techeiles??
The post on the Seforim Blog is called “Kalir, False Accusations, and More
by Marc B. Shapiro” in middle of number 2 he mentions the letter.
I think the seforim blog once was maarich that it is forged.
As Haleivi said it is silly that every thread talks about the same old fight no matter what the original topic is. If people want to handle zionism they have to divide it into the many topics. Not every thing has to turn into the same thing all over again.
And also in this thread I happen to agree with Joseph that it isn’t true to say the Machaaa in manhattan was a “small vocal group” when it wasn’t just satmer but rather included many litvishe roshei yeshivos.
sam2- you know where this gra is? i heard it many times but never found it.
🙂
The chazon Ish is brought down in maaseh ish vol. 1, pg 132
see- http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51554&st=&pgnum=132&hilite=
if you are still looking into safek deroysa lchumra on safek techeiles I found a sefer on otzar hachachma called Mishmeres mitzvah (from a talmid of rav shimon shkop) that is very maarich to prove that we say safek deoraysa lchumra here. it can be seen for free on otzar hachachmah’s website since it is only 40 pages long
so let’s say karti is leeks so it is similar to green- does that mean techeiles isn’t blue? the same ????? that says that says it is domeh to leeks says techeiles is blue so obviously the mordechai held there is is no stira. (unlike rabeinu Yonah)
The same way it is impossible to be a machlokes in metzious so too the metzious of the chachmei umos haolam have to shtim. Josephus in wars of the Jews Book 5,5 4 Antiquities of the Jews boook 3, Philo in the Life of moses 3,2 all say techeiles is blue. (and in case you don’t like translations Philo actually says techeiles is like the color of the air (horizon))
so let’s say karti is leeks so it is similar to green- does that mean techeiles isn’t blue? the same ????? that says that says it is domeh to leeks says techeiles is blue so obviously the mordechai held there is is no stira. (unlike rabeinu Yonah)
The same way it is impossible to be a machlokes in metzious so too the metzious of the chachmei umos haolam have to shtim. Josephus in wars of the Jews Book 5,5 4 Antiquities of the Jews boook 3, Philo in the Life of moses 3,2 all say techeiles is blue. (and in case you don’t like translations Philo actually says techeiles is like the color of the air (horizon) see hebrew version here http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=32392&st=&pgnum=98&hilite=)
rob- reb chaim ozer writes bfeirush it is assur on tom tov- see http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8861&st=&pgnum=6
My father asked Rav Shlomo Zalman why the oilam uses Mishna berura over aruch hashulchan and he answered because the chafetz chaim put more ameilus into making the mishna berura (like chazering everything 35 times) But my father is unclear if he meant therefore the psak of the MB is more authoritative or min hashamayim it was more niskabel by the velt because of the yegiah.
lfi you that holds there cant be machlokes bavli and yerushalmi how could tos. not agree with the gra if he hold yer. is mashma green and says lmaaseh it is blue?
regarding the test see levush haaron that discusses the test and attests that the test was done on ancient kla illan and it faided
the kuntress can be seen here
tosafos could go like the gra since in succah he makes it machlokes bavli and yerushalmi and in chulin is sosem blue.
mareh painm learns it is a machlokes (even if you think it is shver that’s how he learned) so the klal is machlokes bavli vyerushalmi halacha kibavli. besides when it comes to the gra you have to find rishonim who disagree not achronim.
the akeidas pshat doesn’t requuire different madreigos in color – it could be different madreigos in the zechira- i. e. lfi the shla the bechina of kriyas yam suf can bring to the bechinah of matan torah
about several midrashim saying asavim the radziner writes since this medrash is brought 3 times in bavli and in sifri and in medrash raba and tanchuma and all those places don’t say it than we can assume the ikar girsa in the medrash is without it.
see http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41254&st=&pgnum=27&hilite=
maybe a kasha but at most will remain only a kashya. the rishonim obviously worked it out since they had the yerushalmi (and maybe they disregarded it like the gra as we see from tosfos in chulin)
(also rav herzog was metaretz it in his work ????? ??”?)
yam domeh larakia the akeida (?”?) and all the baalei mussar use this to explain that in ruchniyus to reach the kisei hakavod you have to work upwards by building on what you already gained ayin shum.
who is “everyone else” that doesn’t go like the gra? can you find a rishon who quotes the yerushalmi and holds lmaaseh techeiles is green? so all you have is a kasha which the gra answers and no rishon says farkert.
only one raya from the zohar is based on yarok.
the ritva is clear that the pshat of aggadah is kneged the domeh ladomeh.
the historians are brought down in the various kuntreisim
You have a yerushalmi which rishonim knew and still said blue. so on what basis are you arguing with them?? and what about the gra who was magia it for a reason (and knew tosafos etc.), are you also arguing on him? what do you think the gra was coming lafuikay? but if you are really convinced it is still green and the rishonim were stupid then get yourself a green pair of techeiles but what do you want from me who follows rishonim especially when i know nothing more than they do?
what, you think i deny that ritva? that part wasn’t nogea for what i was quoting. speaking of ritvas what about the one in shabbos that says “???? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??????”?
and your entire hanacha that bavli can’t argue on yerushalmi is based on the fact they are describing metzious. so ????? ?? yerushalmi can’t argue on zohar or historians who are mevour it isn’t green.
here is a quote ?????”? from ???? ?? ???
??????? ???? (????? ????? ?? ??? ?”?) ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???’ ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????
????? ?????? ????”? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???”?, ????”? (??????? ??? ? ??.) “??? ?????? … ?????? ???? ????, ???? ????, ???? ????, ???? ????, ???? ????” ??????”? (???.) “??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????” ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. [???? ??? ?? ??????? ????????, ?????. ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ??”? ?????? ??? ???”?, ?? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????”? ???? (??? ????? ????? ??? ????”? ???: “????? ?????? ?????? ??????”) ??”? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???”? (????”? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??”?)] ????”? ????? ?????? (??? ???.) “???? ?????? ???? ??????, ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ????”. ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????. ??????? (???.) ???? ?? ???? ??????…. ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????, ????? ???? … ???? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????.
??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ???”?, ???? ???? ?????”? ????? ????”? ???”? (?? ??.) ??? ?? ?? ???? ????, ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???, ?? ???? ???”? ????? ?? ??? ??.
my point was that the rishonim who said domeh larakia had a mefourasha bavli kneged the yerushlami.
about the pshatim here is two but there are many more
?????”? ?”? ????? ?”? ?”? ??”?: ?? ????? ???? ??’ ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??’ ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???, ????? ????? ???? ??? ???”? ?? ???. ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????, ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????.
?? ?? ??? ????? ???”? ????? ???’ ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????: ??”? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????”? ???? ?????. ????, ???? ???? ???, ??? ???? ?????, ????? ????, ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???”? ?????? ???, ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???”? ?????. ???? ??? ????? ??, ????? (?????? ??, ??) “?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???”, ????”? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ??????? ??? (??, ?) ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???. ??? ?????, ???? ???? ????? ?????? “????? ?? ????”. ??? ????, ?? ????? ????? ???. ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???, ??????- ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????. ????- ????, ?? ???? ???”? ?’ ?????? ???? ???? ????? “???? ?’ ????? ???'”. ??????- ??? ??? ????? ????? ???, ????? (????? ??, ??) “??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????”, ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????.
also in mishnas rebi elazar after it says domeh lyam vchulo it says
??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????. ???? ?????? ???? ????? and then says a pshat in sapir ??”?
you yourself said “Additionally, if the pesukim indicate that the rakia, kisei, and sapir are the same color then it would be very hard to say that when the gemara says that Techeiles is Domeh L’yam it is not an exact comparison”
im kain it is a mefourasha bavli
the pesukim are mashma it is the same ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? and al kol panim from the pesukim we see it could just say domeh larakia which is domeh to kisei hakavod. so obviously the steps are here for an aggadic reason (many explanations are indeed given)
kimaat all rishonim had yerushalmi. i already said why bavli is mashma it is blue and not domeh ladomeh. if so they had a meforusha bavli so they disregarded the yerushalmi.
either way if you really want green techeiles than you can get it.
“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 aforementioned Talmudic literature.”
If the rishonim had no external yediah what techeiles is, obviously what they said was based solely on chazal. al kol panim you can’t argue on them from a yerushalmi. they knew yerushalmi- and as tos. in succah says the bavli isn’t mashma like the yerushalmi and tos. in chulin is clear it isn’t green so tos. also disregarded the yerushalmi. so maybe you have a kashya on the rishonim but you want to argue with them??? and what is wrong with changing the girsa? the gra did that so he obviously held it was a mistake.
i agree that maybe you have a point, however if you are not coming from anything more than chazal, you can’t argue on rishonim.
correction: in the last paragraph i meant to say “Besides there are numerous rayos that can’t be ignored that are mevuar it isn’t green.”
1- rashi is soiser himself from sotah to other places. the ritva is kneged a velt of rishonim who say techeiles is domeh larakia. the kli yakar and chacham tzvi are acharonim. and when you count acharonim then there is no end to those that say it is blue.
you said “So they obviously didn’t feel that it’s muchach not so from the Gemara” yup and all those who say it is blue also obviously didn’t feel that it’s muchach not so
2- if all the domehs are exact than ain hachi nami domeh lAyam is also davka, and keyadua yam could be this light blue. the rishonim obviously do not go like this chacham tzvi (but the musag that domeh could be lav davka still exists just here is different because the gemara is not mashma like that)
3- I don’t get the point of focusing only on talmudic literature. It is one thing if you are presenting some new metzious the rishonim didn’t know of, but all you are doing is saying the stama is mashma it is green. But if you coming just from pshat who cares? We follow rishonim when it comes to pshat. Besides there are numerous rayos that can’t be ignored that are mevuar it isn’t blue. for example the historians who saw techeiles, or kla ilan and the zohar hakadosh. As for pshat in the yerushalmi, that is the rishonim’s problem.
sorry about the meseches tzitzis. i quoted it from memory.
about medrash raba in the regular old printing i didn’t find anyone who was magia. I did find in a computer search a few zohars that clearly compare techeiles to rakia.
most rishonim obviously do not explain the domehs in steps because they compare techeiles to the rakia. the gemara is muchach it is not steps because it says rakia is domeh levnas sapir which is domeh to kisei hakovod yet the pesukim seem to describe them as such and not just domeh which would be mashma rakia livnas hasapir and the kisei hakovod are all one color. vdoi”k
????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???
I am still not sure what point you are trying to get to when we have clear rishonim saying it is blue.
sam2- from what i heard tests get it to fade and get lighter but it doesn’t come out completely meaning it is a shinui
meseches tzitzis just says domeh larakia as well as the medrash raba.
toi- i think that is the opinion of the radzyner rebbe in shittas harambam. teimanim also have such a minhag for more info see: http://www.tekhelet.com/guide.htm
patur- i don’t see any reason to assume domeh lrakia means green any less than domeh lasavim means blue. the mareh panim and tos. assume it is a machlokes . if it is not a machlokes than you have to be madcheh one of them. so why is green davka over blue?
see chazon ish oc 112 10
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=323&hilite=
sam2- why is it shver?
patur aval assur-
The same way the yerushalmi is mashma it is green (yam domeh lasavim) the bavli is mashma it is blue(yam domeh larakia). So either you say it is a stira and the bavli is more authoritative (especially since we have additional rayas from kla ilan and historians that it is blue) or you are not gores the yerushalmi like the gra. Al kol panim the majority of the rishonim pasken it is blue.
also none of this is soiser the murex as the chilazon, since it is technically possible to dye green from it.
tosafos in succah says yerushalmi is mashma it is green but bavli is mashma it is blue. tos chulin 47b is also clear it is blue. Also Josephus amongst other chachmei umos haolam who saw techeiles say it is blue.
“why should you follow the ones that are clear that it is not green?”
I meant follow the rishonim. the rishonim seem to be clear that it is blue. Also the halacha follows rov rishonim. Can you quote rishonim who clearly hold otherwise?
“How do you possibly explain Domeh L’asavim?”
that’s the rishonim’s problem not mine.
If you think their is a machlokes than follow the rishonim who are clear that it is not green. Just to quote a few ?? ????? ???? (?????, ???? ??,?) ??? ???? “????????” ?????? ???? (?????? ???? ????). ??????? (??’ ?????) ???? ??’ ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?????”? ???????? ???? ????. ??”? ?????? (???? ??. ?”? ???? ?????. ???”? ??: ?”? ??? ????? ????) ????? ??? ???? ????.
??”? ????? (??? ??? ????) ?????? (??? ??? ???) ??????? ???? (???? ??,?. ??? ??, ??.) ???? ???? ???? ??? ???????? (???? ??,?) ????? ??? (??”? ??, ?, ?”? ???????) ????? ???? ???? ???”?. ?????”? (????? ??, ??,) “???? ????? … ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????”. ????????? ???? ?? “??????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????”. (???? ??????? “????”, ?? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ??? ????). ??”? ?”? ?????? (??? “??? ??????” ????? “??? ????” ?? ????? ????? ???.) ??? ????”? ??”?: “…?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???”? ???”? (????), ???”? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ???”? (????) ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???”? ???”? (????), ????? ????? ??? ????”. ?????? ?????? (??? ? ?”?) “????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ????”.
It should be noted that the gr”a was mochek the yerushalmi
we need yeshivos pashut so people understand svara and lumdus and they won’t make dimyonos that are ridiculous. your dimyon to the army of the dor hamidbar was bad enough…??? ???