Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
REb Shlomo Zalman (halichos shlmo Tefila) REb Moshe The Chazon ISh and the Steipler (Orchos rabeinu) all held sfard can change to ashkenaz but ashkenaz cannot change to sfard.
Good bye everybody. Off to Yeshivah
ZEESKITE- he is Joseph
sam2 -chas vashalom do i disagree with you. This example I actually did not know to come from AZ. However, I expected you to know that there is such a mekor.
Reb Yitayningwut- The above mentioned acharonim simply state that there is an additional issur for a kli neginah included in the aveilus of sefirah.
yes it is indeed assur all year round, but on sefira there is an additional stringency.
Why would they say something that something assur is assur. I guess it is like the poskim who assur smoking all yeaR and also discuss whether it is muttar on yom tov. Different Dinim.
Besides the Magen avraham is actually talking about by a seudas Eirusin which during the year there is no issur.
And kemiduma li we already discussed this once http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/music-in-the-9-days
sam2- You are always so predictable. i was waiting for you to say that.
Belin- You think every halacha that has no straight out source in the rishonin is a Chumra? What happened, you think the 16 achronim invented this by themselves? No. pshat is like Reb sam2 said. There was a gezeira from yemos harishonim not to get married. The shayala was can you make a seudas eirusin. Zugt the Magen avraham, YEs you can make a seudas Eirusin. But be careful to be extra makpid on Rikudim but you want a kli shir, noooo no that is too much of a pirtza. So say all the achronim OK it is then a huge Kal Vchomer that stam Not ltzorech mitzvah Rikud or kli shir is assur gamur or as reb moshe says more assur than it is the rest of the year.
And who is this Mekeilim that we go after? I don’t think there is a source for the mekeilim. You found somebody meikil?
It is a kashya on them. To have a BERLIN style attitude I will say why can you detract things from a halacha without a source?
And if a tape is a kli shir? c’mon can’t figure that out? KLI SHIR- a thing that makes music. End of story
Where is Chacham?
147- i once heard someone say (don’t know where he got it sounds chasidish to me )that even lfi the second half dudes you are aloud to take a haircut on lag baomer. He said that they hold the talmidei rebi akiva only died on regular days not on yomim tovim (yeah, but what yom tov was it in their time?). To give an example he added they only died on days you say tachnun. so Someone asked him lfi zeh some chasidim who never say tachnun when did they die. He answered I guess they all died on Hey Iyar.
“Aaron Chaim- I think the heter is only if Shabbos is Rosh Chodesh, not if Shabbos is on Sunday like it is this year.”
yungerman I think you meant if ROsh chodesh is on sunday not if shabbos is on sunday;-)
What about if the Mod thinks your Joseph?
maybe try davening for them.
yeah i was also wondering what it is . well my first name is moshe (yes it is not joseph!) so i decided to reply
superlamdan-Ich farshtei nisht. You are saying that you don’t know what type of guy your daughters going to marry so you want it to come from a ruba d’lisa lkaman. Because if you know who she is going to marry you would not have to rely on umdunos and rov. You can pick that same chacham (hey, that’s what you called it) from anywhere else.
And about priorities, I think we disagree.
hey shtiky
superlamdon-
Does anyone doubt that the percenteges of being married to the next big baal gaava are greatly increased if the boy learned in Brisk. In fact I would say that more ballei gaava are from brisk then all the other yeshivos combined.
So it Depends what your priorities are and which comes first.
sam2-
About the Noda byehuda something tells me I once saw that the chasam sofer argues. i will try to find the mare makom.
About being the only guy who does it. Isn’t that assur altz makom shenahagu bo issur assur linhog bo heter.
( And Shaving is assur mderaysa all year round according to most poskim. i know it is not the accepted opinion, but it does not take away the fact that most poskim held it is assur.)
haleivi- I believe the chazon ish held handshakes is yaharog v’al yeaver. I saw that in maaseh ish. He said it is like all abizrayu dearayus.
And bar Shattya and the sheep without a spleen
rabbiofberlin- recorded music is a kli shir. Why? because the same you are not yotzei tekias shofar with a recording. Basically you are not hearing the voice. Al carchach you are hearing a kli of some sort. And kli shir is assur.
Kli shir
The aruch hashulchan 493:4 nogea sefira ????? ????? ?????, ?? ?? ???????? ???????. ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???. ??? ????? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ??????, ????? ??? ??????? ???????.
All the following poskim all say that recoreded music is no less than a kli shir.
Igros Moshe OC 1:166,3:87, MInchas Yitzchok 1:111, Yechave da’as 3:30, and Igros moshe Yoreh deah 2:137 assures a kli shir even when in the house and is not gorem simchah. (look in the Minchas yitzchok who says minhag tov kneder vassur lifrotz geder).
The Magen avraham 558:1 , and the mishna berura 558:2 also mentions kli shir. Also the pri megadim (aishel avraham) 558:10 talks about the issur of a kli negina ( not in a case of rikud) and so does the Derech hachaim in hilchos bein hamtzarim sif 1 , The biur halacha 551:2 dh ummatim, shu”t chaim sheal siman 21, maharam shik yd 268 butchacher sof siman 552 and the shevet halevi 2:57 8:127. and in haaros from rav elyashiv on gittin daf 7. kovetz halachos bein hamtzarim perek 4 etc. so i think it is a generally accepted halacha.
how is that?
ANINANo – rav kook died in 1935. Yom Haatzmuat was started in 1949 as a zecher of 1948. Historically incorrect.
bp27 Reread what i wrote. I davka left shaving out. Keyadua the Chazon Ish did not hold of shaving at all. See Igros chazon ish 1,197- 198
the Mishna berura 493 SK 5 is matir to take a haircut and get married erev shabbos rosh chodesh. However it seems that he is only saying it for those who hold 2nd half that they are allowed to take a haircut on rosh chodesh itself only if it is also lkovod shabbos rosh chodesh. But REb Moshe in BEin pesach lshvous 10:22 that even those who keep first half can be meikil.
I think everyone has a little joseph in them.
sam2 is correct ( in his response to toi). he simply follows halacha and not political views.
and says some things about the zohar…. erm I just won’t post it.
sam2- I hear.
I believe Rav yaakov Emden in toras hakanoas says that reziel hamalach is a forgery based on the Rokeachs Sodey Rzaaya
popa- how about rephrasing that to say
“We think that I am not so different.”
yes, you are being unreasonable. There is plenty of quality bachurim who did not learn in brisk.
SAm2- The question in 96 is indeed a strange qustion. But which mefurash gemara are you talking about.
Either way I found a Reb Moshe on this see http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=919&st=&pgnum=139
see also: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46217&st=&pgnum=232&hilite=
(but I don’t like when seforim say things as a davar pashut with no mekor)
And is anybody else annoyed that from the many wonderful seforim hebrewbooks has they are missing most of the chalokim of the normal printing of shulchan aruch with nosei keilim.
popa see the beis shmuel in even haezer 21,4
see also http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=48274&st=&pgnum=52
pcoz
I know there is a difference of a Kli shir than stam singing. The aruch hashulchan 493:4 nogea sefira ????? ????? ?????, ?? ?? ???????? ???????. ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???. ??? ????? ????? ????, ??? ?????? ??????, ????? ??? ??????? ???????.
All the poskim say that any recoreded music is no less than a kli shir.
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.
I take that personal. I have a car when i am in yeshiva.
onegoal- It still does not necessarily prove so much being that most of his tzitzis did not contain the techeiles he obviously does not hold it is meikar hadin. Also the talis he was buried in did not have techeiles. see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/photos.php?albumid=5722271979718336529&photoid=5722389502844175698
yehudahtzvi- it is indeed hamalach.
“First of all, Pliny was most definitely not discussing techeiles. He was discussing the Murex Trunculus and was in no way soseir the chachmei yisrael.”
ummm well like I said I looked up Pliny and it is in Plin. Nat. 9.60 and let me give you some details of pliny’s description of the murex. I got it from some translation online that I found through google.
Keep in mind the techeiles was valuable to the Umos haolam.
????? ? ?, ?????? ?? ?, ?? ?? ?, ??? ?? ??, ??”? ?, ? ?, ???? ? ?, ?? ? ??, ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ??’ ??, ??? ??., ??????? ??
1. “In Asia the best purple is that of Tyre.”
hmmm… ???”? ?????, ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? (??? ??., ????? ?., ???? ?’ ???? ????? ?? ??, ?????? ????? ??).
2. “…the colour itself is harsh, of a greenish hue, and strongly resembling that of the sea when in a tempestuous state.”
3…. “colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight”, ????”? ??? ???? ???? ????
4 …”the habit of paying enormous prices for them”…
Also lishitas patur that the gemara will only give us simanim that identify the murex, like domeh lyam and domeh ldag ( once in 70 years which is a nes lfi haradvaz) than what in the world is the gemara telling us ubdamo tzovin techeiles ( dam can mean any juice as in ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???) how is that a siman that its blood is used to dye techeiles, isn’t that what we are looking for? ella mai it is telling us that it is used to dye tcheiles as in what the umos haolam used
I can go on and on but being that the yaavetz and the shiltei hagiborim (the rishon) already assumed that the dye mentioned in the chachmei umos haolam is techeiles, I will be soimech on them.
But lshitas Patur aval assur, there were two snails that died blue of the exact same color of techeiles both were a strong dye, both were expensive, both were found in the same location, both seemingly fit with the gemaras simanim (yes it is domeh lyam and domeh ldag as I stated before) yet chazal specifically warned us of a plant which was similar and made no explicit mention of this Murex which is so likely to be mistaken for techeiles. In fact they even wrote in the tosefta ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? , ??? ?? ????? ????? which is mashma that as long as it is chilazon that works it is kasher. hmmm, and do you still hold we won’t say safek deoraysa?
sam2 in ois 1 he talks about the rama. in ois 2 he quotes daas haosrim.
“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. ???? ??
”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.
gittin are generally written in arameic
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.
Ok. Now please see the radvaz this is his full lashon
??”? ???”? ?”? ??’ ????
???? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????.
?????: ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????, ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ????”? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????. ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????, ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????, ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????.
So the fact that the chilazon came up was a nes and only happened ini the chelek of zevulun, so how in the world should Ploni know about it?
Do you like Mendel Singer’s argument so much?
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
”Why would you do something to be yotzei a safek if you don’t have to.(There’s a famous Reb Chaim which postulates that the rule of safek d’oraisa l’chumra would not apply in this type of situation”
Well being that nobody knows the source of this ”reb chaim” and the gemara and all the achronim are mevuar farkert than lhalacha we follow the psak of the mishna berura that safek deoraysa applies here.
The gemara in rosh hashana 34b ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? and this is brought down lhalacha in siman ???’? and the mishna berura is clear the reason is because of safek deoraysa lchumra.
Also see the ran in succah 22b ?”? ???
and the mishna berura in Siman 32:50, 33:5 in Biur halacha ?”? ??? and MB 39:26 and Biur halacha in 648 ?”? ????? (page 136)
???? ???? ???. ???????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????”? ??????? ????”? ???? ?? .
“Keep in mind that the braisa was trying to describe a chilazon. If one was asked describing the murex trunculus, saying that it is the color of the ocean is a very poor description.”
Well, being that the chilazon dies once it is out of the water for a short time whenever you will find a chilazon that you can use it will be domeh lyam. Hence the siman is a very good siman.
About fish being domeh ldag. Let us make a hanacha that the chilazon is a snail*. If so the shape of one snail will be more ‘domeh ldag’ than the other snails. Now I request permission of the moderators to allow the following link to show my point. Please see page 58 of the following pdf file for some pictures http://www.tchelet-net.022.co.il/BRPortalStorage/a/31/86/54-EnqP9QK36s.pdf
What I intended with the radvaz is to show that coming up every 7 years is derech nes and after the churban that stopped happening. This is his lashon ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? see his full lashon in siman ???”?
* ( I can make an arichus out of this with many rayos but for this point and maybe I will do so later. but this is the hanacha of many achronim
??????? ??? ????: ????”? (???’ ?????? ?’ ????? ???”?), ????”? ??? (??? ????”?, ???’ ?? ???? ????? ??”?), ?????? ????? (?????? ???? ????), ??????? ???? (?”? ?”?), ??????? ????? ???? ???? (?????? ???
About the test being that ???? ??? ??? ????, ????”? ??”? ??. ???? ???”? ?”? ????, ??? ???”? ??????? (????????, ??? ?’ ???? 333) ??”? ??”? (???? ?????”?) ??”? ??:)] all clearly say that kla ilan is indigo and the test does not work we are obviiously doing the test wrong which means the test is lo maaleh vlo morid.
However, I did hear from one of those osek in this inyan that they did the test on some old kla ilan and it got lighter and the way they extract the kla ilan today is different. See also the above post from HOlymoe
Now regarding your original point about the dye deteriorating I will quote you from the ”tekhelet” site
“We performed an experiment, wherein groups of snails were killed on
15 minute intervals, the being extracted dye after death. Thus we had samples of dye extracted from snails that had been dead for 15min, 30min, 45min, etc.. The results showed that the greater the elapsed time the more severely the dye was reduced until the dye was no longer viable. This was explained physiologically based on the fact that the dyestuff from the Murex is composed of two components extant in the gland – (1) the dye precursors, (2) the dye enzyme (purpurase). The enzyme acts on the precursors upon exposure to oxygen (i.e., when the gland is squeezed). The purpurase, however, deteriorates in a short amount of time subsequent to the death of the snail. So, if one tried to squeeze the gland after the snail was dead, the purpurase
would no longer exist to act upon the dye precursors.”
The gemara is not a contradiction at all. The time when you are chayav for netilas neshama according to the GEMARA 107B (and see the rambam 11,1 in Hilchos Shabbos) is when you make the animal a goses not when it dies. ??”? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????
Patur- Thank you for responding. I will answer your first point now and will bezras hashem get to your other points a little later.
1- About the similarity between kla ilan. All I was saying that according to Rabbi Miller, whom you quoted to hold that the Murex is Kla ilan, than you cannot say that they only made a gezeirah on the cheap stuff being that the murex is also kla ilan. All I was pointing out that you were soiser yourself.
But regarding your sevara that they would not make a gezeira on expensive stuff, it is very not mistaber. The gemara in menachos tells us of a test to tell the distinction between kla ilan and the real techeiles. The gemara tells of us two ways of doing the test. One way if the color of the dye were to fade than it was kla ilan and if it stayed the same color it was techeiles. Than Rav Ada had an alternative way of testing it that if the color improves than it is techeiles and if it stayes the same color than it is kla ilan. On 43a the gemara recounts how Mar Mashchi brought techeiles to Rav Achai and Rav Achai tested it and it passed the first test but failed the second test. The Rabanan thought to pasul it. Rav Achai asked How could it be that it is not techeiles or kla ilan rather you must say that the tests are meant to be together. Ayin shum vdoik.
What we see from that gemara that they knew that there was no other dye that is the same color as techeiles except kla ilan. And today we know (based on the ???? ????? ????? of that time) that this snail was rather common in those times and was used to dye blue. So being that the chachamim were not choshesh for it, obviously anything that is identical to kla ilan and sticks strongly, and was around in the times of the gemara is clearly techeiles.
And please do not bring up your old argument that this is the same chemicals as kla ilan, because we have already discussed that it is not the same strong so obviously a test can differentiate.