tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5295570003729498970..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Why I am in favor of murex techelet, pt iijoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-57454390574395784542011-03-01T06:42:30.986-05:002011-03-01T06:42:30.986-05:00i'm not actually very impressed by that Torath...i'm not actually very impressed by that Torath Moshe site in general, because they are WAY too subserviant to the Rambam, to the extent that they almost make their own religion. yes, the Rambam was a great Rishon, but so was Rashi, the Baalei Tosafot, the Rosh, etc., etc.<br /><br />the color-fastness is basically Rambam's position, so I would expect them to maintain that. but I wouldn't don't trust any one presentation or essay in a complex assessment like this.<br /><br />I don't find their argument that murex cannot be chilazon because of its role in producing argaman, for 'why would Chazal only speak of its role in producing techelet and not argaman'? this is an argument from silence, on the basis that it MUST be so important that they would make such an identification. further, their 'proof' that murex produces argaman is a citation from the Even Shoshan dictionary! *that* is a compelling proof that murex must be argaman?!<br /><br />the test of fastness in terms of cuttlefish dye is such that it really *fails* the test. it DOES fade. only by subjecting it to a process does it make it fast. but that same process eliminates ALL the actual cuttlefish dye, and *replaces* it with Prussian blue from a non-organic source! That is, the cuttlefish just provides the nitrogen but the color is produced from iron filings. Such would happen if you started with any organic material whatsoever. So while it might be fast, it does not meet the description of the gemara, since none of that substance is present. <br /><br />Meanwhile, murex dye as well is fast. it does not fade like cuttlefish dye does.<br /><br />In terms of meeting the talmudic descriptions, though, see my previous post. But if you want it to meet all Talmudic descriptions, the Talmud describes the chilazon as temunei chol, treasured buried in the sand. Cuttlefish don't exist in the sand. Cuttlefish are very common and were a common source of ink, while techelet was rare and expensive. Cuttlefish don't have an external shell while the Talmud describes cracking the shell of the chilazon to get the dye.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-42696932665051827452011-03-01T00:18:59.335-05:002011-03-01T00:18:59.335-05:00A rather exhaustive examination of the sources dis...A rather exhaustive examination of the sources discussing the description of the hilazon can be found here: http://www.torathmoshe.com/2009/01/tackling-the-tekheleth-teiku/<br /><br />Whether the murex dye can pass a chemical test cannot be the determinant as to whether it is tekhelet. The murex snail, in my opinion, cannot possibly be the source. This being the case I could not possibly use it. I would feel better using the cuttlefish dye as it at least meets the descriptions found in Talmudic sources, and passes the chemical test...meaning that the color does not fade. It might change, as any blue would when immersed in an astringent yellow medium. But my understanding is that it is color-fastness, meaning the dye holds to the wool without bleeding out, that matters.Shtueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05611947223509549389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56734131102544126432011-02-06T22:40:12.938-05:002011-02-06T22:40:12.938-05:00Fair enough. I've enjoyed the discussion but I...Fair enough. I've enjoyed the discussion but I agree that these sort of minutiae are never going to lead anywhere. For one thing, if the Amoraim didn't learn the details of producing techeilet based on the Mishna and beraitot, we certainly won't.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71179446583177388512011-02-06T20:47:55.378-05:002011-02-06T20:47:55.378-05:00in truth, i really don't want to revisit every...in truth, i really don't want to revisit every single proof or disproof here. maybe yes, maybe no. <br /><br />but ALL I intended with this post is to present peshat in the "testing" gemara as I see it, and as I would have explained it even had there not been a refutation raised from it.<br /><br />i don't really intend to revisit every difficulty, and every back and forth argument given by murex proponents and critics. I don't have the time to try to prove everything from scratch. <br /><br />rather, i only intended to provide what might be NOVEL to the discussion. as I wrote in my post one summary, <i>There are a few popular objections and, while there are existing responses to these objections, those offering their answers are somewhat restricted to traditional methods of interpretation, which leads to what appear to be kvetches. Meanwhile, there are some straightforward answers, which I offer in these two posts.</i><br /><br />and that is what i think i have done here. even the murex proponents try to kvetch every detail, when my assertion is that it is not necessary. and the murex proponents grapple with the text of the gemara as it stands today, and I point out a different reading, based on methods of mechkar. I think that is novel enough.<br /><br />if i delved into the sugya, perhaps I would find this a convincing disproof or perhaps not. for example, one is liable for one sin-offering for two actions within the same category of work, even if they are not done in the time. why should we assume that this is done in the same instant. is this really so apparent, or is it you reading your assumptions into the sugya and then asking based on these assumptions? it could well be that it is the squeezing out that is the typical means of extracting the dye. To cite a Wikipedia article on Tyrian purple:<br />"The snail also secretes this substance when it is poked or physically attacked by humans. Therefore the dye can be collected either by "milking" the snails, which is more labour intensive but is a renewable resource, <b>or by collecting and then crushing the snails completely</b>, which is destructive."<br /><br />Bolding mine. So people indeed collect and subsequently crush these snails. The issue seems to be (but then, I am not currently learning this in depth) one of classification of melachot. Indeed, the full brayta is: ת"ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת רבי יהודה אומר חייב שתים שהיה ר' יהודה אומר פציעה בכלל דישה אמרו לו אין פציעה בכלל דישה<br /><br />i don't know for certain. maybe i will delve into these questions in parts iii, iv, v, etc.<br /><br />you certainly are entitled to your position. and you may indeed eventually persuade me. and as such, indeed, i am grateful for your points. from my perspective, though, I find the evidence convincing. and i probably will not be able to respond to every proof or disproof...<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7291807998978159682011-02-06T19:48:32.725-05:002011-02-06T19:48:32.725-05:00Josh, the argument presented in that article is pr...Josh, the argument presented in that article is pretty weak. The author wants to refute an argument that snails like murex are collected, not "trapped", and therefore the Talmud in Shabbos 75a that discusses "trapping" chilazons proves that the murex cannot be a chilazon.<br /><br />The beraita in that discussion says someone who "traps a chilazon and squeezes [the dye out of] it" is only liable for one sin offering. It should be obvious that for this to be the case the trapping and the squeezing necessarily take place at the same time, so the "trapping" refers to someone grabbing the chilazon with their hands. <br /><br />This means that the author's pontifications about Aristotle and baited nets are pointless. I'll stipulate that someone using a baited net to collect murex may be "trapping" them - but that is entirely irrelevant to the point of the beraita. Surely everybody would agree that baiting a net, laying it on the seabed, and then drawing it up is at least one distinct melacha from anything that is done with the murex afterwards. We're talking about a process that takes hours if not more, and which would involve other melachot like carrying.<br /><br />The Tekhelet institute presents too many arguments like of this sort - "the texts say A, and A is a vowel that can sound like E, which is next to F. And many words have both E and F in them, and some even have all three together - like 'feature'. So since we have proved F, we have proved A." <br /><br />No. No they haven't.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58290957562142575892011-02-04T05:59:30.101-05:002011-02-04T05:59:30.101-05:00see this article, though, about using nets to catc...see this article, though, about using nets to catch murex:<br />http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/Trapping.pdf<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-32748777665283758342011-02-04T05:55:55.276-05:002011-02-04T05:55:55.276-05:00nice point. thanks. this might well be a strong di...nice point. thanks. this might well be a strong disproof of murex. though radziner techelet has the problem that it isn't blue, except via a process that produces Prussian blue from any organic substance.<br /><br />all of this is indeed important, but orthogonal. whatever techelet is and whatever the other proofs pro and con -- regardless, the above post is intended to lay out what I think is the true peshat in the gemara, regarding the intent of the brayta and rabbi manna.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-65186658157098526792011-02-04T05:35:12.073-05:002011-02-04T05:35:12.073-05:00the gemora in shabas says the tying of the nets wa...the gemora in shabas says the tying of the nets was to catch the hilazon...only the radzin is caught this way...Tziki kederanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-60688141982310064252011-02-03T22:56:14.054-05:002011-02-03T22:56:14.054-05:00here's some further discussion of Yigal Yadin&...here's some further discussion of Yigal Yadin's find:<br />http://www.tekhelet.com/MANFAQ1/faq.php?print=true&cat_name=Tekhelet%20Questions&category_id=2<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-16684642120522428442011-02-03T21:28:24.370-05:002011-02-03T21:28:24.370-05:00With respect to Yigal Yadin's discovery in the...With respect to Yigal Yadin's discovery in the Judean desert, it was not tzitzit strings - it was unspun wool tied in little bunches, perhaps from the dying process. I've seen pictures of it and it's briefly discussed in footnote 72 of this article: http://www.templesanjose.org/JudaismInfo/faq/Techeiletanalysis.pdf<br /><br />After studying the passages in Menachos about the chemical tests I think I've come up with some truly interesting information, but I'm still working it through. More information once I feel confident in my conclusions.Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-10937843104665613602011-02-03T19:36:36.759-05:002011-02-03T19:36:36.759-05:00thanks. i'll have to revisit that, i guess. ev...thanks. i'll have to revisit that, i guess. even that they had indigo or murex trunculus dye is impressive to me at the moment, given what they said about confusion of kala ilan and the tradition that kala ilan is indigo.<br /><br />i'll add that i think what i said above about intervals (regarding the brayta about features) was something i misremembered. but daga could apply, looking like the sea can apply when considered in its habitat, etc., etc., even though i don't think every detail will ever match.<br /><br />also, i <a href="http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/755786/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/The_Mitvah_of_Tzitzis_and_Tcheles" rel="nofollow">linked to a recent shiur the other day</a> from rav schachter. i am only 2 minutes into it, so i am not sure what he says. but it might be well worth a listen.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-56891109970979559372011-02-03T18:55:04.303-05:002011-02-03T18:55:04.303-05:00Apparently, it is not so clear that they uncovered...Apparently, it is not so clear that they uncovered tzitzit from Bar Kochba's time. What they found was a roll of thread died with indigo as well as "tolaat shani". The archaeologists conjectured that it was for the purpose of tzitzit, which is debatable.Rabbi Joshua Maroofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12585369620887846940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34672297058917153062011-02-01T17:56:38.881-05:002011-02-01T17:56:38.881-05:00I'll add another point, in response to your qu...I'll add another point, in response to your query. this is my own suggestion -- i don't know what murex proponents say regarding this:<br /><br /><i>And finally, why, given the immense value of techelet, did the makers of argaman not continue manufacturing it?</i><br /><br />the answer was that it was illegal, under (iirc) penalty of death. see Sanhedrin 12a:<br />"Was not a message once sent to Raba:10 'A couple [of scholars] have arrived from Rakkath11 who had been captured by an eagle12 whilst in possession of articles manufactured at Luz, such as purple,13 yet through Divine mercy and their own merits they escaped safely. "<br /><br />this is about students who were smuggling techelet and were caught by the Romans.<br /><br />but as I noted above, this is all tangential. there are a bunch of proofs for and against, and counterproofs, and so on.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-30495142251765658642011-02-01T09:33:24.657-05:002011-02-01T09:33:24.657-05:00"Anything on this topic?"
yes, but rabb..."Anything on this topic?"<br /><br />yes, but rabbi slifkin has more. off the top of my head, there is such an interpretation about Binyamin Zeev Yitraf, that he was a werewolf, which is also why he couldn't leave his father...joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34854574905395453402011-02-01T09:32:09.891-05:002011-02-01T09:32:09.891-05:00Oh, and one further point I accidentally omitted:
...Oh, and one further point I accidentally omitted:<br /><br />If we take the brayta at face value, that there is no possible chemical test, and the failure of these tests at face value, then this is <b>positive evidence</b> that kala ilan and techeiles are chemically identical. if so, then since we have physical evidence of at least kala ilan, along with a masorah as to its identity as indigo, then we have positive evidence in favor of murex as techelet.<br /><br />This is an important enough point that it should not be overlooked.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-63159038189953591832011-02-01T09:00:23.042-05:002011-02-01T09:00:23.042-05:00I'll end with one detail mentioned in the prev...I'll end with one detail mentioned in the previous post. <b>They found tzitzis strings</b> from the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in the Judean desert. So we <b>KNOW</b> the color and the chemical composition of either kala ilan or genuine techeiles. This is what I would consider pretty strong proof. That many other details fall in line is just icing on the cake.<br /><br />But if you are going to insist that every detail fall in line, especially as interpreted by Rishonim who never saw techeiles, but even without, then I don't believe that you will EVER find a species that matches. because no such species exists, or has ever existed.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71959962501798836392011-02-01T08:56:50.167-05:002011-02-01T08:56:50.167-05:00Apart from this fundamental logical problem there ...<i>Apart from this fundamental logical problem there is the question of identification. Murex trunculus was known to the Amoraim as the source of argaman. How could they have not known that it was also the source of techelet?</i><br />that is not the focus of this post. maybe i will address other tangential points in other posts, or maybe not. the murex proponents presumably have answers to these questions -- either weak or strong answers.<br /><br /><i>Why did they give these descriptions of the <br />techelet-source that are totally different to murex trunculus?</i><br />again, tangential, but partially covered in part i.<br /><br /><i> It isn't like a fish;</i><br />the gemara says dag, not fish. if Yonah's dag was a whale, would that prove to be a problem to you, because it is not, under modern scientific definitions, a fish?<br /><br /><i>it doesn't appear and disappear; and so forth.</i><br />the murex proponents explain each of these. for example, it DOES appear after certain intervals.<br /><br />but i'll ask you the same question i posed in part i. do you believe we have a masorah for bovines? how can you, when the gemara is clearly speaking of a different species entirely, where there is a direct path from the mouth to the liver?! do you believe we know what snakes and dogs are? how can you, when the gemara gives gestation periods for them which are entirely different?! and our snakes don't develop out of human spines!<br /><br />the answer is that Chazal relied on <br />the gentile naturalists of their time. Galen, Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, etc., who said precisely these things.<br /><br /><i>"If they didn't know where techelet came from - an extraordinary assumption - why spin these falsehoods?</i><br />only select Amoraim were involved in production of techeles, as we see. the one fellow is cited and they have a shma mina on that basis. not every Amora knew everything about its production. even those who produced the dye did not do the fishing to collect the snails in the first place! in terms of identifying the species, they cited contemporary scientific sources. this is not 'spinning falsehoods'. it is relying on scientific experts, who in this case could have been wrong or fanciful in some details.<br /><br />it is a real pity that such insistence of fealty to these details would prevent fulfillment of a mitzvah deOraysa.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-91695573282608436002011-02-01T08:47:22.846-05:002011-02-01T08:47:22.846-05:00They should either always succeed or always fail. ...<i>They should either always succeed or always fail. You ascribe the occasional failures and successes to different processing methods, but that's the same as saying the tests are useless.</i><br /><br />no, it isn't. it is saying that in the time and place that these tests were proposed, they worked! but rav avira (i think contemporary of ravina) and rav yitzchak (son of Rav Yehuda, thus earlier) were perhaps in different times and places, where different methods of forging were used.<br /><br />when it was discovered (by both Chachmei Baval and Chachmei Eretz Yisrael, as we see) that they sometimes worked and sometimes did not, they spoke about using them in tandem. This would then cover most or all of such cases and methods of fogery in place in those days.<br /><br /><i>So unless the Amoraim were totally confused about the nature of tests and never thought of trying the tests on known good and bad samples</i><br />The Amoraim almost certainly did not know about atomic structure or molecular structure. They knew that it worked, or that it didn't.<br /><br />I am saying that different forgers adopted different methods in different times. so when each Amora proposed the test, it DID work. until it didn't.<br /><br />I don't see any reason to say that they were confused.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51359104875495721112011-02-01T08:38:50.118-05:002011-02-01T08:38:50.118-05:00Firstly, even if the techelet tests worked for the...<i>Firstly, even if the techelet tests worked for the dye from murex trunculus it would not prove that the techelet is made from murex trunculus. It would just prove that murex trunculus isn't the same as kala ilan - but we knew that!</i><br /><br />the point of this post was not to prove this definitively. i covered some of the proofs in favor in part i. the only purpose of this post is to respond to the famous argument based on the gemara regarding chemical tests, which I believe I have done.<br /><br /><i>But you have a further problem in that you identify techelet with the blue dye made from murex trunculus and kala ilan with indigo. These are chemically identical and therefore the tests should be useless.</i><br />as you note, I respond to this very point in my post.<br /><br />more in a bit...joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-45456376211127036322011-02-01T08:35:56.534-05:002011-02-01T08:35:56.534-05:00i wrote a lengthy response, and then my baby hit r...i wrote a lengthy response, and then my baby hit refresh. i'll have to respond in parts, over time...joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-7581754870630093742011-02-01T07:40:56.543-05:002011-02-01T07:40:56.543-05:00With respect, I am very unconvinced by your argume...With respect, I am very unconvinced by your arguments.<br /><br />Firstly, <b>even if</b> the <i>techelet</i> tests worked for the dye from <i>murex trunculus</i> it would not prove that the <i>techelet</i> is made from <i>murex trunculus</i>. It would just prove that <i>murex trunculus</i> isn't the same as <i>kala ilan</i> - but we knew that! But you have a further problem in that you identify <i>techelet</i> with the blue dye made from <i>murex trunculus</i> and <i>kala ilan</i> with indigo. These are chemically identical and therefore the tests should be useless. They should either <b>always</b> succeed or <b>always</b> fail. You ascribe the occasional failures and successes to different processing methods, but that's the same as saying the tests are useless. So unless the <i>Amoraim</i> were totally confused about the nature of tests and never thought of trying the tests on <b>known</b> good and bad samples, the fact that blue dye made from <i>murex trunculus</i> is chemically identical to indigo means that <b>either</b> the <i>murex trunculus</i> is not the source of <i>techelet</i> <b>or</b> indigo is not the same as <i>kala ilan</i>. Or both, I guess.<br /><br />Apart from this fundamental logical problem there is the question of identification. <i>Murex trunculus</i> was <b>known to the Amoraim</b> as the source of <i>argaman</i>. How could they have not known that it was also the source of <i>techelet</i>? Why did they give these descriptions of the <br /><i>techelet</i>-source that are totally different to <i>murex trunculus</i>? It isn't like a fish; it doesn't appear and disappear; and so forth. If they didn't know where <i>techelet</i> came from - an extraordinary assumption - why spin these falsehoods?<br /><br />And finally, why, given the immense value of <i>techelet</i>, did the makers of <i>argaman</i> not continue manufacturing it?Joe in Australianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-24729080872948939372011-02-01T02:00:23.810-05:002011-02-01T02:00:23.810-05:00http://mi.yodeya.com/questions/5687/werewolf-in-th...http://mi.yodeya.com/questions/5687/werewolf-in-the-torah<br /><br />Anything on this topic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-79244179555510158552011-01-31T19:06:59.221-05:002011-01-31T19:06:59.221-05:00Very nicely done, I appreciate your hard work in t...Very nicely done, I appreciate your hard work in this area.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.com