String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
The 2004 Avodah discussion is valuable because it preserves an unusually detailed, real-time debate over R’ Shlomo Miller’s teshuva against Murex Techeiles. Mendel Singer and Jonathan Ostroff defended the central objection: if the Gemara gives a bedikah that Techeiles passes and kala ilan fails, then a reconstructed test in which both Murex dye and plant indigo pass cannot be the Gemara’s test. They further argued that the close chemical similarity between the two dyes makes it difficult to explain how the required distinction would work.
The responses, however, make an important distinction. Micha Berger agreed that P’til’s claimed reconstruction of the bedikah could not be correct, but argued that this only removes a proposed proof for Murex; it does not establish that Murex would fail the actual test, which remains uncertain and could theoretically depend on impurities or other differences between marine and plant dye. R’ Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer likewise rejected the idea that chemical similarity by itself makes Murex kala ilan, and argued that the Gemara in Shabbos may actually fit a shellfish whose dye must be removed while alive or immediately after death.
Moshe Sober provides perhaps the most revealing contemporary perspective. After specifically looking for a serious argument against Murex, and later reading R’ Miller’s considerably stronger written teshuva, he still concluded that the Murex side had the better argument, while emphasizing that R’ Miller’s objections deserved careful study. He also reported secondhand that a close talmid of R’ Elyashiv told him R’ Elyashiv believed the Techeiles proponents were probably correct but opposed changing established practice until remaining questions were resolved.
The exchange therefore did not produce a decisive refutation of Murex. It exposed genuine questions—particularly concerning the Gemara’s bedikah and the interpretation of the simanim—but also showed that several knowledgeable participants regarded R’ Miller’s objections as challenges requiring answers rather than demonstrations that Murex could not be the chilazon. Appropriately, the discussion eventually ended not with a resolution, but when the moderator stopped the increasingly repetitive and heated thread.
Main Text
Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit”a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon, and that people should davka not wear it.
I have posted a typed version of the letter on my web site, www.chilazon.com, which is currently undergoing major revisions:
<http://www.chilazon.com/Rav_Miller_letter_Acrobat_V4.pdf>
mendel
At 03:17 PM 2/6/2004, you wrote:
Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit”a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon, and that people should davka not wear it.
I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m. trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi Miller – great talmid chochom as he is, and he certainly does not need my haskomo (on the contrary, I have one on my eruvin book from him!) – is making, and I do not understand how it can be made unless one assumes that Chazal classified the dye of kaleh ilan on the basis of chemical analysis. There does not seem to be any basis for this assumption.
It is not clear to me why those who do not hold m. trunculus to be valid techeles simply say that there is no need for them to wear it – and, of course, they are right about that. Why not leave those who do wear it do so in peace? Surely there are far greater problems in Orthodox Jewry today than some people wearing m. trunculus techeles? There is ample precedent for shev v’al ta’aseh – which is what rov minyan u’binyan Am Yisroel did in the face of the Radziner’s techeles. You do not find (to the best of my knowledge) from that time literature attacking those who did decide to wear it. Yet today, with a far more likely candidate, that is the case.
I do not see the advocates of m. trunclus techeles stridently and aggressively promoting their product. That does not make them right, by any stretch of the imagination, but the other side might take a lesson.
The whole dispute reminds me of a series of pamphlets back and forth in a pitched battle between two antagonists that was being waged back when I was in the Mir on the critical topic of whether the proper pronunciation is “morid ha’gashem” or “morid ha’geshem,”
I suggest that instead of advocating for or against techeles let us advocate for middos tovos and sholom al Yisroel. I suspect that people who wear techeles are not as bad as Ovdei Avodah Zarah, and sholom protected the OAZ b’doro sherl Achav. We could use some of that protection…
YGB
Mendel Singer wrote:
Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit”a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon, and that people should davka not wear it.
…
If I am reading it correctly, there is an incorrect word in the 4th line of the paragraph beginning u’v’ikar svaras haGraCh… — the word l’chumra should be l’kula.
is that correct?
elly
—
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com
[R Elly Bachrach:]
Mendel Singer wrote: Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit”a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon, and that people should davka not wear it. … <http://www.chilazon.com/Rav_Miller_letter_Acrobat_V4.pdf>
If I am reading it correctly, there is an incorrect word in the 4th line of the paragraph beginning u’v’ikar svaras haGraCh… — the word l’chumra should be l’kula.
You are correct. The typed copy I was given had at least 2 errors, one of no consequence and the other as you say. This was noticed on Sunday at which time I corrected the document (not easy since I had a scanned copy) and posted it. The current version is corrected.
mendel
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m. trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi Miller – great talmid chochom as he is, and he certainly does not need my haskomo (on the contrary, I have one on my eruvin book from him!) – is making, and I do not understand how it can be made unless one assumes that Chazal classified the dye of kaleh ilan on the basis of chemical analysis. There does not seem to be any basis for this assumption.
Assuming you are addressing the first point in the Teshuva, I don’t quite see your point. I provide below a bit of an over-simplified outline of the issues at stake [I can qualify more carefully if future discussion warrants it].
The Gemora states there is a bedika, i.e. (a) real-techeilis passes, and (b) the fake techeilis kala-illan fails the test. This bedika is quoted lehalacha in the poskim.
Ptil would like to use the bedika as proof that the murex is the chilazon.
Ptil argue that their murex passes the test [i.e. they have (a)]. This, they argue, is proof that they have the right candidate. Unfortunately for them, indigo [indentified as kala-ilan] also passes the test, as they construe it. Thus they do not have (b).
A simple reading of the situation is that Ptil’s bedika is not that of the Gemora. This is not just an academic problem. A correct test should cause kala-ilan [indigo?] to fail [(b)]. If we did not get the test right, then we cannot claim that we have passed “the test”.
Amazingly, Ptil argue the complete opposite. They argue that the murex passes the test with flying colours, and their lack of (b) is an “academic problem”. Mendel Singer in the Journal of Contemporary Halacha shows, in a discussion with Baruch Sterman, why the Ptil position is untenable [articles available at www.chilazon.com].
Given that the murex does not satisfy the bedika [i.e. both (a) and (b)], the Teshuva argues that the murex cannot (at least so far) claim to satisfy this identifying requirement, and the attempted resolutions are belo taam ve-reiach.
In addition, Ptil correctly state that the murex-techeilis is molecularly equivalent to the fake techeilis (indigo). This makes it hard to understand how any test could be devised to test the difference [never mind the test of the Gemora]. For example, a chemical engineer here in Toronto checked murex samples with a gas chromatograph equipped with an ion mobility spectrometer (please don’t ask me to explain :-). One of the Ptil scientific consultants had suggested that the murex would be distingushed from indigo (kala-ilan) by having traces of bromine, which initially gives the murex dye a purple colour. This test and others found no such traces — murex-techeilis still equals indigo and only indigo. Rabbi Miller’s question is not a “lomdishe leap” nor does he claim that Chazal used gas chromatograph tests. It’s just a simple question that at this time has no compelling answer — how will the murex ever get to pass any distinguishing test?
With kind regards … Jonathan
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 11:18:23AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote: : I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from : murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m. : trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi : Miller …
Nor is it true chemically. Yes, the dye is the same. But the dye isn’t purified. The same dye made from a plant will contain a different set of contaminants than when made from a snail. I therefore didn’t understand R’ Miller’s first major objection.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:55:48AM -0500, Jonathan S. Ostroff wrote: : The Gemora states there is a bedika, i.e. (a) real-techeilis passes, and : (b) the fake techeilis kala-illan fails the test. This bedika is quoted : lehalacha in the poskim.
: Ptil would like to use the bedika as proof that the murex is the chilazon.
I agree that their bediqah simply can’t be chazal’s, as it is inconsistant with (b). They’re wrong on this one. But that’s no proof that the murex-based dye would not pass the the real test, whatever it is. This proves they are overzealous, not wrong.
: Given that the murex does not satisfy the bedika [i.e. both (a) and : (b)]…
This isn’t true. We have never performed the bedikah, as we don’t have a test which fits the words and kaleh ilan fails. Presumably the real test could hecks for snail impurities, or the total absense of indigo plant ones.
I also didn’t follow R’ Miller’s second objection. Totally lost. He points out that murex dye requires hasaras arlah min hachai or netilas neshamah, but the gemara says that de’Oraisa it could be done on Shabbos. Then he brings the gemara’s answer of why it’s muar despite netilas hashamah. IOW, a point of similarity in metzi’us, not a difference. Which lead me to wonder why R’ Miller assumed a different in din.
His 3rd objection involves the belief that murex dye can be extracted even 2 hours after misah, wheares techeiles can only be extracted bishe’as misah. IIRC, the amutah asserts that in fact the dye is /not/ usable if extracted from a dead snail. (And the snail can’t live through the extraction.)
Back to RYGB: : It is not clear to me why those who do not hold m. trunculus to be valid : techeles simply say that there is no need for them to wear it – and, of : course, they are right about that. Why not leave those who do wear it do : so in peace? …
This is a consequence of his identification of murex trunculus with kaleh ilan. There IS a mesorah to bedavka not wear kaleh ilan.
Also, li nir’eh if one holds like the Rambam that the lavan strings must be the color of the beged even bedi’eved, one could argue that safeiq techeiles might be destroying the lavan. Lulei demitztafina hayisi omer that the extra strings to round out the number 8 when techeiles isn’t worn don’t have a din techeiles. Or, that as Ashkenazim, it’s okay to be meiqil like Tosafos. (But if one appeals to Tosafos = Ashkeaz, one should wear 4 blue and 4 white.) Or maybe one should wear a beged shekulo techeiles or at least that color, and avoid the machloqes.
And last, R’ Miller is advising one not involve in the safeiq de’Oraisa (because of the Grach) as it leads to safeiq bal tosif as well. This bal tosif issue was also over my head:
1- We often have to choose between being meqayem the mitzvah according to this rishon or that where following both is not a possibility. We don’t build all balcony doors so that they are patur mimezuzah (to use RYGB’s example in <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.htm>).
2- Why would having two rather than 1 blue string necessarily be bal tosif? Having more than minimum shi’ur isn’t. This is a general question — which excesses are bal tosif, and which are okay?
-mi
—
Micha Berger Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – Albert Schweitzer
The Gemora states there is a bedika, i.e. (a) real-techeilis passes, and (b) the fake techeilis kala-illan fails the test. This bedika is quoted lehalacha in the poskim.
…
Ptil argue that their murex passes the test [i.e. they have (a)]. This, they argue, is proof that they have the right candidate. Unfortunately for them, indigo [indentified as kala-ilan] also passes the test, as they construe it. Thus they do not have (b).
As Micha pointed out, no one has run the actual test – I believe that some of the substances mentioned, IIRC, are no longer identifiable so it is not possible to run the test.
…
Given that the murex does not satisfy the bedika [i.e. both (a) and (b)], the Teshuva argues that the murex cannot (at least so far) claim to satisfy this identifying requirement, and the attempted resolutions are belo taam ve-reiach.
How do you know (or anyone know) that if the test was run k’das u’k’din it would not work? (Besides the fact that, IIRC, there is a de’ah in the Gemara that NO test works.)
In the meantime, the similarity between m. trunclus and plant indigo indicates the likelihood that it is indeed the almost indistinguishable dye that is techeles.
In addition, Ptil correctly state that the murex-techeilis is molecularly equivalent to the fake techeilis (indigo). This makes it hard to understand how any test could be devised to test the difference…
I have a healthy skepticism (perhaps some would call it unhealthy…) concerning science, even “hard” sciences like chemistry. Perhaps Chazal knew better than science? Perhaps chemistry (like all sciences, an evolving set of theories) has not yet attained the knowledge of the distinction between techeles and kaleh ilan that was revealed to Chazal. Certainly, molecular structures are meaningless from an halachic standpoint (for example, a goat created by Sefer Yetzirah, which presumably has the same molecular structure as a goat generated the natural way, is not considered meat vis-a-vis halachos of schechitah and basar b’chalav).
Mei’idach gisa, a good Maskil (I am being facetious, no one need get insulted) could argue punkt fakehrt – that Chazal did NOT know chemistry at all, and therefore differences in the process that created the two dyes that from a chemist’s viewpoint are coincidental were meaningful to Chazal. Perhaps in lieu of ultraviolet light they added some substance to the mix to prevent the blue from becoming purple, and that is just one example of myriad possibilities – vehr veist?
Sof davar, however, I think that it is a big stretch to say Chazal identified kaleh ilan – let’s stress that ILAN – by molecular structure. Torah he v’lilmod ani tzarich, and to me it is not mistaber to say that. By me it is a muskal rishon, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the chilluk is between marine and plant dyes.
YGB
A few clarifications….
At 01:49 PM 2/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
The Gemora states there is a bedika, i.e. (a) real-techeilis passes, and (b) the fake techeilis kala-illan fails the test. This bedika is quoted lehalacha in the poskim. … Ptil argue that their murex passes the test [i.e. they have (a)]. This, they argue, is proof that they have the right candidate. Unfortunately for them, indigo [indentified as kala-ilan] also passes the test, as they construe it. Thus they do not have (b). As Micha pointed out, no one has run the actual test – I believe that some of the substances mentioned, IIRC, are no longer identifiable so it is not possible to run the test.
Actually P’til does claim to have done the test. here is a quote from their response to my article:
“We have tested tekhelet dyed with murex according to the analysis described by both the Rambam and by Rashi, and it did not fade. Therefore, there is no challenge that arises from this criterion to murex tekhelet. The fact is, however, that indigo (kala ilan) dyed wool also passed the chemical tests. To reiterate, this is not a problem as far as murex tekhelet is concerned, but rather an academic problem in understanding the Rambam and the Gemara.”
They have clearly not done the test correctly.
… Given that the murex does not satisfy the bedika [i.e. both (a) and (b)], the Teshuva argues that the murex cannot (at least so far) claim to satisfy this identifying requirement, and the attempted resolutions are belo taam ve-reiach. How do you know (or anyone know) that if the test was run k’das u’k’din it would not work? (Besides the fact that, IIRC, there is a de’ah in the Gemara that NO test works.)
The point is that on one hand people argue that the dye is identical but regarding the test they say it is different. I understand that there can be some difference in traces of impurities. However, since traditional methods of reducing indigo do in fact reduce murex indigo we see that they are indeed quite similar. This puts the burden of proof on those who want to say murex can still pass the Gemara’s test. People generally accept that plant indigo will be reduced and fail the test. If murex dye reduces easily like indigo does, why would it behave differently in the Gemara’s test? The only hypothesis given is that traces of snail meat might remain in murex indigo. However, it is known that snail meat actually aids in reduction, making it easier to reduce murex indigo. Given the similarity between plant indigo and murex indigo, and given that murex indigo does reduce as easily as plant indigo, if not easier, in common reducing agents – to suggest that the Gemara’s test will show differences is speculation without basis.
In the meantime, the similarity between m. trunclus and plant indigo indicates the likelihood that it is indeed the almost indistinguishable dye that is techeles.
This is a common misperception. P’til has made a big deal about the idea that techeiles is the color of indigo. I do not believe you will find this in the writings of the Radzyner or Rabbi Herzog because it isn’t true. Tosafos says this quite clearly in Chulin 47b where it is stated that you can tell the difference between techeiles and k’la ilan before sunrise – that k’la ilan is the color of the sky and that k’la ilan is only a domeh k’tzat to techeiles. On the other hand, with different dipping techniques and variation in dyeing and possible additions of small amounts of some other chemical, indigo can imitate techeiles. With natural dyeing process i could understand there being enough variation that one could not be sure for a particular batch what the source was even though you could usually tell the difference. The source for saying that it is identical is a statement of hyperbole. I don’t understand how that statement is accepted as halachic, in contradiction to Tosafos (and, on the surface at least, to the bedika in the Gemara), yet Chazal’s descriptive statements in reply to “What is the chilazon” is considered aggadata by P’til.
mendel
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:16:27PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote: : >As Micha pointed out, no one has run the actual test – I believe that some : >of the substances mentioned, IIRC, are no longer identifiable so it is not : >possible to run the test.
: Actually P’til does claim to have done the test…
So, they’re mistaken. Fine. That’s a matter of “scoring debating points” and not amito shel davar WRT the dye itself. Given that no one has actually done the test, or is even sure what the text is, no one can claim any candidate dye failed the test.
Destroying a ra’ayah doesn’t set you further back than before the attempted ra’ayah.
.. : >How do you know (or anyone know) that if the test was run k’das u’k’din : >it would not work? (Besides the fact that, IIRC, there is a de’ah in : >the Gemara that NO test works.)
: The point is that on one hand people argue that the dye is identical but : regarding the test they say it is different….
1- I already gave a way in which this can be true. The dye could be identical and still have contaminants that can be determined by test.
2- It’s a machloqes amora’im as to whether or not there even is a test. Which means that saying they’re chemically different be’ikkar is very shver.
But we’ve discussed this already, Avodah has archives, and no new meqoros are involved.
-mi
—
Micha Berger Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – Albert Schweitzer
Reb YG,
I don’t read the Avodah messages that regularly, but usually find your posts to be well thought out and reasonably on target. This subject seems to have touched a nerve. Some of your comments are, I believe, considerably off target. None of your comments address Rav Miller’s primary points, the opening paragraphs where he offers proofs that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon spoken of in the Gemara. My comments are below.
At 11:18 AM 2/8/2004 -0500, you wrote:
At 03:17 PM 2/6/2004, you wrote: Rav Shlomo Miller, Shlit”a, of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva concerning murex tekhelet. His opinion is that murex trunculus could not be the chilazon, and that people should davka not wear it.
I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m. trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi Miller – great talmid chochom as he is, and he certainly does not need my haskomo (on the contrary, I have one on my eruvin book from him!) – is making, and I do not understand how it can be made unless one assumes that Chazal classified the dye of kaleh ilan on the basis of chemical analysis. There does not seem to be any basis for this assumption.
I believe that Rav Miller’s point about the Ben Ish Chai is not based on the halachic distinction of Chazal, but rather the “kabbalistic reality” (whatever that means) of k’la ilan. I don’t really have anything I could say about this. I can see both sides.
It is not clear to me why those who do not hold m. trunculus to be valid techeles simply say that there is no need for them to wear it – and, of course, they are right about that. Why not leave those who do wear it do so in peace? Surely there are far greater problems in Orthodox Jewry today than some people wearing m. trunculus techeles?
“Surely there are greater problems” is a remarkably low threshold for when to address an issue. By this logic only the most pressing issue of the day can be addressed and all others ignored. Obviously that is not your position. I believe this is actually a very important issue in Orthodox Jewry today for reasons that will be made clear below.
There is ample precedent for shev v’al ta’aseh – which is what rov minyan u’binyan Am Yisroel did in the face of the Radziner’s techeles. You do not find (to the best of my knowledge) from that time literature attacking those who did decide to wear it.
This is completely wrong. Radzyners were banned from mikvehs, invalidated as witnesses, not allowed to be buried in some places and physically attacked. In those days people took their arguments seriously! Murex followers have gotten a largely free ride. Until my article I hadn’t even seen anything written against their position, save for a few letters in response to their articles. Granted, this may be largely due to indifference (hardly a positive), but the main response I saw was to ignore the murex techeiles. The attitude was mostly “their arguments are quite impressive they are probably right, but the olam isn’t mekabel”. Since I live in Cleveland where things are generally tame, it could be that I am missing the onslaught against murex followers. Besides, even I am not attacking the people who wear murex indigo. In fact, until recently I used to help people who were interested to obtain it. I am often impressed with the love of a mitzvah these people have.
Yet today, with a far more likely candidate, that is the case.
Hardly. There doesn’t seem to be ANY support for the murex theory al pi Torah. There is no reasonable way to understand how Chazal could possibly have made the statements in Menachos about murex trunculus. P’til basically acknowledged that in their reply to my article by saying that it can be dismissed as homiletic. How convenient. They then presented 4 new criteria, 2 of which aren’t even true, and only one is from the Gemara. The one sugya they hold by is the one where Rav Miller shows that it cannot be understood as applying to the murex trunculus snail. What’s left? The overwhelming evidence of science and archeology? That only shows murex was used for purple dyeing (argaman?), despite the fact that P’til said, incorrectly, in their brochures (at least they used to) that they found shards of blue dye from murex trunculus. Now, Dr. Ziderman has informed me that Prof. Zvi Koren has tested ancient indigotin samples with a technique that can pick up trace amounts of bromine and distinguish between snail indigo and plant indigo. None of the blue samples came from shellfish. How is murex a far more likely candidate than virtually any other candidate species?
I do not see the advocates of m. trunclus techeles stridently and aggressively promoting their product. That does not make them right, by any stretch of the imagination, but the other side might take a lesson.
Surely you can’t be serious. P’til isn’t aggressively promoting? What do you call lecture tours, speaking at schools, videos, unsolicited distribution of materials all over the world (such as during daf yomi time last November)? P’til has been extremely aggressive. It is precisely this reason that Rav Perr attacked P’til for taking advantage of an unexpert public and using marketing to establish minhag/halacha. They have also frequently taken the opportunity for gratuitous, baseless attacks on Radzyn, though this has subsided a lot since their early writings. I don’t think this is a good lesson to follow.
The whole dispute reminds me of a series of pamphlets back and forth in a pitched battle between two antagonists that was being waged back when I was in the Mir on the critical topic of whether the proper pronunciation is “morid ha’gashem” or “morid ha’geshem,”
For years murex proponents have argued that techeiles is a mitzvah d’oraysa and is of great importance and worthy of debate. Are you now suggesting that the issue of techeiles is on the level of the argument on the pronunciation of “morid ha’g(a/e)shem”?
I suggest that instead of advocating for or against techeles let us advocate for middos tovos and sholom al Yisroel. I suspect that people who wear techeles are not as bad as Ovdei Avodah Zarah, and sholom protected the OAZ b’doro sherl Achav. We could use some of that protection…
Wonderful! I couldn’t agree more. If only the issue were merely differing views. That is not the problem here. The problem is that the P’til movement puts Science before Torah, contorting Torah to fit the science, casually dismissing maamorei Chazal, Rambam, etc.. Even worse, the science is completely wrong. Virtually every single argument they bring is incorrect. It is truly astounding. They can’t be trying to fool people or they would have some things right. A year before my article was printed P’til had it in their hands (I sent it to them when I asked them to reply). That was 3-1/2 years ago. Despite all the errors I pointed out (citing sources) they haven’t changed a thing. For P’til the issue is “being right”, not about the truth. They even make absurd statements about 613 nanometers which aren’t true and show their failure to understand the science (those are the words of one of the leading experts on the subject, not mine).
I am not fighting against Torah U’Madda. In fact, I do not subscribe to two very popular Jewish publications because of their gratuitous attacks on Torah U’Madda and other Jews. I don’t need machlokes brought into my home. Ahavas yisroel is in short supply. However, this isn’t Torah U’Madda. It is Madda U’Torah, and in reality it is neither Torah nor science.
I think this is extremely important.
Now, let’s get back to the facts. What is your response to Rav Miller’s proofs from the Gemara Shabbos?
[Email #2. -mi]The real issue….
{Micha:]
: Actually P’til does claim to have done the test…
So, they’re mistaken. Fine. That’s a matter of “scoring debating points” and not amito shel davar WRT the dye itself. Given that no one has actually done the test, or is even sure what the text is, no one can claim any candidate dye failed the test.
Destroying a ra’ayah doesn’t set you further back than before the attempted ra’ayah.
This isn’t about debating points. It’s about how in the face of strong evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim, people will find a theoretical possibility on how it could pass, and thereby completely dismiss the issue. The test is about reduction via fermentation, murex indigo reduces as easily (or more so) than plant indigo with common reducing agents, the two dyes are nearly exactly the same – this is strong circumstantial evidence that murex indigo cannot be techeiles. It is wrong to dismiss this Gemara on the basis of groundless speculation.
mendel
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:32:51PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote: : This isn’t about debating points. It’s about how in the face of strong : evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim…
For the third time… Unless the test if for the absence of a contaminant coming from the indigo plant, or the presence of one from murex snails.
And again, it’s not “the amora’im”, as another amora concluded no such test exists. So what we’re looking for is a test that — if its exists — is unreliable. Although it’s not muchrach, this is consistant with a test for contaminants.
-mi
—
Micha Berger Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – Albert Schweitzer
I believe that Rav Miller’s point about the Ben Ish Chai is not based on the halachic distinction of Chazal, but rather the “kabbalistic reality” (whatever that means) of k’la ilan. I don’t really have anything I could say about this. I can see both sides.
Actually, I found the ra’ayah from Kabbalah the least convincing, but I do not want to elaborate on that. V’es tzenu’im chochmoh.
“Surely there are greater problems” is a remarkably low threshold for when to address an issue. By this logic only the most pressing issue of the day can be addressed and all others ignored. Obviously that is not your position. I believe this is actually a very important issue in Orthodox Jewry today for reasons that will be made clear below.
I am not sure how you know that is not my position,
This is completely wrong. Radzyners were banned from mikvehs, invalidated as witnesses, not allowed to be buried in some places and physically attacked. In those days people took their arguments seriously! Murex followers have gotten a largely free ride. Until my article I hadn’t even seen anything written against their position, save for a few letters in response to their articles. Granted, this may be largely due to indifference (hardly a positive), but the main response I saw was to ignore the murex techeiles. The attitude was mostly “their arguments are quite impressive they are probably right, but the olam isn’t mekabel”. Since I live in Cleveland where things are generally tame, it could be that I am missing the onslaught against murex followers. Besides, even I am not attacking the people who wear murex indigo. In fact, until recently I used to help people who were interested to obtain it. I am often impressed with the love of a mitzvah these people have.
I am willing to accept that they were persecuted, but you understand that it is news to me – could you please tell me where this persecution is documented?
Hardly. There doesn’t seem to be ANY support for the murex theory al pi Torah. There is no reasonable way to understand how Chazal could possibly have made the statements in Menachos about murex trunculus. P’til basically acknowledged that in their reply to my article by saying that it can be dismissed as homiletic. How convenient. They then presented 4 new criteria, 2 of which aren’t even true, and only one is from the Gemara. The one sugya they hold by is the one where Rav Miller shows that it cannot be understood as applying to the murex trunculus snail. What’s left? The overwhelming evidence of science and archeology? That only shows murex was used for purple dyeing (argaman?), despite the fact that P’til said, incorrectly, in their brochures (at least they used to) that they found shards of blue dye from murex trunculus. Now, Dr. Ziderman has informed me that Prof. Zvi Koren has tested ancient indigotin samples with a technique that can pick up trace amounts of bromine and distinguish between snail indigo and plant indigo. None of the blue samples came from shellfish. How is murex a far more likely candidate than virtually any other candidate species?
Didn’t we just say there is no test?
Let me say that having read Rav Herzog’s thesis on the topic, I do not know how you can assert that they have no evidence – Rav Herzog himself declared that m. trunculus was the most likely candidate, but that he had not been able to produce a blue dye from it.
L’ma’aseh, I do not think that there is a chilluk which shellfish is used.
Surely you can’t be serious. P’til isn’t aggressively promoting? What do you call lecture tours, speaking at schools, videos, unsolicited distribution of materials all over the world (such as during daf yomi time last November)? P’til has been extremely aggressive. It is precisely this reason that Rav Perr attacked P’til for taking advantage of an unexpert public and using marketing to establish minhag/halacha. They have also frequently taken the opportunity for gratuitous, baseless attacks on Radzyn, though this has subsided a lot since their early writings. I don’t think this is a good lesson to follow.
I know the people involved and their methods. I do not think educating people to what you think is a harbinger of the geulah is wrong – even if they are wrong – I do not understand the vehemence of the attacks on people who perceive themselves as fulfilling ratzon Hashem.
For years murex proponents have argued that techeiles is a mitzvah d’oraysa and is of great importance and worthy of debate. Are you now suggesting that the issue of techeiles is on the level of the argument on the pronunciation of “morid ha’g(a/e)shem”?
Yes.
Wonderful! I couldn’t agree more. If only the issue were merely differing views. That is not the problem here. The problem is that the P’til movement puts Science before Torah, contorting Torah to fit the science, casually dismissing maamorei Chazal, Rambam, etc.. Even worse, the science is completely wrong. Virtually every single argument they bring is incorrect. It is truly astounding. They can’t be trying to fool people or they would have some things right. A year before my article was printed P’til had it in their hands (I sent it to them when I asked them to reply). That was 3-1/2 years ago. Despite all the errors I pointed out (citing sources) they haven’t changed a thing. For P’til the issue is “being right”, not about the truth. They even make absurd statements about 613 nanometers which aren’t true and show their failure to understand the science (those are the words of one of the leading experts on the subject, not mine).
I am unimpressed with the science in either direction. That is not the issue.
INow, let’s get back to the facts. What is your response to Rav Miller’s proofs from the Gemara Shabbos?
I do not understand RSM’s ra’ayah from the Gemara in Shabbos. I think the Gemara in Shabbos is the best ra’ayah for the m. trunculus techeles (IIRC Rav Herzog makes this point. As Rabbi Twerski writes, inter alia:
That chilazon was a shell fish (mollusk) is shown by inferences in the Talmud and Midrash. The Midrash says that the shell of the chilazon grows with it (Dvorim Rabba 67:11). The Talmud (Shabbos 85a) says that one who cracks open (hapotzeiah) a chilazon violates the Shabbos. The word potzeiah from the word petza, means to strike with force. When applied to opening a chilazon this implies cracking something open, as in ptzias egozim (cracking open nuts). If an animal is cracked open, it must have a hard shell to crack. Otherwise, the term to ‘cut (lachtoch) or merely to ‘open* (liftoach) would be employed.
and:
Further, the Talmud tells us that the dye needs to be extracted while the snail is yet alive, or soon after (Shabbos 75a). This is true to the nature of the trunculus mucus. In order for the color changing processes to develop, a specific enzyme, purporase, must be present. This enzyme deteriorates rapidly after the death of the Murex. If the exposure to the air does not occur immediately, the mucus will not develop into dibromoindigo (techeles blue).
I believe Rabbi Twerski’s masterful review is in the Avodah archives.
YGB
In Avodah # 89 we learned of Rabbi Miller of Toronto’s recent teshuvah against murex trunculus tekhelet, and were treated to an immediate response by Rabbi Bechhofer. I am in a unique position regarding this question. During my years in Israel I was able to invesitgate the arguments in favor quite thoroughly. I know several of the people involved; indeed, the head of P’til Tekhelet is a former student of mine. I chose not to put on Tkhelet precisely because the arguments appeared so overwhelmingly convincing. In my experience, issues are never so one sided, and I wanted to hear a coherent argument against before taking a stand in favor of a major change in halakhic practice. But in Israel, I could not find anyone who is really opposed. Thus, Rav Elyashiv came out against the tekhelet, but a big talmid chakham who is very close with RE told me that in fact RE thought the tekhelet people were probably right, but that until certain questions were answered, he believed it wrong to change halakhic practice. Then five years ago I moved to Toronto. Here I heard that Rabbi Miller had investigated the matter personally, even visiting the factory, and had concluded that the tekhelet – wasn’t. I have had little contact with RM personally, but after hearing what purported to be his arguments, I decided the murex people had the better argument, and have worn Tekhelet ever since. It must be said that RM’s teshuvah is far superior to the second-hand version on which I based my decision, but even so, I still think the murex people have the better argument. But in view of the Gemara (Hullin 7a), cited by RM – “when a Talmid Chakham makes a halakhic statement, one does not dismiss it lightly” – I want to reserve my judgement on his teshuvah until I check all the sources carefully, at which point I promise another posting to Avodah.
In the meantime I want to respond to Rabbi Bechhofer. Despite what I wrote above, I find his criticisms of RM to be unfounded.
I fail to understand how the chemical similarity between techeles from murex trunculus and the kaleh ilan dye from plant sources makes m. trunculus = kaleh ilan. This is very sizable lomdishe leap that Rabbi Miller – great talmid chochom as he is, and he certainly does not need my haskomo (on the contrary, I have one on my eruvin book from him!) – is making, and I do not understand how it can be made unless one assumes that Chazal classified the dye of kaleh ilan on the basis of chemical analysis. There does not seem to be any basis for this assumption.
Kaleh Ilan is not a halakhic concept like tekehet. From the halakhic perspective it is merely an example of a close fake. Any other close fake is FAIAP kaleh Ilan. But it is unnecessary to rely on logical arguments, as Rambam (hilkhot tzitzit 2:1) when discussing kaleh ilan, does not even use the term, but refers to “b’istis o b’sh’chor or b’sh’ar hamashchirim.”
It is not clear to me why those who do not hold m. trunculus to be valid techeles simply say that there is no need for them to wear it – and, of course, they are right about that. Why not leave those who do wear it do so in peace? Surely there are far greater problems in Orthodox Jewry today than some people wearing m. trunculus techeles? There is ample precedent for shev v’al ta’aseh – which is what rov minyan u’binyan Am Yisroel did in the face of the Radziner’s techeles. You do not find (to the best of my knowledge) from that time literature attacking those who did decide to wear it. Yet today, with a far more likely candidate, that is the case.
In fact I had thought there was a very bitter controversy regarding the Radziner. But in any case, there is nothing in RM’s teshuvah that should cause offense to anyone. His arguments – convincing or not – are all reasonable Torah arguments. His opinion is that it is not only unneccessary, but wrong to wear what is almost certainly kaleh ilan. But again, there is no need to rely on an apologia. Ma’aseh rav. I live in Toronto, and wear my tekhelet openly wherever I daven shacharit, including, on occasion, standing right next to RM in his kollel (that was before I read his teshuvah; I had no intention to be chutzpadik). No one in Toronto – not RM, nor his talmidim, with some of whom I am very close – have uttered so much as a word of criticism. Indeed, RM’s kollel itself put out a tape by one of its fellows, Rabbi Kulik, discussing the pros and cons of the murex, which challenges R.M’s arguments, and more-or-less concludes that the tekhelet is probably correct, but that a conservative attitude is appropriate. In short, there could not be a better example of a community that “advocate[s] for middos tovos and sholom al yisroel,” and I join with R. Bechhofer in considering that far more important even than the intriguing question of tekhelet.
Moshe Sober
R’ YG,
You certainly make some interesting points, though some certainly have me puzzled – which may not take much 🙂
At 09:21 PM 2/10/2004 -0500, you wrote:
“Surely there are greater problems” is a remarkably low threshold for when to address an issue. By this logic only the most pressing issue of the day can be addressed and all others ignored. Obviously that is not your position. I believe this is actually a very important issue in Orthodox Jewry today for reasons that will be made clear below.
I am not sure how you know that is not my position,
I was trying not to insult you by seeming to imply that you hold that all of Klal Yisroel should only be concerned with the most pressing need of the day. If you do indeed hold that, that might make for an interesting discussion, albeit a different discussion.
This is completely wrong. Radzyners were banned from mikvehs, invalidated as witnesses, not allowed to be buried in some places and physically attacked. In those days people took their arguments seriously! Murex followers have gotten a largely free ride. Until my article I hadn’t even seen anything written against their position, save for a few letters in response to their articles. Granted, this may be largely due to indifference (hardly a positive), but the main response I saw was to ignore the murex techeiles. The attitude was mostly “their arguments are quite impressive they are probably right, but the olam isn’t mekabel”. Since I live in Cleveland where things are generally tame, it could be that I am missing the onslaught against murex followers. Besides, even I am not attacking the people who wear murex indigo. In fact, until recently I used to help people who were interested to obtain it. I am often impressed with the love of a mitzvah these people have.
I am willing to accept that they were persecuted, but you understand that it is news to me – could you please tell me where this persecution is documented?
Yes, I would imagine the response to Radzyn at the time would be news for most people. As to the documentation, I have pieces of it from different places. Some of it is from the sefer HaTecheiles, some from older people (no longer living) who were told by their fathers/grandfathers what had happened, some from P’til who quoted from writings of R’ Gelbshtein who wrote so vehemently against the Radzyner (in the Avodah archives – should be late 2001) – IIRC, he said that he himself had publicly burned Radzyner techeiles. There was the case where the Chofetz Chaim was consulted about whether they could bury someone with Radzyner techeiles on (he did say it was OK).
Hardly. There doesn’t seem to be ANY support for the murex theory al pi Torah. There is no reasonable way to understand how Chazal could possibly have made the statements in Menachos about murex trunculus. P’til basically acknowledged that in their reply to my article by saying that it can be dismissed as homiletic. How convenient. They then presented 4 new criteria, 2 of which aren’t even true, and only one is from the Gemara. The one sugya they hold by is the one where Rav Miller shows that it cannot be understood as applying to the murex trunculus snail. What’s left? The overwhelming evidence of science and archeology? That only shows murex was used for purple dyeing (argaman?), despite the fact that P’til said, incorrectly, in their brochures (at least they used to) that they found shards of blue dye from murex trunculus. Now, Dr. Ziderman has informed me that Prof. Zvi Koren has tested ancient indigotin samples with a technique that can pick up trace amounts of bromine and distinguish between snail indigo and plant indigo. None of the blue samples came from shellfish. How is murex a far more likely candidate than virtually any other candidate species?
Didn’t we just say there is no test?
Let me say that having read Rav Herzog’s thesis on the topic, I do not know how you can assert that they have no evidence – Rav Herzog himself declared that m. trunculus was the most likely candidate, but that he had not been able to produce a blue dye from it.
I have read his thesis several times. As a PhD thesis, he concentrates primarily on secular evidence first, then introduces Torah sources. I quote (page 65): “The inquirer equipped with a knowledge of the experiments of Lacaze-Duthiers, of the discoveries of Wilde, deSaulcy, and Gaillardot and of the conclusions arrived at by Dr. Dedekind will go to the Talmud only for a confirmation of the identification of the tekhelet-species with Murex trunculus. ** but there is a surprise in store for him **.” He then introduces the sugya in menachos, concludes that murex fails to meet these criteria. His rejection of m. trunculus is not predicated solely on the color of the dye extracted. Thus, Rabbi Herzog’s objections to murex trunculus were many. I understand that some believe they have adequate answers to Rabbi Herzog’s objections and believe that surely if Rabbi Herzog were alive he would acknowledge his errors and agree with the identification of murex trunculus. While I believe I have shown that these arguments make Chazal’s statements in Menachos meaningless, you and others are of course free to think otherwise, and perhaps consider me foolish for being unable to accept the truth.
L’ma’aseh, I do not think that there is a chilluk which shellfish is used.
Surely you can’t be serious. P’til isn’t aggressively promoting? What do you call lecture tours, speaking at schools, videos, unsolicited distribution of materials all over the world (such as during daf yomi time last November)? P’til has been extremely aggressive. It is precisely this reason that Rav Perr attacked P’til for taking advantage of an unexpert public and using marketing to establish minhag/halacha. They have also frequently taken the opportunity for gratuitous, baseless attacks on Radzyn, though this has subsided a lot since their early writings. I don’t think this is a good lesson to follow.
I know the people involved and their methods. I do not think educating people to what you think is a harbinger of the geulah is wrong – even if they are wrong – I do not understand the vehemence of the attacks on people who perceive themselves as fulfilling ratzon Hashem.
Jews for J also believe they are doing ratzon Hashem. Some Lubavitchers feel they are hastening the geulah by convincing others to join in chants of Yechi as a daily ritual at the end of shacharis every day. I feel sorry for them, but it doesn’t mean we don’t take strong positions against them. If you feel that there is no problem with the idea that people can take a conclusion from the secular world, then find ways to force the Torah to somehow fit, discarding most Gemaras and Rambam and more because it doesn’t fit, and then go around the world trying to get people to follow their practice – if that is OK with you, then I understand why you take your position. Surely you can then understand that I also believe I am doing ratzon Hashem, and seeing a dangerous precedent being set ,I am responding strongly.
BTW, R” Chaim Twerski’s article that you call masterful – that is the article that was so full of blatant errors, that I got started on the whole subject of research. Right in the beginning when he gives his “proofs” against Radzyn, starting with the assertion that cuttlefish can’t live in sand and can’t meet the “buried in the sand” criterion. He couldn’t have tried to check any sources for that, since even the encyclopedia notes that cuttlefish spend their days buried in the sand. I will be merciful and leave the discussion at that, but I was appalled that someone could make such a statement in a published periodical without making any effort to ascertain the truth.
I intend to look at your response to Rav Miller’s points about the Gemara Shabbos, as well as at Micha’s. I expected to see some good discussion of these points, though I was hoping to be more of a spectator. I am swamped at work and am really only responding on issues I can address expediently. Alas, in general, I don’t have time to follow Avodah, merely checking the subject line from time to time to follow interesting threads.
[Email #2. -mi] [Micha:]On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:32:51PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote: : This isn’t about debating points. It’s about how in the face of strong : evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim…
For the third time… Unless the test if for the absence of a contaminant coming from the indigo plant, or the presence of one from murex snails.
And again, it’s not “the amora’im”, as another amora concluded no such test exists. So what we’re looking for is a test that — if its exists — is unreliable. Although it’s not muchrach, this is consistant with a test for contaminants.
I thought that P’til had generally agreed that the test is not about the contaminants, but rather it was possible the contaminants could alter the expected result so that murex could pass. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that it is possible the test could have been designed specifically to test for the contaminants, despite the appearance of being about reduction – since we don’t know the exact test.
OK. It isn’t very logical to me, but one can certainly make such a conjecture.
I will now be merciful and drop this line of discussion.
mendel
Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Health Services Research Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics e-mail: mes12@po.cwru.edu
[RYGB:]
I do not understand RSM’s ra’ayah from the Gemara in Shabbos. I think the Gemara in Shabbos is the best ra’ayah for the m. trunculus techeles … Further, the Talmud tells us that the dye needs to be extracted while the snail is yet alive, or soon after (Shabbos 75a). This is true to the nature of the trunculus mucus. In order for the color changing processes to develop, a specific enzyme, purporase, must be present. This enzyme deteriorates rapidly after the death of the Murex. If the exposure to the air does not occur immediately, the mucus will not develop into dibromoindigo (techeles blue).
I believe Rabbi Twerski’s masterful review is in the Avodah archives.
I don’t see how the Gemora in Shabbos can be brought as a proof for the Murex, as it would require us to accept some unsubtantiated conjectures in the sugya. The Rabbi Twerski/Sterman/Ptil conjecture is not accepted as the pashtus of the Gemora in RSM’s teshuva.
To show why, let me quote from Baruch Sterman’s reply to Mendel Singer in the JCH: ” Tekhelet comes from a live chilazon. This is one of the more powerful proofs supporting the murex as the chilazon. The enzyme required for dye formation quickly decomposes upon the death of the snail, and so the glands that hold the dye precursor must be crushed while the snail is alive or soon after. In experiments, we have seen that as soon as TWO HOURS after death, the quality of the dye is severely degraded. Dr. Singer’s assertion that “the Gemara is speaking not of a few hours, but mere moments after death” is totally arbitrary. That assertion is even more implausible considering that this property is mentioned by both Pliny and Aristotle specifically regarding the murex. Since the murex loses its dye quality a FEW HOURS after its death, and those scholars express that fact by saying that the dye must be obtained from live snails, it follows that the Gemara’s use of the same terminology would certainly sustain a two hour post mortem limit.”
Apart from misquoting Pliny and Aristotle (see Mendel Singer’s response in JCH), let’s focus on the fact that you have a few hours after the Murex dies to extract the mucus for the dye.
In the Gemora (Shabbos75a) the Rabanan hold that when a person traps and is potzea the chilazon to extract the secretion [“dam”], he only did one melacha — tzeda [“aino chayav ela achas”]. The Gemora dismisses two putative additional melachos viz. disha and netilas-neshama. [I’ll use “sqeeze” for potzea as in Rashi, but changing it to “cracked” will not affect the argument].
Why does the Gemora [in the hava-amina] think “chayav nami mishum netilas neshama” [let him be liable for killing the Chilazon]. In its last peshat, the Gemora asserts that the Chilazon could be squeezed even while alive. But sqeezing out its secretion will inevitably cause it to die. The person is thus liable because even R. Shimon concedes that this is an inevitable killing [pesik-resha velo yamos]. Thus, there should be two melachos [tzeida and netilas-neshama]?
The Gemora answers that the blood of a live Chilazon is superior to that of a dead one. This person thus tries his hardest [Rashi: kol atzmo] to keep the Chilazon alive while squeezing it [tefei nicha leh]. Thus, when it dies, he has the petur of “misasek”, even though the death is inevitable [pesik-reisha], and thus he is patur from netilas-neshama. [c.f. Tosefos that “misasek” is not precise].
PUSH1: We all agree that if the secretion deteriorates immediately after death (within seconds or minutes), this is a very big push on the person to bedavka want to keep the Chilazon alive. It is this push that produces the required petur of misasek. We can then definitely say like Rashi that “kol atzmo”, his whole being is focussed on keeping the Chilazon alive and he bedavka does not want it to die, as he will destroy the dye the moment it does.
PUSH2: Now, acording to Ptil, the mucus of the Murex can still be used for dye even if extracted a few hours after death. Thus, the person need not try to keep the Chilazon alive — after all, let it die, and the mucus is still good for a few hours. He could take a one hour lunch break, and still be back in time to extract the mucus.
Of course, you could conjecture that he needs a three hour lunch break, and so there is (a) still a little bit of a push to keep the Murex alive, and (b) which is enough to produce the required petur of misasek.
But clearly the conjecture PUSH2 is a bigger chidush than PUSH1, and hence PUSH2 needs some substantiation. At the very least, while Ptil will obviously accept PUSH1 as sufficient to produce the petur, others are not forced to accept Ptil’s conjecture PUSH2.
The pashtus is that, unlike the Murex, we are looking for a species in which there is a rapid and immediate deterioration of the “dam” at or very close to its death so that the person’s whole being strains to keep it alive and he bedavka does not want it to die.
Kol Tuv … Jonathan
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:49:15PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote: : I have a healthy skepticism (perhaps some would call it unhealthy…) : concerning science, even “hard” sciences like chemistry. Perhaps : Chazal knew better than science? Perhaps chemistry (like all sciences, : an evolving set of theories) has not yet attained the knowledge of : the distinction between techeles and kaleh ilan that was revealed : to Chazal. Certainly, molecular structures are meaningless from an : halachic standpoint (for example, a goat created by Sefer Yetzirah, : which presumably has the same molecular structure as a goat generated : the natural way, is not considered meat vis-a-vis halachos of schechitah : and basar b’chalav).
You make two arguments here.
1- Perhaps Chazal knew better than science. I’m not of the opinion that this is likely. This could be an chassidsher emunas chachamim argument (that the information was beru’ach haqodesh) or a litvisher da’as Torah one. But neither would convince me.
To convince me you would have to argue that the information was part of the mitzvas tzitzis relayed at Har Sinai and transmitted by the mesorah. And for that you would need to explain why Hashem would need to. Chazal tell us that qiddush levanah and the menorah got such explanation because they required such explanation.
2- Perhaps the difference between kaleh ilan and techeiles is not scientific.
This position must be accepted by the Radziner chassidim, as prussian blue can be made from any source. And as the rest of the cuttlefish “dam” is reduced to white ash, the impurities are the same as if one made prussion blue using any biochemical with the same basic ration of elements.
BTW, the gemara’s statement about kaleh ilan makes it clear that there is a single plant source that makes a fake dye that is far closer to techeiles than any other dye.
And then there’s the Tif’eres Yisrael, who is even less picky than RYGB and would use any indelible dye of the right color, doesn’t even need to be from a shellfish. His shitah appears demonstrably wrong, as kaleh ilan qualifies.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:32:51PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote: : This isn’t about debating points. It’s about how in the face of strong : evidence that murex dye should fail the test supplied by the Amoraim, : people will find a theoretical possibility on how it could pass…
You’re still arguing it backwards.
It’s not murex dye that fails the test. It’s the test that fails because it incorrectly permits kaleh ilan. The test we thought was chazal’s obviously isn’t the real test. Chazal couldn’t be checking whether the dye could decay by fermentation, because kaleh ilan can’t. Such a test would give a consistant false positive.
Until we identify the real test, the only question that can be asked is whether such a test could exist; could one construct an experiment that will tell you if a sample of indigo came from a murex or from the indigo plant? The theoretical possibility is enough of an answer because the test is at this point theoretical as well.
This is why the Amutah considers this issue academic. Where they err is that they still make a big deal about passing a test they ought to know is the wrong one. But that error doesn’t touch the conclusion.
And we still have a shitah that says the test doesn’t exist. So even if it does, we would expect the test to be tricky.
-mi
—
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you’re alive, it isn’t.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – Richard Bach
I just rejected a number of Avodah submissions on this subject.
I don’t see enough new material. Just repetitions of the same old arguments, repeated in ever more heated tones as we get frustrated with eachother.
When I saw one of my posts in the moderation queue and I was ashamed of the tone it contained, I decided things had gone far enough.
My apologies in particular to RYGB, who submitted 5 or so emails on the subject before I constructed this notice. They will not be going to the list.
All the participants in the conversation are in the BCC list, but it was only RYGB and myself whose posts got rejected. So far.
-mi
—
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you’re alive, it isn’t.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – Richard Bach
[Despite my previous request to end the thread, I feel letting this one post through would leave things n a better note. -mi]
To clarify a grave misunderstanding that exists with a previous post:
I understand very well that you equate the Ptil people with Jews for J, or, at best, Meshichist Lubavitchers. And I must strongly reject the comparison. To be honest, I think it is absurd.
It is indeed absurd. I was not making such a comparison at all, G-d forbid. I apologize if I mistakenly gave this impression. My point was that if a group believes it is doing ratzon Hashem, that is not sufficient reason by itself for us not to take a strong stand against it. I demonstrated the point by choosing extreme examples where I hoped it would be clear. I was not equating any of the groups. For that matter, I didn’t even lump all Meshichist Lubavitchers together. I only referred to those who think everyone should include a chant about a person as part of the seder hatefilah. I have no issue with the individuals who wear murex techeiles, or are pro-murex. My issue is strictly with P’til for reasons I need not repeat.
Moreover, I have no problem with an attempt to use science in conjunction with Torah. Neither did the Gra, nor for that matter the Radzhiner
Agreed. I didn’t suggest otherwise. Science in conjunction with Torah, where Torah is never compromised – that is beautiful.
I thank Rabbi YGB for his thoughtful comments, both public here and in our private e-mail exchange.
Kol Tuv!
mendel
Links
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n089.shtml#05
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n090.shtml
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n091.shtml
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n092.shtml#23
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n093.shtml#10
- https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n094.shtml#10
