Nignaz

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Nignaz

Re: Nignaz

by Doorknob » Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:45 pm

rhecht wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:28 pmRight. Rabbi Barkin wrote this and shared it with me. Unfortunately it's in a kuntreiss he has yet to publish.
 

 
I see now that he wrote it in the piece you posted from him, I did not notice that earlier.
 

Re: Nignaz

by rhecht » Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:28 pm

Doorknob wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:10 am The other way to get out of it is to say that שבלול is a land snail, whereas חילזון is a sea snail.
שערי תירוצים לא ננעלו

 
Right. Rabbi Barkin wrote this and shared it with me. Unfortunately it's in a kuntreiss he has yet to publish.
 

Re: Nignaz

by Doorknob » Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:10 am

The other way to get out of it is to say that שבלול is a land snail, whereas חילזון is a sea snail.
שערי תירוצים לא ננעלו

Re: Nignaz

by rhecht » Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:15 am

Mr. wrote:Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:03 am
rhecht wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:24 pm
Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:07 pm הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 



 
I see it now (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm). ומיא דשבלילתא could translate as וְרִיר שֶׁל שַׁבְּלוּל. Why Rabbi Perr didn't spell that translation out is curious because no Rishon explicitly states that Rashi was wrong.Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 4.15.22 PM.png
 




 
It is questionable if the Rambam ever saw Rashi. I agree that Rabbi Perr could have been clearer.
 



 
Okay so I found how we can resolve this whole Shablul/Shivlits controversy, though in the following ways:

1. Based on certain commentaries, Shivlita is a general term for a Gastropod, Chilazon is a term for snail with a shell , only.

See Jastrow 

👉🏻 שַׁבְּלוּל m. (שבל to drag along, cmp. b. h. שֹׁבֶל; cmp. שִׁלְשׁוּל III) snail without the shell. 👈🏻Sabb. 77ᵇ, v. כָּתִית; Y. Ber. IX, 13ᶜ bot. (ed. Krot. שכלון, ed. Ven. שבלון, corr. acc.), v. חָזִית.

👉🏻שַׁבְּלוּלְיָה m. (preced. art.) a species of mollusks, slug👈🏻. Y. Nidd. III, 50ᵈ אילין נשייא דאמרן ש׳ דכר שבלולה נוקבא וכ׳ (ed. Krot. שכ׳, corr. acc.) we do not rely on those women who say that if the placenta resembles (in substance and color) a shabb’luliah, it indicates a male fœtus, if a shabb’lul, a female.

שַׁבְלוּלִיתָא f. (Shaf. of בלל; cmp. תֶּבֶל, תַּבְלִין) fenugreek. Sabb. 110ᵇ Ms. M. (ed. שַׁבְלִילְתָּא). Men. 42ᵇ מיא דש׳ Ms. M. (ed. דשבלילתא) juice of fenugreek. Gitt. 69ᵃ ש׳ Rashi (ed. שׁוּבְלִילְתָּא). Ab. Zar. 38ᵇ שבלילתא.

See Klein

שַׁבְּלוּל m.n. snail (a hapax legomenon in the Bible, occurring Ps. 58:9). [Of uncertain origin; possibly a Shaph‘el form from בלל (= to mix), and lit. meaning ‘causing moisture’, and so called in allusion to its slimy trail. 👉🏻cp. the related JAram. תִּבְלָלָא (= snail).] 👈🏻Derivative: שַׁבְּלוּלִי.

So in Hebrew shablul is a general term for Gastropod and chomet is for a Gastropod with shell, only. Based on this translation by the Rambam, any other gastropod could be used with the other ingredients to test against Techeiles.

(H/T Gershom Baraza for this insight).

2. Rabbi Yisroel Barkin wrote on this already:
barkin-shablul.png
 
3. Shablul seems to always be used in the context of having ריר, see attached. Could possibly be connected to שבלול and שביל, a trail of mucus. See Tanchum Yerushalmi. (H/T Avrohom Gross)

 
שבלול תנחום הירושלמי_page-0001.jpg
 
שבלול תנחום הירושלמי_page-0002.jpg
 
 
 

Re: Nignaz

by Nosson » Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:43 pm

Rav Perr then says:

The murex mucus is not blood, neither biologically nor in color. P’til advocates attempt to cope with this problem by writing the word thus, “blood”. The implication here is that the “ancients” were imprecise in their use of language. However, there happen to be excellent words used in the Talmud for mucus: Rir, Leicha, and Maya are some of them.

Levush HaAron addresses this perfectly as well.

Re: Nignaz

by Nosson » Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:31 pm

Levush HaAron explains very well the meaning of all these words, which are klall and which perat, which are in Hebrew, etc.

Re: Nignaz

by Nosson » Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:18 pm

I didn't see inside but to say Chazal CALLED the Chilazon a "fish" is untrue. They said "וברייתו דומה לדג", no more and no less.

And doubting the meaning of the word "Chilazon" is like doubting any other unchanged and common noun. 

I can understand why there are Jews who gave up on his sort and use "marketing" to spread the truth!

Re: Nignaz

by Mr. Genugshoin » Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:27 pm

rhecht wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:24 pm
Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:07 pm הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 
 
I see it now (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm). ומיא דשבלילתא could translate as וְרִיר שֶׁל שַׁבְּלוּל. Why Rabbi Perr didn't spell that translation out is curious because no Rishon explicitly states that Rashi was wrong.Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 4.15.22 PM.png
 

 
It is questionable if the Rambam ever saw Rashi. I agree that Rabbi Perr could have been clearer.
 

Re: Nignaz

by Mr. Genugshoin » Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:26 pm

rhecht wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:54 pm
Mr. wrote:Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:03 am I think it was an honest mistake of his, the fact that he doesn't want Ptil to succeed is not bias, just like you are not biased for wanting Ptil to succeed.




 
Nothing to do with wanting or not wanting Ptil to succeed. Our objective is to try to do Mitzvos as best as we possibly can.

As an aside, I "get" his way of thinking. The full text of his final paragraph reads:

In note 11, Dr. Singer pronounces P’til Techelet’s efforts as “inspiring”. I find their efforts rather distressing. P’til is attempting to foist on an unexpert public a halachic practice through marketing methods and thereby establish the precedent of a Minhag. At the same time, their stand ignores the words of the Rishonim and exhibits a cavalier attitude towards the Gemara itself. The Gemara Menachot that gives the description of the chilazon is dismissed by P’til as “homiletic”. If P’til succeeds, they will have contaminated the halachic process. "

Notwithstanding the fact that different Rabbis have interpreted parts of Tanach and Shas literally and not literally with no uniform agreement, Lefi Aniyas Daasi the way we have always gone about it is, when there's science versus religion/mesorah, Mesorah comes first, and if science can help advance that Mesorah then great. We have this with Tefillin and Sifrei Torah, even though today's look very different from even 100 years ago, but at least there was a direct Mesorah. We don't have that luxury with Techeiles, and so the question is, what does someone do with that? Do we say that there's a) only a direct Mesorah that can be done, or can b) Mesorah be reconstructed based on scientific and archeological evidence and the bottom-line? Because any attempts to rediscover Techeiles will automatically fall under b) and R' Perr's "the halachic process" would fall under a). So I totally understand the gross amount of skepticism.

Personally I held off on wearing Techeiles until I saw that a number of mainstream Gedolim were wearing it, and only then took it on. I didn't want to be biased but was always a little biased to know if it was okay to put it on, because I wanted to try to fulfill the mitzva without any downside. But those Rabbonim were "out of the box" thinkers and Poskim that saw Halacha as a reality versus a Mesorah by many that in all honesty didn't see Techeiles. And there is a way to Pasken for that: 

Also, I think that the fact that Ptil's Techeiles has reached the support of a growing number of Rabbonim is testament to that success.
 


 
My point was that according to Rabbi Perr's legitimate opinion it makes sense to wish Ptil not to succeed- nothing to do with bias.

Rabbi Perr's claim, as an aside, is that even if we were to reconstruct the mesorah, the method Ptil is using i.e. misinterpreting Gemaras etc., is itself problematic.

(I'm just stating his viewpoint, you are free to feel otherwise) 
 
 

Re: Nignaz

by rhecht » Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:24 pm

Doorknob wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 8:07 pm הלכות ציצית פ"ב ה"ה that's how he understands שבלילתא that Rabbi Perr quotes
 

 
I see it now (https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm). ומיא דשבלילתא could translate as וְרִיר שֶׁל שַׁבְּלוּל. Why Rabbi Perr didn't spell that translation out is curious because no Rishon explicitly states that Rashi was wrong.
Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 4.15.22 PM.png
 

Top