Blue Fringes Discussion Forum

As I understand, Rabbi Berger is arguing sufficient proofs the Jews used it pre-galus are enough for us, nay, preferable.

What proofs are there to that nature?

You mean proof this was used by Jews?

Check out any good pro-Techeiles work...
 

There are no positive "proofs" it was used by jews.
The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.
 

Doorknob wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:21 am There are no positive "proofs" it was used by jews.
The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.
 


 

With all due respect that comment is a red herring. It was used by both Jews and non-Jews. Why else did Shlomo Hamelech consult Hiram in Divrei HaYamim 1, 2:6 (https://porphyrology.com/view-doctorate ... le-dyeing/) to send him a “skilful man to work in Argaman and karmil and Tekhelet, etc.” ? Also note about finding Techeiles wool in a street it's not kosher since there's a Chashash that it was used for a Glima. A Glima was a cloak used by both Jews and non-Jews. See R' Yehoshua Yankelewitz in the below video, where he covers this as well as purfura for the chilazon shell (pun intended) Techeiles.


 

rhecht wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:49 am

Doorknob wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:21 am There are no positive "proofs" it was used by jews.
The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.
 



 

With all due respect that comment is a red herring. It was used by both Jews and non-Jews. Why else did Shlomo Hamelech consult Hiram in Divrei HaYamim 1, 2:6 (https://porphyrology.com/view-doctorate ... le-dyeing/) to send him a “skilful man to work in Argaman and karmil and Tekhelet, etc.” ? Also note about finding Techeiles wool in a street it's not kosher since there's a Chashash that it was used for a Glima. A Glima was a cloak used by both Jews and non-Jews. See R' Yehoshua Yankelewitz in the below video, where he covers this as well as purfura for the chilazon shell (pun intended) Techeiles.


 

 

With all due respect, you misunderstood a doorknob. There is no proof that the "trunculus" was used by Jews, obviously the chilazon, whatever it was, was in use by Jews.
 

Yosef\Door wrote --

The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.

If you mean Radzin, yes, that is the nature of the attempt.

If you mean murex, absolutely not!

The proofs are positive proofs, like the millions of murex shells found exactly where Chazal said Techeiles was dyed, the word whose meaning is still what it was, "purpura".

Nosson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 am Yosef\Door wrote --

The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.

If you mean Radzin, yes, that is the nature of the attempt.

If you mean murex, absolutely not!

The proofs are positive proofs, like the millions of murex shells found exactly where Chazal said Techeiles was dyed, the word whose meaning is still what it was, "purpura".



 

That is not a proof, it barely reaches the level of anecdotal evidence. The shells have nothing to do with techeiles. We know exactly what those shells were used for - the bustling royal purple industry. Im sure you're aware of the purpura craze, and how the whole world was running after these purple shellfish. So that obviously proves nothing with regards to techeiles.
 
 

Doorknob wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 11:06 am

Nosson wrote: ↑Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:27 am Yosef\Door wrote --

The main proof is via process of elimination- it can't be any other known snail, so it must be this.

If you mean Radzin, yes, that is the nature of the attempt.

If you mean murex, absolutely not!

The proofs are positive proofs, like the millions of murex shells found exactly where Chazal said Techeiles was dyed, the word whose meaning is still what it was, "purpura".




 

That is not a proof, it barely reaches the level of anecdotal evidence. The shells have nothing to do with techeiles. We know exactly what those shells were used for - the bustling royal purple industry. Im sure you're aware of the purpura craze, and how the whole world was running after these purple shellfish. So that obviously proves nothing with regards to techeiles.
 
 

 

I don't understand how the shells have nothing to do with Techeiles. We know for a fact today that murex trunculus snails make anywhere from sky/greenish blue to dark/bluish purple. Modern processes aside, sunlight - the most organic ingredient you can think of - breaks the dibromine atoms with the aid of Sammemanim (of which , and even if not, boiling the wool will do the same. (So while modern chemicals are used today, the base acids/bases are effectively the same as was used in the ancient recipe, but are more efficient in that one doesn't need to wait 10 days like in ancient times.) And, we know that Techeiles is supposed to be blue. If this murex trunculus was used for blue and isn't Techeiles, why didn't the Gemara warn against this as it did for Kala Ilan?

There is no proof that the murex was used for blue. There is proof it was used for purple. The reason you assume it was used for blue is because you assume it's the chilazon.
If it wasn't used for blue there's no reason the gemara would need to warn about it (besides that nobody would use something more expensive for a forgery)