Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 091

Tuesday, February 10 2004

• kol isha al hayam?
• Back to Yissakhar
• tshuva
• Tu B'Shvat and snapple bottles
• derech in halacha
• Re: Tu B'Shvat and snapple bottles
• Re: derech in halacha
• Re: Halachos of the "Kosher Lamp"
• Women and Kaddish Derabbanan
• RE: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: daf yomi & R. Chaninah
• Re: Hasgachah Pratit/Klalit
• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• Re: TSBP
• Re: Halachos of the 'Kosher Lamp'
• RE: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet
• Re: New teshuva against murex trunculus tekhelet

> I don't even understand the question. Where in the Torah does it say that
> Miriam sang? See, particularly, Targum Onkelos on the passuk.

I happened to discuss this with a certain talmid chacham this week. He
made a point that singing is a natural expression of grattitude and
that it is unreasonable to assume that shirah does not mean singing in
this context.

M. Levin

> This untenable pronunciation has spread lately and davka in the
> misnaged yeshivish world. No edah except for some Ashkenazim have it.
> It started though in about 1700 as the result of a cute vort someone
> dreamed up....                                And since then, according
> to people who ignore the dagesh or don't know what it is, or don't want
> to let such grammatical issues  influence them, the father's name was
> Yisakhar.

Just for the record - this is found in the Chida's Midbar Kdeimus in
the name of a midrash.

M. Levin

RAM
>There is a well-known (Gemara?) that in a place where a baal teshuva
>stands, a tzadik gamur cannot stand.

Brachos 34b
Sanhedrin 99a

kol tuv, Shlomo

1) Has anybody heard anything besheim R' Hershel Shachter regarding
snapple bottles and tevilas keilim? Someone recently told me he had an
interesting shittah in the matter, but he couldn't give me the specifics.

2) Does anybody know the mkor for making a shehechiyanu on Tu B'Shvat
( a written m'kor, not sevarah)?

MS

RYGB
>>Rav SM of Toronto, recently wrote a teshuva
>>that murex trunculus...  people should *davka* not wear it.

> 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? ...
> I suggest that instead of advocating for or against techeles let us
> advocate for middos tovos and sholom al Yisroel.

Two points for thought:

1. Surely it is the job of a posek to address issues of a halacha with
the goal of reaching one clear conclusion concerning practice. Is it
also wrong that Rav Ovadia Yosef wrote against wearing sheitlech and
Rav Moishe Shternbuch wrote against not wearing sheitlech? It seems to
me that the definition of a posek is one who can take a clear stand on
the halachic issues of the day. Failing to decide on one "correct" path
in nusach hatefilla, color of tzitzis strings and proper hair covering
disqualifies one from the title: posek. He might still be a rabbi,
maggid shiur, author, mashgiach ruchani, rosh yeshiva, talmid chacham
or any combination of these roles; but not a posek.

2. It is told that Rav Yisroel Salanter once told his elite group of
students to behave throughout morning seder with their chavrusa in a
manner that typifies mussar: polite speech, respectful conversational
tones etc. After about a month of this project, which was a significant
variant from the norm, Rav Yisroel concluded that to maximize insight
in Torah study the old, standard method was better at the expense
of mussardik behavior during chavrusa time. It seems true halachic
discussion is to resemble the "war" of Torah and not a quiet conference
between scholars.

kol tuv, Shlomo Goldstein

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 09:35, E.M. Shtern wrote:
> 1) Has anybody heard anything besheim R' Hershel Shachter regarding
> snapple bottles and tevilas keilim? Someone recently told me he had an
> interesting shittah in the matter, but he couldn't give me the specifics.

What the star-k says

http://www.star-k.org/kashrus/kk-containers-tevilas.htm

Food sold in glass jars (mayonnaise jars or juice bottles): When it is
emptied, the glass jar does not require tevila due to the fact that it
is secondary to its contents. If a deposit is required on the bottle, the
glass has individuality in its own right and would require tevila before
reuse. In the event that the jar or the bottle is fancy and important in
its own right, tevila would be required. A competent halachic authority
should determine whether a brocha is required when making the tevila. One
should not assume that Jewish merchants immerse the jars of bottles used
to package loose or bulk food items.

[R Shlomo Goldstein:]
>1. Surely it is the job of a posek to address issues of a halacha with
>the goal of reaching one clear conclusion concerning practice. Is it
>also wrong that Rav Ovadia Yosef wrote against wearing sheitlech and
>Rav Moishe Shternbuch wrote against not wearing sheitlech?...

You misunderstand. I have no complaint against Rabbi Miller (although I 
disagree with him). I do have a complaint against people who make websites 
and collect letters and generally devote themselves to "debunking" 
techeles.- or any other such hanhogoh. The dispute about sheitlach takes 
place exactly where it should take place - in the rarified atmosphere of 
shu"t, the marketplace of halachic ideas. I would be equally distressed if 
someone took out a www.sheitlach.org website to attack sheitel-wearers.

>2. It is told that Rav Yisroel Salanter once told his elite group of
>students to behave throughout morning seder with their chavrusa in a
>manner that typifies mussar: polite speech, respectful conversational
>tones etc. After about a month of this project, which was a significant
>variant from the norm, Rav Yisroel concluded that to maximize insight
>in Torah study the old, standard method was better at the expense
>of mussardik behavior during chavrusa time....

U'me kamoni yodeia zos? See above.

YGB

In  Avodah V12 #90 dated 2/10/04 "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> writes:
> RSV has haskamos attesting that the shade is a separate keli and therefore
> not muqtza. ...
> I don't understand why. ... For neir Shabbos they'd be one keli. No?

I do not have any halachic information for you, and therefore maybe this
should be on arvm. But I will add that in Sharei Tzedek Hospital they
have lights on the wall over the patients' beds, which can be covered
by sliding a metal plate in front of the light, thus darkening the room
without turning off the light.

Re your question about something with muktza and non-muktza aspects
being one [muktza?] keli, what about my watch--whose face can be lit by
pushing in the winding button? Does that make the whole watch muktza?
For that matter, the very fact that there IS a winding button--does THAT
make the whole watch muktza?

[I am not asking for an official psak, as I plan to continue wearing my
watch on Shabbos, regardless.]

 -Toby Katz

I was wondering whether anyone had seen a discussion of women making a
Siyum (e.g., on A Seder Mishnayot or Mesechta of Shas) and reciting the
hadran and Kaddish de-Rabbanan. I would like to note that the oft cited
Teshuvah of the Havot Yair 222 is actually dealing with a case where the
men would gather in the house to learn and the Yetoma would say Kaddish
afterwards - presumably a Kaddish de-Rabbanan.

I found an article by R. Shlomo Borenstein "Siyum: Celebrating the
Completion of a Mitzva," The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society,"
XXVIII, Fall 1994 at p. 62, who discusses the matter of Siyum.
 He cites Rav Shlomo Wahrman, She'eirit Yosef, II, sec. 4 who holds that
a woman can make a siyum and her family and friends can eat meat. He
then cites Rav Sheinberg who argues that a siyum cannot be made since
she is an einah metsuvah, hence the siyum is of lesser importance. The
issue of the Kaddish is not discussed.

Kol Tuv
Aryeh

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

>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 

[Micha:]
>I'd be curious to see RYGB's R' Tzdoq inside, as it's hard to say
>that everything is lema'alah min hateva -- there is no teva left to be
>lema'alah from!

See Sefer HaZichronos Mitzvah 2; Machshevos Charutz #4 and Pri Tzaddik 
Vayigash #6.

YGB 

Micha Berger wrote
> First, how does "letovah" differ from "letav avad"? Both use the
> preposition "le-". If one means to include the consequences (which is
> nishmah from the "le-") wouldn't the other.

Tovah is to the person right now it is good (as in favor) - "sim shalom
tovah" Tov is good objectively, but not necessarily to this person right
now - "ha'tov ki lo chalu rachamecha."

YGB 

[R David Riceman:]
>Incidentally I wonder if Rabbi B, who is a staunch Desslerian, had this in
>mind when he said that sefiros exist only conceptually.  He may have meant
>in the greater scheme of things, in which the whole purpose of the world is
>to enable hesed, sefiros are no more than a tool to that end.

In both directions - me'l'eila t'tataah an me'tataah l'eila.

YGB  

R' Joel Rich asked <<< In R' Schwab on Prayer(P358) he states "... Torah
learning from written sefarim is only a temporary measure, a marker,
to stay the course, and keep us familiar with the Torah, until Bias
Hamashiach, when the ideal way of learning be'al paeh, orally, will
be reinstituted" Anyone know sources for this opinion? How does this
comport with the Gm saying (San 99a) only difference will be lack of
shibud malchiyot...? >>>

I would presume that "the only difference will be lack of shibud
malchiyot" is an exaggeration, intended for rhetorical purposes. Surely
there will be other differences, such as bringing korbanos, no?

Akiva Miller

BTW, RSV says the shade is NOT attached. However, the quote from Shemiras
Shabbas Kehilchasa still says that a shade of a lamp may be moved even
if it is. So, my question stands, just not about this particular lamp.

RnTK tried to find another case where this line between being one keli
or two legabei muqtza is relevent, the light in a digital watch. It
wouldn't help me determine what that line is, though.

Besides, the light button on your watch is less of a problem if it is
considered ONE keil. It's tafeil to the primary function of that keli --
being a watch. Otherwise you're moving a separate lamp.

-mi

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 (D*vorim Rabba 67:11). The Talmud (Shabbos
    85a) says that one who cracks open (ha*potzeiah) 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 p*tzias 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

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]