In my mind, if it's real it would be the very opposite of Torah chinuch to hand a child a 4-corner garment without Techeiles. It's actually anti-Chinuch!
If it's only a safek then the parent has a choice to either not give the child a 4-corner garment at all, or to tie it with Techeiles.
I don't understand the "middle of the roaders" at all!
Must children wear Techeiles?
-
Username: Mr. Genugshoin
Full Name: Yitzchok Weiss - Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:27 pm
- Location: Anshei Kartufel, Broom St.
- Contact:
Their tzitzis isn't the right size anyway...
I'm not sure you're correct.
It is the right size for them.
What would you pasken for an adult dwarf?
Especially according the Baal Tanya who opposed folding tzitit, what are they supposed to do, and the fringes themselves aren't allowed to be dragged on the floor?
Even assuming you are right, it is absolutely the right size derabanan-wise and derabanan follows the rules of deoraisa, so we are back to the same conundrum.
No?
It is the right size for them.
What would you pasken for an adult dwarf?
Especially according the Baal Tanya who opposed folding tzitit, what are they supposed to do, and the fringes themselves aren't allowed to be dragged on the floor?
Even assuming you are right, it is absolutely the right size derabanan-wise and derabanan follows the rules of deoraisa, so we are back to the same conundrum.
No?
Indeed, if someone is 100% sure that this is techeiles, and that they know the correct color, they should probably put it on their kids.
However, anybody who is 100% certain is simply misinformed, as there is no absolute proof that this is techeiles, and most definitely not in the color it is widely used. So I would recommend they first study the topic a bit more, particularly with actually checking up the references quoted in the techeiles kuntereisim.
However, anybody who is 100% certain is simply misinformed, as there is no absolute proof that this is techeiles, and most definitely not in the color it is widely used. So I would recommend they first study the topic a bit more, particularly with actually checking up the references quoted in the techeiles kuntereisim.
Where does it say anyway the exact shade of blue matters at all (as it does with niddus)?
Correction:
*anywhere
*anywhere
Well what if you make pink from the murex? There's gotta be some guidelines.
So you'll say, anything that has blue. But if murex is techeiles, it is most probably the blue purple color, in which case the translation of techeiles is blue purple, as opposed to argaman which is red purple. So why would you think that if you remove all the purple it's still good? Who draws the line of what's good and whats not?
So you'll say, anything that has blue. But if murex is techeiles, it is most probably the blue purple color, in which case the translation of techeiles is blue purple, as opposed to argaman which is red purple. So why would you think that if you remove all the purple it's still good? Who draws the line of what's good and whats not?
You write "no absolute proof that this is techeiles".
Well, since when do Torah laws require "absolute proof" for anything?!
You may be familiar with the seminal words of the Milchamos' intro (see inside):
Well, since when do Torah laws require "absolute proof" for anything?!
You may be familiar with the seminal words of the Milchamos' intro (see inside):
יודע כל לומד תלמודנו שאין במחלוקת מפרשיו ראיות גמורות ולא ברוב קושיות חלוטות שאין בחכמה הזאת מופת ברור כגון חשבוני התשבורות ונסיוני התכונה אבל נשים כל מאדנו ודיינו מכל מחלוקת בהרחיק אחת מן הדעות בסברות מכריעות ונדחוק עליה השמועות ונשים יתרון הכשר לבעל דינה מפשטי ההלכות והוגן סוגיות עם הסכמת השכל הנכון וזאת תכלית יכלתנו. וכוונת כל חכם וירא האלהים בחכמת הגמרא
Well I don't think there is proof at all for the murex from a halachik standpoint. The only proof there is, is assuming the chilazon is a snail, so where are all the shells of the chilazon? (I'm saying this after reading the articles of many historians and academics. This is what it all boils down to. The kuntreisim on techeiles bring other "proofs", but they're all based on misreading of ancient sources, or similar amateur errors)
Now im not saying thats a particularly bad proof. But from a halachik standpoint such a proof doesnt carry any weight. Since it's not a direct proof pointing to the murex, rather based on ruling out others.
additionally, while you can make a good case for the murex as blue-purple techeiles, it is very hard to make a case for pure blue techeiles like is done today.
Now im not saying thats a particularly bad proof. But from a halachik standpoint such a proof doesnt carry any weight. Since it's not a direct proof pointing to the murex, rather based on ruling out others.
additionally, while you can make a good case for the murex as blue-purple techeiles, it is very hard to make a case for pure blue techeiles like is done today.
I don't know what you mean. Where did you see this?"The only proof there is, is assuming the chilazon is a snail, so where are all the shells of the chilazon?"
Can you prove that?"from a halachik standpoint such [indirect] proof doesnt carry any weight"
I don't know what you mean."while you can make a good case for the murex as blue-purple techeiles, it is very hard to make a case for pure blue techeiles like is done today"
Numbered among those wearing the murex are plenty of tora sages who know enough science and know how to read critically.
Can you point to any text making the countercase in a convincing way?
