Nignaz

[rhecht]

 

R' Avrohom ben Horambam writes explicitly that we do NOT know what the chilazon is, the Radzyner didn't see that
 



 

Then the Radzyner Rebbe would have disagreed with you. See the second rejection to the third objection https://www.sefaria.org/Treasures_Hidde ... .5?lang=bi - boldness for emphasis:

"שנית
גם בלא בדיקה כלל, נראה לע"ד ברור, שאם נשיג חלזון לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, ויהיה נמצא בזה החלזון כל הסימנים והסגולות שנתנו חז"ל בזה החלזון שדברו בו, שוב אין לנו לספק כלל שודאי הוא אותו חלזון עצמו שכוונו עליו חז"ל, והרי חז"ל סמנו לנו את החלזון במס' מנחות (מד.) תנו רבנן חלזון זה גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג וכו' יעו"ש, ונראה ברור, שמשום הכי גופיה סמנו אותו, לאשר חז"ל שערו בחכמתם אשר לסיבת גליותינו וליקרת מציאותו קרוב הדבר שישכח מאתנו איזה הוא זה החלזון, לזאת ציירו וסמנו לנו סימני החלזון לידע לחפש אחריו כשיהיה לאל ידנו. תדע שהרי הרמב"ם ז"ל בחיבורו (שם) העתיק ברייתא זו, ודבר ידוע הוא שהרמב"ם בחיבורו אינו מביא דברי אגדה רק מה שיש נפקא מינה לדינא, אלא ודאי מייתי לה לדינא שנוכל לסמוך על סימנים הללו שזה הוא החלזון להכשיר דמו לתכלת. ובעניותין מצאנו עוד הרבה סימנים וסגולות בהחלזון מפוזרים בדברי חז"ל, והרמב"ם ז"ל הוסיף לתת בו סימנים מה שלא נזכרו בש"ס, אשר מזה אשפוט שהכיר את החלזון וראה אותו כנ"ל. אשר לזה נראה ברור, לכשנשיג מין חלזון שיהיו נמצאים בו כל הסימנים שיתבארו בעזה"י, אין לפקפק כלל לסמוך עליהם להכשירו לתכלת בלי בדיקה. דצורך הבדיקה הוא רק כשיש לנו ספק אם הוא דם חלזון, אבל כשברור לנו שהוא דם חלזון אין צורך בהבדיקה כלל. וזה ג"כ ביטול לטענה השניה, שהרי אפילו היה מפורש בתורה הצרכת החלזון בתכלת, ושהיתה הקפידא על מין חלזון אחד ידוע דוקא, הרי ג"כ ע"י הסימנים שימצאו בו בזה החלזון שנשיג נוכל לידע שבאמת זה הוא החלזון שצותה עליו תורה, שאם ימצאו בו אלו הסימנים שנתנו בו חז"ל ודאי זה הוא אותו החלזון עצמו, ובאמת שמזו הברייתא המסמנת את החלזון נראה דבקושטא חלזון אחר שאין לו אלו הסימנים, הגם שאפשר לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, אינו כשר לתכלת. וצריך לומר דקים להו דחלזון שאינו בא בסימנים הללו, אין צביעת דמו צביעה העומדת ביפיה ולא תשתנה:
"

"Secondly
even without testing at all it appears in my limited knowledge clear that if we were able to attain the Hillazon to dye with its blood the Techelet and there would be found in this Techelet all the signs and treasures that the Sages of blessed memory have given us regarding that Hillazon that they spoke of, then again, we not be at all doubtful that certainly this is the very same Hillazon the sages of blessed memory had intended. And the sage of blessed memory gave us signs regarding this Hillazon in Tractate Menachot 44. Our Rabbis taught: The Hillazon resembles the sea in its color (its essence ie. its blood) and in shape resembles a fish etc. And it seems clear that our sages gave us clear signs regarding the Hillazon for in their wisdom they saw that because of our exiles and the great expense in attaining it that it was almost certain that we would forget which is the correct Hillazon. Therefore they drew a clear picture for us and gave us all the sure signs of its identification so we would know how to search for it with G-d's help. You should know that Rambam (may his memory be a blessing) in Mishnah Torah copied this Braitha - And it is a known thing that Rambam does not bring in Aggadic material unless it has relevance to the law. So we must certainly say that it is a law that we can depend on the reliability of these signs that this is the Hillazon whose blood is kosher fit for dyeing the Techelet. (And in our lowly state) we have found many more signs and treasures regarding the Hillazon which are scattered throughout the words of our Sages of blessed memory. And the Rambam of blessed memory expounded and found other signs that were not mentioned in the Talmud. From this I can assume and judge that Rambam recognized and saw the Hillazon as is mentioned above. From this it appears quite clearly that when we are able to attain the kind of Hillazon which has all the signs that with G-d's help we shall clarify that beyond a shadow of a doubt that even without doing the test mentioned in the Talmud, it is kosher. The reason for the test is if we have a doubt whether this is really the blood of the Hillazon, but when it is clear to us that this is the correct type of blood there is not necessity for the test. This is also a rejection of the end objection for even if it was explicitly stated in the Torah the necessity for the Hillazon in Techelet and there was a stringency regarding a particular kind of Hillazon that specifically is known, so too if the Hillazon we find matches the correct sign this must be the very same Hillazon. And in truth from the Braitha what gives us the signs of the Hillazon it appears that actually any Hillazon which does not have these signs even if its possible to dye with the blood the color Techelet it is not kosher ( fit for use). And we must say that Hillazon that does not have these signs, the blood used for that we can learn dyeing does not retain its original beauty and it fades away.
"
 
 

[Mr. Genugshoin]

 

R' Avrohom ben Horambam writes explicitly that we do NOT know what the chilazon is, the Radzyner didn't see that
 




 

Then the Radzyner Rebbe would have disagreed with you. See the second rejection to the third objection https://www.sefaria.org/Treasures_Hidde ... .5?lang=bi - boldness for emphasis:

"שנית
גם בלא בדיקה כלל, נראה לע"ד ברור, שאם נשיג חלזון לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, ויהיה נמצא בזה החלזון כל הסימנים והסגולות שנתנו חז"ל בזה החלזון שדברו בו, שוב אין לנו לספק כלל שודאי הוא אותו חלזון עצמו שכוונו עליו חז"ל, והרי חז"ל סמנו לנו את החלזון במס' מנחות (מד.) תנו רבנן חלזון זה גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג וכו' יעו"ש, ונראה ברור, שמשום הכי גופיה סמנו אותו, לאשר חז"ל שערו בחכמתם אשר לסיבת גליותינו וליקרת מציאותו קרוב הדבר שישכח מאתנו איזה הוא זה החלזון, לזאת ציירו וסמנו לנו סימני החלזון לידע לחפש אחריו כשיהיה לאל ידנו. תדע שהרי הרמב"ם ז"ל בחיבורו (שם) העתיק ברייתא זו, ודבר ידוע הוא שהרמב"ם בחיבורו אינו מביא דברי אגדה רק מה שיש נפקא מינה לדינא, אלא ודאי מייתי לה לדינא שנוכל לסמוך על סימנים הללו שזה הוא החלזון להכשיר דמו לתכלת. ובעניותין מצאנו עוד הרבה סימנים וסגולות בהחלזון מפוזרים בדברי חז"ל, והרמב"ם ז"ל הוסיף לתת בו סימנים מה שלא נזכרו בש"ס, אשר מזה אשפוט שהכיר את החלזון וראה אותו כנ"ל. אשר לזה נראה ברור, לכשנשיג מין חלזון שיהיו נמצאים בו כל הסימנים שיתבארו בעזה"י, אין לפקפק כלל לסמוך עליהם להכשירו לתכלת בלי בדיקה. דצורך הבדיקה הוא רק כשיש לנו ספק אם הוא דם חלזון, אבל כשברור לנו שהוא דם חלזון אין צורך בהבדיקה כלל. וזה ג"כ ביטול לטענה השניה, שהרי אפילו היה מפורש בתורה הצרכת החלזון בתכלת, ושהיתה הקפידא על מין חלזון אחד ידוע דוקא, הרי ג"כ ע"י הסימנים שימצאו בו בזה החלזון שנשיג נוכל לידע שבאמת זה הוא החלזון שצותה עליו תורה, שאם ימצאו בו אלו הסימנים שנתנו בו חז"ל ודאי זה הוא אותו החלזון עצמו, ובאמת שמזו הברייתא המסמנת את החלזון נראה דבקושטא חלזון אחר שאין לו אלו הסימנים, הגם שאפשר לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, אינו כשר לתכלת. וצריך לומר דקים להו דחלזון שאינו בא בסימנים הללו, אין צביעת דמו צביעה העומדת ביפיה ולא תשתנה:
"

"Secondly
even without testing at all it appears in my limited knowledge clear that if we were able to attain the Hillazon to dye with its blood the Techelet and there would be found in this Techelet all the signs and treasures that the Sages of blessed memory have given us regarding that Hillazon that they spoke of, then again, we not be at all doubtful that certainly this is the very same Hillazon the sages of blessed memory had intended. And the sage of blessed memory gave us signs regarding this Hillazon in Tractate Menachot 44. Our Rabbis taught: The Hillazon resembles the sea in its color (its essence ie. its blood) and in shape resembles a fish etc. And it seems clear that our sages gave us clear signs regarding the Hillazon for in their wisdom they saw that because of our exiles and the great expense in attaining it that it was almost certain that we would forget which is the correct Hillazon. Therefore they drew a clear picture for us and gave us all the sure signs of its identification so we would know how to search for it with G-d's help. You should know that Rambam (may his memory be a blessing) in Mishnah Torah copied this Braitha - And it is a known thing that Rambam does not bring in Aggadic material unless it has relevance to the law. So we must certainly say that it is a law that we can depend on the reliability of these signs that this is the Hillazon whose blood is kosher fit for dyeing the Techelet. (And in our lowly state) we have found many more signs and treasures regarding the Hillazon which are scattered throughout the words of our Sages of blessed memory. And the Rambam of blessed memory expounded and found other signs that were not mentioned in the Talmud. From this I can assume and judge that Rambam recognized and saw the Hillazon as is mentioned above. From this it appears quite clearly that when we are able to attain the kind of Hillazon which has all the signs that with G-d's help we shall clarify that beyond a shadow of a doubt that even without doing the test mentioned in the Talmud, it is kosher. The reason for the test is if we have a doubt whether this is really the blood of the Hillazon, but when it is clear to us that this is the correct type of blood there is not necessity for the test. This is also a rejection of the end objection for even if it was explicitly stated in the Torah the necessity for the Hillazon in Techelet and there was a stringency regarding a particular kind of Hillazon that specifically is known, so too if the Hillazon we find matches the correct sign this must be the very same Hillazon. And in truth from the Braitha what gives us the signs of the Hillazon it appears that actually any Hillazon which does not have these signs even if its possible to dye with the blood the color Techelet it is not kosher ( fit for use). And we must say that Hillazon that does not have these signs, the blood used for that we can learn dyeing does not retain its original beauty and it fades away.
"
 
 

 

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The Radzyner didn't see the R' Avrohom ben Horambam, but we did and therefore we know for a fact that the Rambam did NOT know what the chilazon was.
 

[rhecht]

R' Avrohom ben Horambam writes explicitly that we do NOT know what the chilazon is, the Radzyner didn't see that
 





 

Then the Radzyner Rebbe would have disagreed with you. See the second rejection to the third objection https://www.sefaria.org/Treasures_Hidde ... .5?lang=bi - boldness for emphasis:

"שנית
גם בלא בדיקה כלל, נראה לע"ד ברור, שאם נשיג חלזון לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, ויהיה נמצא בזה החלזון כל הסימנים והסגולות שנתנו חז"ל בזה החלזון שדברו בו, שוב אין לנו לספק כלל שודאי הוא אותו חלזון עצמו שכוונו עליו חז"ל, והרי חז"ל סמנו לנו את החלזון במס' מנחות (מד.) תנו רבנן חלזון זה גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג וכו' יעו"ש, ונראה ברור, שמשום הכי גופיה סמנו אותו, לאשר חז"ל שערו בחכמתם אשר לסיבת גליותינו וליקרת מציאותו קרוב הדבר שישכח מאתנו איזה הוא זה החלזון, לזאת ציירו וסמנו לנו סימני החלזון לידע לחפש אחריו כשיהיה לאל ידנו. תדע שהרי הרמב"ם ז"ל בחיבורו (שם) העתיק ברייתא זו, ודבר ידוע הוא שהרמב"ם בחיבורו אינו מביא דברי אגדה רק מה שיש נפקא מינה לדינא, אלא ודאי מייתי לה לדינא שנוכל לסמוך על סימנים הללו שזה הוא החלזון להכשיר דמו לתכלת. ובעניותין מצאנו עוד הרבה סימנים וסגולות בהחלזון מפוזרים בדברי חז"ל, והרמב"ם ז"ל הוסיף לתת בו סימנים מה שלא נזכרו בש"ס, אשר מזה אשפוט שהכיר את החלזון וראה אותו כנ"ל. אשר לזה נראה ברור, לכשנשיג מין חלזון שיהיו נמצאים בו כל הסימנים שיתבארו בעזה"י, אין לפקפק כלל לסמוך עליהם להכשירו לתכלת בלי בדיקה. דצורך הבדיקה הוא רק כשיש לנו ספק אם הוא דם חלזון, אבל כשברור לנו שהוא דם חלזון אין צורך בהבדיקה כלל. וזה ג"כ ביטול לטענה השניה, שהרי אפילו היה מפורש בתורה הצרכת החלזון בתכלת, ושהיתה הקפידא על מין חלזון אחד ידוע דוקא, הרי ג"כ ע"י הסימנים שימצאו בו בזה החלזון שנשיג נוכל לידע שבאמת זה הוא החלזון שצותה עליו תורה, שאם ימצאו בו אלו הסימנים שנתנו בו חז"ל ודאי זה הוא אותו החלזון עצמו, ובאמת שמזו הברייתא המסמנת את החלזון נראה דבקושטא חלזון אחר שאין לו אלו הסימנים, הגם שאפשר לצבוע בדמו צבע התכלת, אינו כשר לתכלת. וצריך לומר דקים להו דחלזון שאינו בא בסימנים הללו, אין צביעת דמו צביעה העומדת ביפיה ולא תשתנה:
"

"Secondly
even without testing at all it appears in my limited knowledge clear that if we were able to attain the Hillazon to dye with its blood the Techelet and there would be found in this Techelet all the signs and treasures that the Sages of blessed memory have given us regarding that Hillazon that they spoke of, then again, we not be at all doubtful that certainly this is the very same Hillazon the sages of blessed memory had intended. And the sage of blessed memory gave us signs regarding this Hillazon in Tractate Menachot 44. Our Rabbis taught: The Hillazon resembles the sea in its color (its essence ie. its blood) and in shape resembles a fish etc. And it seems clear that our sages gave us clear signs regarding the Hillazon for in their wisdom they saw that because of our exiles and the great expense in attaining it that it was almost certain that we would forget which is the correct Hillazon. Therefore they drew a clear picture for us and gave us all the sure signs of its identification so we would know how to search for it with G-d's help. You should know that Rambam (may his memory be a blessing) in Mishnah Torah copied this Braitha - And it is a known thing that Rambam does not bring in Aggadic material unless it has relevance to the law. So we must certainly say that it is a law that we can depend on the reliability of these signs that this is the Hillazon whose blood is kosher fit for dyeing the Techelet. (And in our lowly state) we have found many more signs and treasures regarding the Hillazon which are scattered throughout the words of our Sages of blessed memory. And the Rambam of blessed memory expounded and found other signs that were not mentioned in the Talmud. From this I can assume and judge that Rambam recognized and saw the Hillazon as is mentioned above. From this it appears quite clearly that when we are able to attain the kind of Hillazon which has all the signs that with G-d's help we shall clarify that beyond a shadow of a doubt that even without doing the test mentioned in the Talmud, it is kosher. The reason for the test is if we have a doubt whether this is really the blood of the Hillazon, but when it is clear to us that this is the correct type of blood there is not necessity for the test. This is also a rejection of the end objection for even if it was explicitly stated in the Torah the necessity for the Hillazon in Techelet and there was a stringency regarding a particular kind of Hillazon that specifically is known, so too if the Hillazon we find matches the correct sign this must be the very same Hillazon. And in truth from the Braitha what gives us the signs of the Hillazon it appears that actually any Hillazon which does not have these signs even if its possible to dye with the blood the color Techelet it is not kosher ( fit for use). And we must say that Hillazon that does not have these signs, the blood used for that we can learn dyeing does not retain its original beauty and it fades away.
"
 
 


 

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The Radzyner didn't see the R' Avrohom ben Horambam, but we did and therefore we know for a fact that the Rambam did NOT know what the chilazon was.
 

 

Where does R' Avrohom ben HaRambam write this?
 

[Mr. Genugshoin]

המספיק לעובדי ה' הל' ציצית פרק לג
ומשום אי הכרת דג זה על ידי מסורת מדויקת נמנעה מהמאוחרים עשיית תכלת

[rhecht]

המספיק לעובדי ה' הל' ציצית פרק לג
ומשום אי הכרת דג זה על ידי מסורת מדויקת נמנעה מהמאוחרים עשיית תכלת

 

Interesting. Yet at the same time he eloquently described how to crack it open, suggesting that we lost the Mesorah for which type of "fish" it was even though there was no doubt it was a sea snail (which one is another story). And apparently the dyeing process is very similar across all these "fish" since Rambam describes to dye the way dyers normally do. The only thing Rambam was concerned about was if it was done with intent for a mitzva: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm .

[Mr. Genugshoin]

המספיק לעובדי ה' הל' ציצית פרק לג
ומשום אי הכרת דג זה על ידי מסורת מדויקת נמנעה מהמאוחרים עשיית תכלת


 

Interesting. Yet at the same time he eloquently described how to crack it open, suggesting that we lost the Mesorah for which type of "fish" it was even though there was no doubt it was a sea snail (which one is another story). And apparently the dyeing process is very similar across all these "fish" since Rambam describes to dye the way dyers normally do. The only thing Rambam was concerned about was if it was done with intent for a mitzva: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm .

 

Rabbi Yechiel Perr wrote that the comparison to a nut is not cracking a hard shell, rather it refers to breaking it on a seam.
Either way, from the fact that the Rambam describes it as having black blood, we can infer that they had some form of Mesorah about the chilazon.
 

[rhecht]

המספיק לעובדי ה' הל' ציצית פרק לג
ומשום אי הכרת דג זה על ידי מסורת מדויקת נמנעה מהמאוחרים עשיית תכלת



 

Interesting. Yet at the same time he eloquently described how to crack it open, suggesting that we lost the Mesorah for which type of "fish" it was even though there was no doubt it was a sea snail (which one is another story). And apparently the dyeing process is very similar across all these "fish" since Rambam describes to dye the way dyers normally do. The only thing Rambam was concerned about was if it was done with intent for a mitzva: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... er-Two.htm .


 

Rabbi Yechiel Perr wrote that the comparison to a nut is not cracking a hard shell, rather it refers to breaking it on a seam.
Either way, from the fact that the Rambam describes it as having black blood, we can infer that they had some form of Mesorah about the chilazon.
 

 

Yes, Rabbi Perr is the Rav of Yeshiva of Far Rockaway and it's well established that he's been anti Techeiles for decades, writing something on it over 20 years ago (https://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/0954.pdf) with the conclusion that Ptil's efforts are distressing. So unless he changed his stance to be more neutral we need to understand that he's coming with some bias. Whether he's researched the new findings since then to do so is another matter.

Also, whether cracking is breaking on a seam or smashing a hard shell is irrelevant: there are many ways to crack a walnut and many ways how to smash a shell if you really want to get granular. And the murex excavations have shown shells smashed many different ways for the purpose of dyeing.

At any rate, we know that the blood is "black/dark like ink" similar to how we say something is "sweet as honey." Honey has a certain sweetness and consistency. Black like ink really means it's a specific shade of black, hence dark as pure black has no shades. In addition, Rambam also writes that the color of Tzitzis needs to match the color of the beged, save for Shachor, which is the color of Techeiles. And we all also know that Techeiles is midday sky blue according to the Rambam.

black like ink 2.png

 
 

[Mr. Genugshoin]

I think it's unfair to call Rabbi Perr's opinion "biased", he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone.

It does make a difference, R' Avrohom ben Horambam never said it has a shell, he just compared it to opening on the seam.

As far as black blood, it's obvious that the Rambam meant it literally, there's no point in arguing abut it- which means that he had some sort of mesorah about it.

[rhecht]

 Mr.
I think it's unfair to call Rabbi Perr's opinion "biased", he is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone.

It does make a difference, R' Avrohom ben Horambam never said it has a shell, he just compared it to opening on the seam.

As far as black blood, it's obvious that the Rambam meant it literally, there's no point in arguing abut it- which means that he had some sort of mesorah about it.







 

The points your brought up are where we agree to disagree. Also, I didn't want to rail against him as he's a tremendous Talmid Chochom, but you asked for it

In his letter, Rabbi Perr writes:

"No doubt this is because there is a perfectly good word for snail in the Mishnah Shabbat 77b, “shavlul”. This is also used in an Aramaic form in the Gemara Menachot 42b, “shavlulita”. The contention that the Sages of the Talmud held the chilazon in their hands, and did not use the word snail for it, but chose to call it a fish, is completely untenable. "

The issue is, “shavlulita” doesn't mean snail at all. Shavlilta means fenugreek, which was used for the method of testing Techeiles. (https://www.sefaria.org/Menachot.42b.16 ... l&lang2=en)

Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 2.50.11 PM.png

Screenshot 2023-03-16 at 2.59.54 PM.png

 

There are a bunch of other issues with that letter but I think this one suffices for my justification of saying what I did (respectfully) about Rabbi Perr.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Mr. Genugshoin]

I never said everything in his letter is correct, but I think it's unfair to call someone biased just because he has a different opinion, right or wrong.