Tekhlet

[The Thadman]

There are a number of theories on where tekhlet came from. Which one do you ascribe to?

I happen to believe that it was indigo, a dye which many archeologists argue is the oldest of dyes. Egypt was known for its fine indigo dying, and Moses was given the commandement after the Hebrews were loosed from Egypt's grip, taking their wealth with them.

Additionally, it is ritually clean where the dye from snails, muscles, or squid is not, so one would have to handle the corpses of dean unclean animals to extract the dye, making them ritually unclean themselves.

What do you guys think?

Peace!
-Steve-o

[Henaynei]

Additionally, it is ritually clean where the dye from snails, muscles, or squid is not, so one would have to handle the corpses of unclean animals to extract the dye, making them ritually unclean themselves.

What do you guys think?

Peace!
-Steve-oJust as they had to handle the corpse of the red heifer, an unclean thing and making themselves unclean, yet the *product* was not only clean but it is the agent used to rid of all kinds of uncleanness, including cleansing and sanctifying the Temple.... hmmm...

Additionally, Jewish historical sources state that it was a mollusk (or snail, can't remember), in the reading I have had the chance to do.....

[simchat_torah]

Henaynei is correct, there are various products used in the service to HaShem that were not of clean nature, such as the sacrafice of a donkey, etc. As well, Jewish historians point out that the particular shade of blue was created from a muscle/snail (the murex trunculus snail to be specific).

-yafet

[Sephania]

But the true question that I have always had was where in the "wilderness" do you find the snail? And in abundance no less? If this was a miracle I should think it would be mentioned. You would sure need a lot of it to make all the wool dyed for the curtains, let alone 650,000 X 4 tzitzit for the men of Israel!

That's not a mere bag O' shells that is truckloads full! :)

[simchat_torah]

Was the same dye used for the curtains that of the tzitzit also?

[simchat_torah]

I believe there is a large misunderstanding of clean and unclean. Often, simply touching something unclean does not make one unclean. This only applied to very specific things.

For example, petting a cat or dog does not render one unclean. However, eating their meat is strictly forbidden.

[simchat_torah]

The gematria (numerical value )of the word tzitzit is 600. There are five knots and eight threads that must be observed. By adding all of these values we get the sum of 613... . When the molecules of the blue color called tekhelet, extracted from the murex trunculus snail are measured, the reading peaks at exactly 613 nanometers.Is this a coincidence that techelet reads 613 on the nanometer?

Some would argue the Rabbis were led of the spirit of Satan, others argue that the Ruach HaKodesh guided them through time as they protected the Torah.

Thadman, I know that the Karaite view desperately wants to paint the Rabbis as wrong on every issue, but maybe.... just maybe they were led by the Ruach on a few issues? nu?

-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

The quote above comes from this article: http://www.vendyljones.org.il/true_colors.htm
However, you can find it in dozens and dozens of sources.

[simchat_torah]

A few more sources for those who are interested:
http://www.tekhelet.com/tidbit14.htm
(I like that one ;) )


http://www.borhatorah.org/article1.html



http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5764/tzav64/specialfeatures.htm


enjoy!
-Yafet

[simchat_torah]

FYI.... even the talmud states the chilazon (a snail) to be the origin of the dye used for techelet. Thus, even in Y'shua's time this was not quesitoned.

-yafet

[simchat_torah]

Zayit,

Purple and blue dyes were often imported from Crete in the Middle East as far back as 1750 bce (and earlier). Of course, Crete would be in abundance of this sea snail ;) So there wouldn't be a shortage there of.


shalom,
yafet

[simchat_torah]

Thadman,

I'm not sure what your sources are for stating:
I happen to believe that it was indigo, a dye which many archeologists argue is the oldest of dyes. . Egypt was known for its fine indigo dying, and Moses was given the commandement after the Hebrews were loosed from Egypt's grip, taking their wealth with them.


As I stated, Crete was an exporter of Blue dyes as early as 1750 bce (and possibly earlier) and Chemical analysis of dye stains on an ancient vat (circa 1200 bce) are found to be molecularly equivalent to dye from Murex snails. Other archaeological finds at numerous sites (circa 1200-900 bce) reveals an advanced dye industry using Murex snails established on the Canaanite coast.

[simchat_torah]

In other words, Murex snails were used quite extensively in the ancient world as a blue dye extract. Compound this with no mentions of 'egyptian indigo' in historical documents.... and well... ;) you get the picture.

[The Thadman]

In other words, Murex snails were used quite extensively in the ancient world as a blue dye extract. Compound this with no mentions of 'egyptian indigo' in historical documents.... and well... ;) you get the picture.

How about:

Experts say that Egyptian mummy clothes from the third millennium B C (not futuristic AD!) had borders of indigo dyed stripes. Blue was a predominant colour in the funeral wardrobe of Tutenkhamen. Blue is the only colour found in the earliest dyed linen fragment of ancient Israel and Palestine. The linen wraps of urns containing the Dead Sea scrolls carried symbolic geometric patterns in blue. Babylonian texts talk of garments dyed in blue and there is even one which gives the method for dyeing in indigo. The Bible speaks of "blue clothes and embroidered work" traded by the merchants of Sheba. Blue silk fragments of the third millennium B C have been found in China. (http://www.chennaionline.com/artscene/craftpalace/history/indigo.asp)

All indigo.

[b]Indigo is a blue dyestuff that was known in ancient Egypt and India; a number of mummies have been discovered that were wrapped in an indigo-dyed cloth. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h604.html)

Indigo is the modern English name for the pigment, however, there are several names by which the ancient Greeks and Egyptians also referred to indigo; n-tinkon in Egypt and indikon in Greece. (http://www.sewanee.edu/chem/Chem&Art/Detail_Pages/Pigments/Indigo)

Textiles coloured with Indigo dating back to 2,500 B.C. habe been found in Thebes/Egypt. Herodotus knew of it. (http://www.zum.de/whkmla/economy/plants/indigo.html)

The ancients of Egypt, Greece and Rome knew indigo. Mummies of Egypt's XVIII dynasty (about 1600 BC) were wrapped in indigo-dyed cloth. (http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/I_0053.htm)

Indigo was known and was in use in the times of Moses.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Was the same dye used for the curtains that of the tzitzit also?

Yeppers. :)

Indigo -thrives- in arid places and is created by process of fermentation (another process perfectly suited by the climate of the area).

Murex snails do not :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Is this a coincidence that techelet reads 613 on the nanometer?

Some would argue the Rabbis were led of the spirit of Satan, others argue that the Ruach HaKodesh guided them through time as they protected the Torah.

Thadman, I know that the Karaite view desperately wants to paint the Rabbis as wrong on every issue, but maybe.... just maybe they were led by the Ruach on a few issues? nu?

-Yafet

There are more than 613 commandments in the Torah, not including "duplicate" commandments. I'm currently in the middle of a project that involves counting them. :)

613 is an arbitrary, incorrect number. :) Some mitzwot on the 613 list aren't even found in the Tanakh!

I do not think that the rabbim are wrong on -every- issue, but that they are wrong on some very pertinent issues which are all too pervasive in modern day Judaism. :)

Peace, akhi!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Just as they had to handle the corpse of the red heifer, an unclean thing and making themselves unclean, yet the *product* was not only clean but it is the agent used to rid of all kinds of uncleanness, including cleansing and sanctifying the Temple.... hmmm...

Clean animals that die of themselves, not animals that are slaughtered :)

Leviticus 11
39 “‘If any animal, of which you may eat, dies; he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening. 40 He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.

Not animals that are slaughtered or sacrificed: those that die. Otherwise this means that -every- time you eat meat you're ritually unclean, which was never the case.

Additionally, Jewish historical sources state that it was a mollusk (or snail, can't remember), in the reading I have had the chance to do.....

Snails, especially Murex, couldn't survive in the wilderness. Indigo could.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[Henaynei]

Clean animals that die of themselves, not animals that are slaughtered :)
Not animals that are slaughtered or sacrificed: those that die. Otherwise this means that -every- time you eat meat you're ritually unclean, which was never the case.
Peace!
-Steve-oI'm Sorry, Steve, but according to the Torah that just is not so:
B'Midbar

19:2 "This is the regulation from the Torah which ADONAI has commanded. Tell the people of Isra'el to bring you a young red female cow without fault or defect and which has never borne a yoke.

19:3 You are to give it to El'azar the cohen; it is to be brought outside the camp and slaughtered in front of him.

19:4 El'azar the cohen is to take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle this blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times.

19:5 The heifer is to be burned to ashes before his eyes -its skin, meat, blood and dung is to be burned to ashes.

19:6 The cohen is to take cedar-wood, hyssop and scarlet yarn and throw them onto the heifer as it is burning up.

19:7 Then the cohen is to wash his clothes and himself in water, after which he may re-enter the camp; but the cohen will remain unclean until evening.

19:8 The person who burned up the heifer is to wash his clothes and himself in water, but he will remain unclean until evening.

19:9 A man who is clean is to collect the ashes of the heifer and store them outside the camp in a clean place. They are to be kept for the community of the people of Isra'el to prepare water for purification from sin.

19:10 The one who collected the ashes of the heifer is to wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. For the people of Isra'el and for the foreigner staying with them this will be a permanent regulation.


So you can clearly see that *3*persons were made UNclean by not just the slaughter but the sacrifice of a CLEAN animal that they were very specifically instructed to sacrifice by HaShem. They were ALL unclean ;)

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[simchat_torah]

http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifExperts say that Egyptian mummy clothes from the third millennium B C (not futuristic AD!) had borders of indigo dyed stripes. Blue was a predominant colour in the funeral wardrobe of Tutenkhamen. Blue is the only colour found in the earliest dyed linen fragment of ancient Israel and Palestine. The linen wraps of urns containing the Dead Sea scrolls carried symbolic geometric patterns in blue. Babylonian texts talk of garments dyed in blue and there is even one which gives the method for dyeing in indigo. The Bible speaks of "blue clothes and embroidered work" traded by the merchants of Sheba. Blue silk fragments of the third millennium B C have been found in China. (http://www.chennaionline.com/artsce...tory/indigo.asp (http://www.chennaionline.com/artscene/craftpalace/history/indigo.asp)) http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

All indigo.Wait a minute... in your own quote, it says:Blue was a predominant colour in the funeral wardrobe of Tutenkhamen. Blue is the only colour found in the earliest dyed linen fragment of ancient Israel and Palestine.
...
The linen wraps of urns containing the Dead Sea scrolls carried symbolic geometric patterns in blue. Babylonian texts talk of garments dyed in blue and there is even one which gives the method for dyeing in indigo.

Seems to me your very own quote contradicts what you have to say. "there is even one... for dyehing in indigo" would lead one to think the predominant was blue, let alone the rest of your quote ^ up there states blue was used. Egypt was a large importer of Crete blue dyes, as well, collected their own blue dyes.

even this:

http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gifIndigo is a blue dyestuff that was known in ancient Egypt</B> and India; a number of mummies have been discovered that were wrapped in an indigo-dyed cloth. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h604.html)http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif

... makes me wonder if you're not reading your own quotes???

There are more than 613 commandments in the Torah, not including "duplicate" commandments. I'm currently in the middle of a project that involves counting them.
Every Jewish source you find will tell you there are 613 mitzvot. The ones that are exact duplicates are not counted, but are included in a single mitvah of the 613.

This is not Judaism what you speak of. :( sorry.

Clean animals that die of themselves, not animals that are slaughtered :)


http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-left.gifQuote:http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-top-right-10.gif[b]Leviticus 11
39 “‘If any animal, of which you may eat, dies; he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening. 40 He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.http://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-left.gifhttp://www.christianforums.com/images/quotes/quot-bot-right.gif


Not animals that are slaughtered or sacrificed: those that die. Otherwise this means that -every- time you eat meat you're ritually unclean, which was never the case.Leviticus 11 is speaking of animals which were considered food, and that which had died (of deseases, etc). Not of animals which were killed. Which by your standards, cow, chicken, and any fish that was killed, whether for eating or dying the tzitzit, would be unclean.

Seems to be a double standard Steve-o.

-yafet

[The Thadman]

Wait a minute... in your own quote, it says:Blue was a predominant colour in the funeral wardrobe of Tutenkhamen. Blue is the only colour found in the earliest dyed linen fragment of ancient Israel and Palestine.
...
The linen wraps of urns containing the Dead Sea scrolls carried symbolic geometric patterns in blue. Babylonian texts talk of garments dyed in blue and there is even one which gives the method for dyeing in indigo.

Seems to me your very own quote contradicts what you have to say. "there is even one... for dyehing in indigo" would lead one to think the predominant was blue, let alone the rest of your quote ^ up there states blue was used. Egypt was a large importer of Crete blue dyes, as well, collected their own blue dyes.


even this:

... makes me wonder if you're not reading your own quotes???[/font]

Can you cite me some sources of Egypt in Biblical times importing Crete blue dyes?

Those articles were about the uses of INDIGO in the ancient world.


Every Jewish source you find will tell you there are 613 mitzvot. The ones that are exact duplicates are not counted, but are included in a single mitvah of the 613.

This is not Judaism what you speak of. :( sorry.



Have you counted them yourself? :) It'll surprise you.

There are over 700 in Genesis and Exodus alone.


Leviticus 11 is speaking of animals which were considered food, and that which had died (of deseases, etc). Not of animals which were killed. Which by your standards, cow, chicken, and any fish that was killed, whether for eating or dying the tzitzit, would be unclean.

Seems to be a double standard Steve-o.

-yafet

That's what I said. This is NOT talking about slaughtered or sacrificed ritually clean animals, this is talking about ritually clean animals that die of themselves. I'm curious how somehow my words were interpreted as the opposite of what I tried to say...

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

I'm Sorry, Steve, but according to the Torah that just is not so:
B'Midbar

19:2 "This is the regulation from the Torah which ADONAI has commanded. Tell the people of Isra'el to bring you a young red female cow without fault or defect and which has never borne a yoke.

19:3 You are to give it to El'azar the cohen; it is to be brought outside the camp and slaughtered in front of him.

19:4 El'azar the cohen is to take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle this blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times.

19:5 The heifer is to be burned to ashes before his eyes -its skin, meat, blood and dung is to be burned to ashes.

19:6 The cohen is to take cedar-wood, hyssop and scarlet yarn and throw them onto the heifer as it is burning up.

19:7 Then the cohen is to wash his clothes and himself in water, after which he may re-enter the camp; but the cohen will remain unclean until evening.

19:8 The person who burned up the heifer is to wash his clothes and himself in water, but he will remain unclean until evening.

19:9 A man who is clean is to collect the ashes of the heifer and store them outside the camp in a clean place. They are to be kept for the community of the people of Isra'el to prepare water for purification from sin.

19:10 The one who collected the ashes of the heifer is to wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. For the people of Isra'el and for the foreigner staying with them this will be a permanent regulation.


So you can clearly see that *3*persons were made UNclean by not just the slaughter but the sacrifice of a CLEAN animal that they were very specifically instructed to sacrifice by HaShem. They were ALL unclean ;)

b'Shalom
Henaynei


Note what the Red Heifer was a sacrifice -for-. This is the ONLY sacrifice whereby those who are involved become ritually unclean. Note that the sacrifice of the scapegoat requires washing, but the priest is NOT unclean, and there are other bovine sacrifices whereby the priest is not unclean.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Additionally, no one has dealt with the issue of where the Hebrews could have gotten the Murex dye wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years where indigo was abundant and easily grown (it grows in Death Valley, CA for crying out loud!).

Peace!
-Steve-o

[Sephania]

Forgive me if my memory is poor, but in most articles I have read regarding this and I am sure I have at least two to three mags in the house right now that have articles on this but I thought that the murex from which this dye is taken is found on the Mediterranean, and that there was only one family of Israel that knew the secret of making this dye. Something about the Hasmonean period, Maccabean times when Antiocus wiped out the whole family and the secret died with them?
And it's been "lost" until just recently? This begs the question if it was so prominent as you say and in possession of many other civilazations then how did it get "lost"?

BTW I don't believe that there is a commandment not to touch shellfish is there? Just not to eat them. Tell me it isn't so or else I have to chuck my whole shell collection and I think they are beautiful, artful creations of HaShem.

[brentsbaby612]

Forgive me if I'm rude.
This is all very interesting, but why does it matter where they got their dye?
Does it prove something that I'm missing??:confused:

[Henaynei]

Forgive me if my memory is poor, but in most articles I have read regarding this and I am sure I have at least two to three mags in the house right now that have articles on this but I thought that the murex from which this dye is taken is found on the Mediterranean, and that there was only one family of Israel that knew the secret of making this dye. Something about the Hasmonean period, Maccabean times when Antiocus wiped out the whole family and the secret died with them?
And it's been "lost" until just recently? This begs the question if it was so prominent as you say and in possession of many other civilazations then how did it get "lost"?

BTW I don't believe that there is a commandment not to touch shellfish is there? Just not to eat them. Tell me it isn't so or else I have to chuck my whole shell collection and I think they are beautiful, artful creations of HaShem.
You have a point there - camels and their hides were used in commerce, travel and making dwellings - no record of that making anyone unclean. Only if it had died of itself and not slaughtered.

[Henaynei]

Forgive me if I'm rude.
This is all very interesting, but why does it matter where they got their dye?
Does it prove something that I'm missing??:confused: Yes, actually :) It has to do with *what* color the "ribband of blue" in the tzitzit was and should be according to scripture and rabbinic teaching :) Doing things correctly is very important in Judaism, rather than just doing it how ever suits our fancy and our own individual interpretations ;) It is so important that when the ones who knew how to make the special dye died and no one else knew how to make it - the tzitzit were then worn without the blue string rather than use the wrong color - and sometimes a black string was used to signify that we knew that there was supposed to be a colored string but we did not know how to make it...... until recently when some folks have rediscovered a technique they believe replicates the original process -- so now, some groups are again using this blue in their tzitziot :)

[The Thadman]

Yes, actually It has to do with *what* color the "ribband of blue" in the tzitzit was and should be according to scripture and rabbinic teaching Doing things correctly is very important in Judaism, rather than just doing it how ever suits our fancy and our own individual interpretations It is so important that when the ones who knew how to make the special dye died and no one else knew how to make it - the tzitzit were then worn without the blue string rather than use the wrong color - and sometimes a black string was used to signify that we knew that there was supposed to be a colored string but we did not know how to make it...... until recently when some folks have rediscovered a technique they believe replicates the original process -- so now, some groups are again using this blue in their tzitziot
#1) Tekhlet is used to describe a varrying range of shades of blue in the Tanakh. It was used as the english word "blue" is used. Murex snails, in reality, make a purple or ruddy (not blue) dye and purple is differenciated from tekhlet in the Tanakh.

#2) To not wear blue in one's tzitzit breaks the mitzwot :)

#3) If "some folks have rediscovered a technique they believe replicates the original process" does this not "(do things) how ever suits our fancy and our own individual interpretations" ? They don't know for sure, and under this rabbinic thought, "Why chance using the wrong color?" :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[Henaynei]

#1) Tekhlet is used to describe a varrying range of shades of blue in the Tanakh. It was used as the english word "blue" is used. Murex snails, in reality, make a purple or ruddy (not blue) dye and purple is differenciated from tekhlet in the Tanakh.

#2) To not wear blue in one's tzitzit breaks the mitzwot :)

#3) If "some folks have rediscovered a technique they believe replicates the original process" does this not "(do things) how ever suits our fancy and our own individual interpretations" ? They don't know for sure, and under this rabbinic thought, "Why chance using the wrong color?" :)

Peace!
-Steve-o Steve, really :) I was not trying to take issue with you and your POV - I WAS only trying to explain to BB why it IS an issue ;)

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[simchat_torah]

#1) Tekhlet is used to describe a varrying range of shades of blue in the Tanakh. It was used as the english word "blue" is used. Murex snails, in reality, make a purple or ruddy (not blue) dye and purple is differenciated from tekhlet in the Tanakh.
Have you not seen the Tzitzit that is colored with Techelet, and more specifically murex snails? Here is a pile of techelet tzitzit before it is tied: http://www.borhatorah.org/article1-2.jpg

It is clearly and obviously blue, no question about it.

#3) If "some folks have rediscovered a technique they believe replicates the original process" does this not "(do things) how ever suits our fancy and our own individual interpretations" ? They don't know for sure, and under this rabbinic thought, "Why chance using the wrong color?" :)
The same can be said in reverse achi.

[simchat_torah]

here's another good pic:
http://www.a-zara.com/images/products/d508-l.jpg

shows quite clearly the techelet made from murex snails.

[rooster]

The Great Snail Debate continues

If i'm not wrong this Murax snail(used to make Imperial purple dye) was one of the most valuable good traded by the phoenicians. The snail can make dyes across a spectrum of colours(from red to blue to violet) done by boiling the liquid from the rotting snail across a different period of time.
If it was made by phoenicians it would be quite a lot closer to the wandering Jews right? Although the Phoenicians were sea traders, it is quite possible that some enterprising semite could be peddling the dye across land routes to Egypt.
But if indigo was already in the desert........

[The Thadman]

here's another good pic:
http://www.a-zara.com/images/products/d508-l.jpg

shows quite clearly the techelet made from murex snails.

That same shade can be made with indigo, too :)

Additionally, was it not murex snails that were used to dye roman clothing? Specifically the "purple" stripe on togas?

Peace!
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

That same shade can be made with indigo, too :)

Additionally, was it not murex snails that were used to dye roman clothing? Specifically the "purple" stripe on togas?
Irrelevant.

[simchat_torah]

how many shades can you get with indigo?


another irrelevant question.

[simchat_torah]

If i'm not wrong this Murax snail(used to make Imperial purple dye) was one of the most valuable good traded by the phoenicians. The snail can make dyes across a spectrum of colours(from red to blue to violet) done by boiling the liquid from the rotting snail across a different period of time.
Yep.

[The Thadman]

The same can be said in reverse achi.

How so? Blue is blue. I'd use blue. :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

The reverse is... why chance going against the Beit Din, an institution HaShem possibly set up?

If we follow after something out of fear to *not* break a possibility, you'd not be questioning the Beit Din. However, you are. Thus, we can not follow after your possibilities unless we have something grounded, follow? How can you demand us to chase after a possibility when you yourself have not made the same committment? That's what I meant.

============================================

You see, by all historical accounts in Judaism, the Murex snails were used for the dye. The questioning of this only comes by way of those who declare all Rabbinical things wrong/evil. There is no evidence that tzitzit were made with indigo. none.

You may argue that Indigo was used in ancient times, and I may argue that Murex snails were used for dye in anceint times. But I have an upper hand in that I have acutal ancient sources that declare the use of the snails for the dye in Tzitzit.

The only step I have to take to follow your interpretation is to declare all things rabbinical... as evil.

[simchat_torah]

Additionally, no one has dealt with the issue of where the Hebrews could have gotten the Murex dye wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years where indigo was abundant and easily grown (it grows in Death Valley, CA for crying out loud!).
Tell you what, I'll choose to deal with that when you tell me how the Jews found shelter, clothing, firewood, food, medicines, etc... for forty years ;)
HaShem miraculously provides. But that's besides the point. Could not the powdered dye be brought along with them?

All this question does is interject points of view based on skepticism, assumptions, and guesswork. Nothing along these lines can be answered with absolutes. Its all speculation... nothing more.

[Sephania]

I too have wondered about this with my questions above indicate, however I do not appreciate being lumped in a grouping such as this because I want to understand.

The questioning of this only comes by way of those who declare all Rabbinical things wrong/evil.
I have not, nor do I think I would ever declare all ( or even some) Rabbinacal findings wrong or evil. There are different schools of thought yes, but really.

[simchat_torah]

I wasn't speaking of you Zayit. I was saying that the use of Murex snails had never been questioned before until certain messianic groups rose up and declared all rabbinical things evil.

It seems the modern Karaite movement has done the same lately.

I'm not speaking of individuals at this point.

[simchat_torah]

I was speaking more to the origins of where this line of questioning comes from. Sorry if I wasn't too clear there ;)

[The Thadman]

The reverse is... why chance going against the Beit Din, an institution HaShem possibly set up?

If we follow after something out of fear to *not* break a possibility, you'd not be questioning the Beit Din. However, you are. Thus, we can not follow after your possibilities unless we have something grounded, follow? How can you demand us to chase after a possibility when you yourself have not made the same committment? That's what I meant.

Possibly? IMHO, I don't see that as a possibility. :)

If it -was- a possibility, I'd then have to ask: "Which Beit Din?" ;)

The questioning of this only comes by way of those who declare all Rabbinical things wrong/evil.

The only step I have to take to follow your interpretation is to declare all things rabbinical... as evil.

Yafet, you -know- that's not my stance, and I do take offense at you pushing that fallacious point. Please take that into account when you formulate future replies.

Simply because I do not agree with rabbinic sources does not mean that I see them as evil. In the same strain, simply because I do not agree with you does not mean that I see you as evil. Furthermore I assume, that simply because you disagree with me that you do not see me as evil. Have I illustrated this sufficiently? :)

Peace, akhi! :)
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

Yafet, you -know- that's not my stance, and I do take offense at you pushing that fallacious point. Please take that into account when you formulate future replies
I understand...
But, I also intimately know the inner workings of Karaite Judaism. I know its origin of thought. I know what it all boils down to, and I have a tendancy to be blunt ;)

After all, that is why this thread was made, was it not? Had you not pursued Karait Judaism, this thread would not exist, nu?

Maybe you can consider it a wake up call.

Take it as you wish.

[simchat_torah]

But let's get back to the subject....
Murex snails, in reality, make a purple or ruddy (not blue) dye
I think I have clearly shown otherwise, nu?

[The Thadman]

[/font]
I understand...
But, I also intimately know the inner workings of Karaite Judaism. I know its origin of thought. I know what it all boils down to, and I have a tendancy to be blunt ;)

After all, that is why this thread was made, was it not? Had you not pursued Karait Judaism, this thread would not exist, nu?

Maybe you can consider it a wake up call.

Take it as you wish.

Yafet, I was Karaim before I knew they existed! :)

I use the term Karaite as an adjective because I'd rather not make another word up for a concept whose title already exists.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

To say that they explicitly do not produce a blue dye is deceptive, is it not?

I would not care less if the murex snails produced pink, purple, yellow, green, orange, etc... as long as they also produced blue. It is this very blue that is used in techelet and I have shown you pictures to prove my point.

[simchat_torah]

Yafet, I was Karaim before I knew they existed! :)
Yes, as are many messianics. Talmud is wrong/evil, halacha is wrong/evil, etc.

I know all this already. I've heard it more times than I can count.

[Henaynei]

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_203.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001)Play NICE everyone.......................http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_204.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001)

[The Thadman]

But let's get back to the subject....
[/font]
I think I have clearly shown otherwise, nu?

Murex can make a range of colors from blue to violet to red, and from what I have seen this turquoise color may have come after the times of Moses. Do we have evidence of this turquoise color on potsherds like we do with its purple and red cousins (of which we have hundreds of examples)?

This isn't a dare or anything, this is curiosity. :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

To say that they explicitly do not produce a blue dye is deceptive, is it not?

I would not care less if the murex snails produced pink, purple, yellow, green, orange, etc... as long as they also produced blue. It is this very blue that is used in techelet and I have shown you pictures to prove my point.

All archeology I have seen on this dye portrayed it as violet or burgundy. I think it's kinda cool that there is a way to make turquoise with is, but I haven't seen traces of this hue in any of my books.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Yes, as are many messianics. Talmud is wrong/evil, halacha is wrong/evil, etc.

I know all this already. I've heard it more times than I can count.

C'mon Yafet, there's a difference between wrong and evil. Please sheathe your words, they're getting sharp. :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

Murex can make a range of colors from blue to violet to red,
as well so does indigo...

and once more, an irrelevant comment.

Do we have evidence of this turquoise color on potsherds like we do with its purple and red cousins (of which we have hundreds of examples)?

Yes, as I stated, Crete was a rather large exporter of Murex snails specifically used for blue dye to Egypt, what is now Israel, and the greater Medditerranean area. Even Egyptians began using Murex as a blue dye. Yes, indigo was used, but so was Murex.

Both were used (among other pigments). Which was used for the tzitzit?

All that Jewish history indicates, as far as we know from all documentation, is that the Murex snail was used for the blue dye in the tzitzit.

[simchat_torah]

C'mon Yafet, there's a difference between wrong and evil. Please sheathe your words, they're getting sharp.
Yes, there is a difference.... and I've heard both from Karaite and Messianic sources. They have nearly become synonymous.

[simchat_torah]

All archeology I have seen on this dye portrayed it as violet or burgundy. I think it's kinda cool that there is a way to make turquoise with is, but I haven't seen traces of this hue in any of my books.
Many vats, clothes, curtains, etc were made from Murex snail dye. I'm sorry your books are lacking :)

[simchat_torah]

All archeology I have seen on this dye portrayed it as violet or burgundy. I think it's kinda cool that there is a way to make turquoise with is, but I haven't seen traces of this hue in any of my books.
As well, from previous posts you seem to act as though this is a 'modern' or 'new' way to create the blue dye. Even the talmud even records that the techelet shade of blue was drawn from Murex snails for tzitzit, which dates at least to 400'ish ce, not to mention the sources it quotes are most likely circa 1st century.

[The Thadman]

[/font]
as well so does indigo...

and once more, an irrelevant comment.



Depends on what blossoms you pick and what strain it is. In the middle east, I would have to look up what strains were available as not all strains can make purple. You can't, however, get burgundy out of indigo. :)



Yes, as I stated, Crete was a rather large exporter of Murex snails specifically used for blue dye to Egypt, what is now Israel, and the greater Medditerranean area. Even Egyptians began using Murex as a blue dye. Yes, indigo was used, but so was Murex.

Both were used (among other pigments). Which was used for the tzitzit?

All that Jewish history indicates, as far as we know from all documentation, is that the Murex snail was used for the blue dye in the tzitzit.

In a sense you didn't answer my question :) The Murex found in Cana`an and Crete was purple and red in color. Where are the traces of turquoise?

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

I'm retiring from this spat for the night as I need to get some work done before Friday evening.

It's like rock'em-sock'em robots for crying out loud. Good debate, though. :)

Peace,
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

In a sense you didn't answer my question :) The Murex found in Cana`an and Crete was purple and red in color. Where are the traces of turquoise?
There certainly were blue Murex snails. That's the predominant use of the Murex snails from Crete, to make blue dye. But you can also make several types of dye from the purple colored Murex snails, including turquoise.

*sigh*

I seem to be repeating myself a lot now.

[Sephania]

Was the same dye used for the curtains that of the tzitzit also?According to this it was:

Techelet (te khe'let), the biblical blue mentioned 48 times throughout Tanach, was a specific dye that was used in various ritual textiles. Techelet was incorporated into both the ritual textiles of the Priesthood, Tabernacle and Temple as well as into the private ritual textiles of the common Israelite, in the fringes that adorned everyday garments, the bit of "priesthood" that adorned every Israelite.

All the "blue" used in making the tabernacle articles and priestly garments including the ephod use the word techlet. ( sEe concordance) http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet.htm



Interesting photos of tecklet sources including this one: http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet/dying.htm

http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet/Squid.jpg

[Sephania]

Here is an article you both might be interested in reading:

Law concerning existence of Hillazon (http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet/Sefunei.htm)


BTW Steve, just curious how do you tie your tzitzi? And how many strands do you use?

[The Thadman]

Here is an article you both might be interested in reading:

Law concerning existence of Hillazon (http://israelvisit.co.il/beged-ivri/techelet/Sefunei.htm)


BTW Steve, just curious how do you tie your tzitzi? And how many strands do you use?

I have many sets and no two sets are tied the same:

I have a Sephardic "style" (they don't have the same number of strands) set done in blue and white (which are getting ratty due to use, so I need to wash them).

I have a Sephardic "style" (they also don't have the same number of strands) set done in blue and black (which I'm wearing right now and which are my favorite).

I have many sets that are tied in various styles I've created, some 2" long, some 3" some 6" which are either white or black tied with blue, using various braids, chainlink twists, multiple braided braids, windings, bindings, knots, sephardic knots, ashkenazi knots, etc.

I'm also constantly trying out new designs and ideas :)

I also, when I was experimenting with a new design, had one left over so I wear it around my neck on a chain.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[The Thadman]

Yafet,

Ok, I think I have this entire tekhlet debate just about wrapped up with what I have just come across online.

First, let's see where the first theory about Murex as tekhlet comes from:

Rabbinical Investigation – R. Isaac Herzog’s doctoral thesis on tekhelet named the Murex trunculus as the “most likely candidate” for the source of tekhelet – except that, by using contemporary dyeing procedures, its dye was not pure blue. ( http://www.tekhelet.com/timeline.htm )

Now what exactly is it that makes this beautiful color?

Discovery of Dibromoindigo – German chemist Paul Friedlander identified the chemical structure of the purple dye from the Murex snail as being 6,6’-dibromoindigo. ( http://www.tekhelet.com/timeline.htm )

Di-bromo-indigo.

That's two bromine molecules and one indigo molecule.

So what turns it into this beautiful blue? Remember the note about "current dying procedures"? One professor, Otto Elsner, realized that he could obtain the color by bombarding the snail dye with ultraviolet light.

Discovery of Process to Obtain Blue Dye – Prof. Otto Elsner of the Shenkar College of Fibers in Israel discovered the secret of producing a pure blue color from the Murex trunculus snail, thus solving Herzog’s most compelling difficulty. Together with Ehud Spanier of Haifa University, he investigated the photo-chemical properties of the trunculus dye and found that when the dye is in a reduced state (a prerequisite for dyeing wool), exposure to ultra-violet light will transform the blue-purple colorant (dibromoindigo) to unadulterated blue (indigo). ( http://www.tekhelet.com/timeline.htm )

In the {murex} trunculus, the purpurase reaction yields a mixture of dibromoindigo (purple) and indigo. The dye must be put into solution (usually accomplished by reducing the dye molecule) in order for it to bind tightly to wool. In this state, if dibromoindigo is exposed to ultraviolet light, the bromine bonds will be broken and it will transform to indigo, turning the trunculus colorant from purplish-blue to pure blue. It should be noted that the blue dye obtained from Murex trunculus is molecularly equivalent to indigo... ( http://www.borhatorah.org/article1.html )

Case closed.

We were both right: It is indigo, just from two different sources. :)

http://www.AramaicNT.org/MessianicKaraites/IMAGES/IndigoMolecule.png http://www.AramaicNT.org/MessianicKaraites/IMAGES/MurexMolecule.png

C16H10N2O2 is C16H10N2O2 no matter how you say it :)

Peace!
-Steve-o

[simchat_torah]

It should be noted that the blue dye obtained from Murex trunculus is molecularly equivalent to indigo...

hhmmmmm.....

[simchat_torah]

I do apologize for having said anything crass or hurtful. My issue is this: there is something underlying this line of questioning all together. You know me, I am always up to challenge everything, every belief, and to solidify all that I stand upon. However, I sense things in this movement that disturb me greatly and these issues really need to be addressed soon before it leads to such things as antisemitism.

The question is not why this thread was created, but why was the question asked in the first place? I'm for asking the question... but why the question was asked is what bothers me.

I have many thoughts on this, but of course, it most likely would be stepping on toes and would be offensive. I'm really asking all of this as a big giant rhetorical question.

It isn't necessarily meant to be discussed, though I am willing (I would just have to choose my words extremely carefully). However, I am stating it as rhetorical... nothing more.

So, once again.... why would this be brought to a question?
When there is no historical evidence, when there is no reason to question, why would one be intent upon raising such questions?


why...

[The Thadman]

I do apologize for having said anything crass or hurtful. My issue is this: there is something underlying this line of questioning all together. You know me, I am always up to challenge everything, every belief, and to solidify all that I stand upon. However, I sense things in this movement that disturb me greatly and these issues really need to be addressed soon before it leads to such things as antisemitism.

The question is not why this thread was created, but why was the question asked in the first place? I'm for asking the question... but why the question was asked is what bothers me.

I have many thoughts on this, but of course, it most likely would be stepping on toes and would be offensive. I'm really asking all of this as a big giant rhetorical question.

It isn't necessarily meant to be discussed, though I am willing (I would just have to choose my words extremely carefully). However, I am stating it as rhetorical... nothing more.

So, once again.... why would this be brought to a question?
When there is no historical evidence, when there is no reason to question, why would one be intent upon raising such questions?

why...

The reason why I question it was because of three questions I, when looking over this entire tradition and Biblical information on tzitzit, had to face:

#1: Does tekhlet refer to a specific dye or a specific color?

#2: If it was a specific dye, how could the Hebrews have used murex dye if they were wandering around in the wastes for 40 years and Murex dyed wool was more expensive than gold?

#3: What else would have been available and readily abundant that the Hebrews could have known?

In asking these and after my final round of researching I had noticed that #1, unlike other places in the Tanakh where dye is referred to, tekhlet is treated as a color. #2: Murex would not have been available until after moving into Canaan (which is where it would be abundant) and even then, all archeological evidences that we have from Canaan show the purple version of the dye, and #3 Indigo grew wild, and the actual indigo content in indigo blossoms is purer than that found in Murex due to lower bromine content, and Egypt in Biblical times was known for its indigo.

Don't think that I'm an anti-shemite, akhi, nor that I would ever lower myself to such an opinion. May it never be! :) I am merely a critic of Rabbinicism; and Semiticism and Rabbinicism are not the same entity. My issue in this is the claim by the Avot that tekhlet -must- be a specific dying process when there is nothing in the Torah, in my studies, to indicate such a thing. The same with -how- tzitzyot should be tied: There is no description or requirement in the Torah other than they are to be twisted tassels and tied with a tekhlet cord.

Peace!
-Steve-o

[Henaynei]

A very simple answer to "where did they get dye from snails in the desert" is this - the desert was NOT the abandoned waste land we see in our minds with various epoc movies in our memories to act as reference.

No, rather it was a very active commercial transportation system - merchants traveled it frequently, it was KNOWN as the Spice route - and the biblical account is replete with accounts of the numerous peoples and cities and kingdoms with which the Jews met and had intercourse throughout their travel. Dye was not the only commodity they were not able to gleen from the desert - they needed metal for their weapons, pottery for their cooking and so on. They traded for the things they did not have, as did all the other peoples, indeed, as we still do today ;)

[Sephania]

Which "wilderness" do you cotton to Henaynei? Location-wise?

[Henaynei]

Which "wilderness" do you cotton to Henaynei? Location-wise? Don't know that I could say - but for the purpose of the discussion it matters little - anywhere between Ramses and the Jordan ;)