Talk:Tekhelet

Controversial?
As silly as it may seem to a non-Jew or even a non-Orthodox Jew, this is a controversial subject. Even as a semi-observant Jew I am aware of competing opinions about the source of the dye. I also recognize that statements on this page about what is and is not chilazon, and also about the supposed debunking of Reb Radzyner are both highly opinionated and lack references.

Also, the article [Tzitzit]] deals summarily with the controversy, stating "At some point in Jewish history, the source of the dye was lost and since then, Jews have worn plain white tzitsyot without any dyes" Meanwhile, immediately to the left of this statement is a photo of a tzitzit with blue threads and the caption "A set of tzitzit with blue tekhelet thread."

And yet at the end of that article (Tzitzit) are external refs that attempt to point to a variety of opinion...even though within its own text it points to this article (Tekhelet) as being the "main article." Confusing...they should probably be combined, corrected and redirected.

Under other circumstances (i.e. if this were a non-religious subject) I would dive in, do the research and rewrite the article. I am, however, not interested in fighting about edits *and* about the religious laws and controversies of my own faith (COI and all that). As such, having recused myself, I am writing this to bring the issue to the attention of the Jews and Judaism project and to any brave Wiki-souls who would take it as a challenge to sort this out.

--starfarmer (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I deleted the word "tekhelet" of the above-mentioned caption. (The blue thread in the photo might or might not indeed be "tekhelet" ). --  --   --   01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

section under title "Other applications"
This section does not belong in this wikipedia-article, and should be moved elsewhere. --  --   --   01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by (00:36, 29/Sep/14). Thanks, -- -- -- 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of the craziest talk pages I've seen. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Upload picture
I could upload a picture of my Tallit, it has P'til Tekhellit. The tallit and tzittzit Were made and tied in Israel Bnei-Brak and certified by the Haredi posek Shmeul HaLevi Wosner Rabbi of Zichron-Meier, Bnei-Brak. I even still have the posek's seal if you need that as proof or evidence. You can find more about the Rabbi here on wikipedia even. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_Wosner

I was rather surprised to find my certifying Rabbi to not only be a posekim but a rather popular one at that. --Teacherbrock (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is your Tallit different from the one pictured in the article? --   --   --   23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

argaman
What source is there for claiming that argaman also came from the chilazon? Tkuvho (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

How is a dye 'recited'?
The first sentence says tekhelet is a dye. The last sentence of the lede says that tekhelet is recited in the Sh'ma Yisroel. What does it mean to recite a dye? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for pointing this out. -- -- -- 21:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

thanks! --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

1300 years?
I am puzzled by this "At some point following the Roman exile of the Jews from the Land of Israel, the actual identity of the source of the dye was lost. Since that time, a period spanning over 1,300 years, Jews have only worn plain white tassles (tzitzit)." It appears to imply that the Romans removed the Jews from Israel a bit over 1300 years ago. But that is not what happened, nor what the (recent) cited source says – it reads "tekhelet is a commandment that has been forgotten for over 1300 years", and later mentions decrees by the the Romans, made in the 4th century A.D., regulating religious usages. Unless someone can explain this paragraph (and account for the "1,300" in the cited source) I will remove this mention of the Romans. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

others who wear tzitzit?
Should the Karaites be mentioned, since they wear tzitzit with techelet believing that any (almost) any source of blue is satisfactory? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mention of the Karaite tzitzit already appears at Tzitzit; introduced to the article way back on 15:56, 24/Oct/04 by with image added on 03:41, 7/Apr/05 by . The section on Karaites was then removed without explanation on 14:40, 23/Oct/06 by  and readded on 13:24, 17/Apr/07 by . Sources were added on 7/May/12 by.
 * Mention of the Karaites has also been added to this article on 12:50, 20/May/11 by, and was then removed without explanation on 08:33, 10/Jul/11 by . What do other editors think about readding this information here? -- -- -- 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Adam Neira's Message
Adam Neira's Message to Crefallen et al. of 11:30 am Tues. Sep. 16th 2014, Paris (Adam Neira founded the website World Peace 2050 in April 2000, which no longer exists except to the Internet Archive as linked here.)

Sent to him ??? (Is Crefallen a man. You never can tell with anonymous comments nu ?) Directly via Wikipedia.

To Crefallen,

Please inform me how I can send messages to you in the correct manner via Wikipedia, and also how to use the Talk page for Tekhelet. BTW, all the correspondence you have written plus edits, deletions and changes have been recorded. I keep excellent records. Jurisprudence and issues of truth and justice interest me greatly. As a litigant I won a very important court case on Feb. 2nd 1998 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court. My grandfather was a well respected solicitor in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Anyway let me go through a few things with you now...I will respond to your little asides and put downs. (Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat nu...) Your writings begin with C : Mine are prefaced with AN :

C: Adam, you have an opinion about tekhelet

AN : Gee thanks for the condescension. I am not interested in "opinions" about Tekhelet, more the facts and science. I do not seek your validation. G-d knows what I am up to.

C : and that's fine. You might even be able to find

AN : “Even be able to find”...Wow ! You make it sound as if everyone wears the blue thread. Go to the Western Wall of the Old City on a Friday Shabbat and count the number of observant Jewish men who are wearing tzitizit. You will see maybe 2% maximum who wear the blue thread. I’ve spoken to various Rabbis and their assistants over the last six months about the issue. I visited Lederman’s Shul in Bnei Brak on the afternoons of the 28th and 29th May 2014 for five hours total. You must be aware that Rav. Chaim Kanievsky has not made a psak on this issue.

C: support for your contention that "there is no unanimous decision by all of the current leading Jewish sages that the claims of the Ptil Tekhelet organisation are true" if you were to go about adding this to the article in an encyclopaedic way

AN : What is an “encyclopaedic way”. You are trying to undermine my presentation by getting bogged down in semantics. Sabotage by pedantry and nit picking.

C : that is, adding the statement in a neutral tone of voice

AN : What is a neutral tone of voice when writing ? Your use of language is very poor. Of course when you are presenting evidence to a court you present facts. A fact is not “neutral”. It is just that. A fact !

C : and citing reliable sources, (not yourself) or your original research.

AN : In a court of law evidence is presented by witnesses, prosecutors and defenders. The evidence can be in the form of written words, witnesses, objects, DNA etc. etc. On all these counts in front of an honest judge with my claims on tekhelet I will be proven to be a “Reliable Source”

C : However, what is not fine is the following: Disruptive editing. Deleting sourced statements such as [1], [2] and adding material sourced to or referring to yourself, such as here: [3], [4] ; see WP:COS is disruptive editing and unacceptable.

AN : Any typographical errors I have made or with editing errors are a result of unfamiliarity with the Wikipedia platform. But the factual, content rich parts of my updates are correct. They are not “Disruptive Editing”.

C : Soapboxing An article is not a discussion forum or a platform for your personal views. So adding long (or even short) commentary such as [5] is unacceptable.

AN : When discussing certain complex subjects especially ones as esoteric and clouded in mystery as Tekhelet, one must present certain commentaries. A responsa in Jewish law IS a form of commentary/counsel.

C : Sockpuppetry. If you edit an article using your user name, then using your IP address User:87.91.50.226 to repeatedly make the same edits that have been challenged by other users is in contravention of the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry.

AN : If you read the history of my edits, you will see that only in my eagerness to present my findings did I edit via an IP Address without logging in. This was a result of enthusiasm not an effort to be anonymous. FYI, over the last 14 years I have been actively presenting my counsel on a vast range of subjects on many media platforms all around the world. I am proud to say I always use my real, legal name. Unlike others I don’t snipe from afar.

C : "Ownership". Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. No-one owns an article. So telling me "Please desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" is way out of line.

AN : Interestingly, the Intellectual Property for making tekhelet in the first place was private. Someone, i.e. the High Priests family, did own the Intellectual Property. When the truth comes out about Tekhelet and how it was rediscovered the Wikipedia Page will need to reflect this. If Wikipedia is to be a reputable form of media it must protect the rights of various companies and organisations to their intellectual property. You will not find various pieces of confidential information, e.g. the secret recipe for Coca Cola on Wikipedia.

When you are slandered, libelled or defamed it is quite within your right to stand up to the abuse. Also, you should maybe look up the concept of lesee majeste. The Jews had a monarchy for 420 years you know, and it is prophesied that the Davidic line will be restored...Stay tuned to this Bat Channel...

C : Threatening other users. Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. It's completely unacceptable to make direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [6] and [7] and here [8]. See above; you do not own the article and do not have the authority to tell another editor not to edit it. That behavior constitutes bullying, violates the civility principles of Wikipedia and is not tolerated.

AN : You are being disingenuous. Trying to suggest that by defending myself and my findings from slander, deletion, silencing and abuse that is somehow bullying. You are trying to frame the debate and use the “rules” of Wikipedia to fix the outcome. Thus it is not a fair court hearing. See the following article for how someone, i.e. MK Litzman also tried to “set someone up”. www.timesofisrael.com/lipman-denies-making-death-threat-against-haredi-mk/

I am also a very polite and civil person, but one must react to abuse on one’s person. As Ecclesiastes states there is a time and place for everything. Also look up the sefirot for qualities/aspect of leadership.

C : September 2014. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've reverted your edits to the article based on all of the above and as noted in the edit comments. If you want to change something in the article, open a discussion on the talk page and state what you want there. If you gain consensus from other editors, we can add it in. If you simply revert to your changes again, I will take this case to the administrators with the request that you be banned from editing Wikipedia as someone who does not seem to be willing to work collaboratively and within the policies of Wikipedia. Chefallen (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AN : I repeat...I am happy to work within the parameters of Wikipedia, if it is a fair court setting, and my findings and research can be presented, so please inform me how the Talk forum works. How does one access it ? Is it a “to and fro” process ? Does one post one’s questions then they are answered ? I await your responses to my questions here. I repeat...I keep extensive, detailed notes of all important events and proceedings in my life. It is a habit I have developed since a young man. G-d loves truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira (talk • contribs) 09:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Honorable Adam Neira:
 * Thanks for posting your comments on the talkpage. This is the way to go! Please be informed that Wikipedia does not work like a courtroom. For example, while providing personal evidence and original research are totally and perfectly acceptable in the courtroom, these are absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia. Please read No original research and Policies and guidelines. And please ask whenever you have a question.
 * Sincerely,
 * -- -- -- 23:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Phoenicians traded dye throughout coastal Mediterranean
From 3,000 to 2,000 BC, (Hebrew dates 2,000 to 3,000), the Phoenicians traded the dye from hexaplex trunculus (murex) to every major city on the coast of the Mediterranean sea. It was one of the first permanent dyes, if not the very first permanent dye. This dye was very expensive. Only the wealthiest people could afford it in quantities great enough to dye an entire garment. Of course, you don't need much of it to dye four strings. The color is called royal blue because only kings afford a large quantity of it, or enough to dye an entire garment. The color is midnight blue, dark purple, or indigo. The reason for it being placed on tzitzes was to remind every Jew of God in Heaven to create "fear of heaven." This blue resembled the color of the sky, which metaphorically speaking is the place where God's presence is manifest. (Actually, we can't look up or down. We are like 2-D creatures who live on a 2-D surface. Just like they can't look up or down, neither can we. If we could really look up, we would see our future. If we could really look down, we would see our past.) It also served to remind Jews that they were no longer slaves to other humans, that they are free men and kings in their own right--just like all free men.

There are not many commands in the Torah that are difficult to observe. So this dye had to be one that everyone could obtain. And it had to be a permanent dye. This commandment for tzitis would not have forced Jews to go on a scavenger hunt to find it. This dye was just about the only permanent dye that existed during this period of time. So, the Torah could only have been referring to this die. Blue is also the color of water, the sea, and the ocean. Blue is the color of the sefira of chessed, of God's kindness and mercy.

The Kabbalah suggest that people wear a red string around their wrist. Red is the color of the sefira of gevurah: strength, self-discipline, strictness, fear of Heaven, might, and heroism. "Who is a gebor? The person who is able to conquer their (יֵצֶר הַרַע‎, the archipallium, the reptilian brain)." The red string is to remind us not to use our hand for evil or sin. The red string also serves the same purpose as a wedding ring. It is supposed to remind the person wearing it that they are owned or collared by God, that God is their only king. Men and women wear wedding rings to remind them that they are each owned by their partner. Slaves and marriage partners wear collars, rings, and/or bracelets to indicate they have been taken, that they owned by their master. In the case of the red string, it is there to remind those who wear it, that their only true master is God in Heaven. So, techeles is most likely the "royal blue" die traded by the Phoenicians.

It is interesting to note that no single light frequency causes the human brain to create and experience the color purple. A prism will split light into its component frequencies. When a prism is used to split light all the color emerge except for magenta, purple, indigo. Our brains create Magenta-purple-indigo when our eyes detect blue and red simultaneously. The color wheel is circular, but light-frequency is linear on the EM spectrum. January 7, 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:c801:5920:ccc3:784e:fa7b:f7a6 (talk) 7/Jan/18

Section on Methods of Tying?
I was going to add a section on methods of tying Techeiles. This would be the largest edit I've done so far to Wikipedia. Any comments before I dive into this? (I was planning on using the Gemara with Rishonim as primary sources, and perhaps referencing the work of Rav Tavger, who goes very in depth into these sugyot.) --Rebblumstein (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Identifying the color of tekhelet
What does ERL stand for? Dstokar (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The Rarest Blue
Why is there no explicit mention of the book The Rarest Blue: The Remarkable Story of an Ancient Color Lost to History and Rediscovered Book by Baruch Sterman Dstokar (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably because no editor who has read the book has decided to summarize any content from it for this article. You can do so if you wish. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Transliteration
green (ירוק)

Can I please remind contributors that this is English Wikipedia, and not to presume your readers have a knowledge of (for example) Classical Hebrew in your readers, but to transliterate words from non-Roman characters, into letters of the Roman alphabet. Nuttyskin (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)