User:Zackdu/sandbox

History (Just Adding to it - theory of how it was lost)
How was tekhelet lost if the Jews are supposed to wear it every day? There is a theory that it was lost due to the restrictions put on using the blue dye during the roman empire (this theory only applies if the Murex trunculus is the correct Ḥillazon). Caesar and Augustus restricted the use of the Murex dye to the governing class. Nero made laws that stated no one was allowed to wear blue because it was the color of royalty, and specifically he forbid goods from the Purpura, the name used for the Murex trunculus in ancient times, and that anyone who wears it will be put to death. This idea that it was illegal to wear tekhelet is corroborated by the Talmud in the Tractate Sanhedrin where Rabbis were caught by troops while trying to smuggle in tekhelet. The Ramban also describes how tekhelet was worn by the royalty and outlawed for other people. The reason why the royalty used the Murex dye as opposed to indigo which looked the same was because indigo faded. However once they figured out how to make indigo endure they stopped using the Murex trunculus because indigo was much cheaper. At that time is when people stopped using the Murex trunculus for its Dye entirely.

Add in first paragraph a sentence that there is large debate on the topic which is the correct Hilazon.

Proofs for the Murex Trunculus (put under the hexaplex trunculus title)
The Talmud in the tractate Chulin says that tekhelet is the color of the sea and the sky. So it seems that the color is blue. The Talmud in Bava Metzia says that only G-d can distinguish between Kala Ilan(indigo) and techieles. Which means that tekhelet is similar to indigo in color. The dye produced by the Murex trunculus has the exact same chemical composition as Kala Ilan. There is a further discussion that since they have the same chemical structure it is a proof that tekhelet is not the Hexaplex trunculus because the Talmud gave tests to distinguish between indigo and tekhelet but if they have the same chemical structure then the tests would not work.

In the Talmud, in the tractate Shabbat it says that the Ḥillazon is found from Tzor until Haifa. There is archeological evidence of an ancient dye creating industry in Tel Shikmona, south of Haifa. There were large amounts of purple coloring preserved in vats that were confirmed to have been produced from sea snails. There were also manufacturing equipment for textiles found in the area. Some people argue this was a site for producing tekhelet in ancient times. Hundreds of yards of murex shells have also been found in the area from Tzor until Haifa.

In Parashat Eikev it says that the Jews clothing did not wear out from on them and there is a midrash, an ancient commentary on Torah, that compares the Jews clothing in the desert to the shell of the Ḥillazon because their clothing did not wear out. Implying the Ḥillazon has a shell that does not wear out just as the Murex trunculus has a shell that grows with it making it a good comparison to the clothing. Also the Talmud in the Tractate shabbos describes extracting the dye from the Ḥillazon by cracking it open which could also lead to the conclusion that it has a shell.

The word porforin, or porpora, or porphoros is used in midrash as well as many other Jewish texts to refer to the Ḥillazon that we get tekhelet from and this is the latin or greek translation of the Murex trunculus. Pliny and Aristotle also both refer to the Porpura as being the source for purple and blue dyes, showing that the Murex has a long history of being used for blue dye.

Rav Herzog wrote a doctoral thesis on tekhelet in 1914 and was convinced the tekhelet was from the Murex trunculus as he wrote “it is very unlikely that the tekhelet-hillazon is not the snail called murex trunculus, but though unlikely, it is still possible.” However in his life time he could not figure out how to get the dye to be blue, it always came out purple.

The word Ḥillazon also means snail in arabic.

Another requirement according to the talmud is that the dye cannot fade and the Murex dye does not fade and can only be removed from wool with bleach.

In the Tractate Megillah it quotes a pasuk in Deuteronomy 33:19 saying that treasures are hidden in the sand and compares treasure to a Ḥillazon which is hidden in the sand by its shell. However, the Talmud goes on to explain that literally only the word treasure is referring to the Ḥillazon and therefore hidden in the sand does not have to relate to the Ḥillazon literally being found in the sand.

Proofs against the Murex Trunculus being the Ḥillazon
In the tractate Menachot it states that the Ḥillazon's body is similar to the sea. Some people argue that the body of it should be blue based on this, however the body of the Murex trunculus is not blue. The possible responses interpret the implications of its' body being similar to the sea differently.

There are two other snails that produce the exact same dye as the Murex trunculus, the murex brandaris and purpura (thais) Haemastoma, so how do we know which one is the Ḥillazon. There is a theory that the Murex trunculus contains more natural indigo and thats why it is used. Some argue that they would all be kosher, valid to use, and considered the Ḥillazon.

The Rambam, Tosafot, and Rashi in one place says the Ḥillazon is a fish and the Murex trunculus is a snail not a fish. One answer given is that maybe anything in the sea is called a fish.

A midrash in Numbers says that tekhelet was hidden and now we only have white strings. Some people explain that hidden means hidden for good, or hidden until the messiah comes so it cannot be that we found the tekhelet. In the Medrish Sifrei it says that tekhelet is hidden until the next world.

In the Tractate Menachot it says that the Ḥillazon comes up once in 70 years. It is unclear what this is exactly referring to but the Murex trunculus has no known cycle that would give rise to a statement based on cycles.

It says in the Tractate Shabbat that if you trap the Ḥillazon on shabbat you are over the violation of trapping on shabbat however certain commentaries hold that you are not over the violation of trapping if you trap a snail because it is so easy to trap them. Therefore the Ḥillazon can't be a snail Others argue that since you have to take a boat into the water and it is a burden to trap the snails you would still be over trapping on shabbat.

Traditional Jewish Law Discussions Surrounding Tekhelet
There is a concept when studying Jewish law that when we are in doubt about the laws of a commandment from the Torah, we act stringently so some Rabbi’s apply that to our case and say since we are in doubt whether we have the correct dye, we should wear it anyway. Others argue and say that concept only applies in cases such that after one acts stringently they 100% fulfill the commandment and that would not be true here since it would still be a doubt if we wore true tekhelet.

There is another rule in Judaism based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1 that the Talmud explains that we should not make fractions among the Jew people. Therefore if a person acts differently from the rest of the Jewish people they are creating fractions. Since most Jews do not wear tekhelet it can be considered violating the principle of not making fractions in the Jewish People if one were to wear tekhelet.

The Rambam says the Ḥillazon secretes something black and the murex trunculus does not.

In the Tractate Menachot and the Rambam explain the process for making the dye for tekhelet and neither of them mention explicitly that it needs to be placed in the sunlight. Putting the dye in sunlight is a requirement to make the dye from the murex trunculus.

There is another commandment not to detract from any law. Rav Schachter says that if we know what tekhelet is and we are wearing the tzizit strings without the blue string[s] then we are detracting from the law and are violating a commandment. Many other Rabbi's do not agree with this statement.

Different Opinions On Tying Tekhelet
The Rambam holds that half of one string should be colored blue and it should wrap around the other 7 white strings. It should wrap around three times and then leave some space and then three more and leave some more space and should continue like this for either 7 or 13 groups. The first and last wrap around should be from a white string not a blue string.

The Raavad holds that one full string should be blue and there should be 4 groups of at least 7 coils alternating between white and blue both begining and ending with blue. There are multiple other opinions of how to tie the tzizit if one full string is blue that are depicted bellow.

Tosafot holds that two full strings should be tekhelet. He holds the coils should be groups of three starting with three white then three blue alternating and ending with three white. There is another way to tie using two full string that Rav Schachter follows based on the opinion of Rav Shmuel Ben Hofni Gaon that will be depicted bellow.