Hashkafah.com > Berachos 9b

shim

Mar 10 2005, 02:17 PM

The second Mishna gives a machlokes about what indicates the earliest time to recite morning shema. The tanna kama says when one can distinguish between white wool and wool dyed techeles. R. Eliezer says when it is light enough to distinguish between wool died techeles and wool died the green color of leek.

Question: practically speaking do these opinions rely on the possession of chilazon-derived techeles and in its absence one could not use this simman to determine when to say shema?

critic

Mar 10 2005, 02:24 PM

What's the difference? The whole point is that one can distinguish colors. Who cares if its made out of the real thing or not?

shim

Mar 10 2005, 02:33 PM

QUOTE(critic @ Mar 10 2005, 02:24 PM)

What's the difference? The whole point is that one can distinguish colors. Who cares if its made out of the real thing or not?
[right][snapback]177698[/snapback][/right]

Well, techeles is a specific shade of blue. I've seen translations as "indigo". My point is that perhaps in the absence of techeles we do not know what this shade of blue is. We do know what indigio is, and we can call techeles indigo. But not having seen techeles maybe the actual hue is unknown. And if so, maybe this simman is unavailable.

(Let's put aside the issue of whether techeles has been rediscovered; obviously for those who believe it has its a moot point.)

critic

Mar 10 2005, 03:07 PM

I'm still not sure if there is such a difference. What was the purpose of using techeilet as a siman? Because it is something so small and the difference so hard to distinguish, that it had to absolutely be day in order for someone to in fact see the difference.

shim

Mar 10 2005, 03:19 PM

QUOTE(critic @ Mar 10 2005, 03:07 PM)

I'm still not sure if there is such a difference.

Neither am I.

QUOTE

What was the purpose of using techeilet as a siman? Because it is something so small and the difference so hard to distinguish, that it had to absolutely be day in order for someone to in fact see the difference.
[right][snapback]177767[/snapback][/right]

I think you're assuming that its talking about looking at one's tzitzis. But its probably talking about bundles of dyed wool. At least R. Eliezer must be talking about that, rather than 7 green strings and one blue string. That would make no sense. So presumably whatever R. Eliezer is referring to finds its parallel in the white and blue wool. In other words, its not talking about tzitzis. Also, the Gemara makes it clear that it is poorly dyed wool with different streaks in it. Its hard to see how that could refer to a tzitizis string dyed techeles.

In any case, I can definitely hear that "techeles" is not so specific, rather it means a shade of blue like techeles. Of course in the Mishna when they had techeles they would have simply said "techeles". Maybe its not so specific.

On the other hand, maybe it is. Maybe its talking of the specific hue called techeles and only when we have techeles can we be certain what that hue is, and thus use it for a simman when to recite shema.

critic

Mar 10 2005, 04:18 PM

I hear.

Pinchas

Mar 10 2005, 05:41 PM

My question is if you look at Rashi - he says Tachelis is "YaraK" - doesn't that mean green?

Thursday

Mar 10 2005, 05:48 PM

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 10 2005, 06:41 PM)

My question is if you look at Rashi - he says Tachelis is "YaraK" - doesn't that mean green?
[right][snapback]177959[/snapback][/right]

Bizzarely, both Green and Yellowish, according to my dictionary.

Neither of which is the color of the sky, but the green could arguably be the color of the ocean.

shim

Mar 10 2005, 06:35 PM

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 10 2005, 05:41 PM)

My question is if you look at Rashi - he says Tachelis is "YaraK" - doesn't that mean green?
[right][snapback]177959[/snapback][/right]

No, he means a kind of turquoise, that is a shade of blue-green.

Its interesting that Rashi was confident he knew the color of techeles without seeing any. Maybe that means that a lenient interpretation of the word techeles is in order.

Thursday

Mar 10 2005, 07:00 PM

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 10 2005, 07:35 PM)

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 10 2005, 05:41 PM)

My question is if you look at Rashi - he says Tachelis is "YaraK" - doesn't that mean green?
[right][snapback]177959[/snapback][/right]

No, he means a kind of turquoise, that is a shade of blue-green.

Its interesting that Rashi was confident he knew the color of techeles without seeing any. Maybe that means that a lenient interpretation of the word techeles is in order.
[right][snapback]178017[/snapback][/right]

How do we know when a strict interpretation of Techeilet or a loose one is in order then?

shim

Mar 10 2005, 07:06 PM

QUOTE(yadfothgildloc @ Mar 10 2005, 07:00 PM)

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 10 2005, 07:35 PM)

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 10 2005, 05:41 PM)

My question is if you look at Rashi - he says Tachelis is "YaraK" - doesn't that mean green?
[right][snapback]177959[/snapback][/right]

No, he means a kind of turquoise, that is a shade of blue-green.

Its interesting that Rashi was confident he knew the color of techeles without seeing any. Maybe that means that a lenient interpretation of the word techeles is in order.
[right][snapback]178017[/snapback][/right]

How do we know when a strict interpretation of Techeilet or a loose one is in order then?
[right][snapback]178059[/snapback][/right]

Good question.

It seems pretty clear that with regard to tzitzis it means the specific dye called techeles. That is definitely how the Talmud understands it. (I once saw a Karaite objection which basically said that there is no proof that the Torah requires the techeles to be made from a specific source, rather it is a color; but I digress.)

But what about when the Torah commands the construction of the Mishkan, and requires wool dyed with techeles? It doesn't seem like any great discussion about the origin of techeles ensues about that. So maybe, in theory, a dye that is identical in color to the chilzaon-techeles would suffice. But that's probably not the case. After all, until 1500 years ago techeles would have meant the specific dye, which was available. I'm not sure why anyone would have even thought it refers to a color that can be separated from the chilazon-dye.

That said, it seems odd to think that the sign the Mishna gives us for determining early morning has simply vanished with the techeles. And there is also the matter of Rashi knowing the hue of techeles, despite not having any.

Thursday

Mar 10 2005, 11:17 PM

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 10 2005, 08:06 PM)

It seems pretty clear that with regard to tzitzis it means the specific dye called techeles. That is definitely how the Talmud understands it. (I once saw a Karaite objection which basically said that there is no proof that the Torah requires the techeles to be made from a specific source, rather it is a color; but I digress.)

But what about when the Torah commands the construction of the Mishkan, and requires wool dyed with techeles? It doesn't seem like any great discussion about the origin of techeles ensues about that. So maybe, in theory, a dye that is identical in color to the chilzaon-techeles would suffice. But that's probably not the case. After all, until 1500 years ago techeles would have meant the specific dye, which was available. I'm not sure why anyone would have even thought it refers to a color that can be separated from the chilazon-dye.

That said, it seems odd to think that the sign the Mishna gives us for determining early morning has simply vanished with the techeles. And there is also the matter of Rashi knowing the hue of techeles, despite not having any.
[right][snapback]178066[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps Rashi was interpreting "Techeilet" loosely, as "some shade of blue or other" in this case - if the "techeilet" that he is talking about is a darker blue that the sky, then it would be harder to tell apart from the green - making the start time later than we would have thought, and closer to true dawn.

Pinchas

Mar 10 2005, 11:42 PM

Well Rashi obvoiusly can't mean it's green because then R. Eliezer wouldn't make sense.

Thursday

Mar 10 2005, 11:48 PM

If the R' Eliezar's green is a "Green" and Rashi's Techeilet-yarak thing is a "Blue-Green," then it still makes sense.

Pinchas

Mar 10 2005, 11:57 PM

QUOTE(yadfothgildloc @ Mar 10 2005, 11:48 PM)

If the R' Eliezar's green is a "Green" and Rashi's Techeilet-yarak thing is a "Blue-Green," then it still makes sense.
[right][snapback]178262[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. In fact the more I think about perhaps that is what Rashi is telling us! Not that techeilet is green - but that it's a greenish tint of blue - like aqua - so the chiddush is we would think R. Eliezar is saying between Blue and Green - but Rashi says it's even later than that - it's between a blue-green and green. Hmm... nice.

Thursday

Mar 11 2005, 12:01 AM

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 11 2005, 12:57 AM)

QUOTE(yadfothgildloc @ Mar 10 2005, 11:48 PM)

If the R' Eliezar's green is a "Green" and Rashi's Techeilet-yarak thing is a "Blue-Green," then it still makes sense.
[right][snapback]178262[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. In fact the more I think about perhaps that is what Rashi is telling us! Not that techeilet is green - but that it's a greenish tint of blue - like aqua - so the chiddush is we would think R. Eliezar is saying between Blue and Green - but Rashi says it's even later than that - it's between a blue-green and green. Hmm... nice.
[right][snapback]178268[/snapback][/right]

Thank you.

The problem is, a blue with hints of green is alot like the color of the ocean, but it's hardly anything like the color of the sky - are we still supposed to understand techeilet as sky and ocean? (Or am I completely misremembering something?)

Chai18

Mar 11 2005, 12:02 AM

the ocean is supposed to remind us of the sky

shim

Mar 11 2005, 08:27 AM

QUOTE(yadfothgildloc @ Mar 11 2005, 12:01 AM)

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 11 2005, 12:57 AM)

QUOTE(yadfothgildloc @ Mar 10 2005, 11:48 PM)

If the R' Eliezar's green is a "Green" and Rashi's Techeilet-yarak thing is a "Blue-Green," then it still makes sense.
[right][snapback]178262[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. In fact the more I think about perhaps that is what Rashi is telling us! Not that techeilet is green - but that it's a greenish tint of blue - like aqua - so the chiddush is we would think R. Eliezar is saying between Blue and Green - but Rashi says it's even later than that - it's between a blue-green and green. Hmm... nice.
[right][snapback]178268[/snapback][/right]

Thank you.

The problem is, a blue with hints of green is alot like the color of the ocean, but it's hardly anything like the color of the sky - are we still supposed to understand techeilet as sky and ocean? (Or am I completely misremembering something?)
[right][snapback]178274[/snapback][/right]

Everyone knows that around the world there are beautiful beaches with beautiful blue water. Our stinky Atlantic Ocean, at least around NY, is more green than blue. Maybe Rashi's experience with oceans was similar. Since he was aware of the statement that techeles resembles the ocean, which to him seemed green, he assumed that techeles was a green tinted shade of blue, having never actually seen techeles. Of course a greenish ocean doesn't resemble the sky so much as a blue one does. But even where it appears green (like in NY) everyone still knows that the ocean is "blue".

So maybe Rashi is interpreting R. Eliezer in an even stricter fashion than we would think (making techeles closer to the color green).
Maybe Rashi is using a fluid definition of techeles, one that doesn't necessarily mean literal techeles from a chilazon.
Maybe Rashi had never seen techeles and was just applying what he'd seen of oceans to what he assumed the color of techeles to be.

critic

Mar 11 2005, 08:32 AM

I always imagined Techeilet to be more of a turquoise color, which is blue-green.

melech

Mar 11 2005, 08:34 AM

Do you think Rashi was fluent in "Afrikaans" or just heard about totefot and its translation? Who says Rashi really knew what techeilet looked like, rather than just having a tradition that is was similar to something else?
Secondly, at least I don't usually hear the braying of a donkey. Yet it's a siman. And I have no idea what size are "medium sized" stars yet I talk about them as a definition as if I did.

critic

Mar 11 2005, 08:43 AM

QUOTE(melech @ Mar 11 2005, 08:34 AM)

Secondly, at least I don't usually hear the braying of a donkey. Yet it's a siman. And I have no idea what size are "medium sized" stars yet I talk about them as a definition as if I did.
[right][snapback]178408[/snapback][/right]

And thats probably why we hold like the Acherim. They're the only ones who gave us a definitive definition of when Alot Hashachar is in terms of something we can all relate to.

shim

Mar 11 2005, 08:46 AM

QUOTE(melech @ Mar 11 2005, 08:34 AM)

Do you think Rashi was fluent in "Afrikaans" or just heard about totefot and its translation?

I always felt that the ability of Rashi to apparently be totally familiar with virtually the entire corpus of Torah literature to the point that he was able to quote from any place in any place, pre-Bar Ilan CD, pre-indexing, pre-printing, is proof of amazing genius enough.

shim

Mar 11 2005, 08:47 AM

I don't understand why braying donkeys is a problem. We don't have any donkeys handy. But in parts of rural Mexico they might.

melech

Mar 11 2005, 09:10 AM

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 11 2005, 08:47 AM)

I don't understand why braying donkeys is a problem. We don't have any donkeys handy. But in parts of rural Mexico they might.
[right][snapback]178413[/snapback][/right]

and lack of techeilet isn't due to any inherent "we can't do techeilet anymore". It's not a, let's say, beit hamikdash-dependent thing, we just don't happen to have it. So it's appropriate to list it as a valid siman regardless of the fact that we don't have it. Just like donkeys aren't found everywhere.

Bitter

Mar 11 2005, 09:45 AM

Maybe Rashi knew techeles was yarok because his Rebbi told him.

Also, it seems odd (going back a few posts) that our definition of chilazon would be dependent on the time of Alos according to Rashi.

shim

Mar 11 2005, 09:51 AM

QUOTE(melech @ Mar 11 2005, 09:10 AM)

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 11 2005, 08:47 AM)

I don't understand why braying donkeys is a problem. We don't have any donkeys handy. But in parts of rural Mexico they might.
[right][snapback]178413[/snapback][/right]

and lack of techeilet isn't due to any inherent "we can't do techeilet anymore". It's not a, let's say, beit hamikdash-dependent thing, we just don't happen to have it. So it's appropriate to list it as a valid siman regardless of the fact that we don't have it. Just like donkeys aren't found everywhere.
[right][snapback]178422[/snapback][/right]

I get that. But what my real question was whether or not it means davka techeles. Is the specific hue of techeles as compared to undyed white wool or as compared to leek-like dyed wool so important? What if its a slightly different shade of blue? In fact, the Gemara's clarification of the tanna kamma that it is talking about poorly dyed techeles wool, and thus wool with different shades of the techeles hue may imply that it doesn't have to be davka that one color. Maybe a similar blue makes the same point and is useful as a simman.

Pinchas

Mar 11 2005, 10:55 AM

Interesting. It seems not like we said... But that when Rashi said green he meant green - like grass! It seems Tosfos (among others) reject that and say it's blue.

Take a sneak peak ahead to 57b...

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/berachos/insites/br-dt-57.htm

Bitter

Mar 11 2005, 10:59 AM

If chilazon is murex trunculus, doesn't the color of the dye change? Could that be why green and blue are both valid?

shim

Mar 11 2005, 11:05 AM

QUOTE(Pinchas @ Mar 11 2005, 10:55 AM)

Interesting. It seems not like we said... But that when Rashi said green he meant green - like grass! It seems Tosfos (among others) reject that and say it's blue.

Take a sneak peak ahead to 57b...

http://www.dafyomi.co.il/berachos/insites/br-dt-57.htm
[right][snapback]178488[/snapback][/right]

Interesting. I wonder if Rashi learned that way because he never saw a blue sea. As far as the techeles resembling the sea which resembles the sky, we know that the the color the sea appears to be lighter or darker when the sky is lighter or darker. Maybe Rashi understood it that way.

simpleTorah

Jul 10 2005, 05:50 PM

QUOTE(shim @ Mar 10 2005, 04:19 PM)

QUOTE(critic @ Mar 10 2005, 03:07 PM)

I'm still not sure if there is such a difference.

Neither am I.

QUOTE

What was the purpose of using techeilet as a siman? Because it is something so small and the difference so hard to distinguish, that it had to absolutely be day in order for someone to in fact see the difference.
[right][snapback]177767[/snapback][/right]

I think you're assuming that its talking about looking at one's tzitzis. But its probably talking about bundles of dyed wool. At least R. Eliezer must be talking about that, rather than 7 green strings and one blue string. That would make no sense. So presumably whatever R. Eliezer is referring to finds its parallel in the white and blue wool. In other words, its not talking about tzitzis.
[right][snapback]177779[/snapback][/right]

Actually, the simplest pshat is that the mishnah is talking about tztitzis and that because the last parsha was already included with Shma, there arose a need to be able to recognise the techeles. According to tanna kamma, it is enough for one to recognise the techeles thread (which he knows is there and whose color he recalls), by distinguishing between the darker thread and the white threads. According to Rabi Eliezer, one must actually recognise the color of the techles (even to the point of not becoming confused between it and karti).

shim

Jul 11 2005, 11:21 AM

Are you sure that's the simplest peshat in the Mishna? It says nothing about tzitzis and R. Eliezer is obviously talking about something other than tzitzis, if he is introducing green wool into the mix (unless you mean that his is a theoretical position and doesn't actually mean that you're going to have dyed wool to compare at your disposal).

simpleTorah

Jul 14 2005, 05:20 AM

QUOTE(shim @ Jul 11 2005, 12:21 PM)

Are you sure that's the simplest peshat in the Mishna? It says nothing about tzitzis and R. Eliezer is obviously talking about something other than tzitzis, if he is introducing green wool into the mix (unless you mean that his is a theoretical position and doesn't actually mean that you're going to have dyed wool to compare at your disposal).
[right][snapback]264729[/snapback][/right]

Neither theoretical position, nor green wool at his disposal; his point is that you can tell the exact shade of the color of the techeles.