I know a lot of arguments against the wearing Techelet from my research etc. and I would to now hear some arguments for the Techelet. Does anyone have any arguments that support the Techelet?
Answer
Numerous points were made here which need to be answered:
(1) Regarding the reasons we believe that the Murex trunculus is indeed the hillazon of hazal, please see my latest article: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/TekheletThreadsOfReason.pdf
(2) Regarding the Arizal's statement that after the hurban habayit tekhelet is no longer available, please see my article: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/HistoryMesorahNignaz.pdf
(3) Regarding the difference between Kela Ilan (Indigoferra tinctoria) and the Hillazon (the proposed Murex trunculus) - while the dyes today both produce the same color and are both fast to wool, in ancient times the dye processing most probably contributed to a difference in fastness; see http://tekhelet.com/pdf/testability.pdf
(4) Regarding chemicals, we use chemicals and indeed the Gemara itself says chemicals were used. For more on this, see: http://tekhelet.com/pdf/Sammanim1.pdf
(5) Regarding the Kinneret issue: Shlomo Moshe Scheinman (Solutions to Fundamental Problems Regarding Tekhelet) explains that the Kinerret is merely R. Yehuda's attempt to reconcile the fact that Zevulun, who is to be blessed with the hillazon, held that Zevulun’s territory did not get to the Mediterranean; but R. Acha in Zohar rejects this and holds that Zevulun did have Mediterranean access, so there is no need to postulate Kinneret.
No comments:
Post a Comment