Talk:Tzitzit

Article's contents

In the present form the article is one big long piece on techelet with little on the actual threads, the fact that they may - by law - contain shaatnez, the number of windings & knots... I hope this will be expanded. JFW | T@lk 09:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something I have been meaning to do, but I don't mind if someone else does. By all means then, start some sections on the threads, knots, and nusach styles. I have mearly picked on techelet because that seems much more interesting as well as controversial, and is a very big deal. - SF2K1

The enumerated list under the sub-chapter "Chilazon" appears to be a direct quote from http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/mendel.htm As such, it needs to at least cite the source... I will, for the lack of more information, put a link to the document in question in connection with this quote — assuming that it is indeed from this source. -- Olve 05:18, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Technically it's not. The 4 criteria are well known, and that's the order that's in the talmud. That (at least) two sites would relist them in english in the same order is probbly pretty common for this subject. - SF2K1

Assuming that most editors don't want to split this in three articles, it must be taken into account that Techelet and Chilazon also point to this article. IMHO that would require defining these term right at the article's beginning, or otherwise a reader may be confused why this article pops up for these links. --Pjacobi 13:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is probbly the general concensus. Unless they grow to a great enough size, for now there is no need to move them to their own places as they are invariably interlinked. SF2K1 14:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And, do you have an idea for a better introduction? Now, if you are in Category:Dyes and you click on Techelet, you may be rather surprised. --Pjacobi 15:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not at the moment, origin and practice used to be the intro, but we'll think something up.SF2K1

For Jdfwollf, why remove the blessings? I did put them on the blessings page and I don't think I'll readd them (mainly wanted to see if they would work here) but they hardly violated NPOV. At the least, some mention of them should be added and a link to the List of Jewish Prayers and Blessings page (specifically where they are in the page) should be provided. SF2K1

SF2K1 - I removed them because people only say the berachah on a tallit, not on the individual tzitzit. If you'd checked: I've moved the whole paragraph to tallit to compensate for this.

Concerning Bava Metzia 61b: this was added, but the Gemara there implies the exact opposite - someone who uses kela ilan to prepare a techelet-like blue dye and then claims that it is techelet. It does not belong in this article. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will point out that the express reason for wearing a tallit katan is only for the purpose of wearing tzitzit, but you sorta fill that. Perhaps the blessings said when tying a tzitzit should be included? SF2K1 06:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but tzitzit without a tallit do not fulfill the mitzvah. Please don't put the blessings back.

As for blessings when tying tzitzit: which blessings? JFW | T@lk 08:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh I have no intention of readding those blessings, but I refer to when someone is about to tie tzitzit, they say before: L'shem Mitzvoth Tzitzit, the declaration of intent, as well as when tying, either that or the full bracha. SF2K1

Identifying tekhelet

I have returned the Gemara on kela ilan for it is one of the most telling criteria for identifying tekhelet. Though there is no doubt that "kela ilan" was used as faux tekhelet, this does not, in any way, mitigate the point that it is a valid criteria for true tekhelet. Indeed, the fact that it was used as forgery implies that it was the same hue - at least close enough that people were duped to thinking it was the real color. As such, comparison to this well known plant source provides a welcome "lead" to establishing the true color source. Mnavon 14:53, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have once again clarified the point about kela ilan being "identical" to hillazon dye by emphasizing that it is the final COLOR that is indeed identical. This postulate is strongly supported by the wording of the Gemara (Baba Metzi 61) which explains that only God Himself can tell whether one used kela ilan or whether one used the hillazon to produce the dye. This criteria is one of the stongest points validating the Murex trunculus as the true source of the ancient dye used by the Jews - for indeed, the chromophore (i.e., molecule reponsible for the color of the dye) produced by the Murex trunculus is IDENTICAL to that produced by the kela ilan plant. Mnavon 13:43, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with the tzitzit in the photo?

Someone wrote "Tzitzit are never actually made this way since they would not be kosher." What is this comment referring to? RK 00:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote it in the article: they are not kosher because you have to tie them onto a 4 cornered garment. You can't make them externally and then attach them afterward. For example if your tzitzit tear and the strings fall off you can't just rettach them. You need to repair the garment (the holes) and fully untie and retie them through the new holes.

So if you wanted to use those tzitzit in the photo you would have to completely untie them, loop them through the garment and retie them. As pictured those tzitzit are not kosher.

They are actually a poor choice of picture since you never see just the strings alone, so someone seeing them would not recognize a real tzitzit if he ever saw one. But I didn't have a replacement, so just I just made a note of it.

I don't think you need to educate the masses about the principle of lo min ha-asui. JFW | T@lk 23:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but I still think it's a poor choice of picture. Either replace the picture or tell people that this is not what a real tzitzit looks like. 3/31/05 10:30PM EST

Except that real tzitzit look exactly like that, the only difference is that they are on a garment. If you want to add a picture of a Man wearing a Tallit, to shown how they are worn, that would be fine I think, but there is nothing unkosher, or unpicturable, about the tzitzit simply because they are not on a garment. SF2K1 01:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course they are unkosher! they come untied and rolled up and have to be tied on the garment from scratch,that pictures is obiously of the "mesianic" prefabricated unkosher tzitzit that flood ebay,they are apparantly atached with a clip or something either way not kosher

I don't see anything wrong with the picture- it's simply displaying the tzitzit by themselves - sort of like a cutaway. They may even have been assembled just for the purpose of the photograph. --Eliyak T·C 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Those arent real tzitzit just search ebay for tzitzit ule see!

Concerning Chilazon NPOV

I would like to ask that anyone who edits anything dealing with Tekhelet remember that more than one opinion exists, so an NPOV needs to be maintained. It's not our job to prove one dye over the other within wikipedia. There are many claims for both sides detailing which chilazon is the "right" chilazon, and evidence other than scriptural or commentative (Rashi, Rambam, etc.) criteria as to what makes chilazon should not be presented. The debate as to which chilazon is "correct" is up to the sites that spearhead their chilazon as being the one to make the "real" tekhelet. Please remember that the official status of the Chilazon remains as "lost"

The following quotes were posted by User:RK:

"This work has gained additional validation since archaeological work has uncovered primitive dye factories from 2,000 years ago which are located by vast pits of waste murex trunculus (and closely related) shells. Many archaeologists and some rabbis consider this proof that it was murex trunculus (and closely related species) that was the source of the tekhelet dye."

The problem with this is that many do not consider this proof because the dye factory ruins only contained purple dyes, and thus would be no good for producing tekhelet. It was never disputed that the Murex had long been used to produce purple dyes.

"Only in the 20th century has archaeological research, combined with readings of rabbinic literature, allowed some scientists to conclude that the murex trunculus snail was the source of this dye."

In both these quotes, wording brings the person to believe that a consensus has been reached that one dye is favored over another, this quote also implies that the 19th century discovery of tekhelet was invalid, which is very POV.

Many people who wear tekhelet (and those that don't) are touchy about which tekhelet is used and resist the opposing chilazon, so please keep it NPOV SF2K1 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nudder pic

I got a new taleth, with pre-tied tzitzith on it, tied ashkenazi-style and all white. I'm retying them sfaradhi with tkheleth, and decided to take a pic. Here it is. I put it into the tallit article, but perhaps it should be here also/instead? Tomer^talk 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shlomo Miller

User:Ezra Wax added the following in the section Murex trunculus, (I removed it)

" However, Rabbi Shlomo Miller wrote a teshuva stating that it is probably not techeiles and is probably kolo ilan which it is kabalistically harmful to wear and should not be used."

(1) This would make more sense to be added in the introduction to the Tekhelet section (around "Some poskim ("decisors of Jewish law") maintain that it is better to use no dye at all rather than...") than in a section on a particular candidate. (2) Also I don't know is Rabbi Miller is notable. (3)Furthermore "kolo ilan" needs to be defined (I have no idea what it means). (4) Also it is not clear to me is he is only talking about Murex trunculus or all tekhelet candidate. (5) And "kabalistacally harmful" needs to be explained. (6) And last it needs a source. Jon513

Category:Non-clerical religious clothing

Should this page be classified under Category:Non-clerical religious clothing? SvannanoverRav 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

yes. btw, you should put a ":" before the word category unless you want this talk page to be put in the category.Jon513 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

neutrality

the section on cuttlefish techeles is very non nuetral—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.241.193 (talk • contribs).

You can be bold and change it yourself. Or be more specific so another editor can improve it. Jon513 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles construction extremely Observor Biased

I don't know what to do about this, maybe someone could suggest something, but this article, like most article's on Judaism on Wikipedia, is extremely observor biased by Mizrachi interests (Meaning Religious Zionists, not Sephardim) or the Kiruv movement. The techeles section is most of the article, and it is only worn by a minority of Mizrachi, like 500-1000 Radiners and Yerushalmi Breslovers, and generally confused Baalei Teshuvah. Is there a way to scale it back or expand the rest of the article to show the true relative signifigance of the techeles movement. Shia1 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried, but the Mizrachnisten are stronger than I am. --Rabbeinu 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

if you want to expand the rest of the article go for it, but it doesn't make any sense to remove a section because you think that the rest of the article should be longer. The article does make it clear that techeles is not worn by the majority, if you think it could be made clearer, tell us how. Even for those who do not wear techeles it still has philosophical significance. Jon513 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems sensible to me that since the various blue strings are only important to a tiny fragment of the Jewish world, it would be best if the article about tzitzis dealt with the tzitzis commonly worn, had a line like, "Radziner Chasidim, and those Breslovers friendly to Radziner Chassidis, will put a blue string on their tzitizis died with excretions from the Cuddlefish, which the Radziner believed to be the chilazon. SOme religious ZIonists also wear their own version, from another source. - see Techeles article -" Then move all this techeles stuff to its own article so its disproportionally massive size does not make it appear to be more important than it is. Honestly - 5 out of six pictures involve techeles, when in the world at large only 1 in 100 tzitzis will have it. Shia1 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I completely agree. But the cancerous plague of 'techeiles' is getting worse. I have seen some (real-looking) chassidim with it.... but last week I also saw a yeshivishe bochur - a REAL-looking yeshivishe bochur - with it!!! I regard such objects as something to stay away from. Dangerous sources of spiritual pollution. --Rabbeinu 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ROFL Spiritual Cancer. I don't know about all that, but whatever the case, if the discussion of techeles is going to dominate the article on stama tzitzis it might deserve its own article. That way tzitzis as they appear in the majority of cases would get treatment they deserve, and those interested in techeles could also have an article completely devoted to it. As it is right now, this article's lengthy treatment of the subject is comparable to if the article on music had five sections and six pictures. Three of the sections were devoted to Sporty SPice along with Five of the pictures. Shia1 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) 12:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Rabbeinu- G-d forbid one should take the dangerous chance of fulfilling a mitzvah mideoraisa. Oh, and I support moving most of the techeiles material to a separate article. (I think it already was its own article at one point, actually.) --Eliyak T·C 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Rabbeinu's concern is the dangerous chance of violating a mitzvah deraisa (2 - tzitzis, and spreading sheker) anyway that doesn't need discussed here. Can we move that part to it's own article since 3/4 are agreed. Shia1 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

can of worms

Uhhhh...I seriously doubt this claim, "In remembrance of the commandment to use the tekhelet dye, it became common for Jews to have blue or purple stripes on their tallit." Who does that? Ashkenazim wear black stripes, Sefardim white. Alos what does the zionist flag picture really add to the tzitzis article? Maybe maybe mention in the tallis article, but here? Alos what's with the weasel wording? "As white and blue were felt the national colors fo the Jewish people," felt by who. I think you'll find when the flag was designed very few jews thought about such things as national colors. Shia1 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Flag of Israel article, especially the quote about mid-way through. --Eliyak T·C 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. It's good there's a name to put in instead of the weasel wording. SO do you want to put in the name of the gentleman who felt blue and white were the "national" colors of the Jewish people. Also, where is this blue and white tallis coming from? Is it featured in artwoek somewhere? Like I said black and white for ashkenazim and all white for sephardim is pretty standard? Shia1 15:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote makes it clear that it was not just one man who felt that the Jewish colors were blue and white, but the entire Zionist congress agreed as well. The question is, why were men in the 1800s familiar with blue and white tallesim, while you are not? For one, the Orthodox shul where I grew up in Chicago (which was not gung-ho Zionist) had blue and white tallesim, so I am not surprised by this idea. The quote demonstrates that blue and white tallesim were around in the 1800s. I can understand why Haredim would stop using blue and white - a) they wanted to disassociate themselves from Israel. b) there is a feeling that black & white is more appropriate than color. Or perhaps my shul used some blue & white tallesim to associate with the State of Israel. However, since I have a source, the burden of proof is now on you to give another reason why Israel uses blue on their flag. --Eliyak T·C 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tekhelet - Separate Article

This is both a substantial amount of information about a subtopic, and a separate topic unto itself. Many people may be looking for information about tekhelet, but be very familiar with tzitzit. I therefore propose that this part be split off into a separate article.--Springreturning 06:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on "remove category Jesus and history; if this fit into that category so does all of Jewish Laws and Rituals"

It is debatable whether or not Jesus followed all Halakha, in fact Halakha was in a state of flux in the first century anyway. But it is widely held by scholars that Jesus wore the Tzitzit, though the exact form is of course unknown. Anyway, Christianity and fringed garments is the more appropriate article here anyway, but where is the Christianity and the Shema article? 68.123.72.85 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Having a single article about whether or not Jesus followed halakha might make sense, and of course should be in the category "Jesus and History" (come to think of it, there probably already is one). Having an article for a particular halakha as it relates to Christians might or might not make sense depending on the amount of material on the subject (Christianity and Orlah - ?). However it does not make sense to have an article in the category "Jesus and history" when it does not mention Jesus even once. If a reader wanted to learn about the subject Jesus and history and decided to read all of the article in the category, he would be wasting most of his time. Watering down the category makes it harder to a reader to understand the subject, it is best to limit the category to article completely in that topic (not articles that should, but don't, have a small paragraph about it). Jon513 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article on Jesus and Halakha is probably Expounding of the Law. 68.123.72.85 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)