Nazarene Space

i recently ran into a messianic rabbi who teaches against the blue tzit tzit practice as she believes the snail to be an 'abomination'. my studies tell me that snails are only unclean to eat, that the blue dye was extracted while the snail was alive so i cannot find where this is any kind of abomination. this rabbi has been teaching against this for 2 years. i believe this is in violation of torah, which makes her torahless....?
how would you effectively argue this?
http://www.tekhelet.com/timeline.htm

Views: 814

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I will give a sort-of analogy...My great grandfather was asked to build a house for worship..did so..then was judged not worthy of ministering there...the congregation (mostly with one sort of mental problem or other) believed they were the only ones to "make it." Not a group, or denomination, but maybe 10-10 closely related people were "the ones." Ah, well.
The Talmud clearly states that the tekheles threads were made from a snail. The dye was taken from a live snail, and it is only a dead unclean animal which is unclean. Some Messianics argue that any blue will do for the "tekheles", but "tekheles" is used to refer to the dye, not the colour. In the absence of true tekheles, most orthodox simply omit this part of the mitz'vah. The talmud (to my knowlege) does not say that we can't use another colour, but it does say that we cannot mimic tekheles.

Whoa whoa whoa Yishmael! Tzitzit is not just for "clothes with angles". According to Num. 15:38, tzitzit are to be worn on the edges of our clothing. All clothes have edges. I see no verse mentioning "clothes with angles". Or are you confusing tzitzit with gedeel in Deu 22:12? Although the number 4 is used for gedeel, there is no mention of "corners". Again it is edges. Maybe you should get a better translation.
Yishmael said:
so wait a minute.. are you against people making tzitzit for themselves in our time because that snail is extinct or do you disagree with that rabbi teaching people in the former manner??

btw tzitzit is only commanded for clothes with angles and most modern clothes don't have this so tzitzit is not commanded for people (like me) who wear modern clothing....
I do not care what talmud says. Talmud contradicts both itself and the Bible. Please stop quoting talmud. Quote Holy Scripture instead. Listen to what you are saying! You are telling people to disobey YHWH! YHWH said tzitzit must have blue cloth (tekheles). It does not matter how the cloth is dyed blue or even if it was naturally blue. YHWH said tzitzit must have blue cloth. You are choosing talmud over Torah. What's worse, some orthodox jews are saying that tzitzit should be shatnez! Don't forget that orthodox jews reject Yahshua, therefore, they reject YHWH. If any person denies Yahshua, Yahshua will deny that person before the Father. There is only one way to the Father, through Yahshua.
דוד בן-אברהם said:
The Talmud clearly states that the tekheles threads were made from a snail. The dye was taken from a live snail, and it is only a dead unclean animal which is unclean. Some Messianics argue that any blue will do for the "tekheles", but "tekheles" is used to refer to the dye, not the colour. In the absence of true tekheles, most orthodox simply omit this part of the mitz'vah. The talmud (to my knowlege) does not say that we can't use another colour, but it does say that we cannot mimic tekheles.

Chris,

 

Lets get this straight, the Kaarites reject Yeshua as well, and the Christians reject Torah.

 

Now the word TECHLET in  Hebrew indicates a unique dye, in fact while working on the lost Hebrew text of 1Maccabees yesterday, I found it in a list of precious dyes.

When Judas returned to spoil the tents ,

where they got much gold,

and silver, and blue silk,

and purple of the sea

and great riches.

(1Macc. 4:23 Greek)

 

And Judas returned to the camp to plunder it

and they took much gold

and silver and TECHLET

and ARGAMAN and TOLAAT SH’NI

and great riches.

(1Macc. 4:23 from Hebrew)

 

Here we have one of many pieces of evidence for the originality of the Hebrew text of 1Maccabees over the Greek.  The Greek omits ARGAMAN because it mistakes it for a transliteration of Greek ARGURION (silver) already in the list.

 

Lets look at the last three items in the list (after gold and silver):

 

TECHLET is according to Gesenisus’s Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: “ a shell fish… a species… found in the Mediterranean Sea, with a blue shell, from which ‘cerulean purple’ [a bluish purple] is made… and garments died with this purple.

 

 ARGAMAN is according to Gesenisus’s Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: “Purple, reddish purple, a precious colour, obtained from some species of shell fish (Gr. PORFURA, Lat. Purpura), found on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea (1Macc. 4:23; Plin. N. H. ix. 60, seq.)….different from this is bluish purple TECHLET…

 

TOLAAT SH’NI 

TOLAAH  is according to Gesenisus’s Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament:

(1) a worm … (2) especially scarlet, scarlet colour, more fully TOLAAT SH’NI  …

 

The Student’s Hebrew-Chaldee Dictionary from the Hebrew Publishing Company says under this second definition “2) the coccus-worm TOLAAT SH’NI  coccus-crimson, worm-crimson.

 

From the context of the usage here in 1Macc. 4:23 these were three specific precious dyes each made from small invertebrates and considered precious  like gold and silver. 

 

Clearly TECHLET was not just "blue" or "blue cloth" but a specific and very precious bluish-purple dye comparable to ARGAMAN (a specific reddish purple dye made from shellfish) and TOLAAT SH'NI (a specific red dye made from a worm).

i will have to look into this alleged dye.  i am not convinced one way or the other, but i do appreciate your insight into the Hebraic maccabees and the possible light it will shed on this issue.  shalom

Reply to Discussion

RSS

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service