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?

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?

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.)

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.

Neither am I.


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.

I hear.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?)