David, such a picture would serve no purpose. Say what one will about techeiles, the evidence that the chilazon is a snail is so compelling that anyone who maintains otherwise would willfully ignore a picture from R. Hai as well. (The preceding is a partisan comment.)
Regardless if the chai gaon drew a picture of the chilazon, the midrash the Aruch quoted at the bottom is alone impressive. And very revealing as to what the chilazon is and related steps. I continued the discussion on this new techelet Facebook group. Please feel free to read or join!
Just by the way I believe scientists have since reclassified and it is no longer referred to as the murex trunculus but rather as the Hexaplex trunculus
I really enjoyed the read, and was too let down at the end. One thing about the swipe at artscroll in the footnote. If you look in the back of the Artscroll on Menachos they provide a great presentation on the topic.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I had really hoped there would be a picture. Alas - 'twas not to be. (Agav, no swipe was intended at Artscroll. Their original Mishna translation is a classic, packed with learning.)
(This is a late reply, but I was "recalled" to this post by getting pinged from Mike, above.)
Mike - I'm not sure what you mean. I checked again, and as you can see, there is no picture. RHG explains the word סיטון in Mishna 12:1, then proceeds straight to explain the phrase אונקלין של כתפים in Mishna 12:2. He does not address the word "Chilazon" at all, much less does he draw any picture. And the editors said, as I quoted (page 29 above, fn 2) "the picture, like all the pictures in this book, is missing."
Please explain further, or if you need to send a picture, let me know where I can reach you.
There is no indication the picture of the chilazon was ever drawn in that sentence. But it could be in any of the pictures in this book. Drawn later. There are at least 7 pictures drawn in this book. See your inbox for picture.
I’m talking about the picture on page 29 footnote 3. It’s slightly later in Mishnah 13. The page that you posted in the article. Under the footnote for the 3 sentence, there is a very tiny picture drawn there.
sentence 3 is talking about a makeup brush where blue paint is placed on it for the eyes. The footnote says this is really a karkar, the blue paint is placed in a bobbin spindle which is used to sew clothing threads. Dyeing blue on clothing is a connection to tzitsit. And it is also called spoon.
I looked through the editions of the Musaph Haaruch. Like you noted these pictures come from the Aruch. I found several of the pictures there in the Musaph Haaruch. However, for this vessel that is called Kechol or Karkar or Caf, there are no pictures there to be found.
It doesn’t appear that the Aruch drew a picture for this vessel.
So I am wondering, is the commentary from the aruch and did the book then switch back to the chai gaon? When it says zeh tzorato, is that with the intention of showing what the chai gaon drew for this at the top. And not the aruch.
Looks like the editors are simply citing the Aruch (one edition thereof) as a point of comparison, to show he explained the word מכחול the same way as RHG. In all events, and contrary to the claim of the Wagshal publishers, and this is all I pointed out in this brief note - - we do not have any picture of the chilazon from RHG.
David, such a picture would serve no purpose. Say what one will about techeiles, the evidence that the chilazon is a snail is so compelling that anyone who maintains otherwise would willfully ignore a picture from R. Hai as well. (The preceding is a partisan comment.)
Regardless if the chai gaon drew a picture of the chilazon, the midrash the Aruch quoted at the bottom is alone impressive. And very revealing as to what the chilazon is and related steps. I continued the discussion on this new techelet Facebook group. Please feel free to read or join!
https://www.facebook.com/share/5oysHf5JsPNs9o81/?mibextid=K35XfP
Just by the way I believe scientists have since reclassified and it is no longer referred to as the murex trunculus but rather as the Hexaplex trunculus
I really enjoyed the read, and was too let down at the end. One thing about the swipe at artscroll in the footnote. If you look in the back of the Artscroll on Menachos they provide a great presentation on the topic.
Thanks for the kind words. Yes, I had really hoped there would be a picture. Alas - 'twas not to be. (Agav, no swipe was intended at Artscroll. Their original Mishna translation is a classic, packed with learning.)
(This is a late reply, but I was "recalled" to this post by getting pinged from Mike, above.)
Pshhh
Mike - I'm not sure what you mean. I checked again, and as you can see, there is no picture. RHG explains the word סיטון in Mishna 12:1, then proceeds straight to explain the phrase אונקלין של כתפים in Mishna 12:2. He does not address the word "Chilazon" at all, much less does he draw any picture. And the editors said, as I quoted (page 29 above, fn 2) "the picture, like all the pictures in this book, is missing."
Please explain further, or if you need to send a picture, let me know where I can reach you.
There is no indication the picture of the chilazon was ever drawn in that sentence. But it could be in any of the pictures in this book. Drawn later. There are at least 7 pictures drawn in this book. See your inbox for picture.
I’m talking about the picture on page 29 footnote 3. It’s slightly later in Mishnah 13. The page that you posted in the article. Under the footnote for the 3 sentence, there is a very tiny picture drawn there.
sentence 3 is talking about a makeup brush where blue paint is placed on it for the eyes. The footnote says this is really a karkar, the blue paint is placed in a bobbin spindle which is used to sew clothing threads. Dyeing blue on clothing is a connection to tzitsit. And it is also called spoon.
I messaged you the picture.
Mike - that is from the Aruch, cited as a reference by the editors. It is not from R. Hai Gaon, and (as you note) it is not referring to the Chilazon.
I looked through the editions of the Musaph Haaruch. Like you noted these pictures come from the Aruch. I found several of the pictures there in the Musaph Haaruch. However, for this vessel that is called Kechol or Karkar or Caf, there are no pictures there to be found.
It doesn’t appear that the Aruch drew a picture for this vessel.
So I am wondering, is the commentary from the aruch and did the book then switch back to the chai gaon? When it says zeh tzorato, is that with the intention of showing what the chai gaon drew for this at the top. And not the aruch.
Looks like the editors are simply citing the Aruch (one edition thereof) as a point of comparison, to show he explained the word מכחול the same way as RHG. In all events, and contrary to the claim of the Wagshal publishers, and this is all I pointed out in this brief note - - we do not have any picture of the chilazon from RHG.
Where then did the editors get this picture from? Because it’s no where to be found in the Aruch.