<div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Dov Kay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk">dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
R. R. Wolpoe wrote <<Or to put it another way, if resarch can ID a chilazon w/o a precedent -<br>why not Chagavim?>><br> <br>See footnote 19 of this article by R. Shaul Yonatan Weingort, originally published in Techumin: <a href="http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/bein.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/bein.pdf</a>.<br>
<br>The author argues for a distinction between simanim d'oraisa and simanim d'rabbanan. The former may be relied upon without a mesora (eg fins and scales in fish), while the latter may not (eg birds). With respect to chagavim, the Gemara explicitly states that "u'sh'mo chagav", which the SA then codifies as the requirement for a mesora. In other words, the requirement for a mesora is built into the simanim for chagavim. This is not the case with techeles.<br>
<br>May I respectfully ask that R. Wolpoe pay just a little more attention to the accuracy of his typing, as the typos are sometimes so egregious as to make his excellent posts hard to understand.<br> <br>Kol tuv<br>Dov Kay</div>
</blockquote></div><br>I apologize for the typos. What ARE the d'oraisso simanim for Hilazon? Where is the Hilazon in the Torah anyway?<br><br>Re: The quoted Rambam re: consenus on Esrog etc.<br>AFAIK thought there are at least TWO forms of Techeilet today! <br>
<br>With regard to the Esrog we have a consensus THIS IS an esrog and this isn't <br>With regard to a Hilazon we have a shrug of the shoulders. Who can say for sure which is which?<br><br>I'm sorry I have not the time to complete this interesting artcile<br>
<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br>
</div>