הלכה אויף יחזקאל 27:7

Nevertheless, this objection is overruled: First of all after the destruction of the Holy Temple during the time of the Tannaim (the sages of the Mishnaic era) and the Amoraim (the sage of the Talmudic era) and the Gaonim (the sage of the post Talmudic era) Techelet was found. And at that point we were already exiled from our land and it was impossible to pay the tribe of Zevulun for the Hillazon, so therefore only when Israel were dwelling on their land and each tribe was living on their appointed portion and the Hillazon was in the portion of Zevulun and then if one took the Hillazon without the knowledge of Zevulun and without payment it was considered as theft, it was during that period of time specifically that the promise was made as can be learned from the text, there they will offer up the sacrifices of righteousness (that is regarding theft). But because of our transgression, since we have been exiled from our land and the nations have gained a foothold in all of the land of Israel until the end of days when He will return us and have compassion upon us and bring us back to Zion with exultation speedily in our, time this promise is not pertinent for the tribe of Zevulun does not dwell there but we can say its theft. And furthermore even when Israel was dwelling on their land only if the Hillazon that went up to the mountains in the portion of Zevulun was taken without payment then the dyeing process would not work and would be of no avail for it would be considered as theft. But in truth the Hillazon is found in all the western and Mediterranean seas but can only be caught with difficulty, Whereas in the portion of Zevulun the Hillazon rose from the sea unto its mountains that sloped to the sea and there would multiply and would easily be caught as well be explained with G-d's help. It appears that certainly if the Hillazon would be caught from the sea even in the portion of Zevulun without payment the dye would not be ruined. and this is what Rashi explains (ibid). Everyone will need you, all your brothers will need you for the Hillazon that rises from the sea unto the mountains, the nations will call out to the mountains. From all the tribes they will gather together on your mountains to bury the Hidden Treasures of the sand. This is said only regarding the rest of other tribes that the Hillazon was found in the portion of Zevulun because they would go up to his mountains or we mentioned above, and all the tribes needed him to buy form him the Techelet. But certainly the Techelet was found in all the western and Mediterranean seas and all the nations that encamped by the sea had the Hillazon and is written in the text in (Yechezkiel 27) Techelet and argamon are from Islands of Alisha etc. The majority of Techelet was from the island of Alisha and the merchants of Shva, Asher and Kalmud-- and was not considered part of the land of Israels Techelet. For in truth they only had enough to supply themselves with garments for the royalty, princes and priests and for the fulfillment of the precept of Techelet but they did not have enough Techelet to sell to the outside world. If this being so how is it that the dyeing process was successful if they took the Hillazon without paying for it and did not offer it from the tribe of Zevulun, but certainly we mentioned above that where was trapped within the portion of Zevulun would not be ruined. And it also appears from what is learned in Tractate Sotah (46B) regarding the following passage in (Judges 1) And the man went to the land of the Chittim and he built a city and called its name Luz and this is its name till this very day. The Midrash in Breshit Rabba explains that Luz is where the Techelet was dyed. The city in the land of the Chittim appears to not have been inhabited by the Jews for it is not part of the land of Israel and it was a place where the Techelet was found and the dyeing process successfully done. Even though they did not pay the tribe of Zevulun for it that is as mentioned above because it was not taken from his portion and all this is clear and correct.

But from the matter that is explained there, regarding the removal of the fourth claim, that all of the nations sitting on the sea coasts had the blue dye (tekhelet), which they support from the verses that are written about the fall of Tyre – of blue dye and purple from the coasts of Elishah Were your awnings, etc. the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad traded with you. These were your merchants in choice fabrics, embroidered cloaks of blue (Ezekiel 27:7-24), see there – it became clear to us how to understand the words of the Talmud in Tractate Menachot (42b): Abbaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah, “How do you make the blue dye, etc.?” And ostensibly, this is incomprehensible! Why did he ask this question specifically to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah more than any of the other teachers? As the implication of the wording is that Abbaye knew from reasoning that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah would have to know this. But how is Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah different from the other teachers? Yet according to what was mentioned earlier, it is fully understood. As it appears that this Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah is the son of Rabbi Yehudah the Hindi mentioned in Kiddushin, “Rabbi Yehudah the Hindi was a convert who had no heirs, etc.” And Rashi explains, “A Hindi is from the land of Kushi. Kush is translated [into Aramaic] as India.” See there, and see Yevamot (101b) and Tosafot (there, s.v. VeAna; and in Sanhedrin 36, s.v. Chada, towards the end). And in India, they were able to craft the blue dye, since it was plentiful there, as is shown from Scripture: the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue. And Sheba is part of the land of Kush, as it is written: The sons of Kush were Seba, Chavilah, etc. (Genesis 10:7), and the Targum Yonatan is, “And the sons of Kush, etc. and the name of their governors were Sinrai, Hindiki, etc.” And even though the translation, “Hindiki,” refers to Chavilah, and not to Sheba, it accordingly appears that all of the governors were sons of Kush. Even though their names are different, they are also included in the name of the land of Kush. And that is why the Targum Yonatan on Kushite (Jeremiah 13 23) is Hindi. Likewise [the Targum] translates, beyond the rivers of Kush (Isaiah 18:1), “that which is beyond the rivers of India,” see there. And that is to say that all the rivers of Kush are called India. And it should not be answered against this that behold, there is also a Sheba among the sons of Shem, as it is written: Obal, Abimael, Sheba (Genesis 10:28); and, if so, maybe that which is written about the fall of Tyre, the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue, is about the Sheba of the sons of Shem, and not the Sheba of the sons of Kush, who is called Hindi! And it is true that such is ostensibly implied. For behold, two Shebas are written with the fall of Tyre: The merchants of Sheba and Raamah were your merchants; they bartered for your wares all the finest spices, all kinds of precious stones, etc., the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, etc. These were your merchants in choice fabrics, embroidered cloaks of blue, etc. (Ezekiel 27:22-24). And it is implied that the first Sheba is the Sheba of the sons of Kush, and blue dye is not mentioned with it, but rather only, they bartered for your wares all the finest spices. Whereas [it appears that] the second Sheba, with which blue dye is mentioned is from the sons of Shem. As behold, Raamah is mentioned with the first Sheba, and he is from the sons of Kush. However, this is not so. As the first Sheba with the fall of Tyre is the Sheba from the sons of Shem. For behold the first Sheba was Solomon’s Sheba, And the Queen of Sheba, etc. (I Kings 10:1). For behold with the first Sheba, it is written: they were your merchants; they bartered for your wares all the finest spices, all kinds of precious stones. And with Solomon’s Sheba, it is also written: She presented the king with, etc., and a large quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again did such a vast quantity of spices arrive as that which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon (I Kings 10:10). So it certainly appears to be Solomon’s Sheba, meaning the Sheba from the sons of Shem, close to the country of Assyria. As it is known from a tradition of Ari, may his memory be blessed: Concerning that which is written:[Solomon gave her] everything she wanted and asked for (I Kings 10:13), he had intercourse with her and she gave birth to Nebuchadnezzar, see Rashi [there]. And behold, Nebuchadnezzar was from the ministers of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, as we say in Sanhedrin (95b), see there. But if the queen of Sheba was the Sheba of the sons of Kush, what business did Nebuchadnezzar, who was from her, have with being from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria? Rather the queen of Sheba was certainly the Sheba of the sons of Shem, which are close to Assyria, as they are from the same family. For Assyria is also from the sons of Shem, as it is written: The sons of Shem were Elam, Ashur [Assyria], etc. (Genesis 10:22). And even though in Tractate Hagigah (13a), we say about the evil Nebuchadnezzar, “he was the grandson of the evil Nimrod, etc.,” and Nimrod was from Kush – the Tosafot (there, s.v., Ben) have already written, “It is not exact. For behold, Kush fathered Nimrod, and we do not find that this wicked one was from the descendants of Kush. Rather [the association] is because of his deeds, etc.” See there. But, in fact, this is incomprehensible! Just because of a, ‘we do not find,’ the Tosafot would uproot the simple meaning of the Talmud’s wording? Hence it appears that this itself was the impetus of Tosafot: That since it is known that he was a minister of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, it is certain that he was not from the descendants of Kush. As what business would the descendants of Kush have being from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria? And if he were from the descendants of Kush, this anomaly would have to have been found somewhere explicitly. And that is why the Tosafot uprooted the meaning of the wording of the Talmud, that “he was the grandson of the evil Nimrod, etc.,” and wrote, “It is not exact. Rather [the association] is because of his deeds, etc.” However, according to the narrative of the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on that which is written: Ashur came out from that land, etc. (Genesis 10:11); and Yonatan translated [it as], “Nimrod came out from that land and ruled over Assyria, etc.” – see there – it can well be said that Nebuchadnezzar was from the descendants of Kush, who had settled in the lands of Sheba. As Ashur was from the sons of Shem, and [Nimrod then] ruled over them. Then it would work well that Nebuchadnezzar was from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. As behold, [according to this,] his place was in the lands of the sons of Shem. However, Tosafot, may their memory be blessed, followed the approach of the commentary of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, in his explanations of the Torah (here), citing Bereshit Rabbah (37:4), that these narratives [aggadot] disagree, see there. Regardless, whatever the case may be, it has been shown that the first Sheba of the fall of Tyre is Solomon’s Sheba, meaning the Sheba of the sons of Shem. So it follows that the second Sheba of the fall of Tyre – the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue – was the Sheva of the sons of Kush. And that is included in the lands of the sons of Cush called India. And it has been shown that in the country of India, they would work in the craft of dying with the blue dye, since blue dye was found there. And it appears that since they were experts in dying with blue dye, they learned how to dye with a dye similar to the color of the blue dye, which was not from the chilazon [the animal or fish from which the dye was extracted]. It is like that which we find even now, that this dye called indigo is brought from India. And that is why Abbaye asked this question specifically toA Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, as he came from the land of India, where they would work in the craft of dying with the blue dye, “How do you – the people of India, who are accustomed to dying – make the dye?”

But from the matter that is explained there, regarding the removal of the fourth claim, that all of the nations sitting on the sea coasts had the blue dye (tekhelet), which they support from the verses that are written about the fall of Tyre – of blue dye and purple from the coasts of Elishah Were your awnings, etc. the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad traded with you. These were your merchants in choice fabrics, embroidered cloaks of blue (Ezekiel 27:7-24), see there – it became clear to us how to understand the words of the Talmud in Tractate Menachot (42b): Abbaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah, “How do you make the blue dye, etc.?” And ostensibly, this is incomprehensible! Why did he ask this question specifically to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah more than any of the other teachers? As the implication of the wording is that Abbaye knew from reasoning that Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah would have to know this. But how is Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah different from the other teachers? Yet according to what was mentioned earlier, it is fully understood. As it appears that this Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah is the son of Rabbi Yehudah the Hindi mentioned in Kiddushin, “Rabbi Yehudah the Hindi was a convert who had no heirs, etc.” And Rashi explains, “A Hindi is from the land of Kushi. Kush is translated [into Aramaic] as India.” See there, and see Yevamot (101b) and Tosafot (there, s.v. VeAna; and in Sanhedrin 36, s.v. Chada, towards the end). And in India, they were able to craft the blue dye, since it was plentiful there, as is shown from Scripture: the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue. And Sheba is part of the land of Kush, as it is written: The sons of Kush were Seba, Chavilah, etc. (Genesis 10:7), and the Targum Yonatan is, “And the sons of Kush, etc. and the name of their governors were Sinrai, Hindiki, etc.” And even though the translation, “Hindiki,” refers to Chavilah, and not to Sheba, it accordingly appears that all of the governors were sons of Kush. Even though their names are different, they are also included in the name of the land of Kush. And that is why the Targum Yonatan on Kushite (Jeremiah 13 23) is Hindi. Likewise [the Targum] translates, beyond the rivers of Kush (Isaiah 18:1), “that which is beyond the rivers of India,” see there. And that is to say that all the rivers of Kush are called India. And it should not be answered against this that behold, there is also a Sheba among the sons of Shem, as it is written: Obal, Abimael, Sheba (Genesis 10:28); and, if so, maybe that which is written about the fall of Tyre, the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue, is about the Sheba of the sons of Shem, and not the Sheba of the sons of Kush, who is called Hindi! And it is true that such is ostensibly implied. For behold, two Shebas are written with the fall of Tyre: The merchants of Sheba and Raamah were your merchants; they bartered for your wares all the finest spices, all kinds of precious stones, etc., the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, etc. These were your merchants in choice fabrics, embroidered cloaks of blue, etc. (Ezekiel 27:22-24). And it is implied that the first Sheba is the Sheba of the sons of Kush, and blue dye is not mentioned with it, but rather only, they bartered for your wares all the finest spices. Whereas [it appears that] the second Sheba, with which blue dye is mentioned is from the sons of Shem. As behold, Raamah is mentioned with the first Sheba, and he is from the sons of Kush. However, this is not so. As the first Sheba with the fall of Tyre is the Sheba from the sons of Shem. For behold the first Sheba was Solomon’s Sheba, And the Queen of Sheba, etc. (I Kings 10:1). For behold with the first Sheba, it is written: they were your merchants; they bartered for your wares all the finest spices, all kinds of precious stones. And with Solomon’s Sheba, it is also written: She presented the king with, etc., and a large quantity of spices, and precious stones; never again did such a vast quantity of spices arrive as that which the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon (I Kings 10:10). So it certainly appears to be Solomon’s Sheba, meaning the Sheba from the sons of Shem, close to the country of Assyria. As it is known from a tradition of Ari, may his memory be blessed: Concerning that which is written:[Solomon gave her] everything she wanted and asked for (I Kings 10:13), he had intercourse with her and she gave birth to Nebuchadnezzar, see Rashi [there]. And behold, Nebuchadnezzar was from the ministers of Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, as we say in Sanhedrin (95b), see there. But if the queen of Sheba was the Sheba of the sons of Kush, what business did Nebuchadnezzar, who was from her, have with being from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria? Rather the queen of Sheba was certainly the Sheba of the sons of Shem, which are close to Assyria, as they are from the same family. For Assyria is also from the sons of Shem, as it is written: The sons of Shem were Elam, Ashur [Assyria], etc. (Genesis 10:22). And even though in Tractate Hagigah (13a), we say about the evil Nebuchadnezzar, “he was the grandson of the evil Nimrod, etc.,” and Nimrod was from Kush – the Tosafot (there, s.v., Ben) have already written, “It is not exact. For behold, Kush fathered Nimrod, and we do not find that this wicked one was from the descendants of Kush. Rather [the association] is because of his deeds, etc.” See there. But, in fact, this is incomprehensible! Just because of a, ‘we do not find,’ the Tosafot would uproot the simple meaning of the Talmud’s wording? Hence it appears that this itself was the impetus of Tosafot: That since it is known that he was a minister of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, it is certain that he was not from the descendants of Kush. As what business would the descendants of Kush have being from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria? And if he were from the descendants of Kush, this anomaly would have to have been found somewhere explicitly. And that is why the Tosafot uprooted the meaning of the wording of the Talmud, that “he was the grandson of the evil Nimrod, etc.,” and wrote, “It is not exact. Rather [the association] is because of his deeds, etc.” However, according to the narrative of the Targum Yonatan ben Uziel on that which is written: Ashur came out from that land, etc. (Genesis 10:11); and Yonatan translated [it as], “Nimrod came out from that land and ruled over Assyria, etc.” – see there – it can well be said that Nebuchadnezzar was from the descendants of Kush, who had settled in the lands of Sheba. As Ashur was from the sons of Shem, and [Nimrod then] ruled over them. Then it would work well that Nebuchadnezzar was from the ministers of Sennacherib, king of Assyria. As behold, [according to this,] his place was in the lands of the sons of Shem. However, Tosafot, may their memory be blessed, followed the approach of the commentary of Rashi, may his memory be blessed, in his explanations of the Torah (here), citing Bereshit Rabbah (37:4), that these narratives [aggadot] disagree, see there. Regardless, whatever the case may be, it has been shown that the first Sheba of the fall of Tyre is Solomon’s Sheba, meaning the Sheba of the sons of Shem. So it follows that the second Sheba of the fall of Tyre – the merchants of Sheba, etc. were your merchants in […] embroidered cloaks of blue – was the Sheva of the sons of Kush. And that is included in the lands of the sons of Cush called India. And it has been shown that in the country of India, they would work in the craft of dying with the blue dye, since blue dye was found there. And it appears that since they were experts in dying with blue dye, they learned how to dye with a dye similar to the color of the blue dye, which was not from the chilazon [the animal or fish from which the dye was extracted]. It is like that which we find even now, that this dye called indigo is brought from India. And that is why Abbaye asked this question specifically toA Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, as he came from the land of India, where they would work in the craft of dying with the blue dye, “How do you – the people of India, who are accustomed to dying – make the dye?”