Talk:Tzitzit

message: I would like to ask that anyone who edits anything dealing with Tekhelet remember that more than one opinion exists, so an NPOV needs to be maintained. It's not our job to prove one dye over the other within wikipedia. There are many claims for both sides detailing which chilazon is the "right" chilazon, and evidence other than scriptural or commentative (Rashi, Rambam, etc.) criteria as to what makes chilazon should not be presented. The debate as to which chilazon is "correct" is up to the sites that spearhead their chilazon as being the one to make the "real" tekhelet. Please remember that the official status of the Chilazon remains as "lost"'''
The following quotes were posted by User:RK:
"This work has gained additional validation since archaeological work has uncovered primitive dye factories from 2,000 years ago which are located by vast pits of waste murex trunculus (and closely related) shells. Many archaeologists and some rabbis consider this proof that it was murex trunculus (and closely related species) that was the source of the tekhelet dye."
The problem with this is that many do not consider this proof because the dye factory ruins only contained purple dyes, and thus would be no good for producing tekhelet. It was never disputed that the Murex had long been used to produce purple dyes.
"Only in the 20th century has archaeological research, combined with readings of rabbinic literature, allowed some scientists to conclude that the murex trunculus snail was the source of this dye."
In both these quotes, wording brings the person to believe that a consensus has been reached that one dye is favored over another, this quote also implies that the 19th century discovery of tekhelet was invalid, which is very POV.
Many people who wear tekhelet (and those that don't) are touchy about which tekhelet is used and resist the opposing chilazon, so please keep it NPOV SF2K1 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Chilazon [[NPOV]] 

message: I got a new taleth, with pre-tied tzitzith on it, tied ashkenazi-style and all white.  I'm retying them sfaradhi with tkheleth, and decided to take a pic.  Here it is.  I put it into the tallit article, but perhaps it should be here also/instead?  Tomertalk 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nudder pic 

message: Should this page be classified under :Category:Non-clerical religious clothing?
SvannanoverRav 18:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. btw, you should put a ":" before the word category unless you want this talk page to be put in the category.Jon513 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Non-clerical religious clothing 

message: the section on cuttlefish techeles is very non nuetral—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.241.193 (talk • contribs).
:You can be bold and change it yourself. Or be more specific so another editor can improve it. Jon513 10:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality

message: I don't know what to do about this, maybe someone could suggest something, but this article, like most article's on Judaism on Wikipedia, is extremely observor biased by Mizrachi interests (Meaning Religious Zionists, not Sephardim) or the Kiruv movement. The techeles section is most of the article, and it is only worn by a minority of Mizrachi, like 500-1000 Radiners and Yerushalmi Breslovers, and generally confused Baalei Teshuvah. Is there a way to scale it back or expand the rest of the article to show the true relative signifigance of the techeles movement. Shia1 13:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried, but the Mizrachnisten are stronger than I am. --Rabbeinu 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you want to expand the rest of the article go for it, but it doesn't make any sense to remove a section because you think that the rest of the article should be longer.  The article does make it clear that techeles is not worn by the majority, if you think it could be made clearer, tell us how.  Even for those who do not wear techeles it still has philosophical significance.  Jon513 17:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct, I completely agree. But the cancerous plague of 'techeiles' is getting worse. I have seen some (real-looking) chassidim with it.... but last week I also saw a yeshivishe bochur - a REAL-looking yeshivishe bochur - with it!!! I regard such objects as something to stay away from. Dangerous sources of spiritual pollution. --Rabbeinu 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL Spiritual Cancer. I don't know about all that, but whatever the case, if the discussion of techeles is going to dominate the article on stama tzitzis it might deserve its own article. That way tzitzis as they appear in the majority of cases would get treatment they deserve, and those interested in techeles could also have an article completely devoted to it. As it is right now, this article's lengthy treatment of the subject is comparable to if the article on music had five sections and six pictures. Three of the sections were devoted to Sporty SPice along with Five of the pictures. Shia1 12:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Rabbeinu- G-d forbid one should take the dangerous chance of fulfilling a mitzvah mideoraisa. Oh, and I support moving most of the techeiles material to a separate article. (I think it already was its own article at one point, actually.) --Eliyak T·C 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles construction extremely Observor Biased 

message: Uhhhh...I seriously doubt this claim, "In remembrance of the commandment to use the tekhelet dye, it became common for Jews to have blue or purple stripes on their tallit." Who does that? Ashkenazim wear black stripes, Sefardim white. Alos what does the zionist flag picture really add to the tzitzis article? Maybe maybe mention in the tallis article, but here? Alos what's with the weasel wording? "As white and blue were felt the national colors fo the Jewish people," felt by who. I think you'll find when the flag was designed very few jews thought about such things as national colors. Shia1 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the Flag of Israel article, especially the quote about mid-way through. --Eliyak T·C 04:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The quote makes it clear that it was not just one man who felt that the Jewish colors were blue and white, but the entire Zionist congress agreed as well. The question is, why were men in the 1800s familiar with blue and white tallesim, while you are not?  For one, the Orthodox shul where I grew up in Chicago (which was not gung-ho Zionist) had blue and white tallesim, so I am not surprised by this idea.  The quote demonstrates that blue and white tallesim were around in the 1800s. I can understand why Haredim would stop using blue and white - a)  they wanted to disassociate themselves from Israel. b) there is a feeling that black & white is more appropriate than color. Or perhaps my shul used some blue & white tallesim to associate with the State of Israel. However, since I have a source, the burden of proof is now on you to give another reason why Israel uses blue on their flag. --Eliyak T·C 22:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: can of worms

message: This is both a substantial amount of information about a subtopic, and a separate topic unto itself. Many people may be looking for information about tekhelet, but be very familiar with tzitzit. I therefore propose that this part be split off into a separate article.--Springreturning 06:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tekhelet - Separate Article

message: It is debatable whether or not Jesus followed all Halakha, in fact Halakha was in a state of flux in the first century anyway.Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: "Jesus, however, does not appear to have taken into account the fact that the Halakah was at this period just becoming crystallized, and that much variation existed as to its definite form; the disputes of the Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were occurring about the time of his maturity." But it is widely held by scholars that Jesus wore the TzitzitJewish Encyclopedia: Jesus: "Jesus wore the Ẓiẓit (Matt. ix. 20)", though the exact form is of course unknown. Anyway, Christianity and fringed garments is the more appropriate article here anyway, but where is the Christianity and the Shema article? 68.123.72.85 (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a single article about whether or not Jesus followed halakha might make sense, and of course should be in the category "Jesus and History" (come to think of it, there probably already is one).  Having an article for a particular halakha as it relates to Christians might or might not make sense depending on the amount of material on the subject (Christianity and Orlah - ?).  However it does not make sense to have an article in the category "Jesus and history" when it does not mention Jesus even once.  If a reader wanted to learn about the subject Jesus and history and decided to read all of the article in the category, he would be wasting most of his time.  Watering down the category makes it harder to a reader to understand the subject, it is best to limit the category to article completely in that topic (not articles that should, but don't, have a small paragraph about it). Jon513 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The article on Jesus and Halakha is probably Expounding of the Law. 68.123.72.85 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on "remove category Jesus and history; if this fit into that category so does all of Jewish Laws and Rituals"

message: I do not think the picture of the rainbow coloured tzitzit should be included in this article. To have such colours in your tzitzit is definitely not kosher! The Torah (written and oral) clearly states that the only colour allowed is Tekhelet. I cannot thnk of any observant Jew who would wear such a travesty. Does anyone have an explanation for this? Do christians wear these multicoloured tzitziot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Ashton (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it, w/o needing to consult halakha:  it had no place on Wikipedia for the simple reason that the entire paragraph was rubbish, replete with non-words and nonsensical rationales.  Tomertalk 21:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow-coloured tzitzit 

message: 10-5-6-5 is only used by a small minority of sephardim, the Majority use 7-8-11-13 which is considered more correct
Read Tzel HeHarim, a wonderful and scholarly book by Rabbi Hertzel Hillel Yitzhak, of Chicago.  This is a sefardic book on the Mitzvah of Tzitzit, and is available through www.Feldheim.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.241.193 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: By 74.72.241.193

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tzitzit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080321111320/http://www.tekhelet.com/diagrams/TyingDiagramSeriesHomePage.htm to http://www.tekhelet.com/diagrams/TyingDiagramSeriesHomePage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20001205000800/http://www.torah.org/advanced/shulchan-aruch/classes/orachchayim/chapter2.html to http://www.torah.org/advanced/shulchan-aruch/classes/orachchayim/chapter2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is bigoted, and negative toward messianic Jews, my great great grandmother fled Nazi Germany, and i'm a messianic jew, calling it a "cult" of essentially protestant evangelists is a disgraceful assertion. 
Our mission is to bring the Jewish messiah to the people, not to convert Jews to Christianity.
Most of our outreach is targeted at Christians, not Jews. That's why you see our stuff on christian networks, if our outreach was to other Jewish sects to join, you'd see more campaigning in Jewish media. 
You're not gonna see us advertising in harretz, but if you look real hard, and ask personal questions you might find a few of us buried in a local potluck, but if you do, know we're just there to be Jewish, in the Jewish community, not to convince you to join our sect. 
keep in mind formal reformist Judaism as a distinct sect from the orthodox isn't even 100 years old, proper Messianic Judaism finds its history with Yeshua bin Yoseph 2 millennia ago, and follows the tradition of one of the oldest sects of Judaism. 
We do most of the same things most Jews do, we just believe Yeshua was messiah, again, reformists don't even believe in G-d half the time much less messiah, so basically the argument has devolved to "the more atheist you are, the more Jewish you are".
That's a ridiculous argument, some of us actually believe in HaShem, and some of us believe in Yeshua as messiah.
that's said i'm not about to challenge anyone's identity either, but actual Hebrew blood pumps through my actual veins, i am a jew in every way possible, i am a Hebrew that lights the candle on the sabbath, that wears a yarmulke, and shawl with tzittzit to pray, i have a mezuzah on my doorpost in all the proper geometry, I only trim with blades that cross, i respect the opinion of every rabbi, even if we disagree, I study the history of my people, both in the Torah, and the record as a whole, i keep kosher, i do my mitzvahs wherever I see one. 
The only difference is I recognize a 2000  year old rabbi that was executed by the pagans as the the fulfillment of Yeshayahu 53 
It would behoove you not to segregate the diaspora, because until we come together the promises given to all Jews in Torah will remain unfulfilled.
Believe what you want, just don't attack our people with libel, and misrepresentation.  
We did nothing to you, you're just acting jealous, of what exactly I'm not sure, but i have a hunch, and i think you're jealous we still have hope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.95.173 (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I reverted that edit. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken like a reformist 

message: The section "Messianic Tzitzit" has no sources and I haven't been able to find any official statements directed towards Messianic Jews that mandate or even encourage the wearing of tzitzit of any sort. I have found a few online shops selling what they describe as Messianic Tzitzit, but the products they sell are not consistent, and the merchants do not provide any theological rationale for what they sell. 
It is now January 31st 2021, and the section has had an alert up since at least June 2020. I suggest that the section be deleted unless someone can provide a substantial and  authoritative source by the end of February 2021.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe in Australia (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messianic tzitzit Suggestion