The exchange between R’ Shlomo Aviner and R’ Shmuel Ariel is not a simple pro-Murex versus anti-Murex argument. R’ Aviner admits that the proofs identifying the Murex as the Chilazon are strong. His problem is that strong does not mean settled, especially when science and archaeology are being used to reconstruct something that disappeared from Jewish practice.
R’ Ariel agrees that the identification must be proven. Their argument is over how much proof halachah requires, and what a person should do once he finds that evidence convincing.
Why R’ Aviner Says to Wait
R’ Aviner begins with the earlier identifications. The Radzyner Rebbe identified the cuttlefish, Rav Herzog later proposed the Janthina, and now the Murex is the third candidate. If earlier theories once looked convincing and were not accepted, how do we know that a fourth candidate will not eventually replace this one? Scientific conclusions are based on what is presently known, and new information can change the picture.
He also invokes the understanding of the Beis HaLevi transmitted by R’ Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. Once the living mesorah identifying the Chilazon was broken, technical or archaeological proofs cannot simply recreate it. They may produce very persuasive information, but information rediscovered later is not necessarily the same as a mesorah passed from one generation to the next.
R’ Aviner has two practical objections as well. If the Murex is not the Chilazon, its blue may be kala ilan, and putting the wrong blue into the tzitzis might damage the mitzvah rather than improve it. This is therefore not an obvious chumra where there is nothing to lose.
He also raises yuhara and the concern of casting aspersions on earlier generations. The Gedolei Yisrael continued wearing white, as did previous generations. For an ordinary person to adopt Techeiles publicly may look as though he considers himself more careful about the mitzvah than they were. The stories he cites about Rav Kook and the Nazir leave room for private use by an exceptional individual, but not necessarily for making Techeiles the public norm.
Still, R’ Aviner does not say that wearing Techeiles is outright forbidden. Someone following the Radzyner Rebbe, Rav Herzog or a contemporary rav who accepts the Murex has whom to rely upon. He also tells R’ Ariel that if his rav muvhak instructs him to wear it, he should follow that ruling. His own answer, however, is to wear white and wait for the Gedolei HaDor.
R’ Ariel: Waiting Is Also a Decision
R’ Ariel starts with the obligation itself. “Techeiles does not prevent the white” means that white tzitzis remain valid when Techeiles is unavailable. It does not mean that a person may leave out Techeiles when he can obtain the real thing, any more than someone with both tefillin may put on only the shel yad because the shel rosh does not prevent it.
That changes the entire discussion. If the Murex probably is the Chilazon, wearing only white may itself mean neglecting part of a Torah mitzvah. Wearing Techeiles is not merely the chumra while white is the safe, neutral choice. There may be a risk on either side.
R’ Ariel answers the “fourth identification” argument by comparing it to ordinary psak. Nobody leaves every shailah open forever because someone may come along next year with a better raayah. A posek weighs what is in front of him and decides which side carries more weight, even though another argument might someday be found.
He likewise rejects the kala ilan concern. The Gemara condemns someone who knowingly substitutes a fake and passes it off as Techeiles. That is not the same as using a dye that may actually be genuine for the purpose of fulfilling the mitzvah. If the Murex identification is wrong, its blue may fail to fulfill Techeiles, but that does not prove that it invalidates the white strings or the entire tallis.
The argument from earlier generations strikes him as off too. They did not have today’s Murex case before them, together with the archaeology and a working dye process. Acting because the facts changed says nothing against people who never had those facts. And if someone follows a real halachic position because he fears missing a mitzvas aseh, calling that yuhara already assumes that his concern is misplaced.
Can a Lost Mesorah Be Recovered?
Here the disagreement becomes more basic. R’ Aviner separates ordinary halachic reasoning from the reconstruction of a mesorah that disappeared. Halachic arguments are decided through the accepted rules of psak, but a lost identification cannot necessarily be rebuilt from archaeology, particularly when those conclusions remain open to revision.
R’ Ariel asks where such a rule comes from. Halachah uses simanim, physical evidence, old manuscripts and factual investigation in many areas. He cites the Maharil as indicating that the Chilazon could again become available through its simanim. He also points to the Radzyner version of the Beis HaLevi, which objects when a creature and its dye remained known throughout the generations but Jews never regarded it as Techeiles. That would be a negative mesorah against the candidate. If the creature and its dyeing process really disappeared and were later recovered, the same objection would not apply.
Who Decides?
R’ Aviner maintains that restoring Techeiles after such a long break is a Klal Yisrael matter. A decision of that size belongs to the Gedolei HaDor, not to every individual who reads the literature and finds it persuasive. Their refusal to adopt the Murex is itself important, even if they have not ruled that it is definitely false.
R’ Ariel does not claim that every person may pasken whatever he wants. His point is narrower: some major poskim supported the Murex, while many of the rulings against wearing it were based on safek and did not directly address all the evidence. A talmid chacham who has studied the subject and reached a firm conclusion cannot automatically be required to adopt someone else’s uncertainty.
This leads to Ariel’s final point. A practical ruling not to wear Techeiles because the question remains unresolved is not the same as a ruling that the Murex has been disproven. He wants that difference stated honestly, so a cautious psak today does not turn into a supposed rejection which later generations are afraid to reopen.
Bottom Line
R’ Aviner considers the Murex evidence strong, but not strong enough to overcome the broken mesorah, the possibility of another identification, the kala ilan concern and the lack of acceptance by the Gedolei HaDor. His practical answer is to keep researching but wear white in the meantime.
R’ Ariel sees waiting as a decision too. If normal halachic evidence can identify the Chilazon, refusing to act has its own cost because Techeiles is part of the Torah obligation of tzitzis, not a decorative hiddur. The question between them is whether the Murex case has crossed the point where waiting is still caution, or has become a reason to leave part of the mitzvah undone.
