פירוש לפרק ב מהלכות ציצית לרמב״ם

Commentary on Chapter 2 of the Rambam’s Hilchos Tzitzis

Rabbi Eliyahu Tavger, author of Kelil Tekhelet, Modi’in Illit

Blessed is Hashem, Who chose His nation Yisrael, sanctified them with His mitzvos, and crowned them with the mitzvah of tzitzis, which is weighed against all the mitzvos. Yet despite the importance and preciousness of this mitzvah, for many generations Klal Yisrael was missing one of its central parts — the strand of Tekhelet. In our generation the conditions finally came together, and in 5748 (1988) it became possible to dye Tekhelet for the sake of the mitzvah after it had been absent for more than a thousand years.

This year marks three decades since that first dyeing. Over that period, Tekhelet on tzitzis has become increasingly common, and the number of people wearing it has steadily grown. The iyun and lomdus surrounding Tekhelet have also developed considerably, with an active discussion appearing in many articles, pamphlets, and even full-length sefarim.

Questions and concepts from the Rambam’s treatment of tzitzis come up repeatedly in this discussion, and are sometimes used as tests for whether the chilazon has been identified correctly. Among the main issues are the shade of Tekhelet, the Rambam’s statement that the chilazon’s blood is “black like ink,” his definition of it as a fish, the comparison of its appearance to the sea, and the question whether the tzitzis must match the color of the tallis.

In honor of the thirtieth year since the renewal of Tekhelet, and with praise and thanks to Hashem for all that He has done for us, I thought it proper to prepare a commentary on the second chapter of the Rambam’s Hilchos Tzitzis, which is devoted entirely to matters of Tekhelet. Among other things, I will try to clarify these issues. This commentary follows a format similar to my commentary Nefesh Yesharah on Hilchos Dei’os, which I prepared several years ago.

The following principles guided me in writing this commentary:

A. The Rambam’s words should only be explained in a way that fits his general approach and outlook. His words therefore have to be viewed broadly and compared with what he writes elsewhere — “Divrei Torah are poor in one place and rich in another.”

B. The Rambam is known for his extraordinary organization and precision of language. One must therefore pay attention to the order of the halachos, the way they are divided, and his careful wording. At the same time, one should not overread every word. Sometimes a word is there simply for style, and nothing more. The rule that “the Torah speaks in the language of people” certainly applies to the Rambam as well.

C. Over the generations, the text of the Rambam was corrupted by copyists and printers. At times they even felt free to “correct” or change the text according to their own understanding and outlook, which did not always reflect the Rambam’s original intent. A commentator therefore has to search for the most accurate and authoritative text. I carefully copied the text of Oxford manuscript Huntington 80, known as the “Sefer HaChasum,” which bears the Rambam’s own signature confirming that the copy was checked against his sefer. In the commentary I point out significant differences between this authoritative manuscript and the printed editions, as well as differences in interpretation that result from them.

When copying the manuscript I preserved its spelling and linguistic features, including places where it uses defective or full spelling and forms of language no longer commonly used today. There was one exception: I separated the word shel from the following word, as is standard today, instead of the joined form used in the “Sefer HaChasum” and other early manuscripts.

In the manuscript, the halachos are divided by spaces. That original division was not preserved in the printed editions. In my edition I restored the original division, with each halachah appearing as a separate paragraph, while also retaining the numbering of the halachos that became standard in the printed editions.

D. A commentator on the Rambam has an obligation to address difficulties that arise from the Rambam’s psak, decisions, and interpretations when compared with Chazal, and to be aware of other mefarshim who disagree with him. I therefore did not avoid mentioning opinions and explanations that run contrary to the Rambam’s position.

E. I tried to keep my wording brief and focus on the main points, so as not to tire the reader with unnecessary length, following the Rambam’s explicit instruction in Hilchos Dei’os (2:4): “In matters of Torah and wisdom as well, the words of the wise person should be few, but their content should be great.”

F. I did not think it proper to ignore the many explanations and opinions that came before mine — what people today would call “not reinventing the wheel.” I therefore made a list, as far as I was able, of commentaries on these halachos from throughout the generations, as well as sefarim and articles dealing with the subject of this chapter, Tekhelet, and went through them systematically. In the footnotes I indicate who agrees with the explanation suggested here and who understood the Rambam differently.

G. Finally, for the sake of completeness, I did not avoid bringing even straightforward explanations.

H. It goes without saying that subjects like these cannot be clarified or properly understood without also making use of other fields of knowledge, which serve as the “perfumers and cooks” of Torah wisdom.

This is also the place to express appreciation and thanks to the people of the Ptil Tekhelet organization, an outstanding group that has taken upon itself to work tirelessly on anything connected with spreading Tekhelet among Klal Yisrael.

The Rambam’s Hilchos Tzitzis

Chapter Two

Halachah 1

Tekhelet mentioned in the Torah, wherever it appears, is wool dyed like the pale shade within kohl, and this is the appearance of the sky as it is seen by the eye when the sky is clear. The Tekhelet mentioned with regard to tzitzis must be dyed with a known dyeing that retains its beauty and does not change. Anything not dyed with that dyeing is invalid for tzitzis, even if it is the color of the sky — for example, if it was dyed with istis or other darkening dyes, it is invalid for tzitzis. The wool of a ewe born from a goat is invalid for tzitzis.

“Tekhelet mentioned in the Torah, wherever it appears” — in the Mishkan, the Bigdei Kehunah, and tzitzis.

“Is wool” — as the Gemara in Yevamos says:¹ “How do we know that Tekhelet is wool? Since shesh is linen, Tekhelet is wool.”

“Like the pale shade within kohl” — kohl is an ancient cosmetic made from metallic powder.² Its color is metallic gray with a slight bluish shine.³ The expression pasuch sheba-kohl is similar to the language of the Mishnah in Negaim:⁴ “the pasuch within snow … the pasuch within lime,” meaning a weaker, faded appearance. This is clear from the Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah:⁵ “These four appearances: if the blood has the appearance of any one of them, or is deeper than it, it is tamei; if it is paler than it, it is tahor. How so? If the blood is blacker than dried ink it is tamei. If it is pasuch from it, such as the appearance of a black olive, pitch, or a raven, it is tahor.”

R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi, who lived one generation after the Rambam, explains the Rambam the same way in his dictionary to Mishneh Torah, Al-Murshid al-Kafi (HaMadrich HaMaspik):⁶ “They called a weakened, faded color pasuch, whatever the shade. Regarding blue, when they described Tekhelet as the color of the sky — a light blue tending toward white — he said:⁷ ‘Tekhelet is like the sky and is like the pasuch within kohl,’ meaning the lighter type of kohl, ithmid,⁸ which tends slightly toward blue; its lightness is what they compared it to.”⁹

This explanation is brought in the margin of the “Sefer HaChasum” next to this halachah. Another explanation is also brought there in Arabic, meaning: “There are those who say that pasuch means defective — only a small amount of blackness.” The difference between the two explanations is that according to the first, that of R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi, there are several kinds of kohl and Tekhelet resembles the lighter kind. According to the second, Tekhelet itself is lighter than kohl and resembles weakened kohl.¹⁰ The first explanation better fits the Rambam’s wording here, “the pasuch within kohl,” while the second better fits his wording in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, “pasuch from the kohl.”¹¹

The Rambam’s words here, and his words in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash¹² — “Tekhelet mentioned everywhere is wool dyed like the substance of the heavens, which is pasuch from kohl” — are based on the pasuk:¹³ “Like the work of a sapphire brick and like the substance of the heavens in purity.” This follows R’ Meir’s statement:¹⁴ “Why is Tekhelet different from all other colors? Because Tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod, as it says, ‘They saw the G-d of Yisrael, and beneath His feet was like the work of a sapphire brick and like the substance of the heavens in purity,’ and it says:¹⁵ ‘Like the appearance of a sapphire stone, the likeness of a throne.’” According to the Midrash,¹⁶ sapphire is a stone whose color resembles kohl. On this reading, the “sapphire brick” is the pasuch within kohl — a whiter, lighter shade.¹⁷

The same point comes out clearly from R’ Avraham, the Rambam’s son, who follows his father’s approach. In his discussion of tzitzis he writes:¹⁸ “Pure blue wool resembling the color of the cloud as it appears to the eye, which is the color of the sky.” In his commentary on the Torah he writes:¹⁹ “Wool dyed a shade resembling what is seen of the sky, which is a pure blue — an intermediate appearance between deep blue and white.”

“And this is the appearance of the sky” — based on the words of R’ Meir cited above: “Why is Tekhelet different from all other colors? Because Tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky.” Rashi,²⁰ unlike the Rambam, explains that “Tekhelet does not resemble the sky so closely; rather, it resembles something that resembles it. Tekhelet resembles the appearance of the sea, and we see that the sea resembles the appearance of the sky.”²¹ But the wording of the Midrash, which compares Tekhelet directly to the sky, indicates that the comparison to the sky is in fact exact:²² “R’ Meir said: Why is Tekhelet different from all other colors? Because Tekhelet resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod, as it says:²³ ‘They saw the G-d of Yisrael…’” The same point follows from the comparison to sapphire in Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer:²⁴ “R’ Yehudah son of R’ Ilai says: Why did the Torah warn us regarding Tekhelet? Because Tekhelet resembles sapphire.”²⁵

Many mefarshim²⁶ similarly compare the shade of Tekhelet to the sky, based on the Gemara in Menachos:²⁷ “One who does fewer should not do fewer than seven, and one who adds should not add beyond thirteen. Fewer than seven — corresponding to the seven heavens; up to thirteen — corresponding to the seven heavens and the six spaces between them.”

It is also worth noting that in three other places,²⁸ when the Rambam gives a short description of Tekhelet, he specifically uses the comparison to the sky and leaves out the comparison to kohl. This is because the central idea of Tekhelet is to remind us of the heavens,²⁹ which are, so to speak, Hashem’s “throne,” pointing to His greatness and power,³⁰ as explained in R’ Meir’s teaching above.

“As it is seen by the eye” — the printed editions corrupted the text to read “to the eye of the sun,”³¹ apparently by analogy to the Rambam’s wording in Hilchos Yom Tov:³² “One may not produce fire … with a clear hard vessel or a glass filled with water that is placed opposite the eye of the sun until its light returns onto flax or something similar and it catches fire.” The Rambam’s intent here is clearer from Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah:³³ “All the spheres … have neither a red appearance nor a black appearance nor any other appearance. The fact that we see them as the color of Tekhelet is only how they appear to the eye because of the height of the air.”

“When the sky is clear” — a similar expression appears in Berachos:³⁴ “R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who sees the sky in its purity says, ‘Blessed is He Who makes the work of Creation.’ When is this? Abaye said: when rain fell all night, and in the morning a north wind came and cleared the heavens.”

“The Tekhelet mentioned with regard to tzitzis must be dyed with a known dyeing” — the Rambam repeatedly emphasizes here and in the following halachos that dyeing with the blood of the chilazon is specifically a requirement of Tekhelet for tzitzis.³⁵ Tekhelet used in the Mikdash, however, is not dependent on chilazon blood and may be dyed with other substances and dyes.³⁶ This also follows from the Rambam’s Hilchos Klei HaMikdash,³⁷ where he does not say that the Tekhelet of the Bigdei Kehunah or the paroches must be dyed with chilazon blood as it must be for tzitzis. He simply writes: “Tekhelet mentioned everywhere is wool dyed like the substance of the heavens, which is pasuch from kohl.”

This is so despite the Tosefta,³⁸ speaking about matters of the Beis HaMikdash, which says: “Tekhelet is valid only from the chilazon; if it was brought from something other than the chilazon, it is invalid.” In the Rambam’s view, this is rejected by several passages in Shabbos which indicate that the dyeing in the Mishkan was done with dye substances, not with chilazon blood:³⁹ (a) “Rav Pappa said: our Tanna left aside the cooking of dye substances that took place in the Mishkan and instead listed baking.”⁴⁰ (b) “A poor person makes the supports of a small stove in order to place a small pot on it. So too in the Mishkan, those who cooked the dyes to color a section of the curtains that still needed work would make the supports of a small stove to set a small kettle on it.”⁴¹ (c) “What is it fit for? It is fit for a gourd seed. The parallel in the Mishkan is that it was fit for one stream of dye.”⁴²

“That retains its beauty and does not change” — this is based on the Gemara’s tests for Tekhelet:⁴³ “Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah would test it. He would bring straw, liquid from shablulisa, and forty-day-old urine, and soak it in them from evening until morning. If its appearance separated, it was invalid; if its appearance did not separate, it was valid. Rav Adda, before Rava, said in the name of Rav Avira: one brings hard barley leaven and bakes it with it. If it changes for the better, it is valid; if for the worse, it is invalid.”

According to the Gemara’s conclusion there, these two tests are done one after the other. If the color weakens during the first test, that does not yet prove that the Tekhelet is false, since the color may return to its original state in the second test. “Changes for the better” therefore does not mean a new change, but merely a return to its earlier condition. This is why the Rambam writes that valid Tekhelet dyeing “does not change.” By saying “retains its beauty,” he alludes to the successful result of the first test — “if its appearance did not separate, it is valid.” By saying “and does not change,” he alludes to the successful result of the second test — “if it changes for the better, it is valid.”

It is true that in Bava Kama⁴⁴ we find that, unlike other dyes, kela ilan, which was used to counterfeit Tekhelet, does not come out with tzafon.⁴⁵ It would seem, however, that this is only in comparison with ordinary dyes. Tekhelet itself does not fade even under the stronger tests described above, so certainly it would not come out through tzafon either.⁴⁶

It should also be noted that based on the reason the Rambam gives for requiring Tekhelet to come specifically from the chilazon, some authorities⁴⁷ held that modern dyes which withstand these tests would be valid. On their view, even kela ilan, once methods were developed to dye it well enough that it no longer fades under the tests, could be valid for the mitzvah of tzitzis.

“For example, if it was dyed with istis” — istis is a well-known plant mentioned in the Mishnah,⁴⁸ and called by that name in Greek,⁴⁹ whose leaves were used to produce a blue dye. Today it is distinguished from another plant, indigo, which came to this region from India and can yield larger quantities of blue dye.⁵⁰ The Gemara refers to counterfeit Tekhelet as kela ilan, which the Rambam calls “black” at the end of this chapter.⁵¹ Here, however, he preferred to identify the plant, the source of the dye, rather than the dye produced from it, kela ilan.⁵² The printers apparently noticed the difference and added on their own the words “or with black,” which, as noted, is the Rambam’s term for kela ilan.

“Or other darkening dyes” — the Rambam includes blue within the category of colors called “darkening” or “blackening,”⁵³ following the usage of his time. He does the same in the Moreh Nevuchim:⁵⁴ “The color black, for example, will only be produced when the garment is together with nil — which is blue.”

“The wool of a ewe born from a goat is invalid for tzitzis” — the word “and a ewe” begins with a connecting vav,⁵⁵ meaning that just as not every dye is valid for tzitzis, but only dye from the chilazon, so too not every wool is valid for tzitzis, but only wool from an ordinary ewe born from a ewe.

The wool of a ewe born from a goat is invalid for tzitzis because it has “changed,” as the Gemara in Bechoros says:⁵⁶ “Rav Pappa said: everyone agrees that its wool is invalid for Tekhelet, as it says:⁵⁷ ‘You shall not wear shaatnez … you shall make tassels for yourself.’ Just as the linen has not changed, so too the wool must not have changed.” The Rambam changes Rav Pappa’s wording from “invalid for Tekhelet” to “invalid for tzitzis,”⁵⁸ because this disqualification applies to all the laws of tzitzis,⁵⁹ as is clear from the source of the din, “You shall make tassels for yourself.”⁶⁰ More than that, one can say this is not a disqualification for every use of Tekhelet, since such wool is valid for Bigdei Kehunah,⁶¹ because it is still wool.⁶² It is disqualified only by a gezeiras hakasuv in the three areas explicitly mentioned in the Gemara: kilayim,⁶³ tzitzis, and negaim.⁶⁴

Halachah 2

How is Tekhelet for tzitzis dyed? One takes the wool and soaks it in lime. Afterwards he washes it until it is clean, and boils it with ahala or something similar, as dyers do, so that it will absorb the color. He then brings the blood of a chilazon. It is a fish whose appearance resembles the appearance of the sea, whose blood is black like ink, and which is found in the salt sea. The blood is placed into a dye vat, together with substances such as kimunya and the like, as dyers do. It is boiled, and the wool is placed into it until it becomes like the color of the sky. This is the Tekhelet of tzitzis.

“And soaks it in lime” — we do not find soaking in lime elsewhere except in the processing of hides.⁶⁵

“Afterwards he washes it until it is clean” — washing wool is one of the stages in preparing wool for dyeing and weaving garments, and it was one of the melachos performed in the Mishkan. It is therefore counted among the avos melachah of Shabbos,⁶⁶ as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Shabbos:⁶⁷ “One who whitens wool … and similarly anything else that is normally whitened — is liable.” By “whitening wool,” the Rambam means washing it. Only laundering a finished garment is not itself an av melachah, but a toldah, as he continues there: “One who washes garments performs a toldah of melaben and is liable.”⁶⁸

“And boils it with ahala or something similar … so that it will absorb the color” — raw wool is coated with sheep perspiration and natural grease or emulsion,⁶⁹ which prevent the dye from being absorbed properly. Dyers therefore wash the wool in hot water with cleaning agents before putting it into the dye vat, allowing the color to be absorbed as fully and evenly as possible.⁷⁰

“With ahala” — this is a cleaning agent mentioned in Shabbos:⁷¹ “What is boris? Ahala. But was it not taught, ‘boris and ahala’? There are two types of ahala.” The Rambam mentions it together with other cleaning agents in Hilchos Shemittah V’Yovel:⁷² “Types of cleansing materials, such as boris and ahal, have kedushas shevi’is and may be used for washing.”⁷³

“The chilazon, and it is a fish” — this is based on the beraisa’s description, “its beriyah resembles a fish.”⁷⁴ In Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros,⁷⁵ the Rambam distinguishes between creatures that have the “form of fish” and those that do not: “What is a sheretz hamayim? These are the small creatures, such as worms and leeches in the water, as well as the very large creatures that are sea animals. The rule is: anything that does not have the form of fish — neither a non-kosher fish nor a kosher fish — such as the sea dog, dolphin, frog, and the like.”

According to what the Rambam writes here, the chilazon — although it is a snail living inside a shell, as he explicitly explains in his Peirush HaMishnah:⁷⁶ “That shell is the shell of the sea creature called chilazon” — is included among those creatures having the “form of fish.” Its prohibition for eating would therefore be as a non-kosher fish rather than as a sheretz hamayim.⁷⁷ Some wanted to learn from these words of the Rambam that the chilazon must be a kosher fish with scales.⁷⁸

Rabbeinu Gershom, unlike the Rambam, explains:⁷⁹ “Its beriyah — its form.”

“Whose appearance resembles the appearance of the sea” — this corresponds to the beraisa’s statement, “its body resembles the sea.”⁸⁰ The Rambam understands the comparison as referring to its color and shade,⁸¹ similar to another beraisa:⁸² “Because Tekhelet resembles the sea…” The printed editions corrupted the text to read, “whose appearance resembles the appearance of Tekhelet.”⁸³

From the commentary to Sefer Yetzirah attributed to the Raavad, which apparently alludes to this beraisa,⁸⁴ another understanding of “its body resembles the sea” can be suggested. He writes:⁸⁵ “With the chilazon it is impossible to determine whether it belongs among the fish or among plant life, because it is alive and moves, yet does not change its place, for it is fixed and embedded in the earth.” According to this, the beraisa is describing the opposite qualities found in the chilazon. On the one hand, “its body resembles the sea,” meaning the seabed; it is almost plantlike, fixed into the bottom. On the other hand, “its beriyah resembles a fish,” because it is alive and moves and is included among the fish.

“And its blood is black like ink” — this detail is not stated explicitly in the beraisa.⁸⁶ In the Rambam’s view, however, it follows from the preceding description.⁸⁷ The beraisa did not say for no reason that “its body resembles the sea”; this explains how a blue color can come from it. Since “its body resembles the sea,” this chilazon has blood that is “black like ink,” meaning very dark blood, which gives the chilazon’s body a blue color resembling the sea. Therefore “with its blood they dye Tekhelet” — blood of this kind can dye wool the shade of Tekhelet.⁸⁸ As explained above,⁸⁹ in the Rambam’s usage blue falls under the broader category of black, and both are called shachor.⁹⁰ The expression “black like ink” is borrowed from the descriptions of lung colors in Chullin and the colors of niddah blood in Niddah.⁹¹

“And it is found in the salt sea” — the Rambam calls any sea⁹² whose water is salty a “salt sea,” as can be seen from Hilchos Arachin V’Charamin:⁹³ “If they were coins or metal utensils, he throws them into the great sea — the salt sea — in order to destroy them.” This usage reflects Arabic.⁹⁴ Several mefarshim⁹⁵ understood him to mean the body of water called “the Salt Sea” in Tanach,⁹⁶ which has no life in it, and therefore found his words difficult. The Rambam, however, calls that particular sea “the Sea of Sodom,”⁹⁷ following the terminology of Chazal.

Chazal make clear in several places that the chilazon was caught along the coast of the Great Sea, what we now call the Mediterranean: (a) “The yogvim are the hunters of the chilazon, from the ladders of Tyre until Haifa.”⁹⁸ (b) “Zevulun said before HaKadosh Baruch Hu: Ribbono Shel Olam! To my brothers You gave fields and vineyards, while to me You gave mountains and hills; to my brothers You gave lands, while to me You gave seas and rivers. He said to him: They will all need you because of the chilazon, as it says, ‘Nations will call at the mountain … and the hidden treasures of the sand.’ Rav Yosef taught: sefunei — this is the chilazon; temunei — this is tarit; chol — this is white glass.”⁹⁹

(c) “‘For they will draw from the abundance of the seas’ — this is the Sea of Haifa, which is hidden away for the tzaddikim in the future … R’ Yose said: Once I was traveling from Keziv to Tyre and I found an old man. I asked him, ‘How do you make your living?’ He answered, ‘From the chilazon.’ I asked, ‘Is it commonly found?’ He replied, ‘By Heaven, there is a place in the sea that is set among mountains, and semamiyos surround it. No one goes there without being bitten by them, dying, and decomposing on the spot.’ I said: ‘It is clear that it is hidden away for the tzaddikim in the future.’ ‘And the hidden treasures of the sand’ — sefunei is the chilazon, temunei is tarit, and chol is glass. This is because the tribe of Zevulun complains before Hashem and says: Ribbono Shel Olam, to my brothers You gave lands and to me You gave seas; to my brothers You gave fields and vineyards and to me You gave the chilazon…”¹⁰⁰

The Rambam does not specify the Great Sea as the place where the chilazon is found because he is only describing the conditions in which it lives. The precise place where it is caught is not me’akev the mitzvah.¹⁰¹

“The blood is placed into a dye vat, together with substances” — in the previous paragraph the Rambam described the preparation of the materials, a stage not mentioned in the Gemara, which he supplied based on general dyeing practice.¹⁰² Here he describes the actual dyeing process based on Menachos:¹⁰³ “Abaye — who lived in Bavel and was unfamiliar with the method of dyeing — asked Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah — who came down to Bavel from Eretz Yisrael: ‘How do you dye this Tekhelet?’ He answered: ‘We bring chilazon blood and substances, place them into a vat [and boil it].’”

“Kimunya” — the Rambam explains it in his Peirush HaMishnah:¹⁰⁴ “Kimunya — the salt called al-kali.”

“As dyers do” — there are three basic ways to dye fibers: (a) direct dyeing without auxiliary substances; (b) dyeing with mordants, which bind the dye to the fiber; and (c) dyeing by dissolving or reducing the dye in a vat, known as vat dyeing. Both istis and Tekhelet are dyed by the third method. The Rambam is describing the dissolving or reduction of the dye through kimunya, an alkaline substance required for this process.¹⁰⁵

Rashi, by contrast, describes dyeing with mordants. In his view, the substances mentioned in the Gemara are mordants that fix the color to the wool, such as tzarif¹⁰⁶ called beize.¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸

Tosafos¹⁰⁹ explain that the substances mentioned in the Gemara are themselves coloring agents, as the term is used elsewhere in Chazal.¹¹⁰ They therefore ask: “It is very surprising — how can anything else be mixed together with Tekhelet?! Perhaps together with the other coloring substances it is still called Tekhelet.”

Halachah 3

Tekhelet for tzitzis must be dyed lishmah. If it was dyed not lishmah, it is invalid. If one has a vat containing the dye and dyes a small amount of wool in it in order to test whether the color is good or not, the entire vat becomes invalid. What should he do instead? He takes some dye from the vat into a small vessel and places a little wool into it for testing. He burns the wool that was tested, because it was dyed for testing, and pours out the dye in the small vessel, because it was sampled and thereby invalidated. He then dyes the Tekhelet with the rest of the dye that was not impaired.

“Tekhelet for tzitzis must be dyed lishmah” — the Rambam’s wording indicates that only Tekhelet for tzitzis requires dyeing lishmah, not Tekhelet for the Mikdash. Menachos,¹¹¹ however, seems at first glance to say otherwise: “Learn three things from here: that a sample is invalid, that dyeing lishmah is required, and that sampling invalidates the vat. But ‘a sample is invalid’ and ‘dyeing lishmah is required’ are the same thing! Rav Ashi said: it is giving the reason. Why is a sample invalid? Because we require dyeing lishmah. This is a machlokes Tannaim: sampling invalidates it,¹¹² because it says, ‘entirely Tekhelet’¹¹³ — these are the words of R’ Chanina ben Gamliel. R’ Yochanan ben Dahavai says: even a second appearance from it is valid, because it says, ‘Tekhelet, argaman, and tola’as shani.’”¹¹⁴

In other words, the Gemara appears to learn the requirement of dyeing lishmah for tzitzis from dyeing lishmah in the Bigdei Kehunah, where the Torah says “entirely Tekhelet.” It would seem, then, that the Bigdei Kehunah also require dyeing lishmah.

According to the Rambam, however, one can say that the Bigdei Kehunah really do not require dyeing lishmah. The Gemara is not equating their dyeing laws with those of Tekhelet for tzitzis in general; it is comparing them only with regard to a “sampled vat,” meaning a vat from which wool was first dyed as a trial or test. Dyeing for testing invalidates the remaining dye in the vat wherever Tekhelet is required, even where there is no independent requirement that the dyeing itself be lishmah.¹¹⁵

Accordingly, when Rav Ashi connects the disqualification of te’imah with the requirement of lishmah, he is not discussing a sampled vat but the sampled wool itself — wool dyed merely to test the color. That wool is invalid for tzitzis, specifically because it was not dyed lishmah. The separate rule that “sampling invalidates it” applies to the vat from which dye was taken for testing; that act renders the remaining dye unfit for any use requiring Tekhelet. This is more severe, since the testing has impaired the dye left in the vat, which is no longer suitable for anything requiring “entirely Tekhelet.”¹¹⁶

On this reading, the Rambam’s wording in this halachah has to be read somewhat tightly. The opening sentence about dyeing lishmah applies only to Tekhelet of tzitzis, while the second sentence about a vat used for test dyeing applies to Tekhelet in all contexts.¹¹⁷ Still, one can ask why the Rambam did not mention the invalidity of dye used for sampling in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, unless he relied on what he had already written in Hilchos Tzitzis and Hilchos Tumas Tzara’as.¹¹⁸

“He takes some dye from the vat into a small vessel…” — this follows Menachos:¹¹⁹ “We take a little in an eggshell, test it on a tuft of wool, throw away the eggshell, and burn the wool.”

Halachah 4

Tekhelet may be purchased only from an expert, because we are concerned that it may not have been dyed lishmah. Even if it was purchased from an expert, if it was tested and found to have been dyed with one of the other darkening dyes that are not fast, it is invalid.

“He then dyes the Tekhelet with the rest of the dye that was not impaired” — with these words the Rambam alludes to a similarity between Tekhelet becoming invalid through tasting or sampling and wine for a kos shel berachah becoming invalid after someone drinks from it.¹²⁰

“Tekhelet may be purchased only from an expert, because we are concerned that it may not have been dyed lishmah” — as Menachos says:¹²¹ “The Rabbis taught: Tekhelet has no test and may be purchased only from an expert. Tefillin can be checked and nevertheless may be purchased only from an expert. Sefarim and mezuzos can be checked and may be purchased from anyone … What does ‘it has no test’ mean? It refers to whether it was sampled.”

“If it was tested” — at this stage the Rambam is not yet addressing the question whether there is an obligation to test Tekhelet.¹²² That is clarified below in Halachah 6.

Halachah 5

How is it tested to determine whether it was dyed properly or not? One takes straw, the slime of a snail, and urine that has fermented for forty days, and soaks the Tekhelet in all of them for a full day. If it retains its appearance and does not fade, it is valid. If it fades, one takes barley dough that has been allowed to spoil into muryas, places the Tekhelet that changed into it, bakes the dough in an oven, removes the Tekhelet from the bread, and examines it. If it has faded more than before, it is invalid. If its color has strengthened and become darker than it was before baking, it is valid.

“If it was tested and found to have been dyed with one of the other darkening dyes that are not fast, it is invalid” — at first glance this seems obvious and unnecessary to state.¹²³ The point, however, is that even though the Tekhelet was purchased from an expert who is presumed to dye valid Tekhelet for tzitzis, we do not reject the reliability of tests showing that it is not valid. If the tests show that it is false Tekhelet, it is disqualified.¹²⁴

“How is it tested…” — as Menachos says:¹²⁵ “Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah would test it. He would bring megavya,¹²⁶ gila, water of shablulisa,¹²⁷ and forty-day-old urine,¹²⁸ and soak it in them from evening until morning. If its appearance separated, it was invalid; if its appearance did not separate, it was valid. Rav Adda, before Rava, said in the name of Rav Avira: one brings chamira arkhasa¹²⁹ of barley and bakes it with it. If it changes for the better, it is valid; if for the worse, it is invalid. Your siman is: false change, true change… A certain man from Mashki brought Tekhelet in the days of Rav Achai. They tested it according to Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah and its appearance separated; according to Rav Adda, it changed for the better. They thought to invalidate it. Rav Achai said to them: Then it is neither Tekhelet nor kela ilan?! Rather, it must be that the teachings were said together: when we test it according to Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah and its appearance does not separate, it is valid; if its appearance separates, we then test it according to Rav Adda with chamira arkhasa.¹³⁰ If it changes for the better, it is valid; if for the worse, it is invalid. They sent from Eretz Yisrael: the teachings were indeed said together.”

“The straw” — this is gila, according to the Rif’s text.¹³¹ Rashi,¹³² however, following his version of the Gemara, explains: “Megavya gila — beisa, and in French, alum.”¹³³

“The slime of a snail” — this is maya de-shablulisa, according to the Rif’s version. Rashi,¹³⁴ however, following his text, explains: “Maya de-shablulisa — water that comes from fenugreek, called pengria.”¹³⁵

“Urine that has fermented for forty days” — this corresponds to the phrase “forty-day-old urine” in the Rif’s text. Rashi gives two explanations: “Forty-day-old¹³⁶ — from a forty-day-old infant; another explanation, urine that has been outside the human body for forty days.”¹³⁷

“And soaks the Tekhelet in all of them for a full day” — the Gemara says, “and soaks it in them from evening until morning.” That is not literally the full twenty-four-hour period written by the Rambam.¹³⁸

“If it retains its appearance … it is valid. If it fades … if it has faded more … it is invalid; if its color has strengthened … it is valid” — the Gemara says: “If its appearance does not separate, it is valid; if its appearance separates … if it changes for the better, it is valid; if for the worse, it is invalid.” The Rambam deliberately arranges the second test in the reverse order, first “changes for the worse” and then “changes for the better.” At the conclusion of the sugya the two tests supplement one another and are performed one after the other. Rav Adda’s test therefore determines whether the dye will remain in its weakened state¹³⁹ from the first test, or “change for the better,” becoming darker than it had been before baking.¹⁴⁰

Halachah 6

A courtyard in which Tekhelet is sold, which has an established reputation for kashrus, may be relied upon without further inquiry, and the Tekhelet does not require testing. It retains its chazakah until the courtyard becomes suspect. One who leaves Tekhelet in the possession of a non-Jew has rendered it invalid, because perhaps he exchanged it. If it was inside a container sealed with two seals — a seal within a seal — it is valid; with only one seal, it is invalid.

“Barley dough that has been allowed to spoil into muryas” — this is chamira harsana de-sa’arei, according to the Rif’s text.¹⁴¹ Harsana is muryas,¹⁴² into which flour or pieces of dough are mixed.¹⁴³ Rashi, based on his version, explains chamira arkhasa as “hard sourdough.”¹⁴⁴

“A courtyard in which Tekhelet is sold…” — this comes from a beraisa in Avodah Zarah:¹⁴⁵ “If a chaver dies, his wife, children, and household retain their chazakah until they become suspect. Similarly, a courtyard in which Tekhelet is sold retains its chazakah until it becomes disqualified.” The Rambam understands this as referring to the concern for kela ilan, which can be detected by the test described above.¹⁴⁶ If the courtyard becomes suspect and loses its chazakah, the Tekhelet sold there must be tested. With respect to whether it was dyed lishmah, which cannot be tested, we are not concerned,¹⁴⁷ because there is no obvious opportunity for fraud or improper profit; that issue is one of expertise and knowledge.¹⁴⁸

“One who leaves Tekhelet in the possession of a non-Jew…” — this follows Rav’s statement in Avodah Zarah:¹⁴⁹ “Chavis requires two seals; champag is permitted with one seal. Milk,¹⁵⁰ meat, wine, and Tekhelet¹⁵¹ are forbidden with one seal; asafoetida, muryas, bread, and cheese are permitted with one seal.” The Rambam explains that Rav is speaking about entrusting these items to a non-Jew.¹⁵² Rabbeinu Tam,¹⁵³ by contrast, distinguishes between a suspect Jew and a non-Jew with regard to whether two seals are necessary, and understands Rav’s statement to refer specifically to a suspect Jew.

“If it was inside a container sealed with two seals” — as the Rambam explains in Hilchos Ma’achalos Asuros:¹⁵⁴ “This is what is called a seal within a seal. How so? If one closed a barrel with a vessel that is not tightly fitted, in the ordinary manner, and smeared clay over it, that is one seal. If the vessel was tightly fitted and he smeared clay over it, that is a seal within a seal. Similarly, if he tied the mouth of a wineskin, that is one seal; if he folded the mouth of the wineskin inward and then tied it, that is a seal within a seal. Likewise, any unusual change from the normal way people do things counts as one seal, while smearing or tying it adds the second seal.”

Halachah 7

One who finds Tekhelet in the marketplace: even if he finds cut strands, it is invalid; if the strands are twisted, it is valid. One who buys a tallis with tzitzis in the marketplace: if it is from a Jew, it retains its chazakah; if it is from a non-Jewish merchant, it is valid; if from an ordinary non-Jew, it is invalid.

“One who finds Tekhelet in the marketplace…” — the Gemara in Eruvin says:¹⁵⁵ “R’ Elazar said: one who finds Tekhelet in the marketplace — if it is in tongues or skeins, it is invalid; if in threads, it is valid. Why are skeins different? Because we can say they were dyed for a garment. With threads too, let us say they were spun for a garment! The case is where they are twisted. Even if twisted, perhaps they were twisted for the hem of a garment! The case is where they are cut, because people certainly would not go to so much trouble for no reason. Rava said: Does a person go to the trouble of making an amulet in the form of tefillin? We learned: this applies to old tefillin, but for new ones he is exempt. R’ Zeira said to Ahavah his son: Go teach them: one who finds Tekhelet in the marketplace — skeins are invalid, cut threads are valid, because a person does not go to such trouble. Rava said: Just because Ahavah son of R’ Zeira taught it, will you hang crowns on it? Did we not learn: this applies to old tefillin, but for new ones he is exempt? Rather, Rava said: whether a person goes to such trouble is a machlokes Tannaim. It was taught: one who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair, whether a man or a woman, whether new or old — these are the words of R’ Meir. R’ Yehudah forbids new ones and permits old ones. Apparently one holds that a person will go to the trouble, while the other holds that he will not. And now that the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak taught: what are old tefillin? Those that have straps and are tied; new ones have straps but are not tied — everyone agrees that a person would not go to such trouble. Why not simply tie them with a bow? Rav Chisda said: this teaches that a bow is invalid for tefillin. Abaye said: R’ Yehudah follows his own view, that a bow is considered a full knot.”

The mefarshim disagree whether Rava’s statement that new tefillin may be suspected of being an amulet was rejected because of the beraisa of the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak — “old ones are those that have straps and are tied; new ones have straps but are not tied” — or whether his point remains.¹⁵⁶ According to Rashi,¹⁵⁷ Rava’s position was rejected, and the real reason one may not bring in the new tefillin is the prohibition of tying on Shabbos. According to the Rif,¹⁵⁸ however, Rava’s position was not rejected. The Gemara still maintains that new tefillin are not brought in because we suspect that they may be amulets. Only old ones are allowed, because “since they are tied, a person would not go to so much trouble for an amulet.”¹⁵⁹

The Rambam follows the Rif and rules in Hilchos Shabbos¹⁶⁰ in accordance with Rava and the beraisa of the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak: “One who finds tefillin on Shabbos in reshus harabim, what does he do? He wears them in the normal way — placing the shel yad on his arm and the shel rosh on his head — enters the house and removes them. He then goes out again, wears another pair and removes them, until he has brought them all in … When does this apply? When they have their straps and are tied with a tefillin knot, so that they are certainly tefillin. But if their straps were not tied, he does not involve himself with them.”

Just as with tefillin the knot proves that they were not made as an amulet, so too with tzitzis: if one finds cut, twisted strings, they were certainly prepared for tzitzis. People do not normally go to the trouble of doing things characteristic of tzitzis to ordinary pieces of thread.¹⁶¹ Rava, who initially disagreed with R’ Elazar, therefore retracted and agreed with him because of the beraisa of the father of Shmuel. That beraisa shows that even R’ Yehudah agrees that a person will not go to the trouble of tying an amulet like tefillin. The same applies to tzitzis.

Accordingly, the Rambam corrected the text of this halachah. Originally it read: “Even if he found cut, twisted threads, it is invalid.” He changed it to:¹⁶² “Even if he found cut threads, it is invalid; if they are twisted, it is valid.” This is explicit in his teshuvah to the chachamim of Lunel:¹⁶³ “Certainly, as you say, that is correct. I have copied the main point into my own text, because I made a mistake. This is the correct wording, and you too should correct your text: ‘Even if he found cut threads — invalid; if twisted — valid.’”

The older text of the halachah was based on the understanding that Rava continued to disagree with R’ Elazar even at the conclusion of the sugya, and that his change of position applied only to tefillin, whose tying requires enough extra effort to be a clear siman that they are valid tefillin.

In his teshuvah to the chachamim of Lunel, the Rambam does not retract his basic reading of the sugya according to his rebbe, the Rif, nor does he now interpret it like Rashi and the chachamim of Lunel who followed Rashi.¹⁶⁴ He simply acknowledges that he made an error, though not for the reason suggested by those who asked him.¹⁶⁵

The Raavad, by contrast, follows Rashi’s approach to the sugya. He therefore comments on the Rambam here based on the older text that stood before him, and also in Hilchos Shabbos.¹⁶⁶ In his Kasuv Sham¹⁶⁷ he challenges the Rif himself.

“One who buys a tallis with tzitzis in the marketplace…” — this is the wording of the beraisa in Menachos:¹⁶⁸ “The Rabbis taught: one who buys a tallis with tzitzis in the marketplace — from a Jew, it retains its chazakah; from a non-Jew, if from a merchant, it is valid; from an ordinary person, it is invalid.”

In the Gemara this beraisa appears immediately next to the law brought in Halachos 4–5, “Tekhelet may be purchased only from an expert…” The Rambam, however, separates these halachos with laws brought from other places and arranges the material in stages: first dyed fleece, then spun and twisted thread, and finally completed tzitzis already tied onto a tallis. The arrangement hints that the further along the tzitzis are toward a finished product, the less we are concerned about counterfeiting or invalid Tekhelet. The Ramban makes this point in his chiddushim to Gittin:¹⁶⁹ “Certainly a Sefer Torah found in the possession of a Jew may be read from. There is a chazakah that anyone writing sefarim for himself writes them properly, and if he buys them, he buys them from an expert … A proof is that Tekhelet requires lishmah and may be purchased only from an expert, as stated in Avodah Zarah and Menachos, and nevertheless Menachos teaches: ‘One who buys a tallis with tzitzis from a non-Jewish merchant — valid.’ The reason is that we say a Jew made it properly for himself and the merchant bought it from him. We see, then, that tzitzis found in a Jew’s possession are valid even though Tekhelet itself may be purchased only from an expert.”

Tosafos, by contrast, understand that Tekhelet found in the marketplace, and Tekhelet bought from a merchant, are permitted because most people who deal with Tekhelet are experts. The prohibition on buying Tekhelet applies specifically from someone known not to be an expert. They write:¹⁷⁰ “It may be purchased only from an expert — where there is a reason for concern that he himself dyed it and does not know how. But if it is found in the marketplace, most people who regularly deal with Tekhelet are experts. This is why, in the chapter HaMotzei Tefillin,¹⁷¹ one who finds Tekhelet threads may use them. The same kind of principle is stated in Chullin¹⁷² regarding shechitah.”

“From a merchant it is valid; from an ordinary person it is invalid” — Rav Amram Gaon’s teshuvah¹⁷³ explains the difference between a merchant and an ordinary non-Jew: “Regarding one who buys a tallis with tzitzis in the marketplace, which you found difficult — why is it valid from a merchant and invalid from an ordinary person? The reason is that a merchant is relied upon by many people. He buys and sells many talleisim and is careful with what he purchases because he is concerned for his money and does not want to suffer a loss. He buys only talleisim on which a Jew placed tzitzis, so that people will not speak badly of him as someone who cheats and then stop buying from him. Therefore it is valid. But an ordinary non-Jew who is not a merchant has only one tallis, does not regularly sell them, and people do not scrutinize its tzitzis, so it is invalid. This is Rava’s reason.”¹⁷⁴

Because of censorship, the printed editions changed the wording to “from a Kusi¹⁷⁵ who is a merchant — valid; from an ordinary person — invalid,” omitting the word “from” before “merchant.”

Halachah 8

A tallis that is entirely red, green, or another color — its white strings are made like its color. If it is green, the strings are green; if it is red, the strings are red. If the entire tallis is Tekhelet-colored, its white strings are made from another color, except black, because black looks like Tekhelet. One Tekhelet string is then wrapped around all of them, just as is done with other tzitzis whose strings are not colored.

Hasagas HaRaavad: “A tallis that is entirely red…” until “one Tekhelet string is wrapped around all of them, just as is done with other tzitzis whose strings are not colored.” I saw someone ask on the Rambam and on this beraisa, which insists that the tzitzis be the color of the tallis so that they are of the same type as the corner: how does this fit with Rava’s statement at the beginning of HaTekhelet, “Does color make it the same type as the corner?” This is not a question. There Rava is speaking about whether Tekhelet should precede white. One should not put Tekhelet before white merely because of the color, even if the entire tallis is Tekhelet-colored. Certainly the mitzvah is to put white before Tekhelet even though the Tekhelet itself is the same type as the garment. The Torah says, “on the tzitzis of the corner, a strand of Tekhelet,” meaning that Tekhelet always comes after the tzitzis of the corner — it is last. Nevertheless, the tzitzis must contain the color of the tallis so that they are of the same type as the corner.

“Its white strings are made like its color” — when the Rambam says “are made,” he means that they must be made this way, not merely that one has the option to do so.¹⁷⁶ He uses the identical wording for the obligation to use wool strings on a wool tallis and linen strings on a linen tallis: “A wool garment — its white strings are made from wool; a linen garment — its white strings are made from linen, of its own material.”¹⁷⁷ The same is clear from the source of this din:¹⁷⁸ “A tallis is exempted only by its own type.”

When the Rambam writes in Chapter 1,¹⁷⁹ “This hanging portion is called lavan because we are not commanded to dye it,” he means that dyeing the white strings is not itself a mitzvah the way dyeing Tekhelet is, and therefore it does not have to be done lishmah.¹⁸⁰ Nevertheless, the white strings must match the color of the tallis, as he states here.

At first glance, this halachah would belong in Chapter 1, which deals with the laws of the white strings. But since it is bound together with the law that follows, concerning a tallis that is entirely Tekhelet-colored, it was placed here in the chapter dealing with Tekhelet.¹⁸¹

“If the entire tallis is Tekhelet-colored, its white strings are made from another color” — the Rambam’s source is Menachos:¹⁸² “The Rabbis taught: a tallis that is entirely Tekhelet-colored — all other colors can exempt it, except kela ilan. An objection was raised: a tallis is exempted only by its own type. A tallis that is entirely Tekhelet-colored — one brings Tekhelet and another color and attaches them; kela ilan should not be brought, but if it was brought, it is valid. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: there is no contradiction. Here it is speaking about a tallis with four strings; there, about a tallis with eight strings.”

Rashi gives two explanations for why kela ilan may not be placed on a tallis that is entirely Tekhelet-colored. According to the first, people might think the kela ilan is actual Tekhelet and later use it as Tekhelet on another tallis. According to the second, Tekhelet and kela ilan look the same, while tzitzis require two visibly distinct colors.

According to the first explanation, the first beraisa is discussing a tallis “with eight strings.” There is a concern that someone will remove the extra strings, which the tzitzis do not actually require, and reuse them elsewhere as Tekhelet. According to the second explanation, it is the second beraisa that deals with a tallis “with eight strings,” where there are enough strings for kela ilan, real Tekhelet, and a third color, thereby preserving the required “two appearances.” In that case kela ilan is only forbidden lechatchilah, because someone might later remove those strings and mistakenly tie them onto another tallis as Tekhelet. Bedieved, however, the tzitzis are valid.

The Rambam’s view resembles Rashi’s second explanation,¹⁸³ as is clear from his wording here: “except black, because black looks like Tekhelet.” It appears, however, that according to the Rambam this din depends on the unique role of Tekhelet: it is wrapped around the white strings. At the beginning of Chapter 1 he writes:¹⁸⁴ “One takes a wool thread dyed like the sky and wraps it around the hanging portion; this thread is called Tekhelet.” The Tekhelet thread is supposed to remain recognizable and stand out from the other strings.

This also explains the two kinds of talleisim in Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak’s answer — a tallis “with four strings” and one “with eight strings.” A tallis with four strings follows Rav Acha bar Yaakov’s method in Menachos:¹⁸⁵ “Rav Acha bar Yaakov would insert four strings, fold them over, place them through the garment, and bind them. He held that we need eight ends in the garment so that there should be gedil gedilim in place of a single strand.” A tallis with eight strings follows Rav Yirmiyah of Difti: “He inserted eight, making sixteen ends, and did not bind them.”

The disagreement is not merely how many strings are placed through each corner. It also involves whether the strings are bound or wrapped together with a Tekhelet strand. Rav Acha bar Yaakov “bound them,” whereas Rav Yirmiyah of Difti “did not bind them.”¹⁸⁶ Since the halachah follows Rav Acha bar Yaakov — four strings are used and, after doubling them, Tekhelet is wrapped around them — the Rambam does not bring the second beraisa at all.¹⁸⁷

“Except black” — this is the Rambam’s Hebrew term for the dye the Gemara calls kela ilan,¹⁸⁸ a name originating in Greek,¹⁸⁹ meaning black or dark.¹⁹⁰

“One Tekhelet string is then wrapped around all of them, just as is done with other tzitzis whose strings are not colored” — this sounds obvious. Why would anyone think that Tekhelet is not wrapped around colored strings? It seems the Rambam is coming to reject Shmuel’s view in the Gemara:¹⁹¹ “Levi said to Shmuel: Ariyoch, do not sit down until you explain this statement to me: Tekhelet does not prevent the white, and the white does not prevent the Tekhelet. What does this mean? He answered: it was necessary only for a linen garment with tzitzis, where the mitzvah is to put the white first. Why? ‘The corner’ — of the same type as the corner. If one put the Tekhelet before the white, however, it is still valid. Fine, that explains why the white does not prevent the Tekhelet. But what does it mean that Tekhelet does not prevent the white? Rami bar Chama said: it was necessary only for a tallis that is entirely Tekhelet-colored, where the mitzvah is to put Tekhelet first, because ‘the corner’ means of the same type as the corner. But if one put white first, it is still valid.”

There are two explanations of this “precedence” — white before Tekhelet or Tekhelet before white:¹⁹² either the order in which the strings are inserted into the tallis, or the order of the windings in the gedil. The Rambam, however, appears to have a third explanation.¹⁹³ The “precedence” in the Gemara refers to which strings form the hanging core and which strings are used for wrapping. If white precedes Tekhelet, the hanging portion is made of white strings and the Tekhelet is wrapped around them. If Tekhelet precedes white, the hanging portion is made from Tekhelet strings and white is wrapped around them.

According to the straightforward reading of Shmuel’s statement — “It was necessary only for a linen garment with tzitzis,¹⁹⁴ where the mitzvah is to put white first” — Shmuel would hold that Tekhelet is wrapped around the other strings only in “tzitzis whose strings are not colored,” meaning specifically the tzitzis of a linen garment. Rava answers, “Does color determine anything?”¹⁹⁵ In other words, Tekhelet is always the thread used for wrapping, whether the other strings are colored or not. That is exactly what the Rambam states here.

Halachah 9

The punishment of one who does not place white strings is more severe than the punishment of one who did not place Tekhelet, because white is available to everyone, whereas Tekhelet is not available to everyone. It is not found in every place or at every time, because of the dye that we described.

“The punishment is more severe” — this is stated in Menachos:¹⁹⁶ “It was taught: R’ Meir would say, the punishment for failing to wear white is greater than the punishment for failing to wear Tekhelet. What can this be compared to? To a human king who told two servants: to one he said, ‘Bring me a seal of clay’; to the other, ‘Bring me a seal of gold.’ Both were negligent and failed to bring it. Whose punishment is greater? Obviously the one who was told to bring a seal of clay and did not bring it.”

“It is not found in every place” — as the Sifrei says:¹⁹⁷ “R’ Yose said: Once I was traveling from Keziv to Tyre and found an old man. I asked him, ‘How do you make your living?’ He answered, ‘From the chilazon.’ I asked, ‘Is it commonly found?’ He said, ‘By Heaven, there is a place in the sea set among mountains and semamiyos surround it. No one goes there without being bitten by them, dying, and decomposing on the spot.’”

“Nor at every time” — as the beraisa in Menachos says:¹⁹⁸ “The Rabbis taught: this chilazon … comes up once in seventy years,¹⁹⁹ and with its blood Tekhelet is dyed; therefore its price is high.”²⁰⁰ According to the Rambam, “comes up” means that it comes up in the fishermen’s nets — in other words, it is not caught constantly or at every time. That is why “its price” is high.

Rashi,²⁰¹ by contrast, understands “comes up once in seventy years” as a description of the chilazon’s life cycle: it comes up from the sea onto dry land. On his reading, this has no direct effect on whether fishermen can catch it in nets²⁰² while it remains in the sea. Presumably the reason this still contributes to the high price is that while the chilazon remains in the sea it is difficult to catch, whereas if it regularly came up onto land it would be much easier to obtain.²⁰³

Appendix — Rashi’s View of the Color of Tekhelet

As explained in our commentary to Halachah 1, Rashi,²⁰⁴ unlike the Rambam, writes: “Tekhelet does not resemble the sky so closely; rather, it resembles something that resembles it. Tekhelet resembles the appearance of the sea, and we see that the sea resembles the appearance of the sky.”²⁰⁵ In his commentary to Bamidbar 15, Rashi also quotes a teaching originating with R’ Moshe HaDarshan: “A strand of Tekhelet — corresponding to the bereavement of the firstborn. The Aramaic translation of bereavement is tikla. Their plague took place at night, and similarly the color of Tekhelet resembles the color of the sky as it darkens toward evening.”

Elsewhere, however, Rashi writes that Tekhelet is yarok: in his commentaries to Shemos 25:4; Bamidbar 15:38; Berachos 9b, s.v. Tekhelet; and Berachos 57b, s.v. Tekhelet. What exactly Rashi means by the word yarok therefore needs clarification.

In his commentary to Shemos 10:15, Rashi uses yarok in the modern sense of green: “Every green thing — a green leaf, verdure in the vernacular.” See also R’ Shlomo Sirilio on Yerushalmi Berachos 4:1: “Tekhelet … and its color is green, verdi in the vernacular.” Rashi’s words on Berachos 9b also lean in that direction: “Tekhelet is yarok, and is close to the color of leek, called porish.”

In Chullin 47b, though, Rashi uses yarok for a yellowish shade: “Like hops — yarok, but not like grass; rather, like hops, humlon, or like saffron, or like an egg. All of these are types of yarok, though each is different from the next, and every appearance called krog is called yarok.” In the same place he writes: “Like kohl — a blue color like lazur, neither yarok nor black.” See what Lula’os Tekhelet, p. 241, derives from this.

In Rashi on Sukkah 51b, yarok means a gray shade: “Marble — colored marble, neither white nor black, but like yarok, bis in the vernacular.” Similarly in Bava Basra 4a: “Marble — yarok marble called beish.” His wording in Berachos 57b is close to this as well: “Tekhelet is yarok, and a person whose face is yarok is ill.” See Chosam Shel Zahav by R’ Binyamin Ze’ev Horowitz, pp. 347–348.

One should also add the explanation of R’ Chaim ben R’ Betzalel, brother of the Maharal, in his commentary on Rashi, Be’er Mayim Chaim, at the end of Parashas Shelach: “Some explain that it is a yarok color from the blood of a certain fish, the chilazon, whose blood is yarok, in German ausgespien, like ‘her father had spit in her face’ — meaning this fish spits out this color.”

According to several mefarshim, the category of yarok includes three colors — green, yellow, and blue. For example, the Mordechai in Hilchos Niddah, remez 735, writes: “All three of these appearances — gel and grin — are included within yarok.” See also Tosafos Sukkah 31b, s.v. hayarok kekarti; Tosafos Chullin 47b, s.v. ela yerukah heichi dami kekarti; and Tosafos HaRosh, Sukkah 31b, s.v. yarok kekarti.

It is possible that the identification of Tekhelet with yarok is based on a Midrashic tradition. A hint to such a tradition appears in Pesikta Zutresa (Lekach Tov) on Bereishis 1: “It was taught: tohu is a green line — meaning Tekhelet, a yarok color surrounding the entire world, from which darkness emerges, as it says, ‘He makes darkness His hiding place’…” The Radak on Bereishis 1 brings something similar: “Rav Saadiah explained: a green line — this is the darkness visible around the world before dawn.” See also Torah Me’irah, vol. 1, by R’ Meir HaMeiri, p. 19.

It should also be noted that Ibn Ezra writes in his long commentary to Shemos 25:4: “Tekhelet — Yefes said that it is an appearance like blackness, because it is the ultimate end of all colors. All colors return to it, while through human action it never returns to them. We, however, rely on Chazal, who said that it is yarok.” In his short commentary there he follows Yefes: “Tekhelet is an appearance close to blackness and somewhat resembles the sky; therefore the strand of Tekhelet serves as a remembrance in the mitzvah of tzitzis. It may be called this because this appearance is the end point, the tachlis, of all appearances, since there is nothing after it, while white comes first.” According to this conception, colors are ranked between white and black, because they are all formed from mixtures of black and white in different proportions. Blue, which contains the greatest proportion of black relative to white, is the final color in the sequence before black itself, which is not considered a color.

List of Sefarim and Editions

The following list contains the sefarim and mefarshim used in this commentary and cited either in the text or in the footnotes. It does not include commentaries on Tanach, Mishnah, Tosefta, or Shas; responsa collections; the standard commentaries printed around the Tur and Shulchan Aruch; or halachic works of later poskim.

Works of the Rambam and His Son

Mishneh Torah, Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon, Warsaw–Vilna edition; Shabse Frankel edition, Jerusalem, 5735–5767.
Sefer HaMitzvos, Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon, with the Ramban’s hasagos, Shabse Frankel edition, Jerusalem, 5755.
Moreh Nevuchim, translated by Michael Schwartz, Tel Aviv, 5763.
Teshuvos HaRambam, ed. Yehoshua Blau, Jerusalem, 5746.
Biur Shemos HaRefuos LaRambam, in Medical Writings — Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon, vol. 5, Jerusalem, 5729.
Sefer HaMaspik L’Ovdei Hashem, R’ Avraham ben HaRambam, ed. Nissim Dana, Ramat Gan, 5749.
Peirush HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam on Bereishis and Shemos, Sassoon edition, London, 5718.

Commentaries on Mishneh Torah

The standard commentaries printed alongside the Rambam, or in the Sefer HaLikkutim section of the Shabse Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah, are cited from that edition. They include:
Kesef Mishneh, R’ Yosef Karo
Hagahos Maimoniyos, R’ Meir ben R’ Yekusiel HaKohen of Rothenburg
Migdal Oz, R’ Shem Tov Gaon
Mahari Kurkus, R’ Yosef Kurkus
Mishneh LaMelech, R’ Yehudah Rosanes
Ben Aryeh, R’ Zev Wolf ben R’ Aryeh Lipkin
Binyan Yehoshua, R’ Yehoshua Lang
Biur HaRad”al to Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, R’ David Luria
Kesser Torah, R’ Levi of Kodny
Sefer Kovetz, R’ Nachum Trebitsch
Emek HaMelech, R’ Avraham Avish of Frankfurt
Peirush HaRada, R’ David Arama
Shu”t HaRadbaz, R’ David ben Shlomo ibn Zimra
Ohr Sameach, R’ Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk, Warsaw–Riga, 5662–5686 [photo-offset New York, 5706]
Al-Murshid al-Kafi [HaMadrich HaMaspik], R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi, ed. Hadassah Shai, Jerusalem, 5765
Be’er Yehudah, R’ Avraham Shlozover, Warsaw, 5645 [photo-offset 5751]
Ben Yedid, R’ Yedidiah Shmuel Tarika, Salonika, 5566
Divrei Yirmiyahu, R’ Yirmiyahu Löw, Munkacs, 5635–5636 [photo-offset 5734]
HaMeir LaAretz, R’ Meir Soloveitchik, Slutsk, 5671 [photo-offset New York, 5757]
Vayikach Avraham, R’ Avraham Korkidi, Izmir, 5642 [photo edition, Machon Yerushalayim, 5744]
Ziv Mishneh, R’ Zev Wolf Turbowitz, Warsaw, 5664 [photo-offset Brooklyn, 5752]
Zecher Yeshayah, R’ Zecharyah Yeshayah Yules, Vilna, 5642
Zera Yitzchak, R’ Yitzchak Lumbroso, 5512 [new edition in Vaad LaChachamim, vol. 1, Bnei Brak, 5755]
Chaim U’Melech, R’ Chaim Palaggi, Izmir, 5634
Yad Peshutah, R’ Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, Jerusalem, 5761
Yitzchak Yeranen, R’ Elyakim Gatigno, Salonika, 5546 [photo-offset Brooklyn, 5751]
Kesser HaMelech, R’ Kasriel Aharon Natan, Warsaw, 5656 [photo-offset Brooklyn, 5752]
Lev Shalem, R’ Shlomo Shalem, Amsterdam, 5533 [photo-offset Jerusalem, 5739]
Leshad HaShemen, R’ Moshe Nachum Yerushalimski, Warsaw, 5641
Mayim Chaim, R’ Chizkiyah de Silva, Amsterdam, 5490 [photo-offset Jerusalem, 5745]
Maaseh Rokeach, R’ Masoud Chai Rokeach, vol. 1, Venice, 5502–5504
Maaseh LaMelech, R’ Yeshayah Silberstein, Waitzen, 5673
Merkavas HaMishneh (Alfandari), R’ Aharon Alfandari, Izmir, 5515 [photo-offset Brooklyn, 5751]
Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma), R’ Shlomo of Chelm, Frankfurt an der Oder, 5511
Nachal Eisan, R’ Avraham ben R’ Yehudah Leib, Vilna, 5615
Seder Mishneh, R’ Binyamin Zev Wolf Boskowitz, Jerusalem, 5735
Eved HaMelech, R’ Ovadia Hadaya, Jerusalem, 5701 [new edition 5769]
Tzemach Shlomo, R’ Shlomo Miller, Petach Tikva, 5729
Tzafnas Paneach, R’ Yosef ben R’ Ephraim Fishel Rosen, new edition, Jerusalem, 5739
Kiryas Melech, R’ Chaim Kanievsky, Bnei Brak, 5726
Sifsei Melech, R’ Moshe Yaakov Kanner, Jerusalem, 5768.

Works of Rishonim and Acharonim

Orchos Chaim, R’ Aharon HaKohen of Lunel, Jerusalem, 5716
Be’er Mayim Chaim, R’ Chaim ben R’ Betzalel, brother of the Maharal, London, 5724
Geonica, vol. 2, Louis Ginzberg, New York, 1909
Devash MiSela, R’ Dov Schiff, Bnei Brak, 5770
Chiddushei Maran HaGriz HaLevi HaChadashos al Tanach VeAggadah, teachings of R’ Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik collected from sefarim and journals, Jerusalem, 5746
Chumash Torah Me’irah, vol. 1, R’ Meir HaMeiri, London, 5718
Magen Gibborim, R’ Mordechai Zev Ettinger and R’ Yosef Shaul Nathanson, Lemberg, 5594
Maamar Tziv’os Hashem, R’ Menachem Azariah of Fano, Lemberg, 5590
Maharaz Binga: Chiddushim, Biurim U’Psakim of Rabbeinu Zelikman of Bingen, Jerusalem, 5745
Mor U’Ketziah, R’ Yaakov Emden, Altona, 5521–5528
Mitpachas Sefarim, R’ Yaakov Emden, Lemberg, 5630
Minchas Chinuch, in Sefer HaChinuch with Minchas Chinuch by R’ Yosef Babad, Jerusalem, 5746
Maaseh Oreg, R’ Yisrael Gukovitzky, Jerusalem, 5743
Mekor Chaim on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, R’ Yair Chaim Bacharach, Machon Yerushalayim edition, Jerusalem, 5742
Sefer HaMitzvos of R’ Chefetz ben Yatzliach, ed. M. Zucker, New York, 1961
Sefer HaEshkol, Albeck edition, Jerusalem, 5744
Sefer HaIttur, R’ Yitzchak ben R’ Abba Mari, Warsaw, 5634 [photo-offset New York, 5716]
Sefer Yetzirah, including the commentary attributed to the Raavad, Grodno, 5564
Sefer Yetzirah with Rav Saadiah Gaon’s commentary, translated by R’ Yosef Kapach, Jerusalem, 5732
Sefer Mitzvos Gadol HaShalem, Machon Yerushalayim edition, Jerusalem, 5753–5763
Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, R’ Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky, Jerusalem, 5729–5730
Emek Berachah, R’ Aryeh Pomeranchik, Tel Aviv, 5737
Aruch, R’ Nasan ben Yechiel of Rome, Lublin [photo-offset Jerusalem, 5737]
Aruch HaShalem, Chanoch Yehudah Kohut, Vienna, 5638–5652
Kupas HaRochlim, R’ Yisrael Lipschitz, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah, in the Vilna edition of Mishnah, Seder Moed
Rabbeinu Yerucham (Toldos Adam VeChavah; Sefer Meisharim), Rabbeinu Yerucham ben Meshullam, Venice, 5313 [photo-offset Jerusalem, 5736]
Shalmei Yosef — Shabbos, Ponevezh Kollel, Bnei Brak, 5761
Shaarei Yosher, R’ Shimon Yehudah Shkop, vol. 1, New York, 5710
Teshuvos Rav Natronai Gaon, Brody edition, Machon Ofek, Jerusalem, 5754.

Works on Tzitzis and Tekhelet

Oro Shel Tekhelet, R’ Yisrael Twersky, Lakewood, 5775
Bitul HaRishon LeMaamar HaRishon, R’ Yosef Eliezer of Radin, Warsaw, 5648
BeYam Derech, R’ Betzalel Naor, pp. 98–104
BeKanaf Ish Yehudi, R’ Yitzchak Brand, Emmanuel, 5773
HaArgaman, Dr. Zohar Amar, Machon Har Bracha, 5774
HaTekhelet BeYisrael, R’ Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi Herzog, in HaTekhelet, R’ Menachem Burstein, Jerusalem, 5748, pp. 347–437
Kelil Tekhelet, R’ Eliyahu Tavger, Jerusalem, 5753
Lula’os Tekhelet, R’ Shlomo Teitelbaum, Jerusalem, 5760
Mishkenos LeAbir Yaakov — Ptil Tekhelet, R’ Hillel Moshe Meshil Gelbstein
Eved HaMelech, R’ Yehudah Rock, Efrat, 5760
Iyyunei Halachah, anonymous, Modi’in Illit
Ein HaTekhelet, R’ Gershon Henoch Leiner, in Shloshah Sefarim Niftachim, Mishor edition, Bnei Brak, 5759
Ptil Tekhelet, R’ Gershon Henoch Leiner, in Shloshah Sefarim Niftachim, Mishor edition, Bnei Brak, 5759
Karasei Zahav, anonymous, Modi’in Illit, 5770
Reishis Oni — Kuntres BeTaharo Shel Rakia, R’ Betzalel Naor, New York, 5735
Sefunei Temunei Chol, R’ Gershon Henoch Leiner, in Shloshah Sefarim Niftachim, Mishor edition, Bnei Brak, 5759
Tekhela DeChilazon, R’ Eliezer Holl, Bnei Brak, 5773.

Articles

R’ Menachem Adler, “Tekhelet VeArgaman: Birur Devarim — Tekhelet MeChilazon HaArgaman,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 53–172.
R’ Shlomo Englard, “Zehus Dag HaTekhelet,” Ohr Yisrael 11 (5758), pp. 135–142 [followed there by the response of R’ Mordechai Avraham Katz].
R’ Yaakov Epstein, “Zihui Argamon Keheh Kotzim KeTekhelet HaMekorit,” HaMaayan 37:2 (5757), pp. 37–47.
R’ Shmuel Ariel, “HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” in Maamarim BeNosei Tekhelet, Otniel, 5765, pp. 2–49.
R’ Binyamin Zev Horowitz, “Chosam Shel Zahav,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 254–368.
R’ Yeshayahu HaLevi, “Tzvias HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 369–390.
R’ Meir HaLevi Hellman, “Levush HaAron,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 391–492.
R’ Shaul Yonatan Weingort, “Bein Tekhelet LeLavan,” Techumin 21 (5761), pp. 486–507.
Dr. Israel HaKohen Ziderman, “The Rediscovery of the Tekhelet Chilazon in Our Time,” HaMaayan 35, Tammuz 5754, pp. 27–39.
R’ Eliyahu Tavger, “Bechinos Chadashos BeInyan HaTekhelet,” Moriah 207–208 (5752), pp. 72–87.
R’ Eliyahu Tavger, “Tzviah Lishmah VeDam Chilazon BeTekhelet Shel Mikdash,” VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 3 (5769), pp. 7–11.
R’ Eliyahu Tavger, “Argaman — Tekhelet o Kela Ilan?” a response to R’ A. Aharon ben David, Ohr Yisrael, Nissan 5778, pp. 284–291.
R’ Yehoshua Yankelowitz and R’ Tzvi Herzig, “Mitzvas Tekhelet Bizmanenu,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 1–9.
R’ Mordechai Avraham Katz, “Kiyum Mitzvas Tekhelet BeTzitzis BeYameinu,” Ohr Yisrael 10 (5758), pp. 126–141.
R’ Meir Liberzon, “Zihui Dag Chilazon Shel Tekhelet,” Ohr Yisrael 28 (5762), pp. 206–212.
R’ Yehudah Lichter, “Mahus Tzeva Brown VeAdom BaHalachah BeYachas LeMareh Dam Niddah U’Shear Dinim,” Ateres Shlomo 5 (5760), pp. 171–172.
R’ Avraham Simcha of Amstislav, “Hakravas Korban Pesach Bizman HaZeh,” Tzohar 9 (5761), pp. 19–23.
R’ Betzalel Naor, “He’aros Shonos BeInyan HaChilazon VeHaTekhelet,” Ohr HaMizrach 22:2 (5733), pp. 93–97.
R’ Betzalel Naor, “Hagdaros Halachiyos VeHashkafiyos BeMitzvas HaTekhelet,” Ohr HaMizrach 41:1, Tishrei 5751, pp. 78–90.
R’ Yaakov Chaim Sofer, “BeInyan Yam HaMelach BeLeshon HaRambam HaKavanah LeYam HaTichon,” Beis Aharon VeYisrael 97 (5762), notes section, pp. 130–132.
Dr. Zohar Amar, “The Shade of Tekhelet According to the Rambam,” HaMaayan 52, Teves 5772, pp. 77–87.
Dr. Zohar Amar and Dr. David Iluz, “Dyeing Tekhelet According to the Rambam and the Use of Natural Dyeing Agents,” HaMaayan 53, Tammuz 5773, pp. 35–53.
R’ Yehudah Leib Peles, “HaTekhelet BeYameinu — Reshus o Chovah?” VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 3 (5769), pp. 32–37.
R’ Mordechai Rabinowitz, “Tekhelet MeIyei Elishah,” Otzar HaSifrus 3 (5650), pp. 1–26.
R’ Dov Tzvi Rothstein, “Nilag, Indigo, Kela Ilan VeIstis,” Ohr HaMizrach 19:2, New York, Teves 5730, pp. 150–155.
R’ Avraham Yeshayah Rappaport, “BeInyan Mispar Chutei Tekhelet BeTzitzis,” VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 4 (5770), pp. 29–46.
R’ Chaim Shlomo Shanan, “Chilazon LeTekhelet Im Hu LeIkkuva,” in Ner LeShemayah, pp. 108–111.
R’ Dov Schiff, “Shitos HaRishonim BePsul Te’imah BeTekhelet VeHa’im Hachanas HaTzeva Tzerichah Lihyos Lishmah,” VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 3 (5769), pp. 38–55.
R’ Meir Schlesinger, “Zihui Chilazon Shel Tekhelet,” Beis Aharon VeYisrael 119 (5765), pp. 125–128.
Ehud Spanier and Israel Ziderman, “HaTekhelet VeHaArgaman — Pe’er Taasiyas HaTextile BeEs HaAtikah,” Mada 26:4 (1982), pp. 184–187.
Anonymous, “Bein Tekhelet LeArgaman,” MiSheyakir — VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis 10 (5776), pp. 173–214.

Footnotes

1. Yevamos 4b. It is surprising that two great Jewish sages appear to contradict these words of Chazal. R’ Avraham Ibn Ezra writes in his short commentary to Shemos 25:4: “The most reasonable view is that the Tekhelet color is on linen; some say on cotton, while argaman is on wool.” In his long commentary he retracted and wrote: “We will rely on Chazal, who said that it is yarok and that it is wool.” R’ Yitzchak Abarbanel, in his commentary to Parashas Terumah, writes: “It also says, ‘Tekhelet, argaman, and tola’as shani.’ The Ralbag wrote that all of this was wool dyed in those shades and colors. This is not correct, because the Torah calls wool ‘goats’; rather, Tekhelet, argaman, and tola’as shani are all silk. Tekhelet is silk dyed a color resembling the sea, argaman is silk dyed red, tola’as shani is silk that is naturally beautiful and has no other color, and shesh is high-quality Egyptian linen.”

2. Two metals were used for this purpose: galena and antimony.

3. The first to identify kohl with blue in the modern sense was Rashi on Chullin 47b: “Like kohl — a blue color resembling lazur [blue in modern usage], neither yarok nor black.” Later mefarshim and poskim followed him; see, for example, Beis Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 38, Darkei Moshe there, and Shulchan Aruch there, se’if 4. Over time the form kohl developed into the modern Hebrew word kachol, “blue,” and printers treated the Rambam’s wording here and elsewhere accordingly.

4. Chapter 1, Mishnah 2.

5. Chapter 5, Halachah 9. This is the Frankel edition’s reading based on the manuscripts; the printed editions read “if it was less than it.” R’ Shmuel Ariel also notes this reading in “HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” p. 2, n. 6.

6. P. 495, entry pasach.

7. The Rambam, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13. The translator/editor was not precise here and translated: “the lighter blue, which is Tekhelet.”

8. Ithmid is a type of kohl made from antimony and is lighter in color. See the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnah to Chullin 3:2: “The bluish color is like the blue of ithmid,” and R’ Yosef Kapach’s note there.

9. Regarding “the pasuch in snow” in Negaim, R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi explains: “By pasuch in snow we picture a white liquid as white as snow with a little blood mixed into it, weakening that white color.” Here, weakening the white actually results in a darker appearance; it is all a matter of how the language of color comparison works. This is also the Rambam’s intent in his Peirush HaMishnah to Negaim: “Pasuch — an appearance mixed from white and red … if a small amount of redness is mixed into each one until the white is diluted with redness.” R’ Yosef Kapach translates it this way; Yosef Naftali Derenbourg translated: “until the whiteness is darkened with redness,” while the Arabic says the same basic idea. In practice the white and red are mixed, but the result is a weakening of the strength of the white; that is the meaning of pasuch according to the Rambam. Rashi, by contrast, understands pasuch simply as “mixed”; see his commentary to Vayikra 13:19. On Rashi’s view it is not a weakened or faded shade but “mixed from two appearances,” and perhaps the two colors remain visibly distinct within the mixture.

10. Various explanations were given for “like the pasuch within kohl,” or according to the reading before some mefarshim, “like the pasuch within blue.” Some understood it as light blue. See Kupas HaRochlim, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah, who rejects Gesenius’s dark-blue reading because Chazal say Tekhelet resembles the sky, and identifies the Rambam’s color with a light sky-blue. See also Yad Peshutah here; Lula’os Tekhelet, p. 230; R’ Shaul Yonatan Weingort, “Bein Tekhelet LeLavan,” p. 493; my “Bechinos Chadashos BeInyan HaTekhelet,” pp. 85–86; R’ Yaakov Epstein, “Zihui Argamon Keheh Kotzim KeTekhelet HaMekorit,” p. 45; R’ Yehudah Rock, Eved HaMelech, p. 66; R’ Meir HaLevi Hellman, Levush HaAron, p. 406 and n. 38; and R’ Binyamin Zev Horowitz, Chosam Shel Zahav, part 3.
Others understood the phrase specifically as dark blue. See the Radzyner Rebbe’s Sefunei Temunei Chol, Ptil Tekhelet, and Ein HaTekhelet; and R’ Herzog’s HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 397, where he argues that from the Rambam’s Hilchos Tzitzis, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, and Peirush HaMishnah it is clear that Tekhelet is both a blue resembling the pure sky and a color tending toward black — therefore a deep blue approaching black, like the clear sky of Eretz Yisrael. His discussion of pasuch itself appears in the original English, p. 92, n. 279. See also his correspondence with R’ Tukachinsky in Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, vol. 5, ch. 5, pp. 55–60; R’ Betzalel Naor, Reishis Oni, p. 53; Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, pp. 194–205; R’ Avraham Yeshayah Rappaport, “BeInyan Mispar Chutei Tekhelet BeTzitzis,” pp. 44–45; and R’ Eliezer Holl, Tekhela DeChilazon, pp. 13–16.
See also Shu”t Radbaz on the Rambam’s wording, Hilchos Tzitzis 2:5, that there is a Tekhelet shade which is very dark and another which is less dark; and Maaseh LaMelech, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13, who argues that Bigdei Kehunah should use a darker shade while tzitzis should use a lighter shade. Others explain pasuch in the Rambam as “mixed,” like Rashi: Mahari Kurkus, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13; R’ David Arama; and Divrei Yirmiyahu here. See also R’ Yehudah Leib Peles, “HaTekhelet BeYameinu — Reshus o Chovah?” p. 36. It should also be noted that in four places in Peirush HaMishnah the Rambam translates Tekhelet with the Arabic azraq, which means blue generally: Berachos 1:5, Kilayim 9:1, Eduyos 4:10, and Menachos 4:1. See R’ Yosef Kapach’s notes there, where in one place he calls it “very dark blue” and elsewhere “a faded blue like the sky.”

11. See Mahari Kurkus in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash there on the difference between the two formulations.

12. Chapter 8, Halachah 13.

13. Shemos 24:10.

14. Sotah 17a, Menachos 43b, Chullin 89a, and elsewhere. The wording of the beraisa differs slightly among the sources. See Tosafos Menachos there, s.v. hachi garsinan, rakia domeh lesapir, and n. 22 below.

15. Yechezkel 1:26.

16. Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashas Bamidbar, ch. 2: “By signs — each nasi had a banner and a color. Each banner corresponded to the color of the precious stone that was on Aharon’s breastplate … Yissachar — sapphire, and his banner was colored black resembling blue.” See also the source cited by Tzafnas Paneach.

17. See Chizkuni to Shemos 24:10: “Like the work of a sapphire brick — there is black sapphire, while this sapphire is whitish and resembles Tekhelet, bloi in the vernacular. Since not everyone recognizes sapphire, the Torah gives a sign everyone recognizes: ‘the substance of the heavens in purity’ — the appearance of the heavens when they are clear and pure of clouds, as it says, ‘a wind passed and purified them.’ Livnas is an expression of whiteness.”
However, in Moreh Nevuchim 1:28 the Rambam explains that this phrase refers to transparency, not to lightness: “The whiteness of crystal is not a white color, but transparency alone. Transparency is not a color, as has been demonstrated in the works of natural science.” R’ Avraham, the Rambam’s son, follows this approach in his commentary to Shemos 24:10. It would seem that when defining the shade of Tekhelet, the Rambam uses the pasuk according to its Midrashic interpretation, while when explaining the nature of the prophetic vision he uses what he understood as the peshat. See Ibn Ezra there, both what he cites in the name of Rav Saadiah and his own explanation, and R’ Avraham ben HaRambam’s discussion there. On the identification of sapphire, see Dr. Zohar Amar, HaChen SheBaEven, pp. 123–129.

18. HaMaspik L’Ovdei Hashem, ed. N. Dana, p. 273.

19. Peirush Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam to Shemos 25:4, p. 67.

20. Sotah 17a; Rashi explains similarly in Chullin 89a.

21. See a similar approach in Machzor Vitry, siman 427, and in the Ritva’s first explanation in his chiddushim to Chullin 89a. We discuss Rashi’s view at greater length in the appendix to this chapter below.

22. Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashas Shelach, ch. 17; likewise the text of Tanchuma, Buber edition, Shelach 29. The editor there emended the text on his own and inserted the comparison to the sea between Tekhelet and the sky.
If I were not hesitant to suggest it, I would say that two separate derashos of two different Chazal were later blended into one because of their similarity, producing the various versions. R’ Meir’s original derashah contained only the comparison to the sky and appears in that simpler form in Bamidbar Rabbah and Tanchuma. R’ Chizkiyah’s derashah, on the other hand, contains a long chain of comparisons and appears in full in Midrash Tehillim, Buber edition, 90:18: “Tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles vegetation, vegetation resembles trees, trees resemble the sky, the sky resembles the glow, the glow resembles the rainbow, and the rainbow resembles the Divine likeness, as it says, ‘Like the appearance of the rainbow that is in the cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the glow around it; this was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Hashem.’ R’ Chizkiyah said: when Yisrael wrap themselves in tzitzis, they should not think they are merely wearing Tekhelet; rather, they should look at the tzitzis as though the Shechinah rests upon them, as it says, ‘and you shall see it’ — not ‘them,’ but Him, HaKadosh Baruch Hu.” The blending already appears in the introduction to this derashah, “R’ Chizkiyah said, and some say in the name of R’ Meir.”
The versions in Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashas Naso, ch. 14, and Midrash Tehillim, Buber edition, ch. 24, are close to it. The Bavli in Sotah 17a, Menachos 43b, and Chullin 89a, and the Yerushalmi in Berachos ch. 1, represent intermediate forms of this merger. Originally the two derashos expressed different ideas: R’ Meir teaches that Tekhelet reminds us of the Kisei HaKavod through its resemblance to the sky, which resembles the Kisei HaKavod; R’ Chizkiyah teaches that Hashem shares His glory with those who fear Him, and shows how His glory extends through the different levels of Creation in a long chain. Each brings a different pasuk: R’ Meir cites Shemos 24:10 together with Yechezkel 1:26, while R’ Chizkiyah cites Yechezkel 1:28. See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 398.

23. Shemos 24:10.

24. Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 14, p. 264. The comparison between Tekhelet and sapphire also appears in R’ Chaim Paltiel’s commentary to Shemos 24:10: “Like the work of a sapphire brick — because there are different sapphires, including red sapphire, as it says, ‘their bones were red … their form was sapphire.’ Here the pasuk teaches that this one was like the substance of the heavens, the one that resembles Tekhelet.” See similarly Hadar Zekeinim there, Chizkuni cited above in n. 17, and Ibn Ezra’s short commentary for other views of the color of sapphire.

25. See also Lekach Tov to Parashas Vayakhel 36:34: “The hooks looked like stars in the sky, because the loops were Tekhelet and the hooks were gold, and the sky resembles Tekhelet.” Rav Saadiah Gaon commonly translates Tekhelet with the Arabic word asmangun, meaning sky-color; see also the Sefer HaMitzvos of R’ Chefetz ben Yatzliach, ed. M. Zucker, p. 58, and Rav Saadiah’s commentary to Sefer Yetzirah 3:6, p. 103: “The roof of the Mishkan resembles the heavens because its woven fabric contains asmangun shades, which are Tekhelet.”
See also Sefer HaIttur, Hilchos Tzitzis: in a question to R’ Nachshon, Rosh Mesivta, “Tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod; in Arabic its name is connected with lon asma, sky-color.” R’ Herzog discusses this in HaTekhelet BeYisrael, pp. 412–413. The same source gives an Arabic term for argaman meaning purple; see R’ Yaakov Epstein, “Zihui Argamon Keheh Kotzim KeTekhelet HaMekorit,” p. 43. See also the Mordechai, Hilchos Niddah, remez 735: “Tekhelet resembles the sky and sea, which is blau,” and Tosafos HaRosh, Chullin 47b: “It appears to be the color called blau, like the sky, as we say Tekhelet resembles the sea and the sea resembles the sky.” See also Radak, Sefer HaShorashim, root t-k-l.

26. Sefer HaEshkol, Albeck ed., Hilchos Tzitzis 78b; Rabbeinu Yonasan on the Rif, Hilchos Tzitzis 12b in the Rif pagination; Sefer HaIttur, Hilchos Tzitzis 68, col. 2; Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, positive commandment 26, in the name of his teachers in the name of Rabbeinu Yitzchak; Orchos Chaim, vol. 1, Hilchos Tzitzis, in the name of the chachmei Tzarfat in the name of Rabbeinu Yechiel; Rabbeinu Yerucham, Toldos Adam VeChavah, nesiv 19, part 3, 169, col. 2, in the name of Tosafos; Hagahos Maimoniyos, Hilchos Tzitzis, ch. 1, os 7, in the name of Ri.

27. Menachos 39a.

28. Hilchos Tzitzis 1:2: “One takes a wool thread dyed like the sky”; 2:1: “even though it is like the sky”; 2:2: “the wool is placed into it until it becomes like the sky.”

29. Divrei Yirmiyahu explains this differently.

30. See the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 1:9: “The word kisei originally denotes a chair. Since people of greatness and rank, such as kings, sit on a chair, the chair became something that signifies the greatness, exaltedness, and power of the one to whom it belongs. Therefore the Mikdash is called a throne, because it points to the greatness of the One Who revealed Himself there and whose light and glory shone upon it. Thus it says, ‘A throne of glory, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our Mikdash’ (Yirmiyahu 17:12). For this reason the heavens are called a throne, because to one who recognizes them and reflects upon them, they point to the greatness of the One Who brought them into existence, moves them, and governs the lower world through the bounty that flows from them. Thus it says, ‘So says Hashem: the heavens are My throne [and the earth is My footstool]’ (Yeshayahu 66:1). Meaning: they point to My existence, greatness, and power, just as a throne points to the greatness of the one worthy of it.”

31. See Maasei LaMelech, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13, who based on this reading argued that Tekhelet of tzitzis, unlike Tekhelet of the Mikdash, should be a light blue.

32. Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

33. Chapter 3, Halachah 3.

34. Berachos 59a. See also Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh 18:2: “In the rainy season, if the day is clear, the moon will be seen more clearly than in the summer. In the rainy season, on a clear day the air is much purer and the sky appears with greater clarity because there is no dust mixed into the air. In summer, however, the air appears smoky because of the dust, and a small moon will not be seen.” Some have inferred from the Rambam’s phrase “when the sky is clear” that he means an especially light shade; see “Bein Tekhelet LeArgaman.” But BeKanaf Ish Yehudi, p. 17, and Karasei Zahav, p. 10 n. 24, reject that proof.

35. “Anything not dyed with that dyeing is invalid for tzitzis … it is invalid for tzitzis … How is Tekhelet for tzitzis dyed? … This is the Tekhelet of tzitzis.”

36. This conclusion was reached by many mefarshim, including Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma), Ben Yedid, Kupas HaRochlim, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah, Be’er Yehudah, Aruch HaShulchan HeAsid, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 28:10; HaTekhelet BeYisrael, pp. 379–384; Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, vol. 5, p. 43; Hisorerus Teshuvah, siman 279; Emek Berachah of R’ Aryeh Pomeranchik, Tzitzis 5; Shu”t Avnei Nezer, Orach Chaim 15:8; R’ Avraham Simcha of Amstislav, “Hakravas Korban Pesach Bizman HaZeh,” Tzohar 9 (5761), p. 22; and Tzemach Shlomo. R’ Avraham, son of the Rambam, disagrees in his commentary to Shemos 25:4: “Its dyeing [the Tekhelet of the Mishkan] is with chilazon blood and nothing else, just as the received tradition explains regarding Tekhelet of tzitzis.” A similar understanding of the Rambam is found in Maaseh Rokeach, Mishneh LaMelech in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash there, and Yad Peshutah in the introduction to this chapter.

37. Chapter 8, Halachah 13.

38. Tosefta Menachos 9:16.

39. Nechmad LaMareh on Yerushalmi Kilayim 9:1 and Shu”t Hisorerus Teshuvah, siman 280, explain that the dye substances mentioned in Shabbos are the same substances mentioned in Menachos, which are added together with chilazon blood in the Tekhelet process. For more detail, see my article “Tzviah Lishmah VeDam Chilazon BeTekhelet Shel Mikdash,” and R’ Menachem Adler, “Tekhelet VeArgaman,” p. 57.

40. Shabbos 74b.

41. Ibid. 102b.

42. Ibid. 103a.

43. Menachos 42b–43a; see Halachah 5. Later the Gemara says: “Rather, learn from this that the two teachings were stated together: where we test it according to Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah and its appearance does not separate, it is valid; if its appearance separates, we test it according to Rav Adda with chamira arkhasa. If it changes for the better, it is valid; if for the worse, it is invalid.” This suggests that the tests were not meant to measure colorfastness or durability, but to identify the source of the dye, since dyes from different sources react differently to particular chemicals and can thereby be distinguished. See R’ Chaim Shlomo Shanan, “Chilazon LeTekhelet Im Hu LeIkkuva,” p. 110, and my “Bechinos Chadashos BeInyan HaTekhelet,” p. 73. See also R’ Betzalel Naor, “He’aros Shonos BeInyan HaChilazon VeHaTekhelet,” pp. 94–95, repeated in his Reishis Oni, p. 56, and his article “Hagdaros Halachiyos VeHashkafiyos BeMitzvas HaTekhelet.” See also R’ Shmuel Ariel, “HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” p. 3, on the difference between Rashi and the Rambam in understanding this sugya.

44. Bava Kama 93b.

45. Soap.

46. As the Yam Shel Shlomo writes there: “If it was dyed with kela ilan it never comes out, and all the more so Tekhelet, unlike other colors.” See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 381. See also what is brought in Chiddushei HaGriz — Inyanim, siman 2, from the kuntres Zichron Moshe on the Torah by R’ Ovadia Rosenbaum, Parashas Shelach, in the name of R’ Aryeh Zev Gurwitz, who heard it from the Brisker Rav. See R’ Meir HaLevi Hellman, Levush HaAron, p. 408 n. 42.
Nor can one prove from Tosafos, Zevachim 95a, s.v. veha ba’i shivah samemanim, who say that the Me’il may not be washed with tzafon because tzafon removes color, that they held Tekhelet itself comes out with tzafon. It is impossible to know which dye in the Me’il they meant, since it contained several colors — Tekhelet, and on the hem also argaman and tola’as shani. See Rashi there, who disagrees with Tosafos, and my “Argaman — Tekhelet o Kela Ilan?” p. 288, os 13. The claim that Tekhelet comes out through tzafon is also difficult from other Gemaras, as discussed by the Radzyner Rebbe in Ptil Tekhelet, Mishor ed., p. 82.

47. See Kupas HaRochlim, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah; HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 380; Ir HaKodesh VeHaMikdash, vol. 5, ch. 5, p. 43; R’ Betzalel Naor, “Hagdaros Halachiyos VeHashkafiyos BeMitzvas HaTekhelet,” part 1, “Ha’im Mutar LeHachlif Dam HaChilazon BeTzeva Sinteti?”; and R’ Yehudah Rock, Eved HaMelech, pp. 53–54.

48. Kilayim 2:5; Shabbos 9:5; Megillah 4:7; and elsewhere.

49. Greek isatis (ἰσάτις).

50. It appears that the Rambam calls both plants istis without distinguishing between them, and in Arabic calls them nil or nilaj. See his Peirush HaMishnah to Kilayim 2:5, Shevi’is 7:1, Megillah 4:6, and Makkos 1:5. See also R’ Yitzchak ben Melchizedek on Kilayim 2:5: “Istis — meaning indigo, and in Greek lulakin,” and Aruch, entry istas: “Istis means indigo; in Arabic, nil.” I retract what I wrote in “Argaman — Tekhelet o Kela Ilan?” p. 290, os 17, that the Rambam’s istis and “black” refer to two different plants.

51. Halachah 8.

52. See Shu”t Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah II, siman 133, who explains it differently.

53. See Maaseh Rokeach, Ein HaTekhelet (Mishor ed., p. 296), and Kiryas Melech. Some had difficulty with this; see Tosafos Yom Tov, Kilayim 2:5; Aruch HaShalem, entry istas; and R’ Yosef Kapach’s notes to the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnah, Kilayim there, n. 29.

54. Moreh Nevuchim I:73, sixth premise. See also the Rambam’s Biur Shemos HaRefuos (Muntner), p. 45.

55. The printed editions omitted the connecting vav.

56. Bechoros 17a. See Ramban, Hilchos Bechoros, ch. 2, 11b: “This applies specifically where an abnormality is established in the breed. Where no such abnormality has been established, we certainly do not suspect that perhaps there was a change, because if so one could never find wool suitable for Tekhelet. Rather, we assume that animals give birth to their own kind.”

57. Devarim 22:11.

58. Rav Pappa’s use of the word “Tekhelet” is not meant precisely; it is simply an example of a case in which wool is required for tzitzis. See Be’er Yehudah. One should not say that, according to the Rambam, all tzitzis are called “Tekhelet” in Chazal’s language, as the Rosh writes in Hilchos Ketanos, Hilchos Tzitzis 17: “Since the primary mitzvah is Tekhelet, tzitzis in general is called Tekhelet.” The Rambam follows the Rif, who holds that whenever the word “Tekhelet” appears it means actual Tekhelet specifically. This is clear from the Rif, Hilchos Tzitzis 14a in the Rif pagination: “Anyone who puts Tekhelet on a linen garment in Yerushalayim is among those who cause wonder; from this we learn that the beraisa about a linen garment with tzitzis refers specifically to Tekhelet.” I retract what I wrote in Kelil Tekhelet, pp. 145–146. See Mor U’Ketziah, siman 11; Maadanei Yom Tov, Bechoros ch. 2, os 60, and his Divrei Chamudos there; Ben Yedid, who disagrees; Zecher Yeshayah, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13; Biur Halachah, siman 9, se’if 1, s.v. rechelim; Kesser Torah; and Tzemach Shlomo.

59. This is where the halachah requires wool. See Hilchos Tzitzis 3:5: “If he wishes to make the white strings for all other types of garments from wool or linen, he may do so, because wool and linen exempt both their own type and other types.” But if the garment itself is wool, tzitzis made from this wool can exempt it under the rule of min kanaf, as the Kesef Mishneh explains. See Biur Halachah, siman 9, se’if 1, s.v. rechelim.

60. Eved HaMelech writes the same.

61. See Ben Yedid; see Nachal Eisan, who disagrees.

62. The Kesef Mishneh explains it differently.

63. See the Rambam, Hilchos Kilayim 10:2.

64. See the Rambam, Hilchos Tumas Tzara’as 13:3.

65. See Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, p. 180 n. 37.

66. As Rashi explains in Shabbos 73a, s.v. hamelabno, and Zevachim 94a, s.v. hayesah alav shalsheles.

67. Chapter 9, Halachah 10.

68. See Shu”t Avnei Nezer, siman 165; Shalmei Yosef (Ponevezh), Shabbos siman 86; and Maaseh Oreg, who explain the Rambam differently.

69. Lanolin.

70. Yad Peshutah and Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, pp. 181–183, explain the process differently. See also Rabbeinu Bachya to Bamidbar 15:38, who combines the two stages: “First the wool is soaked in lime, and afterwards washed until it is clean. Then that blood and the wool are put into a boiling vat together with substances such as ahal and tzarif, as dyers do, so that the wool absorbs the color.”

71. Shabbos 90a.

72. Chapter 5, Halachah 10.

73. For identifications of boris and ahala, see the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnah to Shabbos 9:5, Keilim 2:1, and Niddah 9:6; and Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, p. 181. In the manuscript, above the word ahala, the Arabic word al-shabb is written, not al-shag as stated in R’ Nachum Rabinovitch’s Yad Peshutah edition. See R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi, Al-Murshid al-Kafi [HaMadrich HaMaspik], pp. 28–29.

74. Menachos 44a. See Maaseh Rokeach and Divrei Yirmiyahu.

75. Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

76. Keilim 12:1. See R’ Tanchum HaYerushalmi, Al-Murshid al-Kafi [HaMadrich HaMaspik], p. 191, entry chilazon: “‘This chilazon, as long as it grows, its casing grows with it’ — it is also called chilazon in Arabic … ‘the blood of the chilazon with which Tekhelet is dyed’ — this too is a type of chilazon … ‘a chain with a chilazon at its end’ — a piece of metal shaped like the shell of the chilazon, used to lock doors in a manner similar to European chest locks, which are inside and opened from outside.”

77. See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 386, and Lula’os Tekhelet, p. 131. See Rashi, Chullin 126b: “A sea mouse is a fish.” See the Gra, Eliyahu Rabbah to Keilim 10:1, who writes that everything in the sea is a type of fish regardless of its form, even a sea animal; he therefore deletes the words “bones of a sea animal” from the Mishnah because “bones of a fish” had already been mentioned. He writes similarly in Eliyahu Rabbah to Niddah 3:2 that all aquatic creatures are called fish. See also Ramban’s hasagos to the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvos, shoresh 9, and his commentary to Vayikra 11:1; Maasei LaMelech by R’ Yeshayah Silberstein, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:13; R’ Meir Liberzon, “Zihui Dag Chilazon Shel Tekhelet,” p. 207; R’ Meir Schlesinger, “Zihui Chilazon Shel Tekhelet,” p. 127; R’ Menachem Adler, “Tekhelet VeArgaman,” p. 82; R’ Binyamin Zev Horowitz, “Chosam Shel Zahav,” pp. 290–291; R’ Eliezer Holl, Tekhela DeChilazon, pp. 11–12; and R’ Yeshayahu HaLevi, “Tzvias HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” pp. 384–385.

78. See Shu”t Noda BiYehudah, Mahadura Tinyana, Orach Chaim siman 3; Mishkenos LeAbir Yaakov, perek HaTekhelet, siman 2; and Tzemach Shlomo. See also Be’er Yehudah and Kovetz Al Yad. On the issue of something coming from a non-kosher creature being used for meleches Shamayim, see my “Bechinos Chadashos BeInyan HaTekhelet,” p. 82.

79. This also seems to be what Rashi means when he explains “the form of its image,” following the correction of the Shitah Mekubetzes there. See Ibn Ezra to Tehillim 58:9, “Like a snail that melts as it goes”: “In the words of the early sages, He created the snail, which is shaped like a fish in the water and melts as it moves.”

80. Menachos 44a. Maseches Tzitzis 1:10 reads: “What does the chilazon resemble? Its creation resembles a fish and its body resembles the sky.” Rabbeinu Nasan Av HaYeshivah’s commentary to Keilim 12:1 has the reading “it comes up from the sea.” In his commentary to Menachos 4:1 the wording appears to be “a worm from the sea,” although that may be his own description rather than the wording of the beraisa.

81. Yad Peshutah, in a note, cites Pliny as support for the Rambam, saying that the shell of the chilazon “resembles a stormy sea.” But Pliny’s words there refer to the color of cloth dyed with chilazon blood, not to the color of the chilazon itself. It should also be noted that one reason R’ Yitzchak Isaac HaLevi Herzog suggested the Janthina snail as the source of Tekhelet was the bluish color of its shell; see HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 425.
Some explain the Rambam as referring to biological encrustation covering the shell, which can give it a blue-green shade resembling the sea, or alternatively camouflage it so that the chilazon resembles the seabed. See Dr. Israel HaKohen Ziderman, “The Rediscovery of the Tekhelet Chilazon in Our Time,” p. 37; his earlier “HaTekhelet VeHaArgaman”; R’ Betzalel Naor’s response in BeYam Derech, p. 104 n. 24; R’ Yehoshua Yankelowitz and R’ Tzvi Herzig, “Mitzvas Tekhelet Bizmanenu,” p. 8 n. 37; R’ Yeshayahu HaLevi, “Tzvias HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” p. 383; and R’ Binyamin Zev Horowitz, “Chosam Shel Zahav,” pp. 283–285.
This explanation is one of the central points of dispute between those identifying the Tekhelet chilazon with the purpura snail and those opposing that identification. See, for example, R’ Shlomo Englard, “Zehus Dag HaTekhelet,” p. 135, responding to R’ Mordechai Avraham Katz’s article in the previous issue, and R’ Katz’s reply there, p. 142; see also R’ Eliezer Holl, Tekhela DeChilazon, p. 9. R’ Yitzchak Brand, BeKanaf Ish Yehudi, p. 14, explains that by “the appearance of the sea” the Rambam meant the wavy form of the shell, which recalls the waves of the sea.

82. Menachos 43b.

83. See Maaseh Rokeach.

84. This is how the Rama MiPano understood it in Maamar Tziv’os Hashem II, 14–15: “The chilazon is inanimate, vegetable, and living. We know it is living because its body moves back and forth in its place of growth … and it is vegetable because it does not leave its place, but its root is fixed and embedded in the seabed … once in seventy years” — a detail explicitly stated in the beraisa — “it is uprooted from there and rises from the water, and then it is inanimate…”

85. Introduction, nesiv 8.

86. R’ Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radzyner Rebbe, suggested that the Rambam knew the chilazon personally and supplied this detail from his own knowledge; see Sefunei Temunei Chol, Mishor ed., p. 28. In Ptil Tekhelet, p. 53, he wrote that most fish have black blood, and since the chilazon is a fish its blood may be presumed black. In his later Ein HaTekhelet, p. 286, he questioned that assumption. See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 391, where R’ Herzog suggests that the Rambam’s source was a faulty Greek-to-Arabic translation of Aristotle. In the surviving Arabic translation, however, the Greek word melan is translated “black,” not “ink,” contrary to R’ Herzog’s suggestion; see Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, p. 179 n. 28. See also R’ Eliezer Holl, Tekhela DeChilazon, p. 12; the source noted by Tzafnas Paneach, discussed in Iyyunei Halachah, p. 19, where other possible sources for the Rambam are also suggested; and Lula’os Tekhelet, pp. 165–170.
Based on this detail, a number of scholars — Johann David Michaelis, Supplementa ad Lexica Hebraica, p. 2367; Moshe Landau, Maarchei Lashon on the Aruch, German ed., p. 85; Ludwig Lewysohn, Zoologie des Talmuds, pp. 283–284; Yosef Schonhak, Sefer HaMashbir, p. 82; and Chanoch Yehudah Kohut, Aruch HaShalem, entry chilazon — thought the Rambam identified the Tekhelet chilazon with the animal called in various languages “cuttlefish” or “Tintenfisch,” an ink-fish. The Radzyner Rebbe famously adopted this identification as well. See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 391 and all of ch. 9.

87. This explanation is also given by Dr. Israel HaKohen Ziderman, “The Rediscovery of the Tekhelet Chilazon in Our Time,” p. 38; R’ Binyamin Zev Horowitz, “Chosam Shel Zahav,” p. 292; and R’ Yeshayahu HaLevi, “Tzvias HaTekhelet VeChidushah,” p. 385 n. 50. See my “Argaman — Tekhelet o Kela Ilan?” p. 287, os 8.

88. See Rashi, Chullin 89a, s.v. shehaTekhelet domeh laYam: “the appearance of its blood resembles the sea.” His wording too suggests that “its body resembles the sea” comes to explain the appearance of its blood. See, however, the Bechor Shor there, who explains differently.

89. In Halachah 1.

90. Including blue within the category of black has ramifications in other halachic areas as well, such as writing STa”M and blackening tefillin straps. See Biur Halachah, siman 32, se’if 3, s.v. yichtevem, and siman 33, se’if 3, s.v. haretzuos hashchoros; Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh De’ah 38:8; Shu”t Har Tzvi, Orach Chaim I, siman 24; and R’ Yehudah Lichter, “Mahus Tzeva Brown VeAdom BaHalachah BeYachas LeMareh Dam Niddah U’Shear Dinim,” Ateres Shlomo 5 (5760), pp. 171–172.

91. Chullin 47a; Niddah 20a. See Hilchos Shechitah 7:17–19: “There are five forbidden appearances in the lung, including black like ink … and there are four permitted appearances, including black like kohl…”; and Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 5:9: “If the blood was blacker than dried ink, she is tamei; if it was pasuch from it, such as the appearance of a black olive, pitch, or a raven, it is tahor.” See also Yerushalmi Niddah 2:7.

92. See R’ Yaakov Chaim Sofer, “BeInyan Yam HaMelach BeLeshon HaRambam HaKavanah LeYam HaTichon,” Beis Aharon VeYisrael 97 (5762), notes section, pp. 130–132. See also HaMeir LaAretz; Sefunei Temunei Chol, Mishor ed., p. 23; Ptil Tekhelet, p. 43; and Ein HaTekhelet, p. 233.

93. Hilchos Arachin VaCharamin 8:8, according to the Frankel edition based on the manuscripts. The printed editions were corrupted to read “to the Salt Sea or to the Great Sea.” See also Hilchos Kilayim 10:1.

94. In Arabic, al-bahr al-malih, “the salt sea.” See the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnah to Keilim 15:1 and at the end of his Peirush HaMishnah, in R’ Yosef Kapach’s translation.

95. See R’ Yaakov Emden, Mitpachas Sefarim, ch. 4, os 45; Be’er Yehudah; Divrei Yirmiyahu; Kupas HaRochlim; Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah; and Tzemach Shlomo. See also the Radal’s commentary to Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 18, note 5, who because of this proposed emending the Rambam to “the Great Sea” instead of “the Salt Sea”; see the additions at the end of that sefer. I will allow myself to depart from the usual style of Torah works and mention here the hateful anti-Jewish remarks of the scholar Samuel Bochart in his Latin Hierozoicon on Biblical animals, ch. 9, where he mocks these words of the Rambam and in doing so exposes his own ignorance and lack of understanding. See HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 390.

96. Bereishis 14:3 and elsewhere.

97. See Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 21:29: “One may not bathe in waters that cause diarrhea, nor in mud in which one sinks, nor in foul soaking-water, nor in the Sea of Sodom, nor in the bad waters of the Great Sea.”

98. Shabbos 26a.

99. Megillah 6a.

100. Sifrei Devarim, VeZos HaBerachah 354.

101. Some have argued that the Tekhelet chilazon must specifically be caught in the portion of Shevet Zevulun. See Tekhelet MeIyei Elishah, p. 11, and Bitul HaRishon LeMaamar HaRishon, p. 26. See the Radzyner Rebbe’s response in Sefunei Temunei Chol, Mishor ed., p. 18, and Shu”t Yeshuos Malko, Orach Chaim, end of siman 2.

102. See Kesef Mishneh and Maaseh Rokeach.

103. Menachos 42b.

104. Peirush HaMishnah, Shabbos 9:5 and Niddah 9:6. The same identification is written above the word kimunya in the manuscript. For the identification of kimunya, see R’ Yosef Kapach’s notes to the Peirush HaMishnah in both places; my article “Tzviah Lishmah VeDam Chilazon BeTekhelet Shel Mikdash,” p. 11; and a different view in Dr. Zohar Amar, HaArgaman, p. 183.

105. Lula’os Tekhelet, p. 258, explains it differently. See also R’ Eliezer Holl, Tekhela DeChilazon, p. 13.

106. It is a salt composed of potassium sulfate and aluminum sulfate.

107. Beize in German.

108. Rashi to Menachos there, s.v. u’semamanim. On the same page, s.v. megavya gila, he writes: “Beisa, and in French, alum” — a well-known mordant. Such mordants are generally added to the dye bath together with the coloring material, though sometimes fibers are soaked in them beforehand as preparation for dyeing. In any event, they have no color of their own; their function is only to bind the dye to the fibers. See, however, Shu”t Yeshuos Malko, Orach Chaim siman 3: “According to Rashi, the vat into which chilazon blood was placed for dyeing could not contain other substances, only chilazon blood itself. What the Gemara says, that chilazon blood and substances are brought, means that the wool is first treated with substances so that it will be clean and receive the dye. But into the vat containing chilazon blood they were not allowed to place anything other than chilazon blood and wool.”

109. Tosafos there, s.v. u’semamanim. See Shu”t Noda BiYehudah, Mahadura Kama, Orach Chaim siman 1: “It appears to me that since chilazon blood does not take hold in wool so well except through the substances, those substances are also part of this dyeing.” This is Rashi’s view. See Leshad HaShemen and Tzemach Shlomo. See, however, Shu”t Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah II, siman 133, who understands that the Rambam too follows Tosafos; Be’er Yehudah above in Halachah 1 explains similarly. See also Nishmas Adam, vol. 1, klal 14, in the name of his rebbe, and R’ Chaim Shlomo Shanan, “Chilazon LeTekhelet Im Hu LeIkkuva.”

110. For example, Mishnah Negaim 2:1: “R’ Akiva says: painters have pigments with which they paint black, white, and intermediate figures”; Niddah 31a: “A dyer places substances into the vat and they all rise as one color”; Bava Kama 101a: “They asked: is the added value of the dye substances considered present on the wool, or not?” and elsewhere.

111. Menachos 42b.

112. According to the manuscripts; see Dikdukei Sofrim. Our printed text reads “the sample is invalid.”

113. Shemos 28:32.

114. Shemos 26:31. This is the manuscript reading; see Dikdukei Sofrim. Rabbeinu Gershom has the same reading, and it also follows from Rashi’s explanation. Our printed text instead reads “and shni tola’as,” from Vayikra 14:4 and elsewhere.

115. Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma) also writes this. Yad Peshutah explains differently. See Tosafos Menachos 42b, s.v. mishum shene’emar kelil Tekhelet, and Keren Orah there.

116. We find the Rambam saying similarly in Hilchos Tumas Tzara’as 11:1 regarding the tola’as shani used for the purification of a metzora: “If he sampled it, he invalidated it, like the dyeing of Tekhelet.” There the word “Tekhelet” plainly means Tekhelet generally, in any context, and not specifically Tekhelet of tzitzis.

117. See R’ Dov Schiff, “Shitos HaRishonim BePsul Te’imah BeTekhelet VeHa’im Hachanas HaTzeva Tzerichah Lihyos Lishmah,” p. 70, who explains differently. He writes similarly in his Devash MiSela, siman 1.

118. As the Mishneh LaMelech already argued in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash there. See Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 99: “See Rambam, ch. 2 of Hilchos Tzitzis, that sampling invalidates the Tekhelet dye of tzitzis. In Menachos 42b this is learned for tzitzis from ‘kelil Tekhelet’ stated here regarding the Bigdei Kehunah. If so, sampling certainly invalidates the Bigdei Kehunah as well. We must therefore say that the Rambam relied here on what he wrote in Hilchos Tzitzis.”

119. Ibid.

120. See Pesachim 105b and the Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 29:16. This comparison may have a practical halachic implication. Just as returning the sampled Tekhelet from the eggshell to the dye in the vat does not repair it — see Rashi Menachos 42b, s.v. te’imah pesulah; the Rambam may agree even though he does not state it explicitly; see Ptil Tekhelet, Mishor ed., p. 80; Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 386; and Meromei Sadeh, Menachos 42b — so too returning wine from which someone drank to the wine jug does not repair the defect. In matters of wholeness and impairment, bittul berov does not help. See Ptil Tekhelet, p. 79, s.v. u’vameh; Ohr Sameach to Hilchos Tzitzis 1:11; Meromei Sadeh there; and Shaarei Yosher, sha’ar 3, ch. 19, who discuss why sampled Tekhelet returned to the vat is not nullified in the majority.

121. Menachos 42b–43a.

122. See Kesef Mishneh, who writes that Tekhelet purchased from an expert does not require testing, and that the incident in the Gemara where it was tested simply happened that way even though there was no obligation to test it. See Ptil Tekhelet, the fourth point regarding testing Tekhelet, Mishor ed., pp. 81–94. See, however, Sefer Dinei Mitzvas HaTzitzis by Rashbach, in Kelil Tekhelet, p. 265, who writes that even Tekhelet purchased from an expert must be tested, as he understands from the Gemara. Rabbeinu Gershom on Menachos there implies that R’ Mani was machmir on himself to test Tekhelet bought from an expert. Tosafos there, s.v. mai, implies that one should not investigate after an expert unless the expert himself does not understand the matter. See also Sefas Emes, Menachos 43a, on the Rambam’s view.

123. See Maharaz Binga, p. 73, glosses, os 69*.

124. Sifsei Melech explains the same way.

125. Menachos 42a–b.

126. The Rif does not have the word megavya; Rashbach’s text is like ours. See Kelil Tekhelet, p. 239.

127. The Rif reads shablulisa, while Rashbach’s text is like ours. See Kelil Tekhelet, ibid.

128. The Rif reads bnei, and so does Rashbach.

129. Our editions of the Rif read charsana, but the Constantinople edition of the Rif reads harsana. See below, note 141. In Rashbach’s Dinei Mitzvas HaTzitzis (in Kelil Tekhelet, p. 265), the text became corrupted to chamira charsacha d’safrei.

130. Our editions of the Rif read charsana.

131. See Kelil Tekhelet, appendix 3, p. 295.

132. Rashi explains similarly in Shabbos 110a: “gavya gila — alum in the vernacular.” Rabbeinu Gershom explains in Menachos: “megavya gila — a type of dye,” followed by a foreign-language identification in the text. See also Sefer HaIttur, Hilchos Tzitzis, 66 col. 3: “megavya gila — a type of dye; some explain: alum.” See Teshuvos Rav Natronai Gaon (Brody ed., Machon Ofek), explanatory responsa, siman 521: “migavya gila is called … gila, and in Arabic it is called shabb.” Rabbeinu Perachyah (in Shitas HaKadmonim) to Shabbos 110a writes: “The precise reading is megavya, and in Arabic, chashishas sarur.” See the Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnah to Shabbos 14:3: “Those substances are Alexandrian zag, chashishas sarur, and saffron.”

133. See above, notes 106–108.

134. Rabbeinu Gershom explains the same way.

135. Fenugreek, Greek clover.

136. According to this reading, there would seemingly be no room for Rashi’s second explanation. See Tosafos Niddah 63a, s.v. tanna, and Shabbos 90a, s.v. mei raglayim; see also Seder Mishneh.

137. Rabbeinu Gershom reads: “urine of a child that forty days have passed over.” It is possible that the original text had two explanations, similar to those brought by Rashi.

138. See Ben Aryeh, Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma), Seder Mishneh, Kiryas Melech, and Yad Peshutah.

139. Accordingly, ishtani ligriusa means that it remains in its weakened state, not that it changes and becomes even worse.

140. See Shu”t Radbaz, vol. 5 (on the Rambam’s formulations), siman 48, who explains it the opposite way.

141. This is the reading in the Constantinople edition of the Rif; see Dikdukei Sofrim there, and what Yad Peshutah writes in the name of R’ A. Hilvitz. See also Kesef Mishneh; Pri Chadash, Orach Chaim 434:2 and Yoreh De’ah 112:1; Seder Mishneh; and Zera Yitzchak.

142. See the Rambam, Hilchos Tefillah 4:9: “The great chachamim would not daven in a house containing beer, nor in a house containing muryas while it was fermenting, because its smell was bad.” This is based on Eruvin 65a: “Shmuel would not daven in a house containing beer; Rav Pappa would not daven in a house containing harsana.”

143. As stated in Avodah Zarah 38a.

144. This is also Rabbeinu Gershom’s explanation.

145. 39a, and similarly Bechoros 30b.

146. Rashi explains this way in Avodah Zarah there, s.v. me’inshi: “The practice of swindlers is to sell kala ilan under the name Tekhelet.” Rabbeinu Yonasan and the Ran on the Rif (16a in the Rif pagination) explain likewise.

147. Divrei Yirmiyahu explains that the suspicion is regarding dyeing that was not done lishmah.

148. See Tzemach Shlomo.

149. 39a–b.

150. Regarding milk, the Gemara there says: “Rav Kahana said: remove milk from the list and enter instead a piece of fish that has no siman.”

151. See Maaseh Rokeach to Halachah 7: “Regarding the white strings as well, it seems more reasonable that one may not leave them with a non-Jew unless they are sealed with a seal within a seal, because we hold that all Torah prohibitions require two seals. See Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim siman 20.” See also Magen Gibborim, siman 20, se’if katan 3.

152. In the printed editions this was changed to Kusi because of censorship.

153. See Tosafos Avodah Zarah 31a, s.v. de’amar, and see the chiddushim of the Rashba and Meiri there.

154. Chapter 13, Halachah 8, based on Avodah Zarah 31a.

155. 96b–97a.

156. The root of the machlokes is how to understand the difference between tefillin and a kame’a. According to Rashi, tefillin differ from an ordinary amulet in the actual square ketzitzah. The question is therefore whether a person might go to the trouble of making an amulet in a square form like tefillin, in which case we would have to suspect that it is merely a kame’a, or whether people do not trouble themselves that much. According to the Rif, however, the difference lies in the knot. The question, in his view, is whether a person would bother tying an amulet with a knot like that of tefillin.
After citing the beraisa of the father of Shmuel, the Gemara retracts what it had said earlier, as implied by the words, “And now that the father of Shmuel taught…” The question is: what exactly is the Gemara retracting? According to the Rif, the new point in the explanation of the father of Shmuel is that new tefillin, unlike old ones, involve no extra effort at all, since they are not yet tied. Therefore, where they are already tied, even R’ Yehudah would agree that there is no concern that they are merely an amulet, because “a person would not trouble himself to this extent.” On this understanding, the Gemara changes only its understanding of R’ Yehudah’s position, not the basic reason for the prohibition.
According to Rashi, however, even new tefillin involve extra effort despite not being tied, since the boxes themselves were made square. The Gemara must therefore be retracting the entire concern that they may be a kame’a and hinting instead to a new reason: the prohibition of tying on Shabbos. See Kasuv Sham of the Raavad, who understands that Rava himself retracted as well.

157. Ibid., 97a, s.v. de-kulei alma lo tarach.

158. Rif, Eruvin 31b in the Rif pagination: “Why are new ones not brought in? Because we are concerned that perhaps they are amulets. But old ones, since they are tied, a person would not trouble himself to such an extent for an amulet. And the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak taught: which are considered old? Any that have straps and are tied. New? Any that have straps but are not tied.”

159. The Oxford manuscript’s text of the Gemara supports the Rif’s explanation: “Now that the father of Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak taught: which are old? Any that have straps and are tied. Which are new? Any that have straps and are not tied — everyone agrees that a person does not trouble himself because of the tying.” See Kasuv Sham of the Raavad to Eruvin 31b for what he writes about the Rif’s text; it is quoted below in note 167.
The Gemara’s question, “Why not tie them with a bow?” certainly, according to the Rif as well, was not asked on Rava’s view, but on Abaye’s view — and likewise that of R’ Elazar — brought later, that the reason new tefillin may not be brought in is the prohibition of tying on Shabbos. This is how the Raavad explains the Rif in the above-mentioned Kasuv Sham. See another explanation of the Rif in the Ba’al HaHashlamah, quoted in Sefer HaMe’oros, p. 95.

160. Chapter 19, Halachos 23–24.

161. Be’er Yehudah explains similarly.

162. In the “Sefer HaChasum” manuscript, the earlier version can still be seen underneath the corrected text. A line was drawn over the word meshuzarin in the sentence, “cut strings that are twisted — invalid,” marking it for deletion, and the margin adds: “and if they are twisted — valid.”

163. Shu”t HaRambam (Blau ed.), siman 287. The responsum is quoted by the Kesef Mishneh.

164. This is clear from the wording of the question sent to the Rambam: “In chapter two: ‘One who finds Tekhelet in the marketplace, even if he finds cut twisted strings, it is invalid.’ In our humble understanding, there is no room to turn right or left, because the conclusion of the sugya is that cut, twisted strings are valid, since everyone agrees that people do not trouble themselves that much. And that which we learned, ‘One who finds old tefillin brings them in, but not new ones,’ follows R’ Yehudah, not because we are concerned that perhaps they are amulets, since a person does not trouble himself to make an amulet like tefillin. Rather, what are ‘new’? Those that are not tied, and the reason is that one cannot tie them on Shabbos even with a bow, because R’ Yehudah follows his own view that a bow is considered a knot.”

165. There is no contradiction between the Rambam’s corrected ruling here and what he writes in Hilchos Shabbos. See Bach, Orach Chaim siman 301; Pri Megadim, Orach Chaim, Eshel Avraham siman 11, se’if katan 1; Biur HaGra, Orach Chaim siman 301, se’if katan 104; and Seder Mishneh, all of whom discuss this point. See also Binyan Yehoshua.

166. The Raavad writes there: “If he was afraid to remain there until dark because of robbers, etc.; but if their straps were not tied, he does not attend to them. Hasagah: I have also seen that he erred elsewhere in this matter (see Hilchos Tzitzis 2:7). He assumes that the new tefillin which R’ Yehudah forbids are forbidden because of concern that perhaps they are amulets. This is not correct, because certainly a person does not trouble himself to make an amulet like tefillin. Rather, ‘new’ means that they are not tied, because one may not tie them on Shabbos. Accordingly, bundles of tefillin that are not tied should be watched until nightfall, when there is no persecution and no danger from robbers, and then brought in at night, so that their kedushah not be disgraced, just as all holy writings are saved from destruction.”

167. Kasuv Sham of the Raavad, Eruvin 31b, on the Baal HaMaor there, s.v. “the Rif wrote,” corresponding to Rif siman 670 (Eruvin 96b): “The Rif wrote: ‘But old ones, since they are tied, a person would not trouble himself to such an extent for an amulet, etc.’ The Raavad writes: In truth our text reads, ‘everyone agrees that a person does not trouble himself,’ and we explain that Rava himself retracted. But the Rif’s text is not so; rather, ‘a person would not trouble himself to such an extent.’ In the case of cut strings, however, people do trouble themselves. R’ Elazar, though, holds that even for cut strings people do not trouble themselves, according to everyone. The reason for new tefillin is that they are not tied and he cannot tie them. It is according to his view that the Gemara asks, ‘Why not tie them with a bow?’ The entire sugya therefore follows R’ Elazar. Accordingly, cut, twisted strings are valid, and it seems that they are valid even without any examination. We are not concerned for kala ilan, for sampling, or for dyeing not lishmah, because once they are twisted like tzitzis strings and cut to the size of tzitzis strings, they are certainly valid for tzitzis; we assume they came from the hand of an expert. So it appears to me.”

168. 43a.

169. 45b.

170. Tosafos Menachos 42b, s.v. ve’ein nikachin. See, however, Tosafos Eruvin 96b, s.v. hamotzei, who write similarly to the Ramban. See also Be’er Yehudah.

171. Eruvin 96b.

172. 12b.

173. Geonica, vol. 2, pp. 334–335. Rashi to Menachos there, s.v. min ha’oved kochavim; Rabbeinu Yonasan on the Rif, Hilchos Tzitzis 13a in the Rif pagination; Nimukei Yosef, Hilchos Tzitzis there; and Ran on the Rif, Avodah Zarah 11a in the Rif pagination, all explain this way as well.

174. Rabbeinu Gershom to Menachos there, however, writes: “From a non-Jew, from a merchant — if he bought it from a non-Jewish merchant, it is valid, because a Jew gave it to him to sell. From an ordinary non-Jew — invalid, because there is no basis to say that it belonged to a Jew, since a person does not give merchandise to an ordinary individual to sell; rather, he made it to deceive on his own.” See Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim siman 20, se’if katan 1, and Mishnah Berurah there, se’if katan 4.

175. Regarding purchasing tzitzis from a Kusi, see Maseches Tzitzis 1: “One who buys a tallis from a gentile or from a Kusi and finds Tekhelet on it — it is invalid; from a Jew — it retains its presumed valid status.” See R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s commentary Tekhelet VeArgaman there, and Encyclopedia Talmudit, entry “Kutim,” Jerusalem 5767, col. 711, note 889. See also Rashbach’s Dinei Mitzvas HaTzitzis (in Kelil Tekhelet, p. 266), who writes that the “ordinary person” mentioned in this beraisa means a Kusi.

176. The Tur, Orach Chaim siman 9, also quotes this in his name. See what the Beis Yosef writes there, and the Kesef Mishneh here in the name of Mahari ibn Chaviv. See also Yitzchak Yeranen. Yad Peshutah explains along the lines of Mahari ibn Chaviv.

177. Chapter 3, Halachah 5. See Mayim Chaim and Ein HaTekhelet (Mishor ed., pp. 305 and 329), who understand that the word “makes” here is only a lechatchilah requirement and does not invalidate bedieved. See Ben Yedid, who holds that even bedieved it is invalid.

178. Menachos 41b; see Rashi there.

179. Halachah 1. Mahari Beirav already noted this apparent contradiction; his words are quoted by the Kesef Mishneh. See his resolution there, and see Yitzchak Yeranen.

180. See Mekor Chaim, siman 11, se’if 1.

181. It is possible that the entire halachah, from its very beginning — “A tallis that is entirely red or green or another color: he makes its white strings the same color as the garment” — is itself a halachah within the laws of Tekhelet. In the absence of Tekhelet, there may be no requirement to make the tzitzis the same color as the tallis. The phrase tzitzis hakanaf, as far as the color of the tzitzis is concerned, was stated only in the context of pesil Tekhelet, as the pasuk says: “They shall place upon the tzitzis of the corner a thread of Tekhelet.”

182. 41b.

183. See my Kelil Tekhelet, p. 148, note 117. Keren Orah to Menachos 41b, Be’er Yehudah, and Yitzchak Yeranen explain similarly; see also Ein HaTekhelet (Mishor ed., pp. 295, 297, 304). Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma) and Yad Peshutah explain differently.

184. Halachah 2.

185. 42a. See what I explained in my Kelil Tekhelet, p. 38.

186. See my Kelil Tekhelet, appendix 1, p. 246, note 24, and appendix 3, note 7. This resolves the question I raised against the Rambam there on p. 150, os 260. See also what Be’er Yehudah writes.

187. Kesef Mishneh — see what Keren Orah to Menachos 41b asks on him — Mayim Chaim — see what Ben Yedid asks on his explanation, and see Chaim U’Melech — Yitzchak Yeranen, Keser HaMelech, Kovetz Al Yad, Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma), Ziv Mishneh, Ein HaTekhelet (Mishor ed., p. 305 and also p. 331), and Yad Peshutah all offer other resolutions. See also Eved HaMelech.

188. Menachos there; also Bava Kama 93b, Bava Metzia 61b, Menachos 40a and 43a, and Sifrei Bamidbar 115.

189. Kelainos (κελαινος) or kelainon (κελαινον). See Tosefta (Zuckermandel ed.), Avodah Zarah 6:1, where the expression appears as one word: “kalailan that was threshed with wood of an asheirah must be burned.” See the comment on this in R’ Menachem Adler’s Tekhelet VeArgaman, p. 162.
See also Aruch HaShalem, entry “kala ilan,” which suggests that the name comes from the Greek word καλαινος (kalainos), which he says means a turquoise color. See also A. Spanier and Y. Ziderman, “HaTekhelet VeHaArgaman — Pe’er Ta’asiyas HaTekstil BeEs HaAtikah,” p. 187; R’ Betzalel Naor, Reishis Oni, p. 54, especially note 7; and the detailed discussion of the nature of kala ilan in HaTekhelet BeYisrael, pp. 401–402.
See also the responsum of Rav Amram Gaon in Geonica, vol. 2, p. 333 — likewise in Ginzei Kedem, vol. 5 — “kala ilan — lilang, and in Arabic, nil.” R’ Baruch HaSefardi (in Shitas HaKadmonim, Bava Metzia 61b) likewise writes: “kala ilan — in Arabic, nil.” The Aruch, entry “kala ilan,” identifies it as indigo. See also Nimukei Yosef to Bava Metzia 34a in the Rif pagination.

190. See Kesef Mishneh, who wonders why the Rambam omitted the term “kala ilan,” and see his answer there. See also Merkavas HaMishneh (Chelma), Ziv Mishneh, Ein HaTekhelet (Mishor ed., pp. 295–299), R’ Dov Tzvi Rothstein, “Nilag, Indigo, Kala-Ilan VeIstis,” p. 153, and Maharaz Binga, p. 54, glosses, os 40.

191. Menachos 38b.

192. See Shitah Mekubetzes on Menachos 38a, os 3.

193. See my Kelil Tekhelet, pp. 43–44, where I attempted to explain the Rambam’s view according to the second explanation brought in the above-mentioned Shitah Mekubetzes.

194. See Rashi there: “It specifically mentions a linen sheet because it is white.” See also Tosafos there, s.v. lo nitzrecha ela lesadin betzitzis.

195. See Rashi there, who explains differently: “Does the color make the difference? Even if the entire garment is Tekhelet-colored, there is still a mitzvah to put the white before the Tekhelet. Since most talleisim are white, ‘white’ is what determines the order. That is why the Torah writes ‘Tekhelet’ after ‘the corner’ — the later one should always come afterward.” See another explanation in Tosafos there, s.v. midi tziv’a ka garim.
See also Sefer HaIttur, Hilchos Tzitzis, 75 col. 1: “The halachah is that for a white tallis and all other colors: if he has white, he puts on white because of min kanaf. If he does not have white, he puts on the color of the garment — red on a red tallis, green on green, and similarly with all colors. One should not explain ‘it exempts only with its own kind’ to mean even where he has white, because regarding a tallis that is entirely Tekhelet we said above that there is a mitzvah to put white first, and the Gemara asks: ‘Does color make the difference?’ We therefore see that when they said there is a mitzvah to put white before Tekhelet, they meant for all talleisim, whether colored or white. No one disagrees that white is primary; and if he has no white, he puts on strings of the garment’s color together with Tekhelet.”

196. 43b. This is also brought in Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer, parashah 14, p. 272; the Rambam’s wording is closer to the wording of that Midrash.

197. Sifrei Devarim, VeZos HaBerachah 354. See also the Yemenite Midrash Me’or HaAfelah to Bamidbar 15:38, which explains the Rambam’s words, “because the fish is found only in the salt sea.” Yad Peshutah explains similarly.

198. 44a.

199. The text of Maseches Tzitzis 1:10 reads: “It comes up only once in seven years; therefore its price is expensive.”

200. See also Mishnas Rabbi Eliezer, parashah 14, p. 273: “So too, one who does not make tzitzis today from white is punished more severely than one who did not make Tekhelet in that period.” See also Tanchuma, Parashas Shelach, siman 15: “It is a mitzvah to bring white and Tekhelet and make [tzitzis]. When? When Tekhelet exists. But now we have only white, because Tekhelet was hidden away.” See Be’er Yehudah to Halachah 2, who asks why the Rambam did not bring the statement that “it comes up once in seventy years.” See also Sefunei Temunei Chol (Mishor ed., p. 30) and HaTekhelet BeYisrael, p. 387.

201. Rashi to Megillah 6a, s.v. al yedei chilazon: “The chilazon comes up from the sea to the mountains.” Likewise Sanhedrin 91a: “Chilazon — a worm that comes out of the sea once in seventy years, and Tekhelet is dyed with its blood; at first only one chilazon can be seen on the entire mountain.” By contrast, in Menachos 44a Rashi writes, “and it comes up — from the earth,” which requires explanation.
See Yad Ramah to Sanhedrin there, who rejects this explanation and writes: “Rather, it appears that the chilazon here is not the one we discuss regarding Tekhelet, but another species that is formed from earth and water and is called in Arabic chalazum.” See also the comment in Kupas HaRochlim, Klalei Bigdei Kodesh Shel Kehunah.

202. See Shabbos 74b.

203. See Rashi, Menachos 44a: “Therefore — because it comes up only once in seventy years, its price is expensive.” See Shu”t Radbaz, vol. 2, siman 685. Rema MiPano, in Maamar Tzevaos Hashem II, 14–15, explains: “Once in seventy years it is uprooted from there and rises from the water. At that point it is inanimate, with no movement at all, like trees after they have been uprooted. Its rising is only due to the nature of water and its weight, since light things float on its surface.”

204. Sotah 17a; Rashi explains similarly in Chullin 89a.

205. See Machzor Vitry, siman 427: “Like the honor of your colleague — do not treat your student disrespectfully; rather, treat him with honor just as you are required to honor your colleague. This does not mean that you make the two completely equal, but that you act toward him in a comparable way, as Moshe did with Yehoshua when he said to him, ‘Choose men for us.’ If you were to say it means literally the same honor as your colleague, that would be impossible, because it also says, ‘The awe of your colleague should be like the awe of your rebbe.’ We find something similar regarding Tekhelet: ‘Tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod.’”
The Ritva likewise explains in his chiddushim to Chullin 89a: “Why is Tekhelet different from all other colors, etc.? The reason the Gemara goes through the whole chain and says that Tekhelet resembles the sea and the sea resembles the sky, rather than simply saying that Tekhelet resembles the sky, appears to be that Tekhelet does not actually resemble the sky directly. Rather, because Tekhelet resembles the sea somewhat, and the sea resembles the sky somewhat, Tekhelet can be said to resemble the sky.”
But see the Ritva’s additional explanation there: “Some explain it in the way of Midrash: the Tekhelet, which resembles the sea, is meant to remind us of the miracles that HaKadosh Baruch Hu performed for us at the sea” — similarly Rashi to Menachos 43b: “resembles the sea — where miracles were performed for Yisrael” — “and through its resemblance to the sky, to remember how He bent down the seven heavens when He descended upon Sinai to give us the Torah.”