בענין חלזון התכלת בימינו – On the Matter of the Chilazon shel Techeiles in Our Days – Rabbi Shay Tahan

On the matter of the Chilazon shel Techeiles in our days

Rabbi Shay Tahan

Introduction

The topic of techeiles has always been one of the most fascinating topics in the Torah and in the tradition of the Jewish people. This mitzvah, which was forgotten by Israel for many generations, stirred the hearts of the great leaders of Israel, who sought to return it to its proper place. In recent generations the topic was renewed again, following the efforts of scholars and rabbis who saw it as their mission to discover the lost source of techeiles.

One of the most prominent among them was the Radziner Rebbe z”l. He devoted his life and energy to uncover techeiles, and he saw in it one of the signs of the redemption of the nation and of restoring the crown of the mitzvos to their former beauty. He researched, experimented, and in the end identified the animal from which the dye is produced — the cuttlefish — as the original source of techeiles. His dedication and the depth of his investigation arouse great admiration until today. However, despite the initial enthusiasm that his words created, many of the great rabbis of his generation did not accept his identification.

The reasons for this are many and complex: some are scientific and factual, relating to questions of the exact color, the production process, and how it fits with the sources in Chazal; some are halachic, touching on how one accepts a new “mesorah”; and some are spiritual and essential, dealing with the general attitude toward renewing something that was forgotten, when there is no continuous tradition about it. Many great Torah figures felt there was a need for great caution before accepting such a fundamental mitzvah on the basis of a new finding, even if it was presented with passion and complete faith.

In our generation, we have merited a new awakening among a large part of the public to renew techeiles. Not many years ago, the Argamon K’hei haKotzim snail, known in other languages as the Murex, was found. Unlike the cuttlefish of the Radziner Rebbe, this snail fits, in a remarkable way, the descriptions in the words of Chazal.

In this article I would like to look again at this fascinating story: the efforts to discover the Murex, and the reasons why some of the great rabbis of our generation did not agree to accept it, and to see if there is an answer to their doubts. I will try to examine the matter in light of the sources in Chazal, the words of the poskim, and the reality that came to light in the generations afterward. My intention is not to rule or to argue, but to shed light on what appears from study and analysis — in the way of the Torah, whose purpose is to clarify the truth with humility and with respect for the great tradition we received from our teachers.

I did not see it as proper here to bring the very long discussions that appear in the many sefarim that dealt with clarifying the matter of techeiles and establishing it, since those books are available to anyone who seeks them and do not need to be copied here. My goal is only to answer briefly, as I have been able to, according to my weak understanding in the words of our holy rabbis, in whose light we walk. God forbid I should appear as if I am coming to argue on their words. That is not my intention at all. All I want is only to point out and illuminate the topic, in the way of Torah, whose ways are pleasant and all its paths are peace. Therefore I will begin by asking forgiveness from the honor of their Torah, from the great rabbis of Israel, if anything in my words may sound as not written with the proper respect. That is certainly not my intention at all; my entire aim is only the clarification of truth and the honor of the Torah.

And even though I relied greatly on sefarim that deal at length with techeiles, such as the important sefer Levush HaAron, my goal here is not simply to repeat their words, even though at times I did not refrain from bringing their words as well. Many of the points that became clear to me in my own study I did not see explained in those sefarim. Therefore I saw it as proper to record them here, so that the sugya will be clarified properly and another layer will be added to the understanding of the words of our Sages, in the way of Torah.

Basic Terms

In order to explain briefly what we are discussing, I will first explain the basic terms.

In Tosefta Menachos 9:16 it says:
“Techeiles is valid only if it comes from the chilazon. If he brought it not from the chilazon, it is passul.”

And in Maseches Tzitzis (1:10):
“One may not dye techeiles except with the chilazon.”

The chilazon is also called “techeiles,” and also “purpura”. The chilazon discussed in this article is called in Hebrew Argamon K’hei Kotzim and, in other languages, Murex. The chilazon is also called shablul (snail) and also chomet.

The Gemara (Menachos 44a) says:

“Our Rabbis taught: The chilazon — its body is similar to the sea, its form is similar to a fish, it comes up once in seventy years, and with its blood they dye techeiles. Therefore its price is high.”

Later we will discuss this description of the chilazon. But first I want to point out one thing. I have seen in several sefarim that they struggled with the question: in what way is the body of the chilazon similar to the sea, since the color of the sea is blue? They suggested different explanations that are hard to accept.

To me it is simple that the Gemara does not mean the color of the chilazon. Rashi writes: “Its body — the appearance of its body, the form of its image.” It is clear, then, that the Gemara is speaking about the look of its body, not its color. The body itself is not the color of techeiles, only its “blood” (the dye fluid) is that color. And on this the Gemara speaks clearly when it says: “What is special about techeiles more than all other colors? Because techeiles is similar to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky to the Throne of Glory.”

It seems that the Gemara here, when it says “its body is similar to the sea,” means that on the surface of the shell there are ridges and bumps that look like waves of the sea. In fact, this description fits the Murex snail.

In the sefer Mishyakir VeHayah Lachem LeTzitzis (5776, p. 8) he brings from Shu”t Chacham Tzvi (siman 56) that it is normal to say that something is “similar” even when it is not very close at all. The sefer Mishkanos Yaakov (siman 156) writes this as well.

The View of the Chazon Ish

In Chut HaShani, Hilchos Tzitzis, siman 9, se’if 3, he brings that once someone came to present in front of the Chazon Ish proofs for techeiles that they had found. The Chazon Ish was silent and told him to go to the Griz (the Brisker Rav), knowing that the Griz would not accept it.

From this story it is clear that the Chazon Ish did not reject the matter forcefully. If he held that one must certainly and completely negate it, he would have said so, and we know that the Chazon Ish could express a clear and strong opinion when he wished.

Besides this, it is certain that what they brought to the Chazon Ish was not the Murex snail, since the Chazon Ish passed away in 5714 (1954), and the Murex was only identified (for techeiles) in 5745 (1985). Even if it is possible that they spoke with him about the Murex earlier — as appears in the research of Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog on techeiles — in any case, in that period almost no one accepted the Murex as the chilazon of techeiles.

This is also clear from the fact that the discussion with him was about the cuttlefish of the Radziner Rebbe, as brought in Maaseh Ish vol. 1 p. 132. That is what the Chazon Ish spoke about, and not the Murex.

The View of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv

It seems that Rav Elyashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos, vol. 1, siman 62), in his responsum, did not write against the Argamon K’hei Kotzim (Murex) itself. He only expressed a concern that perhaps the Argamon is not the real chilazon — that just as the researchers rejected the Radziner Rebbe’s chilazon, so too, after some years, they may reject the Argamon.

This responsum was written about thirty years ago. Since then, not only have the researchers not rejected the chilazon, they have found even more proofs that this is indeed the chilazon of techeiles.

In truth, this argument of our master is difficult for me to understand. What kind of refutation is it to say that the Radziner Rebbe was mistaken with a different chilazon? Every claim must be considered on its own.

For example: someone learning the sugya of aveidah shelo midaas in the Gemara, the argument between Abaye and Rava — would he say that if one of Abaye’s proofs is refuted, we should stop considering the rest of his proofs, since “just as we found a refutation to the first proof, maybe we’ll find a refutation to all the others”? That would be strange.

Rav Elyashiv then brings the claim of the Beis HaLevi against the Radziner’s techeiles: if this fish always existed, and still our forefathers did not wear its techeiles, that is as if we have an accepted tradition from them that this is not the desired chilazon. Rav Elyashiv finishes:

“And I do not know what to say regarding this invention that the researchers of our time have come up with — whether this claim applies to it as well.”

If so, since Maran himself was uncertain and wrote “I do not know,” then at least for the Murex, the complaint of the Beis HaLevi falls away, or at least is not proven.

Rav Elyashiv then concludes with the words of the Gaon of Kotna in his sefer Yeshuos Malko, that among Israel it has already been established for more than a thousand years that techeiles was hidden (nignaz). So it is the simple understanding of the Sifrei, and the Arizal agrees that there is no techeiles except when the Beis HaMikdash is standing. He also mentions that the exact process of the dye was not clarified, and there is a dispute between Rashi and the Rambam about it.

We should note that in the dispute over the number of strings, we can follow the general pattern: Sefardim usually rule like the Rambam, and Ashkenazim like Tosafos. In fact, the Mishnah Berurah (siman 9, se’if katan 7) clearly rules like Tosafos and writes:

“At the time when techeiles was available, one had to put four strings: two white strings and two techeiles strings. Only with that was the mitzvah of tzitzis fulfilled properly.”

Today, however, the custom follows the Raavad, to put one techeiles string and wind it. Really this needs a separate article of its own, and so does the subject of the dyeing process. This will, God willing, be discussed at another time.

The Aruch HaShulchan

The Aruch HaShulchan (siman 9, se’if 12) writes:

“In our many sins, from the time we were scattered, we no longer have techeiles. We do not know it at all, and all our tzitzis are white. Nevertheless, we keep the mitzvah properly, since it has already been explained that techeiles does not hold back the white. Therefore, whoever neglects this mitzvah — his punishment is great.

And know, that a few years ago someone boasted that he had found the chilazon and made from it techeiles, and he drew after him some people. But he found no listeners among the great rabbis of the generation and among the Jewish people as a whole, and the matter was cancelled, until the Righteous Redeemer comes, speedily in our days, amen.”

His complaint is not really directed at us. His words there are about the Radziner Rebbe’s cuttlefish. And his ending — “until the Righteous Redeemer comes” — clearly reflected the spirit of our poor nation at that time, helpless and broken in the bitter, hurried exile in Europe. Their only hope for renewing mitzvos that had not been practiced for two thousand years was in the coming of the Redeemer.

If he had known that a time would come when the Jewish people would return to its land, and that in that time the chilazon would be discovered, it is possible he would not have written it that way.

Rav Asher Weiss shlit”a

In Shu”t Minchas Asher (volume 2, simanim 2–5), the Gaon shlit”a goes at length to refute every proof brought before him that the Murex is the chilazon of techeiles. I will discuss his holy words in order:

1. On the claim “let us be strict out of doubt” First, our master responds to the common question: why should we not be strict because of a doubt — “if it doesn’t help, it doesn’t harm”? He bases himself on the well-known principle of the Pri Megadim (Aishel Avraham, siman 194, se’if katan 3) that we only say “a doubt in a Torah law is treated stringently” when by being strict one resolves the doubt. The Pri Megadim himself already asks that this idea seems against simple reasoning, and that there is a clear halacha in Shulchan Aruch (siman 493, se’if 2) that indicates the opposite.Therefore, Rav Asher writes that even if it is correct in theory to be strict, that would only apply when the matter is clearly defined as a real doubt (safek). One should not make up new chumros “maybe, perhaps,” without any reason or supporting arguments.This claim is correct. However, in our days, the proofs that this may be the chilazon have multiplied so much that we cannot say it is not even within the category of a doubt at all. All the more so when there are true Torah scholars and great rabbis who have supported this chilazon, such as Rabbi Yisrael Belsky, Rabbi Moshe Karp, and others.
2. The description of the chilazon: fish, worm, snail Next, Rav Asher brings the wording of the Gemara (Menachos 44a):
   

   “This chilazon — its body is similar to the sea, its form is similar to a fish, it comes up once in seventy years, and with its blood they dye techeiles.”

   Rashi explains: its appearance is similar to the sea, and its form is similar to a fish. Some Rishonim write that the chilazon is a worm, and so it sounds from Rashi in Toras Kohanim.

   Rav Asher asks: the purpura (Murex) is not a fish and does not look like a fish, and it also does not look like a worm.

   Really, before asking this on the supporters of the Murex, he should ask the contradiction in Rashi himself: if the chilazon is a fish, it is not a worm; and if it is a worm, it is not a fish.

   Besides this, the chilazon is in fact a snail that carries a shell on its back, like a kind of shell (tzadap), as is proven from many sources:

   • “Go and learn from the chilazon, that as long as it grows, its case grows with it” (Midrash Rabba, Shir HaShirim 4).
   • Rashi (Devarim 8:4) brings this idea.
   • And Rashi in Chagigah 11a, on the word chomet, writes: “I say it is a kind of small creature that they call limga, which grows in a shell that keeps curling as it grows.” In Rashi’s Old French, he translates limga, limza — chilazon.
   • And there are many similar sources.

   In Lashon HaKodesh, too, a snail (shablul) is called chilazon. Why should we insist that there was some mistake or change in the language if we have no evidence for that? We do not insist that the onions and garlic mentioned in the Torah are not the onions and garlic we have today, or that the bulls brought as korbanos are not the same kind of bulls we have today, and so on.

   The truth, in the straightforward way of Torah, is that the chilazon is a snail and a chomet. The body of the chilazon without its shell is indeed like a worm. Its form together with the shell is similar to a fish, since it is wide in the middle and narrow at both ends. This is not found among other snails that carry a casing on their backs; they do not have a fish-like shape at all.

   As for the Rambam, who writes that the chilazon is a fish, many have clarified this with the words of the Vilna Gaon (on Keilim 11:1): “Anything that is found in the sea is called a type of fish, whatever its form may be.” Similarly, the Ibn Ezra (Shemos 7:27) calls a tannin (sea creature) a “fish,” and there are other such examples.

3. “With its blood they dye” vs. the gland-fluid Rav Asher then asks: the Gemara says they dye with its blood, but with the Murex they do not dye with its blood, rather with a fluid found in a gland in its body.Besides the fact that this point is actually one of the biggest proofs that the Murex is the chilazon, since Rabbenu Tam (Tosafos, Shabbos 75a, d.h. “ki heichi”) explains that the “blood” of the chilazon is “mifkad pakid” — stored away in a pocket or gland — which matches exactly the Argamon K’hei Kotzim and is not found in other species, we should also note the following:In reality, the chilazon (a snail) has no “blood” in its body like other animals. Instead, it has a clear or colorless body fluid which carries nutrients. It is not red blood like mammals have. The circulatory system of snails is different from that of vertebrates; they do not have closed blood vessels or hemoglobin. Instead of blood, snails have a body fluid that contains special cells and nutrients, which moves through their body. This fluid carries nutrients, hormones, and wastes, but it is not red blood. Its color varies according to species and environment; often it is clear or colorless. In any case, it is not red like mammalian blood, which contains hemoglobin. They also do not have a closed circulatory system like arteries, veins, and capillaries in mammals.

   Therefore, it is clear that when Chazal said “blood of the chilazon,” they meant that fluid, and they used the word “blood” in a borrowed way, because this is the fluid that keeps the animal alive, like blood in other animals. For the same reason, our Sages used the word “blood” regarding the gland in which the techeiles color is “stored” (mifkad pakid).

   This is why it does not help what I have seen from some authors, who tried to prove that according to all the Rishonim we need real blood. There is no chilazon that has red blood as they imagine. More than that, you can raise a simple logical question on their view: if we dye the strings with techeiles, how can red blood turn into a techeiles-blue color? That is very hard to understand.

   Rather, it is clear that the “blood-color” of the chilazon must be either techeiles-colored or at least capable of becoming techeiles-colored — just as the Murex, in a wondrous way, changes its fluid into techeiles.

   In addition, if we say that the blood of the chilazon is actual red blood, we have a strong difficulty from the words of Chazal, who said (Shabbos 75a) that the color of techeiles is “clear” (tzalul). Rashi explains that its appearance is “pure/clear.” How can red blood be clear? Blood is a thick fluid, the exact opposite of clear. The fluid of the chilazon, on the other hand, is clear, as we wrote above, and it fits our Sages’ description in a striking and amazing way.

   The Gemara there also says that one who cuts open the chilazon (on Shabbos) is liable for taking a life (netilas neshamah). So the prohibition is taking its life. It is obvious that by removing that fluid one takes its life; that is what the Gemara means.

   Because of all these arguments, I also find it hard to understand the words of the Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Miller shlit”a, who wrote (in a haskamah to a sefer) against the Murex because of this “blood” issue.

4. “Yam HaMelach” and where the chilazon is found Rav Asher also notes the Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2), who writes that the chilazon is found in the Yam HaMelach (the Salt Sea), whereas the purpura (Murex) is found only in the Mediterranean Sea. He himself already answers that the Rambam, in many places, calls the Mediterranean Sea “Yam HaMelach.” The Frankel edition collects many such sources.
5. “Once in seventy years” Rav Asher further asks on that earlier Gemara which says that the chilazon “comes up once in seventy years,” that we do not see such a reality.Besides the fact that it is clear that the expression “once in seventy years,” used several times by Chazal, is not meant as a fixed time interval but only to show that something is very rare, as they said in the Mishnah (Makkos 1:10):
   

   “A Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: once in seventy years.”

   And in Avodah Zarah 11b:

   “There is a certain city that belongs to the fourth kingdom, and once in seventy years they bring a complete man and place him on a lame man…”

   (as a rare event, etc.).

   Also, in the section of Pitum HaKetores there is a teaching of Bar Kappara: “Once in sixty or seventy years, half the amount (of ketores) would come from leftovers,” meaning that the leftover ketores from each year was collected, and once every long time, around sixty or seventy years, enough accumulated to make half the amount needed for one year (see the exact calculation in Tosafos, Shevuos 10b, d.h. “Moser”).

   In Midrash Rabba, Naso 9, and in Yalkut Shimoni (parsha 785), it says that once in sixty or seventy years Hashem brings some calamity to the world and wipes out the mamzerim.

   And in the Sulam commentary on the Zohar (parshas Bo) it says that the world trembles once in seventy years.

   From all of the above, it is clear that the intention is not that every seventy years on the dot all these things happen. Rather, our Sages’ intention is an exaggerated expression, meaning “very rarely.”

   In truth, here the question does not even begin, since the Radbaz (volume 1, siman 425) already taught that after the exile of Israel, the chilazon no longer came up on its own, so they had to hunt it from the depths of the sea.

   I will bring his responsum here, since we will need it again later:

   “You asked: we learn in Shabbos that the hunters of the chilazon would tie and untie the nets in order to catch it. And you asked: from where did they have a chilazon to hunt, since it was only found in the portion of Zevulun? Could they go to Eretz Yisrael to hunt it?

   Answer: This does not need much explanation. The chilazon is common in the sea. In the portion of Zevulun it would come up by itself from the sea onto the land, and they would collect it. After Israel went into exile, it no longer came up. Nevuzaradan left in the land the poor people, as vinedressers and farmers, and our Sages said that these were the chilazon hunters, which implies that they needed to hunt it.

   Similarly, in the building of the Mishkan they were close to the eastern sea, the Yam Suf, since there was only a short distance between Yam Suf and Har Sinai. They would go to the Yam Suf and hunt it there, since it was found there. Therefore they did not need to say anything special about the chilazon, as they did about the tachash, since it was common.

   It is possible that even today it exists, except that people do not recognize it, or do not know how to hunt it. They also do not need it, since a color similar to techeiles is very common, namely Istis, called in Arabic Nil, and they dye with it in a skilled way so that it does not fade even when ironed.”

   We should note that it is known that the Radbaz was the teacher of Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi, author of Shita Mekubetzes, who was the teacher of the Arizal. Some say that the Arizal himself was also a student of the Radbaz.

   If so, what the Arizal says (in Shaar HaKavanos), that techeiles applies specifically when the Beis HaMikdash exists, may be explained as his teacher the Radbaz explained: that even though the chilazon always exists in reality, in the time of the Mikdash it would come out of the sea by Divine Providence; after the destruction, one must hunt it from the sea.

   A proof that techeiles existed even after the destruction of the Temple is that in the time of Rav Achai, a certain sage brought techeiles (Menachos 43a). The Rashbam writes that this Rav Achai is Rav Achai Gaon, who lived after the Amoraim. This was several hundred years after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. See what Rav Chaim Kanievsky writes in Daas Noteh (volume 2, teshuva 274), that Tosafos in Kesubos 2b (d.h. “Peshita”) write that he was an Amora — but this does not really solve the simple understanding of the Arizal’s words that techeiles applies only when the Beis HaMikdash is standing, whereas in the time of the Amoraim the Temple had been destroyed for hundreds of years.

   According to this explanation of the Radbaz, we also understand how Nevuzaradan could leave in the land “chilazon hunters of techeiles” (Shabbos 26a). He would not leave people just to work once in seventy years. Their job was clearly regular hunting from the sea.

   Furthermore, one might ask: what “hunting” is there in regard to the chilazon, since its movement is very slow and there seems to be no need to hunt it? The answer is that when it is on the shore, there is no need to hunt it. But in the sea, one needs nets in order to catch it.

   See also what Rabbeinu Yerucham writes (Netiv 12, section 10, p. 80; quoted in Orchos Shabbos, chapter 14, note 21) that the prohibition of trapping (tzad) applies even to worms and snails, even though their movement is very slow.

6. Other signs of the Argamon and archaeological findings Rav Asher then brings the proofs of those who support identifying the Argamon: that it is found on the coast of Zevulun, as the Gemara says (Megillah 6a); that it is embedded in the seabed, as the Raavad explains the verse “Sefunei temunei chol”; that it is caught with nets, as the Gemara says (Shabbos 74b); and that by injuring it one is liable (Shabbos 75a).He wonders: there are thousands of fish and sea-creatures stuck in the seabed that fit all of these conditions.If techeiles depended only on these four conditions, the Rav’s argument would indeed be strong. However, since we know that there are many more specific characteristics of techeiles, these four things are only part of a larger set of signs. For example:
   • The source is a chilazon (a snail), not a fish.
   • It has a form that resembles a fish — wide in the middle and narrow at the ends.
   • It has a gland, whose fluid is “stored” (mifkad pakid), from which the techeiles dye is made.
   • Its color matches that of Kala Ilan (the indigo plant).
   • And more such signs.

   It is clear that we will not find another creature that fits all of these details.

   We should also note that the Murex snail was discovered by a group of divers who were actively searching for the chilazon. They did not find any other snail that matched the required conditions.

   Besides this, in the sefer HaTecheiles (from p. 257 on), in the sefer HaTecheiles VeChidusha, he brings at length archaeological findings discovered along the Mediterranean coast: large piles of old Argamon shells, clearly indicating a techeiles-dye industry in that place. Next to these piles were found shards of vessels with techeiles dye in them. Some shells were found whole, except for a single drilled hole exactly where the dye-gland is, which clearly shows that they were drilled only in order to remove the dye.

   He also brings a particularly striking finding: an enormous heap about 100 meters long, 25 meters wide, and 2–3 meters high, filled with hundreds of millions of Argamon K’hei Kotzim shells. Before us is clear, rare evidence of a huge industrial use of this snail.

   This shows that the Argamon was used to dye cloth, as is also proven by several sources in Chazal which show that there was a broad industry of dyeing threads in the color of techeiles. For example, in the Gemara (Eruvin 96a) it says:

   “One who finds techeiles in the marketplace: if it is in the form of ‘tongues’ (i.e. strips), it is invalid… We say: his intention was to dye clothes with it.”

   Rashi explains that maybe it was not dyed for the sake of the mitzvah of tzitzis, and we require that the dyeing be done for its own sake. If there had not been a widespread industry of dyeing cloth in techeiles-color, then these dyed strips would almost certainly have been for tzitzis, and there would be no concern.

   The Gemara continues and proves that if the threads are cut in a certain way, we can assume they were meant for tzitzis. This is another big proof that there was a separate industry of blue dye for regular cloth; otherwise, techeiles found “in the marketplace” would almost always be for tzitzis.

   We also have no evidence of any other snail used to dye cloth. This is another proof for the Argamon.

7. “Techeiles was hidden” and the meaning of “nignaz” Rav Asher also brings from the Sifrei and Midrash Rabba that techeiles was “hidden” (nignaz). Therefore, he says, “it is likely that the species of chilazon was forgotten and lost, and perhaps it became extinct. All this was from Heaven, as we see in the words of Chazal,” and it will only be revealed in the future.We must carefully examine the word nignaz (“hidden”). He could have said, like the Rav, “forgotten and disappeared,” or “canceled.” But nignaz means that it still exists but is hidden, like holy writings that are “buried” in the ground — they are not destroyed, just covered.Rashi in Pesachim (62b) explains nignaz as “forgotten,” meaning “put away so it’s not accessible.”

   According to the Radbaz, who writes that after the destruction the chilazon no longer came up to the shore, then it is indeed “hidden and covered.” It was also hidden and covered from the Jewish people during the long exile, until they returned to their land.

   We also see in Chazal that something “hidden” can later be revealed.

   Regarding the first light, our Sages said (Bereishis Rabba 11:2):

   “The light that the Holy One, blessed be He, created on the first day — a person could see with it from one end of the world to the other. When God saw the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion, whose deeds were corrupt, He hid it and set it aside for the righteous in the future.”

   We can ask: who are these righteous, and when is “the future”? The Zohar (Bereishis 31b) says:

   “…This is the light that God showed to Adam HaRishon, and he saw with it from one end of the world to the other. This is the light that God showed to David HaMelech, who praised and said (Tehillim 31:20), ‘How great is Your goodness, which You have hidden for those who fear You.’ This is the light that God showed to Moshe, and with it he saw from Gilad to Dan… When God saw that there would arise three wicked generations — the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and the generation of the Dispersion — He hid it so they would not use it. He gave it to Moshe, who used it for three months… Afterward He took it back until Moshe stood on Har Sinai to receive the Torah, and then He returned that light to him, and he used it all his life.”

   We see that although God “hid” the light for the future, He still showed it and gave it to David and to Moshe. So “hidden” means covered until such time as God wishes to reveal it.

   Similarly, about the forces of nature, the Zohar (Bereishis 24a) says:

   “Rabbi Yochanan said: On the same day that the earth was created, it gave birth and produced all its offspring, and they were all hidden inside it, until the Holy One, blessed be He, said to it: ‘Let the earth bring forth…’ Not ‘Let the earth be created,’ but ‘Let the earth bring forth,’ meaning that something that was hidden in it came out…”

   And Rashi on Tehillim 148:8 says:

   “Stormy wind — Our Sages said that these things were originally hidden in the heavens, and David brought them down to earth, because they are types of punishment and it is not fitting that they be hidden in God’s ‘dwelling.’”

   So something “hidden” can be revealed again, at the right time.

8. Archaeology and “only guesses”In siman 3, Rav Asher writes against the archaeological findings, saying they are only conjecture, and that it is not the way of Torah to rely on guesses, because one can always suggest other possibilities.Rav Chaim Kanievsky already wrote in Ta’ama D’Kra (p. 171) that we do not establish halacha based on ancient findings found in graves. In Bava Basra 74a, they refrained from determining halacha by counting the tzitzis strings of the dead in the desert. Rav Chaim writes:
   

   “That they were prevented from Heaven from taking the horn (of the re’em) to clarify the halacha, and that Heaven made it so it did not occur to them to count the threads, even though that would have been the simple thing to do. From this it appears that it is not God’s will to clarify halacha in this way, by digging up ancient things. Rather, we must clarify halacha only through the Torah itself.”

   However, there is a difference between deciding halacha — which is in the exclusive domain of the sages of Israel, based on Torah — and clarifying a factual reality (gilui milsa b’alma). Finding the chilazon of techeiles is a matter of clarifying facts: what animal was used, where, and how.

   In that same sugya in Bava Basra, from the way the dead in the desert were laid, Rabbenu Tam (Tosafos, d.h. “veganvu”) proves that a corpse is buried face up. That is gilui milsa b’alma. And the next Tosafos there (d.h. “Psakim”) discusses whether the dead wear tzitzis. These are all factual questions based on metzius.

9. Is indigo the “Kala Ilan”? Rav Asher also raises a question about what is commonly known: that the indigo plant is Kala Ilan, as is explained in the words of our Sages. He doubts this, asking: who says that this is the same indigo; maybe the name changed over time?The Chazon Ish (Zeraim, Hilchos Shevi’is, chapter 3, se’if 19) writes, regarding the names of cities:
   

   “We cannot rely on a name, because over time cities are destroyed and resettled, sometimes moved from their original place, and sometimes the names change.”

   But from his wording it seems that as long as we do not know that they were destroyed, moved, or renamed, there is no need to suspect such changes.

   Besides this, we have here a special proof that the Argamon snail and the indigo plant are the real pair: their color matches completely, and in Levush HaAron (p. 46) he brings that their chemical formula is unbelievably identical:

   C₁₆H₁₀N₂O₂

   This alone is a strong proof that these are the two species. What is the likelihood that we would find a plant with a chemical formula completely identical to that of the dye from the snail’s gland, and with a completely matching color?

   When the matter is proven almost beyond doubt, this is no longer called “guessing” or making assumptions without necessity, as Rav Asher writes there in siman 4.

10. Mahari”l vs. Rosh on linen tzitzis and the return of techeiles In siman 5, Rav Asher moves on to halachic issues from the poskim. First he brings the argument of those who support the Argamon, that the Mahari”l (siman 4) explains the concern about placing tzitzis on a linen garment. The concern is that techeiles might become available again, and techeiles is a wool dye, and they may come to wear it at night and thus transgress the prohibition of shatnez (wool and linen together). From here we see that the Mahari”l held that it is possible that techeiles will return.Rav Asher answers that the Rosh (Teshuvos HaRosh, klal 2, siman 8) is the bar plugta of the Mahari”l in this matter and did not worry about this, and that we rule like the Rosh.But when I, a simple person, opened that teshuva, I did not see any proof or sign that the Rosh’s reason is that he thought techeiles could never return. His words are:
    

    “Even according to Rabbenu Tam, there is no need to forbid this today. The main reason for the prohibition is that he may come to throw techeiles into it, which is the main mitzvah, and with a night garment, or if his sheet tears, it would then be shatnez not in the place of a mitzvah. But nowadays, when we have no techeiles and no heter of shatnez in tzitzis at all, there is no reason to make this decree.”

    So it is entirely possible to explain the dispute as follows: according to the Mahari”l, we must forbid a linen tallis even nowadays, when we have no techeiles, lest the matter return and cause problems. According to the Rosh, since right now we have no techeiles, we do not make such a decree. We follow the present reality and do not worry now about a possible future. That does not mean the Rosh held that techeiles can never be found in the future. He simply held that until that time, we do not have to consider it.

11. Against the Radbaz? In letter (ב) Rav Asher argues against the Radbaz (whom we quoted above), who writes that the chilazon of techeiles exists even in our days. Rav Asher says this is a lone opinion against the many statements of Chazal and the great rabbis of the generations, and that “someone upon whom the light of Torah shines” will clearly see that this is not the way of halacha and mesorah.I, a poor person upon whom that light does not shine, have already written above that in my humble opinion the Radbaz is not arguing with our Sages at all. He explains that techeiles in our days is hidden at the bottom of the sea — and this is exactly what Chazal mean when they say that techeiles is “nignaz” (hidden). He begins his responsum there with “this does not need much explanation,” meaning that his words are simple and not a chiddush.We must not forget that the Radbaz was one of the greatest poskim of the generations. The Chida (Shem HaGedolim) writes, in the name of the rabbis of Jerusalem, that Eliyahu HaNavi would appear to him. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer (vol. 8, Even HaEzer, siman 11) cries out:
    

    “Who can come after this mighty king? It is known to all how great the Radbaz was, counted as a major posek even in the generation of Maran the Beis Yosef. Such a famous matter needs no proof, and to elaborate on it here is unnecessary…”

    Rav Avraham Shapira (in Minchas Avraham, siman 16) writes that the rabbis of our generation do not have the power to reject the ruling of the Radbaz, who was the Gadol HaDor. Among his students were the holy Arizal and Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi, and among those who asked him questions were the Beis Yosef, the Mabit, the Rivash, the Rashdam, and other great sages.

12. Istis / Nil and Kala Ilan In letter (ג) Rav Asher notes that at the end of the Radbaz’s words, where he says that there is another dye, very common, called Istis, in Arabic Nil, which they use to dye a techeiles-color that does not fade even through ironing — Rav Asher says this is an answer against those who support the purpura, and again wonders if this is Kala Ilan.I am amazed by these words. To me it is obvious that the Istis of the Radbaz is Kala Ilan, and that this is yet another proof for the purpura.In Levush HaAron (p. 47), he brings from the Bartenura (Keilayim 2:5, Shevi’is 7:1, Ma’asros 1:1, Shabbos 9:5) that the color of Istis is similar to techeiles, and it is called in Arabic Nil and in European languages Indigo. The Tiferes Yisroel (Keilayim 2:5, Shevi’is 7:1, Shabbos 9:5) writes that from the sprouts of Istis they make indig. The sefer Kaftor VaFerach (perek 49) writes that among the dye plants is the sprout of Istis, which is a techeiles-color, and in Arabic it is called al-Nil.

    He brings many more such sources there. I do not understand why our master needed to write what he wrote when it is so clear that the Radbaz is speaking about Kala Ilan.

    All these sources are an additional proof for the Argamon, since we see from these poskim that the identity of Istis was always known. If we now find a chilazon whose color is clearly similar to that Istis, this is a proof that it is the chilazon of techeiles.

13. Greek philosophers and using their writings Rav Asher then criticizes the questioner who brought writings of Greek philosophers to prove that techeiles is purpura. He writes that a “spirit of foolishness” took hold of him to bring support for halacha from such texts, and that it is not fitting that Torah scholars should create new halachos based on ancient Greek writings.On his claim we can ask: why should we not use their writings to clarify a factual point (gilui milsa b’alma)? Should we consider all their words as nothing? Our Sages taught us, “Learn from every person.” Their words are certainly no worse than those of a professional tester (kafeila) whose testimony we accept, on the basis that “an expert does not ruin his trade.”As for the concern of copy errors and scribal mistakes: it is difficult to say so here, since the various copies agree in similar wording, and the facts are brought in agreement by several different authors.

    In truth, this argument is not new, and its answer was already given long ago. In the excellent sefer Levush HaAron (p. 47), he brings the words of the Rema (Shu”t HaRema, siman 7):

    “[My] master made a great commotion in the world about me, that in my first letter I brought something from the wisdom of the Greeks and their head philosopher, and he wrote that ‘the Torah is wearing sackcloth’ because of it… I say that this is an old dispute among the sages, and I do not need to answer it anew, since its answer is already laid out in the teshuvah of the Rashba (siman 415), what the sages of Provence answered him.

    Even the Rashba only wrote to forbid this in a young person before he has learned the wisdom of Talmud, which is the ‘meat and wine’ the Rambam speaks of (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 4). Who is greater than the Rambam, who wrote Moreh Nevuchim, which is all from this kind of wisdom?

    …They only forbade learning the books of the cursed Greeks such as ‘Sefer HaShmiah’ and what is after nature, as mentioned there, because they were afraid one might be drawn after their beliefs and fall into their heresy. But they did not forbid learning the words of the wise and their investigations into the nature of the world and its properties, because through this one comes to recognize the greatness of the Creator.

    …And our Sages said (Megillah 16a), ‘Whoever says a wise statement, even a non-Jew, is called a wise man.’ Many great authors, such as the Rambam in the Moreh and the author of Akedas Yitzchak and others, brought the words of the chokrim (philosophers) in their sefarim. All the more so someone like me, who only quotes what they wrote without entering into their deep proofs. There is no reason to worry about this at all…”

    He continues at length along this line.

    So it is clear that using such sources to clarify facts (not to create new halacha) is something we do find among the great poskim.

The View of Rav Moshe Sternbuch shlit”a

In Teshuvos VeHanhagos (vol. 1, siman 26), the Gaon writes that someone who wears techeiles may be entering into a concern of the prohibition “Lo sisgodedu” — “do not form separate groups.” The later authorities have already dealt at length with the reasons and scope of this prohibition, so we must examine wearing techeiles in light of their words.

There is a well-known dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh regarding this issur and its scope — whether it applies to every individual, or only to batei din (rabbinical courts):

• According to the Rambam (Avodah Zarah 12:14), the prohibition is a warning that there should not be two batei din in one city, this one following one practice and that one following another, since this causes great dispute. On this it says, “Lo sisgodedu — do not make yourselves into separate groups.” From his words we learn that this issur applies only to batei din. Therefore each individual is allowed to practice his own custom even in front of others who act differently.
• The Rosh, however, holds that the issur applies to any individual who acts differently from the minhag hamakom (as the Magein Avraham explains at the end of siman 493).

In Shulchan Aruch and Rema, we do not find a clear ruling like either side. The poskim have written (see Or LeTzion vol. 2, p. 47) that Sefardim should follow the Rambam — as the Beis Yosef rules in Avkas Rochel (siman 32) — and Ashkenazim should follow the Rosh, as explained by the Magein Avraham.

Therefore, for example: a Sefardi who comes to pray in an Ashkenazi minyan continues to follow his own custom, and there is no prohibition. An Ashkenazi who comes to a Sefardi synagogue should, in principle, follow the custom of the place.

However, there are several reasons to permit even Ashkenazim to continue their own customs when they are guests:

1. In well-known customs where there is a clear difference between Ashkenazim and Sefardim, there is no issur of Lo sisgodedu, as the Magein Avraham himself writes there:
   

   “Matters that depend on the custom of different places, where one place does like this and another like that, even if people from both places gather in one place and each one acts according to his own custom — there is no problem.”

   Shu”t Shaarei De’ah (vol. 2, siman 7) brings this as well.

2. Shu”t Parashas Mordechai Bendet (Orach Chaim, siman 4) is mechadesh that Lo sisgodedu only applies when a certain halacha is being argued for the first time in one beis din. Afterward, once there is already an old dispute and each group has its own established practice, there is no issur for them to live together in one city and each continue his custom, even in one shul:
   

   “The issur is only at the beginning of the dispute within one beis din, when they ought to be united. But in something that was disputed long ago, and each group now has an issur in the practice of the other group, and there is no way to make them the same, each must keep his own minhag even if they are in one city. Therefore also in one synagogue, since the difference comes from each one’s old minhag and he is forced to act that way, there is nothing that can be done, and we do not find anyone who forbids a person who has one city’s minhag to live together with others with a different minhag.”

3. Or LeTzion (ibid.) brings that the issur of Lo sisgodedu does not apply when a person’s appearance itself shows clearly that he belongs to a different group. Sefardim and Ashkenazim are outwardly recognizable, and this helps here too.
4. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Daas vol. 4, siman 36) learns from Rashi on Yevamos 13b that the main problem of Lo sisgodedu is only in disputes over issur and heter, which can make the Torah appear as “two Torahs.” In matters that depend only on minhag, this is not the case. The Me’iri writes similarly:
   

   “This that the Torah said ‘Lo sisgodedu’ is a hint not to make mitzvos into separate groups, lest the Torah appear as two Torahs… All the more so in matters that depend on minhag, where there is no problem if some people do like this and others like that.”

   The Rosh, in his “Short Piskei Rosh” (Yevamos, perek 1, siman 9), writes the same: matters that depend on local custom do not fall under Lo sisgodedu, even when people from different places join together and each follows his own minhag. This may be what the Magein Avraham meant as well.

5. Rav Sternbuch also brings the words of the Maharashag (Shu”t, vol. 2, siman 12), that the issur only applies to one mora hora’ah (halachic authority) who should not publicly rule against another posek in the same place, since this causes visible division. For a private individual, there is no issur to act differently from the rest of the public. Shu”t Chayei Aryeh (end of siman 9) says the same.
6. The Maharsham (Shu”t, vol. 3, end of siman 359) suggests that in matters of Torah-level issurim, there is no Lo sisgodedu. Rav Sternbuch himself (Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 2, end of siman 31) brings this.
7. The Radbaz (vol. 5, Leshonos HaRambam, siman 1384) writes that in disputes among the poskim that have existed for many generations, there is no Lo sisgodedu.
8. Rav Sternbuch himself (Teshuvos VeHanhagos, vol. 2, end of siman 31) writes that in his opinion, the main purpose of this issur is to bring a beis din to a clear decision by majority rule. In our times, when we do not have such a beis din and cannot decide by majority, there is no issur. Each person follows the path of his own teachers.

If I understood his words correctly, then according to what he quotes in the name of the Maharsham here — that techeiles is a question in a Torah-level mitzvah — there should be no issur of Lo sisgodedu. Similarly, according to Rav Sternbuch’s own reason that the issur is only about batei din, each individual is allowed to act according to the approach of his own rabbanim.

Rav Sternbuch also writes that there might be a concern of transgressing bal tosif (adding to the mitzvos). However, he himself later retracts this, and in any case he writes that a person can make a condition that he does not intend it as a mitzvah if there is no mitzvah in it. Rav Chaim Kanievsky also answers in this way (see Daas Noteh, Hilchos Tzitzis, teshuva 279).