String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 2000 thread sharply separates the Radzyner cuttlefish dye from the Murex case.
On the Radzyner process, Yitzchok Zlochower explains that the cuttlefish material is heated so intensely that its organic compounds are destroyed, ultimately producing Prussian blue from chemical components that could be obtained from many other sources. In other words, the finished dye is not meaningfully unique to the cuttlefish, and the process also does not resemble the Gemara’s description of preparing Techeiles dye.
The Murex case is much stronger in his view. Zlochower says P’til Tekhelet had produced enough evidence for Murex trunculus to be taken seriously as the Chilazon, supported by archaeology and the known ancient Murex dye industry. His remaining concern is the kala ilan problem: if Murex blue and plant indigo contain the same indigo molecule, how could the Gemara’s tests distinguish between them? The discussion suggests possible answers involving residual dibromoindigo or other trace components, but Zlochower considers the chemistry still unresolved.
The thread also raises an important halachic principle: chemical identity does not necessarily mean halachic identity. Micha Berger notes arguments that the source of a substance can matter even after the finished chemical appears identical, just as distilled grain-derived vinegar can retain a different halachic status from chemically similar vinegar of another origin.
Bottom line: by 2000, the Radzyner chemistry was being treated as a serious factual problem, while the Murex was being treated as a genuinely plausible Chilazon whose remaining difficulties centered on the precise dye process, shade, and especially the Gemara’s kala ilan tests. The debate had therefore moved beyond “does a snail make blue?” to the much harder question: does the Murex process produce the specific Techeiles that Chazal were describing?
Main Text
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:00:29 +0200
From: “Mrs. Gila Atwood” <gatwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: techelet
A recent poster mentioned that certain Chassidic Rebbes might hold that it’s good enough to use techeles which may not be from the original chilazon because it’s enough just to have the right colour in a mystic/spiritual sense? Is that what you’re saying? Please forgive me if my paraphrase is in error. First of all, I assume you’re talking about techelet derived from Sepia officinalis (cuttlefish) even though we only use the nitrogen from it, and the original techelet was probably from something like Murex, or something other.
You’d have to ask the people who use the cuttlefish dye whether they hold that they believe they’re using authentic ‘chilazon’ (likely error) or whether the colour is the ikkar and if there are either halachic and/or al pi sod grounds for not being concerned about the traditional derivation. I can’t speak for them- I only ask to be dan lecaf zchus.
It’s also not pashut that techeles was blue. I’ve heard opinions that it may be turquoise, or even green. I’ve even heard the theory that back then people were blue/green colourblind and could not distinguish the colour of the sky from green. Anyone know sources for this?
(re following a Rebbe’s actions, even if he seems to be disregarding halacha, because that is a way to kedusha- (despite my chassidic affiliations) It seems to me that the chassid should ask a few serious questions. He needs to ascertain for sure if halacha is indeed violated, and if this proves to be the case he has to ask himself whether he should be following a man who is not concerned about these halachos. Similarly, if a person is not chassidic and they see chassidim following questionable practices, it is better to investigate thoroughly why they’re acting this way rather than assume from a distance that they’re in the wrong. (This is a general remark, and not a criticism of the previous poster. ) Please contact me offlist for any details and discussion- I don’t want to start a machlokes here. )
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 09:30:44 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: techelet
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 04:00:29PM +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote: : You’d have to ask the people who use the cuttlefish dye whether they hold : that they believe they’re using authentic ‘chilazon’ (likely error) or : whether the colour is the ikkar….
It is clearly the former, as otherwise they would do away with the cuttlefish (sepia) and use a cheaper source of potassium. (Sorry again for thinking it was nitrogen. Didn’t mean to mislead you.) In fact, the comparison between cuttlefish vs other sources and pure grain vinegar vs pure vinegar from another source WRT chameitz is made by R’ Shelomo Englander in his letter to “Koveitz Or Yisrael” (vol 11) in reply to the article I cited yesterday by R’ MA Katz. Pure vinegar, which contains no taint whatsoever of its origins, made from grain is prohibited on Pesach, but the exact same chemical when made from anything else isn’t. So halachah does care about the sources of things.
(Despite the fact that by kashrus there is such a line beyond which the tarfus of the source doesn’t affect the tarfus of the chemical. The famous “gelatin” machlokes is (was?) about where the line is, not whether it exists.)
What R’ Englander doesn’t address is why the gemara would warn about kaleh ilan (which he agrees is indigo), but not for the same chemical made from a falsified source?
: It’s also not pashut that techeles was blue. I’ve heard opinions that it may : be turquoise, or even green.
The Belzer Rebbe disagreed with the Ba’al Techeiles because when the latter showed him a sample of the cloth, the Belzer R’ said that it wasn’t close enough to “himl bloi”.
The Zohar compares the color to the blue of the first luchos — saphire.
However, Rashi (on Menachos) says it’s a blue-green.
The Amutah deals with this issue by pointing out that the chemical is a green before the sun finishes curing it to blue.
: He needs to ascertain for sure if halacha is indeed violated…
It is not. Bidi’eved, one is yotzei “lavan” with any color strings. A point mentioned in Sefunei Temunei Chol. However, you do lose the lichatchilah. I reiterate my simple solution: include some blue in the begged, so that at least according to one shitah, and the only shitah actually held lima’aseh by the one kehillah (Teimanim) who don’t avoid the question, you are yotzei lichatchilah as well.
I didn’t agree with the original email either, as it was too close to the phenomenon R’ Blau was warning about (WRT “Chabakuk”) — taking spirituality in antinomian directions.
-mi
— Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG”H for 13-Jan-00: Chamishi, Bo micha@aishdas.org A”H http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 98b For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:47:57 -0500
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Techelet
Micah corrected his original post on techelet in tzitzit which mentioned the use of cuttlefish “ink” by the Radziner hassidim and made the claim that only the nitrogen content of that fish extract was used in the actual making of the dye. He then “corrected” that to state that only the potassium from the fish was actually used in the dye. Actually both claims are partly correct.. According to the description of the Radziner process as described by the Radziner producer to Harav Yitzhok Halevi Herzog (as a young man) and quoted in the latter’s Ph.D. thesis, the extract is heated in a cast iron kettle until the kettle glows brightly and is maintained at that very high temperature for a number of hours. Under those conditions the organic compounds in the fish extract are destroyed, and only very stable entities are left. The iron of the kettle also undergoes oxidation at those temperatures to ferrous and ferric oxide. Among the products are potassium cyanide, where the cyanide is a decomposition product of the dehydration and decomposition of proteins and the potassium already existed as ions in the original biological material. The cyanide salt combines with the iron compounds on the walls of the kettle {KFe(III)Fe(II)(CN)6}to form the deep blue ferric ferrocyanide complex {Fe(III)4[Fe(II)CN6]3}. This complex is a well-known dye known as Prussian blue. It is made more readily from other organic materials, and bears no relationship to the original fish extract other than containing the elements C and N. The above high temperature Radziner process does not match the talmudic description which calls for the chilazon extract to be added to a pot with some chemicals and boiled to form the techelet dye [B. Menachot 42b].
The murex snail used in Israel to make techelet is a far more reasonable source of the blue dye. I am still not comfortable, however, with the fact that the dye chemical is identical to the plant dye, indigo. The only difference between the snail extract and the indigo plant extract are the other non-dye components. Unless it can be shown that starting with the snail extract leads to a more colorfast or a more brilliant dye, then I have serious reservations about it being the authentic techelet. The gemara in Menachot (43a) mentions some chemical tests that distinguish between techelet and plant indigo (called kla ilan in the gemara). If the dyes are identical, and the other extract components are irrelevant, then how can a chemical test distinguish the two? It is also necessary to clearly distinguish between the snail that is the source of techelet and the one that is the source of the biblical argammon (royal purple?). It is possible that both questions have been adequately answered by now. If so, then I would appreciate an appropriate reference.
Yitzchok Zlochower
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:31:06 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Techelet
On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 10:47:57PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote: : The gemara in Menachot (43a) mentions some chemical tests : that distinguish between techelet and plant indigo (called kla ilan in : the gemara). If the dyes are identical, and the other extract : components are irrelevant, then how can a chemical test distinguish the : two?
They may be irrelevent to the dye, but they do leave a detectable trace, which a chemical test would still show up. Also, the sun is used to change dibromide indigo into indigo. Some quantity of dibromide indigo is still going to be left in the resulting product, which is not true if the plant is used for the origin.
The problem I have is that the kaleh ilan is supposed to be a mixture used to duplicate the look of techeiles. If indigo is chemically identical, why would someone add anything to it in order to create an imposter?
: I have serious reservations about it being the authentic : is the source of techelet and the one that is the source of the biblical : argammon (royal purple?).
Well, we do know from the Megillah that techeiles was associated with Persian royalty, as it’s among the cloths used in Achashveirosh’s party, and among the fabrics worn by Mordechai when he was elevated to cheif advisor (8:15). So it is not outrageous to say it is related to royal purple. Medrash Esther Rabba ad loc explicitly calls techeiles “purpura” (from which comes the English purple, and is Greek for the murex).
In addition, we find that Zevulun is reassured that he’d have wealth because of the chilazon (Megillah 6a), and yet we know that Zevulun made both techeiles and as argaman. If argaman is royal purple, i.e. expensive, then why didn’t Moshe Rabbeinu mention its source in addition to “usifunei temunei chol”? Unless, perhaps, the expression includes the source of both.
-mi
— Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG”H for 19-Jan-00: Revi’i, Beshalach micha@aishdas.org A”H http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 101b For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 13
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 06:49:22 +0200
From: “Akiva Atwood” <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject: RE: Techelet
The gemara in Menachot (43a) mentions some chemical tests
> that distinguish between techelet and plant indigo (called kla ilan in > the gemara). If the dyes are identical, and the other extract > components are irrelevant, then how can a chemical test > distinguish the two?
Thanks for the informative post, definitely one to save. Could “irrelevant” here mean in terms of the colour itself, but that these other chemicals might act as markers for the tests? We’d have to know the chemistry of the tests. If the indigo is indeed identical to kla ilan, why use a non tahor sea creature as a preferable source? One would infer some benefit from the apparently irrelevant accompanying chemicals. ” Mrs. GA
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:46:32 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Techelet
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:49:22AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote: : If the indigo is indeed identical to kla ilan, why use a non tahor sea : creature as a preferable source? One would infer some benefit from the : apparently irrelevant accompanying chemicals. ”
Notice that the sepia-derived dye has the same problem in spades, as there’s more than one alternative source that at most only differs in incidental impurities. And more so: since these other prussion blues exist, why did the gemara worry about indigo, and not them?
An argument made by a number of members of the pro-sepia camp is that we find other examples where the origin of a chemical affects the halachah even if there is no lingering trace. Therefore, a chilazon-based prussian blue could be halachically different than one derived from another source.
The example given is distilled grain-derived vinager is chameitz, even though it is now purified of anything distinctly grain specific.
I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion of the kashrus of gelatin, usually based around the S”A’s statement that ashes aren’t treif regardless of source.
-mi
— Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG”H for 21-Jan-00: Shishi, Beshalach micha@aishdas.org A”H http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 102b For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Haftorah
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 23:01:58 -0500
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Techelet
As a result of Micha’s comments on my previous post on the subject of the newly derived techelet in Israel, I read the articles currently posted in the P’til Tekhelet website to supplement the information that I had obtained some years ago on this subject. As a result, I have a clearer picture of the current status, but am still uncertain of the validity of the new techelet product. I must confess to being less than an expert in both the scientific and halachic aspects of techelet, but am sufficiently knowledgeable in both that my questions should have some weight.
I believe that the Amutat P’til Tekhelet organization has produced enough evidence for the murex trunculus snail as the source of the biblical techelet to make us take their claim seriously. This has also been the conclusion of secular experts on these organisms, and is consistent with the archaeological evidence in southern Lebanon and northern Israel on the murex dyeing industry that existed until some 1400 years ago. The murex trunculus produces a secretion that leads to a mixture of indigo (blue) and dibromoindigo (purple) dyes, while the related murex brandaris species produces basically the dibromoindigo dye. The latter dye is, presumably, the biblical argaman, while the trunculus derived dye is, presumably, the techelet dye that is biblically mandated for tzitzit.
Even given the above conclusions, the question remains as to the proper processing of the trunculus dye and the resultant color. As I recollect, Dr. Ziderman in his lengthy article on the subject some years ago had concluded that the violet-purple mixture of dibromoindigo and indigo that was produced from the trunculus snail was the biblical techelet dye that was required for tzitzit. Some objected to that color as being, apparently, inconsistent with descriptions in the talmud that spoke of techelet as having the color of the sky and being easily confused with the dye from the indigo plant (the talmudic kelah elan according to the Aruch, an early Rishon). Subsequently, researchers in Israel found that the original trunculus dye was converted to indigo if the dye in the reduced state (the soluble form that is needed in vat dyeing) was exposed to ultraviolet rays from the sun (or from uv lamps ?). The color was then supposed to be indistinguishable from the dye produced from the indigo plant. The question that I then raised was how can the test given in B. Menachot 42b-43a which depends on the effect of the first mixture in lightening the color distinguish between the indigo molecules from the animal and plant sources. Micah contended that perhaps some dibromoindigo remained from the trunculus dye, or that absorbed non-dye material from the source or the medim used to develop the dye caused the color change in the indigo plant dye but not in the trunculus dye. In the absence of enough information to duplicate the talmudic test, the question must remain unresolved. However, the suggestion that some dibromoindigo is supposed to remain in the techelet dye is probably well-taken if it refers more than to a trace amount. There is a technical article which, apparently, makes the claim that dibromoindigo is much less soluble than indigo in an aqueous-dimethylformamide solvent. That solvent may be similar in action to the talmudic mixture of well-aged urine and other components (urine contains urea, an amide, and an indole derivative that is analogous to the original source of the indigo in the murex snail). If this is correct then the talmudic test would cause the plant indigo dye to become much weaker, while the trunculus dye would retain its dibromocomponent (the color would change, but that may have been considered irrelevent). The second talmudic test which involves baking the faded dyed string in some kind of dough to see if its color darkened is more mysterious, unless the trunculus derived dye also contained at least a trace of an iodine derivative which could interact with starch in the dough to form the deep blue-purple starch-iodine complex. In the absence of information on the minor components in the trunculus secretion, the latter suggestion is merely speculative.
In any case, the above considerations raise the question of how much dibromoindigo should be left in trunculus derived dye to be valid as techelet (the proportion of dibromo to unbrominated indigo could, presumably, be controlled by the level of uv radiation and time of exposure)? Does the precise shade of the dye really matter (if it does then we are at a loss to duplicate the real techelet in the absence of a valid, well-preserved archaeological example of real techelet), or is it sufficient to have the right source and a color in the right part of the spectrum? I noted the techelet today in the tzitzit of one of our mitpallelim. In sunlight, the color was light blue akin to aqua. These tzitzit were, apparently, produced in Israel some 4 years ago, and have not, ostensibly, faded. How is this color similar to indigo which should be between blue and violet in the spectrum? Is there a quality control check on the color produced in the new Israeli process before shipping the tzitzit?
Some clarifications of these issues would be greatly appreciated since the opportunity to fulfill a biblical mitzvah in the intended manner after 1400 years of neglect is very appealing.
Yitzchok Zlochower
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 13:14:45 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Techelet
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 11:01:58PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote: : Even given the above conclusions, the question remains as to the proper : processing of the trunculus dye and the resultant color.
According to the tape circulating from RIET’s day of lectures to alumnae on the subject, R’ Tendler said this was a real problem but it was resolved.
Wool was found in a Maccabbeen cave that had indigo-dyed wool in it, stored as though it were k’lei kodesh. (I have no idea how you can tell that.) We can’t take this as proof of the identity of techeiles, as kaleh ilan is known to include indigo, and perhaps the fact that it was kaleh ilan was the reason for burial. However, it should resolve the question of color.
As to QA from the Amutah: I have a sample from over two years ago that sat in my “belt, tzitzis and yarmulka drawer” until last Oct. It was not the same shade as more recent strings, very slightly to the aquamarine side, although you can only see the difference if you hold the two next to each other. It might be a function of how off-white the original wool was.
-mi
— Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG”H for 24-Jan-00: Levi, Yisro micha@aishdas.org A”H http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 104a For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
