String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 2001 exchange sharpens the Radzyner problem into two separate questions: is the cuttlefish the Chilazon, and even if it is, does the Radzyner dyeing process produce valid Techeiles?
Yitzchok Zlochower’s main objection is to the process. The intense heating destroys the original organic material and produces Prussian blue from cyanide and iron; in practical chemical terms, the cuttlefish is no longer uniquely responsible for the finished color, since other nitrogen-containing materials could produce the same dye. He therefore argues that the present Radzyner process is extremely difficult to defend as authentic Techeiles.
Mendel Singer gives Radzyn more room. He argues that the halacha may not require the blue color to come exclusively from the Chilazon itself; Tosafos and Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon can be read as allowing other ingredients to play an important role in producing the final dye. He therefore leaves open the possibility that if the cuttlefish really is the Chilazon, a non-ancient dyeing process could still be kosher. But he concedes that Radzyn’s case would be vastly stronger if the process depended specifically on a unique property of cuttlefish ink rather than something that could be duplicated with almost any raw material.
The later exchange therefore narrows the disagreement considerably: the issue is no longer simply whether outside chemicals may be added. It is how essential the Chilazon must remain to the finished dye. Zlochower argues that dyeing aids may assist the Chilazon-derived color but should not themselves generate the color; Singer argues that the sources leave more room for the final mixture and process to create the blue.
Bottom line: even a strong case for the cuttlefish as the Chilazon would not automatically vindicate Radzyner Techeiles. The real weak point is the present Prussian-blue process. Singer can construct a halachic defense for it, but even he acknowledges that a process demonstrably dependent on the unique properties of cuttlefish ink would make the Radzyner claim immeasurably stronger.
Main Text
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 11:53:21 -0400
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: techelet
The reproduction of Dr. Singers critique of the techelet produced by the P’til Techelet organization and the subsequent discussions on this list have, I believe, advanced the quest for the “real” techelet. Although I am not persuaded by most of the various arguments used by Dr. Singer, the one substantial argument (also raised here in discussions on 1/00) that should be addressed by the P’til Techelet people is the rationale for the test given in Menachot 43a to distinguish between techelet and kelah ilan (dye derived from the indigo plant) when both dyes are chemically identical (except perhaps for minor admixtures) in the P’til process. In 1/00, I offered a suggestion that could provide such a rationale – if its assumptions were correct. I hypothesized that the murex dye contains some amount of iodoindigo in addition to the the dibromoindigo component. If true, then the weak C-I bond can be broken during the oven heating of the fermented dough containing the test thread. The iodine thereby liberated can then interact with the starch in the dough to produce the blue-purple starch-iodine complex and thus provide a positive test. It should be kept in mind that the gemara had concluded that the first test (soaking in an aged urine concoction) will cause both the techelet and kelah ilan dye to fade, and that the second test (baking the faded dyed thread in the dough) is the key to discriminating between the two dyes. My assumption of the presence of iodoindigo in the murex dye can be easily checked by chemical analysis. It is predicated, however, on the continuing presence of haloindigo molecules in the dye. The current P’til process, however, is aimed at removing the dibromoindigo from the murex mixture by a photochemical treatment. The same exposure to solar or UV radiation will convert the iodoindigo molecules to indigo. However, there is no indication from any ancient source that I have seen quoted – including the gemara, that the dyeing needed to be done in sunlight. Moreover, clear glass containers were rare in biblical times, or simply not available.
I understand the desire of the P’til researchers to convert the violet dibromoindigo dye to the blue indigo color. The violet color of even the murex trunculus dye which consists of a mixture of indigo and dibromoindigo molecules is not a normal sky color – nor is it particularly beautiful. However, converting all the dibromoindigo to indigo does not lead to lead to a rich blue color either – from what I can see. As stated above, the P’til process should also invalidate the tests given in Menachot 43a. If the current photochemical conversion process of P’til (violet dibromoindigo to blue indigo) were controlled as to leave some amount of the dibromoindigo, then a richer color may result and allow the Menachot test to distinguish the murex dye from the indigo plant dye. The question of how much of the dibromoindigo must remain for a valid techelet dye would still need to be addressed.
Alternatively, the observation of the P’til people that immersion of the fresh dibromoindigo dyed thread in boiling water turned the dye blue is of considerable interest. As I understand it, such a conversion is the result of the replacement of the bromine atoms in the molecule by alcohol (OH) groups. This dihydroxy indigo differs significantly from the unsubstituted indigo of the plant dye as to allow a distinction based on chemical properties, such as the Menachot test. It would be helpful if the P’til people would better describe the color and colorfastness of this boiled murex dye. If the color were reasonable then a more realistic process would have been found to produce a credible techelet.
Yitzchok Zlochower
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:19:19 -0500
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: techelet
This contribution is to counter the impression that is being given on this list that the Radziner dye is a viable candidate for techelet. First, let us be clear what sea creature is being used as the presumed basis for the Radziner blue dye. A cuttlefish, or sepia officionalis (its scientific name), is not what people normally think of as a fish. It is a cephalopod – related to the octopus and squid families. It does not have an external shell which is normally broken in order to extract the source of the techelet dye. Instead, the cuttlefish has an internal plate – the cuttlebone, which, presumably, is not broken in extracting the ink from the cuttlefish. It is difficult, therefore, to fit the cuttlefish into the “potzoh” (smashes it) language used by the Beraita in T.B. Shabbat 75a to allude to the means of extracting the techelet liquid from the chilazon. The cuttlefish ink (squirted by the creature to disorient a predator) is, moreover, not blue, but sepia colored (brownish). However, the above is merely a quibble compared to the major objections to the final dye and the dyeing process. Rav Herzog testifies that he obtained Radziner dyed tzitzit and sent them to three analytical laboratories for chemical analysis. They all concluded that the dye was ferric ferrocyanide, popularly known as Prussian Blue. If true, then that should invalidate the dye as a techelet candidate since iron in the form of ferric and ferrous ions, which are derived from the iron pot and iron filings used in the Radziner process, would then be an important contributor to the dye color. In other words, the cuttlefish ink is not the sole contributor to the final dye, but a combination of cyanide ions derived from the ink and the external iron. Moreover, the Radziner process that was described in writing by the Radziner shamash to Rav Herzog involves heating the iron pot until it glows brightly for several hours after adding the ink, potash, and iron filings. It should not take chemical training to understand that such an intense heating is at least the equivalent of “libun” which destroys any original organic matter. The cyanide ions that result are produced from a total decomposition of the original material. It therefore matters little if the original material were cuttlefish ink, or cuttlefish eyeballs, or ox blood (an early raw material for making Prussian Blue). Perhaps someone who is familiar with the current Radziner dye and process can produce evidence that the above is incorrect. If, however, the Radziner dye is still Prussian Blue made via very intense heating of cuttlefish ink in iron pots, then I fail to see any justification for it being a possible techelet candidate.
Yitzchok Zlochower
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:21:09 -0500
From: Mendel Singer <mes12@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: techelet
At 10:19 PM 11/12/01 -0500, Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
This contribution is to counter the impression that is being given on this list that the Radziner dye is a viable candidate for techelet.
Let’s see.
First, let us be clear what sea creature is being used as the presumed basis for the Radziner blue dye. A cuttlefish, or sepia officionalis (its scientific name), is not what people normally think of as a fish. It is a cephalopod – related to the octopus and squid families. It does not have an external shell which is normally broken in order to extract the source of the techelet dye. Instead, the cuttlefish has an internal plate – the cuttlebone, which, presumably, is not broken in extracting the ink from the cuttlefish. It is difficult, therefore, to fit the cuttlefish into the “potzoh” (smashes it) language used by the Beraita…
The cuttlefish has an internal shell – it is a shell, same material, considered by science to be the result of evolution, but it is a hard shell. As for Gemara Shabbos, the first question is “potzoh”. Rashi suggests that it means to squeeze. That would not be a problem for the cuttlefish. Understanding it as “crushing” might not be a problem, either. It may be that crushing it would also scare the cuttlefish and cause it to shoot out its ink. I don’t know that this is such a problem. There are more important questions, as you later state.
The cuttlefish ink (squirted by the creature to disorient a predator) is, moreover, not blue, but sepia colored (brownish).
My understanding is that most cuttlefish have a dark brown ink, but sepia officinalis has a black ink. I have seen the ink of this particular cuttlefish described as black in multiple secular sources. This is consistent with the Rambam who says that dam chilazon is black like ink. I believe that this Rambam was very influential on the Radzyner and played a major role in his search.
…
If true, then that should invalidate the dye as a techelet candidate since iron in the form of ferric and ferrous ions, which are derived from the iron pot and iron filings used in the Radziner process, would then be an important contributor to the dye color…. It should not take chemical training to understand that such an intense heating is at least the equivalent of “libun” which destroys any original organic matter. The cyanide ions that result are produced from a total decomposition of the original material. It therefore matters little if the original material were cuttlefish ink, or cuttlefish eyeballs, or ox blood (an early raw material for making Prussian Blue)….
First of all, it is not at all clear that the techeiles dye must be solely a result of the contribution of dam chilazon. While I have seen this claimed, and used as an argument against Radzyn, there is evidence to the contrary. First, we have Tosafos who says that perhaps techeiles is really the processed dye and that the sammanim are part of techeiles, and not just to help the dye (as Rashi states). Rabbi Herzog placed great importance on the writings of Rav Shmuel bar Chofni Gaon, who wrote about techeiles. Since the Gaonim only wrote about pertinent halachos, it is presumed that techeiles was being produce din his time and he was, therefore, writing about something that he was involved in. He says explicitly that the sammanim are part of techeiles, that dam chilazon is not the sole contributor towards making the techeiles dye. I am not saying there isn’t room for argument, but the position that techeiles is not solely dependent on dam chilazon is very defensible.
Perhaps someone who is familiar with the current Radziner dye and process can produce evidence that the above is incorrect. If, however, the Radziner dye is still Prussian Blue made via very intense heating of cuttlefish ink in iron pots, then I fail to see any justification for it being a possible techelet candidate.
Yes, the big question is about the dyeing process. From what I have seen from Radzyn, which is only letters in response to pro-murex articles, they argue that the source is what counts not the process. This is not without merit. There does not seem to be a halachicly required process. Perhaps the process is irrelevant and the requirement is merely that it come from the chilazon and produce a lasting blue dye. If so, and if the cuttlefish is the chilazon, then the Radyzner dye would be kosher even if not the one originally used. It is much harder to say that the Radzyner process was the one used in ancient times. If it was, then anything could have been substituted. Then again, if the process was difficult to do in ancient times, perhaps indigo was a better way to fake techeiles. In that case, people wouldn’t have bothered to fake techeiles with other sources in the same process. Still, this is hardly an appealing answer. While I have seen guesses about the chemistry of the Radzyner dye process, I haven’t seen anyone actually really go into the science of cuttlefish ink. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the cuttlefish meets the descriptions of Chazal (certainly those who considered it a sofeik, or ruled in its favor found merit in this. According to R Chaim Twerski’s article, the Erloi Rav wears Radzyner techeiles and he knows about the dye issues, so he must have some reason. from what i have seen, it does seem to do a pretty good job of meeting the descriptions). Let’s say, again for argument’s sake, that the dye process they use is unacceptable because anything could have been used instead of the ink. What if another process was discovered which makes a blue dye from cuttlefish ink in a way which is dependent on unique qualities of cuttlefish ink? Nobody seems to be talking about this since it requires a discovery – how likely is it? I mean, if you have an excellent candidate species according to the descriptions of Chazal but can’t figure out a dye process, what do you have? Perhaps a good theoretical candidate, but techeiles is not a theoretical mitzvah! Seems to me that if Radzyn feels they have a species that meets the descriptions of Chazal, then they should be investigating the dye process to see if there is an alternative method which does depend on cuttlefish ink. Cuttlefish ink has been the subject of a lot of research in recent decades. Until then its chemical composition was unknown. Much is known about it now, though. For example, it has a lot of iron, and has a tremendous affinity for iron ions. There may even be a way to produce Prussian Blue that would take advantage of the nature of cuttlefish ink. That would certainly make for a much stronger argument. The fact that people today could make it in a way that doesn’t require cuttlefish ink isn’t really a problem. The issue is more whether people then would have been able to make it without specifically cuttlefish ink.
In summary, there are svoros for how Radzyner dye could be kosher. However, their position would be strengthened immeasurably if they had a dye process that really needed specifically cuttlefish ink.
mendel
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:05:52 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: techelet
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 02:21:09PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote: : First of all, it is not at all clear that the techeiles dye must be : solely a result of the contribution of dam chilazon.
Even so, it has to be something uniquely produced by a chilazon. Particularly according to the Radziner Rebbe. But even according to RSM’s looser interpretation of the gemara, kalah ilan must be the only other readily available source of a colorfast dye of the same color (including, of course, sources of the same chemical).
However, because of that which RYZ so aptly calls libun, the nature of the original biochemical is irrelevent. In fact, I wonder if ox blood was the usual source of prussian blue because it provides iron, and therefore any red blood would produce the same dye /more/ easily than relying on iron leeched of the pot.
-mi
— Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness, micha@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom. http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle. Fax: (413) 403-9905 – R’ Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt”l
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:10:52 -0500
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: techelet
I am pleased that Mendel Singer agrees that the, apparently, current Radzin process for dyeing tzizit is problematic. His argument seems to rely primarily on the fact that as a result of that high temperature process, many organic compounds containing nitrogen of animal, vegetable, or mineral origin could be used as the source of the cyanide that, together with iron, constitute the Radziner dye (ferric ferrocyanide – Prussian blue). He suggests, further, that if the cuttlefish is truly the species to be identified with the hilazon, then a process is needed for making a colorfast blue dye that utilizes some unique or unusual property of the cuttlefish ink. That ink, from my limited internet readings consists of a dispersion of melanin or melanic acid salt which is, apparently, an oxidized and polymerized derivative of 5,6-dihydroxy indole. If one considers that indigo is the dimer of 3-hydroxy indole formed under oxidizing conditions, then such an indole-based chemical conversion may be difficult, but not impossible. However, melanin is widely distributed in animal life, and the cuttlefish (sepia officinalis) ink is, apparently, very similar to squid ink. I am puzzled at Mendel’s assertion that the cuttlefish ink has much iron. I have not seen such a reference. In fact, even the cuttlefish blood (which is blue) is not iron-based (haemoglobin), but based on copper-containing proteins as the oxygen carrier [the Cu(I) turns to blue Cu(II) in the presence of oxygen]. If the Radziner Rebbe focused on cuttlefish ink rather than cuttlefish blood, it was probably due to the difficulty in making a colorfast blue dye from the blood. Of course, blue blood is not specific to the cuttlefish.
Mendel Singer may well be correct in arguing that my characterization of a dye based partly on an outside source such as iron as inherently not kosher for techelet, is not obvious. He argues that a tosfot in T.B. Menachot 42b (Samemanim) suggests that a techelet is defined by a combination of samanim and hilazon “blood”. However, the ba’alei tosfot only offer such a combination as a possible answer to the question of how can anything be placed in the dye bath together with the “blood” of the hilazon. The implication of the question is that the techelet dye must be purely derived from the hilazon. To which the possible answer is offered that dyeing aids may be required in the dye bath, and that only such an effective preparation can be considered as valid. Such aids are needed to dissolve the hilazon liquid (alkaline medium), possibly to make the dye colorfast, or even to deepen or lighten the dye color. There is no implication in that tosfot, however, that an extraneous material can be used to produce the dye color itself. I do not recollect the citation from the Gaon Shmuel bar Chofni. Is the language significantly different from the above tosfot?
Surely, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner had some basis for a hava amina that the cuttlefish is the hilazon mentioned in shas and medrashim. Mendel is probably correct in attributing some of the Radziner’s ideas to the language in Rashi and the Rambam. It is curious that Rashi in Menachot translates bri’ato as “its form” when it means “its formation” elsewhere. It is likewise curious that Rashi translates potzoh in “hatzad hilazon ve’hapotzoh” in Shabbat as squeezes rather than smashes, which is its normal meaning. The Rambam’s characterization of the “blood” of the hilazon as black is also curious. One could characterize solid indigo as being very dark. However, the traditional murex dyeing process described by Pliny does not seem to consider starting the dye bath with a solid derived from the murex extract, but with a liquid containing the soluble murex material that had turned yellow or green under the reducing conditions of the bath. Be that as it may, there is no evidence that Rashi or even the Rambam had ever seen the dyeing process or heard such descriptions from eyewitnesses. Moreover, the brief description in shas is too general to give a real understanding of the process. It seems to me that we need to be circumspect when we are dealing with accepting something as the actual techelet dye rather than a pesak based on sevara (their understanding of sugyot in shas). Their description of the hilazon and its extract, as implied by the language that they use, should not, I believe, be treated as definitive.
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:01:27 -0500
From: Mendel Singer <mes12@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: techelet
Let me clarify a few points.
1. Since there is not really a halachic process for dyeing techeiles, it would seem to me that a process that starts with dam chilazon (assuming the right species is used) and ends up with a colorfast blue dye may very well be kosher, regardless of whether it was the original, ancient process. Thus, if Radzyn is right about the cuttlefish, then their process may be kosher even if not the original process. The key issue would be the role of ingredients other than the cuttlefish ink. Tosafos does suggest that perhaps techeiles refers to the dye mixture of dam chilazon and the sammanim. Rashi said the sammanim are just for dyeing aids (e.g. mordant). Since Tosafos does not go with this answer, I believe the clear implication is that the other chemicals could have an important role. The Gaon Shmuel bar CHofni writes “the information has come down to us that it (techeiles) was dyed with the blood of a aquine (marine) animal called chilazon mixed with another (substance)” -translation from Rabbi Herzog. If the other substance was just a mordant I don’t think this statement would have been needed given the use of sammanim in the gemara. As for Rambam, since he says the dam chilazon is black like ink, yet holds that techeiles is blue, he certainly seems to hold that the process changes the color. So, Radzyn has a lot to go on here. In truth, the question can be asked in reverse “what source is there to say that the dye color must come exclusively from the dam chilazon and not the mixture”. Seems to me that the argument against other ingredients playing a role is one of intellectual aesthetics – it certainly is more satisfying to think the color comes exclusively from the chilazon.
2. As for uniqueness of dam chilazon. If sepia officinalis ink is mostly like other squid and cuttlefish ink, I don’t think this poses a problem for Radzyn. There are the other descriptions of Chazal to uniquely identify sepia officinalis (availability and physical descriptions), and I believe this was the approach taken by the Radzyner. The issue of lack of uniqueness would be more of an issue if it meant that there would have been imitations, i.e. would fakers have chosen to use the process with an alternative source rather than relying on indigo for their unholy endeavors.
3. The Radzyner used the cuttlefish ink rather than the blood because (1) Tosafos Shabbos 75a says the dye source is not the life blood, and (2) the Rambam says the dam chilazon is black like ink.
4. As for iron in cuttlefish ink, I took a quick glance through my notebooks and all I could find easily is that iron is one of three metals in large quantities in the digestive gland of the cuttlefish. Cuttlefish ink has many important enzymes along with the melanin, and has interesting properties in terms of binding metal ions. I’ll try and check more into this and get back to you.
5. As for Rashi and Rambam never having seen the chilazon/dyeing process, yes one should be careful in the exactness with which one analyzes their descriptions. However, one also should note that it is precisely because of this that when they are explicit it is noteworthy. If Rambam said the dam chilazon is black like ink, he had to have a significant reason – it is certainly not what one would have speculated. I saw in R Borstein’s Hatecheiles that there is a reference to Tolaas Techeiles by Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen who is supposed to list some sources for Rambam’s comment. However, the inexact or incomplete or vague descriptions by commentators who lived long after the tradition was lost should certainly be understood with appropriate circumspection.
mendel
