String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 2001 exchange is less about proving or disproving the Murex than about how the Techeiles debate should be conducted. Mendel Singer’s central complaint is that some pro-Murex literature contained factual errors, exaggerated claims and selective presentations — misstatements about cuttlefish, archaeology, Pliny, R’ Elyashiv, R’ Herzog and even a misidentified coin. In his view, weak or careless arguments damage the credibility of the stronger evidence and may actually help explain why major poskim were reluctant to engage the subject seriously.
Singer applies the same standard to the treatment of Radzyn. He accepts that there are serious objections to the Radzyner dye process, but objects to portraying the Radzyner as an isolated crank whose proposal was simply laughed away. He cites several significant rabbinic figures who were favorable toward or personally wore Radzyner Techeiles and argues that historical opponents and supporters alike have to be represented fairly.
That point itself produces a revealing side debate. Michael Frankel challenges Singer’s description of R’ Akiva Yosef Schlesinger as a “posek of great stature,” portraying him instead as a controversial activist whose Lev HaIvri was polemical rather than a major work of psak. Ari Greenspan responds that this goes too far in the opposite direction: R’ Akiva Yosef was a prolific author and halachist, an important figure of the Yishuv Hayashan, deeply involved in early settlement efforts, and the author of a large body of responsa. Greenspan does not establish that every opinion of his is authoritative, but he argues that dismissing him as merely R’ Hillel Lichtenstein’s subordinate is itself historically unfair.
Bottom line: the lasting value of this thread is methodological. Techeiles arguments cannot be strengthened by exaggerating supporters, caricaturing opponents, attributing positions to deceased gedolim, or repeating attractive claims without checking them. Singer remains skeptical of the Murex, but he explicitly says that a mollusk producing a blue dye deserves serious consideration by gedolim. The same standard of accuracy and fairness has to apply in every direction — to Murex, Radzyn, R’ Herzog, and the rabbanim cited on either side. Bad arguments do not merely fail; they can poison the reception of good ones.
Main Text
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:57:25 -0400
From: Mendel Singer <mes12@po.cwru.edu>
Subject: techeiles – why Gedolim are silent on P’til
Well, there has been some very lively discussion of techeiles on this list initiated with my article. That is certainly heartening. Certainly, one of my primary goals was to further the debate. Alas, my work schedule is so hectic right now I have not had the time to jump in and reply to the messages. Some comments cannot go unchallenged, however.
Dr. Sterman wrote:
It is disingenuous to lump all attempts at the rediscovery of tekhelet together. Each must be examined on its own merit and evaluated seriously
I agree whole heartedly. That is why in my article I only dealt with murex trunculus. Besides, so much has already been written on Radzyn on both sides of the issue, and I had not seen any critical evaluation of murex outside of letters to the editor. However, allow me to share with you why I got started on this line of research. The writings about murex trunculus were fascinating. However, as I looked deeper into the subject I found that the writings in favor of murex trunculus were filled with errors. I’m not talking about weak logic, which I deal with in my article. I’m talking about misquotations, misrepresentations and outright false statements that the authors never took the time to corroborate. I spent a lot of time tracking down these errors, and I found the whole affair rather disillusioning. The articles read so nicely, and the marriage of Torah and science was so appealing to my academic nature. A few examples of the errors I talk about:
1. R Chaim Twersky and many other P’til articles assert cuttlefish cannot exist in sand. Considering the name of the first techeiles sefer by the Radzyner was called Sefunei Temunei Chol, and he was by all accounts a great Torah scholar with significant secular knowledge, I found it rather hard to believe he could have missed this. Since I was reading R Twersky’s article online, I checked the Columbia Encyclopedia online and found a short entry on cuttlefish. It said that cuttlefish spend their days buried in the sand and swim about at night. Apparently, it is characteristic behavior of the cuttlefish to bury themselves in the sand. Yet, P’til claims otherwise. Nobody bothered to check facts before publishing.
2. R. Mordechai Katz wrote that Rabbi Eliashuv supported P’til – then had to retract when he was challenged and had to admit he based this on hearsay. Why didn’t he check it out first?
3. R Moshe Tendler claims that Pliny the Elder speaks of murex being used to dye techeiles. Not true. He speaks at great length of dyeing with murex species and lists many different shades of purple and how it was done. Not once does he speak of murex dye being used to dye blue (or techeiles).
4. Archeological evidence? There is a lot of archeological evidence to support the statement that murex trunculus was used to dye purple. This was never in dispute in academia or religious circles. I went through the academic journals and consulted with experts in the field. There is no support whatsoever that it was ever used to dye blue. None. I made this clear in my article and this was left unchallenged by Dr. Sterman other than to quote Vitruvius out of context(Vitruvius writes little about murex dyeing other than to point out that it produces different shades of purple in different regions – it mentions bluish as one of 4 shades of purple). To constantly refer to the piles of shells as support for blue dyeing is disingenouous.
5. As for Dr. Sterman’s claim that murex trunculus is the opinion of academics, this is both irrelevant and misleading. Academia has little on the subject outside of Irving Ziderman and P’til chemists. Others blindly quote these articles. BUT – Ziderman’s articles, and the academics quoting him, all claim that techeiles was PURPLE, not blue. So they don’t really support P’til at all. The reason they go for the purple idea is because of the chemical tests in the gemara. They all recognize a fermentation process and know that indigo is readily reduced in such conditions – meaning it will change colors to a yellow-white and fail the test. Having bits of snail meat or bromine is not likely to completely stop the process.
If only a little gets reduced the color would fade and fail the test. If the murex dye is left in its natural bluish-purple, it is very difficult to reduce, though it is unclear if it would partially reduce and still fail the test.
6. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm claimed that a Bar Kochba coin with the murex image was irrefutable evidence that it was used for a mitzvah. Aside from the issue that it could have been used for argaman, murex images were used on other coins of the era as well, as I argue in my article. Dr. Sterman informed me that the coin Rabbi Dr. Lamm refers to was not a Bar Kochba coin, but is in fact a Tyrian coin! My article was already typeset so I couldn’t change my article, but isn’t it amazing that this was not only spoken publicly but made its way into print! The book, Tekhelet: Renaissance of a Mitzvah has chapters by R.Dr. Lamm, R. Moshe Tendler, R Herschel Schacter and Dr; Baruch Sterman, based on a special symposium with these speakers. Why wasn’t this error caught prior to publication?
And what about P’til claims that dead sages would agree with them if they were alive? At least 3 different places I have seen P’til writers claim that the Radzyner Rebbe would agree with them if he were alive. Why would they actually put this in print? Is this a persuasive argument? P’til also claims that Rabbi Herzog would agree with them if he were alive. To read P’til you would think that Rabbi Herzog essentially agreed that murex was right, but had a small problem or two, which they have answered so he can now be considered a supporter. In fact, I have seen P’til writings where Rabbi Herzog is listed as being of the opinion that murex trunculus was the chilazon. This is a terrible distortion of the truth. Rabbi Herzog says that without consideration of Talmudic sources one might be confident that murex trunculus was the chilazon. He then presents the Talmudic criteria, almost completely relying on the sugya in Menachos, and concludes that murex trunculus doesn’t meet any of these criteria. It is at least a little conceited to think that he would agree to P’til’s answers to all of his objections, let alone think the Radzyner Rebbe would also accept P’til’s position. I do not think it is the way of Torah or science to make such claims.
Dr. Sterman says we should examine each claim to the chilazon seriously – how about fairly? To read P’til you would think that the whole world was against the Radzyner, that he was alone in his position, that he was duped by an Italian chemist, that Mordechai Rabinovits and Hillel Meschel Gelbshtien were the Gedolei HaDor (Sr. Sterman quotes these talmidei chochomim but ignores the more recognizable gedolim), and various other myths. Why does P’til always go out its way to bash Radzyn? If it is so irrelevant, why bother? My article was not about Radzyn, yet Dr. Sterman’s response goes out of its way to gratuitously attack Radzyn. I’m not going to deal with the issue of Radzyn – the arguments against the dyeing process are well known, but it is important to be fair. According to Rabbi Borstein’s excellent sefer HaTecheiles, the Lev HaIvri, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, a posek of great stature, not only supported the Radzyner position but wrote a sefer in its defense. He was every bit the equal of Rabbi Gelbshtien, who writes with such vicious animosity about the Radzyner Rebbe. Dr. Sterman doesn’t mention that R. Gelbshtien was a Kotzker chassid at a time when they were still bitterly opposed to Radzyn for breaking off from the Kotzker Rebbe. The Meharsham, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron did not rule it was techeiles, but was very favorable and publicly wore a Tallis with techeiles (and was buried in it in accord with his will). Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky and Rabbi Chaim Berlin also wore techeiles, but privately (as far as I know, rumors about Rabbi Herzog wearing it privately are just rumors). In a private correspondence, The Maggid of Kovno, Rabbi Yitchak Elchonon Spektor also was favorably inclined but was unable to take a public stance in favor due to certain matters of pikuach nefesh he was involved in. The Chofetz Chaim was m’supek. This hardly makes it widely accepted, but the picture is quite different than the way P’til paints it – they make a laughingstock out of Radzyn, and this is not warranted. In fact, I believe it takes away from P’til being taken seriously by Gedolim. I have been told personally by a Rosh Yeshiva that the attitude displayed in P’til articles was so haughty that he knew there couldn’t be any merit to their position. He did look into the matter some, saw some obvious problems and then forgot the whole matter. Oh – the unscrupulous Italian chemist story – this is a fabrication. Rabbi Herzog made up the story in his dissertation, but he was honest enough to state that this was entirely a speculation without any shred of evidence to any part of the whole story. Rabbi Herzog speculates on the why’s of puzzling unresolved matters throughout his dissertation. He wasn’t trying to fool anyone. The result, however, is like a rumor – parts of the story get dropped and people start to think the story is fact.
It is extremely important to do thorough research before publishing. I believe that the many errors, misrepresentations and Radzyn-bashing have all worked to keep gedolim out of the murex debate – and this is a great shame. A mollusk produces a blue dye – isn’t that worthy of serious consideration by our sages? Shouldn’t they be writing about it? Isn’t it a shame that a Mendel Singer has to step up to further the debate – where are the people who really know Torah? Our leaders – why are they silent? I think it is because of the reasons I have stated.
I have already said too much no doubt. I happen to have enormous respect for Baruch Sterman. His tireless efforts and devotion to this mitzvah are inspiring. He is someone to emulate. His work is truly l’sheim shamayim. The P’til web site now posted my article – a great sign of fair play, and a good start, though the many errors in their web site documents need to be corrected. The murex trunculus argument deserves to be debated among our gedolim. Until then, commoners like me will try to fill in as best we can.
I will try to deal with many of the issues raised in this list recently, but it may be a little while before I have time and I apologize for this. I am also sorry for being so enraged. If I was personally attacked I wouldn’t care. However, I have little tolerance for sloppy research, especially when it is Torah-related. P’til people – I have no doubt you are well intentioned, but your emotional attachment to the issue may be getting in the way.
mendel
Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
e-mail: mes12@po.cwru.edu, mendelsing@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 14:14:23 +0200
From: “S. Goldstein” <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject: tcheles vs gdolim
I would like to relate a comment I heard bshem Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook:
The Gemara says that appropriate conduct is required on Har HaBayis. Campandria [making Har HaBayis a shortcut to reach the other side of Jerusalem] is forbidden. Spitting on Har HaBayis is forbidden, kal vachomer mi campandria.
RZYK: Mehkar about the exact location of Har HaBayis/ mkom mizbeach based on archaeology etc. is assur kal v’chomer mi rkika (spitting)
Shlomo Goldstein
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:04:18 -0400
From: “Michael Frankel” <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: techeiles – why Gedolim are silent on P’til
while I have nothing to add to the central issue of this exchange — other than my appreciation for the quality and quantity of the data dump collectively provided by drs sterman, singer, greenspan, mandel (and et al in case i’ve forgotten anybody) on a subject about which (except for reading r. herzog’s thesis many years ago) i knew little. But i do have a comment to make with regarding dr sterman’s en passant remarks regarding 19th century pos’qim.
to wit, dr sterman writes: <..the dyeing process are well known, but it is important to be fair. According to Rabbi Borstein’s excellent sefer HaTecheiles, the Lev HaIvri, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, a posek of great stature, not only supported the Radzyner position but wrote a sefer in its defense. He was every bit the equal of…>
to which i must respond — huh? By what perspective has r. schlesinger been transmuted into a “poseq of great stature”?. Surely the idea would have sounded odd to his 19th century contemporaries who deliberately left his name off of public “pisqei halochoh” precisely because of his light weight status. The lev ho’ivri certainly ought not be (and never was) accounted a work of p’saq — propaganda is more like it. r. schlesinger was certainly a talented and complex individual, but his early career — when lev ho’ivri was written — was essentially passed in service as the henchman to his much better known (though here too, really only in a local hungarian/transylvanian context) father in law, r. hillel lichtenstein who, unlike his son-in-law r. akivah, was an acknowledged talmid chochom, who waged an uncompromising crusade against not only reformers but against frumme yidden who might be tainted with the slightest shemetz of modernizing tendencies — such as learning and qal v’chomer/chas v’sholom speaking the local language. to give you a scaling point, you should understand that the k’sav sofer would fall on r. hillel and r. akivah’s enemies list (which got complicated for r. akivah because the k’sv sofer was also one of his rebbes.) As i said, a complex individual. In any event, the lev ho’ivri basically represents r. hillel’s interpretation of the chasam sofer’s tzavo’oh, with the aim of drafting the chasam sofer’s words to the anti-modernization crusade — admittedly not an insuperably difficult task. But it is hard to think of anyone who took r. akivoh seriously at as anything but r. hillel’s gofer. Basically he was more of a veteran pamphleteer and promoter of qanoei causes (and that’s in unterlandish hungary mind you, where to stand out as a qanoei, then as now, you had to be something really really special) rather than a poseiq.
Under the heading of “who said those EJ editors didn’t have a sense of humor?” i must share a moment of cognitive dissonance i suffered just a few moments ago as it occurred to me to also check the EJ entry on him just before sending this off. To my astonishment the EJ opened their entry of r. schlesinger with the line that he was “one of the first visionaries of modern zionism”. — apparently because his role in founding petach tikvah (sic) and his championing of chardei agricultural settlements after he made aliyah in his middle age.. If, from the olom ho’emes, r. akivah has managed to peruse this entry, i have little doubt that the future energy needs of the jewish state may be ensured indefinitely merely by tapping an appropriately coupled flywheel to the rapidly spinning guf in his grave.
both the tone and content of the informed submissions on this thread represent, from my personal perspective, this list functioning at its best. I do not know if this is precisely what RMB had in mind when selecting the nom-de-list of “avodah” — which evokes a kind of musarish intent — but it works for me.
Mechy Frankel W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:07:43 -0400
From: Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
Subject: Re: Dr. Singer on tekhelet
On Saturday 20 October 2001 20:33, you wrote:
Oh – the unscrupulous Italian chemist story – this is a fabrication. Rabbi Herzog made up the story in his dissertation, but he was honest enough to state that this was entirely a speculation without any shred of evidence to any part of the whole story. Rabbi Herzog speculates on the why’s of puzzling unresolved matters throughout his dissertation. He wasn’t trying to fool anyone.
Could anybody elaborate? Where did rav Herzog state he made up the story? Where is the story quoted and taken seriously (I mean what was Ptil’s source for quoting this story)? Why did rav Herzog make up such a story? Does that raise any questions of credibility in this matter?
Arie Folger
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 05:20:09 -0700
From: Ari <ari@tekhelet.com>
Subject: Tekhelet and the lev haivri
Michael Frankel writes:
By what perspective has r. schlesinger been transmuted into a “poseq of great stature”? Surely the idea would have sounded odd to his 19th century contemporaries who deliberately left his name off of public “pisqei halochoh” precisely because of his light weight status. The lev ho’ivri certainly ought not be (and never was) accounted a work of p’saq…
r. hillel lichtenstein who, unlike his son-in-law r. akivah, was an acknowledged talmid chochom, who waged an uncompromising crusade against not only reformers but against frumme yidden who might be tainted with the slightest shemetz of modernizing tendencies — such as learning and qal v’chomer/chas v’sholom speaking the local language….
Akiva yosef was truly a firebrand but I think for us to decide who was really a “poseq of great stature” or for that matter “a poseq of NOT GREAT stature” best be left to He who knows these things.
However, this not wide appreciated individual wrote quite a number of books including, lev haivri, naar a hivri, a 5 vol perush on chumash’kollel haivrim which was his vision of a religious, agricultural society in Israel. He actually attempted to purchase a large plot of land south of chevron for that purpose but it failed. Ultimately, Petach Tikva was partly his brainchild.
He envisioned a mostly learning but also working idyllic society. He formed a organization called chevra lemaan hchzarat ateret leyoshna for setteling Israel. Another book, bet yosef chadash.
He was instrumental in preventing a Reform orphanage from opening in Jerusalem and chevron. He wrote many tshuvot, in fact there is even a Lev Haivri Institute with unpublished manuscripts and his great grandson told me that there are over 2000! unpublished tshuvot.
He is most well known for his blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana whenit fell on shabbat in 1881. Rav Tukichinsky in Ir Hakodesh Vehamikdash writes that Rav Salant said whoeve wants to go hear I will not prevent. The tone of Tukichinsky is one of Rav Salants acceptance of the Issue.
Clearly he was no slouch and a major figure in the Yishuv Hayashan. His sharp tongue got him in trouble with the kollelim when he suggested monetary impropriet and he experienced death threats.
To indicate that he was his father in laws lackey is incorrect. He was a brilliant, thinker, halachist, a prolific writer, who is little appreciated today.
Dr. Ari Greenspan
