String Ratios Discussed:
Bottom Line
This 2001 exchange focuses on whether wearing safek Techeiles creates a downside by compromising the mitzvah of lavan. Seth Mandel argues from Rashi and the Rambam that if the blue is not genuine Techeiles, the differently colored strings may fail to count properly as lavan, and he uses that concern to explain why many earlier gedolim did not adopt Radzyner Techeiles.
Shlomoh Taitelbaum responds that this concern is far from established. He argues that the accepted halacha does not require the lavan strings to match the garment, cites the Maharsham and Kutner Rov as holding that doubtful Techeiles may be worn, and concludes that even according to Rashi and the Rambam the possible problem may be only rabbinic, while wearing genuine Techeiles would fulfill a Torah obligation. His conclusion is that if Murex is a real safek Techeiles, there is at least no clear halachic reason not to wear it.
The thread also pushes back on using the non-adoption of Radzyner Techeiles as decisive precedent: Micha Berger notes that perhaps earlier gedolim simply did not regard the Radzyner identification as a genuine safek at all.
Main Text
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:40:58 +0000
From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: tekheles
SMandel: <the Rambam (who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list>
R. Taitelbaum: <Incorrect, the Rambam writes clearly (in his letters) that his work was meant to be learned and understood on its own, without Gemara and mefarshim. Which Brisker believes the Rambam?>
R. Taitelbaum, you misquoted me. The full quote is: <(who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list ;-))> My tongue is in my cheek, as is my wont; yours appears to be sticking out, sort of like the Murex trunculus when it is trying to devour a particularly delectable oyster. Everybody knows the Rambam is really a Brisker because of his 1) fondness for tzvei bezundere dinim; 2) his opposition to singing and dancing; and 3) his opinion that inserting R. Shloyme Carlebach tunes into davening changes it from t’filla to “la’ab” :-). The Rambam might stick out his tongue at you as well (he certainly would at me).
R. Taitelbaum: <Some questioned would we not e losing the mitzvah of lavan by wearing kala ilan. But the Gemara in Menachos is quite clear that “lo yehai ela kala ilan”; the Gemara there is arguing why we should not worry about these strings being on linen…>
Others have also been nonplussed by my eminently reasonable and logical position. I am plussed to see that no one has advanced a good argument against it. But I do feel that I have to enlarge on it a little, because of various challenges.
The g’moro says (38b): <tanya: Rebbi Yitzhaq omer mishom Rebbi Natan she’amar mishom Rebbi Yose haG’lili she’amar mishom Rebbi Yohanan ben Nuri: ein lo t’kehlet, mattil lavan.> What, we can’t figure out that you that you can’t have a t’kheles string if you don’t have t’kheles? Obviously, the g’moro means more than that, and so Rashi says: <mattil lavan: kol ha’arba’ hutin.> In other words, you could say that without t’kheles, you could make do with just the remaining 4/6/7 strings of lovon; after all, “hat’khelet einu m’aqqev et halavan.” Rather, Rashi interprets the g’moro as saying that there was some sort of taqqono to have all (4=8) strings being lovon (which, according to him, meant red/green/purple or whatever the color of the garment was), and not that you can have less than 8 strings or that the strings can be of any color you want. And less you argue that nowadays a string colored blue, when the garment was green, is OK because we ignore it and consider it not there, remember the halokho of gardumin: if a string is completely cut off, even one of the lovon strings that are “extra” over the number that Hazal had when there was t’kheles, the tzitzis are posul (mahloqes rishonim exactly how much of a string must be cut).
So the question then is why should not one of these “extra” lovon strings be any color you want? That indeed is the hava ameina of the g’moro on 40a.
The g’moro is discussing a statement that you should not wear t’kheles on a beged of linen, and is suggesting various possible reasons. The g’moro then suggests that the reason is “g’zera mishom qala ilan,” that people will mistakenly use indigo instead of t’kehles on the tzitzis, and then it will be kel’ayim. The g’moro then says “v’lo y’he ella lavan.” Rashi: <mai ikpat lan ‘i rame qala ilan, la y’he hai qala ilan illa lavan b’alma, klomar tzemer lavan, ha’amarn l’eil “ein lo t’khelet mattil lavan.> (“What do we care if it is indigo on the strings, it is not worse that regular lavan, have we not said previously that if ou don’t have t’khelet, you put on lavan instead?”)
According to Rashi, this is exactly our question. Who cares if it is not t’kheles, a string colored blue should be no worse than a white/green/red string, so why should there be anything wrong with wearing one of the strings blue, even if it is not t’kheles?
Unfortunately for us, the g’moro rejects the hava ameina on the basis of “kol maqom she’atta motze ‘ase v’lo ta’aseh, im atta yakho l’qayyem et sh’neihem, mutav.” I.e. if you don’t have to violate the lo ta’aseh, you don’t. I.e. in our case, since the lavan cannot be made not out of real t’kheles, which requires wool, then don’t make it out of wool at all.
I say unfortunately, because that does not leave us with a clear statement about whether the s’voro was nidheh as well. Do we say that putting on another color is OK, there is no problem if all of the strings are not lovon, and the g’moro just rejects the idea because the qala ilan was on wool? Or do we say that the g’moro could have answered that qala ilan does not qualify as lavan if the beged is not blue, and the g’moro just gave another answer. G’moro cognoscenti know that if there are a couple of answers, the g’moro gives one, and it is usually impossible to determine what the g’moro would say about the others.
So why am I being my normal curmudgeonly self and insisting that the halokho is indeed that other colored strings are no good?
Two arguments. First, according to Rashi: he says, as I have said before, that min kanaf means that the tzitzis must be the color of the garment. There is no clear support for such a position in the g’moro (indeed Tosafos argue against it), so the only reason for Rashi to use it is that he holds that is the rule.
Second, I have the Rambam. Since he is not a perush on the g’moro, but a p’saq halokho, we can determine what he holds l’ma’aseh. He says in Hil Tzitzis 1:1 he says “v’ein l’hut he’anaf minyan min hatorah,” that d’orayson there is no fixed number of hutei lovon. But then in 1:5 he says “v’arba’ hatzitziyot m’aqq’vot zo et zo, she’arba’tan mitzva ahat,” “the 4 [whole] strings of the tzitzis are m’aqqev each other,” apparently a taqqono d’rabbonon. After discussing how you wrap the 1 string of t’kehles around the 7 strings of lovon, in 1:9 he says that if you have no t’kheles, you take one of the 8 strings and wrap it around the other 7. And in 1:18 he paskens that “im nifsaq hut me’iqqaro, afilu hut ahat, p’sula.” In other words, he requires, at least d’rabbonon, that you have all 8 strings of lovon if you do not have t’kheles. And in 2:8 he defines lovon as meaning the color of the garment. So if you have 1, 2, or 4 strings of the 8 that are not the color of the garment, and not t’kheles, according to the Rambam you are either missing the proper number of strings (which is m’aqqev), or you are not fulfilling the mitzva of lovon.
It has been claimed that the Chazon Ish disagrees with this, because it is quoted in his name by the Maaseh Ish that he said that even sofeik techeiles should be worn because there is nothing to be lost; if the Gedolim of his generation did not wear Radzyner techeiles — says the Chzo”i — it is because they did not even consider it a sofeik.
If this were something he himself wrote I could analyze it and see whether he really meant that. As it is, I can only definitively say that 1) he himself did not wear t’kheles; 2) it is claimed in his name that he said wearing a sofeq t’kheles is not a problem. As against that, you have a statement by R. Elyashiv that he himself wrote that it is a problem to wear a sofeq t’kheles, because it is not lovon (quoted by R. Aharon Meir Goldstein in his response to R. Chaim Twerski’s article). I shall not stick my thin neck into arguing which statement is more authoritative or reliable; I shall just wait for someone to show me why Rashi and the Rambam do not say what they seem to me to say.
I will probably, if work allows, pick at all the nits that R. Taitelbaum unreasonably found with my well-argued position : –). However, there is one that I will handle here.
I was quoting R. Borshtein’s book about all the g’dolim who refused to wear the Radzyne t’kheles, despite it being at that time a sofeq t’kheles. R. Taitelbaum objected: <However the Maharsham (who I believe could be called THE poseik of that dor for sure wore Radzyn techeiles and even wanted to be buried in that tallis, as he wrote in his tzavaah (to be found at the beginning of his “Techeiles Mordechai” on Chumash).>
I am sure that most will agree with me that it is inappropriate for any of us to argue who was “THE poseik” of a century ago. Adrabbo, a century ago the poseq in each city was probably the rov and ABD of the community, although the rov of a community would probably consult with either his rebbi or some of his colleagues in a particularly difficult issue. I will say that The Maharsham was not considered the posek of any community that I know of in Lita. In Kovno, they had R. Yitzhoq Elhonon (I know not why R. Borshtein and R. Taitelbaum call him “the maggid of Kovno,” when he was the Kovner Rov and ABD), and in other communities they had their own Rov and ABD. Perhaps R. Taitelbaum means that he was considered the preeminent posek in Galicia, and that therefore all Galitiziane yidden should have followed him in wearing the t’kheles. But that leads me to my question (R. Mechy, feel free to chime in, because this is a genuine question about which you would know more). At the very least, the Maharsham was the well-respected rov of Brezen. So how is it that the inhabitants of Brezen did not start wearing t’kheles?
This just leads me back to my basic premise. I know some old-timers who learned in Grodno who keeps some minhogim from R. Shimon Shkop. I know some from Baranovich who kept some minhogim of R. Elhonon Wasserman. I know some from Radin who keep minhogim of the CC. Yet I know of none from any yeshiva who wore t’kheles in Europe, and all I have asked deny that their RY wore t’kheles. And yet the Radzyne t’kheles before 1915 or so was certainly a sofek: a blue dye made from a marine animal that met the qualifications in the g’moro as well as Murex does. As I said, RY were not under the same communal pressure that the rov of a big city was, and yet none wore. They were certainly not following R. Gelbstein, who as everyone involved admits was arguing more from anger and animosity than from solid halakhic reasoning.
That is my argument. The evidence for Murex is interesting, but hardly overwhelming. The evidence from the g’moro is ambiguous and there are certainly things there very hard to reconcile with Murex. There is no identification by rishonim who actually claim or could claim to have seen it and know with anything more than conjecture what the t’kheles was made from.
The archeological evidence is no evidence at all. So why should anyone do anything other than what R. Yitzchoq Elhonon, or the Roshei Yeshiva of Mir, Telz, Ponyevezh, Grodno, or Slabodka did and sit it out, waiting for definitive evidence?
Unless, perhaps, if you are from Brezen.
Seth Mandel
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:06:26 +0200
From: “Shlomoh Taitelbaum” <sjtait@surfree.net.il>
Subject: Re: tekheles
From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>
SMandel: <the Rambam (who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list>
R. Taitelbaum: <Incorrect, the Rambam writes clearly (in his letters) that his work was meant to be learned and understood on its own, without Gemara and mefarshim. Which Brisker believes the Rambam?>
R. Taitelbaum, you misquoted me. The full quote is: <(who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list 😉 )>
Oh, that clears up things now, doesn’t it. But compare this to:
In Kovno, they had R. Yitzhoq Elhonon (I know not why R. Borshtein and R. Taitelbaum call him “the maggid of Kovno,” when he was the Kovner Rov and ABD)
Would the kind gentleman please inform me when I EVER said, wrote, or even thought those words he attributes to me? Don’t worry, I’m sure you could find enough wrong with what I do say; there is no need to blame me for what I didn’t.
The g’moro says (38b): <tanya: Rebbi Yitzhaq omer mishom Rebbi Natan she’amar mishom Rebbi Yose haG’lili she’amar mishom Rebbi Yohanan ben Nuri: ein lo t’kehlet, mattil lavan.> What, we can’t figure out that you that you can’t have a t’kheles string if you don’t have t’kheles? Obviously, the g’moro means more than that, and so Rashi says: <mattil lavan: kol ha’arba ‘hutin.> In other words, you could say that without t’kheles, you could make do with just the remaining 4/6/7 strings of lovon; after all, “hat’khelet einu m’aqqev et halavan.” Rather, Rashi interprets the g’moro as saying that there was some sort of taqqono to have all (4=8) strings being lovon (which, according to him, meant red/green/purple or whatever the color of the garment was), and not that you can have less than 8 strings
Yes
or that the strings can be of any color you want.
That doesn’t follow. I realize you are interpeting Rashi’s lovon to mean davka the color of the beged. I don’t doubt that Rashi would expect the strings replacing the techeles to be the same color as the beged (and the other strings). But to say that is what Rashi is coming to say HERE seems like stretching things.
And less you argue that nowadays a string colored blue, when the garment was green, is OK because we ignore it and consider it not there, remember the halokho of gardumin: if a string is completely cut off, even one of the lovon strings that are “extra” over the number that Hazal had when there was t’kheles, the tzitzis are posul (mahloqes rishonim exactly how much of a string must be cut).
And what I am arguing is that at least the strings in place of techeles, a different color doesn’t pasul. But let’s get things in perspective: the Ramo paskens that the strings do not have to be the same color as the beged, and so does the Beis Yosef (look at the halocho OCh 9:5 at the Beis Yosef on it). The Mechaber is simply saying why not be yotzei shittas Rashi and Rambam also, while the Ramo holds it would be yoharo. But l’halocho we (klal Yisroel) don’t pasken that the tzitzis have to be the same color as the beged. The whole question is really theoretical–according to Rashi and Rambam is there a problem with putting a blue string (assuming it’s not techeles) instead of “lovon” in place of techeles. But if you will grant that this halochoh that the strings should be the same color as the beged is a d’Rabbonon (as the Mabit in Kiryas Sefer says), and that this is at least sofek techeles (which I doubt RSM grants), I think OCh 595 answers that, that a sofeik d’Oraiso is docheh a vadai d’Rabbonon–kal v’chomer here where on the tzad that this is techels you aren’t oiver any d’Rabbonon.
Skipping over much in between RSM continues:
Do we say that putting on another color is OK, there is no problem if all of the strings are not lovon, and the g’moro just rejects the idea because the qala ilan was on wool?
As pointed out, there may be a difference between “all of the strings” and the strings that are replacing the techeles. But let’s continue.
Or do we say that the g’moro could have answered that qala ilan does not qualify as lavan if the beged is not blue, and the g’moro just gave another answer. G’moro cognoscenti know that if there are a couple of answers, the g’moro gives one, and it is usually impossible to determine what the g’moro would say about the others.
Except, according to Rashi and Rambam, the Gemara blew an excellent opportunity for teaching us their halocho. The Gemara should have continued after “lo yehai ela lovon,” “v’ha k’siv haknaf–min knaf” so what do you mean so what if its kala ilan? It’s much more to the point, (I’ll let the readers vote on that), and we would have avoided this whole discussion if it would have, ela tzorich lomar this isn’t so.
So why am I being my normal curmudgeonly self and insisting that the halokho is indeed that other colored strings are no good? Two arguments. First, according to Rashi: he says, as I have said before, that min kanaf means that the tzitzis must be the color of the garment. There is no clear support for such a position in the g’moro (indeed Tosafos argue against it), so the only reason for Rashi to use it is that he holds that is the rule.
Well, Rashi has to get it from somewhere. Once again, at least after the chasimas haShas we cannot just go darshaning p’sukim. All what is in or is deduced from the Gemara we are bound by–Rashi and Rambam knew that. I don’t doubt they have a mekor, but without knowing it, it is very difficult to base sevaros on it.
RSM then continues with the Rambam:
in 1:5 he says “v’arba’ hatzitziyot m’aqq’vot zo et zo, she’arba’tan mitzva ahat,” “the 4 [whole] strings of the tzitzis are m’aqqev each other,” apparently a taqqono d’rabbonon.
Is this how you understand the Rambam? The Rambam seems to mean that each tsitsis “bundle” on each corner are m’akev the other three (see last mishna menachos perek 3, and gemara there 37b). Although I boubt this makes any difference to your argument.
And in 1:18 he paskens that “im nifsaq hut me’iqqaro, afilu hut ahat, p’sula.” In other words, he requires, at least d’rabbonon, that you have all 8 strings of lovon if you do not have t’kheles. And in 2:8 he defines lovon as meaning the color of the garment. So if you have 1, 2, or 4 strings of the 8 that are not the color of the garment, and not t’kheles, according to the Rambam you are either missing the proper number of strings (which is m’aqqev), or you are not fulfilling the mitzva of lovon.
But if the “wrong colored” string is the (in-place-of) techeles that may indeed be fine. The rambam never says that if there isn’t techeles you put lovon instead; he says you just make the lovon. And don’t forget he writes in 1:1 that the reason the strings that come out of the g’dil are called lovon is because we are not required to dye them at all. I know what he says in 2:8, so we need to answer it, not sweep it under the rug.
It has been claimed that the Chazon Ish disagrees with this, because it is quoted in his name by the Maaseh Ish that he said that even sofeik techeiles should be worn because there is nothing to be lost; if the Gedolim of his generation did not wear Radzyner techeiles — says the Chzo”i — it is because they did not even consider it a sofeik. If this were something he himself wrote I could analyze it and see whether he really meant that.
I know the feeling; if only the Beis haLevi or someone later (like RYBS) would have written the explanation of this a priori that a cheftza shel mitzva can only be established by a mesora, I’d be able to analyze. However, my kashya on the Brisker Torah is serious–where’s it from? Even if I never dealt with this subject this would be a kashya. Your kashya on the CI is more “it sounds like he doesn’t agree with me, maybe if he would explain the lomdus I could show how it isn’t soseir what I say.”
As it is, I can only definitively say that 1) he himself did not wear t’kheles; 2) it is claimed in his name that he said wearing a sofeq t’kheles is not a problem. As against that, you have a statement by R. Elyashiv that he himself wrote that it is a problem to wear a sofeq t’kheles, because it is not lovon
Well, the Maharsham apparently didn’t believe that, nor the Kutner Rov (who in teshuva 3 says clearly l’halochoh that even if it would be kala ilan it isn’t a problem to wear “lo yehai ela lovon). And if indeed it is true, there was the simplest answer in the world to silence the Radzyner–why didn’t ANY Godol (at least none that I know of) say so.
I was quoting R. Borshtein’s book about all the g’dolim who refused to wear the Radzyne t’kheles, despite it being at that time a sofeq t’kheles. R. Taitelbaum objected: <However the Maharsham (who I believe could be called THE poseik of that dor for sure wore Radzyn techeiles and even wanted to be buried in that tallis, as he wrote in his tzavaah (to be found at the beginning of his “Techeiles Mordechai” on Chumash).> I am sure that most will agree with me that it is inappropriate for any of us to argue who was “THE poseik” of a century ago.
I’ll stand corrected. However, gedolim from all of Europe (including Lita) sent shalos to him so we can call him “from the great gedolim of his dor.
But that leads me to my question… At the very least, the Maharsham was the well-respected rov of Brezen. So how is it that the inhabitants of Brezen did not start wearing t’kheles?
Even I could answer that one, we don’t need RMB expertise for this. Because the Maharsham didn’t really believe it was techeles; just on the minutest sofek that it was, “better play it safe”–a chumra only for yechidai hador. But clearly he believed that there was no problem in wearing sofeik techeles. Which means the statement “none of the gedolim etc.” is not true.
yet the Radzyne t’kheles before 1915 or so was certainly a sofek: a blue dye made from a marine animal that met the qualifications in the g’moro as well as Murex does.
If you will ever read my sefer, you will see there is no hechreiach in the lomdus of the Radzyner. As I wrote last time, the Kutner Rov, the Rashab, even the Chafetz Chayim (“I wouldn’t stick my head in the fire on the Radzyner’s Torah) all say that the Radzyner’s Torah was hasharos. As my last Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Meiselman, would say, “S’varos are a dime a dozen”; you have to prove the hechreiach of what you say.
In conclusion: 1) the Maharsham and the Kutner Rov l’halochoh do not see a problem in wearing sofek techeles. 2) Any problem in wearing sofek techeles seems only to be in shittas Rashi v’Rambam who the Ramo, and it certainly seems the Mechaber m’ikar hadin,does not pasken like. 3) Even acc. to Rashi and Rambam, the problem of a wrong colored string may only be in the strings that have to be lovon; the one’s that were supposed to be techeiles may not have the same din (and it may even be Rashi and Rambam would diagree on this point). 4) Even acc. to Rashi and Rambam, this din seems to only be d’Rabbonon, and as we pointed out a sofek d’ Oraiso is docheh even a vaday d’rabbonon.
Therefore, IF techeles produced from murex is a true sofeik, then it would seem that AT LEAST there is no problem at all in being choshsesh a wearing it.
Shlomoh Taitelbaum
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 09:23:29 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: tekheles
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 07:40:58PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
That is my argument. The evidence for Murex is interesting, but hardly overwhelming. … So why should anyone do anything other than what R. Yitzchoq Elhonon, or the Roshei Yeshiva of Mir, Telz, Ponyevezh, Grodno, or Slabodka did and sit it out, waiting for definitive evidence?
Or were they sitting it out waiting for something they would consider a viable safeiq?
With the possible exception of the Briskers, there is no proof (and a Maasei Ish to the contrary) to assume they were waiting for a vadai. Your sevarah, while beautiful, is not actually given by any of them.
-mi
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:47:52 +0200
From: “Shlomoh Taitelbaum” <sjtait@surfree.net.il>
Subject: Re: Tekheles
R’ Micha wrote:
The Radziner argues that any underwater invertebrate which makes a dye that fits the description of techeiles is kosher. This is also the grounds for suggesting that if we apply the Radziner Rebbe’s shitos to what we know today about the cuttlefish dye and the murex dye, the latter fits his criteria for kashrus but not the former. Of course, that is our application of what he said, not what the Baal Techeiles said or even would have said. It is only what I would say, given his positions.
I don’t know if you have to qualify your statement like that. The fact is the Radzyner clearly stated (as you quoted him and I believe elsewhere in his sefarim) that any chilazon that can produce tekheles is kosher. I’ll even grant that he didn’t actually believe that that there would be any other; but an important part of his argument to actually wear his tekheles was based on this. Therefore I believe I can say without being presumptuous that AT LEAST according to the Radzyner, murex can be used to produce t’kheles. What he would hold about his own tekheles nowadays is a different question, and that i won’t be as presumptuous to state. But this I do know: the direction of his arguments were heading toward murex—or more exactly, whatever it was that the royalty of ancient days used for dyeing. From the Sefunei T’munei Khol:
And in the Eastern countries it became forbidden for anyone except Royal Nobility as it is written (Esther 8) “And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the King in Royal apparel, Techelet and white, etc.” And perhaps Techelet was also forbidden to be placed in Tzitzith, as the lower officials were apt to make additions and be vigilant in all things. Later on I found corroboration to this in Nachmonides’ commentary on the Torah (Exodus 28:3) and yet it seems that although after the destruction of the Temple, Techelet was available to only the treasured individuals of the generations during the time of the Tanaim and Amoraim, and also in the time of the Geonim, as was indicated, and the author of the Holy Sefer Hakaneh Hakadosh seems to have also been acquainted with the Hillazon and had acquired it, being that he gave distinguishing features as will be explained with the help of G-d, when we explicate on the distinguishing features of the Hillazon. However it seems that at the end of the days of the Geonim that it had completely ceased and was not to be found even among the singled out individuals of the generation as appears from Maimonides of blessed memory, from his commentary on the Mishna, and from his Responsum (number 43) that he did not have Techelet because prior to this, since the time of the Destruction, even if the Israelites would become greatly impoverished, and the multitude of Israel was not able to afford to fulfill the Mitzvah of Techelet, nevertheless, the distinguished individuals of the generation were able to obtain the blood of the Hillazon for the Techelet. Since the blood of the Hillazon was also used by the nations of the world, for the Techelet dye of their Royal apparel, for Royalty and Ministers, thus the netting of the Hillazon did occasionally occur. And although it was expensive, nonetheless, it was possible for the distinguished ones of the generation to acquire the Techelet for the sake of the Mitzvah. Because at that time there were Israelites to be found in the Land of Israel, and on the beaches of the Mediterranean where the Hillazon was caught, as will be explained. And afterwards, at the end of the period of the Geonim when the yoke of the exile of the Ishmaelites became heavier upon the Jews, and they were driven from exile to exile, also from the vicinity of the Mediterranean Sea and the Land of Israel as is explained in Nachmonides’ epistle, where he of blessed memory, writes that he found the Land of Israel in desolation, with very few Jews living there. And also those left there who were living on the shores of the sea were not expert. And Techelet is only accepted from an expert. And there were many decrees and forced conversions at that time. Add to this also the fact that the nations no longer needed to track the Hillazon for the Techelet dye, because they had begun to use other species to extract the Techelet colored dye. And since that period the Mitzvah of Techelet ceased to be fulfilled. And even among the distinguished ones they were not able to acquire the blood of the Hillazon for the Techelet.
He goes into more detail in his P’thil T’kheles, saying how t’kheles was mentioned in the ancient classics and was found in Egypt on the mummies etc. (but only this work is available on the web in English transltion). But even from this example it seems that what he was after was we know to be murex.
More later
Shlomoh
