AishDas Thread on Techeiles – October 7, 2001 – November 2, 2001 – T’kheles

Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:11:58 +0200

From: Baruch Sterman <baruch@deltathree.com>

Subject: Recent Postings regarding Tekhelet (fwd)

I have been following the recent postings regarding tekhelet and would like to respond. Perhaps I should say clarify our position (our being P’Til Tekhelet). First of all, Rav Mendel Singer’s recent article in the Journal of Halakha and Contemporary Society was supposed to have been printed along with a response. Unfortunately, the response was not printed and will be hopefully in the next issue. You can read the response, and I invite anyone who wants to investigate the issues thoroughly to do so, at our site: <http://www.tekhelet.com/ResponseJHCS.htm>

Most of what I will say here is better said in that article.

A recent article in Techumin by Rav Shmuel Ariel points out that there are three possibilities regarding the murex tekhelet. A) It is definitely not tekhelet, B) It is safek tekhelet, C) It is definitely tekhelet. In case B or C, it is better to wear murex tekhelet as you have nothing to lose. If you believe that B or C is the case, then according to Rav Ariel, it is better NOT TO WEAR TSITSIT at all, than to wear tsitsit without tekhelet and just lavan. Add to that, Rav Herschel Shachter’s point that if tekhelet is available, one who wears white only is over on Bal Tigra. I cite this for two reasons. The first is to show that tekhelet is not some hidur that only mehadrin should be interested in. It is a mitzvah deorayta, and not wearing it may get people involved in L’avim and possibly issues concerning chilul shabbat (if one wears a begged with lavan in a rishut harabim).

The second reason follows from the first. If it is a big halachik deal nowadays, then it was a big halachik deal in the times of the gemarah. So statements to the effect that chazal didn’t have to warn people not to wear Murex tekhelet don’t hold water. If Murex tekhelet is not kosher, then it would have been imperitive for chazal to warn people. Look what is at stake! Bal Tigra, Chillul shabbat, Being Over on an Asay, Shaatnez, etc. Therefore one must come to the conclusion that if the potential for mistake was there – ie that Murex tekhelet looks like real tekhelet – but yet it was not kosher, then chazal would have had to warn the Jews of the time.

We make a big deal about the archeological evidence precisely for this reason. In 19 sites in Northern Israel, remains are found of Murex dye installations. It is incomprehensible to assume that chazal did not know of Murex dyes. If they knew about them and didn’t warn people against them, then that means that they felt murex tekhelet was kosher.

Is it possible to assume that Murex dyers did not know how to get pure blue out of the dyes? I think not. We have about 15 years of experience with dyeing. We have found out that 1) sometimes the dye just comes out blue and not purple. 2) If you put the dye in the sun during its reduced stage (a stage necessary for its integration into the wool matrix) then it comes out blue. 3) If you steam the threads or put them in very hot water after dyeing them purple, they turn blue. The ancient dyers had thousands of years experience with dyeing. It was their livelihood. Can one honestly think that they would know less than us? All of the things that I mentioned above have nothing to do with modern chemistry. I do not expect them to have known that if you put the purple strings in tetrachloroethylene then it turns blue, but I would expect them to know that putting them in hot water does. Rav Herzog didn’t know these facts about the murex dye. He never did much experimenting with the actual dyeing, and relied mostly on what others had written.

Tekhelet looks like Kala Ilan. Kala Ilan is indigo according to the Aruch and most everyone else. The words kala ilan seem to have come from the ancient Chinese word for indigo – k’lan. According to the Rambam, Rav Saadya Gaon, Rav Herzog and many, many others, the color of tekhelet is the color of the sky – ie indigo. Murex tekhelet, as mentioned above, through trivial natural processes can be made to be identical to indigo. Therefore, according to all these poskim, Murex tekhelet is identical to kala ilan which is identical to kosher tekhelet. Both the Radzyner and Rav Herzog admit that if you could find a marine species that gave a color identical to kala ilan, it would neccesarily be kosher for tekhelet. Their reasoning is the same that I point out in my first paragaraph – if this were not the case – ie that this other dye that was identical to tekhelet was not koser – then chazal would have had to warn us against this other fake tekhelet (Sefunei T’munei Chol, page 14, 1999 edition and Rav Herzog’s doctorate, page 73).

If Murex tekhelet was identical to kala ilan = indigo, then what about the tests in the gemara? Why would the halacha say that kala ilan was pasul altogether? I don’t have definitive answers for these questions, but at the same time I don’t believe that they are contradict the assertion that Murex tekhelet is kosher for the mitzvah. I can make some guesses. For example, I personally have proposed that although there may be no difference molecularly between the tekhelet and plant indigo, and therefore according to the methods currently used to dye wool, there is no discernible difference in quality between them, historically, this was not always the case. When dyeing according to natural methods in the ancient world, tekhelet was dyed in a completely different manner than indigo. The former was fermented together with the meat from the snail. Current research by John Edmonds in England has shown that bacteria present in the snail meat plays an active part in the reduction of the dye. On the other hand, plant indigo was chemically reduced in an entirely different manner. Consequently, it is quite reasonable that the quality and fastness of wool dyed with tekhelet according to the method employed in vat dyeing with snails, would have differed from that of kala ilan. This may have been the basis for tests that attempted to distinguish between the two. Nobel Chemist Prof. Roald Hoffman has told me that he finds this proposition to be plausible.

Regarding the source of the dye – the tosefta in menachot compares two halachot. Tekhelet min ha’chilazon kasher, she’lo min ha’chilazon pasul. (Tekhelet must come from a chilazon). The other halacha is that gold for the menora must not come from grutatot – scraps – but from a whole piece of gold. Is there a difference molecularly between scraps of gold or one piece of gold? The point is that sometimes the source is important in halacha even if the resulting material is identical.

The bottom line is that we believe there is ample evidence to prove that tekhelet from a murex is kosher. There are a lot of missing pieces and open questions, but halacha is rarely cut and dried. That’s where p’sak comes in – to determine the halacha in the face of differing options and competing ideas.

Yasher Kochachem to everyone involved in working to make this mitzvah better understood.

Baruch Sterman

---

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:31:53 +0000

From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

I wish to address here some of R. Sterman’s and R. Micha’s points; I will cover some of the P’til Tekhelet’s response to R. Mendel Singer later. P’til’s response congratulates R. Singer and the Journal of Halakha and CS for publishing his article and their response, since it indicates that “the awareness [of t’khelet] within the halakhic community has grown, and that… tekhelet [is] an issue to be addressed.”

I can assure R. Sterman and the P’til Society that in this forum, at least, everybody takes their mitzvos seriously, and many/most of us are as concerned with the mitzvos that we don’t do as with the mitzvos that we do; we are known for being mahmir on mitzvos kallos, such as denigrating [MO/YU/RW/Lakewood] as well as mitzvos hamuros.

I wrote: <if you are wearing the wrong color, you have lost the mitzva of lovon. There are two shittos among the rishonim about what lovon is. The Rambam says it is the exact color of the garment on which the tzitzis are to be hung. Ashk’nazi rishonim say it is colorless: undyed wool…>

R. Micha responded: <The machlokes isn’t over being /yotzei/ lavan, but in the /ideal/ lavan. So, to rephrase your question: Does the chance of being yotzei techeiles outweigh the loss of hiddur?>

I really don’t know why you state this as a given. Indeed, P’til and the Radzyner Rebbe claimed this, but this is NOT what the sources say. R. Sterman quotes R. Shmuel Ariel as saying the same: “in case B [that murex dye is safek tekhelet], it is better to wear murex tekhelet as you have nothing to lose.” This is simply not true.

Let’s start with Rashi. On Menahot 41b (all caps mine) the g’moro says “talet shekullah t’khelet kol mine tziv’onin potrin bah.” Rashi: “l’shum lavan d’kevan D’MIN KANAF LEKA l’qayyome bah, ein lakh l’hazzer ahar lavan.” I.e. you use other colors, not “lavan,” on an all-t’khelet talet, since you can’t have min kanaf. The g’moro then asks “talet ein poter bah ella minah.” Rashi has the girsa “ein potrin bah l’shem lavan ella minah,” and says: “im aduma hi, yatil bah shnei hutin adumim ushnei hutim t’kehlet v’khen sh’ar g’vanim.” I.e. ONLY red tzitzis can serve as lavan for a red talet, because we require “min kanaf.”

The Rambam follows the same tradition (with the exception, of course, of the number of t’khelet threads, which is a mahloqet). In Hilkhot Tzitzit 1:1 he says ” ‘anaf she’osin ‘al kanaf habeged MIMMIN HABEGED hu haniqra tzitzit… v’zeh he’anaf hu haniqra lavan, she’ein anu m’tzuvvin l’tzov’o” (the fringe that we make at the edge of clothing OF THE KIND of the clothing… is called lavan because we are not commanded to color it). In 1:8 he says “talet shehi kullah aduma o y’ruqa o mish’ar tziv’onin, ‘oseh hutei lavan shelah k’ein tziv’ah, im y’ruqa y’ruqin v’im aduma adumin” (a tallit that is all red or green or other colors, you make its lavan the same color as it, green if green and red if red). It seems clear that the Rambam’s source is the same a Rashi’s: a tradition that “min kanaf” not only specifies the material, but also the color. Otherwise, where do they get this idea from that the color of the lavan has to be red or green or whatever, depending on the color of the clothing?

Tosafot, indeed, doesn’t know where the idea comes from, and suggests that maybe such a requirement is just “zeh Keli v’anvehu.” But the lashon of Rashi is clear that it is more than that, and it is pretty clear from the Rambam as well.

Now one could argue that this is only l’khathilla and not b’dieved, even though Rashi’s loshon of “ein potrin bah l’shem lavan ella minah” seems to indicate that it is even b’dieved. But what I am showing is not whether it is m’aqqev or not, but rather that both the Rambam and Rashi consider that this color requirement is basic to the commandment of tzitzit.

So I said “if you are wearing the wrong color, you have lost the mitzva of lovon.” This is exactly what the Rambam and Rashi are saying. It may or may not be kosher b’dieved, but you have not fulfilled the mitzva of lavan as the mitzva intends.

But now let us ignore me (much preferable anyway, since CQs are not so pretty to consider) and go to the FACTS of the matter. Incontravertible facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g’dolim at the time of the Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t’kheles. And let me remind people of something which some parties in argument ignore: before Rav Kook made his discovery that the Radzyner t’khelet was Prussian blue, approximately 25 years had passed. During that period, the situation was EXACTLY as it is now: the Radzyner Rebbe claimed that the cuttlefish could fit in with the description of the g’moro (which indeed it can as well as Murex can), and he produced a fast, dark-blue dye from the secretions of the cuttlefish. None of the g’dolim at the time knew or could have known that the blue dye was not really a direct product of the cuttlefish ink. This is EXACTLY equivalent to the current situation: the P’til T’khelet society claims that they have a blue dye that comes from a marine organism that could fit in with the description in the g’moro. P’til argues that at the very least it is a safeq, and what do you lose by wearing it? But the g’dolim did not, and I have not yet seen a plausible explanation of why whatever reasons they had would not apply now. This is why the statement, as quoted by R. Sterman in the name of R. Ariel, that “it is better NOT TO WEAR TSITSIT at al” [caps in original] in the case of having a safeq t’kheles is simply ludicrous.. The g’dolim at the end of the 19th century lived in a period of safeq t’kehles, and they all wore tzitzis.

Now P’til is right that its dye is produced directly from the Murex, unlike the Radzyner Prussian blue, but the g’dolim did not know that. And P’til has evidence that a large industry existed to produce dye from Murex, but there is no proof that that industry existed for any other purpose than to produce royal purple and other purple/blue dyes for non-Jewish uses.

However, what is relevant here is that doubts about these factors were not the reasons that the g’dolim of the time did not adopt the Radzyne t’kheles. Some of the g’dolim may not have put on the Radzyne t’kheles because “chodosh osur min haTorah”: they would not do anything their grandfather didn’t do. Some chasidishe Rebbeim may have not adopted it because of some element of qin’as sofrim that existed among the rebbes in the chasidic world (just as the other talmidim of the Mezritcher Maggid did not adopt the nusach of the Ari redacted by the Alter Rebbe of Lyubavitch, which he did for the benefit of ALL the follower of the Besh’t, not just his followers). Others may have not adopted it because the Zohar implies that t’kheles will come back at the time of the Moshiah, and they did not think that was the time. The Beis HaLevi may not have adopted it because of his Torah about how a masora can not be reinstated by s’voro. We can term all of these the rejectionist front: they would not have adopted t’kheles no matter what proofs were brought.

But, Rabbosai, there were many other g’dolim who did listen to arguments and were not opposed on the grounds of principal to any new innovations. I could point to half a dozen Litvishe g’dolim, at least, who, although they opposed changing minhogim, did countenance new ideas with solid arguments behind them. And yet not a one started wearing t’kheles. Even blowing shofar on Rosh HaShono on Shabbos in Jerusalem gained some support. But not qorbonos and not t’kheles. That is fact.

Again, to quote myself, “I do not claim to know their reasons.” Maybe I was m’khavven to something they held in my argument about lavan; maybe not. But at the very least, they were waiting for something that wasn’t there at the time.

Something that is still not there.

(And this is said with all due respect to Murex trunculus, against whom I hold no animus. I think the mollusc is rather cute [in CQ terms], expecially the expression on its face as it happily slithers along the sea floor looking for comestibles. I also hold no animus to those who use it for dye, even though the innocent molluscs surely deserve a better fate than having their glands ripped out while they are still alive.)

Seth Mandel

---

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:43:20 +0200

From: “Ari Z. Zivotofsky” <zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il>

Subject: Comparison of Radzyner tekhelet with Murex tekhelet.

[From R’ Seth Mandel:]

But now let us ignore me (much preferable anyway, since CQs are not so pretty to consider) and go to the FACTS of the matter. Incontravertible facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g’dolim at the time of the Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t’kheles. And let me remind people of something which some parties in argument ignore: before Rav Kook [(sic!)] made his discovery that the Radzyner t’khelet was Prussian blue, approximately 25 years had passed. During that period, the situation was EXACTLY as it is now: …

I would like to point out that there were important works written during the Radzyner’s lifetime and immediately afterwards that addressed his theories regarding the chilazon, criticizing them on very fundamental levels. When one reads these works, one is immediately struck by the difference between the Radzyner’s position and that of P’Til Tekhelet – i.e. murex trunculus as chilazon. In two works – Tekhelet m’Iyay Elisha by Mordechai Rabinovits and P’Til Tekhelet by Hillel Meschel Gelbshtien (both written in the early 1890’s – a few years after the Radzyner dyed his first strings)- the authors point out basic problems with the Radzyner’s tekhelet:

1. It fades when washed with soap

2. The dye is obtained from the organism many weeks and months after death

(against the Talmud’s assertion that it must come from a live organism).

3. The color of the dye is not the color of the sky.

In addition, the Beis Halevi objected that:

4. Since the art of dyeing with squid had been around for many hundreds

of years, what explanation could the Radzyner offer for all the gedolim of previous generations having missed what the Radzyner was now proposing.

None of these fundamental problems that contemporaries of the Radzyner had raised apply to the modern assertion of murex as chilazon.

1) It is among the fastest dyes known to man,

2) it must be obtained from the organism while alive or immediately

on death,

3)It is exactly the color of kala ilan,

4)there is so much new information that was unavailable to previous researchers that even at the time of Rav Herzog – barely one generation ago – no one knew how to get the dye to a pure blue color.

One more point – though halacha is determined by halachic authorities only, it is important to point out that no secular scholars accepted the Radzyner’s theory and no corroborating evidence from archeological or historical sources was found. In the case of the murex though, it is virtually unanimously accepted by secular scholars and an exhaustive amount of evidence from various disciplines has been offered to corroborate the murex as the source of the ancient tekhelet dye.

It is disingenuous to lump all attempts at the rediscovery of tekhelet together. Each must be examined on its own merit and evaluated seriously.

Baruch Sterman

---

Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:52:12 -0400

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

Subject: Re: Comparison of Radzyner tekhelet with Murex tekhelet.

On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 10:43:20AM +0200, Baruch Sterman wrote:

[From R’ Seth Mandel:] Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t’kheles. … During that period, the situation was EXACTLY as it is now: …

RSM argues that until R’ Herzog’s discovery of what the substance was, the objections to Radzyner techeiles were over issues not specific to the cuttlefish-derived dye. Such as the looseness of fit between the gemara’s description and the cuttlefish, which RSM sees (and I agree) is no worse than the murex’s. Or the whole notion of how mesorah is to be restored. (more on this later)

Then R’ Baruch Sterman listed objections to Radzyner techeiles, showing why objections raised to it were /not/ generic.

His last one reads:

In addition, the Beis Halevi objected that: 4. Since the art of dyeing with squid had been around for many hundreds of years, what explanation could the Radzyner offer for all the gedolim of previous generations having missed what the Radzyner was now proposing.

There are other versions of the objection.

The one you give is flawed in that knowing how to get dye out of a cuttlefish is irrelevent if one didn’t know that one was supposed to.

4a) The question is that since the cuttlefish was available throughout the golah, how would we forget that it’s the chilazon? This is how I understood the objection when I read the Radziner’s reply.

4b) RYBS’s version, that one can’t use science to restore mesorah.

I’m not sure either of these apply to the murex-derived techeiles, as:

4) the dying process wasn’t known;

4a) the murex isn’t as availble; and 4b) there are meqoros within the mesorah that the science is merely confirming.

-mi

—
Micha Berger Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 – R’ Binyamin Hecht

---

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 18:36:42 +0000

From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

R. Baruch Sterman wrote: <It is disingenuous to lump all attempts at the rediscovery of tekhelet together.>

Now, now. I may be argumentative, I may be curmudgeonly, but I am never disingenuous. Any disingenuousness you see in my arguments is solely a result of your own disingenuity.

<Each must be examined on its own merit and evaluated seriously.>

I agree. I have evaluated your arguments and they are unconvincing. “Seriously,” though, I cannot claim to achieve. My arguments are serious, but my tongue is usually in my cheek.

You claim that the contemporaries of the Radzyner raised problems with his t’kheles which are do not apply to the Murex t’kheles. The specific issues they addressed indeed do not apply. But you are missing the majorthrust of my argument.

In the absence of any masorah, what we would need for positive identification is a) finding something that matches closely the statements in the g’moro, or b) that matches what the rishonim who had seen the hillazon and its production say, or c) really convincing archeological evidence. Let me cover these one by one.

Regarding b): It appears that no evidence exists from rishonim who had seen it. Micha had written earlier, quoting R. Sterman that “Equating tekhelet with purpura and the color of purpura: The Chavot Ya’ir in his M’kor Chayim… The Shiltei haGiborim… The Musaf la’Aruch… Midrash haGadol from Yemen…, and the Aruch…” The idea that techeiles and royal purple have the same source recurs throughout the period in which techeiles wasn’t worn. One could argue that at least a theoretical, if not practical, mesorah did exist.>

That is scarcely the case. Masoros about identification of objects are lost far more quickly. Just witness the mahloqes’n among the rishonim about such basic identifications as the sh’mone sh’rotzim or the 5 grains required to make matzo and hometz. Not only scientists like Dr. Yehudah Felix, but major rishonim like the Rambam deny that oats or rye belong to the five grains. And the five grains, whatever they were, all existed in the time of the rishonim, though maybe in a different place from where they lived.

Qal vahomer regarding t’kheles, which was lost in the time of the g’onim. A point curiously overlooked by those (including the P’til society) who bring purported proofs from the Rambam about the identity of the hillazon is what he says in Perush Hamishnayos (1st mishna in pereq HaT’kheles, in my translation from the Arabic): “we do not have it [t’kheles] today, because we are not sure about its dye [or “we are not knowledgable about dying it”], for not every kind of blue in clothing is t’kheles, but only a specific kind of blue that is not possible nowadays (lam tumkin alyom). Therefore we only make lovon.” The Rambam is clearly stating that, to the best of his knowledge, the source of t’kheles is not available in his day. (Note that the Rambam lived on the shores of the Mediterranean before the purple industry totally ceased with the fall of Byzantium. The Rambam was also familiar, through the Arab naturalists, with Pliny. One might well ask that since the purple industry was known in the Rambam’s time, although very tightly controlled, and the Rambam knew what the Roman naturalists said about the mollusc that was the source of the dye, why the Rambam does not identify it as the source and just say we don’t know how to process it.)

Regardless of whether the Rambam was indeed correct that the t’kheles was impossible in his day (the P’til society would claim that he was in error, since the murex was readily available), it is completely clear that he himself did not know nor had ever seen anything that he considered t’kheles, and so the accuracy of his statements about the hillazon must be just the tradition that he had heard, without having seen it. So his descriptions cannot be taken too literally, especially not if it does not match the g’moro.

If the Rambam, living in the place of t’kheles and before the dye industry completely shut down, had never seen it and cannot identify it, what sort of tradition do you think was available to the Chavos Ya’ir, in 17th century Germany? However, the Chavos Ya’ir was very familiar with the secular sciences, and any identification he makes is scientific guesswork, not a masorah. The same goes for the other sources sources mentioned, with the exception of the Arukh, who, like the Rambam, lived at a time and place where the purple dye industry was known. And the Arukh suggests that Tyrian is Latin or Greek for t’kheles, but is completely and strangely silent about identifying the hillazon with the Muricidae. Speculation by others like the Mosaf la’Arukh (1600), who lived long after the Rambam and the Arukh as to the identity of t’kehles is no worse, but no better, than my speculation about its identity. The only statement that indicates anything is the Ramban, who says “v’hat’khelet gam hayyom lo yarim ‘ish et yado lilbosh hutz mimmelekh haggoyim.” I take that to mean that the Ramban is identifying t’kheles with royal purple, as the P’til society does, but the Ramban fails my test of a rishon who had seen the hillazon and the production of t’khelet. It is impossible to conceive that someone who grew up and lived in Christian Spain, who had little access to the works of Pliny would know more than the Rambam. Nor, in discussing t’kheles in the mitzva of tzitzis does he indicate that he knows how it is made.

[Following my line of argument, I will be fair and ignore what the Rambam says about the hillazon in Perush haMishnayot Bekhorot 6:2 that hillazon means the same thing as nahash (i.e. a long creature, certainly). I am claiming that the Rambam’s description cannot be taken to literally, since he never saw it, so I cannot argue that the Rambam proves Murex is not it, since Murex scarcely resembles a snake.]

So then we go to a), the statements in the g’moro about the hillazon. Regarding the g’moro in M’nohos about the hillazon, Micha has argued that the list explains certain significant features, and not, like R. Singer holds, identifying characteristics. The P’til society follows the same tack, explaining how the features can be reconciled to the facts about Murex. I am not going to argue that the reconciliations are impossible. But I would like to point out where that gets us. They say “gufo dome layam” means that it is camouflaged, probably by the algae that grow on its shell in the wild. “Biryato doma ladag” means it spawns. “Oleh ahat l’shiv’im shana” means that it periodically is less abundant as a result of overfishing. “Midamo ‘osin t’khelet” just means that t’kheles is made somehow from some bodily secretion. So the g’moro is saying that the hillazon is a sea creature that may be camouflaged (or not) and can be overfished and spawns. Rabbosai, what does that not include? Yes, it excludes giant sea turtles, because they lay eggs. Yes, it excludes brightly colored fish. But it includes almost everything else. Starfish, octopodes, all molluscs, gastropods and cephalopods, oysters and clams, sharks, manta rays, crabs, flounder and hundreds of other kinds of fish. All may be camouflaged, spawn, may be overfished, and have bodily fluids. Hazal would therefore be saying the only significant feature or identifying characteristic of hillazon is that you make t’kheles from its fluids. Wonderful! The significant features of the animal from which you make t’kehles is: the animal you make t’kheles from! For that Hazal spent a line in the g’moro? Just to tell us that it is not bright and the dye is not made from its skin or muscles? The P’til society relies on the g’moro that states that we learn potzea’ from hillazon, which means it has a hard shell or tough mantle. This does not help us too much, since virually all molluscs and lots of other things have hard shells or mantles. Cephalopods, for instance, and starfish. They also highlight the g’moro that says the dye is best when taken from a live or freshly killed hillazon, which does correspond to Murex. But the major problem with using these two as conclusive evidence is that other g’moros seem to contradict the Murex. The one about testing t’kheles versus indigo, which would be impossible if they were chemically identical. Micha speculates that the bromine which ends up in the dye might affect the characteristics of the test, but admits that this is mere speculation R. Sterman adds his own speculation, which he also has not tested, and asserts that no one understands how the g’moro’s test works. That may be true (although R. Singer thinks he does), and it is certainly not P’til’s fault. But the bottom line is that that g’moro presents a challenge to P’til, to figure out how it might work, and certainly not a support for the identification. We may eventually figure out what the g’moro means, but right now we are left in doubt. There also is the Yerushalmi. Whereas the Bavli was composed in a place where there was no t’kheles industry, one might well expect that the Yerushalmi, composed in a place and time where and when t’kheles was available, might give reliable descriptions. Yet the g’moro (Shabbos 1:3) says “hillazon yesh lo gidin va’atzomos” (sinews/muscles and bones). That is certainly not a statement that one would make about a mollusc. A friendly octopus, maybe, since at least octopodes have beaks. But molluscs like the murex have nothing hard save their shell. [Besides, Muricidae are not as friendly as octopodes!] Attempts to reinterpret the Yerushalmi are extremely far-fetched, as R Herzog points out. So a) fails as well. We may eventually be able to reconcile the Murex with the g’moros, although it is a stretch, but only if there were proof from elsewhere that Murex is it. So we come to c), archeological evidence. R. Sterman says, <In the case of the murex though, it is virtually unanimously accepted by secular scholars and an exhaustive amount of evidence from various disciplines has been offered to corroborate the murex as the source of the ancient tekhelet dye.> Now I might claim that this is disingenuous. What is “virtually unanimously accepted by the secular scholars and an exhaustive amount of evidence” is the Murex (brandaris and Thais haemastoma) are the source of the ROYAL PURPLE. Secular scholars know nothing about the requirements for t’kheles, and they are either speculating with no basis or quoting the work of P’til and its members. As I continue to point out, the evidence of the huge piles of shells from all over were known in the time of R. Herzog, and scientists had discussed them and identified them as connected with the royal purple. These shells appear at multiple sites around the Mediterranean. I read recently that piles of Murex trunculus had been discovered at Carthage, the Punic capital, and that coins there show the trunculus. Is anybody seriously going to claim that the ‘ovdai ‘avodah zoro (real true blue AZ!), were supporting an industry to supply Jews (who were apparently as rare in Carthage as hillazons) with their t’kheles, and featuring that fact on their coins? (Note to the linguistic irregulars: the plural should be helzonim or helzonot). Ella mai? Just what I am pointing out: the goyim had a major industry of producing purple and purple-blue, and used not only Thais haemastoma and Murex brandaris, but also Murex trunculus. All these shells are evidence of the massive dye industry producing royal purple and similar dyes. I will freely admit, R. Sterman, that if we know how to make blue out of the Murex species and Thais that they did as well. But there is no evidence that they did, nor any evidence that they used any of their dying industry for tzitzis. When we find the evidence (say, even, some Murex shells with some tzitzis next to them) you will have some evidence. Until then, we are left with 1) evidence of a large-scale dying industry that indeed is “virtually unanimously accepted” as producing royal purple; 2) evidence that you can produce a blue dye, chemically identical to indigo, from Murex; 3) no evidence that that was ever done or used for tzitzis. P’til’s remaining argument is that if you can produce blue from Murex, and it is not t’kheles, then why didn’t Hazal warn us against buying blue made from Murex? But the blue and purple made from Murex was a monopoly, and, as Carthage indicates, a source of major income for the city state. Consider the following: just for the sake of argument, imagine that t’kheles is made from an as yet unknown marine species. You can get blue dye from this hillazon, or from indigo, or from Murex. The indigo costs $20, the hillazon costs $150 (not unreasonable, since the g’moro says “damav y’qarim,” and the Murex costs $300. Furthermore, you may be arrested for buying Murex dye, and you have to keep changing suppliers: the nice Roman and Punic manufacturers who hold the monopoly have this inexplicable minhog of bumping off competition. The only people who will sell Murex dye to you are scoundrels (who are probably selling you plant indigo), or your local Afghan smuggler Ahmad. To get to Ahmad, you have to go in the middle of the night to an unmarked door in the bad part of town and say “Micha sent me.” The door you have to go to keeps changing, and a lot of the time people are mugged outside Ahmad’s door, since every honest thief knows that Ahmad only deals with people who pay cash and in American dollars. So Hazal, worrying about people buying fake t’kehles, are going to warn you not to buy the Murex? Anybody crazy enough to go to Ahmad and pay twice the price wouldn’t listen to Hazal anyway. I have not set out to prove that Murex is definitely not t’kheles. I cannot definitively do so, nor is that necessary for my argument. If the identification is questionable according to the g’moro, there is no authoritative testimony from the rishonim (and, inexplicably, the two rishonim who knew about Murex and the dye industry, do not identify it as the hillazon), and the archeological evidence proofs nothing, then we are left with a big fat sofeq (or at least a jumbo family size one). The P’til society says, “so what? What do you lose by putting on a sofeq?” And that is where my other argument comes in: that the g’dolim in the time of the Radzyner had a sofeq, and did not put on his t’kheles; I suggested that the reason is because you lose the mitzvo of lovon and gave my argument. If I am wrong, and their reason was something else, who am I to know better than they what to do in the case of a sofeq t’kheles? R. Singer has written that R. Chayim Ozer and R. Hayyim Berlin wore t’kheles privately. I do not believe that to be the case. Menahem Borshtein brings just that “it is a tradition among Radzyne chasidim” that these figures, as well as R. Hertzog, wore the Radzyner t’kheles secretly. If they felt that there was nothing wrong with being yotze the sofeq by wearing it, why not publicly? How come none of their talmidim, including those who learned by R. Hayim Ozer daily in his habura, knew anything about it? I think this is just a story, based on the fact that precisely these were the kind of g’dolim who would have seriously considered wearing it; R Hayyim Berlin did correspond with the Radzyner Rebbe with interest on the subject. It is easy enough for ardent supporters of any cause to go from “Ploni was correspondence and was really interested in discussing the merits of the case” to “Ploni supported the cause,” and I think that the stories have no credibility. From the rest of the g’dolim we find, according to R. Borshtein’s research, only various excuses about why they could not comment or get involved. That is the case with R. Yitzchoq Elhonon, with the Chofetz Chayim, with R. Shmuel Salant, with R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin, with R. Iser Zalman (and none of these are from what I call the “rejectionist front”). But why did they not wear it and vote with their feet, even if they did not have time to write t’shuvos on the subject? It is clear that they all had reservations. Nor do I think that R. Gebstein and R. Rabinovits represented all the objections of the g’dolim; none of the g’dolim mentioned ever refer to their books. The best summary is that of the Arukh haShulkhan, 9:12: “a few people followed him [the Radzyner Rebbe], but none of the g’dolei hador and most of k’lal Yisroel did not follow him.”

I think that the g’dolim refrained from wearing them because there was not enough evidence, and refrained from getting involved because the the argument had become very vitriolic (R. Gelbstein said in his book that it is a mitzva to tear off the tales in public of someone who was wearing Radzyne t’kheles).

Only if we had clear and convincing evidence would we go against the practice of R. Yitzchoq Elhonon and the others, and there is none as of now. Maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50 will convincing archeological evidence be found. Maybe an animal that exactly matches what the g’moro says will be found. There are fish that lived in the Mediterranean that are now extinct, and there are fish described in Hulin whose identity we don’t know. Perhaps he whose coming we all await will tell us where this specimin still survives, or clear up our s’feqos. But until that day is come, I think we would be better of following the practice of the g’dolim in the time of the Radzyner.

For afficionados of this subject, I will b’n post something quite short addressing some other of R. Micha’s points and the question of the color.

Seth Mandel

---

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:44:05 -0400

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

I want to clear up what seems to be conflicting claims.

The first is RSM’s statement (v8n14) that:

Incontravertible facts (the best kind, no?), that none of the g’dolim at the time of the Radzyner started wearing the Radzyner t’kheles.

Compare this to R’ Mendel Singer’s (v8n23):

According to Rabbi Borstein’s excellent sefer HaTecheiles, the Lev HaIvri, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger…

Subsequent iscussion of who he was, noted.

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

…

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….

The Maharsham, RCOG, and RYES aren’t “none of the gedolim”. The latter two were viewed by many to be THE poseqim of the generation. No?

(My father and I have differing memories as to whether my grandfather saw the C”C wearing techeiles on his talis qatan. I didn’t mention this until now, because my memory is poor enough to wonder if I dreamed up this memory. But it is consistant with R’ Borstein’s quote.)

Do we have anything other than skepticism about Radziner sources, to deny this claim?

Otherwise, it would seem that RYGB’s approach was that of some of the greatest gedolim of that dor.

(It would also seem to me that today, perishah min hatzibbur lacks the same oomf. We live in a society where no one is going to be clamoring to have my tallis pulled off my back over this issue.)

On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 06:36:42PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:

You claim that the contemporaries of the Radzyner raised problems with his t’kheles which are do not apply to the Murex t’kheles. The specific issues they addressed indeed do not apply. But you are missing the major thrust of my argument.

Actually, if they address specific issues, the implication is that the overall problem of lack of mesorah was NOT sufficient to dismiss Radziner techeiles. Who discusses peratim when the kelal is flawed?

seen it. Micha had written earlier, quoting R. Sterman that “Equating tekhelet with purpura and the color of purpura: The Chavot Ya’ir in his M’kor Chayim… The Shiltei haGiborim… The Musaf la’Aruch… Midrash haGadol from Yemen…, and the Aruch…” The idea that techeiles and royal purple have the same source recurs throughout the period in which techeiles wasn’t worn. One could argue that at least a theoretical, if not practical, mesorah did exist.> That is scarcely the case. Masoros about identification of objects are lost far more quickly…

You are arguing against allegation of fact with theory. I’m saying that since there is a shalsheles tracable at least to the Aruch, one could argue that this is luckily a venue in which the identification was not lost as quickly as usual. Or at least, that some echo of the identification existed amongst some theorists, even if we lost certainty that they are right.

Alternatively, you have to explain why every couple of centuries people make the same false identification without even making the dye.

BTW, what is “usual”? We didn’t forget what “devash” is, or “ari”, or “par”…

Qal vahomer regarding t’kheles, which was lost in the time of the g’onim….

Actually, it is unclear whether the Rambam never had access to techeiles. The Radziner argues otherwise, that after Peirush haMishnayos he did get his hands on some.

So then we go to a), the statements in the g’moro about the hillazon.

As I said, irrelevent.

It’s like going to the Medrash Rabba on the four minim, and trying to reconstruct what an esrog is. Knowing that it has both ta’am varei’ach, a pitom, an ukitz, a migdal (without being sure what thoser things are), and rows of bumps wouldn’t be enough to identify an esrog. And how does the word “tower” really refer to the top part of a citron?

If we’re going to consistantly address my suggestion, then the question the gemara is asking is why do we want sky-blue wool colored by a chilazon rather than kaleh ilan or some other dye?

Instead, you’re reverting back to the assumption that the gemara was discussing zoology rather than trying to find aggadic significance to the choice of chilazon.

So the g’moro is saying that the hillazon is a sea creature that may be camouflaged (or not) and can be overfished and spawns. Rabbosai, what does that not include? Yes, it excludes giant sea turtles, because they lay eggs. Yes, it excludes brightly colored fish. But it includes almost everything else. Starfish, octopodes, all molluscs, gastropods and cephalopods, oysters and clams, sharks, manta rays, crabs, flounder and hundreds of other kinds of fish….

But not all dyes come from fish.

If it’s not identification, than part of the question is “Why an underwater invertibrate?” and not necessarily “Which underwater invertebrate?”

R. Singer has written that R. Chayim Ozer and R. Hayyim Berlin wore t’kheles privately. I do not believe that to be the case. Menahem Borshtein brings just that “it is a tradition among Radzyne chasidim” that these figures, as well as R. Hertzog, wore the Radzyner t’kheles secretly. If they felt that there was nothing wrong with being yotze the sofeq by wearing it, why not publicly?

This was addressed. In light of the vitriol later mentioned, wearing it publicly raises halachic problems.

You also jump from the “I don’t believe” to using their lack of wearing it as a ra’ayah. To wit:

Only if we had clear and convincing evidence would we go against the practice of R. Yitzchoq Elhonon and the others, and there is none as of now.

…

For afficionados of this subject, I will b’n post something quite short addressing some other of R. Micha’s points and the question of the color.

Question? How can there be a question? Assuming kalah ilan = indigo, we know the color exactly. Are you suggesting that the kalah ilan dye wasn’t purely kalah ilan? I await that later post.

On Sat, Oct 20, 2001 at 10:10:55PM -0400, Mendel Singer replied to Ari Greenspan:

So you see even he’ who was interested in the topic, while the dying continued in Byzantium, was familiar intimately with kala ilan and knew the plant on a technical level was both unfamiliar with murex despite his assertion that it might exist. Yet he never bothered to look for it and he lived near the ocean! Hmmm…the Radvaz wrote about the chilazon, knew about k’la ilan, was near where they dyed with murex and yet doesn’t mention murex at all. Isn’t the obvious answer that he *knew* that murex was NOT the chilazon?

Apparantly people didn’t know how to turn the purple dye into a usable blue one. Otherwise, the question exists either way. If you know what kalah ilan is, you would also address why the murex is NOT techeiles (if you knew it weren’t). After all, the problem raised what that murex’s indigo is too similar, not dissimilar.

-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: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:27:14 +0000

From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: FW: T’kheles

Me: <This leads me to a general comment. A case where one group of Jews and its talmidei hakhomim have preserved a tradition about something … is, to my mind, completely different from a case where NO Jewish group has preserved a masorah…>

R. Micha: <Your argument is interesting, because it answers a question my father raised over Shemini Atzeres: Would RYBS argue that a kehillah that couldn’t get their hands on an esrog for a couple of generations should not bench lulav and esrog now that they can?>

No, RYBS did not argue that. He restricted his argument specifically to the case where the masora is lost entirely.

R. Micha: <This point is basically in debate between the Maharil and R’ Chaim Brisker (at least according to RYBS’s version of his objection to Radziner techeiles).>

You mean the Beis haLevi, who is the one who was approached by the Radzyner and rejected his t’kheles.

R. Micha: <Whereas RCB, the textualist fount of Brisker chumros, concluded that without a mesorah, we can’t use science to recreate one. (IOW, that science isn’t sevarah, but an outside chachmah.)>

R. Micha, that was not RYBS’s argument. Rather, that no sevoro can recreate a masora, not even a s’voro based on the g’moro. Science is as good a source of s’voro as anything else. This is in print: he quotes the Beis haLevi as saying “no raayos or s’voros can prove anything when the matter is a subject of masora ‘sh’al avikha v’yaggedkha,’ since there s’voro is not the deciding factor but the masora itself” (Shi ‘urim l’Zekher Abba Mari, vol.1, p 228, which matches my recollection exactly).

A s’voro can be used to recreate a practice or pasken a shaylo. But in deciding questions like “what is an esrog,” s’voro is irrelevant, since knowledge of what constitutes an esrog is handed down from father to son, not taught in yeshiva.

R. Micha: <In either case, the Maharil does not take your approach.>

This is NOT the approach I am using in my arguments here. I specifically included the Beis HaLevi argument as part of the rejectionist front. But the argument I am using is that those who do NOT belong to the rejectionist front still need more convincing proof than has been yet found.

Me: <As I believe R. Singer has since pointed out, you would have to be crazy/m’shuggener/a member of xxx [fill in the blanks: MO, RW, L, Tikkun] to make fake t’kheles with the Murex, if it indeed is not t’kehles…> R. Micha: <And yet, lema’aseh, we find murex shells. Wouldn’t this argue in favor of a strong reason to make such dye, one strong enough to drive people to mesiras nefesh?>

We find piles of murex shells in areas where we know the dye monopolies operated. We find no evidence of piles that would indicate they were used to produce t’kheles. If Murex trunculus were the source, what we would be looking for is piles of specifically Murex trunculus shells (not with big piles of murex brandaris or Thais haemastoma) near a Jewish area.

Archaeologists have not found such evidence yet, and given the relatively small size of Jewish t’kheles facilities (whatever the hillazon was), they may never be found.

R. Ari Greenspan: <Regarding Dr Singers comments on the Beit Halevi and his suggestion that murex was widely known at the time of the rishonim and gaonim: I believe that his facts are historically incorrect…

2. 6th — 10th century Imperial policy restrictive in the extreme. The

technique became a uniquely Byzantine secret.

3. Under Moslem rule previous dye centers ceased to exist (Tyre etc.)

4. While the rest of the world was ignorant of the dye and process Byzantium

prized it but did not export the dye or dyed cloth at all. Even in 968, when Liutprand, Bishop of Cremona visited Constantinople of a diplomatic mission, the royal colors were denied to him.

5. Even then, where the sole murex dyers were in Byzantium, the penalty for

private dying was the amputation of a hand. Therefore’ the usage continued but under extreme limitations and by a handful of people that were pledged to keep it secret and all of this was in Byzantium ‘ not Erope or North Africa. The assertion that the Gaonim and Rishonim knew about it and rejected it is false. Firstly, they did not live near Byzantium and secondly the usage was so limited as not to be seen by the masses at all. The fact that a fisherman on the coast of Italy might have pulled the murex up in a net once in a while without any idea that there once was a royal garment or color that existed’ let alone that it came from the body of a little snail, does not mean that the Rishonim knew and rejected it.> ‘ad kan R. Greenspan.

I freely concede that it is impossible to know exactly what the rishonim knew. However, R. Greenspan paints too bleak a picture. He fails to mention something that R. Herzog noted: that Binyamin of Tudela said that there was a purple dye industry producing royal purple operating in Tyre when he visited during his travels. (R, Herzog notes this in connection with his guess that the Muslim conquest in 683 put an end to the large-scale purple dye industry.) Now said R. Benyamin was traveling from 1160 to 1173, and probably go to EY around the middle of the period, in 1165 or 1166. That puts him there at exactly the time the Rambam was around: the Rambam and his family (he was still a ravvaq zaqen) fled from Morocco to Acco/Acre apparently in the spring of 1165, and remained in EY for some 18 months. If that industry had been reestablished earlier then the Arukh in Italy might have known about it. But the Rambam must at least have heard that the purple dying industry was in existence (Acco and Tyre were in the same general “country” in those days), and he had read Pliny (in the Arabic) and knew what he said about the source of the dye. Yet his description of the hillazon does not match Murex closely, and his statements, which I quoted two days ago, indicate that he never saw anything or heard of anything that he thought was the source of t’kheles.

I do not claim that this proves that indigo from the Muricidae is not t’kheles; that is not my argument, and the evidence may possibly be reconciled — IF we had convincing evidence from elsewhere that is was.

The Rambam is also the source of an extremely interesting idea. A close reading of the Rambam in Hil. Tzitzis, 2:1, indicates clearly that the Rambam (who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list ;-)) thought that there are tzvei bezundere halokhos in t’kheles. To quote: “T’khelet ha’amura baTorah hi hatzemer hatzavua’ kiftukh shebakohal, v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit la’ayin b’tohoro shel raqia’. V’hat’khelet ha’amura batzitzit tzarikh shet’he tz’vi’atah tz’vi’a y’du’a she’omedet b’yofyah v’lo tishtanne.” It is clear that the Rambam is making a distinction between t’kheles of kot haTora kullah and t’kheles in tzitzis.

This is not my hiddush. Several of the nosei kelim of the Rambam noted this, and R. Herzog spent several pages on discussing the Rambam. However, R. Herzog (and, following him, the P’til Tekhelet society get involved in discussing the possibility that the Rambam might accept any dye which meets his requirements of fastness and color.

As a linguist, I feel that WADR this is not the Rambam’s intent. I note that the assumption that many of the phrases here are translations of the Arabic solves some of the problems:

1) “tz’vi’a y’du’a” corresponds to the Arabic used in Perush Hamishnayot

“la nuhsin tzibaaghahu,” which I had translated “we are not sure about its dye” [or “we are not knowledgable about dying it”]. The Arabic tzibaagh is both a noun (dye or color) and a gerund (dying). The Rambam used the gerund form in Hebrew, but he really means “dye,” the noun (he could not have used tzeva’, of course, since that would mean color.

2) when talking about the hillazon, he says “uvyam hamelah hu

matzuy.” This is transparently a mistake; the Rambam was thinking in Arabic, and in Arabic the Mediterranean is called “albahr almaalih,” “the salt sea.,” (whereas the Dead Sea is called in Arabic albahr almayyit, “the dead sea”). (The P’til’s attempt to show that all the rishonim disagree anyway, since some say the Mediterranean, the Rambam says the dead sea, and the Zohar says the Kinneret is just a straw man. The Rambam clearly means the Mediterranean, and he was just thinking in Arabic. The Zohar is not clear evidence, since even if it was composed originally by R. Shim’on ben Yohai, the Yaavetz proves that many sections were added or changed later.)

y’du’a, then is just the Hebrew translation of ma’luum, which is also used in the Perush haMishnayot “zurqa ma’luunma,” “a specific blue color.” Indeed, etymologically, ma’luum corresponds exactly to yadua’. However, whereas the Hebrew normally means “[well] known,” the Arabic just as often means “specific, certain” (and so R. Qafih correctly translated it there as “takhlut m’suyyemet”). So “tz’vi’a y’du’a” here in the Mishneh Torah means “a specific dye,” and the sentence means “the t’khelet mentioned in tzitzit must be a specific dye, that maintains its beauty and does not change/fade.”

The Rambam would not agree that any dye that maintains its beauty and does not change would qualify.

BUT that is for the t’kehlet mentioned in tzitzit. The t’khelet mentioned elsewhere in the Torah, according to the Rambam, does not need to be made from this specific dye. And so the Rambam might agree that Murex dye (or some other dyes) might be kosher for bigdei k’hunna. And similarly the Rambam might not have an objection to the Ramban’s idea that contemporary rulers were wearing t’khelet: but the t’khelet of kol haTorah kullah, not t’khelet of tzitzit. [R. Herzog discusses at length the source of this hilluq of the Rambam.]

The other point is the color. The Rambam says “hatzavua’ kiftukh shebakohal, v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit la’ayin b’tohoro shel raqia’,” “dyed as blue eyeshadow, and this is the appearance of the sky visible to the eye b’tohoro shel raqia’,” which we are getting to. The printed editions have “v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit l’ein hashemesh b’tohoro shel raqia’,” which people translate as “the sky near the sun,” or light blue. The problem with that is that in three separate places the Rambam calls the color “shahor” or “mashhirin,” i.e. very dark.

R Qafih notes that hashemesh is not found in any of his manuscripts, and so the color is only defined by the term “b’tohoro shel raqia’.” What does that mean? Fortunately for us, the term reoccurs in the Rambam. In Hilkhot T’rumot 7:2 he defines when tzet hakokhavim is, and he says “about a third of an hour after sunset, as the pasuq says ‘uva hashemesh v’taher’: ” ‘ad sheyithar haraqia’ min ha’or.” In other words, the phrase means 20 minutes after sunset (in EY and Egypt), when the light has left the sky.” (The Rambam, here at least, is paskening like the Geonim that tzet hakokhavim is not 45 or 50 or 72 or 90 minutes after sunset, but ž of a mil, and so he says “approximately,” because the possible values of a mil are 22.5 or 24 minutes.) 20 minutes after sunset in EY the sky is no longer pink on the western horizon, the brightest stars that are not visible ever during the day are beginning to appear, and the color of the sky is a deep, rich, dark blue — matching indigo, or navy blue. This description is also that of Rashi in Parshat Sh’lah, “domeh laraqia’ hamashhir l’et ‘erev.”

Seth Mandel

---

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 09:03:21 -0400

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

I would like to clear up an issue being bounced around between RSM and myself. Note that both of us are unsure of the claim that murex trunculus is the chilazon. He leans toward the negative, I toward the positive. However, that’s not the distinction that makes the nafka mina in our behaviour. It’s the question of whether safeiq techeiles is better or worse than lavan.

RSM already noted why he believes it is better not to use a safeiq techeiles, and both of us already noted the Tosafos who hold that it is better to use it.

Add to that the following statement from R’ Shlomoh Taitelbaum (I have not yet seen the Ma’aseh Ish):

[T]he Chazon Ish (as recorded in Maaseh Ish) 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….

It would seem to me that for some reason that totally eludes me, there is strong reason not to understand the gemara as RSM does. Tosafos and the CI is a pretty strong set of al mi lismoch.

It also distances the current situation from that of a century ago. The CI casts the machloqes then to be entirely about the strength of the identification, and not meta-issues found in common between the two claims.

Now, on to the tangential issue of the strength of the identification of the murex…

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 12:27:14AM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:

The other point is the color. The Rambam says “hatzavua’ kiftukh shebakohal, v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit la’ayin b’tohoro shel raqia’,” “dyed as blue eyeshadow, and this is the appearance of the sky visible to the eye b’tohoro shel raqia’,” which we are getting to. The printed editions have “v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit l’ein hashemesh b’tohoro shel raqia’,” which people translate as “the sky near the sun,” or light blue. The problem with that is that in three separate places the Rambam calls the color “shahor” or “mashhirin,” i.e. very dark.

As I said, claims that the color of the murex-derived dye is wrong are inconsistant with claims that the murex-derived dye is too chemically similar (the active ingrediant being identical) to indigo.

This pits the Rambam against the identification of the indigo plant as kalah ilan. Possibly making him a da’as yachid, but certainly in the mi’ut.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 09:35:32PM -0700, Ari wrote:

Regarding Janthina [R’ Herzog] states “does Janthina satisfy Shabbat 7fa? Or does the passage in question refer only to the argaman species? The first question I must leave for the present unanswered. With regard to the second, I should say that Prima Facie one would be inclined to say that the text has in view both species, but is really difficult to decide the point.” (pg 73)

This touches on an issue I’ve seen raised, although I don’t think I’ve seen it here though. Can we say that argaman and techeiles come from the same (or nearly the same) species if the gemara doesn’t note this pretty significant fact?

Whether or not I think one can prove anything from this absence, it would seem that R’ Herzog entertained the possibility that the gemara does note it.

-mi

—
Micha Berger Time flies…
micha@aishdas.org … but you’re the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org – R’ Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905

---

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:06:36 -0400

From: “Edward Weidberg” <eweidberg@tor.stikeman.com>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 12:27:14AM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:

The other point is the color. The Rambam says “hatzavua’ kiftukh shebakohal, v’zo hi d’mut haraqia’ hanir’eit la’ayin b’tohoro shel raqia’,” “dyed as blue eyeshadow, and this is the appearance of the sky visible to the eye b’tohoro shel raqia’,” which we are getting to.. . .

What does the word “kiftukh” mean here? I thought it meant faded.

In a different context (Mishna Nego’im 1:2) relating to shades of tzora’as, Rambam and others translate “Hapotukh” as “mixed” meaning a shade mixed of white and red.

Also, I heard in the name of Rav Shlomo Miller, a Rosh Kollel here in Toronto and a leading Posek, who raised the possibility that wearing sofek T’kheles may be a problem of Bal Tosif/Bal Tigra, given the disagreement among Rambam, Ra’avad and Tosefos as to whether one, two or four strings are blue.

KT Avrohom Weidberg

---

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:17:06 -0500

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

R. Micha: <(It would also seem to me that today, perishah min hatzibbur lacks the same oomf. We live in a society where no one is going to be clamoring to have my tallis pulled off my back over this issue.)> As noted, no one would pull a RY’s talles off of his back, nor even criticize what he did in his own yeshiva, and several RY’s had their own private minhogim, known among their talmidim, which were out of the norm. That answers your later statement <In light of the vitriol later mentioned, wearing it publicly raises halachic problems.>

Not really. My point was that today no one would get heated anough about it to tear off anyone’s tallis. It’s simply not a divisive issue anymore at any level. My issue had nothin to do with whether a given instance would raise any particular people’s hackles.

Saying that people’s respect for a RY could overcome that hostility doesn’t mean there was no hostility.

-mi

—
Micha Berger “The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org excessive anxiety…. Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org ‘The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905 trust and not be afraid.'” (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

---

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 13:58:59 +0000

From: “Seth Mandel” <sethm37@hotmail.com>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

R. Mendel Singer: <It is at least a little conceited to think that he [Rav Herzog] 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.>

R. Baruch Sterman: <I disagree with this assertion. We have to differentiate between halachic principles and the application of those principles to a given situation. Just as it is not “conceited” to discuss the Rambam’s opinion regarding turning on a light on shabbat, it is perfectly acceptable to examine what the Radzyner or Rav Herzog would say about a particular candidate for the chilazon — given their writings on the halachic criteria for accepting or rejecting a chilazon… Assuming that the color of tekhelet is indigo (an assumption that many, though not all, poskim accept), then according to the Radzyner, tekhelet from Murex would be kosher… If we look at the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik that without an unbroken tradition as to the identity of the chilazon, one can not consider a chilazon to be halachically valid, then neither Radzyn nor Murex tekhelet would be acceptable… If one accepts the position attributed to the AR”I, that the mitzvah of tekhelet will/can not be reinstated until Mashiach comes, then you can draw the appropriate halachic conclusions…

The bottom line — and really the only line — that P’Til Tekhelet asserts is that according to some views, Murex dye is kosher for tekhelet. As such, we make the strings available for those people whose understanding of the various and complex halachic issues lead them to the conclusion that they would like to wear tsitsit with Murex tekhelet. If someone feels in light of the different opinions and data that they would rather wear Radzyn tekhelet or wear only white — or even that they would rather not wear tsitsit at all — that is a halachic decision that any bar-hachi has the right to make.> I applaud R. Sterman for his measured words. I support P’til’s efforts to research t’khelet and make it available for those who wish, even as I argue that none should so wish. I also agree that one can draw appropriate conclusions from the words and statements of various rabbonim. I believe that I and R. Singer were saying that we believe that R. Herzog had several problems with Murex, and P’til has not answered all of them, but I agree that the color fastness issue (perhaps his main one) has been addressed. After reviewing the correspondence with R. Shlomo Taitelbaum, I don’t think I wish to reply to it all. With absolutely no malice aforethought toward him, it seems to me that he has ignored my attempts to introduce some good humor into the conversation, and has even argued with my statement that the Rambam was a Brisker (which I made with the caveat of “;-)”). Mefears he is decidedly grim on the subject; I shall leave it to Di Brider Grimm to explain to him what happens if you don’t leaven your arguments with some levity. I think most understand me: I continue to believe that the evidence is not much better than it was 85 years ago. The only change has been that it has been discovered that you can make a color fast dye of the right shadeof blue from Murex. There is no evidence that anyone in antiquity tried to make such a dye; the large-scale purple dye industry apparently liked the purple colors better, although I agree that they probably knew how to make blue. There is absolutely no evidence from anywhere of the t’kheles industry or what it used as the source of the dye, and I continue to hold that there is no evidence from the rishonim who could have known about the t’kheles industry. And there are many fish in the sea (c’mon, to show we are light hearted about this, let’s all join in a chorus of that), and some that are now extinct; I have not investigated about getting a color fast blue dye from any of them. I will point out again that you can make indigo from Murex brandaris and Thais haemastoma by the same process that you make it from Murex trunculus. If they are all good, then the identification of the hillazon as the source of t’kheles must mean that hillazon just means some sort of mollusc or gastropod. The problem with that is that there are many, many gastropods around in the Mediterranean, most of whom do not produce the dye. So why do the g’moro and the Rambam make a point that it has to come from a hillazon? Just to exclude kala ilan? I will also point out that it seems to me that the Rambam at least had a more specific word to describe the Murex: shabb’lul, which he uses in hil. Tzitzis in talking about the test to distinguish t’kehles from plant indigo. (The g’moro has the same word, but other rishonim interpret it differently.) It at least indicates that the Rambam did not think that Murex was the hillazon. That, of course, is not proof against is, since I have argued that the Rambam clearly did not know what it was.

There are a lot of unknowns, too many, I feel, for people to start wearing in light of the fact that none of the Litvishe, Polish, or German g’dolim wore, and only a tiny minority of Hungarian and Galiciane. (There: I have qualified it, since there is the sole example of the Maharsham, a Galicianer godol who felt it was a sofeq, and R. Shlezinger who may or may not be considered a gadol, although he certainly was a great talmid chokhom). I have given one possible reason, which I believe is true. R. Taitelbaum’s objection that none of the g’dolim used it is specious, since they did not give any of their reasons. His inference that my “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” is a gratuitous attack on my integrity in learning; those few on the list who know me know that I learned from my Rebbi that it is a mitzva to admit when you are wrong. I was just pointing out that there is no discussion by the CI himself on the subject, since his writings are usually well-reasoned. If the CI indeed held that way, I will have to disagree with him; many, including R. Velvel and RYBS and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, disagreed sometimes with the CI, and I do not know why I have to agree with him on everything, although I respect his opinion. As I clearly said, R. Elyashiv apparently agrees with my line of reasoning, so this is not Seth Mandel vs. the CI (now THAT would be a real joke).

I cannot read the minds of the g’dolim of 100 years ago. I would be extremely gratified to find that I was m’khavven to the opinion of some of them; if they did not agree with my reasoning, then there were other reasons, some of which we may not know. But I insist that social pressure does not explain the refusal of the roshei yeshiva — every single one of them — to wear it. R. Micha has suggested that they might have been waiting for a better sofeq. If they were, I will argue they would still be waiting, and the burden of proof lies on those that argue that the discovery that you can make a blue dye from Murex would have made them change their minds. I have not argued for the rejectionist front. I have not said that “the P’til society can never prove that Murex is the hillazon.” I think I have laid out what would be needed for such a proof: showing how the Murex dye meets the test of the g’moro to distinguish it from plant indigo, which P’til apparently is working on, and finding archeological evidence about the t’kheles, either finding real tzitzis or finding evidence of a t’kheles dying facility. These proofs may not be easy to find, but withoutout them I have almost nothing.

So if my position is clear, there is little point quibbling with grim gremlins of gratuitousness (my sincere apologies to R. Taitelbaum for calling him that. It is my fault. For years I have labored under an inferiority complex resulting from the idea that I shall never come up with something as inspired as the line that William Safire created for our late unlamented VP Spiro Agnew, and the juxtaposition of “grim” and “gratuitous” in one post was too much to resist). If someone wishes me to explain how I would answer one of R. Taitelbaum’s points, I should be glad to respond. But I think that most have tired of the subject already (do I hear choruses of hear, hear! in the background?). The only point that I can see a need to deiscuss now is R. Taitebaum’s claim that my argument against wearing sofeq t’kheles is only true according to Rashi and the Rambam, and not the Beis Yosef himself, nor the R’mo’. So my position is only theoretical, since we do not pasken that way.

I am not so sure that he is right concerning the R’mo. I have stated in the past that it is clear that Tosafos holds that the color of the tzitzis make no difference, and that they do not understand where Rashi gets his shitto from. There are several rishonim that follow the Tosafos’ shitto. The Beis Yosef quotes the S’MaG that you can put colored tzitzis on a white beged, and quotes the Rashba as agreeing. However, the T’rumas haDeshen that the Beis Yosef quotes is slightly different: “lo nahaginan haidna b’shum maqon raq b’tzitizyot shehem l’vanim v’lo tz’vu’im, va’afilu b’talit qatan shehu mimine tz’va’im lo ra’iti miyamai ehad shehaya m’tzuyyatz raq b’tzitzit lavan.” Pretty clear to me that he is saying the tzitzit cannot be any color other than lavan. Then the Beis Yosef quotes his rebbe who quotes the Ba’al ha’Ittur “tzitziyot shel lavan qod’min l’khol hatziv’onim.. stam talitot shelahem hayu l’vanim aval im ‘ein lanu lavan az tzarikh sheyihye mitzeva’ hattalit.” So the ‘Ittur agrees with the Rambam and Rashi. The Beis Yosef says since Rashi and the Rambam agree that the tzitzit MUST be the color of the talis, and Tosafot and the Ra’avad agree that they should be, “nakhon l’hizzaher baddavar v’khen ra’iti ham’daqd’qim nohagim la ‘asot hatzitzit mitzeva’ hatalit.”

The R’mo says about that in the Darkhei Moshe: “va’ani lo ra’iti miyamai tzitzit ela lavan v’ein l’shannot.” It seems clear from his loshon that he is agreeing with T’rumas haDeshen, that lavan must be white, not like the Rambam and Rishi that the color changes with the beged, but also not like Tosafos, that it is just a matter of hiddur and noy and the tzitzis can be whatever color they want. I will therefore argue that the P’til society has Tosafos and the Rashba on their side, but I have the Rambam, Rashi, the Raavad, T’rumas haDeshen and the R’mo on my side, that it DOES matter what the color of the strings are that are not t’kheles. (The Beis Yosef, as is his wont, is too cautious to know what he really thinks or himself would pasken.)

R. Taitelbaum argues that the strings that were t’kheles in the time of the g’moro can be any color at all nowadays, and the rishonim were only talking about the strings that had to be lavan. I see little point in repeating my arguments; it seems clear to me (and to other people that I show Rashi and the Rambam to) that they held that without t’kheles all strings must be lavan and not any color you want. It still seems to me as well that Rashi for sure and probably the Rambam believe that the din that lavan has to be the color of the garment is a d’orayso, although the taqqono that I claim exists that without t’kheles all strings must be lavan is d’rabbnon. But not a sofeq d’rabbonon, just a taqqono d’rabbonon. I am sure R. Taitelbaum will disagree, and I leave it to the reader to analyze the sources himself.

And to show I do admit mistake, I humbly apologize for R. Taitelbaum for attributing to him calling R. Yitzhoq Elhonon the maggid of Kovno. The quotation was indeed in something that he posted, but, looking back, it was a quotation from R. Mendel Singer that R. Taitelbaum was responding to.

And that’s it from me.

Seth Mandel

---

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 16:34:17 +0200

From: “Shlomoh Taitelbaum” <sjtait@surfree.net.il>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

R. Seth Mandel wrote:

I continue to believe that the evidence is not much better than it was 85 years ago. The only change has been that it has been discovered that you can make a color fast dye of the right shade of blue from Murex.

There is significance in that (though not proof). Like I previously pointed out, there is no mashmaus in sifrei Chazal nor, l’havdil, in the ancient secular works that more than one creature (beyond the insects) can be used to create a permanent dye, and similarly nowadays the murex snails are the only ones known to be able to do the same. Add to that they all produce blue dyes . . . (Don’t jump yet where do I get that the goyim used murex for blue–I’ll get there.

There is no evidence that anyone in antiquity tried to make such a dye;

the large-scale purple dye industry apparently liked the purple colors better, although I agree that they probably knew how to make blue. There is absolutely no evidence from anywhere of the t’kheles industry or what it used as the source of the dye,<

From my unpublished response to Dr. Singer’s article:

“And we can clearly deduce from the classical scholars that the color blue was produced from the purple snail. Pliny throughout his work Natural History refers to purpura and conchylia, two different dyes prepared from the same kind of shellfish (IX, lxi, 130). The translators are very confused by this. Pliny, however, is quite clear about the difference between them, not only in their dyeing processes (ibid. lxii and lxiv), but also in their colors. Describing different colored fabrics in relation to flowers, he considers some types of purpura red; others, amethyst or reddish purple; but conchylia runs the colors of heliotrope, mallow, and violet flowers. Pliny’s heliotrope was blue (XXII, xxix: “caeruleum florem,” blue flowers). This third category of colored fabrics seems to include the blue to bluish-violets. What would be more apt to use from among the three Mediterranian dyeing species of purpura (trunculus, brandaris, haemastoma) for conchylian colors than trunculus, which produces blue also? And Pliny tells us that was indeed what they used: “The pebble-purple is named after a pebble in the sea, and is remarkably suitable for conchylia dyes” (IX, lxi, 131). If one has seen murex trunculus and realizes that its common name is “rock murex,” one quickly realizes that this pebble purpura, “remarkably suitable for conchylia,” is none other than trunculus. I should clarify that I am not necessarily of the opinion that only techeiles from trunculus would be kosher; if blue could naturally be produced from brandaris or haemastoma it is a possibility that they too could be used for mitzvas techeiles, as all three species may be considered one. But it would be wise to remember that the possibility of this is only conjecture: a blue dye like that of trunculus has not been produced from any other species—it remains to be proven that it could.”

I will not claim to be a baki in Latin, and P’til Tekhelet may have succesfully produce fast blue from the other snails; so if anyone knows any of the above to be incorrect, please—don’t be shy.

and I continue to hold that there is no evidence from the rishonim who could have known about the t’kheles industry.<

The Aruch equates “tyrian” to techeles, and the Ramban (which RSM has conceeded seems to be so) believed that the source of the royal-purple dye was the same as that of tekheles. I realize that your (RSM’s) argument is that neither (or at least the Ramban–I’ll have to check up what you said) were in a position to really have known. However the Ramban equates the two: why would the Ramban have made such a statement without some certainty? He could have as easily said that tekheles was a chashuv dye made from sea creature like the royal cloaks of the “melech hagoyim” are made presently. Instead he attributes tekheles to His Royal Gentileness— Similarly, if the Aruch had no inkling of what tekheles was, why would he say that’s the peirush hamilah. If he knew what “tyrian” was and not tekheles, what’s the sense of being toleh d’yoda b’d’lo yoda?” If he didn’t know what either was, what’s he talking about; it’s about as logical as saying, “A Jabberwocky is a Clamcididdlehopper”—now that’s very informative! May there not have been a mesorah or some practical knowledge here? And from even earlier, the Midrash haGadol from Yemen quotes Rav Chiya as saying, “the purpura of the kings is made out of techeilet.” Now R’ Chiya I suppose was the first generation Amora. True the Midrash Hagadol itself is a far more recent work, but parts of it a re based on older midrashim—is there any reason not to believe R. Chiya is tellin us that tekhele is produced from purpura (murex) snail?

And there are many fish in the sea (c’mon, to show we are light hearted about this, let’s all join in a chorus of that), and some that are now extinct; I have not investigated about getting a color fast blue dye from any of them. I will point out again that you can make indigo from Murex brandaris and Thais haemastoma by the same process that you make it from Murex trunculus. If they are all good, then the identification of the hillazon as the source of t’kheles must mean that hillazon just means some sort of mollusc or gastropod.<

1) Like the ancients considered many types of purpura to be all “purpura”,

maybe the halacha too doesn’t recognize a hevdel between these snails (which all are really pretty similar to each other). 2) Chilazon could just mean snail (we can leave the oysters and octopodes out of this).

The problem with that is that there are many, many gastropods around in

the Mediterranean, most of whom do not produce the dye. So why do the g’ moro and the Rambam make a point that it has to come from a hillazon? Just to exclude kala ilan?<

Sounds good to me. If kala ilan is perfectly similar to t’cheles, so it has to make such a point — or else you may use kala ilan. I’ll continue from my article: “In fact, while the Tosefta (Menachot 9, 6) states unequivically: “Kermes from the mountain [species] is kosher, not from the mountain [species] is posul,” all it says about techeilet is, “from the chilazon is kosher, not from the chilazon is posul.” If there are two chilzonot (or a species similar to a chilazon) that can naturally produce a blue dye—and you most certainly can produce a natural, indigo blue dye from murex trunculus—why did the Tosefta not warn us like it warned us about the non-mountainous kermes?”

And I already know your next question: “Who says chilazon means anything more than the creature that produces t’cheles?” Which belongs together with what you continue . . .

I will also point out that it seems to me that the Rambam at least had a more specific word to describe the Murex: shabb’lul, which he uses in hil. Tzitzis in talking about the test to distinguish t’kehles from plant indigo. (The g’moro has the same word, but other rishonim interpret it differently.) It at least indicates that the Rambam did not think that Murex was the hillazon.<

There are definitely rishonim who equate “shabb’lul” with chilazon (see Radak, Shorashim, ShBL, where he references to mesechta A”Z 28b for a use of shabb’lul, though over their it mentions this refuah as coming from chilazon). Rashi also quotes the midrash on “Simlas’kha lo val’sah” As a “khomet’s clothes grow with it….” The source midrash (Psikta d’Rav Kahana) has “As a chilazon’s shell (nartiq) grows with it….” Consider that Rashi in Shmini explains khomet to ba a snail (limace). Rashi reserves the word chilazon for the t’kheles source alone, but even he seems to believe chilazon to be a snail. Just as shabb’lul in T’hillim he explains as limace—snail. I could go on (if you read my book you’ll find numerous more examples, some clearer but from achronim). But why did the Rambam use the word shabb’lul and not chilazon? First of all, the Rambam tends to use the lashon of the Gemara if it’s clear, even if it may be clearer otherwise. Besides, from context, it seems that chilazon is always referring to a sea snail, while shabb’lul is the land sort. Another possibility (suggested to me I believe by Dr. Sterman) is that chilazon is the one with a conical shell; shabb’lul, a spiral one.

That, of course, is not proof against is, since I have argued that the Rambam clearly did not know what it was.

This may be true; but he has simanim (I’m thinking of the dried black blood) that he either knew about or had b’mesorah. In other words, he wasn’t writing in the dark (just in the Dark Ages).

There are a lot of unknowns, too many, I feel, for people to start

wearing in light of the fact that none of the Litvishe, Polish, or German g’dolim wore, and only a tiny minority of Hungarian and Galiciane. (There: I have qualified it, since there is the sole example of the Maharsham, a Galicianer godol who felt it was a sofeq, and R. Shlezinger who may or may not be considered a gadol, although he certainly was a great talmid chokhom). I have given one possible reason, which I believe is true.<

Woh… ! One second here. What are you referring to? Radzyner t’kheles I’m not talking about (I’ve already stated enough times why it wasn’t serious). That it might be a problem of lavan? Not only Maharsham didn’t think it was a problem of that, but the Kutner Rav — the Yeshuos Malko, the Yeshuas Yisrael — write clearly in T’shuvah #3 that it is not a problem to wear even true kalailan in place of lavan. The fact that the Kutner Rav wrote that and still didn’t wear Radzyner t’kheles demonstrates that the that at least he , and perhaps the other g’dolim, did not wear the Radzyner hamtzo’ah simply because they did not take it seriously. As he himself wrote (ibid) that the Radzyner Torah is based on hash’aros and he could say hasharos the other way . The other g’dolim may not have agreed with that reason; but it SEEMS to me that if that was the reason, the g’dolim coud have—would have come out and said that to hold the issue. If however thay agreed with the Kutner Rav’s position, then we understand their quiet also: Kutner Rav writes he can’t elaborate on the problems with the Radzyner’s reasoning as it is not appropriate to put in writing.

His inference that my ‘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” is a gratuitous attack on my integrity in learning; those few on the list who know me know that I learned from my Rebbi that it is a mitzva to admit when you are wrong.

I apologize. And, I should point out, the Ma’aseh Ish that I got the CI tid-bit from is from a diary of R. Shraga Heiman zt”l (if the name says anything to anyone).

But please understand that your hisyachsus to the statement of the CI is my sentiments exactly about the Brisker Y’sod. The main reason why many in the Litvishe Oil’m don’t even bother to consider this is because of the Brisker Y’sod that a cheftza shel mitzva needs a mesorah. Now, the Maharil for sure did not hold this (at least in terms of the chilazon) as he writes in his T’shuvos Chadashos (M’chon Yerushalayim) #5 (b). Similarly, the Chemdas Shlomoh and Bris Avraham of the turn of the 19th century say the same thing.

So the Brisker Y’sod is arguing at least with this rishon and these achronim. Even the Rambam seems not to hold like that. (The Rambam freely admits he has not the least of a mesorah on what Ma’aseh merkava or ma’aseh breishis is, but from s’vara establishes their identity and goes on to pasken the identification l’halochoh; the consequences of course being permitting learning these subjects which would otherwise be considered bittul Torah, besides other ramifications which I leave to your imaginations. But the Rambam seems to believe that the identification of a cheftza shel mitzva is like many other things in Torah—ein l’dayan ela mah sheinav ro’os.) Furthermore, the consequences of this Y’sod (at least how R. Shachter portrays it in his Nefesh Harav) is neged how we (meaning most besides for shpitz Briskers) pasken (like not saying JUST mezonos on rice, and considering our sifrei Torah to be m’duyakim). So I’d be very interested to understand what this is all about. Without knowing why the Beis Halevi said what he said (or in what context): 1) How can anyone else even start to consider it in a cheshbon of what to follow (obviously this would not apply to a talmid muvhak as RSM is of RYBS);

2) Considering those t’shuvos of the Maharil were not published yet in

the days of the Bais Halevi, is there no place to say that if the Beis Halevi saw the Maharil he may not have said what he said, considering all the consequences mentioned above? If we would know what the s’vara is, it might be a different story.

But I insist that social pressure does not explain the refusal of the roshei yeshiva — every single one of them — to wear it.

That I definitely agree to.

I think I have laid out what would be needed for such a proof: showing how the Murex dye meets the test of the g’moro to distinguish it from plant indigo, which P’til apparently is working on, and finding archeological evidence about the t’kheles, either finding real tzitzis or finding evidence of a t’ kheles dying facility.

This last point I refer you to above where the fact that blue was also produced from purpura was mentioned. But let’s go through RSM’s list again of why murex t’kheles is a no go:

1) For himself, no mesorah etc.—discussed above.

2) No rayah from the Gemara: The point RSM made that “blood” from an living

or freshly killed organism would be necessary from any creature that would be used for dyeing is well taken. With kermes this is definitely NOT the case as only (California) sun-dried kermes (for about 2 weeks) are used for dye. I believe, however, that considering that something called chilazon has a shell (midrash p’sikta above and Rambam peirush haMishnayos, Keilim 12:1) I think the Gemara and Tosefta should have been more clear in warning us which kind of chilazon to use. The argument that the expense of murex precluded a need to warn against its use—though logical—doesn’t fit with what the Gemara warns us not to write Shem Hashem in STA”M with gold nor cover battim with gold; in other words, the Gemara also tells us m’furash not to try to improve on the mitzvos using more valuable materials.

3) No rayah from Rishonim: dealt with (partially) above.

4) No archeological findings: that our murex was used anciently for

dyeing is archeologically proven. That blue was dyed from murex, I refer to Pliny above. That we can dye blue from our murex I refer to Pt’il Tekhelet. So what’s missing, we haven’t found our murex dyeing blue at the archeological digs. OK, the search goes on . . .

RMS writes concerning wearing sofeik t’kheles b’makom lavan:

I am not so sure that he is right concerning the R’mo. I have stated in the past that it is clear that Tosafos holds that the color of the tzitzis make no difference, and that they do not understand where Rashi gets his shitto from.

I think it should be pointed out that the Tosafos are trying to explain Rashi — they believe Rashi holds it’s a d’rabbonon based on “zeh keili v’anveihu.” On 41b they indeed use “shemo”, but on 38b (s.v. midi tziva ha garim) they state it as “v’yaish lomar.” But, yes, perhaps I can’t rule out someone saying a different p’shat in Rashi.

the T’rumas haDeshen that the Beis Yosef quotes is slightly different: “lo nahaginan haidna b’shum maqon raq b’tzitizyot shehem l’vanim v’lo tz’vu’im, va’afilu b’talit qatan shehu mimine tz’va’im lo ra’iti miyamai ehad shehaya m’tzuyyatz raq b’tzitzit lavan.” Pretty clear to me that he is saying the tzitzit cannot be any color other than lavan.

But in the source he continues “v’af al gav d’ein k’peida b’tzeva k’lal.” His whole point (gathered from, or more like m’furash in, the t’shuvas T’rumas Hadeshen himself) is that nowadays no one uses anything besides white strings; therefore the issur of sewing within the knaf of a tallis because one may use the unused thread for tzitzis does not apply to colored thread. From the end of his statement (that I just brought) it seems clear that he doesn’t hold it has to be white, just l’ma’aseh that is what is done.

<Then the Beis Yosef quotes his rebbe who quotes the Ba’al ha’Ittur “tzitziyot shel lavan qod’min l’khol hatziv’onim.. stam talitot shelahem hayu l’vanim aval im ‘ein lanu lavan az tzarikh sheyihye mitzeva’ hattalit.” It still seems to me as well that Rashi for sure and probably the Rambam believe that the din that lavan has to be the color of the garment is a d’ orayso,>

Yes, I have to admit that at least according to the Ba’al Haittur one could not just wear any old blue string (not even a new one). But is this d’Oraiso? The string needs to be white so it should be the same color as the talleisim of Dor Hamibar based on “hak’naf — min k’naf,” but if he doesn’t have white, then it needs to be the same color as the tallis from the same drosho. This looks d’rabbonon to me. Similarly, if Rashi, Rambam, and Ra’avad hold that tzitzis need to be the same color as the beged is d’Oraiso,and there is no limud that it is not l’ikuva, that would mean that they hold white strings on a colored beged is posul. It seems a bit extreme, but maybe its true. What’s strange about it is that even the Ba’al Ha’ittur agrees that you are yotzei with colored strings; why didn’t the previous doros indeed wear colored strings to be yotzei tzitzis according to everyone instead of white which is best according to the Ba’al Ha’ittur, but is nothing according to all those rishonim. Also, according to Rambam (based on the Gemara obviously) on a tallis shel t’kheles you put lavan shel sha’ar tzva’im (from the Gemara it seems quite clear that this is a d’Rabbonon): if m’d’Oraiso lavan has to be the same color as the beged, then for the same reason they were gozer on a beged of pishtan they should have been gozer not to put tzitzis on a beged shel t’kheles. What’s accomplished by sha’ar minei tziv’onim for lavan? (This isn’t a ta’anah on shittas Rashi because he has a whole different m’halech in lavan.) All this besides the ta’anah of “lo yehai ela lavan” which I believe that if it was not l’maskana, then that indeed is what the Gemara needed to answer. And besides that the Mabit says on the Rambam that the same color is a d’Rabbonon

(The Beis Yosef, as is his wont, is too cautious to know what he really thinks or himself would pasken.)

Except he certainly doesn’t pasken like the Ba’al Ha’ittur (unless al pi the way I said above, better color according to everyone… ).

<it seems clear to me (and to other people that I show Rashi and the Rambam to) that they held that without t’kheles all strings must be lavan and not any color you want… although the taqqono that I claim exists that without t’kheles all strings must be lavan is d’rabbnon. But not a sofeq d’ rabbonon, just a taqqono d’rabbonon. I am sure R. Taitelbaum will disagree, …>

Why are you so sure, I’m not allowed to admit mistakes also? I admit in Rashi it’s pushing things, although in Rambam… Rambam has a whole other m’halech in t’kheles and lavan. T’kheles is just used for tying the bundle; it has no part in lavan. Yes it would be very strange tzitzist that are white tied with orange (Rambam may even stick his tongue out at you… I refer the reader to previous posts), but to say it must be… I cautiously disagree. But if shelo bizman t’kheles it is only d’rabbonon, then a sofeik d’Oraiso is docheh the d’rabbonon.

and I leave it to the reader to analyze the sources himself.

Absolutely agree; and there is no better source to get the sources than my sefer, Lulaoth Tekhelet, where all these issues were already discussed at length.

And if the readers agree that there is a serious sofeik here, it would seem they should avail themselves of murex t’kheles as soon as possible (enough known g’dolim wear it b’tzin’a, you need not worry anyone will tear it of your back).

And we’ll end of from Dr. Mendel singer:

So, who thinks Rabbi Herzog would agree with Ptil if he were alive today? We know Ptil votes “Yes”, I (and it seems, Seth) vote “No”. What about others on the list? I would like to hear how those not actively in the fray are thinking?

Shlomoh PS P’til Tekhelet asked me for my input when they were composing a response to Dr. Singer’s article. I wrote an article which they used pieces of. Anyone interested in seeing it can drop me a note and I’ll email it to them.

---

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 12:29:18 -0500

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>

Subject: Re: T’kheles

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 06:21:22PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:

Whatever the explanation, it does not change my other point: that the Litvishe roshei yeshiva were open to new ideas, and not as subject to communal pressure, did not wear the Radzyne t’kheles even as a sofek.

My point was not that they could be subject to communal pressure, but that such pressure existed; that the inyan at the time was the subject of heated argument.

Today, even given recent discussion here, the same is not true. The usability of murex does not threaten communal unity.

I therefore wondered if presishah min hatzibbur issues were greater then than now.

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:58:59PM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:

I continue to believe that the evidence is not much better than it was 85 years ago. The only change has been that it has been discovered that you can make a color fast dye of the right shadeof blue from Murex….

I am reminded of the legend of the critic who asked, “Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?”

RMT and I made each argued, using very different arguments, that the possibility of making such a dye is a critical point and potentially sufficient proof.

…. However, the T’rumas haDeshen that the Beis Yosef quotes is slightly different: “lo nahaginan haidna b’shum maqon raq b’tzitizyot shehem l’vanim v’lo tz’vu’im, va’afilu b’talit qatan shehu mimine tz’va’im lo ra’iti miyamai ehad shehaya m’tzuyyatz raq b’tzitzit lavan.” Pretty clear to me that he is saying the tzitzit cannot be any color other than lavan…

That we are NOHEIG to do such, yes. Not that there is a chiyuv or even a lechatchilah.

… the Ba’al ha’Ittur “tzitziyot shel lavan qod’min l’khol hatziv’onim.. stam talitot shelahem hayu l’vanim aval im ‘ein lanu lavan az tzarikh sheyihye mitzeva’ hattalit.” …

Again, no indication of a chiyuv.

The R’mo says about that in the Darkhei Moshe: “va’ani lo ra’iti miyamai tzitzit ela lavan v’ein l’shannot.” It seems clear from his loshon that he is agreeing with T’rumas haDeshen, that lavan must be white…

Actually this lashon also is that of describing a minhag, not a din. “Lo rai’isi.”

On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 11:03:28AM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:

1. Comes up once every 7 or 70 years. Rabbi Herzog considered this to be an important criterion. His candidate, Janthina, had a periodicity, and he devotes a fair amount of space to this idea in his dissertation. Currently, there is no reasonable way to explain how murex trunculus fits this description…

And yet it did. Or at least, in the trash heaps of shells, murex shells are found in bands. It would seem that they were harvested only in certain periods, with regular breaks in between.

I do not claim to know why.

-mi

—
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org – based on Mishlei 6:2

---

Links

• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n012.shtml#10
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n014.shtml#16
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n019.shtml#16
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n020.shtml#16
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n024.shtml#18
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n026.shtml#10
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n027.shtml#09
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n028.shtml#11
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n029.shtml#17
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n032.shtml#01
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n039.shtml#16
• https://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n041.shtml#05