Collected Articles on Tekhelet

By Rav Eliyahu Tavger, author of Kelil Tekhelet

Published by the Ptil Tekhelet Association, Jerusalem 5772 (2012).

Contents

1. Approbation of Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp shlita
2. Introduction
3. Tekhelet Today — An Overview
4. An Essay on Tekhelet
5. On Renewing the Mitzvah of Tekhelet
6. Tekhelet — Murex or Janthina?
7. When Did Tekhelet Cease Among the Jewish People?
8. What Was the Gra’s View on the Number of Tekhelet Strings in Tzitzis?
9. Dyeing Lishmah and Chilazon Blood in the Tekhelet of the Mikdash
10. The Meaning of ‘Nignaz’ in the Words of Chazal

Approbation of Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp shlita

The handwritten approbation also appears in the sefer as a printed transcription. The printed text follows.

Approbation of Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp shlita
Erev Shabbos, Parashas Yisro, Shevat 5770

With the help of Hashem: The distinguished Rav Eliyahu Tavger shlita of Kiryat Sefer, whose yiras Shamayim precedes his wisdom, has merited to write many articles on Tekhelet and has devoted himself to the fulfillment of this mitzvah. According to his position, he has also merited to identify the chilazon from which Tekhelet is made, and he has explained his view at length in many articles. I am unable to decide the matter, since these areas of knowledge are hidden from me, certainly as they relate to identifying this chilazon, which the Midrashim say was concealed.

Nevertheless, with the help of Hashem, we see that now, as the coming of Mashiach Tzidkeinu draws near, there has been a powerful awakening among the public and a strong desire to fulfill this mitzvah—or at least to clarify all of its halachos. Rav Tavger deserves great credit for spreading the light of this mitzvah and clearly explaining its details, and through his efforts many now wish to fulfill it. Although in my humble opinion, for several reasons, one cannot obligate people to wear Tekhelet, in accordance with the ruling of Maran Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita, those who have merited to clarify its halachos and have reached that conclusion through their study must certainly fulfill it. There is no place for embarrassment when keeping the halachah. The same applies to one whose heart moves him to fulfill it as a hiddur even if he is not obligated; even if it is only a remote safek, this certainly contains a hiddur and a love of the mitzvah, and his reward is great.

I therefore say: yasher koach for this worthy undertaking. I strengthen the hands of the author, shlita, so that he should continue spreading the mitzvah of Tekhelet and clarifying its halachos properly. In that merit, may we fulfill it completely with the coming of Mashiach Tzidkeinu, who will teach us its truth and proper observance.

Signed in honor of the mitzvah and those who study it,
Moshe Mordechai Karp

Introduction

The Ptil Tekhelet Association has set itself the goal of clarifying the subject of Tekhelet and bringing the discussion before the broader public.

Interest in this great mitzvah continues to grow in our generation despite the many centuries in which it was forgotten. The public discussion is gathering momentum. Numerous articles are appearing in newsletters and Torah journals, and entire sefarim devoted to Tekhelet are being published. Talmidei chachamim from different circles are taking up the subject, some for a general familiarity and others for more in-depth study.

In recent years, shortly before Parashas Shelach, we began publishing an annual collection entitled Vehayah Lachem LeTzitzis, containing articles by talmidei chachamim on subjects connected with tzitzis in general and the halachos of Tekhelet in particular.

It became clear, however, that this small amount could not satisfy those who thirst to study this mitzvah and clarify its substance. We therefore decided to collect several articles by Rav Eliyahu Tavger shlita, author of Kelil Tekhelet, and publish them in a booklet for the benefit of the interested public.

The articles in this collection originally appeared in various publications. Some are more lomdishe and others more basic, and they approach Tekhelet from different angles. The opening articles deal primarily with identifying the chilazon from which Tekhelet dye is produced. All of the articles were edited to fit the present collection. A list of their original places of publication appears at the end.

Tekhelet Today — An Overview

Tekhelet — A Torah Mitzvah

Twice each day, a Jew recites the parashah of tzitzis. Day after day, he reminds himself of the obligation to place a thread of Tekhelet on the corners of his garment. Yet for roughly fifteen hundred years Tekhelet has been absent from the tzitzis of the Jewish people, and the failure to fulfill this important mitzvah has become routine.

How Should We Respond to the Absence of Tekhelet?

The questions are many. Is this a decree that cannot be undone, leaving us no choice but to accept the situation? Or, as faithful Jews, are we obligated to seek out the lost Tekhelet and make the attempt? If we find it, all the better; if not, we will at least have fulfilled our obligation to make the effort. We may even discover that the matter is close at hand—“in your mouth and in your heart, to do it”—and not as remote as centuries of forgetfulness have made it seem.

“It is reasonable to say that perhaps the matter will return … and Tekhelet will once again be available. This is especially so according to what the Semag writes—that this fish, the chilazon, is in the Mediterranean Sea and that he records its simanim. It would easily be possible to produce Tekhelet …” (Shu”t Maharil HaChadashos, Orach Chaim 5)

Attempts to Restore Tekhelet

There have indeed been attempts to identify the lost Tekhelet. The first was made by the Radzyner Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, who devoted three sefarim to the subject: Sefunei Temunei Chol, Ptil Tekhelet, and Ein HaTekhelet. His era was not yet ready for such an investigation. Detailed zoological information was lacking, and knowledge of ancient historical sources was not widely available, making identification extremely difficult. He was followed by Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog, whose extensive knowledge of ancient history opened a broad new path in the study of Tekhelet. He conducted a comprehensive investigation, wrote a lengthy study in English, and published several articles in HaHed. Even in his time, however, much was still unknown about Mediterranean marine life. Experts in different fields, both in Israel and elsewhere, continued to study the issue, and a number of Torah articles were written. Rav Menachem Burstein later gathered the different approaches and a wealth of relevant information in his sefer HaTekhelet.

Tekhelet Today

Today, through Hashem’s kindness and compassion, building upon the considerable work of those who came before us and the broad body of knowledge available in our generation, it is possible to conclude that the marine chilazon known as the Murex—or by its Greek and Latin name, Purpura—is the source from which Tekhelet dye was produced. When this dyeing industry ended for identifiable historical reasons, the mitzvah of Tekhelet in tzitzis ceased to be observed. What follows is a brief presentation of the basis for this conclusion, together with selected sources at the end of the article.

Tekhelet — A Precious Material in Antiquity

Tekhelet was one of the most precious materials of the ancient world, ranked alongside gold and silver. Kings adorned themselves with it and the wealthy took pride in it. It was therefore no accident that the Torah chose it as one of the materials for the Mishkan and the bigdei kehunah.

“You shall make sacred garments … for honor and glory”—he should be honored and glorified through dignified and splendid garments … for these garments were royal clothing, of the kind worn by kings in the period of the Torah … Even today, no one other than a gentile king would dare wear Tekhelet, as it says, “Mordechai went out from before the king in royal clothing of Tekhelet and white, with a great crown of gold …”

(Ramban’s commentary to Shemos 28:2)

Likewise, among the ancient Greeks and Romans, wool dyed with Tekhelet was considered extremely valuable and served as a mark of high rank. Officials wore belts, gloves, and sashes dyed with Tekhelet, their width corresponding to the wearer’s position. (The Radzyner Rebbe, Ptil Tekhelet, p. 6)

Tekhelet Was Produced from a Chilazon

Tekhelet was produced from a marine chilazon harvested along the Mediterranean coast, particularly in the northern part of Eretz Yisrael. This is evident from the statements of Chazal concerning the chilazon generally and Tekhelet specifically.

Ancient Sources on the Dyeing Industry

When we examine the ancient sources, which describe the raw materials and industries of the past in considerable detail, we find only one dye produced from a marine creature: the dye extracted from the Purpura chilazon. This is described in particular by Aristotle, Pliny, and Vitruvius.

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was one of the leading Greek philosophers and naturalists. He studied biology and wrote History of Animals, a broad survey of the animal kingdom. His particular knowledge of marine life resulted from his extended stay on the island of Lesbos. His biological work also drew upon reports from fishermen, sailors, travelers, hunters, farmers, and shepherds. He has accordingly been called the “father of zoology.” Aristotle also wrote a work devoted to colors.

Pliny the Elder (23–79 CE) was a Roman author who produced the most comprehensive encyclopedia of the ancient world. His work preserves a vast store of technical, geographical, artistic, and other information about classical antiquity. Pliny recorded much concerning Eretz Yisrael, including the varieties of dates for which Judea was known and the balsam that grew at Ein Gedi. These and similar descriptions have led some to believe that he visited the country himself. He states that he gathered his material from 2,000 works by 100 authors. His sixteen books on botany and four on zoology preserved much of the ancient world’s knowledge of nature.

Vitruvius Pollio (first century BCE) was a Roman architect. His major work on architecture, based upon his own experience and the writings of Hellenistic Greek authors, is a primary source for Roman architecture and crafts, city planning, applied science, and technology. Several chapters are specifically devoted to dye materials.

Evidence from the Remains of Dye Works

The many excavations conducted along the Mediterranean coast of Eretz Yisrael—the region where Chazal place the production of Tekhelet—present the same picture. Dye residue found in the dye works, together with heaps of broken shells beside them, points exclusively to the use of this chilazon.

Archaeological Finds in Eretz Yisrael

Tel Akko (thirteenth–twelfth centuries BCE): Murex shell fragments, a jar with traces of spilled dye, and remains of furnaces. A nearby potsherd bore dye residue, with soot on its outer surface.

Tel Keisan (eleventh century BCE): a large earthenware vessel with a band of dye residue on the inside and soot stains on the outside. A large quantity of shell remains was found nearby.

Tel Shikmona (Iron Age II): potsherds bearing dye residue and broken shells. Of particular interest is a large vessel with a band of dye along its upper interior.

Tel Mor (Hellenistic period): a well containing many Murex shells and, alongside it, an installation consisting of two plastered pools.

Tel Dor (sixth century BCE): large quantities of crushed shells. Of particular interest is an installation consisting of a pit containing shell refuse, a channel, and a drainage pit. Deposits of lime mixed with purple dye were found in the channel and pit.

Tel Kabri (seventh century BCE): fragments of pottery stained purple.

At additional sites, only shell fragments were found.

The Clear Conclusion

The conclusion is clear. Tekhelet was a famous and costly material throughout the ancient world; it was not used only by Jews for a mitzvah. It could not have vanished without a trace from both the historical record and the remains of the workshops uncovered by archaeologists. The industry described in those sources and excavations, which produced dye from a marine chilazon, must therefore be the industry that supplied the Tekhelet we are seeking.

The chilazon in the words of Chazal. A study of Chazal leads to the same conclusion. Their unqualified references to the chilazon used for dyeing leave no room for two separate creatures—one used by the world at large and another used only by Jews. Moreover, in the Sifrei to Vezos HaBerachah, on the verse “They shall draw abundance from the seas and hidden treasures from the sand,” the chilazon is listed among the sources of wealth found in the territory of Zevulun. Chazal could hardly have ignored the prosperous Purpura dyeing industry operating before their eyes in that very region. They plainly had this industry in mind. The continuation of the Sifrei states, “In the end, I will make them require your services because of this chilazon.” In other words, this source of wealth would supply the Tekhelet needed by all of Israel for tzitzis, as the Targum attributed to Yonasan explains there.

Even more explicit is a lost passage from the Yerushalmi quoted by the Raavyah in his commentary to Berachos: “Between Tekhelet and green—between porphyrin and peripinin.” The Raavyah explains: “It is a cloak called porphyra in the foreign language.”

The clearest identifications appear in Rav Binyamin Mussafia’s Musaf HaAruch, under the entry “parfira,” and in Rav Yair Chaim Bacharach’s Mekor Chaim, his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch (Rav Pines edition, 5742, vol. 1, p. 99).

A generation before the Chavos Yair, Rav Avraham HaRofeh Portaleone wrote in Shiltei HaGibborim (Machon Yerushalayim edition, 5770, p. 344): “This word … means the marine creature called purpura, and it is the chilazon used to dye Tekhelet.” This appears to be the earliest explicit identification in Torah literature of the halachic Tekhelet as coming from the creature called Purpura.

The Ptil Tekhelet Association

As a practical result of all the above, and with a full sense of our sacred obligation to work toward restoring this forgotten mitzvah, the Ptil Tekhelet Association was established to produce and distribute Tekhelet strings for tzitzis. Its members also work to explain the subject in every possible way and welcome any question or suggestion concerning Tekhelet. Today the mitzvah is experiencing a renewal, and demand for Tekhelet strings continues to grow.

Selected Bibliography

Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radzyner Rebbe (1839–1890), Sefunei Temunei Chol; Ptil Tekhelet; Ein HaTekhelet — Jerusalem, 1963. Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog (1888–1959), “Tekhelet in Israel,” in Rav Menachem Burstein, HaTekhelet — Jerusalem, 1988. Rav Betzalel Naor, BeYam Darkecha — Jerusalem, 1984. Prof. Yehuda Feliks, Plant and Animal Life in the Torah — Jerusalem, 1984. Rav Menachem Burstein, HaTekhelet — Jerusalem, 1988. Dr. Israel Ziderman, “On Renewing the Mitzvah of Tekhelet in Tzitzis,” Techumin 9 — Alon Shvut, 1988. Rav Eliyahu Tavger, Kelil Tekhelet — Jerusalem, 1993. Rav Yisrael Ariel, Tzefiyah, vol. 5 — Jerusalem, 1996. Rav Yehuda Rock, “Placing Tekhelet in Tzitzis,” Techumin 16 — Alon Shvut, 1996. Rav Shlomo Teitelbaum, Lula’ot Tekhelet — Jerusalem, 2000. Rav Binyamin Ze’ev Halevi Horowitz, Chotam Shel Zahav — Bnei Brak, 2011.

An Essay on Tekhelet

In this article I do not intend to present all the different opinions or enter into polemics about them. My purpose is simply to set out the conclusions that, in my opinion, emerge from the sources. The reader should know that this article was preceded by a long and thorough search through both our own sources and non-Jewish sources in their original languages, across a number of different fields, together with consultations with specialists in those fields. This article presents a condensed account of that investigation.

Tekhelet Must Be Dyed Specifically with Chilazon Blood

The Gemara states (Menachos 42b): “Abaye asked Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah: How is this Tekhelet dyed? He answered him: We bring chilazon blood and other ingredients, place them in a vat, and boil them.”

The Beraisa likewise states (ibid. 44a): “This chilazon—its body resembles the sea … and with its blood they dye Tekhelet.”

The Gemara makes clear that if the same shade was produced with another substance, it is pasul for tzitzis. The Gemara says (Bava Metzia 61b): “Rava said: Why did the Torah mention the Exodus from Egypt in connection with interest? Why did it mention the Exodus from Egypt in connection with tzitzis? … HaKadosh Baruch Hu said: I am the One Who distinguished … and I am the One Who will exact payment … from one who hangs kala ilan on his garment and says that it is Tekhelet.”

The Sifrei says the same (Parashas Shelach): “‘I am Hashem your God’—what does this have to do with the preceding subject? … So that a person should not say: I will use other dyes or kala ilan, which resemble Tekhelet, and who will know?”

We must still determine why other dye materials are pasul. Is it because the mitzvah specifically requires dyeing with chilazon blood, or because chilazon dye possesses some other advantage lacking in other dyes—for example, strength and permanence?

The Gemara might initially suggest that kala ilan is pasul because it lacks this durability. The Gemara asks (Menachos 42b): “Can Tekhelet not be tested? Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah tested it. He would bring alum, fenugreek water, and urine that was forty days old, soak it from evening until morning, and see whether its appearance faded. If it faded, it was pasul; if it did not fade, it was kosher.” See the continuation of the sugya there. “If its appearance faded” refers to kala ilan. The Rambam similarly writes (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:1): “The Tekhelet mentioned in connection with tzitzis must be dyed with the known dye that retains its beauty and does not change. Anything not dyed with that substance is pasul for tzitzis, even if its appearance is sky blue—for example, if it was dyed with woad, kala ilan, or any of the other blue dyes, it is pasul for tzitzis.” He further writes (halachah 4): “If it was tested and found to have been dyed with one of the other blue dyes that do not last, it is pasul.” At first glance, this would imply that a strong and lasting dye could be kosher for tzitzis even if it did not come from chilazon blood. I have not reached a definite conclusion on this point, however, because in many places the Rambam gives reasons for laws that are actually gezeiros hakasuv or halachah leMoshe miSinai, and it is questionable whether practical conclusions can be drawn from those reasons.

On the other hand, the continuation of the Gemara (Menachos 43a) indicates that the dye must actually come from chilazon blood, and not merely be durable. The conclusion of the Tosefta (Menachos 9:6) also reads this way: “Tekhelet is kosher only when it comes from the chilazon. If it was brought from something other than the chilazon, it is pasul.” Although this statement concerns bigdei kehunah, no distinction in this regard appears to have been made between the Tekhelet of bigdei kehunah and that of tzitzis.

It requires explanation why the Rambam, in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash (8:13), does not mention this requirement of the Tosefta. The Mishneh LaMelech’s answer—that the Rambam relied upon what he wrote in Hilchos Tzitzis—is difficult. Apart from the difficulty in itself, the Rambam’s wording in Hilchos Tzitzis (2:1) specifically emphasizes that dyeing with chilazon blood is required for tzitzis. Nor does this explain why the Rambam omits another law stated in the same Tosefta: “The scarlet dye comes from the mountain worm; if it was brought from something other than the mountain worm, it is pasul.” Here the Rambam clearly could not have relied upon another place where the law was stated. Rav Avraham ben HaRambam, however, writes concerning the Tekhelet of the Mishkan (commentary to Shemos 25:4): “It was dyed with chilazon blood and not with anything else, as the received tradition explains regarding the Tekhelet of tzitzis.”

Is a Particular Chilazon Required?

Having clarified that the dye must come from a chilazon, we must ask whether Tekhelet is kosher only from one particular species, from every creature called a chilazon, or even from anything that resembles a chilazon in some respect. The wording of the Tosefta allows two possibilities. Either Tekhelet is kosher from anything called a chilazon, or it is kosher from one particular species and the Tosefta did not identify it because, in practice, people used only that species for dyeing—perhaps because the others were unavailable or difficult to use.

The Source for the Rule That Tekhelet Comes Only from a Chilazon

It is also necessary to review, from where did Chazal learn this law, dTekhelet does not come except from the chilazon. It can be said that Tekhelet in the language of the Torah is not just a name for a shade, but rather a color that comes from chilazon, and it also means something from the language from the above-mentioned Sifrei and from the Gemara in Bava Metzia that we quoted above: “And from one who plants kala ilan in his garment and says Tekhelet is”, and another priest. It also means from the language of the Rambam in the interpretation of the Mishnah (Menachos 4 MA): “Not every shade of wool is called Tekhelet, but rather a certain lightness…” that the aforementioned Tosefta means the opposite, that Tekhelet is only a shade name. It is also explained in the Rambam in the above-mentioned tzitzis halakhots (Ph. 2 halachah 1) and in the halachots for temple vessels (Ph. 8 halachah 13): “Tekhelet mentioned in the Torah everywhere is the wool dyed like a blue patch…”

In this regard, the words of the Yerushalmi (Kilayim 59:1) must be discussed: “Why are they (-bigdei kehunah) permitted in Kilayim? As it is said: ‘And the mitsen is six… and the sash is six woven from Tekhelet and crimson and tola’as shani’… – what else is a worm than a thing that has a spirit of life, even anything that has a spirit of life.” This means, seemingly, that they require in the Hiksh that all species have a spirit of life in them. And it is true that in “Peni Moshe” there he interpreted in a different matter: “What is another worm – Milta Ahrita is, and the requirement of two worms is written in bigdei kehunah, and its meaning That the wool is dyed with the blood of the worm, and Kamer said that is the case with everything that comes from the spirit of life and its color is as red as a worm”, but he insists, this is related to the previous matter. Also, how can one qualify with color speaks differently, when it is written explicitly in the verse “two worms”.

And we see in the interpretation of the Yerushalmi, that they asked from the source that bigdei kehunah is permitted in Kilayim, and they brought a verse: “And the sash is woven with six meshes and Tekhelet and scarlet and tola’as shani” (Shemos Lat, 20), and they proved that the shash is linen’, and then they proved that a worm is two dyers in the wool that comes from a animal, and he says to them: “What is the difference between a worm and a thing that has a spirit of life…”. Although the Yerushalmi aimed at the thread and not the color, but if we complete the sermon also regarding the color, since there is no straw for skirts, we get from this, by the way, that Tekhelet is also a color that comes from a desert that has a spirit of life. But in Babylon (Yavmot 4b) they require that Tekhelet is wool from a different source: “And where does Tekhelet Amra come from? From Dashash Kitana, Tekhelet Amra is”, and see there in Rashi.

And Birayam (siman tha [Yizu) wrote: “And menlan dsboin with blood chilazon Oi Sbraa is that after all tzitzis to remember the mitzvos were commanded, write ‘And you saw it and remembered all the mitzvos of the Lord,'”

We have to say that the color is the remembrance of the creator, and that color, by likeness to likeness, is similar to the throne of honor, according to the doctrine: R. Yanai would say what would change Tekhelet from all kinds of dyes according to the fact that Tekhelet resembles the sea…” And it is not understood, silence your soul, if he believes that a color similar to the sea is only possible from chilazon, then there is no need for an argument, because this is the Tekhelet mentioned in the verse – and there is no other, and if he believes that it is also possible from another word, then there is no Here is a general proof! And perhaps the meaning of Tekhelet should remind us not only of its color but also of its origin, that is, of the blood of chilazon. And perhaps this is also the intention of Rashi (Chullin 89a that Tekhelet is like the sea, that the chilazon rises from the sea once in seventy years and its blood resembles the sea…), see there (and refer to the words of the Gra, Yahal Or, Pinchas 226b).

The Characteristics of the Chilazon in Chazal

the chilazon is an animal after all that let’s find out what a chilazon is. The chilazon is an animal, which is slaughtered on Shabbos because of its sacrifice and because of taking a soul (Shabbos 75a). And in Yerushalmi (Shabbos 16:22):

The side chilazon and his wound – with it, I owe two, with it, I owe only one. Man Damer two one for taking a soul and one for taking a soul, Man Damer one Hayda for taking a soul and laying it on her side, and it is like that Rabbi Elazar said Rabbi Yosa Rabbi Avhu and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Meir: A kind of pure animal created HaKadosh Baruch Hu for Moshe Bamidbar…

And interpreted in the “Sacrifice of the community” in the first language:

And Liit Leah Tsida – Dainu is obliged because of Tsida and is not at all the fathers of craft, there was no Tsida in the Mishkan at all, from Chilazon to Tekhelet there must have been no Bamidbar, that Chilazon is only found in Eretz Yisrael and part of Zebulon, and Tekhelet they had for Israel from Egypt. And in cattle, that is, in rams that were needed for skins, it does not belong on the side, but on badgers, like the mimer, faded on the side.

And it is like a pure animal, HaKadosh Baruch Hu was created for Moses, etc. – then it certainly does not belong to her side, since she was not created except for Moses alone and you came to him and went to her side.

And it is difficult, it is in Yerushalmi that they hunted chilazon in the work of the Mishkan, Daita there (PA 13): “Hezekiah said the killer was called on Shabbos as killing a camel… AR Shimon ben Halfata and not from chilazon

We heard…”. And it’s also hard to explain that there is no side at all on Shabbos, since an edited Mishna is without any difference. Rather, the correct wording is according to the other words in the sacrifice of the testimony (on the website): “And let her have a side – because she is not obligated to have a side”, but there was a side in the animal that HaKadosh Baruch Hu created for Moses, see there. And it is the language of the Tosafos (Shabbos 75a, 15:15, 15, 16, 18, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 28).

The Chilazon Lives in the Sea

The chilazon’s abode is the sea, as it is written in the Sifrei (and this is the blessing):; DA: “For many days will be cleansed” This is the day of Jaffa” that has been laid up for the righteous for the future to come… Rabbi Yossi said once I was walking from Zib to Tire and I found an old man and his questions were safe. I said to him: What is your livelihood? He told me: from Chilazon. I said to him: And who is found? He said to me: The sky is a place in the sea that is placed in the mountains…?!

And it also means in Menachos (44a): “Tr. chilazon is this – his body is like the sea, and his creature is like a fish…”, meaning that he lives in the sea, as the Rambam probably interpreted (Hel. tzitzis PB halachah 2):; “And then they bring chilazon blood, and it is a fish…”

And even if we interpret “creation” to mean ‘the pattern of his portrait’ or ‘his shape’, as interpreted by Rashi and Rabbi Gershom (on site), the meaning of the words – that the chilazon has the ways of the fish in some respect, since there is no special shape for fish. And also the meaning of what is said in Beraisa there: “And one rises every seventy years”, which rises from the sea, as interpreted by Rashi in Chullin (89a DH that Tekhelet is like the sea) and also in Sanhedrin (91a DH chilazon). And they wrote the Rishonim in many places of Damascus of the chilazon in the sea.

The Chilazon Is Found in the Mediterranean

As it is written in Gemara Shabbos 26a: “These Yogbeim are chilazon hunters from the scales of Tire to Haifa”. And so it is in the above-mentioned books, and also in the translation attributed to Jonathan of Leviticus 3:19, and so the Rambam wrote (Hel. tzitzis pb halachah 2): “And in the Dead Sea he is found.” And in the book of the Zohar (HB 149b and more) it is written that the Chilazon rises from the Sea of Galilee, and in the flashes of light (there) he brought to the interpretation in the name of the Ramek, that the Zohar speaks in the Sea of Galilee of Ma’ale, see there.

A Land Chilazon

On the other hand, we find in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 91a) that it is possible to find chilazon in the mountains: “Go up to the mountain and see that today there is only one chilazon, tomorrow it will rain and it will be filled with chilazon species”. And the commentators were divided as to whether it was the same chilazon species in the Sea or a different chilazon species. Rashi there wrote: “chilazon – a worm that comes out of the sea once every seventy years and dyes with the blood of Tekhelet, and at first only one chilazon is visible in the whole mountain.” But in the hand of the Rama, he divided it, and wrote: “Damastabara, the island of chilazon, how is it that Damarinan Gabi Tekhelet is from how many Anfi, Hada Dahaik in the mountain, may I be, and that Tima deslick in the clouds in the goal and the landings of Atura, is not the most may comer for tomorrow, the whole mountain will be filled with chilazon species, and you are in a dilemma, are you all from water with it and not from how did Kama Ibro?” And the fact is that I did not issue evidence from anyone but from seventy years to seventy years… but it turns out that the chilazon is the same as the one who is Damrinan Gabi Tekhelet, but Mina after us, Demiver from Afar and Mmia and reads in the Arabic language of Halzum. And it also means in Aruch, who divided ‘chilazon’ into two entries, and in one he brings Gemara Didan and in the other the rest of the Gemara’s words about chilazon.

The Chilazon Has a Shell

The Midrash states: What is “did not your integrity pass over you”?… He said to him: And there were no tzitzis and their clothes were small? He said to him: Don’t be surprised at this, the chilazon when he grew up, his clothes grew with him…

And since we have come to this matter, we can perhaps explain more clearly the words of the Gemara in Shabbos 75a: Tar Tzad chilazon and the wounded person is not obligated but one. Rabbi Yehuda says that he is obligated two times. As Rabbi Yehuda said injury is not at all disha. He is busy with taking a soul. And Rabbi Shimon confesses with a comma and will not die!

We must understand why the Gemara uses the term petzi’ah—cracking or breaking open—what connection this has to the melachah of threshing, and why killing the chilazon is described only as an unintended result of his activity. According to the above, the Gemara may be speaking about breaking open the chilazon’s hard shell. Chazal use the same term for cracking nuts, and that action closely resembles threshing. It is also easier to understand why the resulting loss of life is considered incidental to what the person is doing. See the commentaries for further discussion.

The Chilazon of Chazal Is the Creature We Call a Chilazon Today

After all of this, we see that a chilazon is a creature found both in the sea and on land, and that it has a shell. Only two groups of creatures fit these simanim: the sea turtle, whose shell grows with it and which comes ashore to lay its eggs, and the creatures that we call chilazon today, together with related species, some marine and some terrestrial. The Gemara’s statement in Sanhedrin 91a—that chilazon species appear in large numbers after rain—forces us to choose the second possibility. This is the familiar phenomenon in Eretz Yisrael: land snails become dormant during the hot, dry summer and emerge in great numbers after the first rain. Targum Yonasan likewise translates the “tzeltzal” that consumes the trees in Devarim 28:42 as chilazona, and snails are well known as agricultural pests.

And it was also known among the Rishonim, as you see in the interpretation of the Mishnayat to the Rambam (Kilim 12 MA) [note 20]:

chilazon – and it is like a seashell made of iron with which the doors are fastened and that seashell is the shell of a marine animal called a chilazon.

And also in the commentary attributed to Raavad on the Book of Creation (introduction, lane 8): For here the chilazon cannot be stood on whether it is from all the fish or from all the plants, because it lives and moves and does not change its place, because it is fixed and stuck in the land.

And he wrote in Aruch [note 21]: chilazon in a ring. Chapter 12 in tools: Or a chilazon knot with an unclean head, this means its shape. And a chilazon is called a kind of chilazon that is surrounded. And although in the patterns they omitted the drawing, but in some manuscripts it remains, and from them it is clear that he meant the ring made in a coil like the chilazon shape of today.

Rashi likewise writes (Avodah Zarah 28b, s.v. mashkedei chalzonei): “Limatz in Old French—a type of chilazon.”

And he meant the French Limaz, which is today’s chilazon [note 22] (and in Sanhedrin 91a 45 chilazon he wrote: “worm”). And so it is in the Arabic and Syriac languages, and as he mentioned in Hand. Level to the aforementioned Sanhedrin (91a). And refer to the interpretation attributed to the Rabbi on the mishna in Shabbos 107a). [Note 23]

The signs of the chilazon in Beraisa in Menachos Here we have already mentioned above the Beraisa in Menachos 44a, where apparently signs of the chilazon whose blood was the color of Tekhelet were found (Menachos 44a):

TR chilazon this is his body is like the sea, and his creature is like a fish, and he rises one for seventy years, and in his blood is Tekhelet dye, therefore his blood is precious.

What can be learned from the signs mentioned in Beraisa? In the words of Chazal, there are things that are said about the way of the legend, which are like an enigma that cannot be answered, unless one understands the purpose implied in them. And our scholars who interpret the Rishonim have already commented on this. And I will copy here from the words of the Ramchal in the “Article on the Haggadot” (= Chazal legends) whose words hit the spot: but the ways in which they made their words appear are different. A is through the interrogatives and complements. And they are the well-known ways of the owners of the recommendation, who, on the basis of similitude and parable, attributed cases and actions to those for whom those cases or those actions are not true at all. The second is the way of the dead. And we would have them omit the terms of the matter and not be confused and say an absolute article, and the truth of that article is only within a limit, that is, according to one examination or according to one time or according to one subject or place. And whoever takes that article as inclusive and absolute will fail and go wrong. And already many articles will be seen as contradicting each other, their terms have not been interpreted and the one who knows everything within its limits will find them true and without contradiction at all… You should also know that Chazal will allude to many of the most important secrets in matters of nature or attributes, and will use the studies that were taught in those generations by the people of natural wisdom and attribute. And it is true that the main thing for them is not that natural or characteristic matter, but the secret they wanted to imply in it, and therefore it will neither add nor detract from the truth of the implied matter that the supplementary clothing that they put on is real or not, because the intention was to dress that secret in what was famous in those generations among the sages… and whoever does not know this way will never be able to stand by the opinion of the Most High in general.

These things are very important to our case, because it is difficult to stand up to Chazal’s intention when they say that it rises one in seventy years – whether their intention is not found, or they have another intention in this.

And you certainly shouldn’t chase after seventy years, or close to it, touch yourself, because we found articles for them in which they mention the matter of seventy years, such as: “Apa for seventy years and against him in Ilan Harob. This cherub is seventy years from the time it is planted until the time its fruits are finished” (Bekurot 8a) and other articles, which cannot be interpreted simply at all.

Also, it should not be forced from here that the value of Tekhelet depends on the fact that the chilazon is not found, because perhaps they meant by the word “therefore” to connect them in a parable and not in a parable. And perhaps they also mean to say that Tekhelet’s image is expensive, because it is dyed with the blood of this chilazon, and this chilazon is known to be valuable, or vice versa, since Tekhelet is dyed with it, and Tekhelet is expensive as it is most sought after, the blood of a chilazon is expensive, and “costs one in seventy years” – a thing in itself (and this seems to me to be the main point).

Also, it is hard to know what we meant by “his body is like the sea”, and there is no clear understanding that we can use as a basis for searching for this chilazon.

In general, we will not take the Beraisa, according to our interpretation of it, as a foundation for the signs of the chilazon, but on the contrary, after we find the chilazon in the AZ through the means of logical investigation, we may be able to learn something about the words of the Beraisa.

The introductions that must be made to identify the chilazon Tekhelet Now it remains for us to investigate and find out in the blood of which of the chilazon species found in the Mediterranean Sea colored Tekhelet for tzitzis.

Anyone who approaches this craft must make two fundamental assumptions: a. that we know all species; b. that certain species that existed in the past have not disappeared. Only then is it possible (and mandatory) to go through all the known species and choose the most suitable one. Whoever does not follow this path, but takes a certain species and considers it suitable without going over all the other species – makes a serious mistake in the ways of logic.

And here is the second assumption – that certain species have not disappeared since the time they painted Tekhelet until now (a period of fifteen hundred years, approximately) – according to the experts, it is true*. The reason for this is that there were no substantial natural changes in the Mediterranean area during this period, nor was there a deliberate extinction of the chilazon species by man. Therefore, according to the ways of nature, it is not possible for a certain species to disappear from the chilazon species, unless it happened in an experimental way (we will talk about the chilazon genizat mentioned in the Midrash to Lakman).

And as for the first assumption – apparently at first glance it seems that it is impossible to be sure that we currently know all the species found on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, because how

We will know if no more new species are found in the future. But at a second glance, it seems that this is not the case. Because for decades experts have been conducting a constant search for chilazon species along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, and several lists of all the species found have already been printed*?. The claim of the experts* is that in the searches conducted in recent years only a small number of new species have been discovered, and these species are either very tiny, barely visible to the naked eye, or they are single species, which are usually foreign inhabitants of the area, brought by the sea currents, which are not absorbed and reproduce locally. If so, it can be clearly concluded that it has been a long time, since the regular searches for the animals in the Mediterranean coast area began, no new chilazon species were found in the amount suitable for dyeing.

The Result of Examining the Mediterranean Chilazon Species

Since both assumptions were found to be true, it is possible to come and check all the known species, to reject those that are not at all suitable for coloring, and to bring closer those that are suitable for it.

And here it must be investigated, what did Chazal mean in Beraisa in Menachos (44a) with the words “and his blood dyes Tekhelet” – did they mean animal blood or some other secretion?

And it is known that the animal blood of the chilazon species is different in its composition from the animal blood of most other animals, and they have copper in their blood composition instead of iron, and as a result, instead of the red color, which is the blood color of most animals, their blood color is blue (but often also transparent). But according to the experts, it is not possible to dye with animal blood. As for the rest of the secretions, among the chilazon species found in the Mediterranean Sea in the Eretz Yisrael region, five families of chilazon species are known that have colored secretions. Two of them – the ladders! And the bonnets’ – are at a great depth and cannot be used by man. The species from the segoliot family – which Rabbi Yaa Herzog wanted to identify one species from this family with chilazon Tekhelet – are found in the middle of the sea, far from the shore, floating on the surface of the water, and rarely and not regularly, are brought by the currents to the shore, and it is a little difficult to imagine that they were used by man. On the other hand, they are more in line with the words of the Beraisa: “And one person rises every seventy years”. But, these species

We are completely rejected by the words of the Sifrei (which is the blessing) mentioned above: “… and who is found? He said to me: The heavens place a place in the sea that is placed in the mountains…”, which is not the case with these species, they float on the surface of the water, and the sea waves bring them to the shore, and they have an equal chance of being found anywhere on the shore, and their presence is not greater in a particular place. The chilazon species from the last two families – the crimsons!! and the sea hares – are found near the shore at certain times and can be used by man.

As for the possibility of dyeing in their secretions, the sea hares and the sea urchins, according to the experts, are not worthy of dyeing*, and only the crimson species are worthy of dyeing, and it is also well known and famous from the books of the Greeks and Romans that they often dyed them in the days of Chazal. If so, we get in this way that the chilazon in which Tekhelet is colored is of the crimson species.

Evidence from Ancient Knowledge

There are other ways by which we can know what the chilazon in which the Tekhelet color is, without needing the above assumptions. One is a study of the books of Greeks and Romans from the Chazal period, who set themselves the goal of describing all nature that was known in those days, and the many uses that man made of it on earth. And here, they all describe in great publicity the dyeing that was done on the shore of Eretz Yisrael with the crimson species, and not one of them mentioned another species. It is very difficult to claim that another species that they dyed with in those days disappeared from them, especially because even from the words of Chazal it seems somewhat that the chilazon was very famous among the peoples of the world. As they said in the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah Parsha Tza, 11): “Take the song of the land with all of you -… things that are sung in the world: chilazon…”

There are other references of this kind, which indicate coloring only in this species, and they are the excavations?? where dyeing houses were often found, and excavations where dyed clothes were found, and these were examined by experts.

The last siman is the weakest, because they didn’t find very many clothes in very many places, that we can judge by that. And the previous authority for it is stronger, because dyeing houses include more of the acts of dyeing, which were done during the Chazal period, and this is on the condition that they found many dyeing houses in many places. But the first evidence is very strong, because it is the testimony of people from that time, who intended to collect and include in their books everything that was done in those days.

Proofs from the words of Chazal and the Rishonim Another proof, that the above-mentioned species is the chilazon in which they painted Tekhelet, is from the words of the Yerushalmi that the Rabbi brings (C. Ka; pi. to Berachos 9b): “And a gresinan in Yerushalmi between Tekhelet and the Cretan between Porphyrin and Periphinin, and it is a coat that Corin in the language of the tz is Porphyra…”, because the above-mentioned species was called by the Greeks “Porphyra”, as well as the colors that come out of it are called yes in their language (and although only a certain color that tends to red that they produced the most from the above-mentioned chilazon bore the name “porphyra”, other colors were also sometimes named after their origin). Although in our Yerushalmi this section is not, neither in the patterns nor in the manuscripts (and unfortunately there are not many manuscripts of the Yerushalmi), we will trust the Rabbi, that this was the version before him.

And it is also proven from the Ramban’s commentary on the Torah (Shemos 20, 2) that it was his opinion, which he wrote there to prove that Tekhelet is an expensive thing and only kings wear it, from the fact that at the time “no one would raise his hand to wear a Tekhelet except for a king of the Gentiles”, and it is known that he wore “porphyra” (and it is clear that the Ramban was not talking only about the shade, that this does not prove the expensiveness and nothing). Tekhelet) on the article in Bereishis Rabbah (parasha 17:8): “Habel yama Tekheleta dabbel”, in one of his interpretations – “What Tekhelet garment is the best in clothing…”, and we don’t have ‘the best in clothing’ but the porphyra, and so he wrote in the source of Haim”, as well as the opinion of Rabbi Binyamin Musafia: “Purpura – pi’ in the Greek and Roman language of the Tekhelet garment”. And look at the peddlers’ treasury (for the Glory of Israel), the rules for the sacred garments of the priesthood?’

And it must be proven, that in the words of Chazal, chilazon is mentioned everywhere, that they hunted it on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and made a living from it, and all in casual language. And it is simple and clear that chilazon the Murex was very famous in those days and the dyers often used it in the same places, as we have seen above, and if another chilazon was used for Tekhelet dyeing, how is it possible to casually mention when talking about chilazon, that it was used on the coast of Zebulun, and that Zebulun won the sea that gives it the well-known chilazon, when all this refers to the Tekhelet chilazon, as Explained in the language of the Sifrei (which is the blessing) above:

“Because plenty of days will be cleansed” This is the day of Jaffa*… said Rabbi Yossi… I told him:

What is your livelihood? He told me: from Chilazon…

“And Shaponi is hidden in sand” – Shaponi is chilazon… according to the tribe of Zebulun indignant before the place and says before him: Lord of the world… You gave my brothers fields and vineyards and you gave chilazon to me. told him at the end that I need you by your side by this chilazon…

And we are talking about the chilazon of Tekhelet, meaning from the phrase “I need you by your side”, i.e. by mitzvas tzitzis (and it is difficult to interpret that the reference is to the Beis HaMikdash and the reference to the crimson that was consumed for the Beis HaMikdash which was also produced, as we know, from the chilazon the Murex, because it is not called ‘your needy by your side’. And the language in tractate Megillah (6a): “They all need you by chilazon”). And it is also explained in Jonathan’s translation of the verse (Deuteronomy 33:19): “Arum on the book of Yamma Raba Sharan, and Yitfrankon from Trita, and Snail, Yahedon, and Zevenun from Adamie, shall be imprisoned in the cords of Goliathon…” And so understood the editor who brought this book and the chilazon of Tekhelet under the same entry (chilazon), and so understood many Rishonim. And this is evidence to which there is no answer.

We must also add evidence, which is known today from books and excavations, that Chilazon the Murex also dyed wool in a real Tekhelet shade. And it is proven from the Gemara that there was no substitute for the kosher Tekhelet but kala ilan. And if so, a color that is not kala ilan and its shade is equal to it, it is the kosher Tekhelet.

And this is the wording of the Gemara (Menachos 43a): “Mr Mashchi spelled Tekheleta… in the darb of Yitzchak Beriah, the darb of Judah, and in the darb of Ada and Ishtanai to the maaliyotha. He explained to Mipsala. Rabbi Achai said to him: But is she not takhilta nor kala ilan is she but…” (and this is detailed from other places).

The Meaning of ‘Chilazon Blood’

According to this identification, the meaning of their saying that the dyeing is done with “chilazon blood” is also understood (Menachos 42b; also in Beraisa 44b). After all, one has to wonder how they called a certain secretion of chilazon – ‘blood’, because animal blood cannot be dyed as above, but in this chilazon the secretion has a blood-like hue, so much so that the ancients attributed it to blood. And Yosef ben Matthiyahu* wrote about this chilazon, that they dye with ‘blood’ the color crimson, because from this chilazon they also produced the color crimson (and only after boiling with the addition of markers is obtained from which color Tekhelet).

A Further Distinction Among the Chilazon Species

Of this species – that is, from the purple family in the language of the experts – there are three types (or species, in their language) on the coast of Eretz Yisrael, and they are: blunt-spined murex (Trunculariopsis trunculus), red-mouthed purple murex (Thais haemastoma) and single-spined murex (Murex brandaris), which are slightly different from each other, and all of them were used during Chazal for dyeing.

As we commented above, the ending of the Tosefta (Menachos 9:6) means that there is no priority for one chilazon over another – they all come under the name “chilazon” of the Tosefta, they all used to dye, and are kosher for Tekhelet. Although in fact only the first of the three is the most appropriate.

Explaining the Simanim in the Beraisa in Menachos

And here, after it became clear to us what the chilazon in which Tekhelet is colored, we can try to understand the words of Chazal in the aforementioned Beraisa in Menachos (44b):

TR chilazon this is his body is like the sea and his creature is like a fish and rises one in seventy years and in his blood dyes Tekhelet therefore his blood is precious.

‘Its Body Resembles the Sea’

In the meaning of “his body is like the sea”, the Rambam seems to be interpreting the matter of the color: “And then they bring the blood of a chilazon and it is a fish whose eye is like the eye of the sea…” (Hel. tzitzis 22 halachah 2), and so he is in the Samag (Hel. tzitzis) and he also wrote in the book of the leader (Hel. tzitzis). And so it is for the tzitzis tractate version: “His body is like the sky”. And Rashi (on the website) simply stated his words: “His body – the appearance of his body”, and so it is in the interpretation of Rabbi Gershom of the Diaspora, and perhaps they also mean the matter of color.

However, our chilazon – no body color is similar to the sea! And it is possible to interpret that the meaning of “his body resembles the sea” is that his shell is made of wrinkled wrinkles made like the waves of the sea, and in this he resembles the sea with “many waves”. Or it can be interpreted that it is stuck to the bottom of the sea, and is not visible by itself, since it is part of the sea, so much so that plants and other sea creatures grow on it (especially since the word “sea” in the Bible refers to the bottom of the sea precisely, as in the verse in Yeshayah [11:9]: “The waters cover the sea”). And this interpretation is simpler in the language of the Beraisa, the Rambam’s Delphi interpretation is hoy liya to mimer ‘the color of his body is similar to the sea’. “His creation is like a fish” As for “his creation is like a fish”, Rashi interpreted “the pattern of his portrait”, and Rabbi Gershom – “his shape”, and the Rambam simply wrote “and he is a fish”. And perhaps it is all one, meaning that it is an animal that lives in the sea, because there is no special shape for fish, and in Chazal language everything that is in the sea is called a fish, as the Gra wrote in Eliyahu Rabba on Kelim PI MA: “Everything that is in the sea is a kind of fish, whatever shape it has”.

And according to the above, it will be well interpreted that the Beraisa came to say something and its opposite, on the one hand, this chilazon is a sea urchin that sticks to its bottom, and on the other hand, it lives and its path is through fish (that is, marine animals). And it seems that this is the opinion of the commentary on the book of creation attributed to Raavad, which we cited above: “For here the chilazon cannot stand on it if it is from all the fish or from all the plants, because it lives and moves and is not Replaces his place because he is stuck and stuck in the land”, which he relates his words to the above-mentioned Beraisa, as you can see from the words of the Rema MiPano which continues after his words (article Tsavat HaShem 12, yd-2): “the chilazon is still and it grows and it lives. Although we knew that it was, because he is alive whose body moves in the place of his growth to and fro… and he grows

which does not move from its place but its root is embedded and stuck in the bottom of the sea… and once in seventy years it is uprooted from there and rises from the water, and then it remains motionless at all like the trees after being uprooted. And its rise is nothing but the currency of water and the weight of which all light things float on their surface.”

“And one Olah for seventy years” and what is said there “And one Olah for seventy years” can be interpreted in one of three ways: a. rises from the sea to the land; on. rises from the bottom of the sea to the surface of the water; third. Up in the fishing net.

And here the Rambam did not bring it at all. And Rashi interprets that this is the reason his blood is more expensive, meaning that it cannot be obtained at another time, but in the Rema MiPano above we see otherwise, because one in seventy years he dies (and the reference there is to the period of his life, and as the Gra interprets in seventy years of Carob, refer to the Gra’s commentary to the legends of the Shas Taanis 23a) and then it goes up. In the Gemara on Shabbos 75a it is explained that those who dye with chilazon species live, and chilazon dies It is not appropriate to dye with it, and if so, according to the Rema MiPano, the price of the chilazon’s blood is not related to its increase once every seventy years (and apparently it can be obtained at any time), but it is due to another reason, and the Beraisa’s intention is to tie the increase once every seventy years to the price of the blood only in the example, or the reference is to the price of the blood of Tekhelet (and it should be shredded: therefore the blood of the chilazon is expensive) then the interpretation is because the blood of the chilazon dyes Tekhelet And everyone knows that it is an expensive color, therefore the image of Tekhelet mitzvas is expensive. And the version before us is that the blood of the chilazon is expensive because its blood dyes Tekhelet and there is a great demand for Tekhelet and chilazon species (since a lot of them are needed to produce the color), but not because of the increase of the chilazon once every seventy years.

The way of the Rema MiPano in the Beraisa interpretation is very suitable for our chilazon, only that it means “rising” – that rises from the ground on the surface of the sea, and it is more convenient to sail rising from the sea to the land.

Using Something Non-Kosher for Sacred Work: Tzitzis and Tekhelet

And here, after we find out and agree with us what the chilazon is in which Tekhelet is painted for the mitzvas tzitzis and probably also for the temple, it therefore follows that it is possible to perform the mitzvas tzitzis and also perform temple needs in an unclean desert (because our chilazon has neither fins nor scales).

And the matter is simple even without this, because crimson and tola’as shani are certainly colors that come from impure things: crimson comes from our chilazon, as is proven from the Septuagint translation, from Josephus Flavius in the Book of Antiquities of the Jews, from Philo of Alexandria in his book The Life of Moses and other Greek translations, that it comes from a chilazon called ‘purple’ (and also according to the Rambam who did not write so in the interpretation of the Mishnah Kilayim 59 MA, but wrote that it A color called “lech”, after all, is also a well-known color made from the Indian insect Lakshedia lacca which is an impure animal). And a worm

Second, which is a well-known insect called Kermes (according to the above-mentioned translations, according to Rabbi Saadia Gaon for Shemos ka, 4 and also the Rambam in the Red Heifer PG 3 halachah 2, and much more), it is not pure. And even in his commentary on Shemos 3: “And we did not find silk in the alms of the Mishkan because it comes out of the body of the worm, which is the worm, and is not kosher for the work of heaven, but a pure thing, and as they said in Tashash, and the color of the second worm is not from the body of the worm but from the grains that the worm is inside…”, after all, the reality is not like that, but the red grains inside of which the worms are the aphids – their mothers, which are unclean vermin. Indeed it is in the Gemara in Shabbos 28a-Eb:

Rabbi Ada bar Ahava said: Tashk that there was in the days of Moshe Kamibeia Lia, was he impure or was he pure? Rav Yosef said: May you answer to her, Tanina: it was not kosher by the work of heaven, but only the skin of a pure animal.

After all, in the temple in their eyes is only a pure beast! And it should not be said that this was said specifically in regard to skin only, since in the Gemara they wanted to learn from there the tephrils of tefillin should be tied to the hair and sewn to the groin, and likewise the Rabbin (Rosh Hashanah 26b) learned from this that for an invalid a shofar made from the horn of an unclean animal. Even though according to the conclusion of the Gemara, this rule is not said regarding the Mishkan, and vice versa – the skin of a sheep is impure kosher for the Mishkan, and as it is said in Gemara 340b “May Hoi Aleah Dathash…”, and as the Rashba wrote in the name of Rav Hai Gaon there, it is a bit difficult, of all places, how could Hoa believe in the Gemara to say that the Mishkan is not kosher but a pure thing.

But it really seems that Beraisa Derv Yosef D. “It was not kosher in the work of heaven, but pure animal skin only” was said only in regard to leather, and what is difficult about it from the aforementioned Sharan and Gidan is difficult between the two, since the language of the Beraisa is “pure animal skin”, and the Gemara is looking for the matter of what is said, and the Rashba has already had difficulty with this in the place, and also he in Tosafos D.A. And Rashi justified this in the Da’a except for wrapping it in the hair, and the Most High: “Let her have a Derv Yosef that needs to be tied with a pure animal skin…”, see there, or it is said that the Beraisa Derv Yosef was recited on skin and all its hair, such as hair, sinews and horns, and in this we will also go out by the aforementioned Rabbi. And it is well known that Yehuda Thirtz Dachel Dalhazuta is not real in him, and see there the length of his words.

We also found that the Rambam and the Raavad disagreed about the myrrh in the anointing oil, which the Rambam wrote in Halachah Halachah 3: “The myrrh is the blood tied up in an animal in India known to all…” And the Raavad wrote about it in the context: “I do not accept that the blood of any animal in the world should enter into the act of consecration, since the blood of an impure animal…”. The Raavad did not indicate a source for his words, but rather said them from a reference to the Alma. The Gemara on the aforementioned Shabbos should not be seen as a possible source for his words, because he also rejected the blood of a pure animal, apparently to the point of his language. Nor should his words be authorized about the judgment “Meshke Israel – from what is permitted to Israel” (Pesachim 48a, and more), as he raised in the above-mentioned response to Noed in Judah, this was only said about sacrifices and penances, etc.

The Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim 586:3) writes that all mitzvos are compared to tefillin and therefore cannot be made from something non-kosher. This is difficult, however, because we find many mitzvos that may be made from non-kosher materials. Tzitzis itself may be made from silk. The Ran cited above derives the restriction only regarding a shofar, because it is considered sacred service, as he explains there. Many Acharonim likewise disagree with this ruling.

On the Disappearance of Tekhelet

In several places the Tekhelet genizah was mentioned. One of them is the Midrash Tanhuma (Parasha Shelah): But the mitzvah to bring a son and Tekhelet and will do. When will be Tekhelet. And now we have nothing but white that Tekhelet was shelved, a white mitzvah.

And also in the Sifrei (and this is the blessing): R. Yossi said: Once I was walking from Ziv to Tzur and I found an old man and he was in peace. I said to him: What is your livelihood? He told me: from Chilazon. I said to him: And who is found? He said to me: The sky, a place in the sea that is set in the mountains, and sedums attack it and it died and died in its place. I said: The heavens, it is evident that the righteous are stored away for the world to come.

And also in Gemara Bava Basra 74a: Rabbi Yochanan Mishtei Zimna Hada Hoh ka Azlinan in Spinta and Hazinan that Kartalita… Nafk Bat Kala said to Lena: Mai Eita go bahdi Kartalita Dadbitahu Drah ben Dosa, daatida Dashdia Tekheleta ba zadiki to Alma Dati.

And here, first of all, there is no necessity to understand, that the Genize mentioned is the experimental miss of the chilazon, but only the cessation of voting in it by the people for some reason. Moreover, it is not even necessary to interpret that the people stopped painting with chilazon completely, but that the painting is not so common (as we noted regarding the abolition of white glass, see Bava Metzia 29b Tosafos d.a. in white glass).

Moreover, the words of this legend should not be seen as a halachah that forbids the imposition of Tekhelet at this time, thereby canceling a whole mitzvah from the Torah. Come to yourself, that in the entire Talmud until the years of Rav Achai (see Menachos 43a) the coloring of Tekhelet is mentioned as a simple matter, and it is also not known when the words in the Midrash Tanhuma about the Genizat Tekhelet were written. And the Genizah mentioned in the Sifrei as well as in the aforementioned tractate Bava Basra, is a completely different matter, as it seems to the sources. After all, the things were not said there at all about the cessation of Tekhelet, since R. Yossi is talking to a grandfather who makes a living from Tekhelet, and from seeing that the chilazon is not available to everyone and it takes expertise to know where to look for it, he learned that the matter of Tekhelet, hinted at in the story beside it, is gnosic for the next world. And so it is in Bava Basra The above, and there is no room to extend it here.

Rather, it is known that the famous chilazon the Murex dyeing that was on the shores of Eretz Yisrael, stopped around the time of the Arab occupation, i.e. around the time of the signing of the Talmud the Bavli, and this explains the disappearance of Tekhelet from Israel.

And what is mentioned in the words of the Kabbalists about the Tekhelet genizat, these things do not pertain to the halachah at all, as the Gaon Moilna zt’l instructed us (and the things are proven from her and her, since in the fruit of the tree of life it is about the Tekhelet genizat from the destruction of the house, and after all, during the Gemara they performed the Tekhelet mitzvas).

The Shade of Tekhelet

Tekhelet Resembles the Sea

And now we have to find out what the shade called Tekhelet is. And here, apparently the Gemara itself defines the shade Daita in Menachos 43b’: Tanya had Rabbi Meir say: What is Tekhelet different from all kinds of dyes? Because Tekhelet is similar to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is the throne of honor, as it is said: “And under his feet as the work of the sapphire stone and as the bone of the sky to purify”, and it is written: “As the mirror of a sapphire stone in the form of a throne.”

But, there was room to be satisfied, perhaps it is not meant to be a perfect imagination, but to imagine something. But it is necessary to understand why Rabbi Meir would start at the sea and only then move to the sky, let him say ‘Tekhelet is like the sky’ (it is impossible to draw a straight image to the throne of honor, Dain is known for its color, and also for a sapphire, that not all stones are equal to each other). And Rashi reasoned about this (Sotah 17a, that Tekhelet is like the sea): “And I will not forget it, because I will not forget to call, but in the sky that resembles the throne of honor, so Tekhelet is like the sea and the sea is like the sky. It is perfect (and Rashi must be clarified, since one must ask, if Tekhelet is really like the sea, and not really like the sky, then the sea is also not really like the sky, and why is it possible to liken the sea to the sky and not Tekhelet itself to the sky? But the answer to that is, because the sea and the sky are always next to each other in the eyes of every person). that were made for Israel in the sea, and if it is because the chilazon came from the sea, as it means in Rashi in Menachos there and in Chullin 89a, see there, but the image of the color Tekhelet to the color of the sea is explained in a rabbi ruling (Pisca Matan Torah Parsha 20:3):

As soon as Moshe ascended to heaven, HaKadosh Baruch Hu opened seven heavens… and showed them four dyes from which he made a Mishkan… Rabsha’a said before him I do not know the shape of four dyes. He said to him, come back before you. He returned and saw a legion of angels wearing clothing similar to the sea. He told him this is Tekhelet…”.

Evidence that the color of Tekhelet is dark blue It was explained that the color of Tekhelet is similar to the color of the sea, which is known to be dark blue. Yes, there is great evidence from the Midrash the Sifrei (Parashat Shelah): Rabbi Elazar Barbi Shimon says: Why is her name called Tekhelet? In the name of the Egyptians consuming the firstborn, He hated: “And it was in the middle of the night, and the Lord struck every firstborn.” DA: In the name of the Egyptians in the sea.

After all, it is explained here that the color of the sky at night is Tekhelet, and also the color of the sea is Tekhelet*. And Rabbi Moshe the Darshan also taught*: “Ptil Tekhelet is named after the bereavement of firstborns. The translation of bereavement is a prison. And their stain was at night, and the color of Tekhelet is similar to the color of the firmament that darkens in the evening.”

And I have another proof from the words of the Gemara in Shabbos Shabbos 99a: “And we will see Karsin in loops like the stars in the sky”, that is, in the loops precisely, which were Tekhelet, which is the color of the sky when the stars are visible.

It also adapts the words of Philo of Alexandria, who was at the time of the Temple, in which in his book Life of Moses he talks about Tekhelet in the temple being like the sky, and he comments on this in a framed article: “For the sky is by its nature dark.”

It was also quoted in Rabbi Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Shemos ka, 4 in the name of Yafta ben Ali, and he himself disagreed with it (and it seems to me that he understood his intention, that it is really black, and therefore disagreed with it and claimed that it was green”, since Rashi quoted the words of Rabbi Moshe the aforementioned sermon and did not disagree with it, and he himself wrote elsewhere that Tekhelet is a green color).

And also the meaning of the words of the commentary attributed to the apothecary (in Parashat Taruma): “Tekhelet is wool dyed close to black, similar to the sky, its purpose is therefore called Tekhelet…”. And it also means a bit from the Ramban’s commentary to Bamidbar 15, no: “The shade is also the purpose of the mirrors, because in their distance everyone will see like that shade, and therefore it is called Tekhelet.”

The Rambam’s opinion on this – pure blue. Indeed, the Rambam wrote in the tzitzis (P.B. halachah 1): “Tekhelet mentioned in the Torah everywhere is the dyed wool like a patuch in the power, and this is the image of the sky that is visible to the eye in the purity of a firmament” (the word patuch is brought up in the Mishnah in Neg’im PA 22, and the Rambam explained there: “Patuch is the mixed appearance of the whiteness and the red…”), after all, it is explained in the Rambam Lahdia, that Tekhelet includes a bright blue appearance like the color of the sky (and even though the Rambam there calls colors similar to Tekhelet “blackening”, he calls all the blackened ones black, and as is also mentioned in the Morah Nabukim 71 Pe’ag in the introduction to the words) and he also says in the commentary of Rabbi Avraham ben the Rambam to Shemos, 4: “And Tekhelet, dyed wool looks similar to what is seen from the sky, which is a pure blue (mirror) average) between the deep blue and the white…” (But refer to his book Sufficient for God’s servants: “that Tekhelet is a bright blue wool, similar to the color of the cloud which seems to the eye to be the color of the sky”). And in Rabbi Tanhum the Yerushalmi we found: “They said about the blue color when they described Tekhelet, which is the color of the sky, which is a light blue color, tending to white”*”.

And there is some support for these words from Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah (Parasha 4:13): “Therefore the garment was Tekhelet from above his face against the sky that resembles it…”, see there.

Rabbi Saadia Gaon also wrote in his commentary to the Torah: “And they are the three wheels that are under them… as it is written, ‘He inclines like the firmament of heaven’, and they also delight the eyes of men in the color of Tekhelet, which is the same color in which the Mishkan was made…”. And also in his commentary to the book Yzera: “And the ceiling of the Mishkan is similar to the sky because it has a fabric of the colors of the sky Saman Jon” called Tekhelet”. It is also stated in Baal Eitor (Hell’ tzitzis) in the name of Rav Nachshon Gaon, that Tekhelet is the color of the 19th century. And also Josephus Flavius, who was at the time of the Temple, wrote. It’s just that it should be said that their words are not exactly, but that the sky is also called Tekhelet, but it is possible that a darker blue is also called Tekhelet, because Tekhelet is all the blues (as it says in the book Amunot va De’at to the Rasg, article two, chapter 2,

There is a sky mirror between the seven roots of the mirrors). And the meaning of many Rishonim* is that Tekhelet is the rule of the blue.

Another way to find out the shade Another way to find out what is the shade called Tekhelet, is from his perfect imagination to kala ilan, until it was impossible to distinguish between them except by special tests as above. And it should not be said that the forgery of Tekhelet was done by kala ilan with the addition of another color, as it was apparently possible to understand from the language of the Sifrei (Shelach episode): “And what is the point of the exodus from Egypt here? Unless it is said that I give dyes and kala ilan and they are similar to Tekhelet and who informs me…”, but the intention of the Sifrei – dyes or kala ilan, as it is plainly understood from the Gemara everywhere, that the forgery is done with kala ilan alone. And it is also proven in Gemara Menachos 41b: “Tar Talit that is all Tekhelet, all kinds of dyes are putrin in it except kala ilan”, and the point of the halachah is that they replace it with Tekhelet or that Tekhelet will not be visible to itself, that the scripture was careful about two mirrors. After all, there it is not about a forger who wants to make a color similar to Tekhelet, but about someone who dyes his clothes with kala ilan just like that.

Therefore, if we know what kala ilan is, we will know what the nature of Tekhelet is. And here in Aruch, edited kala ilan, he wrote that it is “indigo” – which is a blue color, and yes it is in the answer of Rabbi Amram Gaon!, and this is the meaning of the Tosefta Avodah Zarah 7:1: “kala ilan whose breath in Ashara trees will burn…”, which is how the craft of making indigo by dishing leaves soaked in water is. But we cannot find out in this way the brightness or darkness of Tekhelet.

And refer again to Rabbi Yona’s commentary to Berachos 9b (4b in the pages of the Rabbinical Rabbi Eliezer says): “Kreti – there are commentators from the language of hay and onions that translate Creti and onions, and it does not appear, is the matter of Tekhelet similar to Creti?! Rather, it is certainly correct, as Rabbi R. Natan Ba’al Aruch interpreted (it is not found in our Aruch) Dakhreti is a kind of color that Korin Hindu and is similar to Tekhelet, and therefore said Demi to recognize one and the other…” And so it is in Tosafos Chullin 47b (Da Ela) with a slight change. And also refer to Tosafos Sukkah 31b (The Green Book) which means from them that there is a difference between Tekhelet and Indigo.

And it should be added that in the excavations of the city of Dora Europos in Syria!! An ancient synagogue from the days of the Amorites was found with wall paintings from biblical stories, and in one painting Aharon the priest is drawn wearing a Tekhelet* garment, and it is blue.

The View of the Zohar and the Mekubalim

In the Book of Zohar, Tekhelet is mentioned as the color of the sea*, and in many places as the blue color of the flame in Ben’! And it is mentioned as a dark color* and the purpose of all shades!. And the Ramek in Pardes wrote in the name of the Kabbalists that Tekhelet is blue close to black, but there is a light Tekhelet species close to the Tekhelet color, see there.

The Shade of Tekhelet

According to the Greek sources

All the ancient Greek translations” are equal in translating the word “Tekhelet”, and so it is in the Midrash Esther Rabbah (parasha 2, 7): “Hor Karaps and Tekhelet translated by Akhils Ayrinon Karapsinon.” And R. Bibi said Tynon.” And see the edit, Erinon edit, which interprets ‘Yakintinon’ for the Tekhelet translation. And it is the Greek translation in all of the above translations. But it is very difficult to know what the exact meaning of this word is in Greek and what is the exact shade of the color that it intends to describe. Sometimes this word describes a particular flower dyed in the same shade or a precious stone dyed in the same shade, and it is very difficult to be precise about the essence of this flower and the essence of this precious stone, and the experts in linguistics disagree on the matter. Tekhelet.

Brich Rahmana Desiya Len.

On Renewing the Mitzvah of Tekhelet

After reading Rabbi Jacob Epstein’s article on the subject of Tekhelet, published in Tevet issue 5757 (1997), it became clear to me that my words, which he refers to in his article (written in the ‘Tekhelet article’), were misunderstood. Therefore Shabbos it is appropriate to explain things again succinctly.

All ways of identifying the original Tekhelet can be divided into three types:

a. Identify the chilazon. b. Industry identification. c. Linguistic recognition.

A. Identifying the Chilazon

In any identification based on signs, several conditions must be met:

a. The set of candidates for identification should be complete.

b. All candidates must be checked according to the identifying marks and the suitable ones must be selected from among them.

For example: when we come to identify a certain guy from the yeshiva based on a description we received (and we have no knowledge that he is exclusive to that guy), we must make sure that we have all the guys in front of us, examine the suitability of the description for each and every one, and only if only one of them fits the description, can we determine with certainty that he is the requested guy.

Also, the requested description should be unequivocal and cannot be changed. For example: “thin” or “fat” – are not acceptable signs, because they are relative and may change.

It should be noted that these rules oblige any identifier based on signs (the exclusivity of which has not been proven), whether he is aware of it or not.

The Rebbe of Radzin followed the path of identification based on signs. This way led him to identify the “Apothecary Squid” as chilazon Tekhelet. But his path is flawed, because it did not fulfill all the aforementioned conditions – he did not have a complete list of animals of the Mediterranean (in those days it was also impossible to obtain), and in any case he did not review all the candidates for identification. Apart from that, almost all the 11 signs that the Rebbe brought up from the sources are also found in other animals and are not special to the “pharmacists’ squid”. Also, many of the signs he brought up are not clear cut. For example: the sixth siman “the chilazon has threads similar to bent pegs” – built on the words of the mishna in tractate Kilim (PIB MA):

“The chain that tied the chilazon on its head is impure” – it is not clear-cut, because we do not know exactly what this object, attached to the chain, is called the chilazon, and different interpretations have been said about it. Also, even if we accept that these are threads, they are found in other animals, as mentioned above.

Rabbi Epstein did not notice that the way of the Rebbe of Radzin is also the way of “elimination” (missing and skipping), and it is also the way of Rabbi Herzog, as it seems to Kaman, and it is also the way of anyone who wants to identify a chilazon by its signs, even if he does not indicate this or is not aware of it. And, in my article, I only define the principles of this way of identification and try to improve it, by examining the question of whether we have a complete list of animals in the Mediterranean of Chazal’s time, and by trying to rely on certain and unequivocal signs only. This way, improved, brings us to the identification of the “Murex” as chilazon Tekhelet.

The criteria I used are: a. the chilazon is an animal. b. It is found in the Mediterranean Sea. c. He has a shell. d. Found of its kind on land. e. It can be used for coloring.

Rabbi Epstein mistakenly attributed another siman to me – “which is not a chilazon of mountains” and made it difficult to determine this siman from Rashi (Magila 6a and more). Even if I were to define the siman this way – it is not a correct way to make it difficult for one commentary on the issue, when another commentary is known (Yad Ramah’s commentary on Sanhedrin 91a) that fits this criterion (this comment is correct in several places in Rabbi Epstein’s article). Also, the last and most important siman was omitted by him.

The signs, the third and fourth, express what is agreed upon by all linguists that the word “chilazon” means – a snail with a helical shell. This was clear to the Rishonim, who even spoke of a snail shape, i.e. a spiral (see Or Ha’ah to Rav Karshakash, Article 1, Clal 1, 13). And this is the meaning of the word chilazon in the Arabic language to this day. Rabbi Epstein’s appeal to this convention is puzzling.

The ring, called “chilazon”, drawn in the manuscripts of Sefer Aruch, twists in a spiral twist, and is definitely similar to the chilazon shell (and I don’t understand why Rabbi Epstein claimed otherwise).

The statement that we have a complete list of the animals that were found in the Mediterranean Sea even at the time of Chazal, seems to me to be very reasonable, and I do not see why this should be disputed.

B. Identifying the Industry

In this way of identification, the problem of identifying the chilazon, with all the complications involved, is skipped, and we go directly to the identification of the Tekhelet industry. The one and only assumption that stands at the foundation of a path

This identification, is that Tekhelet was one of the prestige materials of the ancient world and that its publication was extensive. This is clear from the Chazal sources (see Menachos 43b: “Great is the punishment of a white man, etc.”; the legends about Korah in Sanhedrin 110a and the Midrash of Proverbs 11; the books of Proverbs and this is the blessing C. Shend; edited by Tekhelet; Rashi Shabbos 26a and Yogavim; Pi. Ramban to Shemos 20, 2). If this is the case, then it is impossible not to mention this industry in the extensive literature of antiquity, which expanded the conversation about the essence of that time. And here, these sources speak of only one paint industry that uses a marine animal, and that is the Murex-related industry. It should be noted that even in the archaeological finds there are only traces of this industry. The conclusion from all this, that “Murex” is the source of Tekhelet.

Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Herzog struggled between these two ways of identification, because they seemed to him to contradict each other – the first, i.e. the identification of the chilazon, led to the identification of the “Janthina”, and the second, i.e. the identification of the industry – to the identification of the “Murex”. After we have shown that they agree with each other, there is no more room for debate.

The Rebbe of Radzin was also sure that Tekhelet was used by the emperors of Rome and is described in their books, as explained to the spring in his books, but was misled into thinking that the “squid” was the source of the celebrated color. Now, when it is clear above all safek that the “squid” was not used by them at all, and the “Murex” is the source of the royal paint industry, it must be assumed that if the Rebbe of Radzin lived in our generation, he would trust the “Murex” with both hands.

C. Linguistic Identification

The rabbi in his commentary to tractate Berachos quotes Yerushalmi, which identifies Tekhelet with the “purpura”. “Purpura” is a Greek word, which has also been transferred to other languages (apparently, the first one who brought the Rabbi was Rabbi Bezalel Naor in his articles on Tekhelet, and it was not mentioned before). “Purpura” has several meanings: a. The name of the chilazon the “Murex”. B. The name of the colors (in different shades) that are produced from this chilazon. extracted from the “purpura” chilazon.

After we have had the survival of this important passage from the Yerushalmi, do you have another piece of evidence, joining the previous evidence, to identify the “Murex” as a Tekhelet source.

Rabbi Epstein doubts this evidence, arguing that we did not find this passage in our Yerushalmi, and we did not find others who quote this passage. But I don’t understand what the problem is with that. There are dozens of passages cited in the Rabbi’s and other Rishonim that are not found in our Yerushalmi. Why, what was good for the Rishonim Rabbi, who brought them and trusted them, is not good for us.

Nor do I understand why it is necessary, as Rabbi Epstein claims, that wherever Tekhelet is mentioned, it should be identified as “purpura”. And that Chazal should translate the Hebrew word “Tekhelet”, which is understood by all, into the Greek word purple!? Only in the case of the passage in Rabi’a, which needed a fine distinction between the tones, were Tekhelet and Cretan translated into Greek words that accurately describe the two tones that are close to each other. His assertion, that the “purpura” is actually crimson, is not saved from his own difficulties, and I do not understand its priority.

As a continuation of the Rabbi’s words, the words of R. Binyamin Musafia should be quoted, who writes in his edited addendum on the edited version (parafira version): “Purpura – Pi. B. L. and Rumi Bagd Tekhelet”. Although he does not provide evidence for his statements, as requested by Rabbi Epstein. But for things like this we do not ask for evidence, since this is an accepted and agreed upon identification that they had at the time, just as we do not challenge the hundreds and thousands of identifications that were accepted by the Rishonim and passed down to us. Even the chief judge who owns Havat Yair confidently writes in his book Makor Haim (Och 11 p. 90) that Tekhelet is “purpura”.

Finally: one should not assume what was simple for the Rishonim against excessive and unfounded safekas, which turn the fulfillment of a complete mitzvah into some non-obligatory “act of Hasidicism”.

Tekhelet — Murex or Janthina?

Many years ago, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog zt’l, proposed to identify chilazon Tekhelet with chilazon Hintina (purple). The only real evidence for this idea is the Beraisa in the Menachos treatise (44a): “This is a chilazon whose body is like the sea and whose creation is like a fish and rises once every seventy years…”.

From this Beraisa it is clear that it is a chilazon, but it is given to different interpretations that cannot be definitively decided between them, so that it cannot be spoken of as a source of meaningful identification marks. Even if sometimes one interpretation seems to be closer to the simplest – it is possible that the truth is actually in the narrower and least visible interpretation at first glance.

In addition to this problem, the identification method based on signs has a well-known weakness (which I have already discussed elsewhere), and that is that even after we have found a chilazon that in our opinion matches the identification signs in the sources – there is no assurance that there are no other chilazon species that we have not yet found, or that we will never be able to find them because they are already extinct, that have exactly the same signs. Those who come to rely on this method must ensure a scan of all the animals that existed at the time of Chazal, and show that out of all of them only one animal was found to match these signs – an almost impossible feat.

Here I will refer again to the claims made in various settings in favor of identifying Hintina as a chilazon Tekhelet, and I will try to answer the claims and prove that there is no truth in them.

a. According to the aforementioned Beraisa “his body resembles the sea”, the owners of this method claim that it is proven that the chilazon is similar in color to the sea and the sky, and if so the only candidate for identification as a Tekhelet chilazon is Hintina, whose shell and body color is blue-purple.

However, it is actually not clear from the language of the Beraisa what type of similitude she is referring to, whether the reference is to the similitude of the tone (as the Rambam understood in the tzitzis (P.B. halachah 2) or whether it is intended to be a different similitude, as for example the commentary to the book of creation attributed to Raavad (in the introduction, netiv 8) understood that it refers to clinging to the bottom of the sea. And as for the similitude to the sky, this is another version of the same Beraisa presented in the tractate of tzitzis, And it is not correct to use two alternating versions at the same time, but one must decide which is the correct version.

In any case, even if we accept the first interpretation, Hintina the chilazon is not the only one suitable for this siman. Chilazon the Murex can also be described as similar in color to the sea, and much has already been said about this.

b. the chilazon “rises once every seventy years” (Babylonian Menachos 44a. Beraisa dtzitzis), and this corresponds to the chilazon Hintina, which maybe (I emphasize ‘maybe’, because this thing really hasn’t been tested) appears only once every many years in significant quantities.

However, the phrase “rises once every seventy years” is subject to different interpretations: a. Rising from the sea to the land. b. He ascends from the land (as Rashi understood on the spot). c. rises and detaches from the seabed. d. Up in the fishing net. And in general, there is no necessity that this phrase explains why the chilazon can only be captured rarely. It is very possible that this phrase is directed towards the description of the life of the chilazon (as the Rema MiPano understood in the article Devotional Hashem 14 Yad-To: “But its root is embedded and stuck in the bottom of the sea… and once in seventy years it is uprooted from there and rises from the water and then it is still without movement at all…”), and there is no negativity in this towards the possibility of obtaining it, because it can be collected from the bottom of the sea, and when it is cut off from the bottom it is dead and unworthy for good coloring.

If so, no siman is appropriate for Hintina, and it is also appropriate for the Murex and any other chilazon, which are also rarely thrown by the waves of the sea to the land, just as it happens to Hintina.

In general, it is appropriate to doubt the use of the phrase Melitz as an identifier to clarify the reality. I wonder what the results would have been, if we had tried to identify a carob according to what is said about it in Tractate Bekorot (8a) that from the time it is planted until the time its fruits are finished it is seventy years, or to identify a snake or an aphaa according to what is said about them (there) that pass for seven and seventy years. Would we have reached the same Harob and the same serpent and Apah that we know?!

c. Another claim is that the chilazon is similar to a fish (“His creation is like a fish”, Menachos 44a), and the shape of the bubble nest that the chilazon builds for him Hintina, to the bottom of which he clings and thus floats on the surface of the sea – is similar to a small fish.

Against this, it must be said that it is very difficult to assume that Chazal meant in the above expression the particular resemblance that there may be between Hintina’s nest of bubbles and a fish. In general, the definition given by Chazal to the concept of ‘fish’ is not at all clear, and Rabbi Herzog also debated this a lot in his writings (see the book ‘Tekhelet’ by Rabbi Borshtin, p. 385 and more). The definition can be greatly expanded and say that everything that lives in the sea is called a fish (as the Gra says in his commentary Eliyahu on the treatise PI MA), and it is possible to narrow it down to the phrase ‘Briato’ mentioned in Beraisa, as opposed to the ‘body’ mentioned earlier, that the chilazon – and that includes all the chilazon species – reproduces and spawns like a fish, and ‘Briato’ is interpreted as ‘the way it reproduces’ Riveting with that, and there may be other interpretations of this expression.

d. In the Gemara in tractate Shabbos (72a) it is written as follows: “Tar Tzad chilazon and the wounded… and to oblige Nami because of taking a soul! Rabbi Yochanan said: His wound died. Raba said: “Even a tyma whose wound is alive, he is busy with taking a soul… As soon as the soul died, let it rest, because the one who dyes it.” From this Gemara we learn several things: 1. It is possible to produce color from a dead chilazon (Rabbi Yochanan’s answer). 2. The production of color was done by injury.

These things are not compatible with Hintina. Dead snails of this species are not suitable for use, and in order to extract color from the living chilazon species there is no need for injury at all, and certainly not for killing, but when they are harassed they emit considerable amounts of blue liquid. This Gemara is a major paraphrase for identifying chilazon Tekhelet with Hintina.

e. From the story given in the Sifrei (this is the blessing C. Shenz) it seems that the reason for the rarity of the chilazon is miraculous, and not its true rarity as it happens with the chilazon Hintina. And Zal the Sifrei: “Rabbi Yossi said, once I was walking from Zizib to Tzur, and I found an old man, I told him what is your livelihood, he told me from Chilazon. I told him that it is found, the heavens told me that there is a place in the sea that is surrounded by mountains and sedges surround it, and you don’t have a person who goes there where sedges bite him and die in his place. the somnolence.

This also reinforces what was said above, that the failure to obtain the chilazon depends on some phenomenon described in the phrase ‘rises once every seventy years’. Rather, this story shows a face to the Murex, which is found in the places described there (between Kaszib and Tzur) because of the rocky shores to which it is attracted, in contrast to the Janthina which is found on all the shores of Eretz Yisrael equally.

This section in the ‘book’ refutes the claim that this is Bintina, and the section next to it there, which names the chilazon as one of the economic branches that supported the inhabitants of this area, clearly proves that this is precisely the chilazon the Murex, known from many historical sources as a pillar of the economy of that area at the time.

and The Gemara in Menachos (42b) speaks of chilazon blood being dyed with. It is difficult to understand how a blue liquid that chilazon species Hintina emit in their lives, can be called ‘blood’. Also, the Gemara on Shabbos (74b) talks about the chilazon side of the nets. This does not exist in the chilazon species Hintina – they are not hunted, and certainly not in nets, but are collected from the beach soil after they

are ejected by the waves of the sea onto the land. On the other hand, all these conditions are well suited to chilazon the Murex. It is necessary to injure (the injury is really like an injury to nuts with a hammer), the chilazon eventually dies as a result of the injury, and it is also possible to injure a dead chilazon and extract color from it as well, but there is a priority to extracting the color from a living chilazon in terms of its quality.

This is also mentioned in ancient books, which describe the process of producing the color purpura. After the injury, a color is formed in a shade that certainly resembles blood. This is also accurately described in the ancient books, which call this liquid ‘chilazon blood’. Chilazon the Murex was hunted then as it is today with nets lowered to the bottom of the sea with bait.

G. It is also impossible to ignore the lack of mention of Hintina in books describing the nature of the ancient world. It is impossible to accept that chilazon Tekhelet was a ‘product’ that the ancient world did not know at all, that was not traded in its markets and that the kings and counts did not desire to wear. These things are, after all, one of the distinct hallmarks of Tekhelet. On the other hand, the color of the Murex, or in its original name the purpura, is the only product produced from the sea chilazon species that is mentioned a lot in the past literature. It is described as one of the valuables of ancient times, along with silver and gold, which is fitting for Tekhelet. Not only the external sources point to the Murex as a Tekhelet source. Also in our sources, starting from the Yerushalmi quoted by the Rabbi (on Berachos 9b, 3. Kah) through the Ramban (OT Shemos 20, 2) to the important rulings the Acharonim as Havat Yair (Mekor Haim, p. 70) and Ray’batz (Metafa Seferim) and more, and this has already been discussed extensively and in detail in other places.

So far, all researchers have failed in their efforts to dye woolen yarn with the liquid extracted from Hintina. If a researcher comes and wants to convince the interested public that the Janthina is the original chilazon Tekhelet, he will have to present the dyeing process, explain whether the color is stable, whether it conforms to the tests mentioned in the Gemara (Menachos 42b), whether it is boiled in water with the markers as mentioned in the Gemara there, whether it is necessary to taste the water before dyeing, and whether it was possible in ancient times with the materials and conditions available to our ancestors to perform the the coloring Even then it will be necessary to remember that the possibility of coloring is a necessary condition for identifying a color coming out of any chilazon as the original Tekhelet, but certainly not a sufficient condition. Not everything that dyes blue is necessarily the original Tekhelet.

When Did Tekhelet Cease Among the Jewish People?

This issue has already been discussed in the past by two world leaders – the Rebbe of Radzin, Rabbi Hanoch Hanach Leiner and Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Herzog, and I have come only to discuss their words, and to add things that will be renewed after their time.

The View of the Radzyner Rebbe

Rabbi Radzin holds the opinion that delays the time of Tekhelet’s disappearance, and in his opinion Tekhelet was also present during the time of the Geniuses. Even the Rambam, who wrote in the interpretation of the Mishnah (Menachos 44 MA) and in the answer (Kalah, Mahd. Blao) that no Tekhelet was found in his time, in the opinion of Rabbi Radzin, later found the chilazon, and therefore knew to note in his composition (halachot tzitzis PB halachah 2) a detail about the chilazon, which was not mentioned in the words of Chazal – “its blood is black as ink”.

We will refer, one by one, to the evidence of Rebbe Radzin, which he brought in his book ‘Shaponi Tamoni Hul’ to strengthen this opinion.

a. the Raavad in his findings (the laws of tzitzis 1 halachah 7) brought the method of a genius rabbi Netrunai in arranging tzitzis bindings, which include the Tekhelet bindings, and there is no way of the geniuses to order but the laws that concern the actuality of their time.

On this it should be noted that in the book of the Raavad – Tamim De’im (C. Lat) – in the passage corresponding to its conclusion on the Rambam, it is stated in the commentary: “They bind and make four bindings and place a part between the binding and the binding, and that part is the place of Tekhelet at the time it was”. On the contrary, there is evidence to the contrary, that for a long time Natronai the genius of Tekhelet was no longer found, and instead of Tekhelet bindings he used to leave spaces.

b. In the money Mishnah (Tzitzit Laws there) it is stated that Rabbi Shmuel (name: Shimon) ben Hofani Gaon authored a book on Tzitzis Laws with a chapter on Tekhelet Law. And again, according to the aforementioned rule, that there is no way for the geniuses to order but the laws that pertain to the practice of their time, it must be proven that Tekhelet in his time was common.

It should be noted that in this chapter (which has since been published by Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac Herzog) it is stated in the commentary: “The news came to us (meaning: and it was handed down to us in tradition) that they used to dye with the blood of a sea animal named Chilazon”. Here, too, we clearly see that at the time of Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofani, the genius of Tekhelet was no longer found.

c. The editor saw the chilazon and knew how to draw it.

Although it is true that the author of the edit about chilazon 2 drew the shape of the ring called ‘chilazon’, which is mentioned in tractate Kilim (PIB MA), and his drawing survived in several manuscripts (Kti Paris 8, and Kti Parma 3011), but this is not the case here, but rather the knowledge of the general concept – ‘chilazon’, which includes many species, living between the sea and the land, and not the special species of the chilazon, which they produced from him Tekhelet.

d. the Rambam in the laws of tzitzis (PB halachah 2) brought a detail about the chilazon, which was not mentioned in the words of Chazal – “His blood is as black as ink”. Hence, the Rambam knew the chilazon. Also, from the answer he gave to the sages of Lonil regarding Tekhelet – ‘halachah in fact’ – meaning “that they had and used to observe the mitzvas of Tekhelet”.

Already Avraham Epstein, in his article ‘the chilazon and Tekhelet’ (Beit Hatalmud, Year 5, Veyyan 5647 (1887)), followed by Rabbi Menachem Mendel kosher Torah Shlomo (vol. 22 milu’im p. 9) obtained on this claim, that the answer, in which the Rambam writes that Tekhelet was not found in his time, was written after his composition – Mishna Torah. To this must be added the words of Rabbi Avraham ben the Rambam in the laws of tzitzis, Shabbosuch his book sufficient for God’s servants, which were discovered and published in our day (from Nisim Dana); “This is the way of making tzitzis nowadays in which the knowledge of dyeing Tekhelet has disappeared.” And if there is still no evidence from this for not knowing the chilazon itself, but only for not knowing the way of dyeing, then his following words clearly prove it: “And because of not knowing this fish by accurate tradition, the later people were prevented from making Tekhelet”. This book of his was definitely written after his father’s composition – the Rambam, since he often quotes from it and relies on it.

For the very question – where did the Rambam derive that the blood of the chilazon is black as ink – other ideas were proposed in the Sefer Marechei Leshon (chilazon entry) and in Rabbi Herzog’s articles (Hed Hobart 12, Elul 5694 (1934) p. 19 and more). Even the Rebbe of Radzin himself, in his latest book – Ein Tekhelet (Letter 22), doubted the above statement in the opinion of the Rambam and wrote: “We did not write this but based on a hypothesis, and it is not clear evidence, because it is possible and more likely that he found it expressed somewhere in the words of Chazal, and we will not know the source of his pure place, because he had several Chazal Midrashes before him that we lack.”

In his second book – Ptil Tekhelet (in the introduction), the Rebbe of Radzin claimed that even in the time of Baal Halachots, Tekhelet was still found, because according to Baal HaMaor, the Bahj rules that Tekhelet hinders the white, and it is unlikely that in his ruling he excused himself from performing mitzvas tzitzis. It seems that it is not the intention of the Rebbe of Radzin to say that Tekhelet was found in the days of anyone who ruled that Tekhelet hinders the white, because the Baal Ma’or also ruled so, and certainly

At that time Tekhelet was no longer common. But it seems that this evidence is also according to the above-mentioned rule, that the Geniuses do not bring in their books anything that concerns the practice of their time, and since the 13th century brought the laws of tzitzis in his book, he saw the possibility of maintaining them in his day.

Two comments should be made about this. First, we saw from the previous examples that this rule is not necessary. Second, Baal Ha’Maor does not have explicit evidence that the HC rules that Tekhelet hinders the white, but he infers this from the fact that the subjunctive “Tekhelet does not hinder the white” is not mentioned in his words. But there may be other reasons why the 33rd does not bring the Mishnah. On the contrary, evidence should be brought to the contrary, that he believes the verse that Tekhelet does not hinder the white man, from the fact that he brings Rabbi Meir’s Beraisa: “The punishment of a white man is more severe than the punishment of Tekhelet. Parable of a king of flesh and blood, who said to his two servants, to one he said to him, Bring me a seal of clay, and to the other he said to him, Bring me a seal of gold. They both committed a crime and did not bring it. What is the punishment? Hoi says, the one who told him of the clay and didn’t bring it.”

The View of Rav Herzog

Rabbi Herzog, on the other hand, in his article ‘When did Tekhelet cease from Israel?’ (Published in Shay LaYeshayah, 5716 (1956), pp. 85-81) holds an opinion that anticipates the disappearance of Tekhelet. According to him, Tekhelet was found in the last days of the Amorites, as stated in the Gemara (Menachos 43a): “Mr. Mashchi spelled Tekheleta in the second Rabbi Achai”, but in the days of Rabbi Acha Mashbaha, one of the first geniuses, it had already ceased and was no longer found. He comes to this conclusion from the fact that in the queries “there is no mention of Tekhelet”. Even before him, the Netziv came to a similar conclusion in his interpretation of the queries – Ha’emek Shala (Shailta 126, p. 9) – “Our Lord (that is, the owner of the queries) did not bring Tekhelet laws at all because he was not in his place and time.”

But it should be noted that many additional tzitzis laws were not brought up in the queries, such as a sheet in tzitzis, a double tallit, charging women and children with tzitzis and more, and it is not known what his considerations were in his additions and omissions. In any case, as long as we did not find an explicit mention that Tekhelet is not found, there should be no rules on the matter. And if the reference is to the laws of making links, which are given in Beraisa (Menachos 39a): “Tanna, the subtracter shall not be less than seven, and the adder shall not add to thirteen, the subtracter shall not be less than seven – against seven heavens, and the adder shall not add to thirteen – against seven heavens, and six airs in between. When he begins, he begins with white – the wing is like a wing, and when he finishes, he ends with white – from raising in the holy place and not from lowering it”, because the necessity is to bring them, one must reply to this, that Beraisa rejected this question from halachah, and ruled according to the opinion of the Rabbi, which is quoted there: “Noi Tekhelet one third of a strand and two thirds of a branch,

A strand for the majority of Nami was of a benign blood, and Nami’s island did not grow in it but one kosher link.” Even though the rabbis and the Rambam did not see a contradiction between these laws and brought them both into halachah, other scholars and geniuses have a different method in this, and ammal.

The same comments should also be made regarding the evidence that Rabbi Herzog brings, from the omission of Tekhelet laws from a number of large halakhots.

The earliest explicit reference to the non-reality of Tekhelet is found in the words of Rabbi Amram Gaon (The Answers of the Gaonim Gaonika, p. 330; also cited in the Sh’are Tshuva C. Kent in the name of Sher Shalom Gaon, and in Eshkol, Albek edition, p. 205, in the name of Gaon Saman): “And you asked what the subtraction is not less than a z and the adder does not add to the 13, when Tekhelet was in the hands of Israel this is how they would throw it to him Rabbi Herzog in his aforementioned article (p. 84) alludes to this answer: “Mr. Sher Shalom Gaon speaks of Tekhelet as a thing that was and is no more.” The Gaon’s words mean that Tekhelet has not completely disappeared, but that it is not within Israel’s power to obtain it, and in this, in my opinion, there is an echo of the restrictions imposed by the Roman government on its use, as will be discussed below.

Tekhelet mentioned by Rav Natan the Bavli in the description of the coronation of Rish Galuta – “And they had prepared for him in the synagogue a day earlier a wooden tower, seven cubits long and three wide, and spread over him beautiful clothes of silk and Tekhelet and scarlet and tola’as shani… and in his place they spread over him a beautiful garment on his head, above the tower, held by cords of world mud and scarlet” (Seder Zota, in the Seder of the Sages And the Chronicles of A. Naiboer, 5647 (1887), HB 3, is nothing more than a melic language, built on verses from the Torah, which does not accurately reflect reality. Rabbi Herzog in his above article replaced Rabbi Natan the Bavli with Rabbi Shira Gaon, and also gave another explanation for the existence of Tekhelet in his words – “The mention of Tekhelet does not in any way prove the reality of Tekhelet tzitzis. What is understood is: a dyed garment similar in appearance to Tekhelet, but not Tekhelet dyed with the blood of the chilazon”.

Rabbi Herzog saw in the words of the well-known traveler Rabbi Binyamin of Todla a mention of the purple industry by the Jews of Tire, related to Tekhelet dyeing, and wondered why there was no attempt on their part to revive the observance of Tekhelet mitzvas. But the whole thing is fundamentally wrong – Rabbi Herzog relied on a distorted version of the book – Rabbi Benjamin’s Misues of Todela, published by A. Asher, and about his mistranslation. In that version it is said (vol. 1 p. 3): “And there the Jews have ships in the sea and there the best known glass artisans, the most important in all countries, and there the best glass maker will be found.” The Sikar is translated by A. Asher (ibid., p. 63) as ‘the color of purple’ (by the way, Rabbi Herzog himself in his English article in the comments [p. 131, note 398] made a reservation

somewhat from this statement and claimed that it was a red purpura only. ‘Sikr’, in his opinion, is a red color). But, according to the revised version published by Adler (p. 21), it is not a name but a soker – “and there the good soker (the soker, according to other versions) will be found, because there it is sown and there is no place to buy it”. A complete sentence was omitted in the publication of A. Which clearly proves that it is not a color from the chilazon species!

The second explicit mention, from the time of the geniuses, which is widely spoken and well known, is found in Midrash Tanhuma for Parashat Shelah (published by Buber CL, and in its parallel in Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah Parsha 17, letter 5): “And now we have nothing but a son, that Tekhelet was shelved”, but it is not known exactly when the compilation of this Midrash was completed.

When did the crimson rule? Just as it is appropriate to trace the time of the disappearance of Tekhelet, so it is appropriate and important to find out the time of the disappearance of the hearth color – crimson.

The mention of crimson is almost as common in Chazal as the mention of Tekhelet. But the observer of those places, in which Tekhelet or the crimson is mentioned, will stand upon a very surprising phenomenon – Tekhelet is always mentioned only in a halachic or legendary context, but in the affairs of Chullin, among the household items and objects of daily life, only the crimson is mentioned. For example: discussions of scarlet among the various garments regarding the prohibition of hybrids (Kilayim 15 19), differences of scarlet among the various losses that do not have to be declared (Bava Metzia PB MA), the scarlet mentioned several times among the weaving tools (Kalim 51 and chapters 227), the scarlet in the garment regarding lesions (Nageim PI MI), among the materials regarding the removal from the authority to the authority on Shabbos (Tosefta Shabbos 9:7) and in the matter of Moksha (Ibid., 4), and in the Sifrei (Deuteronomy, paragraph 1) regarding the prohibition of going out in scarlet because of the prohibition of walking in the laws of the Gentiles.

If we accept the claim that Tekhelet and crimson were produced from one source – the purpura chilazon, we will have a satisfactory explanation for this surprising phenomenon. The name of the only color known in the Greco-Roman world, in all its shades, produced from the sea chilazon species, was ‘purpura’. The automatic, common and accepted translation of the name ‘purpura’ is ‘crimson’, as appears from the Greek translations of the Torah. Therefore, in everyday life, under the influence of foreign languages, they also called Tekhelet by the name Argaman, and therefore there is no mention of Tekhelet in these matters, but when they talked about Tekhelet in a halachic context or when they quoted a verse, they used the language of the Torah, and called it by the name ‘Tekhelet’.

Without safek, the use of crimson stopped at some time, after it was present during the terms and conditions, but we have no way of ascertaining the exact time of its disappearance. Unlike Tekhelet,

It is not possible to find an explicit mention in the words of the Geniuses about the absence of the crimson, since it has no bearing on halachah (except in the Beis HaMikdash).

In the merchant letters from the end of the Genius period, found in the Cairo Genizah, the scarlet (more precisely – Argoan in Jewish-Arabic) is mentioned several times (see in the book on the reign of Ishmael in the Genius period, Moshe Gil, vol. 1 pp. 681, 697, vol. 3 pp. 67, 82, 675, vol. 4 pp. 314, 561, 564). We have no need to say that this is the original crimson, and it turns out that it is a color name, extracted from another source, called by the same name. It seems that this is what caused the people of those generations to no longer identify the crimson with the color produced from the chilazon (see the commentary of the mishna to Rambam Kilayim 59 MA).

Of particular interest is a letter from the Geniza published by Shlomo Dov Goitein (in: The Settlement in the Land of Israel Bereishis Islam and the Crusader Period, p. 302), in which he apparently found a reference to the fact that the production of dye from the chilazon species continued even into the Crusader period. The content of the letter is not at all related to the process of producing the paint, but it contains a complaint about the people from Alexandria, called ‘Maharin’, who drink beer in taverns. The evidence rests on only one word – ‘Maharin’, which Guitein translates as ‘chilazon shellfish fishermen’. Moshe Gil, who published a second time (in: Land of Israel in the First Muslim Period, HB p. 514), was probably satisfied, on the other hand, with her translation, and translated it as ‘fishermen’ just with a siman question on the side (and in a note he wrote: Makharin, fishermen of scarlet oysters, relying on Guitein).

Similar to the letters from the Genizah, close to the same period, we find the Argeman in the travels of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela. He mentions it in three places: in Thebes, a city in Greece – “where, like thousands of Jews, they are the best craftsmen in making silk and crimson clothes in the land of the Greeks”, in Kushta – “and they bring all the customs from all over Greece every year and fill towers with silk, crimson and gold clothes”, and in Baghdad – “everyone wears silk and crimson clothes”. Here, too, it can be said that it is not the original crimson, but regarding the land of Greece, which is the land of the Byzantines, another meaning is also possible, as will be explained to Kamen.

The Factors Behind the Disappearance of Tekhelet and Argaman

The use of Tekhelet and Crimson decreased over the generations, as a result of several factors: a. The restrictions imposed by the various Roman and Byzantine emperors on the use of the color ‘purpura’ by the general public. This color was intended for elite people only, and became the symbol of power. Already in the Gemara, we find echoes of these limitations: “Send to the Rabbi: A couple will come to Markath, and they will catch an eagle, and in their hands will be things that are done in blues, and from Mai Nihu – Tekhelet, due to the mercy

And thanks to them they got out safely. And Amos Yirichi Nachshon asked to appoint one commissioner, and he did not grant the Adomim Halez, but the owners of assemblies gathered, and appointed one commissioner for him in the month in which Aharon the priest died” (Sanhedrin 12b). Rabbi Herzog and other writers have already elaborated on this matter in great detail.

b. A decrease in the number of the chilazon species as a result of increased fishing, following the government’s intense zeal for purpura (see the commentator, Yosef Scheinhak, chilazon entry at the end of the key note). A hint of this can be seen in the words of the Sifrei (and this is the blessing, Shend): “Rabbi Yossi said: Once I was walking from Ziv to Tzur, and I found an old man. I said to him: What is your livelihood? He said to me: From Chilazon. I said to him: And where is it? He said to me: Heaven, there is a place in the sea that is placed in the mountains, and sedums surround it, and you do not have a person who goes there, that is not sedumed, and died and died in his place. I said: It is evident, that it is put away To the righteous for the future.”

c. The Arab occupation of the shores of Eretz Yisrael and their removal from Byzantine rule, and the reduction of purple dyeing to the area under Byzantine control only (eventually it too fell into the hands of the Turks close to the expulsion of Spain, and thus the purple dye industry disappeared from the world).

d. The introduction of new and cheaper coloring materials to the world market, such as the ‘nil’ and the ‘varnish’. As the Radbaz says in his answer (HB C. Tarfa): “And it is possible that it is found to this day (ie: the chilazon), except that no one knows it, or no one knows about it. Also because they do not need it, that a color similar to Tekhelet is found a lot, that is, Istas, which is called in the Arabs Nil. And it is dyed in an artistic way, which does not even pass through ironing.”

There were two additional reasons for the cessation of Tekhelet in tzitzis:

a. The dispersal of the Jewish settlement and its distance from the sea shores – the place of production of Tekhelet. Even during the time of the Amorites, Tekhelet was brought to Babylon piece by piece, as is implied from the Gemara (Menachos 43a): “Mr Mashchi spelled Tekhelet in the second Rabbi Achai”. The halachah, that there is no Tekhelet hindering the white, led to the fact that they did not make an effort to overcome the difficulty in obtaining Tekhelet, and were content with performing the mitzvah only in white. This is how the Maggid of Dubna writes in Sefer Hamidot (Sha’ar Hida, Chapter 16): “If we had not accepted that Tekhelet was not delaying the white at this time, we might have even courted him, when we send far away to bring etrog, lulav, and myrtle.”

b. Silk, a new material that came from the Far East, was liked by the Byzantine aristocracy and displaced wool, the only kosher for the mitzvah, from the purpura industry.

Important for this matter are the words of the Ramban in his commentary to the Torah (Shemos 20:2): “And Tekhelet even today no one will raise his hand to wear except a king of the Gentiles” (it is clear that he means Tekhelet as a material, and not

To Tekhelet as a mirror, because in this it brings evidence to the prestige and importance of Tekhelet, as well as the other materials, brought there, that were used to build the Mishkan and make the priestly garments. Furthermore, we have to learn from the ‘King of the Gentiles’ himself, whose clothing was special in the material, from which it was made, and not only in its appearance).

Who is this ‘King of the Gentiles’, of whom the Ramban speaks, and what did he wear? It turns out that this ‘King of the Gentiles’ is the Pope sitting in Rome (see the Ramban’s commentary to Bereishis Yad, 1: “And the King of the Gentiles – the king over various peoples over whom he was named head and officer, an allusion to a Roman king who is the king over a city made up of many peoples, Kitites and Adom and other Gentiles”), who wore purple as a symbol of control and the kingdoms. The popes during the Ramban period grasped the idea that they should rule the world. They intervened in the affairs of countries, crowned and deposed kings of European countries. They behaved themselves royally according to the best tradition of the emperors of the Roman Empire. For this purpose they needed purple clothes, which they received as diplomatic gifts from Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantines, the only source at the time for this luxury product. Only in it did they know the secret its production, and guarded it with all vigilance.

From these words of the Ramban, we see what the state of affairs was in his day – although they knew how to identify Tekhelet with the purple, it had no practical value for the observance of mitzvas tzitzis. Tekhelet became the property of a very limited circle, the Pope and his ilk, and a person from the Yishuv had no possibility of obtaining it. After the fall of Constantinople to the Turks, or perhaps even before, during its destruction by the Crusaders, there was no Continue even this little, and the clerical circles had to make do with substitutes, who continued to bear the name of purpura in vain.

The greatest of the judges, Havat Yair, in his commentary to Shulchan Aruch Makor Haim (Och C. 18, 2), Rabbi Avraham Harofeh Portleone in his book Shelti Gevorim (Mantova Shab chapter et; Jerusalem Institute 5770 (2010), p. Shdem) and Rabbi Binyamin Musafia in the Musaf al Aruch (parafira version), also as Ramban, identify Tekhelet with the purpura, but it was surely known to them in Alma, which does not indicate the reality of Tekhelet in their days.

What Was the Gra’s View on the Number of Tekhelet Strings in Tzitzis?

The question of the number of threads in tzitzis in general, and the number of Tekhelet threads in particular, is related to closed and sealed issues, which gave rise to different opinions among the arbitrators.

According to Rashi, one should take two white threads and two Tekhelet threads, which after tucking them into the garment and folding them, make four white threads and four Tekhelet threads. He was followed by the owners of the Tosafos and almost all of the Ashkenazi poski.

the Rambam, on the other hand, believes that only half of the four threads will be Tekhelet, and after tying them in the garment, seven white threads and one Tekhelet thread are obtained. In his opinion, no friend has found this, except for Rabbi Avraham in his book Sufficient for the Servants of God (in the laws of tzitzis) and his student Rabbi Farahia in his commentary to the tractate Shabbos (25b).

The average opinion is the opinion of the Raavad, that you should take one Tekhelet thread and the other three should be white, and after folding them in the garment you get six white threads and two Tekhelet. This opinion was already brought up in the Aruch (the Tekhelet edition) in the name of Rabbi Hananel, and it was held by the Meiri (Yavmot 4b), the Rulings of Riaz (Halchot Tzitzis, p. 23) and the sages of Lunil, who directed their question to the Rambam (the Rambam’s response, Rapo’s answer published by Blao).

The words of Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofani Gaon in his book on the laws of tzitzis, published by me from a written work, can be interpreted either as the opinion of the Rambam or as the opinion of the Raavad. The SMG gives the opinion of Rashi and the opinion of Raavad and is not conclusive.

Regarding the question of the position of Rechno the Gra on this issue, there is apparently a great deal of confusion. In three places our rabbi refers to the matter of the number of Tekhelet threads, and in each of them he expresses a different opinion. In his commentary to the Shoah (Och siman 12 letter 5) he maintains the opinion of Rashi and Tosafos and shows it in the issue of the Gemara and in my books. In his commentary to Sefer Datsaniyotah (chapter 5:45 Sheva Rahitin) he interprets according to the opinion of the Rambam, and in his commentary to Sefer Zohar – Yahal Or (Parashat Phinehas 228b), he interprets according to the opinion of the Raavad and writes that the main thing is according to his words.

The first to point out the contradiction between the interpretation of the Safra Datzaniyota and Yahal Or, is the Rebbe of Radzin in his book, article Ptil Tekhelet (p. 104). He also commented on another contradiction, between the words of the Gra and the words of the Zohar himself in the interpretation of the language of the Safra Datzaniyota.

This is the language of the book of Datsaniota: “Four malkin nefkin for four, in the capital of the executioner as grapes in the prison, tsirrin in ho seven rahitin…” And our rabbi interprets the Gra: “Seven rahitin are seven strings of white, the string of Tekhelet covers them.” But in Zohar Parashat Shelah (175b) they are quoted

These words of Safra Detsaniyota are interpreted in a different way: “Zririn bho shiva rahitin alin inon shiva zririn dTekheleta debei la karka biya…” From this, and from other comments, the Rebbe of Radzin came out to claim that both the things that Orr warned about, and also the things in the commentary to Sefra Datzaniota did not come from the mouth of the Gra, but from the mouth of some mistaken student. When I contacted Rabbi Yitzhak Shlomo Zilberman shlita, an expert in the Torah of the Gra, on this matter, it was made very clear to me that it is not possible to make such a claim about books that are accepted by us according to the words of the Gra itself, and that the language of the passages proves it. About them they are the golden tongue. It was also made clear to me in my conversation with him that there may be different opinions regarding the words of the Zohar, and our Lord can interpret a certain place in the Zohar in one way and another place in another way. And indeed, it is possible to clearly show a contradiction, or different opinions, in the Zohar itself. The passage from the Zohar, cited above, interprets the word “tsirrin” as knots, and stzitzis has seven knots for decreasing and thirteen for increasing. This method corresponds to the Rambam’s method regarding the ties in tzitzis, which is based on the simplicity of understanding the Gemara (Menachos 39a): “The one who subtracts shall not be less than seven and the one who adds shall not add more than thirteen”, as the Rabbi explained in the laws of tzitzis (siman tu). But elsewhere in the Zohar, in Parashat Phinehas (227a), it is stated that there are five ties in tzitzis, regardless of the number of links, and as he noted This is Rabbino the Gra’s commentary there. And this, as the method accepted by the majority of the commentators and commentators, is already mentioned in the Midrash Tanhuma (Kerach 12) and it is not possible for this method to interpret the words of the above-mentioned book Detsaniyotah in Parashat Shelah. If so, the contradiction was not born in the words of the Gra, but in the words of the Zohar himself, and there is room for another interpretation in the Sebra Datsaniota, which would correspond to the words of the Zohar in Parashat Phinehas. Now, let’s go to our rabbi’s words in his commentary to the aforementioned Shu’a, where he shows a face to the Rashi and Tosafos method. Apart from this problem, his words there need careful study. And in order to stand by them, the words of the Sifrei must be preceded by the parashat that you will leave (C. Reld): ‘You will make strands’ Why is it said? According to what is said ‘and make them tzitzis’, I hear I will make one thread by itself, Talmud to say: ‘strands’, how many strands are made there are no less than three threads, according to Beis Hillel. Beis Shammai say: from four threads of Tekhelet and four threads of white… and halachah according to Beis Shammai.

This is the version in our books of Sefer Devarim and this is the version of the Tosafos in Menachos (41b D.H.B.S.).

In the words of Beis Hillel, unlike in the words of Beis Shammai, there is no reference to the number of Tekhelet threads. But in the Tosafos (Menachos 38a DL Tekhelet) they specified from the beginning of the Sifrei – “Hearing I [will do! One thread in itself”, that Ptil Tekhelet is one thread. And since the Beis Hillel do not innovate anything in the matter of Tekhelet, but refer to the essence of the strand, out of necessity, which in their opinion is only one thread. And if it is said that Ptil Tekhelet is included in the three strands of the strand, as it means in the words of the Tosafos in Menachos (38a D. Tekhelet), then the Shabbos and Bashan Peligi in Terti, in the general number of tzitzis threads and in the specific number of Tekhelet threads.

And this seems to be our rabbi’s intention, at the beginning of his words, when he cites these words of the Sifrei, and sees them as a faithful source for the knowledge of the above-mentioned Rambam and the Raavad. He does not mean that they rule according to the words of Beis Hillel, as Rabbi Baruch Rekober shlita wanted to argue in his book Berkat Eliyahu, since in the Sifrei it is stated in the commentary – “and halachah as the words of the Bish”, as it was brought in the Gemara, and our rabbi himself brings them in his commentary. Nor does he intend to change the version in the Sifrei, which we will talk about later, because in the words of our rabbi there is no hint of this matter. Rather, his intention is that regarding the general number of threads, the Rambam and the Raavad rule Kabbash, as explained in my books and in the Gemara, as above, but regarding the number of Tekhelet threads they rule Kabbalah.

Nor should it be understood in our rabbi’s words that he means the opinion of the Tosafos, that the thread of Tekhelet to God is additional to the three threads, since he brings this opinion only at the end of his words – “and it is possible to have a Damfarshi…”, and rejects it. And also from his words there: “But in my books there are three more in the Book of Psalms, and in the Psalms there are eight,” you see in the commentary, that he initially understood that in the Psalms three threads are the total number of threads. And it is also necessary from his words: “Wamsh Thos in the above-mentioned Sadha in the 19th century and who is in the books of Icha Damari 20, Lita in my books, except that they learned from the beginning of the Sifrei: And they did to them 20 as above, and 200 At the beginning of his words, we were, and what he wrote there before: “And a strand is not spelled but white”, not necessarily white only, but the whole strand (and it is called white, if there is no Tekhelet, it is all white).

The Gra raises three difficulties with the Tosafos’ explanation of the Sifrei. First, it is unclear on what derashah Beis Shammai would base a disagreement with Beis Hillel over the number of Tekhelet strings, since their stated dispute concerns only the meaning of the word “gedilim.” Second, this approach gives no source for the accepted practice of doubling the four strings mentioned by the Gemara into eight ends. Third, the numbers in the Sifrei and the Gemara do not correspond: in the Sifrei, Beis Hillel has three strings in total and Beis Shammai has eight, while in the Gemara Beis Hillel has three and Beis Shammai has four.

From this, our rabbi disagrees on the interpretation of the Tosafos in the Sifrei, and interprets that according to G-d the number of Tekhelet threads is three, that to the world these two kinds are equal, and what is required by the word “strands” exceeds both the white and the Tekhelet. According to the BH, one learns from three “strands”, three in white, and the same is true for Tekhelet. And according to BS, one learns from four “strands”, four in white, and the same is true for Tekhelet. (However, in the language of our rabbi there seems to be a certain inaccuracy. In the opinion of the 25th he wrote: “Strands of three cords and the 5th for the white 3”, which means that a strand is said in Tekhelet. And in the words of the 2nd he wrote: “Strands is four… and the 5th in Tekhelet”, which means that the strands are said in white.

This interpretation of our rabbi reminds us of one of the interpretations of the words of the Sifrei in the Tosafos (Menachos 41a DD Beis Shammai): “Because you were diligent in it (that is, in the above-mentioned books) God meant sermons of strands and ate an existing strand, and the she was silent in the Beis Shammai dairy in Tekhelet and in Laban.” But, really, they differ in some important details.

According to the Tosafos, both the Bible and the Bible require the sermon “strand strands”, which is given in the Gemara (Menachos 39b). Lev: “strand” – two, “strands” – four; Lev: “strand” – three, “strands” – six. But according to the Gra, the Bible does not have a “string of strands” sermon at all, but rather the “strand” statement is superior to both the White and the Tekhelet.

According to the Tosafos, the “strand of strands” exceeds the white and the Tekhelet together (one strand for the white and a second strand for the Tekhelet). And according to our rabbi, the Levish – “strand of strands” is superior to the white one, and Tekhelet is learned from the white one, because her opinion is to compare them.

If so, according to the Tosafos, the number four mentioned in the Gemara, according to B.S., is before their multiplication (and after their multiplication they are eight), and according to our rabbi, it is after their multiplication, and is of one species only. And by adding the same number of threads of the other sex, the total number of threads is eight.

the Sifrei, according to the Tosafos, speaks to the Hebrew before the doubling and refers to one species only, and to the Hebrew – after the doubling and refers to both species. And according to our rabbi, the Sifrei speaks to the Hebrew after the doubling and in one gender, and to the Hebrew – also after the doubling and in both genders. All of the Rabbi’s words in his commentary to the Shoah are based on the Tosafos version in my books, and there is no hint of another version in them. But in his glosses to my books and also the aforementioned Bihel Or, he already went back and corrected the version of the Sifrei and stood on the version we have in Parashat Shelah – “Hear I will make another thread by itself, TL ‘strands’, from how many strands you make, no less than three, the words of Beis Hillel. Beis Shammai say: Three of wool and one fourth of Tekhelet.” And our late Rabbi Bihel Or: “And it is the thread of the fourth according to the opinion of the Raavad, and as the fourth thread of the 15th century and the 25th in our books.” This version corresponds exactly to the Beraisa in our Gemara, and it also has a lot of internal logic –

Both B.H. and B.S. refer to the sermon “Gaddil”, which teaches about 3 threads, and they disagree on the question, whether the Tekhelet thread is included in “Gaddil” or added to it.

The Rebbe of Radzin in the article Ptil Tekhelet (p. 106) as well as Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch shlita in the Laws of the Gra and his practices (p. la) interpreted the words of our Rabbi Shabihl Or, who did not come to Epoch in them except from the opinion of the Tosafos but not from the opinion of the Rambam. And what he wrote “in the opinion of the Raavad”, not necessarily. But we will see more, we burned in the direction of Epoch also from the opinion of the Rambam, and this for three reasons:

First, if according to their words, he had to write an interpretation according to the opinion of the Raavad and the Rambam.

Secondly, the Rambam’s opinion does not correspond to the Zohar sermon, as explained by Rabbi Bihal Or there: “The only Tekhelet in tzitzis -… as a white string of white thread, the fourth letter in the name”, and according to the Rambam there are three and a half white threads in tzitzis and only half a Tekhelet thread.

And the third, and main reason, that there is a fundamental difference between the source cited by our Rabbi to the Raavad and the Rambam in his commentary to the Shoah and the source cited by him in Bihel Or. In his commentary to the Shoah, our Rabbi followed the version of the Tosafos, and based on the accuracy of the Sifrei’s recitation, he proved that one thread of Tekhelet should be made. According to this version, the main counting of the threads is after they are hung on the garment, as we explained above, and there is room for the Rambam to know. On the contrary, his opinion is even more suitable for this version, as our Rabbi’s language there: “And the Rambam interprets the first letter literally”. But according to our rabbi’s version in my books, the main count of the threads is before they are doubled – “three pieces of wool and a fourth of Tekhelet”, according to which there is no reason for the Rambam’s opinion, but the entire fourth thread before it is doubled is made of Tekhelet, as Rabbi David Pardo already insisted in his commentary on the books of Parshat Shelah.

Finally, the final opinion of our rabbi to rule on this issue as the opinion of the Raavad, to cast three white threads and one Tekhelet thread, according to the version clarified by him in my books.

Dyeing Lishmah and Chilazon Blood in the Tekhelet of the Mikdash

The Tekhelet mentioned in the Torah everywhere is the wool dyed like a patch of blue, and this is the image of the sky visible to the sun’s eye in the purity of the sky, and the Tekhelet mentioned in tzitzis must have a well-known coloring that stands for its beauty and will not change, and anyone who is not dyed with the same coloring is invalid for tzitzis even if it is the eye of the sky, such as if its color is astis or black or the other black, then it is invalid for tzitzis…

How do they dye the Tekhelet of tzitzis, they take the wool and burn it with lime and then wash it until it is clean and boil it in ala and the like in the way the dyer does so that it absorbs the eye, and then they bring chilazon blood and it is a fish whose eye is similar to the Tekhelet eye and its blood is black like ink and in the Dead Sea it is found, and the blood is dyed into a shoot and a dye is made with it like the kamonia and the like in the way that the dyer We make and boil it and weave the wool in it until it becomes like a pliable eye and this is the Tekhelet of tzitzis.

A Tekhelet of tzitzis needs lishmah dyeing and if it is not a lishmah color it is invalid, and the shooter who has the color if he dyes a little wool in it to check if it is beautiful, if not the entire shooter is disqualified, but how is he to take the dye from the shooter in a small vessel and put wool in it which he tests and burns what he tested because it was dyed for testing, and pours the dye in the vessel he tested in which he tasted and rejected, and dyes the Tekhelet with the rest of the color that was not damaged.

In these words of the Rambam it is explained that, in his opinion, there is a clear difference between dyeing Tekhelet for tzitzis and dyeing Tekhelet for the temple, that in one case chilazon blood and dyeing lishmah are inhibiting and in the other they are not

Inhibitors. This is what many commentators put forward, such as Merkabat Mishnah (laws of tzitzis ibid.), Ben Yadid (ibid), Tefarat Yisrael (the peddlers’ treasury, rules for the sacred garments of the priesthood), Aruch Ha Shulchan (laws of the temple vessels 20, 10), the holy city and the temple (85 p. Mag), the revival of repentance (3. Reat), the valley of blessing (tzitzis 5), contrary to the opinion of the act of an apothecary and changer for the king in the laws of the temple vessels (ibid.).

In addition to the puzzlement – why did the Rambam divide between the Tekhelet of tzitzis and the Tekhelet of a temple, which are apparently one thing and made of one material – there are four difficulties that make this difficult:

a. In the Tosefta Menachos (9, 16), which talks about the laws of the Beis HaMikdash, it is explained: “Tekhelet is not kosher except from the chilazon, bringing that is not from the chilazon is invalid.”

b. In Yerushalmi Kilayim (PT 51) it is stated: “And Tekhelet and scarlet and tola’as shani – what else is a worm a thing that has a spirit of life, even anything that has a spirit of life.” That is, just as tola’as shani, which was used in the temple, comes from the worm, which has a spirit of life, so Tekhelet comes from a desert that has a spirit of life in it and is the chilazon.

c. In tractate Shabbos (74b): “Tying in the Mishkan Hika Hoi?… Rather, Rabbi Vaitima Rabbi Elai said that the two sides of the chilazon are kosherin and metirin.” And Rabbi Nissim Gaon interpreted there: “This chilazon was a dyer in the blood of Tekhelet.”

d. In tractate Menachos (42b) it is stated regarding the coloring of Tekhelet for tzitzis: “Hear a minah trite: hear a minah that tastes invalid, and hear a minah that tastes invalid, and hear a minah that tastes like a lishmah, and hear a kind that tastes like a lishmah. We were an invalid taste, we were a lishmah coloring! Rabbi Ashi said: What is the point of a kamer, what is the point of an invalid taste? Because in their opinion it is a lishmah coloring. As a condition: it is an invalid taste, because it was said: In Tekhelet, the words of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel; Rabbi Yochanan ben Dabai says: Even a second sight is kosher, because it is said: And two worms.” That is, coloring lishmah in tzitzis is learned from coloring lishmah in bigdei kehunah, which is said in them “Kilil Tekhelet”, hence it is necessary to color lishmah also in bigdei kehunah. We will settle the difficulties from the end to the beginning.

Regarding the fourth difficulty, it must be said that one does not learn from bigdei kehunah, according to the Rambam, the law of dyeing lishmah, but the law of invalid tasting. Hence, in the bigdei kehunah there is no invalid of ‘not lishmah’, but an invalid of ‘tasting’, which indicated for the sake of tasting and testing, its invalid is more serious indicating that ‘not lishmah’, as interpreted by the Mishna (halachot tzitzis there). And we also found the Rambam in the laws of impurity of leprosy (PIA halachah 1), which he wrote about

Two worms that are taken for the purity of the leper: “If it tastes like Tekhelet dyeing”, that is Tekhelet just mentioned everywhere, and not necessarily Tekhelet of tzitzis. And according to this, it is necessary to push and interpret what the Rambam wrote in the laws of tzitzis (P.B. halachah 3): “The tekhelet of tzitzis needs lishmah dyeing, and if it is not dyed lishmah it is invalid, and the shoot that has the color, if a little wool is dyed in it to check if it is beautiful or not, the whole shoot is invalid”, divided into two parts. The first part, which talks about dyeing lishmah, refers to the Tekhelet of tzitzis only, and the second part, which talks about dyeing for testing, refers to the aforementioned Tekhelet everywhere. But one has to wonder why the Rambam invalid did not mention dyeing for the sake of taste in the laws of the temple vessels, if it is not said that he relied on his words in the laws of tzitzis and the laws of impurity of leprosy, as already claimed by the Mishnah to the King (ibid.).

On the third issue, it must be said that there is no proof that chilazon blood inhibits the Tekhelet of a temple from the fact that in the Mishkan, chilazon species were hunted to dye Tekhelet, because it is possible that the use of chilazon there was not in the doctrine of positivity, but rather a custom and way of those times, and it is even possible that in addition to chilazon, other colors were also used there for the purpose of dyeing Tekhelet. And this is how the Garach Kanievsky explained this problem in his commentary to the tractate Tzitzis (Letter 20, Argaman 45 but in Chilazon).

The second difficulty is based on Mahara Fulda’s interpretation of Yerushalmi (bring a nice looking interpretation there, which complicates this difficulty). But according to Rabbi Cyrilio’s interpretation there, who interpreted: “even anything that has a spirit of life, and if so the color of Tekhelet and the crimson is all wool that comes from the animal”, there is no evidence that the Tekhelet of a temple comes from the animal, that is, from the chilazon, because the Yerushalmi only speaks of the wool in the Tekhelet which “comes from the animal”, and not the color of the Tekhelet itself.

In order to settle the first problem, one must first understand where the Rambam took to divide the Tekhelet of tzitzis and the Tekhelet of a temple. Indeed, it seems that this division is necessary from the words of the Gemara in several places in tractate Shabbos:

Rabbi Papa said: Shabek Tana didan cooking Sammanin Dhaha in the Mishkan, and took a baker. (Shabbos 74b)

A poor neighbor makes a fuss about a small sink to put a small cauldron on. Dhakvat Gabi Mishkan – cooks semanin to paint canvases that lack their craft, make chatter about a small sink to paint on it a small shoot. (ibid. 102b)

May I breast? – Hezi to Bizra Dekra. Dakhvata Gabi Mishkan – a neighbor worthy of one bowl of Samnin. (ibid. 103a)

It is explained in these words that the coloring in the Mishkan was done by markers and not by chilazon blood. And some commentators have already commented on the contradiction between this and the Gemara in tractate Menachos (42b): “Abey said to Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yehuda: Ha takhilta hichi his color for her? He said to her: “Let us give them the blood of chilazon and semanin, and let them burn it with fire and boil it with it,” which is explained there to the contrary, that the coloring of Tekhelet is done with the blood of chilazon and not with the marks alone. In the Shu’at Hitcherot Tshuva (C. Ref.).

However, the reference to the words of the Rambam in the laws of tzitzis (PB halachah 2) will show that the signs given on the day as an addition to chilazon blood cannot be the same signs that are mentioned in the Shabbos tract. The Rambam writes there, that the signs given with chilazon blood are: “Kimonia and the like in the way that the colors do”. And it is identified by the Rambam in two places in his interpretation of the Mishnah (Shabbos 50 MH; Neda 50 MH) as an ‘alkaline salt’. It is a wild plant (which is called potassium salt today, or according to Rabbi Kapah – Yifrok Zipni), whose ashes are used to produce potassium, which is used as an auxiliary material for the absorption of dye in wool. On the other hand, the markers in question in the Mishkan craft are plants that are sown by a person to produce color, and plowing and sowing are done with them, as explained in the aforementioned Gemara. It is also stated in Tractate Shabbos (79a): “And if in the Semnin that are not reserved, give: nut shells and ramonin clips, stess and poa – to dye a small garment with them according to the lattice”, and probably also in the markers of the Mishkan craft to those listed in this Gemara.

If so, in the words of the Talmud the Bavli we have a faithful source to know the Rambam that there is no obligation to use chilazon blood in the work of the Mishkan and the temple. And since the words of the Tosefta do not stand in the place of the words of the Bavli, it is understandable why the Rambam did not bring into halachah the words of the above Tosefta, which disqualifies Tekhelet that is not from the chilazon to the temple and bigdei kehunah. And also, since the charge of chilazon blood and of lishmah dyeing in Tekhelet are mentioned in the aforementioned Menachos treatise in one context, one must click between them and say that just as the charge of chilazon blood is in the Tekhelet of tzitzis only, so the charge of dyeing lishmah exists only in the Tekhelet of tzitzis only, and not in the Tekhelet of a temple.

By the way, I will comment that the reference to Rashi’s commentary on the aforementioned Menachos will also show that the signs mentioned there are not the same signs mentioned on Shabbos. The shack (Baycha Belaz), cited in his words as an example of signs, is not a plant, but a type of mineral from the earth, and there is no

Neither sowing nor the other field crafts of LT Avot Shabbos crafts. On the other hand, if we assume that the Mishkan used plant symbols such as istis and poa, we still need to study and check whether all the crafts of making the patah, such as zora and dash and others, have a place in these plant symbols.

The Meaning of ‘Nignaz’ in the Words of Chazal

The Concealment of Tekhelet Mentioned in the Sifrei

The first article cited in the Sifrei is: Rabbi Yossi said: Once I was walking from Zib to Tzur and I found an old man. I said to him: What is your livelihood? He told me: from Chilazon. I said to him: Why is he there?! He said to me: The heavens, that there is a place in the sea that is surrounded by mountains, and seas surround it, and you do not have a person who goes there, that there are no seas that surround him, and he dies and dies in his place. I said: It is evident that the righteous have been shelved for the future to come.

The observer of this article will see that it is a pity that these words were not said about the cessation of Tekhelet dyeing, since the old man that Rabbi Yossi met made a living from the chilazon. But from the testimony of the old man, that the chilazon is not available to everyone and there is a great urgency and great need to obtain it, Rabbi Yossi was awakened to a moral idea, that wealth in general, that in this case the chilazon and what is produced from it represent it, is not the property of this world, and should not be pursued, but is stored away and destined for the future. The two articles cited in the Sifrei before, to which the story about the old man is a continuation, testify to this:

“For abundance of days will be cleansed” – years take abundantly and give abundantly. And these are – seas and kingdoms. A sea gives abundantly and takes abundantly, a kingdom gives abundantly and takes abundantly.

Another thing: “For many days will be cleansed” – this is the day of Haifa, which is laid up for the righteous for the future to come. Whence do you say that there is no ship lost in the great sea and bundles of silver and gold and precious stones and marbles and glass vessels and all greedy vessels, that the great sea does not throw up the sea of ​​Haifa, which is laid up for the righteous for the future to come?

You will learn to say: “For plenty of days will be cleansed.”

The moral of these articles is that wealth in this world is unstable, and should not be trusted, hoped for, or pursued.

As such an explanation, the Rebbe of Radzin Rabbi Gershon Hanoch Leiner in his book ‘Shafoni Tamoni Khol’ (Mishor Edition, p. 5) offered another article in the treatise Bava Basra (74b): “Nefak Bat Kala, he said to Len: Where did you go in Hadi Kartalita Dadbitihu Derbi Hanina ben Dosa, Daatida Dashdia Tikhilta Ba for Tzadikia for Alma Dati?!” Rabbi Yossi’s words in the Sifrei he interprets in a different way – that this special place, which the old man knew and where the chilazon was hunted, is the one that was stored away for the future to come.

A special and unusual explanation was put forth by the Gaon of Kutna in his book ‘Yeshuat Malku’ (C. 1-3). According to him, in his declaration “it is evident that it is laid aside for the righteous for the future to come” Rabbi Yossi intended to issue a ruling and cancel the obligation to impose Tekhelet on tzitzis due to the danger involved in it, as implied by the words of the old man. In his opinion, this decree was accepted only during the days of the Amoraim the Acharonim, after it was ruled in halachah that Tekhelet does not hinder the white (this is how he explains the fact that throughout the period of the Taniim and the Amoraim used to impose Tekhelet on tzitzis, as mentioned in the Gemara). And the Rebbe of Radzin has already made it difficult and perplexing about these words in his book ‘Ein Tekhelet’ (Mishur edition p. Shafa).

The Concealment of Tekhelet Mentioned in Midrash Tanchuma

The second article cited in Midrash Tanhuma is: But the mitzvah to bring a white man and Tekhelet and he will do it, when there is Tekhelet, and now we have nothing but a white man, that Tekhelet is stored away, a mitzvah in white.

It is indeed necessary to discuss the meaning of the words ‘sheltered’, ‘sheltered’ and the like, which are commonly used by Chazal. Do they always indicate disappearance and geniza for the future to come, or also geniza for a limited period of time in this world? Is the genizah always in the hands of heaven, or is it also in the hands of man?

The Genizah was mentioned in Chazal in various things. Some of them were put away by the hands of Heaven, such as: the light of the six days of Bereishis, the dachshund, the bara of Miriam, the gates of the Beis HaMikdash and its chambers; And also the departure of the righteous: Eliyahu (Tosefta Sotah 12:5; Seder Olam Rabbah chapter 17) and Joshua (Tanhuma Titzvah, 9). And some of them – in the hands of Adam, such as: the Mishkan and its vessels, the temple vessels, the altar stones, the copper snake and various books. Most of the things were said to be a global genizah or until the ‘time of the end’, but we also found a genizah for a limited time in this world: “Twenty-two years that Yosef did

In Egypt, except for his father, the holy spirit was banished from Jacob and his sons (Tanhuma [Buber] Maketz, 6; also cited in Bilkot Shimoni on Job Remez Titkhed). So there is no need for the claim that the genizah mentioned about Tekhelet is about a complete disappearance until it is revealed at the “time of the end” in the future to come.

The Concealment of Cinnamon

Of special interest is the burning of Jerusalem’s cinnamon trees at the time of the destruction of the Temple, about which it is said in tractate Shabbos (63a): Rehava said, Rabbi Yehuda said: Jerusalem’s cinnamon trees were, and when they were plucked from them a fragrance wafted throughout Eretz Yisrael. And when Jerusalem is destroyed, we will be put away, and we will not be left except as barley, and forgotten in the gazai decimtsmai from Calcuta.

The fate of the cinnamon is like the fate of Tekhelet in that the question of his identity was closely related to the understanding of the meaning of the Genizah that was said in it, just as happened in the case of Tekhelet.

The SMG (Eshin 3:16) came out to dispute the accepted identification of the cinnamon: “And cinnamon is not kanilaa in Leaz, for there are many of kanilaa, whereas of cinnamon they say a chapter on a woman (Shabbos 63a) that is stored away, and we will not leave them except if a little and forget me gaza detsumtsamai malkhuta.” But despite this, this identification remains intact in the words of the overwhelming majority of commentators and arbitrators (see Rashi’s commentary on the Rambam’s p. 13; the interpretations of the prayer arrangement for the pharmacist: “cinnamon – cinnamon”; “cinnamon is not pirah”; Tiv'”; see the Ramban’s commentary on Shemos 3, 23), and the meaning of the Genizah, which is said in it, has been proposed. For example, that the ordinary cinnamon found in the world was not stored, but the special cinnamon that was in Jerusalem (or in Eretz Yisrael); or that the cinnamon was stored and extinct specifically in Jerusalem and Eretz Yisrael, but not in the entire world (see Mezahav and Mafaz, Seder Halkot Hakorat p. Rala; Lemod Aruch on Tractate Shabbos, p. Ng.) Later on we will come up with another possibility for understanding the phrase ‘Nganzo’ regarding the cinnamon.

The Meaning of the Expression ‘Nignaz’

The special meaning of the expression ‘Nganz’ must be emphasized. How is it different from the phrase ‘disappeared’, ‘vanished’ or ‘passed from the world’ (and as we found, for example, regarding white glass)? The answer to this question will be seen. that the root of the word is in the ancient practice of the kings

To own a treasure house – a treasure where greedy secrets and royal virtues are kept. This was mentioned in the words of Chazal most of the time, such as in tractate Sanhedrin (104a) regarding King Hezekiah, in Tosefta Pah (4, 18) regarding King Munbez, in tractate Maila (17b) regarding the Roman emperor and more. Even HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the king of kings, who is reigned in the words of Chazal through the rites of a king of flesh and blood, has a treasury, where the things that are most precious to him are kept, such as: piety, Shabbos, tears for a kosher person, spirit, Torah, as stated in the words of Chazal. If so, the primary meaning of the phrase ‘to store’ is to enter the ‘house of the storehouses’ – the king’s treasure. Later, this phrase was borrowed for the disappearance and concealment of things that are sacred – in order not to harm their sanctity and dignity, their disappearance is described as an entry into the treasury, where valuable things are kept. If so, the Geniza mentioned in the words of Chazal must be understood everywhere, sometimes in the simple meaning and sometimes in the borrowed meaning – everywhere and anywhere according to the context.

It seems that the words of condolence on the Tekhelet genizat are interpreted in the primary and simple meaning of the phrase ‘geniza’, that is, the income to the royal treasury, and they allude to the restrictions imposed by the Roman emperors on the use of the color ‘purpura’ by the general public. “A private person will not have control over the dyeing and distribution of the ‘purpura’ – the one called ‘balta’, ‘oxybalta’ and ‘hyacinthina, neither in silk nor in wool. If, nevertheless, someone sold the aforementioned ‘Morcus’ fleece, he must know that he will lose his goods and his head” – says the Codex Justinianus.

In the Gemara we also find echoes of these limitations – “Send to her Rabbi: A couple came to Markath, and caught an eagle, and in their hands were words of what is done in the blues, and from Mai Nihu – Tekhelet, thanks to the mercy and thanks to them they left in peace” (Sanhedrin 12b). These restrictions grew stronger until the days of the Ramban, as reflected in his words in his commentary to the Torah (Shemos 20:2): “And Tekhelet even today no one will raise his hand to wear except a king of the Gentiles.” The laws and decrees that testified this color to members of the royal family only can certainly be called ‘Genizat Tekhelet.’ It means – ‘stored’ by the kingdom in the royal treasury.

And the kingdom has already passed from the world, and its decrees and genizas have been annulled, and there is no obstacle to return to the fulfillment of mitzvas “and make them tzitzis” in its entirety and in all its beauty.

Where These Articles Were Originally Published

• An Essay on Tekhelet: Moriah, Teves 5752; Kelil Tekhelet, 5753.
• Tekhelet Today: Tekhelet information booklet, 5756.
• On Renewing the Mitzvah of Tekhelet: HaMaayan, Nissan 5757.
• What Was the Gra’s View on the Number of Tekhelet Strings in Tzitzis? Yeshurun, vol. 7, Elul 5760.
• Tekhelet — Murex or Janthina? Collected Articles on Tekhelet, 5761; Vehayah Lachem LeTzitzis, Parashas Shelach 5768.
• When Did Tekhelet Cease Among the Jewish People? Vehayah Lachem LeTzitzis, Parashas Shelach 5767.
• Dyeing Lishmah and Chilazon Blood in the Tekhelet of the Mikdash: Vehayah Lachem LeTzitzis, Parashas Shelach 5769.
• The Meaning of “Nignaz” in the Words of Chazal: Vehayah Lachem LeTzitzis, Parashas Shelach 5771.