Further Discussion Concerning the Identification of the Techeiles Creature

To the editors of Kovetz Beis Aharon V’Yisrael,

We were pleased to see that your kovetz has been publishing a series of articles dealing with the identification of the Techeiles creature. In my opinion, it is important that the entire subject be brought before the “table of kings” — talmidei chachamim, rabbanim, and the readership of your kovetz. However, in the article by Rav Yaakov Goldstein which appeared in issue 124, I saw a number of mistakes and inaccuracies, both in matters quoted in our name and in statements made by the author himself. We therefore felt obligated to set the record straight.

Rav Goldstein began his arguments against my kuntres specifically with subjects that are not really in our field, where we had to rely on others — namely, archaeological and historical evidence that in ancient times other peoples also dyed with the “blood” of the Janthina. Here Rav Goldstein did manage to find some weaknesses in the evidence we brought. In truth, however, the historical question is not essential to our thesis. Since indigo — kala ilan — was already common in Tanach times, and was cheap compared with the various mollusk dyes, it is reasonable that only Jews used mollusks specifically to produce Techeiles, while other dyeing done with Murex and Purpura was for purple and similar colors, not Techeiles. Still, even on these issues our arguments were not completely disproven, as we will explain, be’ezras Hashem. And certainly this is true regarding the other parts of the article, where most of Rav Goldstein’s arguments are based on errors, as we will show, im yirtzeh Hashem.

First of all, I regret that an article I published several years ago caused a stumbling block, because I cited an incorrect source for one of my assumptions. On this point I fully admit that Rav Goldstein — and others — were correct in bringing it to my attention, and I want to use this opportunity to correct it. Rav Goldstein was right that the source I cited from the researcher Abbott has nothing to do with our subject. I copied it there by mistake.

As for the other sources I brought: the words of the researcher Dr. D. S. Reese are themselves an important source. Even Dr. Israel Ziderman, one of the supporters of the Murex identification, cited him in his article printed in The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, page 210, as a source for the claim that Janthina was used in antiquity; see there, note 16. Dr. Reese is an expert in shell archaeology. He was formerly employed by Yale University and is currently at the Field Museum in Chicago.

Nevertheless, I wrote to him and asked for his sources. He referred me to:

Jensen, The Story of Royal Purple, 1965, privately published, p. 5,

who in turn cites:

Rogers, J. E., The Shell Book (1936, Boston), Ch. II.

Apparently this does not appear in other editions of Rogers, and I have still not managed to locate that particular edition.

Jensen also writes that among dye-producing shells found at archaeological sites were:

“Helix ianthina, a small shelled species of snail related to Murex, found near Beirut and also in the middens around Tyre.”

“Helix ianthina” is an old name for the Janthina we are discussing. The term “middens” refers to heaps of shells discarded after being used for dyeing. This is therefore clear testimony that in ancient times Janthina was used to produce dye in the Tyre and Beirut region. Jensen likewise cites this in his article in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 22 no. 2, April 1963. In two places Jensen cites Leggett as his source.

I took the quotation from Leggett through Jensen, who cites him several times as the source for this point. In practice, I was unable to locate Leggett’s actual statement. According to Jensen, Leggett wrote that in Beirut a purple dye was produced from Janthina known as conchyliata. Although, as stated, I could not find this in Leggett himself, I did find a much earlier source: a Latin book by the Italian biologist Fabio Colonna, Purpura, printed in Rome in 1616. He was the first biologist to describe Janthina in detail. He too mentions that the Romans called a certain dye conchyliata, and later writes that one of the sources of conchyliata was Janthina. [S.K.]

So Dr. Reese, Jensen, and Fabio Colonna all testify that Janthina was used for dyeing in ancient times. These are the sources behind the other references I cited, aside from Abbott, which was simply an error, and for which, as stated, I apologize. [S.K.]

Rav Goldstein cites Dr. Spanier as saying that no archaeological remains of Janthina dyeing have been found. But lo ra’inu eino raya — the fact that someone did not see something is no proof, particularly since Dr. Spanier is not an archaeologist. Incidentally, Dr. Spanier himself explains there why fewer such remains would be expected: the Janthina shell is thin and fragile, and once broken only very small fragments remain, certainly after some two thousand years. He only argued that nevertheless at least a few remains should have been found. In fact, such finds were indeed reported by the experts cited above.

As for Rav Goldstein’s arguments concerning the meaning of the word hyacinthina and the translation of the law of Justinian, I quoted the translation from the sefer Techeiles V’Argaman by Rav Menachem Adler. Rav Goldstein does not tell us the source of his own translation, and we do not know whether he is himself an expert in Latin. We are certainly not Latin experts, and it is therefore not proper for us to take a firm stand on such matters. Nor is it very important to concentrate so heavily on one proof that does not come from a Jewish source.

Still, one point should be noted. The scientific names used by biologists today were fixed only during the past few hundred years, so it is difficult to determine with certainty what names in ancient texts referred to. For example, the word purpura may refer to various species of mollusks, including species that today would not be called Purpura; likewise the word murex. We already noted that, according to Jensen, Janthina is “related to Murex.”

Incidentally, the Latin passage quoted in Rav Goldstein’s article is garbled and incomplete, apparently because of a printing error.

On the other hand, we do find that the term hyacinthina is used as a translation for Techeiles, as I cited in my article, and Rav Goldstein does not deny this. It is obvious that the name Janthina is derived from this term. See the article by Dr. Ziderman in the above-mentioned volume edited by Dr. Spanier, page 210, where he lists ancient terms for Techeiles, including purpura hyacinthina and purpura ianthina. It is also clear that no creature is called Janthina other than the species group with which we are dealing.

It is also unclear how Rav Goldstein knows that the “meaning” of Janthina is “purple.” In modern Hebrew, Janthina may be referred to that way because the shells of some species have a purplish hue. We will discuss this at length later, im yirtzeh Hashem, along with what can and cannot be learned from Justinian’s law. But that does not mean that the creature was originally called Janthina because of a purple color. It is more reasonable that it was called that because of the Techeiles-colored ink produced from it.

Again, we are not experts in language. But let us see what experts in the field wrote. The Christian scholar Wilhelm Gesenius, whom Rav Goldstein himself cites as a philologist, writes in his Hebrew-German dictionary that Techeiles is produced from Janthina. Webster’s English dictionary likewise says that Tyrian purple was produced partly from Janthina. In the 1913 edition it is even clearer: the dye was made from three components — Murex, Purpura, and Janthina.

This may derive from Antonio Telesio’s Libellus de Coloribus, a small book on colors printed in Venice in 1528, where he explains terms for colors used in Greek and Latin. Among them he lists a color called ianthinus, and tyrianthinus, which according to him is a mixture of ianthinus and Tyrian purple.

In summary: although unfortunately mistakes appeared in my earlier article, there nevertheless remain archaeological, historical, and philological indications supporting the opinion that the Techeiles creature is Janthina. [S.K.]

Rav Goldstein writes that I refuse to demonstrate the process and additional materials to others. That is simply incorrect. I demonstrated the entire process to Rav Menachem Burstein, author of Sefer HaTecheiles, at Machon Puah, in the presence of several rabbanim whom he specially invited to observe the matter. Rav Goldstein himself never once asked me to show him the process. In fact, he never spoke to me at all. I therefore do not know on what basis he writes that I refuse. [S.K.]

We will now turn to the identifying features of the Techeiles creature and Rav Goldstein’s comments on them.

1. “Its blood is black like ink”

The Rambam writes that the blood of the chilazon is black like ink. This description fits Janthina very well: its ink is thick, viscous, opaque, and does not allow light to pass through. It does not fit the Murex, whose dye gland initially contains a transparent, colorless substance.

Rav Goldstein asks where the Rambam got this from. He argues that there is no source in Chazal for this siman, and that the Rambam certainly did not have the chilazon in front of him.

But there is no question that the Rambam possessed sources and nuscha’os in Chazal and the writings of earlier authorities that we no longer have. For example, in Shu”t Pe’er HaDor siman 53 he quotes, “R’ Meir said in a beraisa: Look at My deeds, and through them you will recognize the One Who spoke and the world came into being.” In Sefer HaMitzvos, positive mitzvah 3, he cites this in the name of the Sifri, yet that wording is not found in our Sifri or, to our knowledge, anywhere else in the Chazal available to us.

Likewise, in Pe’er HaDor siman 200 he quotes a Yerushalmi with a different text from ours. In many of his teshuvos he quotes statements of earlier chachamim that did not reach us, as anyone familiar with the Rambam’s teshuvos knows. See also the teshuvah of his son in Birchas Avraham, siman 27, where he quotes an addition to the words of Rav Nachman in Sukkah 4b not found in our text.

So I do not understand how one can determine that the Rambam had no source in Chazal, or in the Geonim, whose words are received tradition.

It is indeed reasonable that the Rambam did not personally possess a chilazon. But according to Rav Goldstein himself, later in his article, one cannot entirely rule out the possibility, since he writes that during the time of the Ramban — only one generation after the Rambam — Techeiles was still in use for royal purposes. Although in truth it appears likely that there is a printing error in the Ramban, and instead of “even today” the text should read “even it,” as in the Tur HaAruch to Shemos 28:2.

Rav Goldstein mentions Rav Herzog’s suggestion that the Rambam got this description from Aristotle. But he neglected to mention that Rav Herzog first proposed another solution — that the Rambam understood it from the Sifri; see Sefer HaTecheiles, p. 391.

Aristotle did not write “black like ink.” In order to maintain the theory that Aristotle was the Rambam’s source, Rav Herzog therefore had to suggest another theory: perhaps the Rambam saw only an Arabic translation of Aristotle — which Rav Herzog himself did not have — and perhaps that translation said “black like ink.”

It is obvious to anyone reading Aristotle that he is describing the Murex. He writes that some of them, in southern areas, have a red color, while some in northern areas have a black color, and that those found near the coast generally have a red color. If so, this cannot be the source of the Rambam’s statement that the chilazon found along the coast of Eretz Yisrael has blood black like ink.

Still, Aristotle does say that some have black color. Since no black dye is known from Murex, Rav Goldstein suggested that perhaps Aristotle saw the dye only after it dried. Yet Aristotle describes the animal being caught by fishermen and their hands becoming stained from it, and he also writes that its dye gland is white. Clearly Aristotle is discussing the color in a live animal.

The Rambam uses the phrase “black like ink” elsewhere as well; see Hilchos Issurei Biah 5:9 and Hilchos Shechitah 7:17. This suggests that when he uses this phrase, he means it precisely. See also Kiryas Melech here, which distinguishes between the Rambam saying merely “black,” which can include another dark shade tending toward black, and “black like ink,” which means actual black.

Rav Goldstein piles speculation upon speculation in order to defend his position that the Murex is the chilazon of Techeiles, but he does not deny that Janthina fits this siman of the Rambam straightforwardly and without any difficulty.

The Rambam himself writes in one of his teshuvos, regarding criticism that one of his rulings differed from the Geonim, that this is a common illness: whenever people find one of his statements, whether general or specific, differing from one of the Geonim or commentators, they immediately assume he made a mistake.

If even in the Rambam’s time, when people had access to old texts that we no longer possess, he objected to dismissing his words as mistaken merely because they differed from another authority, certainly today we should not declare the Rambam mistaken on the basis of speculation.

Summary: The Rambam’s statement that the blood of the chilazon is “black like ink” fits Janthina simply and naturally. It fits Murex only after numerous forced explanations and assumptions.

2. The shell

I wrote: “The chilazon has a shell. The Janthina has a shell.”

Rav Goldstein responded: “Answer: all chilazon-type creatures have shells.”

That is incorrect. There are mollusks called nudibranchs that have no shell. Among them is the sea hare, Aplysia, which has an ink gland from which dye can be produced. It was therefore necessary to exclude this possibility.

See also Rav Herzog’s English discussion in Dr. Spanier’s The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, p. 37, where he notes that some proposed this creature as the source of ancient purple dye.

This siman also rules out the Radzyner Rebbe’s candidate, and the Radzyner Rebbe devotes considerable discussion to reconciling the problem. See also Rav Schlesinger’s article in this kovetz, issue 119.

Summary: Regarding the shell, Janthina and Murex are equal. But there are other ink-producing mollusks with no shell, and this siman excludes them.

3. “It comes up once in seventy years”

Chazal say that the chilazon comes up once in seventy years — or according to another version, once in seven years — and therefore its blood is expensive.

In my kuntres I described two situations. Most of the time Janthina are found far from shore and only limited quantities can be caught with nets. A small number sometimes reach the beach. But on rare occasions enormous numbers wash up onto the shore. There are reports of this, and I personally heard firsthand testimony about such an event on the coast of Eretz Yisrael approximately thirty years ago.

Murex, by contrast, is generally always found on the seabed and does not come onto shore at all. In France, Spain, and other countries it is commonly harvested for food.

Rav Goldstein responds with several arguments.

First, according to the Gemara in Shabbos, the chilazon is caught in the sea. But I myself stated that most of the time Janthina is caught with nets. Rav Goldstein adds that the small quantity available in the sea would not have been sufficient for all of Klal Yisrael, or even for the Mishkan.

As far as Klal Yisrael is concerned, once they entered Eretz Yisrael, it is reasonable that during years when large quantities of chilazon appeared, they prepared enough dyed wool to last for subsequent years.

As for the Mishkan in the Midbar, even according to those who identify the chilazon with Murex there remains a serious question: how did they obtain Murex in the desert? This is not a new question, and much ink has already been spilled discussing it.

The Pnei Yehoshua in Shabbos 75a writes that although they presumably did not require the chilazon itself in the Midbar, the dyed material may already have been in their possession through gentile merchants or from Egypt, just as they possessed the atzei shittim and other materials.

The Chida in Nachal Kedumim likewise explains that the materials for the Mishkan had been prepared in advance. He cites the Midrash that Yaakov Avinu instructed his children that Hashem would one day command their descendants to build the Mishkan, and therefore they should prepare everything needed. This is why the Torah says, “Whoever had Techeiles and argaman,” and “whoever had atzei shittim.”

Regarding the melachos of tying and untying, the Chida explains that the point is not that chilazon were being trapped in the Midbar. Rather, since Techeiles for the Mishkan ultimately comes from a chilazon, those who normally trap chilazon tie and untie their nets. He admits that this is somewhat difficult, but the pesukim clearly imply that the Techeiles was already in their possession.

Only the Radbaz, in one teshuvah, says that they actually caught the chilazon in the Yam Suf. Yet even he writes that the uniqueness of Zevulun’s coastline was that there the chilazon would sometimes come up on its own and be collected. After the exile, he says, it no longer came up by itself and had to be caught. So according to him as well, there were times when the chilazon came onto shore and could simply be gathered, and other times when it had to be caught in the sea.

Second, Rav Goldstein writes that one cannot determine what Chazal meant by “comes up once in seventy years,” and that various interpretations have been suggested, not necessarily connected with rarity.

He gives no source for these alternative explanations. Perhaps he means explanations proposed by the Radzyner Rebbe in order to support his own identification. But if these explanations have nothing to do with rarity, they do not fit the plain words of Chazal, who say: “Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles a fish, it comes up once in seventy years, and with its blood they dye Techeiles; therefore its blood is expensive.”

Third, Rav Goldstein argues that the chilazon was expensive because the Byzantine emperors prohibited private people from using mollusk dyes.

But we already explained that this contradicts Chazal, who explicitly connect its high price with the fact that it “comes up once in seventy years.”

Even aside from that, the theory is difficult. These imperial restrictions were not absolute. At certain times only silk garments were prohibited. At other times only complete garments. Sometimes the government ignored black-market trade. At times the restriction applied only to men and not women. Eventually the restriction focused mainly on the most expensive form of imperial purple.

See Dr. J. B. Bregman’s article, “Purple Dye in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” in The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, pp. 159–165, and Oscar Seyffert’s Dictionary of Classical Antiquities.

We already noted that the Ramban quoted by Rav Goldstein probably contains a printing mistake. But even if his text is correct, it would mean that in the time of the Rishonim they still knew the identity of the Techeiles creature. Certainly, then, one can rely on the Rambam, who lived and moved in royal circles in Egypt.

In any event, it is quite implausible to explain the price of Techeiles entirely through these governmental decrees.

Summary: The phrase “comes up once in seventy years” fits the Janthina in a straightforward manner. With Murex, even after many forced explanations, there is no convincing interpretation.

4. “Its body resembles the sea and its form resembles a fish”

The Gemara in Menachos 44a says that the chilazon’s body resembles the sea and its form resembles a fish.

In the kuntres I explained that the Janthina attaches itself beneath a raft of bubble-like structures joined together, and the entire formation can look somewhat like the scales or body form of a fish, so that at first glance the entire structure resembles a fish.

Rav Goldstein simply states, without explanation, that the arguments in the kuntres “do not fit the language of the Gemara, ‘its form — Rashi: the shape of its appearance — resembles a fish.’”

I do not understand his point. The wording of the Gemara fits the explanation in the kuntres quite well.

If Rav Goldstein means to rely on Rashi’s language as preserved in the Shitah Mekubetzes, it seems more likely that Rashi is simply distinguishing between the beginning — “its body resembles the sea,” referring to color — and the continuation — “its form resembles a fish,” referring to physical shape. Rabbeinu Gershom similarly explains “its form” as “its shape.” This is exactly consistent with the kuntres.

Rav Goldstein writes that it is difficult to know what type of fish-like shape Chazal intended. That is true. But when one actually sees the Janthina, it is possible to understand what Chazal may have meant. If one assumes Murex, however, it becomes extremely difficult.

Rav Goldstein further suggests that perhaps this fish-like form itself causes the chilazon to be expensive. I do not understand how resembling a fish would make it expensive. If his point is that it becomes difficult to identify among the other sea creatures, that has to do with camouflage through color, not shape.

And if this camouflage is what supposedly makes it expensive, it should always have been expensive for that reason, not only during certain periods.

Rav Goldstein also writes that “it is not clear that the Gemara intended to give us identifying characteristics of the chilazon.” That point is irrelevant. Whatever Chazal’s purpose in recording the description, the actual creature must fit the description.

He further writes that although the Murex shell itself does not resemble a fish, “from the side, at the opening, there is some resemblance to the form of a fish.” Aside from the fact that this contradicts his earlier idea that Murex resembles the other sea creatures around it, I can testify that I have personally seen hundreds of Murex shells and never saw any fish-like resemblance from any angle. [S.K.]

Summary: With Janthina, one can offer a reasonable explanation of Chazal’s statement that its form resembles a fish. With Murex, the explanations are forced and far-fetched.

5. The Sifri and the “sammamiyos”

The kuntres cited a statement of Chazal in the Sifri, also found in the Yalkut Shimoni, that “sammamiyos” struck the chilazonim and they died.

Rav Goldstein raises several questions against this Sifri and then answers some of them “with difficulty.”

Rav Herzog already cited this Sifri in his doctoral dissertation, printed in English in Dr. Spanier’s The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, p. 71. Rav Herzog translated sammamiyos as “lizards,” and he already dealt with these questions.

Rav Goldstein asks:

1. How does the story show that the chilazon is hidden away for the tzaddikim in the future?
2. If so, the chilazon is hidden for the future and is not available to Dr. Kaplan or anyone else.
3. The beraisa in the Sifri is from the Tannaitic period, whereas Techeiles remained in use at least through the end of the Amoraic period.
4. If this is the Techeiles chilazon, one needs a live chilazon to produce good dye, while here the chilazonim are described as dead.

Rav Herzog likewise noted that Techeiles chilazonim were still available in the time of R’ Yosi. He therefore explained that although the chilazon still existed, it was rare. From the words of the old man, R’ Yosi understood that the chilazon is actually common in the sea, but Heaven causes it to disappear from human reach so that it will be available in abundance in the future.

This answers questions 1, 2, and 3.

Regarding question 4, although the old man said that the sammamiyos struck them all, one can say that only a small number actually died and the remainder survived.

Rav Goldstein then brings a different version of the beraisa, which he considers the primary version. Apparently he treats it as primary because it appears in more Midrashic sources or editions.

According to that second version there is no proof from the story for either Janthina or Murex.

However, the assumption that one can determine the “correct” girsa merely by counting the number of sources is itself questionable, especially since some sources contain additional changes and some appear to have been corrected on the basis of other versions.

More significant, in my view, is that according to the first girsa, the story describes a known natural phenomenon found specifically with Janthina: Janthina can wash onto shore, while Murex does not, and Murex has a hard shell that lizards would not easily be able to break.

According to the second girsa, by contrast, the story describes an unknown and remarkable phenomenon from which no proof can be drawn in either direction.

Summary: According to one girsa of the Sifri, the story fits Janthina well and not Murex. According to the other girsa, there is no proof either way.

6. Dye must be taken from a live chilazon

The kuntres cited the Gemara in Shabbos 75a showing that good dye can only be produced from a live chilazon.

Rav Goldstein tries to prove from the Gemara, which says that those extracting the dye want to keep the chilazon alive “so that its dye should remain clear,” that this must refer specifically to Murex and not Janthina.

He writes that “the reality is that from dead Janthina nothing at all can be done, whereas from live Murex good dye can be produced, but from dead Murex one can still produce pale, muddy, unstable shades.”

I do not understand how Rav Goldstein knows the reality of Janthina dyeing when he already stated that he does not know the dyeing process, and apparently has never seen Janthina dyeing in his life.

I can testify from personal experience that even from dead Janthina one can produce a pale color.

I already wrote this explicitly in my kuntres:

After the chilazon dies, the ink extracted from it is almost completely worthless. The author attempted many times, unsuccessfully, to dye wool using mixtures prepared from ink taken from dead specimens. The dye itself cannot be used after freezing, drying, preservation in alcohol, or when extracted from dead specimens. From such liquids one can produce only very pale shades, if anything at all. A satisfactory dye can be obtained only from live specimens.

This also refutes Rav Goldstein’s statement that I confused two separate issues: preservation of dye extracted from a live chilazon and extraction of dye from a dead chilazon. In fact, both statements are true. Dye from a dead chilazon, as well as dye preserved by drying or freezing even when originally extracted from a live one, does not give a satisfactory color. [S.K.]

Rav Goldstein also writes that the Janthina has no special dye gland. That is simply incorrect. The dye is indeed contained in a special gland. [S.K.]

He further writes that there is no need to wound the Janthina in order to obtain the dye, because it releases dye when irritated.

The truth is that when irritated it releases only a very small amount. At one stage in my experiments I did in fact extract the dye this way, hoping to keep the Janthina alive. The attempt failed, and the animals died anyway. More importantly, the quantity produced in this manner is entirely impractical.

There is no doubt that anyone engaged in actual commercial dyeing would wound the animals in order to obtain the maximum amount of dye. This would be especially true when large numbers of Janthina washed onto shore: the dyers would naturally try to process them as quickly as possible before they died. [S.K.]

Summary: On this point — that clear, useful dye is obtained only from a live chilazon — Janthina and Murex are equal.

7. “Its body resembles the sea”

Rav Goldstein next discusses whether the “body” of the Techeiles creature is the color of the sea.

First he points out that Rav Herzog identified the creature as Janthina pallida and/or Janthina prolongata, not Janthina janthina. Rav Goldstein correctly notes that those species are not blue but rather whitish.

He also correctly notes that Rav Herzog rejected Janthina janthina because he believed that species did not live in the Mediterranean, although researchers cited by Rav Goldstein himself confirm that it does.

The truth is that Rav Herzog never saw a live Janthina. His conclusions depended on various researchers in different countries with whom he corresponded.

In this particular case he relied entirely on Dr. Germain of the Paris museum, whom Rav Herzog frequently cites in his writings about Janthina. The original French text of Dr. Germain’s letter appears in Rav Herzog’s doctoral dissertation, printed in Dr. Spanier’s book, pp. 71–72. Dr. Germain writes there that Janthina janthina is not found in the Mediterranean and that the other two species are.

In a letter from Rav Herzog to Rav Y. M. Tukachinsky, printed in Ir HaKodesh V’HaMikdash and again in Sefer HaTecheiles, p. 431, Rav Herzog lists among his reasons for choosing Janthina that “the color of its body and shell are both violet-blue, a beautiful shade that can easily be mistaken for blue,” and he also writes that “it is found in the Mediterranean.”

Nevertheless, Rav Herzog then identifies the two Mediterranean species as Janthina pallida and Janthina prolongata.

In fact, Janthina prolongata is identical with Janthina globosa, which is very similar to Janthina janthina, while Janthina pallida is generally found only in the western Mediterranean and rarely approaches the coast of Eretz Yisrael.

Regarding Janthina janthina, Dr. Germain was apparently mistaken. Janthina janthina is found in the Mediterranean near the coast of Eretz Yisrael, and its shell is blue-violet. I can testify to this from personal experience. [S.K.]

Accordingly, whatever Rav Herzog concluded about Janthina pallida and Janthina prolongata can actually be applied to Janthina janthina.

Rav Goldstein writes that it was the philologist Gustav Dalman who identified Janthina as the Techeiles creature. If we are citing non-Jewish scholars, one might add that the biologist Olivier already made the same identification in 1804 in the book recording his travels in the Ottoman Empire, as Rav Kook cites in his article printed in Dr. Spanier’s book, p. 23.

It is also interesting that David Carvalho, an expert on inks, wrote in his Forty Centuries of Ink, published in 1904, that leading experts of his day believed Tyrian purple was produced from Janthina prolongata.

Rav Goldstein then writes:

“Second, even Janthina janthina is not blue, but purple-blue — and its very name, ‘purplish,’ indicates that the purple component is much more significant than the blue. I assume the author is not claiming that Techeiles is purple.”

But nowhere is it written that the body or shell of the chilazon must be the exact shade of Techeiles. It says only that it resembles the sea and the sky.

Anyone who looks at the sky knows that its color is not identical everywhere or at every time. Sometimes it approaches white, sometimes purple, and so on.

A non-Jewish scientist, speaking with no connection at all to Chazal, writes in Pelagic Snails by C. Lalli and R. Gilmer, Stanford University Press, 1989, p. 9, based on a paper by L. Cheng, that the Janthina shell is immediately recognizable by its color ranging from purple to blue, which is also the color of its body. He explains that this coloring matches the ocean water around it and serves as camouflage.

The lower portions of the shell, facing deeper water, are lighter, while those facing the air are darker. This too apparently functions as camouflage: predators approaching from below have difficulty seeing the lighter shell against the bright sky, while birds looking downward have difficulty seeing the darker upper portion against the dark sea.

These researchers, with no connection whatsoever to Chazal, are therefore saying that the lower side of the Janthina shell resembles the sky while the upper side resembles the sea.

Incidentally, regarding Rav Goldstein’s assumption that I would certainly not say Techeiles is purple, Dr. Ziderman in his article in Techumin, vol. 9, actually suggests that Techeiles is a purple tending toward blue, rather than a pure blue.

Rav Goldstein then cites various statements of Chazal concerning the color Techeiles, combining different girsa’os. Interestingly, here he does not count the number of sources to determine which girsa is primary. His version mentioning vegetation appears only in Yerushalmi Berachos and Midrash Tehillim, whereas the version without vegetation appears dozens of times in Shas, Midrashim, and Rishonim.

He concludes that all these statements refer only to the color Techeiles itself, while regarding the creature the only statement is “its body resembles the sea.” He then writes that this phrase “is not unambiguous and is difficult to understand.”

He does not explain the various possible meanings or what exactly is difficult.

He merely suggests that “one can simply understand that it resembles its surroundings and is therefore difficult to find,” adding that something similar appears in the commentary attributed to the Raavad on Sefer Yetzirah.

But in the text we have, nothing of this sort appears. It says only that it is difficult to determine whether the chilazon belongs among fish or plants because it is alive and moves but does not change its place, remaining fixed to the ground.

Perhaps Rav Goldstein interprets this to mean it visually resembles its environment, but the continuation itself says “it is alive and moves,” which suggests an entirely different point.

Rav Goldstein next says that even Rashi’s wording is “unclear,” but again he does not explain what is unclear. Rashi simply explains “its body” as “the appearance of its body,” as opposed to “its form resembles a fish,” which refers to its physical form, as discussed earlier.

One cannot really debate vague statements of this sort.

We ourselves could say, quite simply, that Janthina resembles its surroundings, since its color resembles the surrounding sea. But Rav Goldstein apparently means something else, without explaining what.

Finally, Rav Goldstein cites a girsa in the Rambam reading “its appearance is like the sea,” and concludes, “everything works out nicely.”

Apparently he means what he wrote at the beginning of this section: the Murex shell is usually white but is often covered with whitish-blue-green algae, making it resemble its surroundings.

This description is somewhat misleading, especially if Rav Goldstein wants to use it to support the idea — which he himself already rejected — that the shell is blue. Even the photographs in Rav Burstein’s sefer, p. 306, and in Dr. Spanier’s book, p. 165, show that the Murex is not blue even when covered with growth.

Another photograph in Rav Burstein’s sefer, p. 305, although taken against a strong blue background, likewise shows that the Murex itself is not blue. The shells on the left that appear bluish are not Murex trunculus.

If one compares these photographs with the Janthina photograph on p. 241 of Rav Burstein’s sefer, there is little question which creature can reasonably be described as blue.

In fact, blue algae are not found in the Mediterranean. The growths that sometimes cover Murex shells — and I have personally seen many of them [S.K.] — are yellow or brown.

Members of Ptil Tekhelet themselves therefore argue that Murex resembles the seabed, not the sea itself.

But why should “like the appearance of the sea” mean the color of the seabed rather than the color of the sea itself?

Summary: Janthina itself naturally resembles the sea and sky in color. Murex, when covered with marine growth, may resemble the seabed.

Rav Goldstein’s three concluding claims

In his conclusion, Rav Goldstein raises three main points.

A. “There is no historical or archaeological evidence of dyeing with Janthina.”

Our response: We already rejected this claim at the beginning of this article. There is such evidence. In any case, such evidence is not essential to the identification of Janthina as the Techeiles creature, for the reasons explained earlier.

B. “The practical possibility of dyeing with its blood, without chemicals or artificial substances, remains unclear.”

Our response: There is no uncertainty here. We actually dyed with Janthina in front of Rav Menachem Burstein and the rabbanim he invited.

As for Rav Goldstein’s condition that the dyeing be done “without chemicals or artificial substances,” the Murex dyers themselves also use chemicals and other additives, because otherwise the wool would not properly absorb the dye.

The Rambam explicitly writes that the blood is placed in the vat together with additional substances, “as dyers normally do.”

Tosafos in Menachos 42b even asks how any additional substance can be mixed with Techeiles, and answers that perhaps the mixture together is itself what is called Techeiles.

Rav Moshe Feinstein likewise writes in Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah II, siman 133, that apparently the Techeiles color is created specifically through a mixture of additives, and that only together with these additives is it called Techeiles.

C. “Janthina does not match the dye-production methods described in Chazal.”

Our response: As explained above, this claim rests on an error from the outset.

Rav Goldstein concludes:

“The connection between Janthina and the system of identifying signs of the chilazon is extremely weak. The system of characteristics is so specific and precise that any attempt to reject the identification of Murex and fit the signs to some other creature cannot withstand serious criticism.”

Our response is the exact opposite.

There is no “weakness” here at all. Every siman mentioned by Chazal and the Rishonim is found specifically in Janthina, in the simplest possible way.

By contrast, only through numerous forced explanations and searching for alternate girsa’os does Rav Goldstein manage to fit the Murex to these descriptions.

He writes as if there is some established chazakah that Murex is definitely the Techeiles creature. Yet even the small group of rabbanim who support this position generally do not say more than that there is a safek that perhaps it is Techeiles, and on that basis they maintain that one should wear Murex Techeiles misafek.

As far as I remember, a halachic chazakah can only be built on established knowledge. Regarding the Murex there is no certainty, only many difficult and forced arguments.

It appears that supporters of the Murex first settled on it and rejected Janthina at a time when they mistakenly believed that dyeing from Janthina was impossible and that there was no evidence it had ever been used for dyeing in antiquity.

They therefore treated Murex as the only remaining candidate for the Techeiles creature. Now that these assumptions have been shown to be incorrect, they find it difficult to free themselves from that original conclusion.

With this, we have upheld almost everything written in the kuntres identifying the Techeiles creature specifically with Janthina, and we have shown that most of Rav Goldstein’s objections are based on mistakes.

We have still not even addressed the serious difficulties with identifying Murex as the Techeiles creature.

Further difficulties with Murex

A. One creature producing both Techeiles and argaman

The assumption that Murex was the source of both Techeiles and argaman apparently has no basis in Chazal or the Rishonim.

They consistently identify the chilazon as the source of Techeiles, but never identify it as the source of argaman.

Rashi on Shemos 25:4 writes:

“Techeiles — wool dyed with the blood of the chilazon, and its color is green/blue. Argaman — wool dyed with a type of dye called argaman.”

Rashi specifically explains Techeiles as coming from the blood of the chilazon, but does not say this regarding argaman.

Likewise the Bartenura in Kilayim 9:1:

“Techeiles — wool dyed with the blood of the chilazon. Argaman — wool dyed with a red dye called argaman.”

And similarly among the leading mefarshim on the Yerushalmi. They consistently identify only Techeiles as being dyed with the blood of the chilazon.

In other words, according to these sources, Techeiles is from the chilazon, while argaman is simply a separate red or purple dye.

B. If Murex Techeiles becomes chemically identical to indigo, how can Chazal’s test distinguish them?

Members of Ptil Tekhelet state that at the end of the dyeing process, the Murex dye changes chemically until it becomes identical to indigo — the kala ilan mentioned by Chazal.

Yet Chazal in Menachos 42b–43a give chemical tests to distinguish genuine Techeiles from kala ilan.

The Gemara states that Techeiles can be tested by soaking it in a mixture of substances. If the color deteriorates, it is invalid; if not, it is kosher. Rav Ada gives a second test involving sour barley dough: if the color improves it is kosher, and if it becomes worse it is invalid. “Falsehood changes for the worse; truth changes for the better.”

The Rambam likewise codifies these tests in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:5.

These tests clearly examine the chemical behavior of the dye.

So if genuine Techeiles and kala ilan are chemically identical, how can the test possibly distinguish between them?

Many have already raised this question, including Rav Shlomo Miller, Rosh Kollel in Toronto. Ptil Tekhelet published his letter, as well as a response by Rav Tavger, one of the leaders of the organization.

Rav Tavger gives two possible answers.

One possibility is that even if the basic dye compounds are identical, perhaps the way the dye bonds to the wool differs, and this is what the test detects.

A second possibility is that although the primary color compound of Murex Techeiles is the same as indigo, small quantities of the original Murex substances remain in the final dye, and these may produce a different reaction.

But neither answer is sufficient.

The tests are supposed to determine whether the color remains or changes. If the main dye itself is chemically identical, why should a difference in the strength of the bond account for the distinction?

And even if traces of the original Murex chemicals remain after processing, those original substances are not blue. They are closer to red or purple. If the blue component fades and only the original Murex coloration remains, one cannot say that “the Techeiles color remained unchanged.”

General Conclusion

After all the arguments raised by Rav Goldstein and his colleagues, identifying the Techeiles creature as Murex still involves significant difficulties, forced explanations, and distant assumptions.

By contrast, the identification of the Techeiles creature as Janthina fits the evidence simply and naturally from every angle.

Rav Dovid Shapira
and Dr. Shaul Kaplan