Janthina Tekhelet Rediscovered – Shaul Kaplan

Rediscovering Techeiles

At least twelve hundred years have passed since human eyes last saw the color of Techeiles. Techeiles was reserved exclusively for tzitzis, the garments of the Kohen Gadol, and the curtains of the Ohel of the Mishkan. The Gemara describes Techeiles as a dye produced from the blood of a very rare blue marine chilazon that comes up from the sea in large quantities once every seventy years. After the destruction of the Second Beis HaMikdash, the production of Techeiles gradually came to an end, and what remained was only the Gemara’s description of the chilazon—and, of course, the organism itself.

Over the past century, several attempts have been made to renew the mitzvah of wearing tzitzis dyed with Techeiles from the chilazon. In 5648 (1888), the gaon Rav Gershon Chanoch Leiner zt”l, the Radzyner Rebbe, produced a blue dye from cuttlefish ink mixed with Prussian acid. This product was rejected almost across the board by those seeking to restore this lost mitzvah.

More recently, a group of researchers led by Dr. Israel Ziderman began producing a second version of Techeiles from the dye of a common snail known scientifically as Murex trunculus (the argamon keheh kotzim). There is no question that this snail has at least two of the signs of the chilazon: it is a snail with a shell, and it produces a dye that can be used to color wool. This version of Techeiles has gained a certain amount of acceptance in Eretz Yisrael today, although recognized rabbanim have refrained from giving it their approval.

There is another local marine snail, a rare and delicate organism of the genus Janthina, which in the author’s opinion has all of the signs of the chilazon mentioned in the Gemara. Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog zt”l selected this snail as the most likely candidate for the chilazon (see A. Spanier, The Royal Purple, 1987, pp. 44–71, 141). Rav Herzog’s doctoral dissertation was the most intensive work done on this subject up to that time.

In the oldest Greek translation of the Chumash (the LXX), the word Techeiles is translated as hyakinthinon, while argaman is translated as porphyra. The ancient Greek translation of Megillas Esther likewise translates Techeiles as “hyakinthinon,” a word very similar to the modern name Janthina. The law code of the Roman Emperor Justinian states that ordinary people were forbidden to dye either silk or wool with porphyra and hyacintha (p. 178), which is evidence, according to the author, that the Romans used Janthina sixteen hundred years ago. Dyeing with porphyra and Janthina in that period was reserved for royalty.

Archaeologists found Janthina shells at ancient dyeing sites near Tyre.

(Abbott R. Turner, American Sea Shells, 1954, ch. 1, New York.)

They were also found at ancient dyeing sites in Beirut:

(Legett W.W., Ancient and Medieval Dyes, pp. 56–60, 1944, Chem. Pub. Co., Brooklyn, N.Y.)

The well-known archaeologist Dr. D. S. Reese reports sites in Lebanon where Janthina shells were found in ancient dye works (D. S. Reese, Society for Libyan Studies, 11th Annual Report, p. 81, 1979–80).

Modern researchers—supporters of the Murex identification—discussed this snail and rejected it. In their publications they stated that it is impossible to dye wool with the ink of this snail, despite the fact that there was no modern published account of anyone actually attempting to do so.

The purpose of this article is to publicize the following results: the author obtained live specimens of Janthina and produced tzitzis in a pleasant shade of blue using the ink of this unusual organism. In light of these findings, there is reason to hope that people who wish to fulfill this lost mitzvah d’Oraisa will reconsider the question of the chilazon’s true identity.

The characteristics of the chilazon as they appear in the Gemara provide a taxonomic guide by which the species in question can be identified.

The signs of the chilazon are so specific and unusual that one can argue precisely that there are not two organisms in the Mediterranean possessing this particular combination of characteristics. In fact, there is only one: the marine snail of the genus Janthina.

Let us briefly review the characteristics of the chilazon as described in the rabbinic literature:

1. Techeiles must be produced from a creature called a “chilazon” (Menachos 96).
2. The chilazon resembles the sea and the sky in color (Menachos 43–44).
3. The chilazon has a shell (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 7:1).
4. The chilazon comes up from the sea once every seventy years (Bavli, Menachos 44; Baraisa d’Tzitzis).
5. The chilazon resembles a fish (Menachos 44).
6. The chilazon comes up from the sea onto the rocks, where lizards strike it (Sifri, V’Zos HaBerachah 357).
7. The chilazon must be alive in order to obtain a good dye (Shabbos 75).

Does Janthina have any of these characteristics? It produces a purple-colored ink that is released in large quantities when the animal is wounded or disturbed. When this fluid is used together with the additive mentioned by the Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2), “kamulya,” it will indeed dye wool a Techeiles color. It therefore satisfies the first characteristic.

The organism itself is blue, both its shell and its body. This satisfies the second characteristic.

It is a snail with a shell. This satisfies the third characteristic.

Regarding the fourth characteristic: although Janthina is fairly rare, there are occasional seasons in which food is plentiful, predators are few, conditions are ideal, and reproduction is unusually successful. As a result, there are reports of enormous quantities of Janthina appearing in swarms stretching for kilometers at sea, and at times being thrown onto shore by powerful storms. It can therefore be said that Janthina comes up from the sea only on extremely rare occasions—such as once in seventy years—exactly as the Talmud states. The expression “once every seventy years” may mean “extremely rarely,” or once in a human lifetime, or it may be understood literally.

During an ordinary year the chilazon is found only in very limited numbers. A determined search from a boat using nets in the open sea may produce two or three specimens, perhaps even a dozen. But once in a long while, quantities measured in tons may come ashore. Reports of such mass strandings are found in both modern and ancient literature (Spanier, 1987, The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, p. 200). This is perhaps the most striking example of how precisely Janthina fits the Talmudic description of the chilazon. A characteristic that initially sounds extremely implausible turns out to be an exact description of the behavior of this organism, preserved for us in a tradition two thousand years old.

One such mass stranding on the coast of Eretz Yisrael was reported to the author personally by an eyewitness. The beach was literally covered with Janthina snails in a broad layer.

The fifth characteristic is particularly interesting. Janthina builds a bubble raft between one and ten centimeters long. The animal joins the bubbles together until it forms a narrow, slightly curved structure, and it remains attached to the underside of this raft throughout its life. The bubbles are packed together so closely that they look very much like fish scales, and the entire formation looks like a small silver fish. The phrase “its form resembles a fish” in the rabbinic literature can therefore be understood as referring to this fish-shaped raft, which appears to be covered with scales.

The sixth characteristic is literally true. The author has found shells that had been broken open and the snail eaten from inside. The shells are so fragile that any bird or small lizard can crack them and consume the animal without difficulty.

The seventh characteristic also fits Janthina. Once the organism is dead, its ink is of almost no value. The author repeatedly tried to dye wool with various preparations made from dead snails, without success. The dye cannot effectively be used if it has been frozen, dried, extracted, or squeezed from dead specimens. At most, these preparations produced extremely weak and fugitive colors. Live snails must be used in order to produce a satisfactory dye.

The question was raised: how could ancient dyers have obtained such a rare organism? Surely they did not spend their lives waiting for the once-in-seventy-years appearance of a snail as rare as a comet. The answer is that dyers worked for centuries with another marine snail, the Murex, which produces argaman. This was a major commercial industry, exporting dye throughout the Mediterranean region. Dye houses were scattered along the coast wherever these snails were abundant, as shown by archaeological remains at places such as Hof Dor. Therefore, when a mass appearance of Janthina occurred, the dyers were already nearby and could get there quickly with the necessary equipment at hand.

The places where large quantities of Murex remains are found are the places where argaman was produced. Although the Murex is also a shelled snail, it does not resemble the chilazon in the other respects. The Murex is not blue, it never leaves the sea and comes onto the beach, it is not rare, and it does not appear once every seventy years. It is not eaten by lizards, it does not have a body resembling a fish, and wool can in fact be dyed from it long after the animal has died; the dye can even be stored for later use. Once it has been demonstrated that Janthina can in fact produce a wool dye, there is no longer any need, in the author’s view, to search for other species that do not fit the description of the chilazon in the Gemara and the ancient texts. The archaeological remains at places such as Hof Dor can then be understood in terms of their actual role: the production of argaman.

Comments of Rabbi “A” on “Rediscovering Techeiles” and Dr. Kaplan’s Responses

Comment of Rabbi “A”

1. The author completely ignores Midrashim that do not fit his approach and instead support the argamon. For example, “shfunei temunei chol”—hidden in the sand, not floating on the surface of the water. Techeiles is associated with the territory of Zevulun, which fits the argamon very well, whereas the Janthina floats on the water and reaches different places at random. These two Midrashim deserve greater weight because they contain specific information, unlike the vague statement of “once every seventy years.”

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Janthina is generally found buried in the sand after being washed ashore by a storm. Unlike the Murex, Janthina is literally found partially or completely covered by the sand of the beach. The Murex is found on the rocky seabed.

Janthina is not scattered along the shore specifically in the area of Zevulun, but neither is the Murex limited at all to Zevulun’s portion. Both are found in roughly the same quantities all along the coast of Eretz Yisrael and Lebanon. Wherever there are rocky areas, Murex can be found.

The seventy-year characteristic is not vague. For example, the “seventeen-year cicada” is called that because every seventeen years it emerges to eat, mate, reproduce, and establish the next generation, after which the cycle begins again. Its name expresses a very specific feature of that species, and there is no confusing it with another species. Even if “once in seventy years” only means an appearance once in a lifetime, there is still only one species in our region that fits such a description: Janthina.

Comment of Rabbi “A”

2. The main point is missing from the article. According to the author, how exactly is the dyeing done? Who witnessed the dyeing? What is the chemical formula, and so on?

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The principle is simple: the Janthina ink is mixed with the mordant and cooked together with the wool thread until the wool turns blue. Nothing else is added. Rav Menachem Burstein, author of the sefer HaTecheiles, witnessed this process.

Comment of Rabbi “A”

3. He completely ignores the literature concerning ancient Techeiles dyeing, which strongly connects the argamon to the subject.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

There is no literature connecting the argamon snail with the word Techeiles. The Rav is referring to Roman literature dealing with argaman—the royal purple—and the various porphyra species, meaning the argamon.

Comment of Rabbi “A”

4. It is incorrect to say that Janthina is blue. It is purple.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Regarding the question of whether the Janthina snail is blue or purple, both blue and purple shades appear on its shell. But the main point is that Janthina’s color is the color of the sky. There is no better description of its color, because Janthina blends into the color of the sky as part of its natural camouflage against marine predators. Remember that Janthina floats on the surface of the water, while predatory fish swim beneath it and see it against the background of the sky.

Comment of Rabbi “A”

5. Rav Herzog presented Janthina as a possibility; he did not actually rule that Janthina was the identification.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

In two places in his work, Rav Herzog writes that one cannot accept the Murex as the correct identification and that Janthina is the best candidate. First: “If at present we must abandon the hope of rediscovering the chilazon of Techeiles among one of the species of Murex or Purpura, perhaps the choice is Janthina” (Royal Purple & Biblical Blue, Spanier 1987, p. 71). Second: “If we must give up hope of discovering the true Techeiles among the Murex and Purpura species, perhaps it would not be a mistake to look for it among the varieties of Janthina” (p. 141).

These two quotations, says Dr. Kaplan, reject the Murex identification and select Janthina. It is true that Rav Herzog never went into the field to search for the snails himself, but for research conducted strictly from the literature he demonstrated remarkably broad and deep knowledge of both the Chazal sources and the relevant real-world material.

Comments of Rabbi “B” on “Rediscovering Techeiles” and Dr. Kaplan’s Responses

In going through the article, I found several assumptions whose source is unclear to me. It is possible that the author has proofs for them.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

A. The author describes the chilazon as “coming up from the sea in large quantities once every seventy years.” Chazal say that it comes up once in seventy years, without saying whether the quantity is large or small. Therefore, the fact that Janthina sometimes comes up in very large quantities is not evidence that it is the chilazon.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The comment is correct. The Gemara does not say that it comes up in large quantities.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

B. The author writes that what remains of Techeiles is “the description of the chilazon in the Gemara, and of course the organism itself.” Although I see no reason to rule out the possibility that the chilazon can still be found, neither do we find that it must necessarily still be findable. Therefore, if the Murex is not satisfactory as the chilazon of Techeiles, that does not force us to assume that there must certainly be some other species that will satisfy us.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I repeat that Janthina has all of the signs that Chazal gave us, and there is no other animal in the Mediterranean that fits these signs. It is not enough to know the literature on the subject; if one wants to identify a particular species from its signs, one also needs a strong knowledge of the marine invertebrates that actually live in the sea.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

C. The author describes Janthina as “another local marine snail.” I do not know whether “local” merely means that it can be found here, or that it has a particular association with this region as opposed to other places. The Murex is specifically found near the shores of the Yam HaGadol, the Mediterranean, and this is also how Chazal relate to it. Janthina, as far as I have been able to determine, is found primarily in the oceans—particularly the Atlantic—and is also found in the Mediterranean and other seas open to the oceans. See the article by Spanier and Ehud Mienis in The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, pp. 197, 204.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The claim that Janthina is not local does not fit the fact that I myself have already found more than a thousand Janthina snails in our region alone. I again emphasize that there is no substitute for a broad knowledge of the invertebrates that live on and below the surface of the sea if we are going to solve this ancient puzzle.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

D. The author writes that the researchers “stated in their publications that it is impossible to dye with the ink of this snail, despite the fact that there is no publication describing an attempt to do so.” See Spanier’s article cited above (p. 201), which mentions his own attempt, although such an experiment can hardly be called a proper scientific investigation. Ziderman also wrote in his article in that volume (p. 210): “The biochrome of Janthina is related to bile pigments and is therefore chemically unsuitable for use as a textile dye.”

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Spanier is speaking there about an unsuccessful attempt to dye cotton with Janthina ink. I am speaking about dyeing wool. Tzitzis are obviously made of wool; there is no requirement that the dye work on cotton. An unstructured attempt to dye with Murex at the seashore would also fail. Spanier’s unsuccessful attempt proves nothing. I am confident that, using the proper process, Janthina could be used to dye cotton as well.

Comments of Rabbi “B”

E. Among the characteristics of the chilazon according to Chazal, the author writes that “the chilazon resembles the sea and the sky in color (Menachos 44).” The truth is that the source there only says that it resembles the sea—not the sky. I will explain below why this distinction matters.

F. On page 3 the author states that Janthina is blue, both its shell and its body. But in the article by Mienis and Spanier cited above (pp. 198–199), all varieties of Janthina are described as purple, in various shades.

G. At the end of the article, the author speaks of “ancient texts” describing the chilazon of Techeiles that “do not fit the Murex in any respect.” If he means the ancient texts describing the snail from which the ancient hyacinthus dye was produced, then precisely the opposite is true: the Murex fits those descriptions, while Janthina does not. If he means that there are ancient texts specifically describing the Jewish chilazon of Techeiles with descriptions different from those other texts, I would ask him to tell us what these texts are and what they say, because we know of no such ancient text other than those describing the ancient purpura, and those fit the Murex with a degree of precision that, in my view, reaches certainty.

All of the above concerns the author’s assumptions. Now to the basic issue itself.

I have a straightforward assumption that there is only one animal from which it is possible to produce a durable Techeiles color—what we today call blue—at least as durable and stable as kela ilan/indigo. My reasoning is that, based on the Yerushalmi in Kilayim, the requirement that Techeiles come from a chilazon seems to be because the source is an animal. The requirement for a particular chilazon therefore makes sense only if there is only one animal that can produce Techeiles. Since we know that Techeiles can definitely be dyed from the Murex, it follows that the Murex must be the chilazon of Techeiles, and that there cannot be another chilazon capable of producing Techeiles.

Still, this argument is to some degree a matter of “b’emunaso yichyeh”: only someone who accepts my assumption will accept my conclusion. A similar argument is constantly heard from the Ptil Tekhelet organization: if there were two different chilazon species from which one could dye Techeiles, why did Chazal not give us a way to distinguish between them? They gave only a test to distinguish Techeiles from kela ilan. But that argument would fail in this case, because the test would give the same result for both, since Murex Techeiles is chemically identical to kela ilan. Nevertheless, the fact that Chazal do not mention two such chilazon species is somewhat puzzling.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The Janthina snail floats on the surface of the water, cannot swim, and is almost completely blind. It therefore cannot flee from or hide from predators. Its only defenses are its ink and its camouflage coloring. Its shell contains several shades of purple and blue. These colors are distributed in such a way that the animal matches both the sky and the sea—but from different viewing angles.

It is not justified simply to call Janthina “purple-blue.” Viewed from above, the way a predatory bird sees it, it looks exactly like the surface of the sea. When a predatory fish looks at it from below, it sees the color of the sky. This is a classic example of natural camouflage, and it fits the description in Chazal that the chilazon has the color of both the sea and the sky.

All of the sources in Chazal indicate fairly clearly that there is only one chilazon that fits Techeiles. The Murex does not resemble the chilazon as described in Chazal. We have signs describing the chilazon of Techeiles, and those signs fit Janthina.

Comments of Rabbi “B”

But the central point here is that Dr. Kaplan claims it is possible to dye Techeiles from this chilazon. What we need to know is the following:

Comment of Rabbi “B”

A. Is it the blood of the chilazon itself that produces the color, or is the coloring produced by the blood together with the additive—which here is kamulya? If the mixture itself is what produces the color, there is a major machlokes whether such Techeiles would be kosher. See my sefer, part IV, chapter 2, on this question. The additives mentioned by the Rambam are only part of the preparation of the dyeing process and function as mordants; they are not supposed to contribute color of their own.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The mordant being added is colorless.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

B. If this is a mordant-dye process and kamulya is the mordant, as seems to be intended here, the question is how a mordant dye can be more durable than a vat dye such as indigo or the Techeiles produced from Murex. If it is not more durable, then it does not fit the Rambam’s description in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:1 that the color “remains in its beauty and does not change.”

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The mordant does not produce any color at all.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

C. We need to know what shade was actually produced in his experiment. If it was bluish-purple rather than pure blue, we could not use it as Techeiles, since all of our Rabbanim z”l agree that Techeiles is not purple. Rather, it is pure blue, with a minority view placing it among the greens; see at length in my sefer, part III, chapter 2. This also seems clear to me from the ancient sources; see my sefer, pp. 233–235.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Without the additional material Janthina dyes purple. With the additive it dyes blue, and that is what the Rambam means.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

D. One of the signs of the chilazon is “gufo domeh layam”—its body resembles the sea. Regarding Techeiles itself, we also find, “Techeiles resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky.” But these are not necessarily the same comparison.

The Rambam describes Techeiles as being “k’ein harakia”, like the appearance of the sky. By contrast, when he describes the chilazon itself, he writes that “its appearance resembles the appearance of the sea.” The correct text is “the appearance of the sea,” not “the appearance of Techeiles”; this is certain from the Oxford manuscript signed by the Rambam as having been checked against his own copy.

It is well known that some mefarshim understand the colors of Techeiles, the sea, and the sky not to be literally identical, but only similar to one another in some respect. The exact color of the sea cannot be fixed, because it varies for many reasons. The sky, by contrast, is basically one color, although its brightness, darkness, depth, and intensity vary with the weather. In most languages, if not all, “blue” is defined as the color of the sky. It therefore seems possible to be medayek from the Rambam that the chilazon itself is not one uniform blue color like Techeiles.

The Murex fits this description remarkably well, especially because its coloring serves to camouflage it in the sea. Various recognized rabbanim who saw the Murex agreed that the bluish-greenish shade normally found on it fits the description “the appearance of the sea.” Janthina, on the other hand, is purplish-blue. I am not aware of a phenomenon in which the sea appears purple, and although I cannot absolutely rule it out, I do not know that purple can be called the color of the sea, the sky, or Techeiles.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The color of the Janthina snail is exactly the color of the sea when seen from above and the color of the sky when seen from below. This is the protective coloration that enables it to survive. The Murex, by contrast, is neither blue nor blue-green. Its natural color is white, and the organisms attached to it—small marine algae—are dirty shades of green and brown.

Rashi on Menachos 43b says: “Why was Techeiles singled out? Because HaKadosh Baruch Hu designated it for this mitzvah: it resembles the sea, in which miracles were done for Yisrael; and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod.” On the following page, Menachos 44a, the Gemara says, “This chilazon—its body resembles the sea,” and Rashi understands this as referring to the color of the sea. This is not a different girsa but a continuation of the same point. From these sources one can understand that the color of the chilazon is the color of the sea and the sky: the chilazon resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod.

The Murex is a white snail. The green algae that grow on a Murex shell do not make it look like the sky at all. There are no marine algae growing on Murex shells that resemble the sky. To say that there are algae covering the Murex that look like the sky is misleading and simply untrue.

Biologists often use the expression “blue-green algae,” and perhaps that name caused the Rav’s misunderstanding. Dr. Ziderman, who is not a biologist, used this term incorrectly and thereby created a mistaken impression. “Blue-green algae” are microscopic single-celled organisms that do not form a covering layer on a hard surface; they float freely as individual cells in the water. The multicellular algae that do cover Murex shells are not “blue-green algae.” Multicellular algae in the eastern Mediterranean are not blue or blue-green. There are many red, brown, and green algae, but no blue algae. Divers in the Mediterranean can testify that the algae on the seabed in our region do not resemble the color of the sky.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

E. The fact that Janthina comes up from the sea “once in seventy years” would certainly be interesting. However, none of the early poskim—the Rif, Rambam, Semag, or Rosh—brings this as a sign. Since the sign does appear in the Gemara, we need an explanation that accounts for why they did not mention it. The sefer Lulaos HaTecheiles offers several possibilities. Moshe Raanan’s explanation, brought in the additions at the end of the sefer, seems to be borne out by the fact that there is already a shortage of Murex in places where the Ptil Tekhelet organization once collected them in abundance.

It is true that Rashi in several places understands the “once in seventy years” statement literally. But Rashi also writes in Menachos 44a that it “comes up from the land,” which the Yaavetz explains as meaning “from the seabed.” In other words, the chilazon of Techeiles is not an organism that lives on the surface of the water but on the bottom of the sea. This also appears to be implied by “shfunei temunei chol”, referring to the chilazon of Techeiles as being found in the sand—meaning the sand in the sea. In my view this is not absolutely forced in Rashi there, although the Sforno does explain it that way.

It comes out that Rashi is the only one who treats “once in seventy years” as a literal identifying sign of the chilazon of Techeiles. But according to Rashi’s own approach, Janthina cannot be the chilazon, because Janthina is found at the surface of the water rather than on the seabed.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

As I wrote earlier, Janthina that wash ashore become buried in the sand; they do not remain exposed on the surface. Murex, by contrast, is generally found on rocks or in mud on the seabed, but not in the sand of the sea, and certainly is never found buried in the sand of the beach.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

F. According to Torah terminology, all marine snails are “fish,” so there is no nafka mina in all of the imaginative shapes people have tried to attribute to different snails.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

The Janthina bubble raft looks very much like a small fish covered in scales. If you find one on the beach with the shell buried in the sand and the bubble raft above it, someone unfamiliar with the animal could easily think it was a small fish. This is therefore not an artificial or forced attempt to fit the description to the facts; this is actually how it looks. I have many photographs showing this.

The debate over the technical use of the word dag is irrelevant when what you see with your eyes corresponds to the written sources. If the Rav would take one Janthina in its natural condition and look at it, perhaps the question would answer itself.

The Janthina photographs in the books by Rav Burstein and Spanier do not show live Janthina in their natural state. They show either empty shells, drawings, or dead specimens after the bubble raft was destroyed and then placed back over the shell. This is a crude and inaccurate reconstruction. One cannot get a true impression of how this snail appears naturally from such pictures of dead specimens.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

G. The Rambam gives as a sign, “v’damo shachor k’dyo”—its blood is black like ink. Anyone who has seen the dried “blood” of the Murex will admit that it is literally black like ink, including several important rabbanim who saw it. This sign does not exist in Janthina.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I am glad this question was raised. Janthina ink, when collected fresh in a small cup in its natural liquid state, is black like black ink. Murex ink is not black. Dr. Ziderman says that a black dried extract can be made from Murex ink, but that is not the ink itself in its natural condition. The ink taken directly from the Murex is clear, not black.

If we are talking about a dried extract, one could just as well say that cow’s blood is black. A dried extract of cow’s blood does indeed look black, but the blood itself is red. Murex ink is not black. To say that it is black is simply not true. The fresh secretion is clear and looks like colorless mucus. When Janthina ink is collected in a cup, it is black—black like tar, black like charcoal, black like India ink.

The very fact that one can use a dried Murex extract for dyeing is, in Dr. Kaplan’s view, proof that it cannot be the chilazon. If it were the true chilazon, dried ink would not be useful; it would have to be used fresh and taken from a living animal. The fact that Murex dye can be preserved for later use after the snail is already dead only proves, in his argument, that it cannot be a suitable candidate for the original chilazon of Techeiles. Both the dye gland of the Murex and the secretion itself are clear when removed from the animal, not black.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

H. The Sifri describes “sammamiyos makishos oso u’meis v’nimak bimkomo”—sammamiyos strike it, and it dies and decomposes in its place. Dr. Kaplan understands this as referring to animals that come and eat the chilazon. But the meaning of the Midrash seems to be what enabled that old man to obtain the chilazon. If the chilazonim are eaten by the sammamiyos, what is left for him to use for dyeing? The source also says that it “dies and decomposes in its place.” If it is eaten, it neither decomposes nor remains in its place.

Furthermore, the description there, “there is a place that lies among the mountains,” implies that the old man knew a particular location where they could be found. If the reference were simply to Janthina’s natural mass-stranding phenomenon, the find could extend for miles. Why would it be preserved especially for this particular old man?

In my view, if the chilazon in the Sifri is the chilazon of Techeiles, then the alternate girsa of this baraisa should be preferred: “and sammamiyos surround it [meaning the place]; there is no one who goes there whom the sammamiyos do not bite, and he dies,” etc.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Obviously not every Janthina that comes ashore is eaten by lizards. Many remain and can be collected. When I say that I see snails whose shells have been broken and whose animals have been eaten, this fits the Sifri’s statement. One cannot reasonably demand more than that: the physical facts match the text.

Rabbi Yosi spoke about a particular place between Tyre and Achziv, and with Hashem’s help perhaps one day I will be able to travel north from the present Israeli border into Lebanon and find Rabbi Yosi’s location.

As for the Rav’s suggestion that the sammamiyos are creatures that attack people rather than the snails themselves: I know the creatures that attack these snails. We do not know of sammamiyos that attack human beings. It is better to deal with known facts than with speculation.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

I. There is a significant misunderstanding here regarding the possibility of dyeing from the blood of a dead chilazon. The Gemara in Shabbos 75a clearly shows that one can dye from a dead chilazon; the dye is simply not as successful as dye from a live one. Rabbi Yochanan says, “shep’tzao meis”—he wounded it after it was dead. In order for the dye to be better or clearer, they preferred to take it from a living specimen. But the fact that they took it from a live animal does not mean the dye could not subsequently be dried and stored.

The Gemara in Menachos 42b also seems to imply this when it says “maisinan dam chilazon”—we bring the blood of the chilazon. That sounds like a separated substance already prepared for dyeing, not that people stood over the dye vat holding live snails and squeezed them directly into it.

If it is impossible to dye with the blood of a dead Janthina—whether it was killed or died on its own, a distinction that does make a difference with Murex—perhaps that itself is evidence that Janthina is not the chilazon of Techeiles.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

It seems to me that the Rav is misunderstanding the use of dead snails for Techeiles. A very weak dye can be produced from a dead Janthina, and this is the meaning of the Gemara in Shabbos. But if the ink can be stored for later use and still produce a good dye, that would not fit Chazal’s description.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

J. The Gemara in Shabbos 75a makes clear that extracting the dye will cause the chilazon to die: “psik reisha v’lo yamus.” This is true of Murex. The description here says that Janthina releases its dye “when it is disturbed,” which sounds as though killing it is unnecessary. If so, this does not fit the Gemara’s description.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I do not kill the snails by wounding them because I want to keep them alive so that I can “milk” them again and also allow them to reproduce, so that I can raise them from the egg. When they are merely disturbed they release some ink, but when they are wounded they release all of the ink they have. If I did not want to keep them alive, I would wound them. The wound kills them shortly afterward.

Comment of Rabbi “B”

K. In addition, the sefer Lulaos Techeiles brings two sources in the words of our Rabbanim identifying the chilazon of Techeiles as “purpura.” Purpura is described in the ancient books, and we know clearly—both from the description and from the fact that in Greece this species is still called purpura—that the Murex is the purpura. How, then, is it possible to say that Janthina rather than Murex is the chilazon of Techeiles?

Rav Herzog did force an explanation that perhaps other snails could also fall under the general term “purpura,” but with all due respect, this is a strained pshat and not one suited for a psak halachah. In fact, Rav Herzog himself apparently agreed with the substance of what I am saying and did not take his own Janthina proposal very seriously l’halachah, as is evident from the fact that he never worked to put the idea into practice. It would also be worthwhile to check the ancient literature to see whether Janthina is mentioned at all, although they certainly would have called it by a different name.

I hope these questions and comments will be brought to Dr. Kaplan’s attention, and I would be happy to hear what he has to say in response.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I already answered part of this. In this case, the term “purpura” was apparently being used as a general name for marine snails used to dye textiles. How can the Rav even consider Murex as a candidate for Techeiles when it lacks the signs?

It is unfortunate that the mistake of identifying the chilazon with Murex has continued for so long, in part because Murex is far more common than Janthina. It is very difficult to find enough Janthina to conduct an experiment, all the more so to obtain enough material for commercial sale. Murex is sold in markets in Greece, France, and Spain. How can that be the rare chilazon that appears once every seventy years, which is why its blood is so expensive?

All of the signs fit Janthina exactly and are so far removed from every other species. It is remarkable to see how these signs fit the words of Chazal and can still be used after thousands of years to identify the true chilazon that Hashem chose for the mitzvah of Techeiles.

Comments of Rabbi “C” on “Rediscovering Techeiles” and Dr. Kaplan’s Responses

In truth, there is no “rediscovery” in Dr. Kaplan’s article Rediscovering Techeiles, as the title might suggest. Rather, it is a return to an old idea proposed in its time by the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog zt”l.

The sole basis for this idea is the baraisa in Menachos 44a: “This chilazon—its body resembles the sea, its form resembles a fish, and it comes up once in seventy years,” etc. This baraisa is open to different interpretations, and it is impossible to decide absolutely among them. It therefore cannot be treated as a source of unambiguous identifying signs. Even if one interpretation sometimes seems more straightforward, it is possible that the truth is דווקא in a more forced and less obvious reading.

Beyond that, identification by simanim has a well-known weakness that I have discussed elsewhere. Even after we find something that fits the signs, we cannot be certain that there are no other organisms that have not yet been found—or that can no longer be found because they became extinct—with exactly the same characteristics. Anyone relying on this method would have to guarantee a survey of the entire range of animals that existed in the time of Chazal and demonstrate that only one of them fits all the signs.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

It is true that the idea is not new; it was true even before Rav Herzog. Rav Herzog wrote about it, and I actually found the animal. Perhaps the title can be changed.

As for the Rav’s suggestion that the less obvious interpretation may turn out to be the correct one, that is an interesting idea but not relevant here. We have a group of precise signs on one side and a matching group of biological facts on the other.

Comments of Rabbi “C”

Let us now go through the signs—the characteristics—of the chilazon of Techeiles mentioned in the article, one by one.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

1. This sign is far too general. Just as it fits Janthina, it also fits the argamon and every other shelled mollusk.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

This is one of the two signs that do fit Murex. The other signs do not.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

2. This sign is based on the statement in the baraisa, “gufo domeh layam”—its body resembles the sea. The language of the baraisa does not make clear what type of resemblance is intended. It may mean similarity of color, as the Rambam understood in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2, or it may mean another kind of resemblance. For example, the commentary to Sefer Yetzirah attributed to the Raavad understands it as referring to attachment to the seabed.

Even if we accept the first interpretation, Janthina is not the only chilazon that fits this sign. The argamon can also be described as resembling the sea in color, and much has already been written about this. As for resemblance to the sky, that wording comes from a different version of the same baraisa found in Maseches Tzitzis. It is not correct to use two alternative girsaos simultaneously; one must first decide which girsa is correct.

It is certainly incorrect to read the Gemara in Menachos as saying that the sea and the sky are one identical color that also matches the chilazon. The Gemara explicitly says that Techeiles resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

From Rashi in Menachos 43b it appears that Techeiles resembles the sky, the sea, and the Kisei HaKavod. Menachos 44a states that the chilazon resembles the sea, and Rashi explains this as referring to the “appearance of its body,” which certainly means its color. We must accept what Rashi and the Gemara say. The chilazon is therefore the color of the sky, the sea, and the Kisei HaKavod.

The sea and sky are combinations of blue shades, and HaKadosh Baruch Hu designed Janthina so that it is camouflaged almost invisibly against both the sea and the sky. This is its protection from predators. When the Rav says that the Gemara means the chilazon resembles the seabed, it would follow that the sky and the Kisei HaKavod resemble the seabed. In the eastern Mediterranean the seabed is not a particularly impressive color. It may be muddy, rocky, sandy, or covered in brown and green algae and the like. None of this, chas v’shalom, fits the Kisei HaKavod.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

3. This sign is identical to the first one, and everything I said there applies here as well.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

Correct. This is one of the very few signs that does fit Murex.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

4. The expression “comes up once every seventy years”—not necessarily “comes up from the sea,” as the article quotes it—is itself open to various interpretations: (a) it comes from the sea onto dry land; (b) it comes up from the earth, as Rashi understands it there; (c) it rises and detaches from the seabed; or (d) it comes up in the fishermen’s nets.

Dr. Kaplan assumes as obvious that “comes up once every seventy years” means that only then does the chilazon become obtainable. But that is not necessary. The phrase may instead describe the chilazon’s life cycle. The Rema MiPano, for example, understood it as describing a creature whose root is fixed in the seabed, and once every seventy years it becomes uprooted and rises from the water, at which point it lies motionless. On such an interpretation, this has no bearing on whether the chilazon can be obtained at other times, because it could be collected from the seabed. In fact, when it detaches from the seabed it dies and is no longer suitable for producing the best dye.

If so, this sign does not uniquely fit Janthina. It could fit the argamon and other marine snails as well, which also can be thrown onto land by the waves on rare occasions, just as Janthina can.

More generally, one should be cautious about using a poetic expression as a literal identifying sign for determining physical reality. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we tried to identify the carob tree based on the statement in Bechoros 8a that seventy years pass from its planting until its fruit is complete, or tried to identify the snake and the viper based on the statement there that their pregnancies last seven and seventy years. Would we arrive at the same carob, snake, and viper that we know today?

Response of Dr. Kaplan

One can always continue searching throughout the biological world, but you will never find another animal that comes out from the sea and fits the signs in the Gemara, Rambam, and the other sources as clearly as Janthina. There is no other snail that comes up from the sea onto the shore and also produces an ink with which blue wool can be dyed.

No matter how much one plays with the wording of each individual characteristic, when the entire group of characteristics is taken together there is only one candidate that fits them all.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

5. Dr. Kaplan’s use of this sign is an instructive example of how much room the language of the baraisa leaves for maneuvering and matching. If one can stretch the comparison far enough to compare Janthina’s bubbles to fish scales, one can certainly—and more easily—compare any snail, including the argamon, to a fish.

The matter first depends on how Chazal defined the term dag, fish. Rav Herzog struggled with this question extensively in his writings; see Rav Burstein’s HaTecheiles, p. 385 and elsewhere. The definition can be broadened considerably, to the point of saying that every living sea creature is called a fish, as brought in Eliyahu Rabbah of the Gra on Keilim 10:1. Or the definition can be narrowed in various ways. This is not the place to discuss the issue at length.

Attention should also be paid to the word “briyaso”—its form or manner of creation—used by the baraisa regarding its resemblance to a fish, as opposed to “gufo”, its body, used earlier. I saw a nice explanation in the writings of Professor Felix: the chilazon—and this would include all snails—reproduces and gives birth in a fish-like manner, so briyaso means “its mode of reproduction.” But as noted, one cannot establish this interpretation with certainty, and other explanations of the expression are possible.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I assume the Rav has not seen a live Janthina with its bubble raft intact. This is not imagination and it is not wordplay. It is worth seeing one with your own eyes and holding it in your hand at least once.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

6. This sign is based on the story of an old man who earned his livelihood from the chilazon, brought in the Sifri on V’Zos HaBerachah. Dr. Kaplan uses a particular girsa from which it emerges that the chilazon is eaten by lizards. But in the better texts of the Sifri the wording is different, and the picture that emerges is completely different.

It is worth quoting the text in full:

Rabbi Yosi said: Once I was traveling from Achziv to Tyre, and I met an old man. I said to him, “From what do you earn your livelihood?” He said to me, “From the chilazon.” I said to him, “Is it readily available?” He said to me, “By Heaven, there is a place in the sea that lies among the mountains, and sammamiyos surround it. There is no person who goes there whom the sammamiyos do not bite, and he dies and decomposes in his place.”

It is clear from this version that the sammamiyos are not eating the chilazon, as Dr. Kaplan claims the lizards do. Rather, the sammamiyos bite the person who goes there, and apparently they are not lizards but some other creatures.

More than that: the old man’s explanation for why the chilazon is difficult to obtain does not fit Janthina at all. Janthina is rare because it is thrown ashore only on very rare occasions. The old man, by contrast, describes a particular location where the chilazon is present, but people do not go there because they are afraid of the sammamiyos. This also strengthens the point made earlier that the difficulty of obtaining the chilazon need not depend on the phenomenon described as “coming up once every seventy years.” If anything, this story favors the argamon, which is found in the type of locations described there.

Nor is that all. The next passage, immediately following this one, clearly indicates that the chilazon there is specifically the argamon. The chilazon is listed as one of the economic industries supporting that region. The obvious reference is to the argamon, which is known from many historical sources to have been a major pillar of the economy of that area in those times.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I already answered this above.

Comment of Rabbi “C”

7. This sign is based on the Gemara in Shabbos [72a, as printed in the article]. It is very important to quote the entire passage:

“The Rabbis taught: One who traps a chilazon and one who wounds it…” The Gemara asks why he should not also be liable for taking a life. Rabbi Yochanan answers that he wounded it after it was dead. Rava says that one may even say he wounded it while it was alive; regarding taking its life he is acting without intent, because the longer it remains alive the better it is for him, so that its dye will be clear.

We learn several things from this Gemara: first, dye can be produced from a dead chilazon, according to Rabbi Yochanan’s answer. Second, the dye was extracted by wounding the chilazon. Third, wounding the chilazon ultimately causes its death.

These points do not fit Janthina. Dead Janthina are not usable, and there is no need to wound it at all, certainly not to kill it; when disturbed it releases significant amounts of blue fluid. It therefore turns out that this Gemara, instead of supporting Janthina, is a major kashya on the identification.

There are additional objections from other sources that should also be mentioned. The Gemara in Menachos 42b speaks of dam chilazon, the “blood of the chilazon,” with which the dyeing is done. It is difficult to understand how a blue liquid released by Janthina while alive can be called “blood.” The Gemara in Shabbos 74b also speaks of trapping the chilazon in nets. This does not exist with Janthina; Janthina is not trapped, certainly not in nets, but is gathered from the beach after being thrown onto land by the waves.

By contrast, all of these conditions fit the argamon very well. It must be wounded—the wounding is quite literally like cracking a nut with a hammer—and the chilazon eventually dies as a result. A dead snail can also be wounded and dye extracted from it, although dye from a live snail is preferable because of its quality. This is also mentioned in ancient books describing the process of producing purpura dye.

After the snail is wounded, a color develops that certainly resembles blood. This too is described precisely in the ancient texts, which call the liquid “the blood of the snail.” The argamon was trapped then, as it is today, with gear lowered to the seabed together with bait.

Dr. Kaplan makes considerable effort to explain why Janthina remains have not been found in archaeological excavations, but his article gives no explanation for Janthina’s absence from books describing everyday life in the ancient world. The author is essentially asking us to believe in a “product” that the ancient world did not know, that was not traded in its markets, and that kings and nobles did not desire to wear. Those, however, are among the outstanding identifying features of Techeiles.

By contrast, the dye of the argamon—or by its original name, purpura—is the one product derived from marine snails that is discussed extensively in ancient literature. It is described as one of the valuable commodities of antiquity alongside silver and gold, which fits Techeiles very well.

Nor is it only external sources that point to the argamon as the source of Techeiles. The same appears in our own sources, beginning with the Yerushalmi as cited by the Raavyah on Berachos 9b, siman 25, through the Ramban on Shemos 28:2, and continuing to important later poskim such as the Chavos Yair in Mekor Chaim, p. 99, the Yaavetz in Mitpachas Sefarim, and others. Much has already been written about this elsewhere, and I will not elaborate here.

Dr. Kaplan’s main contribution is his report that he succeeded, where others failed, in dyeing a wool thread with fluid produced from Janthina. Yet precisely here, where we would expect detail and elaboration, the author chooses an unexplained silence. The reader he is trying to convince needs to know exactly how the wool was dyed. Is the color stable? Does it pass the tests mentioned in the Gemara in Menachos 42b? Is it boiled in a vat with the samemanim mentioned there? Is the vat tasted before the actual dyeing? The only way to convince the reader is to expose all the facts to examination and criticism, and that was not done.

In closing, it is important to emphasize that Dr. Kaplan’s article may leave the impression that the only obstacle to identifying Janthina as the chilazon of Techeiles was the inability to dye with it, and now that he reports success, the final obstacle has been removed. That is not the case. The ability to dye is a necessary condition, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Not everything that dyes blue is therefore the original Techeiles.

Response of Dr. Kaplan

I have already answered part of this. I would add that I go out and catch Janthina with nets, and that is how I obtain them. By contrast, Murex cannot be caught with dragged nets because they live in rocky areas where nets cannot be dragged. Fishermen caught Murex in baskets with bait, not with nets. Where does the information come from that Murex were caught with “baited nets”? There is no such thing. It simply never existed.

To conclude this point: the fluid extracted from both Murex and Janthina is not blood. It is not produced in the animal’s circulatory system. The dye is produced in special glands that are unrelated to the bloodstream.

I also do not understand what the Rav means when he says that Janthina has no source in the ancient literature. It is clearly the Techeiles mentioned in the Gemara. The Romans called the snail hyacintha, as I said earlier, and Greek-speaking Jews translated the word Techeiles in Megillas Esther as hyakinthinon, which can only refer to today’s Janthina.

To the honorable rabbanim: what you are proposing is that every single characteristic has some complicated reason why it should not be understood as written. In other words:

1. The chilazon does not need to resemble the sky.
2. It does not need to resemble the sea.
3. It does not need to resemble a fish.
4. It does not need to come out of the sea once every seventy years.
5. It does not need to be struck by sammamiyos.
6. It does not need to be alive when used to produce good dye.
7. It does not need to produce black ink.
8. It does not need to be caught in nets.
9. It does not need to be found buried in sand.

For every characteristic, you have an explanation for why the sign means something other than what it says.

These characteristics are extremely specific and unusual. The astonishing way in which Janthina matches all nine of them—one hundred percent—is not a coincidence.

Janthina also appears in a continuous historical-linguistic chain from the earliest Jewish-Greek translations of the Chumash and Megillas Esther down to the present day. In those translations, Techeiles is rendered by the species-name “hyakinthinon,” which, according to the author, refers to one animal only: Janthina. This is not a mistake and it is not a coincidence.

In both ancient and modern Hebrew, the Murex snail is called argamon. It is called argamon because for thousands of years it was used to produce argaman, and that remains its use to this day.

The Greeks are a nation of sailors and fishermen, and their language contains precise names for both rare and common invertebrates of the eastern Mediterranean. These animals are used as food and are identified by name and species. Hyakinthinon, says Dr. Kaplan, is the Janthina of today.

Anyone interested may contact the author at: 056-458217
realtchelet@yahoo.com