Kovetz Ohr Yisroel of Monsey – Year 3, Issue 2 (10) Teves 5758 – 126-145

Rabbi Mordechai Avraham Katz

Av Beis Din of Kehal Avreichei Yehudah, 5748

Fulfilling the Mitzvah of Techeiles in Tzitzis Today

“We have a clear, strong, and reliable mesorah that the holy Gaon, the great light of the world, the Rebbe of Kotzk zt”l, said that before the coming of the Geulah, the mitzvah of Techeiles would once again be revealed to Klal Yisrael.”
— Inyan HaTecheiles on Rav Saadia Gaon

“Speak to Bnei Yisrael and tell them that they shall make for themselves tzitzis on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and they shall place upon the tzitzis of each corner a thread of Techeiles, and it shall be for you as tzitzis, etc.” [1]

The mitzvah of tzitzis is to place eight strings on each of the four corners of the garment, with either one or two of those strings being Techeiles. [2]

A. The Halachic Reasons for Fulfilling the Mitzvah of Techeiles

In recent years, a number of Jews have been inspired to fulfill this mitzvah by searching for the Techeiles, identifying it, and placing Techeiles strings among the tzitzis, thereby fulfilling the mitzvah in its Torah-prescribed form.

Now, we learned in the Mishnah [3] that the Techeiles does not prevent fulfillment of the white strings, and the halachah was likewise paskened [4] that in our times, when we do not have Techeiles, one fulfills his obligation with white alone.

Nevertheless, we should take to heart the words of the Ramban in Parshas Shelach: [5]

“Afterward, He commanded the mitzvah of tzitzis, through which one should remember all of the mitzvos and not forget Shabbos or any of the other mitzvos. The reason for this remembrance is that the tzitzis should serve as a reminder of all the mitzvos. Rashi wrote that this is because the numerical value of the word tzitzis is six hundred, and together with eight strings and five knots, it totals 613. I do not understand this, because in the Torah the word tzitzis is written without a yud, making its numerical value only 590. Furthermore, according to Beis Hillel, the strings are only three, and according to the Torah there are only two knots, etc.

“Rather, the remembrance is specifically through the Techeiles thread, which alludes to the middah that encompasses everything, which is present in everything and is the ultimate purpose of everything. Therefore it says, ‘And you shall remember all,’ meaning the mitzvos of Hashem. This is what Chazal meant when they said that Techeiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod, etc. The resemblance is both in name and in color, for blue is the ultimate color visible at a distance, since distant objects all appear in that shade, and therefore it is called Techeiles.”

Accordingly, if we identify Techeiles and place a Techeiles thread into our tzitzis, we will also be zocheh to properly realize the Torah’s promise of “And you shall remember all the mitzvos of Hashem.”

There is another point as well. The Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos [6] that although the Techeiles and the white do not prevent one another, they nevertheless constitute one mitzvah rather than two separate mitzvos. This is explained in the discussion of Shoresh 11:

“It would have been possible for us to say that the white and the Techeiles should be counted as two mitzvos, were it not for an explicit statement found in the Mechilta of Rabbi Yishmael. There Chazal say: One might think that there are two mitzvos, the mitzvah of Techeiles and the mitzvah of white. The pasuk therefore says, ‘And it shall be for you as tzitzis’ — it is one mitzvah and not two mitzvos.

“It is thus clear to you that even components that do not prevent one another may nevertheless be considered a single mitzvah when their purpose is one and the same. The purpose of tzitzis is ‘so that you shall remember.’ Therefore, the entire thing that brings about this remembrance is counted as one mitzvah.”

The sefarim dealing with the counting of the mitzvos, as well as the sefer Divrei Ephraim [7], discuss at length why they should not in fact be counted as two mitzvos; see there.

In any case, it is clearly established that Techeiles is a component of the mitzvah of tzitzis, and one does not fulfill the mitzvah of tzitzis in its complete form with white alone, but rather with the white together with the Techeiles.

In addition, there is an opinion among the Rishonim that Techeiles actually does prevent fulfillment of the white. This is the view of the Baal HaMaor in the second perek of Shabbos, who writes:

“Know that our view leans toward the position that Techeiles is me’akev the white, and the white is me’akev the Techeiles, etc.” [8]

The same appears to be the view of Rav Shimon Kara, the author of Halachos Rishonos, since he did not include in his hilchos tzitzis the Mishnah stating that “Techeiles does not prevent the white.”

The custom of our predecessors who followed the Rif was to rely on his rulings when a halachic question arose, and from him the practice spread among us as it is observed today. Therefore, we follow in the footsteps of the earlier authorities.

See, however, the Milchamos, where the Ramban rejects the position of the Baal HaMaor:

“He has thereby exempted the entire world from the mitzvah according to Torah law. For if he is correct, then we, who do not have Techeiles, would not need to place white strings at all. And if he says that we are obligated only miDivrei Sofrim, where do we find that Chazal enacted such a takanah? … According to the Baal HaMaor, in our places today no one would need to place white alone, and certainly it would be forbidden to go out with such tzitzis on Shabbos, and one would even be liable to bring a chatas, etc. We have already received testimony that throughout his life he exempted himself from tzitzis in accordance with this view.” [9]

Yet our ancestors, from the times of the Geonim onward, did in fact go out wearing a tallis with white strings even without Techeiles, etc. [10]

Still, the view of the Baal HaMaor is not entirely a daas yachid. In Temim De’im [11] and Sefer HaIttur [12], the opinion is brought in the name of the Nasi, Rav Yitzchak bar Baruch, that the mitzvah of tzitzis nowadays is only derabbanan, because Techeiles is me’akev the white.

The Tur [13] also records that the Maharam MiRottenberg would not go out into reshus harabbim on Shabbos wearing a garment with tzitzis. See the Beis Yosef and Bach, who explain that this was because he was concerned for the opinion that Techeiles is me’akev the white, and that one who goes out into reshus harabbim wearing a tallis that is not properly fitted with tzitzis would be chayav a chatas. [14]

We can also mention the girsa of Rav Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon, Rosh Yeshivah in Sura and father-in-law of Rav Hai Gaon, Rosh Yeshivah in Pumbedisa. In his work on hilchos tzitzis, which was recently translated, his version of the Mishnah in Menachos reads that Techeiles does prevent the white, etc. [16]

Nevertheless, halachah lemaaseh he too holds that Techeiles does not prevent the white, in accordance with the Chachamim in the Gemara there, as opposed to Rebbi, whose position is an individual opinion. The rule is that halachah follows Rebbi against an individual colleague. [17]

The bottom line from all of this is that there are a number of reasons to prefer tzitzis containing Techeiles. Particularly nowadays, when it may actually be possible to fulfill all the opinions and all the chumros, and we have before us a mitzvas aseh deOraisa that we perform every single day, it would certainly be appropriate to try to fulfill it in the best possible manner. [18]

B. Techeiles in the Bigdei Kehunah

Approximately 150 years ago, the Chovevei Tzion movement began. Among those involved in its earliest stages were several Gedolei Yisrael, including the Gaon Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer zt”l, author of Derishas Tzion, in which he discusses the halachos relating to the settlement and rebuilding of Eretz Yisrael.

As part of his involvement in renewing the Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael, he also dealt with the possibility of bringing korbanos in modern times. He exchanged letters with the Gedolei HaDor, Rav Akiva Eiger zt”l and the Chasam Sofer zt”l, both of whom agreed in principle to the possibility of restoring the korbanos [19], although certain halachic difficulties arose with regard to the avodah in the Beis HaMikdash.

One of those issues concerned the Bigdei Kehunah. According to the Rambam [20] and other Rishonim, even the avnet of a Kohen Hedyot was made partly from Techeiles wool. Yet the method of producing Techeiles had been forgotten.

The Derishas Tzion therefore entered into a lengthy discussion and struggled to find a solution.

He relied heavily on the words of the Tiferes Yisrael [21], who derived from the Gemara in Menachos [22] a major chiddush: that Techeiles does not necessarily have to come specifically from the chilazon. Rather, two conditions are required:

1. The color must be blue, like the sky.
2. The color must be permanent and must not fade or change.

According to this approach, the tests mentioned in the Gemara were intended to distinguish genuine Techeiles from kala ilan, which is also blue but does not remain permanently beautiful.

If so, argued the Derishas Tzion, if one can produce a blue dye that looks like Techeiles and is permanent, it should be kosher both for tzitzis and for the Bigdei Kehunah. Based on this, he suggested that in modern times we could manufacture such a color artificially and use it for the avnet, without needing to identify the chilazon at all.

However, the words of the Tiferes Yisrael are very difficult. He apparently overlooked an explicit Tosefta in Menachos [23], which states clearly:

“Techeiles is kosher only when it comes from the chilazon. If it does not come from the chilazon, it is invalid.” [24]

Although the Rambam does not quote this Tosefta in his Mishneh Torah, it is still very difficult to rule explicitly against a Tosefta when we find no source that argues with it.

C. How Techeiles Was Forgotten

During the period of the Amoraim, Techeiles was still available. As we find in Menachos [25]:

“Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah: How do you dye this Techeiles? He answered: We bring the blood of the chilazon and place it into the vat, etc.”

And elsewhere [26]:

“Someone from Mashcha brought Techeiles during the years of Rav Achai; they tested it using the test of Rav Yitzchak, etc.”

However, in the She’iltos of Rav Achai Gaon, in hilchos tzitzis, the halachos relating specifically to Techeiles are not mentioned, which suggests that in his time it was already no longer available.

It would therefore appear that Techeiles disappeared sometime between approximately the year 4330 [27] and the year 4580. [28]

The reason it disappeared can be understood from the historical writings of non-Jewish scholars of those periods. [29] At that time, the Roman government issued laws declaring that all establishments involved in the production of Techeiles belonged to the monarchy, and the price was also raised sharply.

As a result, Techeiles production became severely restricted, and after a number of years the process was forgotten among the Jews.

In addition, Techeiles for tzitzis has to be dyed lishmah, specifically for the mitzvah of tzitzis. If one were forced to purchase the dyed material from non-Jews, it would be very difficult to ensure that it had been dyed lishmah.

Furthermore, it is well known that the Christian Roman rulers enacted many gezeiros against the Jews. In Sanhedrin we find that in the days of Rava a coded message was sent from Eretz Yisrael saying that a pair had come from Rakas, an eagle had seized them, and they had in their possession items made in Luz — meaning Techeiles, etc.

It is therefore possible that just as gezeiros were made against Shabbos, Kiddush HaChodesh, tefillin, and other mitzvos, a gezeirah was also made against Techeiles. Although we do not find this stated explicitly, Techeiles may simply have been included among the many mitzvos that were prohibited.

We also find relevant testimony in the words of Pirkei Ben Baboi, a student of a student of Rav Yehudai Gaon, who wrote a teshuvah to the Jews of North Africa around the year 4540 concerning certain minhagim they had adopted from Eretz Yisrael. He strongly opposed those minhagim and argued that they had developed under conditions of religious persecution. He writes:

“In all of the old sefarim from the days of Moshe until now they did not follow this practice. Rather, it was a minhag that arose from shemad, because wicked Edom imposed persecution upon Eretz Yisrael and forbade them from reading the Torah, and they hid all of the Sifrei Torah because they were burning them.

“When the Yishmaelim came, they had neither Sifrei Torah nor sofrim who possessed a practical mesorah regarding how to process the hides and how to write Sifrei Torah. They therefore took parchment from non-Jews which had been prepared for writing their books of avodah zarah, and they used it for Sifrei Torah, etc.”

It is explicit from this that during that period Eretz Yisrael suffered many gezeiros and persecutions, and the level of Torah knowledge and practical mitzvah observance declined greatly.

There is therefore nothing surprising in the fact that the mitzvah of Techeiles and the knowledge of how to dye it could also have been forgotten.

Later, when the Arabs conquered Eretz Yisrael, the Jews were again able to fulfill the mitzvos properly. However, those same Arabs destroyed the remaining dyeing facilities on the coast of Eretz Yisrael.

Since the halachah had already been established that Techeiles does not prevent fulfillment of the white strings, there was no pressing need to overcome all of these difficulties and recreate the entire industry. As a result, Techeiles disappeared completely and sank into oblivion.

D. The Radzyner Rebbe

In the year 5647, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner zt”l, the Radzyner Rebbe and author of Sidrei Taharos, published a sefer entitled Sefunei Temunei Chol, in which he announced to the world that he had discovered the Techeiles fish. [35]

He had read in a scientific work about a sea creature known as the cuttlefish, which, when frightened and attempting to escape, ejects a substance beneath itself that darkens the surrounding water and makes it difficult to catch.

The Rebbe thought that this creature bore a strong resemblance to the chilazon described by Chazal.

He later traveled to Italy to study the marine life there, until he became convinced that this was indeed the chilazon of Techeiles.

He wrote three sefarim on the subject, traveled to many Rabbanim in an attempt to receive their haskamos, and eventually, by the year 5648, more than ten thousand Jews were already wearing his Techeiles.

Naturally, there were also many opponents, who raised all types of objections. In his sefarim and in the introduction to Ein HaTecheiles [36], he addressed and answered these arguments.

Some pointed to the writings of the Arizal in Etz Chaim [37], which appear to explain the disappearance of Techeiles as a spiritual consequence of the Churban Beis HaMikdash. They therefore argued that there was no need to restore the mitzvah during galus.

The Radzyner Rebbe answered that chas v’shalom one should abolish a mitzvah on the basis of a Kabbalistic concept. He also quoted in the name of the Maggid of Kozhnitz zt”l that before Mashiach comes, Techeiles will once again be revealed to Klal Yisrael.

He further explained the words of the Arizal according to Kabbalah: the mitzvah of Techeiles and tzitzis brings a person to hachna’ah, submission and humility. After the Churban, Klal Yisrael is already in a state of submission because of the galus itself. He discusses this at length.

Others raised the famous slogan of the Chasam Sofer, “Chadash assur min haTorah” — “Anything new is forbidden by the Torah.”

To this the Radzyner Rebbe responded:

“The Chasam Sofer used this clever expression only regarding one who comes to innovate in order to abolish an established minhag of our forefathers, or one who introduces some new practice that is found nowhere and has no basis in the foundations laid down by Chazal.

“But to develop new halachic conclusions through the analysis and pilpul of Torah — this is our way and our glory.”

Certainly in our case, the mitzvah of Techeiles is not something new at all. It is ancient, and is an explicit pasuk in the Torah: “And they shall place upon the tzitzis of each corner a thread of Techeiles.”

There were, however, also substantive objections to the Radzyner identification itself.

Some asked from the Gemara in Menachos [38], which says that the chilazon comes up once every seventy years and therefore its blood is expensive. If so, how can it be a creature that is readily available?

The Rebbe answered that the Rambam does not quote this detail as one of the defining simanim of the chilazon, indicating that it is not essential.

Furthermore, the Gemara does not necessarily mean that at other times the chilazon cannot be found at all.

In Shabbos [39], on the pasuk, “And from the poorest of the land Nevuzaradan left behind vinedressers and farmers,” Rav Yosef explains:

“The yogvim were the hunters of the chilazon from the Ladders of Tyre until Haifa.”

Surely Nevuchadnetzar would not have maintained a whole group of professional chilazon hunters for a creature that appeared only once every seventy years.

The Radzyner further argued that even with this creature, there are different years and different locations in which it is more common or less common. Thus, “once every seventy years” may simply mean that it is normally very rare.

He also cites the Radbaz [40], who writes that the chilazon would rise on its own in the portion of Zevulun, and after Klal Yisrael went into galus it ceased to rise. The Radbaz adds that perhaps it is still available even today, but people no longer recognize it or know how to catch it.

The Rama MiPano [41] explains that the chilazon remains embedded in the sand at the bottom of the sea, and once every seventy years it becomes dislodged and rises up. According to this, it is always present in its habitat, but every seventy years it rises by itself and becomes particularly easy to collect. [42]

There is also a girsa in Maseches Tzitzis [43] that says it rises “once in seventy,” which may have a somewhat different implication. [44]

It is also possible to explain the matter based on the nature of animal populations.

When a particular species is hunted in very large quantities, only a small number survive. It then becomes extremely rare. After sufficient time, those few survivors reproduce and the population gradually increases until once again large numbers can be harvested, after which it declines again. [45]

Accordingly, at the time when Techeiles was widely used — and even the non-Jews used these dyes for their royal garments [46] — enormous numbers of chilazon may have been collected, leaving very few alive. This could explain why it was only readily available once in seventy years.

In our times, however, after hundreds of years during which no one harvested it for dye, the species could have multiplied and become common once again.

Another objection was based on the Midrash Rabbah [47], which says that as the chilazon grows, its clothing grows along with it.

The Radzyner Rebbe writes: [48]

“Before I saw it, I assumed that it must be a type of tortoise or similar creature, which grows together with its hard outer covering, and this was also the understanding of the Gaon, the Tiferes Yisrael, etc. But after I was zocheh to see it, I saw that here too its clothing grows along with it, as the Midrash says. Yet it is not a species of tortoise, because the clothing of the chilazon is its fleshy covering, etc.”

This explanation, however, is somewhat difficult, because in the Pesikta D’Rav Kahana [49] and Yalkut Shimoni [50], the wording is “its nartik grows with it,” implying some sort of hard case or shell, like the shell of a tortoise.

There is also the Gemara in Shabbos [51]:

“One who traps the chilazon and potze’a it…”

The word potze’a suggests breaking or cracking something hard, like breaking open a nut. [52]

The Radzyner Rebbe explains [53] that petziah here means pressing or squeezing it, and that because of the pain and pressure it releases its blood.

Others, however, explained that the Gemara refers to cracking open the shell containing the dye-producing organ.

Another question raised against the Radzyner Rebbe was that his chilazon is a non-kosher sea creature.

According to the Magen Avraham in Hilchos Shofar [54], all objects used for mitzvos must come from a kosher source, because the Torah compares other mitzvah objects to tefillin, which must be made from something “permitted to your mouth.”

Many answers have been suggested to this question; see the Noda B’Yehudah [55], Chasam Sofer [56], Chida [57], Toras Chesed [58], and the lengthy discussion in the Sdei Chemed. [59]

Some answer that Techeiles is only a tashmish mitzvah, and the requirement of “min hamutar beficha” applies only to tashmishei kedushah.

Others explain that the rule applies specifically to mitzvah objects made from skin, based on the language of the Gemara in Shabbos [60]:

“Nothing was made fit for the service of Heaven except the skin of a kosher animal.”

The Gemara asks: For what halachah? And answers: for their skins.

The Radzyner Rebbe himself suggested [61] that non-kosher fish are not prohibited min haTorah, and therefore they could still qualify as “permitted to your mouth.”

Beyond that, several Acharonim disagree with the Magen Avraham’s entire premise.

The Noda B’Yehudah asks from an explicit Gemara in Sukkah [62], where everyone agrees that a tied elephant can serve as a wall of a sukkah.

The Pri Megadim [63] asks from the halachah in Shulchan Aruch [64] that a silk garment requires silk tzitzis and cannot be fitted with tzitzis of another material. Silk, as Rabbeinu Bachya writes [65], comes from the body of a worm. We therefore see clearly that there is no universal requirement of “min hamutar beficha” for every mitzvah; perhaps that requirement applies only to tefillin. [66]

The Radzyner Rebbe [67] also cites the Rambam [68] regarding mor, one of the ingredients of the Ketores, which the Rambam describes as a secretion coming from an animal.

The Raavad objects that it is impossible that the Mikdash service would make use of blood or secretion from a non-kosher animal.

The Radbaz answers that perhaps the animal is in fact kosher. Alternatively, he suggests that the substance has lost the halachic status of blood and is no longer considered food, but has become like mere dust. [69]

In short, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l.

All of the halachos connected with Techeiles dyeing and the Techeiles strings were clarified through his work — both through the sefarim he wrote and through the extensive give-and-take with his opponents.

He smoothed the path and addressed virtually every halachic question and objection raised on the subject.

The one major issue over which later authorities disagreed with him was the actual identification of the chilazon, as will be discussed.

E. Evidence That the Chilazon Is a Snail Rather Than a Fish

Rav Yitzchak HaLevi Herzog zt”l, who served as Chief Rabbi of Ireland and later as Chief Rabbi in Eretz Yisrael, wrote his doctoral dissertation in 5673 on the ancient Techeiles of Klal Yisrael. [70]

He published some of his research in Torah journals and also wrote chiddushei Torah on the sugya. [71]

In his major work, Rav Herzog examined the subject from every angle — both halachah and aggadah, as well as the history of ancient dyeing.

He corresponded with many scholars. One of them asked him to send a sample of the Radzyner Techeiles so that it could be scientifically tested.

Rav Herzog was surprised to receive a response saying that the dye contained no material whatsoever originating from an animal.

In order to investigate the matter, he wrote to the Radzyner Rebbe of that generation, Rav Mordechai Yosef Leiner zt”l [72], asking for a detailed description of the dyeing process.

The Rebbe was not home at the time, but his gabbai replied with a letter describing the entire process from beginning to end. He also sent Rav Herzog two sealed packages of kosher Radzyner Techeiles strings.

Rav Herzog sent samples to two of the leading chemical and dyeing companies in the world. They too replied that the color was the well-known pigment called Prussian Blue, and that it contained no blood or other animal substance.

Interestingly, just as ancient Techeiles was almost completely forgotten, the Radzyner dyeing process was itself nearly lost after World War II.

Radzyner chassidim in Eretz Yisrael contacted Rav Herzog after the war, and it was only through the letter in his possession that they were able to reconstruct the process. Radzyner chassidim continue producing it to this day.

Rav Herzog told them that in his view this could not be the original Techeiles, since the final dye did not come from an animal.

They responded by showing him that they really did place the blood of the Radzyner chilazon into the mixture and produced the color exactly as described in the old letter.

This, however, did not contradict the scientists’ findings.

Further investigation showed that the blood is cooked in the vat three times over an extremely intense fire — “like the fire of Gehinnom,” to use the Gemara’s expression [73] — at approximately 900 degrees Celsius.

At such a temperature, the blood is completely burned. Its molecules are broken down and converted into chemicals. Therefore the same final pigment can be produced from any other material containing the same chemicals.

In addition, one of the ingredients placed into the vat was potassium ferrocyanide. This chemical can be manufactured from ox blood or even from potatoes.

It follows that the blood of the cuttlefish contributes nothing unique to the final blue pigment.

For these reasons, Rav Herzog concluded that the cuttlefish could definitely not be the Torah’s chilazon.

Rav Herzog then tried to identify the actual chilazon.

Rashi [74] explains the word chilazon with the French word limace, meaning a snail. In Arabic and Persian as well, a snail is called by a word related to chilazon. [75]

The Aruch [76] similarly describes the chilazon as something coiled or enclosed. In manuscript copies of the Aruch there is even a drawing of a coiled shape, apparently indicating the spiral form characteristic of a snail.

The Tiferes Yisrael [77] likewise calls it a Schnecke, the German/Yiddish word for snail.

The Raavad [78], in his commentary to Berachos [79], refers to Techeiles as porpura, and he uses the same term in his commentary to Sefer Yetzirah. [80]

The same terminology also appears in other early sources, and even today the corresponding sea creature is known by that name in Greece, where it is sold as food.

Now, the animal known as porpura was very famous in the ancient world. It is well documented that blue and purple dyes were produced from it.

Aristotle and Pliny both write that in Tyre and Sidon, blue and purple dyes were made from a type of snail called the Murex, although for many centuries its exact identity was forgotten.

About two hundred years ago, a scholar was traveling on a ship when one of the fishermen cracked open one of these snails and some of its secretion splashed onto his clothing.

At first it had no obvious color. After a short time in sunlight, however, it turned blue.

The scholar began investigating this phenomenon. He compared the animal with the descriptions found in the ancient authors and found that the details matched. He therefore concluded that this was the ancient dye-producing snail. [83]

Later, further evidence emerged.

Along the Mediterranean coast, from the Ladders of Tyre down toward Haifa [84], approximately thirty or forty ancient dyeing sites were discovered.

At these sites archaeologists found thousands of broken snail shells, along with fragments of vats that had been used for boiling and dyeing.

Scientists tested residue from the walls of the vats and found that the pigment was identical to the color produced today from these same snails.

When the piles of ancient shells were studied, remains of three different snail species were found.

Some piles consisted of two species mixed together, while other piles consisted entirely of a third species by itself.

When the secretions of these snails are tested, the two mixed species produce reddish or purple colors, which appear to have been used for argaman.

The third species, when treated properly, produces blue, suggesting that it was used for Techeiles.

Rav Herzog attempted to dye tzitzis from the Murex, but the wool came out purple. This led him to hesitate, since we have a mesorah from Chazal that Techeiles resembles the sky.

He also objected that the body of the snail itself did not appear to resemble the sea, whereas Chazal say that the creature’s appearance is similar to the sea.

Eventually Rav Herzog found another sea snail known as the Janthina, which secretes a blue liquid, and suggested that perhaps this was the Techeiles chilazon.

He never actually succeeded in dyeing wool with it.

There are also serious problems with that identification:

First, the Janthina lives in the open sea and is not found along the shores of Eretz Yisrael.

Second, later experiments showed that although the liquid itself appears blue, wool dyed with it turns a bronze color rather than blue.

Thus, this identification did not solve the problem either.

F. Identifying the Chilazon in Our Times

In recent years, several scholars who are both Shomrei Torah u’Mitzvos and knowledgeable in the words of Chazal, as well as in the science of dyeing, have investigated Techeiles extensively.

They have concluded that the Murex is in fact the chilazon of Techeiles, and they have found a number of strong proofs.

First, regarding Rav Herzog’s objection that the Murex itself does not resemble the sea, it has since become known that in its natural habitat the snail does indeed blend in with the sea.

On the sea floor, its shell becomes covered with various small marine organisms, causing it to take on the appearance of its underwater surroundings.

The problem of the purple dye was also solved, almost by accident.

The dyeing process produces a terrible smell. One of the researchers was working indoors and disturbing everyone around him, so his colleagues told him to go outside and continue the work in the courtyard.

When he dyed the wool outside in direct sunlight, he noticed that wool exposed to the sun for about ten minutes turned blue.

The explanation is that the dye contains a chemical called dibromoindigotin, which gives it a purplish color.

Sunlight removes the bromine component, leaving indigotin, which is blue.

Had Rav Herzog exposed his wool to sunlight — or even placed it briefly into hot steam or water — he could have obtained blue wool and might have reached a different conclusion.

Rav Herzog himself wrote in a letter to Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky zt”l [85] that there is another possible way of determining the identity of Techeiles: through kala ilan.

The Gemara makes clear that kala ilan closely resembles Techeiles and was used to counterfeit Techeiles strings.

Therefore, if we know the color of kala ilan, we should also know the color of genuine Techeiles.

Kala ilan was never lost. It is well known to be indigo, as stated by the Aruch [86] and Nimukei Yosef. [87]

Indigo is still widely used in various countries, and wool dyed with indigo is blue — essentially the same blue produced from properly processed Murex dye.

Rav Herzog brought another proof from Menachos [88]:

“A man from Mashcha brought Techeiles in the days of Rav Achai. They tested it using the test of Rav Yitzchak son of Rav Yehudah, and its color faded. They then used the test of Rav Adda and it improved. They thought to invalidate it.

“Rav Achai said to them: If so, it would be neither Techeiles nor kala ilan. Rather, you must conclude that the two teachings were stated together, etc.”

From this Gemara it appears that there are only two possibilities for a blue dye of this sort: genuine Techeiles from the chilazon, or kala ilan.

If there were some third substance capable of producing the exact same Techeiles color, then the Gemara’s conclusion would not follow.

Therefore, since Chazal did not give us a special test to distinguish Murex blue from genuine chilazon blue, this itself would indicate that the Murex is the chilazon.

One detail, however, requires explanation.

Kala ilan also derives its color from indigotin. If both colors are chemically identical, how could the tests of Chazal distinguish between them?

One possibility is that sunlight does not remove absolutely all of the bromine from Murex dye, leaving tiny amounts that make it chemically distinguishable from plant indigo, which contains no bromine at all.

Another approach can be suggested based on the Sifrei [89]:

“One should not say: I will use colored dyes and kala ilan, for they resemble Techeiles, and who will know what I have done in private?”

This wording suggests that counterfeiters did not use pure kala ilan alone. Rather, they added additional coloring agents.

It may therefore be that the tests of Chazal were able to detect the additional substances used in the counterfeit dye rather than distinguish chemically pure indigo from chemically pure Techeiles.

This can also answer another point.

The Radzyner Rebbe writes [90] that he tested his own Techeiles using the tests of the Gemara and it passed successfully.

With modern dyeing technology, however, one can obviously add artificial stabilizers and other chemicals to make a color more permanent.

The tests of Chazal were designed for the dyeing methods available in their own time, when the relevant possibilities were genuine Techeiles and the particular kala-ilan counterfeits used then.

There are also many other details about the Murex that correspond closely to the descriptions of Chazal:

A) In Moshe Rabbeinu’s brachah to Zevulun, the Torah says, “And the hidden treasures buried in the sand.” [91] Chazal understand this as referring to the chilazon. The Murex does in fact bury itself in the sand along the seashore.

B) The dye-producing substance should ideally be removed while the chilazon is still alive. If it is removed after death, the color is inferior. This fits the Gemara [92]:

“As long as it still has life in it, this is better for him, so that the dye should remain clear.”

C) Rashi [93] explains litzil tziv’ei as meaning that its color should remain clear and bright.

In reality, when the secretion is first removed it is clear. It then turns green [94]. When enough of it collects in the vat, it appears black like ink [95]. Only later, when the dyed material is removed and exposed to light, does it become blue.

D) The chilazon lives inside a hard shell that must be cracked open, matching the language of Chazal.

E) Rashi in Sanhedrin [96] calls it a type of worm, and the Ran in Shabbos [97] writes that it is not a creature with distinct limbs.

A snail is in fact a soft-bodied, wormlike creature that lives within a shell, and its “garment” grows together with it, exactly as discussed earlier.

F) Tosafos in Shabbos (75a, s.v. V’leichayev) cites the Yerushalmi implying that one who catches the chilazon on Shabbos is not liable for the melachah of trapping.

The mefarshim struggled to explain why.

However, if the chilazon is a snail, the matter is simple. Snails barely move. Even when they do move, they do so extremely slowly. No skill or special trapping technique is required to capture them.

They therefore have the status of something already effectively trapped, similar to animals or fish confined within a very small enclosure.

Because of all these proofs [98], almost everyone involved in serious research into the subject agrees that this is indeed the chilazon of Techeiles.

G. Wearing Techeiles in Tzitzis Today

In recent years, several talmidei chachamim have come together to discuss the possibility of restoring the mitzvah of Techeiles in tzitzis.

They have already gone lemaaseh and dyed Techeiles strings lishmah from the blood of the chilazon described above. [99]

They have been in contact with leading talmidei chachamim of the generation, including Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita and Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg shlita, who were involved with the initiative and ruled on halachic questions that arose during the research and production.

Rav Elyashiv was asked to publicly issue his opinion.

He first asked two questions:

How much does it cost?

And how much can be produced?

He explained that if he were to issue a psak requiring people to wear this Techeiles even merely because of a safek deOraisa, there would not be enough Techeiles available for everyone. [100]

Once large numbers of people wanted to purchase it, demand would drive the price up dramatically, and it would be difficult to impose such a major financial obligation on the entire tzibbur.

Indeed, it is understandable that Techeiles is expensive. A single set of tzitzis requires between approximately 60 and 200 snails.

In Eretz Yisrael today, the government does not allow these snails to be harvested freely because conservation authorities are concerned that the population could once again be depleted.

They are therefore imported from Greece, where in coastal towns they are sold by weight as food. For this reason, at present they are not excessively expensive.

If large numbers of Jews began wearing Techeiles, however, it would become worthwhile to import the snails from Greece in very large quantities and dye large batches at once. The price could then actually fall considerably. [101]

The Radzyner Rebbe argued that one may wear Techeiles even merely out of safek, based on the Gemara in Menachos [102]:

“Let it be no worse than white.”

In other words, even if the string turns out not to be genuine Techeiles, there is no issue of bal tosif, no brachah levatalah, and no other invalidation.

He further argued [103] that one may even have an obligation to perform a mitzvas aseh when there is a safek, even though afterward one will not know with certainty whether he fulfilled his obligation.

In the Radzyner Rebbe’s time, several Gedolei Yisrael considered his claims but did not want to become involved in the controversy.

There were even cases where someone who wore Techeiles asked to be buried wearing his Techeiles tallis, but the chevra kadisha refused to bury him in it.

It is also well known that the Maharsham zt”l wrote in his tzavaah [104] that he should be buried with the Techeiles tallis that he had worn privately during his lifetime, and that the strings should not be invalidated but merely tied in a bow.

The author of Shulchan Melachim and others close to him knew that on fast days and similar occasions he would close himself in his room and daven wearing that tallis.

Today, however, each individual can act according to the conclusions he reaches from the halachic sources, and no one is stopping him.

I have personally spoken with several Gedolei Yisrael who asked me to bring them tzitzis with Techeiles. Even if only because of the safek, they wanted to wear Techeiles at least once in their lives, although they did not wish to publicize the fact because of the controversy.

I also spoke with the Kashauer Rav shlita — may Hashem send him a refuah sheleimah speedily — and he was very pleased with the basic idea.

He said that it would be appropriate to convene an asifah of Rabbanim on the subject, so that they could analyze it carefully and seriously, both in theory and lemaaseh.

I also spoke with one of the elderly Gedolei HaDor.

He told me that people once came to the Chafetz Chaim zt”l and asked him to issue an opinion regarding Techeiles.

The Chafetz Chaim replied that he was already too old and did not have the strength to enter into a machlokes.

The Rav then said to me:

“I am not the Chafetz Chaim, but I am old too, and I also do not have the strength for this.”

He raised another argument as well.

The Radzyner Rebbe came and said that he had found Techeiles. Now, one hundred years later, people say that he was mistaken and that a different chilazon is the real Techeiles.

How do we know that another hundred years from now they will not say that this identification too was mistaken?

This is certainly a valid argument.

We do not have absolute certainty to the point that one could publicly declare, “This is it beyond any doubt.”

Nevertheless, regarding this chilazon there are many powerful proofs:

from the testimony of non-Jewish scholars who had no halachic agenda;

from the fact that we can reproduce the ancient dyeing process as described;

and from the physical characteristics of the animal itself, as discussed above.

A set of these Techeiles tzitzis costs only around $50, which is not excessively expensive.

Therefore, anyone whose heart motivates him to fulfill this precious mitzvah [105] now has the opportunity to do so.

May Hashem pour upon us a spirit from Above and bring us His Mashiach, the perfect Kohen, who will resolve all of our questions and uncertainties.

May we be zocheh to see the Kohanim once again performing their avodah in the Beis HaMikdash, במהרה בימינו אמן.