Rabbi Mordechai Avraham Katz

Av Beis Din of Kahal Avreichim “Torah Vodaath,” Boro Park

Response of the Author

To the editors of Or Yisrael,

The critique of my article was presented properly. In truth, there is no need to answer, because the truth speaks for itself to anyone who is seeking the truth. However, so that my silence should not be taken as an admission, I am forced to repeat what has already been said, with some additional points.

The identification of the chilazon as the species called Murex, meaning a type of snail — shnek in Yiddish — is explained by many Rishonim. There is, first of all, the Raavad, as I brought in my article. I will quote here the words of the Raavad in his introduction to Sefer Yetzirah, Nesiv 8:

“The chilazon cannot be clearly classified as either belonging to the fish or to the vegetation, because it is alive and moves, yet it does not change its place, since it is rooted and fixed in the ground.”

The same is implied by the Ran in his Chiddushim to Shabbos 107, who writes:

“A chilazon is different, because it is a sealed-bodied creature, like those chilazonos found in garbage heaps.”

And, as is well known, there is no type of fish that is found in a garbage heap, whereas snails certainly are.¹

Likewise, Rashi in Sanhedrin 91a, s.v. chilazon, writes that it “is a worm, etc., and they dye Techeiles with its blood.”

The Raavyah, in Berachos, p. 12, writes that it is called porphura in the foreign language — which is the name of this snail in Greek until today — and he brings that this is also explained in the Yerushalmi.

Likewise, in Mekor Chaim by the author of Shu”t Chavos Yair, p. 99a, it says that the fish is called porfer, which, as I wrote, is the name of the snail in Greek until today.

In the Mussaf HaAruch, under the entry parpara, it says:

“Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia said: in Greek and Latin it means a garment of Techeiles.”

The Yaavetz, in his Siddur in the section dealing with Tzitzis, writes:

“It resembles a fish and is a sea-snail.”

The Tiferes Yisrael, in Kupas HaRochlin before Maseches Shabbos, p. 14b, writes:

“From the blood of the shellfish called purpur-shneke.”

A snail — shnek — is called today in Persian and Arabic chilazon.

The Radzyner Rebbe zt”l was not aware of all of the above. The Sefer Raavyah had not yet been printed in his time. He also did not bring the Raavad’s commentary to Sefer Yetzirah, which is evidence that he had not seen it. Nor did he mention the Persian and Arabic usage, which shows that he was not familiar with those languages.

It is clear that had the Rebbe zt”l seen all of this, he would have accepted it, because truth was the guiding light of his life. As he himself writes in Ein HaTecheiles, p. 217b:

“Despite all this, I am only a human being, and if someone shows me that I have erred, I am prepared to listen and accept his words with love.”

Therefore, those who are concerned for the honor of the great gaon, the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l, should realize that this itself is his praise: he was the first to awaken the world to the fulfillment of this precious mitzvah, he clarified the halachic issue thoroughly, and he removed the various objections that had been raised against it. But regarding the actual identification of the Techeiles creature, his conclusion did not succeed, because one cannot argue with the reality that the word chilazon means a snail, as it still does today, and as is explained by the Rishonim.

Thus, those who wear Techeiles produced from a snail are relying on a mesorah handed down to us by the Rishonim, not on scientists and archaeologists. We use their evidence only for technical assistance — and the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l himself also relied upon scientists to provide him with methods of dyeing.

Those who hold to the Radzyner identification, on the other hand, have no such basis in mesorah.

It is well known that when the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l was staying with the holy Rav of Belz zy”a, the Belzer Rav took him outside, showed him the sky, and told him:

“My father zt”l told me that the color of Techeiles must be hell bloy — light blue — like the sky. Your Techeiles is not the color of the sky; it is only tunkel bloy — dark blue.”

The Radzyner Rebbe left disappointed. This is well known. And the Rambam states explicitly in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:1 that Techeiles is:

“the appearance of the sky as seen when the sun shines in a clear sky.”

It is therefore no surprise that most Gedolei Yisrael from all circles, and the overwhelming majority of Klal Yisrael, did not accept the Radzyner Rebbe’s position. See also the strong words of the Aruch HaShulchan, siman 9, halachah 12. Regarding Klal Yisrael we say: “If they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets.”

As for the individual Gedolei Yisrael who did wear Radzyner Techeiles, there is no proof that they regarded his identification as certain. They may simply have worn it because of the safek, as the Radzyner Rebbe himself argued that one is obligated to wear Techeiles even out of doubt; see Ein HaTecheiles, p. 83b.

Accordingly, now that it has become clear that his Techeiles does not even fall within the category of a genuine safek, while the Techeiles from the snail does, it is certainly reasonable to say that those Gedolim would at least have worn this Techeiles because of the safek.

Aside from all of this, concerning the actual color of the Techeiles, it has been established that the Radzyner Rebbe’s dye is the color known as Prussian Blue, which is produced from known chemical ingredients. The blood of the fish is not actually necessary in order to produce that shade; the identical color can also be made using the blood of an animal and the like, as I explained at length in my article.

Rabbi Englander argued:

“The main thing is that they produce the color from the blood of the chilazon. We never find any condition that the chilazon must specifically produce a color that cannot be found from any other source.”

However, Menachos 43a explicitly teaches that Techeiles could only be counterfeited by means of kela ilan; see there carefully, and see my article, p. 138. If the Radzyner Techeiles can be produced equally well from other substances, that itself clearly demonstrates that this is not the Techeiles discussed by Chazal.

He further writes that there may be other reasons why the Torah specifically required the chilazon, and that it is impossible to say that this requirement is a Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai without a reason.

But see what the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l himself writes in Sefunei Temunei Chol, p. 9b, s.v. U’v’hiyos kein: the requirement that Techeiles come from the chilazon is not a reasonless Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai, but is based upon a reason and a sevara. Thus, what the critic writes is actually the opposite of the Radzyner Rebbe’s own position.

He also argues that the snail does not fit the simanim of “its body resembles the sea” and “its form resembles a fish.” He writes that aquatic creatures are divided into two categories, fish and water-creeping creatures, and that the Murex chilazon is an ordinary water-creeping creature and has nothing to do with a fish.

But according to the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l, his own chilazon is an actual fish — not something that merely “resembles a fish.” The very wording of Chazal strongly indicates that the chilazon is not literally a fish. The Noda BiYehudah, Orach Chaim, Mahadura Tinyana, siman 3, likewise writes that this is a proof that it is not a fish. See also the Gra’s commentary to Keilim 10:1, that everything in the sea is referred to as a type of fish, regardless of its form.

Regarding the tests Chazal give to distinguish between Techeiles and kela ilan, the critic argues that today both substances pass these tests.

The answer is simple. The methods used for dyeing kela ilan have changed over the generations. In the days of the Gemara they were not able to produce a kela-ilan dye that would survive those tests, whereas today they can. I therefore see no proof whatsoever from this objection.

He further discusses the color of the chilazon’s blood. According to the Rambam, its blood is “black like ink,” whereas this is not the appearance of the Murex secretion. He also does not accept what I wrote, that the dark color develops afterward, when the material accumulates in the pot.

But see Rashi in Shabbos 75a, s.v. d’litzil tziv’ei, who explains that the blood of the chilazon is best when it is clear — meaning transparent. Why should we create a new machlokes between Rashi and the Rambam?

In fact, this Gemara itself is a proof for our position. The Gemara says there that the longer the chilazon remains alive, the better it is for the dyer, “so that its dye should be clear.” This is a very distinctive characteristic of the snail. If its secretion is taken after it has died, it becomes cloudy rather than clear, and then the Techeiles dye cannot be properly produced from it.

He also questions what I wrote regarding “its body resembles the sea.” I explained that in its natural habitat on the seabed, the creature becomes covered with small marine organisms, so that its appearance actually resembles the surrounding sea. He argues that this is not the appearance of the chilazon’s own body, and that it is difficult to accept that this is what the Gemara means; in his words, the explanation “does not enter the ears at all.”

I personally have no difficulty accepting this. Particularly once it has been established from the Rishonim that the chilazon is a snail, the Gemara’s siman must be understood accordingly.

The reason this explanation “does not enter his ears” is that he himself is the one who reestablished the Radzyner Techeiles in our time.

This is similar to what the Gemara in Shabbos 118b says regarding Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa said that someone who can drink beer but instead drinks wine transgresses bal tashchis. The Gemara concludes that this is not correct, because avoiding harm to one’s body takes precedence. See the Maharsha there, who explains that Rav Pappa said this in his own interest, since he was involved in producing beer.

The same applies here. Someone who is personally involved in Radzyner Techeiles will naturally find it difficult to hear another possibility. If there is any “agenda,” as the critic writes at the end of his letter, it is on the side of the critic.

This is especially so in light of the Gemara in Shabbos 56a: “Rebbe, who descended from David, would turn matters around and darshen in David’s favor.” In this case as well, the distinguished Rav shlita himself restarted the production of Radzyner Techeiles in 5754 [1994], so he certainly has an interest in defending it.

Regarding what he wrote that I took the words of the gaon Rav Elyashiv shlita out of context: that criticism is correct.

What I wrote — that Rav Elyashiv stood behind this project — was something I had heard from others, secondhand, and not from Rav Elyashiv himself. I subsequently heard that this was incorrect, and I apologize to the readers.

In conclusion, I give him credit for having studied my article carefully. I am pleased that, among all of his arguments, I have not found anything that can overturn what I wrote.

I therefore repeat what I wrote at the end of my article: at the very least, this is in the category of a safek Techeiles. One who wishes to fulfill the mitzvah because of the safek is certainly praiseworthy.

And according to the position of the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l himself, one is in fact obligated to do so because of the safek, as he discusses at length in his sefer.

In the zechus of fulfilling the mitzvos, may we merit the coming of Eliyahu HaNavi, who will illuminate our eyes and reveal the truth to us, במהרה בימינו אמן.