Kovetz Ohr Yisroel of Monsey – Year 3, Issue 3 (11) Nissan 5758 – Radzyner Cuttlefish

Rabbi Shlomo Englard

Bnei Brak

On the Identity of the Chilazon of Techeiles

To the esteemed editors of Ohr Yisrael, may they live and be well.

I read carefully the article by Rabbi Mordechai A. Katz on the subject of “Fulfilling the Mitzvah of Techeiles in Tzitzis Today,” and I would like to address briefly several points made in that article. I say “briefly” because there is in fact a great deal to write on this subject, but that would require a lengthy article, and perhaps there will yet be an opportunity for that, im yirtzeh Hashem.

I will begin with the conclusion—the main purpose of the article—which is to demonstrate clearly that the Murex chilazon is in fact the chilazon of Techeiles that Klal Yisrael used to dye the Techeiles strings of tzitzis, and that through it one can fulfill the mitzvah even today.

A. Identifying the Chilazon

In order to identify the chilazon of Techeiles, the first requirement is to find in the words of Chazal and the Poskim the identifying simanim of this particular chilazon. As is well known, “simanim d’Oraisa,” identifying signs, are halachically significant—to the point that based on simanim one may even permit an eishes ish to remarry.

It is therefore appropriate to begin by noting that the term “chilazon” appears many times in Chazal, in Halachah, Aggadah, and Midrash. In many of these places, however, it is not clear that the reference is specifically to the chilazon of Techeiles. There are many different types of chilazon, and sometimes the mefarshim themselves disagree as to which creature is being discussed. In some sugyos it is clear that Chazal are not talking about the Techeiles chilazon at all.

There is, however, one Gemara that unquestionably discusses the chilazon of Techeiles and gives its simanim. The Gemara in Menachos 44a says:

“The Rabbis taught: This chilazon [of Techeiles], its body resembles the sea, its form resembles a fish, it comes up once in seventy years, and with its blood they dye Techeiles; therefore its value is expensive.”

Rashi explains “its body” as referring to the appearance of its body, which resembles the sea, and “its form” as referring to the shape of its physical form. The Gra”m Chiyus likewise explains it to mean its shape.

We therefore have two explicit simanim of the Techeiles chilazon: the appearance of its body resembles the sea, and its form resembles a fish.

The proposed Murex does not satisfy either one of these critical simanim.

1. Its Body Does Not Resemble the Sea

The “biological encrustation” mentioned by the author does not fit the Gemara’s description of “the appearance of its body.” This is not the appearance of the chilazon’s body itself, but rather something foreign attached to it.

And who knows whether every specimen has such biological growth without exception? Furthermore, presumably similar growth is found on other species of mollusks, and perhaps on many other marine creatures as well. It is therefore very difficult to accept that this is the siman intended by the Gemara.

More than that, the growth is not attached to the body of the chilazon, but to the shell that it carries. Can that really be called “the appearance of its body”?

I recall that Rav Herzog zt”l himself raised a similar question in one of his writings. For some reason, however, this seems to have made no impression on those circles that continue to maintain, without sufficient basis, that the Murex is the Techeiles chilazon.

2. Its Form Does Not Resemble a Fish

Nor does the Murex resemble a fish in form. It has the ordinary shape of a snail, without any particular characteristic that makes it look like a fish.

Admittedly, there is a difficulty in understanding this siman. What does it mean to say that something “resembles a fish,” when there are thousands of different species of fish?

The Radzyner Rebbe, author of Seferei HaTecheiles, addressed this question and brought clear proofs from the Gemara, the Rishonim, and the Rambam that “the form of a fish” means that it possesses a fin like a fish. See his discussion there.

But even someone who does not accept that precise explanation still knows from the Rambam that aquatic creatures are divided into two categories: fish and sheratzei hamayim, water-creeping creatures. According to this Gemara, one must search for the particular chilazon among the category of fish. The Murex, by contrast, is a typical aquatic creeping creature, with nothing fish-like about it.

What seems to happen among those who advocate the Murex is that because the term “fish” is difficult to define, this siman in the Gemara is effectively ignored and treated as though it were unusable.

But how can that be? Is it conceivable to identify the chilazon of Techeiles according to Chazal—regardless of whatever archaeological discoveries are brought, or whatever professors and secular scholars may agree to—while at the same time almost completely ignoring explicit simanim given by the Gemara and understood in their simple meaning by the Rishonim?

Is this the derech haTorah?

3. The Rambam Says Its Blood Is Black Like Ink

The Rambam rules in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2:

“They take the blood of the chilazon. It is a fish whose appearance resembles Techeiles, whose blood is black like ink, and it is found in the Yam HaMelach.”

The Rambam therefore states explicitly that the blood of the chilazon is black like ink.

Much has been written regarding the source of this statement in the Rambam. According to the Radzyner Rebbe, the Rambam had an earlier Midrashic source that is no longer extant.

The blood of the Murex, however, is completely transparent.

The fact mentioned by the author—that when Murex secretion accumulates in a container or forms a residue it may appear dark—does not answer the Rambam. The Rambam is speaking about the blood of the creature itself.

To conclude this section, it must be emphasized that all the above-mentioned simanim of the Gemara and Rambam are in fact found in another creature: the sepia, identified by the Radzyner Rebbe as the chilazon of Techeiles.

Unlike ordinary snails, the sepia is covered by a hard, horn-like internal structure resembling a shell. In the terminology of Chazal it could be considered a type of chilazon, and even modern zoology classifies it among the mollusks, the broader group that includes what we today call snails.

It is distinctive in that it has a fin by means of which it swims, its shape is elongated and fish-like, its appearance resembles the sea—as explained in Ptil Techeiles—and its blood is black like ink.

As far as we know, there is no other sea creature that satisfies all the simanim given by Chazal and the Rambam.

B. The Similarity to Kala Ilan

The author cites Rav Herzog’s argument that the color of Techeiles must resemble the classic color of kala ilan, which we now know as indigo, and that the Murex dye can produce a color identical to indigo. He therefore asks: If so, “what is the difference between Techeiles and kala ilan?”

The author answers that there nevertheless remain certain traces or subtle differences in the color by which they can be distinguished.

But although the question is a very powerful one, the answer is weak.

The tests described by the Gemara, as far as we know, do not distinguish between such subtle traces. Researchers themselves have stated that both Murex dye and indigo pass the Gemara’s tests, according to their interpretation of those tests.

The obvious question is therefore: Perhaps this itself is a proof that their Techeiles is incorrect. If Murex and indigo behave identically in the Gemara’s tests, then how can the Murex be Techeiles while indigo is kala ilan?

Unless, of course, the tests of the Gemara have not been properly understood.

The Radzyner Rebbe, by contrast, maintained that he had understood them correctly, and he performed the tests, with the results fitting his identification.

The problem becomes even greater when the author cites the Sifrei as support for his position, according to which additional dyes were mixed into kala ilan.

If so, the entire foundation of defining the color of Techeiles based upon its similarity to kala ilan falls away. Perhaps kala ilan resembled Techeiles only after additional dyes had been mixed into it, whereas pure indigo by itself did not precisely resemble Techeiles.

If that is so, the inference that Techeiles must be exactly the same shade as indigo is completely incorrect.

It should also be noted that, according to what I have investigated, even today a fairly broad range of shades can be produced from indigo itself; it does not have only one exact color.

C. Archaeological Evidence

The primary basis for identifying the Murex as the chilazon of Techeiles rests upon the heaps of shells found along the Mediterranean coast, “from the ladders of Tyre to Haifa,” which have been identified as Murex shells.

There are also descriptions in Greek and Roman writings, such as Aristotle and Pliny, describing the dye industry of their times.

But there is a simple answer to all of this.

It is true that large piles of shells were found. But who says these shells were used for producing Techeiles for tzitzis?

It is well known from historical sources that there was also a major purple-dye industry along the Mediterranean coast, known as purpura. There is no question that Murex snails were used as a major source for this dye.

But purpura produced a color called purple, whereas the Techeiles of the mitzvah, according to the mesorah we have received, is blue.

Furthermore, nearly all the fabrics discovered in archaeological excavations cited by researchers supporting the Murex were dyed in shades tending toward purple. This does not fit the accepted Jewish mesorah regarding the color of Techeiles.

This is particularly so according to the extensive explanation of the Radzyner Rebbe in his sefarim, based upon Rashi and Tosafos, that the color of Techeiles even contains a certain tendency toward green.

If so, the piles of Murex shells and the famous ancient purple industry prove nothing at all regarding Techeiles shel mitzvah, which according to our mesorah has a different color.

There is another point.

Even from a scientific perspective—and I emphasize that science does not determine the Halachah or mesorah here—the matter is not conclusive.

I spoke with one of the leading scientists involved in the study of ancient textile dyeing. He admitted to me explicitly that from all the evidence available to them at present, there is no definitive proof identifying the Murex as the Techeiles chilazon.

From their perspective as well, unless an actual tzitzis string is found, chemically analyzed, and conclusively shown to have been dyed from a particular mollusk, there is no absolute certainty regarding any identification.

One of the leading scientists involved in developing the blue-dyeing method from Murex told me explicitly that based both on the halachic information and the scientific findings to date, there is no finding that conclusively proves or disproves one identification or another. Everything remains within the realm of possibility.

Their conclusions are therefore ultimately based upon reasonable and supported assumptions—but still assumptions.

And clearly, scientific arguments do not determine Halachah unless their conclusions have been established beyond doubt, and even then only when the words of Chazal and the halachic sources serve as the starting point and foundation. That, in my view, is not the case in the present discussion.

As for the fact that no shells or remains of the sepia identified by the Radzyner Rebbe have been discovered along the coast, we have a rule: “Lo ra’inu einah raya”—the fact that something was not seen is not proof that it did not exist.

Perhaps such remains will yet be found.

In addition, one must consider that the hard inner bone of the sepia, the cuttlebone, was used throughout history for medicinal purposes and was sold in pharmacies. It is therefore understandable that large piles of these remains may not have survived, since they were collected and used for various purposes.

This is unlike Murex shells, which had little practical use and therefore remained in large heaps along the coast.

D. The Dyeing Process

According to the article and the writings of Murex advocates, the blue color is not actually produced through the dyeing process itself, but through exposure to sunlight.

Yet the Gemara in Menachos 42b records that Abaye asked Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah:

“How do you dye this Techeiles?”

He answered that they bring the blood of the chilazon together with various ingredients, place them in a pot, boil them, and so on.

Likewise, the Rambam in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2 writes:

“How is the Techeiles of tzitzis dyed? They take the wool and soak it in lime, afterward wash it, boil it, etc. Then they bring the blood of the chilazon, which is a fish whose appearance resembles Techeiles and whose blood is black like ink, place the blood into a pot together with various ingredients, boil it, and place the wool into it until it becomes like the appearance of the sky—and this is the Techeiles of tzitzis.”

According to the Murex method, however, the most important element is missing entirely from the Gemara and Rambam: exposure to sunlight.

I am aware that some have attempted to answer that sunlight was simply taken for granted, since all dyeing was done outdoors under the sun.

But is that really so? And in any event, this is not a satisfactory answer according to the normal derech of Torah analysis.

It has also been argued that in the Radzyner dyeing process the organic material originating from the sea creature is destroyed, so that the final dye is essentially nothing more than what is called “Prussian Blue.”

This argument has no substance.

We have no source indicating that Chazal knew about something called Prussian Blue, such that we could ask a question from it.

More fundamentally, even if this characterization were correct—and that itself is not yet sufficiently established—what difference would it make halachically?

What matters according to Halachah is that the creature possesses the simanim given by Chazal, and that it has the ability to produce the color of Techeiles according to our mesorah and according to the explanations of the Rishonim.

The fact that a similar color can also be manufactured from another substance, or from a non-animal source, proves nothing.

Who says that Halachah requires that the particular shade produced from the chilazon be impossible to produce from anything else?

The essential point is that we derive the color from the blood of the chilazon. We find nowhere that a creature qualifies as the chilazon only if the color produced from it cannot be duplicated from some other source.

The Gemara’s tests were necessary only in order to distinguish between Techeiles and kala ilan.

According to the opposing argument, however, we would now require additional tests simply to establish that no identical color could possibly be produced from another source.

That is obviously not the case.

For example, if a person were to produce alcohol from chametz on Pesach, and another alcohol from fruit, even if chemical analysis showed that the chemical substances in the two were completely identical, there would still be no question that the first one is forbidden as chametz, while the second one is completely permitted.

The halachic status depends upon the source and process, not upon whether the resulting chemical substance can be duplicated from something else.

There may also be other reasons why the Torah specifically required the chilazon.

Some maintain that this requirement is a Halachah l’Moshe miSinai. The Rambam gives a reason connected to the permanence of the color—that it remains beautiful and does not change—but much has been discussed even regarding that explanation.

Perhaps, therefore, even if we produce an identical-looking shade from another source, it will not retain its appearance in the same manner.

There is much more to say about this, but in any case this objection is no challenge at all to the authenticity of Radzyner Techeiles.

E. Rav Elyashiv and Reports Concerning Gedolim

Finally, it is necessary to point out that after investigating the matter it became clear that the statements attributed to Rav Elyashiv shlita were not reported accurately and were taken out of context.

I also know personally of at least one other major Gadol shlita whose words on this subject were distorted and removed from their context.

Who knows, therefore, whether the other reports circulating about various Gedolim are reliable and properly verified?

One cannot follow information of this kind blindly.

To summarize what has been written here, one can say with certainty that those who wear Techeiles produced from the Murex are using for the mitzvah a dye whose identification comes primarily from the world and methodology of scientists and archaeologists.

Although a number of talmidei chachamim and lomdim have accepted this identification, they are not its essential source or foundation—particularly where they may not have been fully aware of the arguments and reasoning of the opposing side.

Furthermore, as of now, no widely recognized Gedolei Yisrael from any major circle have accepted it. Reports to the contrary require careful verification, as mentioned above.

Those who wear Radzyner Techeiles, on the other hand, have a very great Torah authority upon whom to rely: the Gaon and Sar HaTorah, the Radzyner Rebbe, Rav Gershon Chanoch Henoch Leiner zt”l, author of the works on Techeiles, who was one of the famous Gedolim of his generation more than a century ago.

Together with him stood the great Gaon Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger zt”l, author of Lev HaIvri, who wore Radzyner Techeiles and even published articles on the matter in the Torah journal Tel Talpiyos. He suffered persecution over this position as well.

Likewise, the Maharsham zt”l of Berezhany, one of the great pillars of Hora’ah, wore Techeiles privately out of safek, and requested in his will that he be buried in a tallis with Techeiles, as printed at the beginning of his sefer Techeiles Mordechai on the Torah.

There are also reports regarding additional Gedolei Yisrael zt”l, and, lehavdil bein chaim l’chaim, contemporary Gedolim shlita, but this is not the place to elaborate.

Much more could be written in response to the various arguments, and there are additional questions against the Murex identification that were not mentioned here.

But space is limited.

My purpose is only to make people aware that anyone who is seriously interested in the matter—and particularly a Rav or ben Torah who intends to pasken this shailah—should not be satisfied with hearing only the information and arguments presented by one side, namely the advocates of the Murex.

He should investigate firsthand the position of the opposing side as well, both orally and in writing, as proper Torah and Halachah require.

There are, in fact, substantial answers to every one of the arguments raised.

Even if this side has not been as strong in publicity and promotion, having instead devoted itself more quietly to transmitting the mesorah of the Radzyner Rebbes according to their derech in avodas Hashem, nevertheless, so that silence should not be interpreted as agreement, a booklet is planned, be’ezras Hashem, which will address at length all the real and supposed questions raised regarding the identity of the Techeiles chilazon.

At that time, the issues will be clarified and properly worked through according to the standards of Torah, b’siyata d’Shmaya.