Regarding the Identification of the Techeiles Fish

Rav Yaakov Goldstein

In Beis Aharon V’Yisrael, issue 121 (Tishrei–Cheshvan 5766), an article by R’ Dovid Shapira shlita was published entitled “Regarding the Identification of the Techeiles Chilazon.” In his article, the author relies on the position of R’ Shaul Kaplan regarding Techeiles, as set forth in his article “The Discovery of Techeiles.” Since the author only quoted selected excerpts from that article, I felt it appropriate to address Dr. Kaplan’s full article directly.

The “Discovery” of Techeiles

In the journal Ohr Torah (Av 5762), an article entitled “The Discovery of Techeiles” was published by Dr. S. V. Kaplan, arguing that the Techeiles chilazon should be identified with the Janthina janthina. The article presents numerous proofs for this identification and attempts to disprove the generally accepted identification of the Murex trunculus as the chilazon from which Techeiles was produced.

After examining the material carefully, it becomes clear that the article is fundamentally flawed, and that a significant portion of its arguments are based either on distorted data or on assumptions that cannot be demonstrated.

First, the author claims that Chief Rabbi R’ Yitzchak Isaac Herzog zt”l, in his doctoral dissertation, chose this snail as the most likely candidate for the Techeiles chilazon. This is simply inaccurate. Rav Herzog identified the chilazon with two other species of Janthina: Janthina pallida Harvey and Janthina prolongata Blainville. The shells of both of these species are not blue but white, which itself undermines Dr. Kaplan’s argument in section 7. Identifying Techeiles with Janthina janthina, whose shell is purple-blue, was merely a speculative suggestion raised by a single researcher, and is highly problematic, as will be discussed below.

Second, the author claims that shells of Janthina were discovered at dyeing sites near Beirut, near Sidon, and along the Lebanese coast, and he supplies sources. An examination of those sources shows that this claim is simply incorrect. To demonstrate this, I will quote his sources as they actually appear.

The author states that dyeing sites were discovered along the Lebanese coast containing Janthina shells, and cites an article by D. S. Reese in the 11th Annual Report of the Society for Libyan Studies, 1979–80. That article deals entirely with the manufacture of purple dye from various species of Murex on the coast of Libya. I will quote, in loose translation, the only lines in the article that refer to Janthina.

After describing the various places where different Murex species were used for dyeing, the author writes: “Another species, the violet snail (Janthina), was apparently used only in the Tyre and Beirut regions of Lebanon.”

This sentence is ambiguous and it is not at all clear what he means. Since he provides no source for the statement, and says nothing whatsoever about the discovery of actual shells, his statement—and likewise the next passage—is no stronger than the claims of the author of the article himself, Rav Herzog, or, lehavdil, various researchers who merely speculate that purple dye may have been produced from Janthina.

As evidence that Janthina shells were found at dyeing sites near Sidon, the author cites R. Turner Abbott’s American Sea Shells, chapter 1. That chapter is largely a history of producing dyes from mollusks, and it says, in loose translation:

“Ink and dye were produced from many species of mollusks. The cuttlefish, Sepia, is an unusual example of this in regard to ink. There is evidence that purple dye was produced from the violet snail (Janthina)…”

Again, as in the previous source, no source is brought, and there is not a word about the discovery of shells.

The article then claims that Janthina shells were discovered near Beirut, citing W. W. Leggett’s Ancient and Medieval Dyes, pp. 56–60. That source says nothing whatsoever about Janthina. It discusses plant dyes, and the particular section deals with a dye called “Orseille,” produced from a plant growing on rocks near the sea. Pliny is quoted as saying that this color was “more beautiful than Tyrian purple.”

In addition, it should be noted that in the appendix to Rav Herzog’s The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, p. 204, the editor, Dr. Ehud Spanier—whom the author of the article himself quotes several times—writes explicitly that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever for the use of Janthina in dyeing.

Third, the author writes that “evidence for the use of Janthina as a source of dye can be found in ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew literature.”

What is the evidence?

In the Septuagint and in the Greek translation of Megillas Esther, the word techeiles is translated as hyakinthinon or hyacintha. According to him, this is a Greek synonym for the Latin Janthina, while argaman is translated porphyra, which even the author admits refers to dye produced from Murex.

This impressive-sounding argument does not survive scrutiny. The word hyacintha or hyacinthos is a description of a color, not the name of a snail. Likewise, the meaning of Janthina is “violet,” and the snail received that name because its shell is violet. Any inference based on the similarity of these names is therefore misplaced.

The author’s next argument is that “the Roman law code of Emperor Justinian states that dyeing silk or wool with porphyra and hyacintha was forbidden to the public and permitted only for the imperial household. We therefore have clear evidence that the Romans used Janthina for dyeing textiles.”

This argument is fundamentally mistaken, because the passage in its original context means something entirely different. To make the point clear, I will reproduce the Roman law itself in the original Byzantine Latin:

FECUNDAE ATQUE DISTRAHENDAE PURPURAE VEL IN LANA QUAE
BLATTA VEL OXYBLATTA ATQUE HYACINTHA DICITUR,
SIN AUTEM .FACULTATUM NULLUS POSSIT HABERE PRIVATUS
ALIQUIS SUPRA DICTI MURICIS VELLUS VENDIDENT, FORTUNARUM
SE SUARUM ET CAPITIS SCIAT SUBITEM ESSE DISCRIMEN

(Corpus Juris Civilis, Vol. 2, Codex Justinianus 4:40:1)

Translation:

“No private person is permitted to produce the precious purple, whether in silk or wool, known as blatta [purple], oxyblatta [deep purple], or hyacintha [blue]. If, however, anyone sells the fleece dyed from the aforementioned Murex, he should know that both his property and his life are immediately placed in jeopardy.”

I think the words speak for themselves and there is no need to elaborate. It is clear from here that hyacintha was produced from the same porphyra that nobody disputes refers to Murex. This also answers his previous argument.

The author then informs us that he succeeded in dyeing a tzitzis string with dye extracted from Janthina. Although, as far as is known, he refuses to reveal the process and the additional substances used to others, he then presents what he calls an “identification guide,” listing the characteristics of the chilazon mentioned by Chazal and the poskim, and attempting to show how each of these characteristics fits Janthina and does not fit Murex.

These “characteristics” are incomplete and, in some cases, entirely mistaken. Moreover, when the sources are examined carefully, it emerges that specifically Janthina fails to meet the criteria required of the Techeiles chilazon. I will first quote his points briefly and then discuss them.

1. The blood of the chilazon is “black like ink”

The Rambam writes in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2 that the blood of the chilazon is “black like ink.” The ink of the Janthina is black, thick, viscous, and opaque. The Murex, on the other hand, has a gland whose secretion is transparent and colorless.

The answer is that we first have to ask: where did the Rambam get this identifying sign from? It appears nowhere in Chazal, and certainly the Rambam himself did not have the chilazon in front of him.

Rav Herzog himself already asked this question as an objection to the Murex, but the answer is simple. Apparently the Rambam was quoting Aristotle’s natural history, where the blood of the Murex is described as black. Aristotle saw the dye after it had dried, at which point it really is black. But when exposed gradually to sunlight before drying, it turns purple or blue.

As for Janthina, Aristotle certainly did not see it and does not mention this species at all—even though, according to the author, people in Aristotle’s time were supposedly dyeing with it.

2. The chilazon has a shell

Janthina has a shell.

Answer: All snails have shells.

3. The chilazon comes up from the sea once every seven years—or seventy years

The author claims that “this may be the clearest example of Janthina fitting the Talmudic description of the chilazon,” and goes on at length describing how rarely Janthina washes ashore.

First of all, the Gemara in Shabbos 74b says: “The hunters of the chilazon would tie and untie.” We therefore have explicit evidence that the chilazon was caught while still in the sea, rather than people waiting seventy years for it to wash ashore.

The author himself writes about Janthina: “Dragging nets through the sea will bring up one or two snails, or perhaps several dozen.” Since several dozen dozens of snails are required to produce enough dye for a single set of tzitzis, it is unreasonable to identify the chilazon as Janthina. Surely they did not spend years catching snails just for the Mishkan, for example.

Second, there is no reason to assume that “it comes up once every seventy years” means precisely what the author assumes. Various explanations have been given for that statement, and they do not necessarily refer to rarity.

Third, as noted above, there is no explicit evidence for the use of Janthina in antiquity. Aristotle, Vitruvius, Strabo, Pliny, and all the other ancient sources do not even mention it in their lists of mollusks used for producing dye.

The author then argues that the Murex is not rare, lives near the seabed, never comes ashore, and is always found in abundance.

All of that is true, but irrelevant.

There is no need for it to come ashore. And regarding its abundance, exactly the opposite is true: enormous quantities would have been necessary to supply Techeiles for the Mishkan, the Beis HaMikdash, the tzitzis of millions of Jews, and royal clothing throughout the surrounding region, even as far away as Persia.

The obvious question is why Jews who were exiled to Italy, Greece, and North Africa stopped producing Techeiles if Murex was so plentiful there.

The answer is simple, and the author himself mentioned it earlier. Byzantine and Roman law prohibited private dyeing with Murex. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 12a similarly indicates that in the days of Rebbe—precisely during the period of such decrees—bringing Techeiles involved danger.

The Ramban writes on Shemos 28:2: “Even today, no man may raise his hand to wear Techeiles except a gentile king.” This was written only about seven hundred years ago, after the Arab conquest of Eretz Yisrael. It therefore shows that mollusk dyeing was still being used for royal purposes.

As a result of these restrictions, together with the destruction of the dyeing centers in Eretz Yisrael following the Arab conquest, the art of dyeing was forgotten.

The large quantities of Murex sold today in fish markets in southern Europe are used only as food and have nothing to do with dyeing.

4. The chilazon resembles a fish

The author’s impressive arguments do not fit the language of the Gemara, which says that its briyah—Rashi explains, its physical form—resembles a fish.

Second, it is difficult to know what sort of fish-shape the Gemara has in mind.

Third, it is not clear that the Gemara intended to give us identifying “simanim” for the Techeiles chilazon in the first place. It is more reasonable that the Gemara is explaining why Techeiles was expensive. In that context, it describes the difficulty of identifying the chilazon among the other creatures of the sea.

Regarding the Murex, its shell admittedly does not resemble a fish, but when viewed from the side, from the opening, it does bear some resemblance to the shape of a fish.

5. The snails come out of the sea onto the shore and lizards crack open their shells

The author claims that the Janthina shell is thin enough that a strong lizard or bird can crack it easily, whereas a Murex shell is extremely hard and requires a hammer.

This argument is mistaken from every angle.

The supposed source for this “characteristic” is the Sifrei on Vezos HaBerachah, paragraph 354:

“Another interpretation of ‘for they shall suck the abundance of the seas’: this is the sea of Yaffo [it should read Haifa, according to another version], which is hidden away for the tzaddikim in the future. From where do you know that all ships lost in the great sea, bundles of silver and gold, precious stones and pearls, and all sorts of valuable items that the great sea casts up into the sea of Yaffo [Haifa], are hidden for the tzaddikim in the future? The pasuk says, ‘for they shall suck the abundance of the seas.’

Rabbi Yosi said: Once I was walking from Achziv to Tyre and I met an old man. I greeted him and asked, ‘What do you make your parnassah from?’ He said, ‘From chilazon.’ I asked him, ‘Is it common?’ He answered, ‘By Heaven, there is a place like a pouch among the mountains, and lizards bite it, and it dies and dissolves there.’ I said, ‘By Heaven, it is obvious that this is hidden for the tzaddikim in the future.’”

This passage itself requires explanation, because Rabbi Yosi’s intent is unclear.

Why does this prove that it is hidden for the tzaddikim in the future?

If this refers to the Techeiles chilazon, then according to this passage the chilazon is hidden away for the tzaddikim in the future—not in Dr. Kaplan’s possession or anyone else’s.

The Sifrei is from the period of the Tannaim, whereas Techeiles certainly continued to exist at least until the end of the Amoraic period.

And if this really refers to the Techeiles chilazon, then Techeiles requires a live chilazon in order to obtain good dye, as discussed in section 6, whereas this passage is apparently dealing with dead snails.

The first three difficulties might be answered with some difficulty by saying that just as Hashem stores treasures in the sea for tzaddikim in the future, so too the chilazon will be provided for them without effort, just as it happened to be available to the elderly man Rabbi Yosi met, and they will not have to hunt it in the sea with nets as people do now.

But especially once the fourth question is added, there is not even the slightest proof here that the chilazon washes onto shore and that lizards crack open its shell. If anything, the opposite.

And all this is only according to the version quoted above.

There is another version of the Sifrei, which appears to be the primary version, found in the glosses of Maharam Ohana, Sifrei Devei Rav, Ohalei Yehudah, Toldos Adam, the commentary attributed to the Raavad, Pesikta Zutresa, Midrash Chachamim, Midrash Tannaim on Devarim, Midrash HaGadol, and the Berlin manuscript of the Sifrei:

“He said to me: By Heaven, there is a place in the sea among the mountains, and lizards surround it, and anyone who goes there is bitten by the lizards and dies and decomposes there…”

According to this version, it is obvious that there is no proof here at all relevant to our discussion.

6. Good dye can only be extracted from a living chilazon

The Gemara in Shabbos 75a says that good dye is obtained specifically while the chilazon is alive. Once a Janthina dies, it is worthless.

If we examine this “characteristic” in its source, however, we find that the exact opposite is true.

The Gemara emphasizes that as long as the chilazon is alive, its dye is clearer: ki heichi delitzil tzivei.

In reality, nothing can be done with a dead Janthina. By contrast, a living Murex produces good dye, while a dead Murex can still produce cloudy, pale, unstable colors.

It therefore turns out that the Murex fits this description better than the Janthina.

The author has confused two different issues: preserving dye that has already been extracted from a living chilazon, by salting or freezing, and initially extracting dye from the animal itself. Janthina secretion cannot be preserved.

There is also an important additional point. The reason that no dye can be obtained from a dead Janthina is that the Janthina has no dye gland at all. The color is a defensive secretion released by the snail, similar to the ink of a squid. There is no need even to break the shell in order to make it release the color; one merely has to irritate it.

This is the opposite of the explicit language of the Gemara: “One who catches a chilazon and wounds it,” and similarly “the blood of the chilazon” in Menachos 42b. It is difficult to call a defensive secretion released by a living snail its “blood.”

With a Murex, by contrast, one must break open the shell with a hammer—or drill a hole in it, as the author himself mentions—and only then wound the dye gland.

7. The chilazon is blue and resembles the sea and the sky in color

The body and shell of Janthina are blue-purple. Murex shells are usually white, although they are commonly covered with white, blue, and greenish algae and therefore resemble their surroundings quite closely.

This issue has already been discussed by many people. Everyone who dealt seriously with identifying the Techeiles chilazon—including the Radzyner Rebbe and Rav Herzog—addressed it. Still, several points should be noted.

First, as mentioned earlier, Janthina pallida Harvey and Janthina prolongata Blainville, which Rav Herzog and other nineteenth-century researchers identified as possible Techeiles snails, are entirely white.

Only Janthina janthina, which the philologist Gesenius identified as the chilazon, is purple-blue.

Rav Herzog himself explains why he did not identify the chilazon with Janthina janthina: “The Helix Janthina does not live in the Mediterranean, and aside from this Gesenius made other mistakes which are not relevant here.” See Burstein, HaTecheiles, p. 425 and also p. 419, and Spanier, pp. 197–204. According to Spanier, it does in fact occur in the Mediterranean.

Second, even Janthina janthina is not blue but purple-blue. Its very name, “violet snail,” indicates that the purple component is considerably more pronounced than the blue. I do not imagine that the author is arguing that Techeiles itself is purple.

Third, the basic assumption that the chilazon itself must be blue is by no means certain.

Regarding Techeiles, Chazal say that “Techeiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky…” But regarding the chilazon, the Gemara merely says, “Its body resembles the sea.”

That expression is ambiguous and difficult to interpret. A simple explanation could be that it resembles its surroundings and is therefore difficult to locate, as stated in the Raavad’s commentary to Sefer Yetzirah.

Furthermore, Rashi’s language is itself not entirely clear.

The main source for the assumption that the chilazon itself is blue is the printed wording of the Rambam in Hilchos Tzitzis 1:2: “It is a fish whose appearance is like the appearance of Techeiles.”

Why, then, does he not say “like the sea,” as the Gemara does?

In fact, in the early sources and in manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, including one bearing the Rambam’s own signature and in the Yemenite manuscripts, the wording is “whose appearance is like the appearance of the sea.” According to that reading everything fits properly.

It is worth noting that the assumption that the chilazon itself had to be the color of Techeiles was Rav Herzog’s primary reason for preferring Janthina over Murex.

Conclusion

A careful examination of all the above leads to the conclusion that every attempt to fit the Janthina into the system of characteristics associated with the Techeiles chilazon is baseless and should be rejected.

There is no historical or archaeological evidence for dyeing with Janthina. The practical ability to dye with its secretion—without introducing chemicals or artificial substances—is itself unclear. The Janthina does not fit the methods of producing Techeiles described explicitly by Chazal, and the connection between it and the various characteristics of the chilazon in our sources is extremely weak.

The system of evidence is sufficiently specific and precise that attempts to dismiss the Murex identification and replace it with another snail do not withstand critical examination.

Footnote

R’ Nosson Rothman shlita pointed out to me that the mitzvah of Techeiles specifically could have been forgotten from Klal Yisrael relatively easily as a result of decrees, since its continued observance depended on a small number of people who possessed the secret of the dyeing process, and such people could be pressured or suppressed.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the disappearance of Techeiles through such circumstances was itself part of a special Divine decree, referred to by the Midrash as “Techeiles was hidden away.”

See also the Sefer HaMiddos of the Dubno Maggid, Shaar HaDaas, chapter 16:

“Were it not for the tradition we have received that the absence of Techeiles does not invalidate the white strings nowadays, perhaps we would search for it just as we send to distant places to obtain an esrog, lulav, and hadassim.”

See further there.

Regarding the Requirement of Lachem in Tzitzis

Pinchas Markson

To the distinguished editors of the Torah journal Beis Aharon V’Yisrael:

I saw in the recently published issue 123 several wonderful discussions, and I would like to write what Hashem has granted me to understand regarding the requirement of lachem—ownership—in tzitzis and esrog.

Rav Avraham Dahan raised a question on the Mishnah Berurah.

In Hilchos Sukkah, siman 649, se’if katan 15, the Mishnah Berurah writes that if someone borrows his friend’s esrog without specifying the arrangement, we assume that the owner intends to give it to him in whatever manner is halachically effective—meaning as a matanah al menas lehachzir, a gift on condition that it be returned—because an esrog on the first day requires lachem, actual ownership.

The Mishnah Berurah adds that this applies specifically when the owner is a talmid chacham who knows that a borrowed esrog is invalid. If the owner is an am ha’aretz who does not know the halachah, the borrower cannot make a berachah.

Yet in Hilchos Tzitzis the Mishnah Berurah writes generally that when one borrows tzitzis, we assume the owner intends to transfer the necessary ownership to him, allowing him to make a berachah. Tzitzis also requires lachem, yet there the Mishnah Berurah does not distinguish between a talmid chacham and an am ha’aretz.

I believe the question can be answered by first considering the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch in siman 14, se’if 4, that one may take another person’s tallis and make a berachah on it without first asking permission.

The poskim explain this based on the principle of nicha lei le’inish d’le’avid mitzvah b’mamonei—a person is happy for a mitzvah to be done with his property.

The Magen Avraham and Taz ask why, then, the Rema rules regarding an esrog that one may take someone else’s esrog without permission and make a berachah only after the first day of Yom Tov, whereas on the first day he may not do so.

If we say that a person is happy to have a mitzvah performed with his property, why should the first day be different?

The answer must be that on the first day the esrog requires lachem, actual ownership, and one cannot acquire someone else’s property without the owner’s knowledge.

But if so, tzitzis also requires lachem. Why, then, may someone take another person’s tallis without his knowledge?

For precisely this reason, the Magen Avraham and Taz themselves question the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch regarding tzitzis.

In any event, it is explicit that regarding tzitzis we apply nicha lei le’inish even where the owner is completely unaware.

This explains the Mishnah Berurah very well.

When someone takes a tallis from an am ha’aretz, even if the owner himself does not consciously intend to transfer ownership, it is no worse than taking it without his knowledge, where we apply the principle of nicha lei le’inish.

By contrast, with an esrog it is explicit that this principle alone does not work on the first day. Therefore the Mishnah Berurah carefully specifies that the owner must be a talmid chacham, who certainly intends to transfer ownership in the necessary manner.

This makes the wording of the Mishnah Berurah very precise.

Still, we must understand the underlying reason for the distinction, as the poskim themselves ask.

I would suggest the following.

The Acharonim disagree whether every kinyan requires an active daas makneh, the conscious intent of the owner to transfer ownership, or whether simple consent is enough.

The Ketzos HaChoshen, siman 241, se’if katan 1, and the Nesivos discuss a case where someone sends a gift to another person through a third party. Is halachic shlichus necessary for the transfer, because the owner must actively perform the act of giving? Or is the messenger merely transporting the object, while the recipient himself makes the kinyan, in which case the owner’s consent is enough?

If we assume that every kinyan requires a positive intention to transfer ownership, and mere consent is insufficient, we can understand why nicha lei le’inish does not help with an esrog on the first day.

Since lachem requires the esrog actually to belong to the person, the owner’s general consent is not enough. We require a positive intent to transfer ownership to him.

The principle of nicha lei le’inish establishes consent, but it does not create an affirmative daas makneh.

Therefore actual permission from the owner is required, because then he consciously gives the esrog to the borrower.

But according to this, we still need to explain why tzitzis is different and can be taken without the owner’s knowledge.

I would suggest an explanation based on the Rashba in Bava Basra 118b.

The Rashba asks why land cannot be acquired through mechilah. If the owner remains silent while another person uses his field, surely his silence shows that he is mochel and consents. Why should the other person not acquire it even without a proper claim? Why, then, does a chazakah she’ein imah ta’anah not establish ownership?

The Rashba answers that mechilah is effective only regarding a debt or with respect to rights of usage, such as establishing a right to project beams or ledges over another person’s property.

The matter requires explanation.

When the Rashba speaks of mechilah being sufficient, I believe he means consent: the owner agrees that the other person should obtain the relevant right.

The question is therefore why his silence, which demonstrates consent, should not be enough to let the other person acquire the land.

The Rashba answers that consent alone does not transfer ownership of an actual object. It can work only for a debt or for a right of usage.

Why does consent suffice for usage rights?

There are two possible explanations.

One possibility is that the person does not actually acquire ownership in the physical object. He merely obtains a right or lien to use it. For such a limited right, a full positive intent of transfer is unnecessary and consent alone is enough.

Alternatively, perhaps a usage right does involve a form of ownership in the object for this specific purpose. Nevertheless, one can suggest that positive intent is required only when the original owner is transferring the object entirely to someone else, such that afterward only the recipient owns it.

Where the original owner remains an owner and another person merely becomes a partner with him in some aspect of the object, positive intent may not be required; consent may be sufficient.

The reason is that every kinyan has two elements: removing the object from the first owner’s domain and bringing it into the new owner’s domain.

For the second element—the acquisition by the recipient—we do not necessarily need active intent from the original owner.

The main need for the owner’s active intent is to remove the object from his own ownership. Without that, the recipient’s act cannot have the status of a valid kinyan.

But where the original owner remains an owner, as in a right of usage, there is no need for such a positive act of divestment.

This may explain the Rashba.

With this we can answer the question of the Magen Avraham and Taz as to why tzitzis may be taken without the owner’s knowledge.

A jointly owned garment is obligated in tzitzis. Even though the Torah uses the term lachem, partnership is sufficient.

Therefore, if for tzitzis it is enough that the borrower acquire merely a right to use the garment, that right certainly does not require positive intent to transfer ownership, as explained according to the first approach in the Rashba.

And even if we say that actual ownership is necessary, according to the second explanation of the Rashba, as long as the original owner remains an owner and the borrower merely becomes a partner with him, no positive intent to transfer full ownership is required. Mere consent is enough.

Therefore, one may take the tallis without the owner’s knowledge based on nicha lei le’inish.

This answers the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch very well.

Accordingly, the wording of the Mishnah Berurah is also exact. Even when taking a tallis from an am ha’aretz, the principle of nicha lei le’inish is sufficient.

This is what appears to me in this sugya, with siyata d’Shmaya.

There are, of course, other answers given for the Shulchan Aruch, and according to some of them the Mishnah Berurah can also be explained. I have written what appears correct to me.

Pinchas Markson
Bnei Brak
Author of Ben Chayil on Maseches Bava Metzia.