String Ratios Discussed:
Tags:
Bottom Line
Rav Yechiel Yitzchok Perr strongly rejects the identification of the Murex trunculus as the chilazon, and writes that after studying the subject for several years he independently reached essentially the same conclusion as Dr. Mendel Singer.
Among his arguments, Rav Perr contends that the tiny amount of dye obtained from a single murex does not fit the Gemara’s discussion of disha; that Chazal consistently call the chilazon a dag rather than using the known word shavlul for a snail; and that potze’a means splitting or cutting and does not specifically imply cracking a hard shell. He also argues that the murex secretion is mucus rather than “blood,” despite Chazal having ordinary words for mucus.
Historically, he points to Yechezkel’s description of Tyre importing techeiles, which he sees as difficult for identifying the famous Tyrian murex industry with the Torah’s techeiles. More broadly, he applies the Beis HaLevi’s objection to the Radzyner identification: if murex dye manufacture remained widely known for centuries, how could Chazal and the Rishonim have completely lost the knowledge that this familiar industry was producing the chilazon dye?
Rav Perr concludes with a sharp criticism of P’til Tekhelet itself. In his view, the organization was attempting to establish a new halachic practice through popular promotion while dismissing or reinterpreting sources that did not fit the identification. He therefore saw the modern murex revival not merely as mistaken, but as potentially damaging to the traditional halachic process.
Main Text
Bio
Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshiva Derech Ayson, Far Rockaway, NY
Having spent much spare time over the past several years studying murex trunculus techelet, I was most gratified to find that I had arrived at the same conclusion, and for many of the same reasons, as Dr. Mendel E. Singer; namely that murex trunculus us not the chilazon.
Although the space of a letter does not permit some of the other arguments against murex trunculus, nevertheless, allow me to add some points to Dr. Singer’s essay.
On page 11, Dr. Singer writes about the small amount of dye produced by a single murex snail, only 4 or 5 drops. It should be pointed out that the discussion about the culpability for disha in Shabbat 75a is thus completely without basis, since the minimal volume required for culpability is that of a grogrit, a dried fig. And clearly, the Gemara is discussing extracting the mucus of a single chilazon.
On page 16, Dr. Singer assumes that the “nartik” or malvush of the Midrashim is a shell. Despite the fact that we lack an adequate explanation for these words, there is only the one opinion, that of Rabbi Binyomin Mosufa, that nartik means a shell. All the other Rishonim and Acharonim refer to the chilazon as a fish, ignoring the word nartik. No doubt this is because there is a perfectly good word for snail in the Mishnah Shabbat 77b, “shavlul”. This is also used in an Aramaic form in the Gemara Menachot 42b, “shavlulita”. The contention that the Sages of the Talmud held the chilazon in their hands, and did not use the word snail for it, but chose to call it a fish, is completely untenable.
On page 17, Dr. Singer discusses the meaning of the word “potze’a”, and he accepts Rabbi Herzog’s understanding that there is a connotation in potze’a of cracking a hard shell. Sad to say, Rabbi Herzog was inexplicably mistaken in this understanding. In both biblical and mishnaic usage, potze’a carries no connotation of a hard object. One of numerous such examples is the Mishnah Ketubot 43b, “Patza’a Bifaneha”, “he wounded her face”. According to the Radak’s Sefer Hasharoshim, Potze’a refers to incising a smooth surface, splitting, cutting, wounding, or causing a fissure. See also Rashi, Shemot 21:25 and Shir Hashirim 5:7. It is the usage of “splitting”, that is found in Shabbat 122b, “Liftzo’a Egozim”, to split, not to crack, nuts.
A small experiment demonstrates why the Gemara there speaks of using a kurnos, a blacksmith’s hammer, for opening nuts. When a walnut is struck smartly with a light ¼ lb. Hammer along the seam where the halves join, the shell at the contact point is crushed. But when it is merely tapped with a heavy 1 ¼ lb. Hammer, it splits in half all the way around.
In other places potze’a is used for splitting the limbs from a tree or splitting a stretched string.
On page 19, Dr. Singer discussed the color of the “blood”. The murex mucus is not blood, neither biologically nor in color. P’til advocates attempt to cope with this problem by writing the word thus, “blood”. The implication here is that the “ancients” were imprecise in their use of language. However, there happen to be excellent words used in the Talmud for mucus: Rir, Leicha, and Maya are some of them.
On page 22, Dr. Singer quotes Dr. Ziderman that it is absurd to think that non-Jews would use murex dye, when indigo was available. IN this reasoning Dr. Ziderman was already preceded in the response of the Radbaz. But the most trenchant proof is from the prophet Yechezkel, who informs us in chapter 27 verse 7 that in the sixth century B.C.E., at the height of the Tyrean commercial hegemony over the Mediterranean Basin, Tyre was importing, not manufacturing techelet.
On page 27, Dr. Singer writes of the silence of the Gemara about the murex. The Beit HaLevi of Brisk, quoted in the forward to Ein Hatechelet page 13, rejected the Radzyner’s techelet based on a most penetrating question. He asked, how is it possible that the mesorah (tradition) could have been lost, that this commonly available squid is in fact the fabulous chilazon? And since it is common, the Beit HaLevi continued, then there is a mesorah that the squid is not the chilazon!
Tyrean dye faces even more severe objections, since it was massively produced throughout the Middle East, and continued to be produced in Constantinople until May 29, 1453. Beside the omission from the Talmud, there is not one hint by Rashi, the Rambam, or any other Rishon, that Tyrean purple manufactured in the sunlight was actually the much sought-after techelet. The proposition that the sages of the Talmud and the Rishonim were ignorant of facts on a subject of deep concern to them, facts that were commonly known in the world around them, is a proposition that is impossible to accept.
In note 11, Dr. Singer pronounces P’til Techelet’s efforts as “inspiring”. I find their efforts rather distressing. P’til is attempting to foist on an unexpert public a halachic practice through marketing methods and thereby establish the precedent of a Minhag. At the same time, their stand ignores the words of the Rishonim and exhibits a cavalier attitude towards the Gemara itself. The Gemara Menachot that gives the description of the chilazon is dismissed by P’til as “homiletic”. If P’til succeeds, they will have contaminated the halachic process.
