The Method Used

Regarding the chilazon known as the “banded dye-murex”¹, which in recent years some have claimed is the chilazon the Torah refers to for dyeing Techeiles²: in my humble opinion, it is not. I have seen publications containing inaccurate statements—both about the creature’s nature and about the words of Chazal³—to the point that almost no two publications agree on all the details. I therefore decided to put into writing the problems I see with this identification.

One of the most obvious problems is the method that led to the conclusion that the Murex is the chilazon of Techeiles. The following is a quotation from one sefer (Kelil Techeiles, p. 302): “The rule is that we will not take the beraisa, as we understand it, as the basis for identifying the chilazon. On the contrary: after we locate the chilazon, with Hashem’s help, through logical investigation, we may perhaps merit to understand something in the words of the beraisa.”⁴

In other words, first we decide which creature is the chilazon, and afterward we “work things out” with the beraisa. It is like the Dubno Maggid’s mashal: first shoot the arrow and then draw the circles around it.⁵ Once they decided that this is the chilazon, they turned everything over every which way and forced it to fit their conclusion.

This is unlike the Radzyner Rebbe, zt”l, who first published a sefer explaining, on the basis of Chazal, what one must look for, and only afterward searched for the chilazon. If most of the poskim of his generation did not accept his conclusion, all the more so when someone works with the present method.

The same sefer also writes that this method requires two assumptions: (a) that all species of marine mollusks are known to us; and (b) that none of the species that existed in the days of Chazal have disappeared. See there.

Both assumptions, however, are deficient. First, it is difficult to take as a certainty that everything in the Mediterranean Sea is known to us. Even on dry land, which is easier to examine, new species are still discovered from time to time; how much more so beneath the sea. [According to this assumption, the Ten Tribes should also have been found long ago.]

Second, the assumption that no species has disappeared since the days of Chazal ignores the Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parashas Shelach: “Today we do not have Techeiles, because it has already been hidden away.” The Gra cites this as halachah in his commentary to Shulchan Aruch (9:3). The Gra’s words imply that it was literally hidden away, and not merely forgotten—for why would he need to bring a source that it was forgotten when we see that ourselves? Although it is not conclusive that it was literally hidden and cannot be rediscovered before Mashiach comes, one certainly cannot assume as a definite fact that no relevant species disappeared. See also Kovetz Teshuvos 1:2, which cites Yeshuos Malko 2: “For more than a thousand years, it has been established among Klal Yisrael that Techeiles was hidden away.”

I will therefore arrange this article in the reverse order from theirs—which is the straightforward order. First we will see that this creature does not fit the simanim given by Chazal, and afterward I will discuss their proofs from Chazal and from the scholars of the nations.

I will add one more introduction: even if it fits every siman of Chazal except one, it is certainly not the creature Chazal were discussing, and that creature has still not been discovered. Although some of the objections may be answered—particularly by the people of Pumbedisa⁶—it is enough if the Murex fails to fit even one detail in the words of Chazal.

The Simanim of the Chilazon

Before discussing the individual simanim, I will quote Rav Herzog regarding the Murex (p. 423): “On the basis of everything stated above in favor of the Murex trunculus, together with the various scientific proofs, the reader unfamiliar with the Talmud might expect to find support for that hypothesis in the Talmudic sources. He is destined, however, for a surprising disappointment.”⁷

Chazal gave us simanim so that we would know which chilazon they meant. The Gemara in Menachos (44a) teaches in a beraisa: “This chilazon: its body resembles the sea” (1)—the appearance of its body, according to Rashi; its color is like the color of Techeiles [or the sea], according to the Ramban. “Its form resembles a fish” (2)—the structure of its appearance, according to Rashi; its physical form, according to the Ramah. “It rises once in seventy years” (3), and its blood is therefore expensive. The Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2) gives us another siman⁸: “Its blood is black like ink” (4), and it is found in the Salt Sea.

Of these simanim, the only one that fits without forced explanations is that it is found in the “Salt Sea.” That is the Rambam’s term for the Mediterranean, since its water is salty. We will now examine the simanim one by one.

Its Body Resembles the Sea

The sea is blue, as everyone knows. The Murex’s shell is essentially white, although greenish algae grow upon it and make it look green. That is not similar to the sea.⁹

Its Form Resembles a Fish¹⁰

The Murex does not resemble a fish. They therefore write (Kelil Techeiles, p. 326) that fish do not have one distinctive shape, and that there is no such thing as “the shape of a fish.” But if so, why would the beraisa make a statement that has no meaning? It is astonishing that a talmid chacham would write such a thing.¹¹

It Rises Once in Seventy Years¹²

Even if we assume that “seventy years” is not literal, as the version in Maseches Tzitzis reads “once in seventy years,” it is certainly not readily available, but rare. Rav Yitzchak Isaac Herzog writes (p. 426): “Moreover, it does not fit the siman, ‘It rises once in seventy years,’ even after we assume that this is not meant literally.” The Murex, by contrast, is extremely common. At Habonim Beach (Dor)¹³, it can be gathered as easily as picking fruit.

Rav Herzog further writes that Chazal explained its high price as resulting from its rarity. Rashi on Menachos 44a says: “Therefore—because it rises only once in seventy years—its blood is expensive.” Purple dye, however, was expensive because each snail contains only a tiny quantity of dye, as the Greek and Roman writers explain.

Its Blood Is Black Like Ink

The Murex’s fluid becomes purple¹⁴, a color composed of blue and red. It therefore cannot properly be called black. The answer that the Rambam means that after the fluid dries and darkens considerably through exposure to sunlight is forced.¹⁵ Besides being forced, it does not solve the problem: the Rambam writes “like ink,” specifically excluding other dark colors, and the Murex fluid is not ink-black even after it dries. (See the photographs in HaTecheiles.)

Another Gemara concerning the chilazon¹⁶ appears in Shabbos (74b): “The Sages taught: One who traps a chilazon and squeezes it is liable for two melachos… Even if you say that he squeezed it while alive, he is merely occupied with something incidental in relation to taking a life. But Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of psik reisha velo yamus… Here it is different, because the longer it remains alive, the better it is for him, so that its dye will remain clear.” [The Aruch’s text is: “so that its dye will be successful.”]

Rashi explains “one who squeezes it” as pressing it with his hands so that its blood comes out. The Murex, however, is not opened by hand but with a hammer or a similar tool. The Eglei Tal (Dash 15:5) writes that Rashi specifically said “with his hands,” because with a hammer or similar tool there is no liability for dash. The fluid is not absorbed into the body but gathered together, and the person merely removes its covering.¹⁷ According to this, opening a Murex does not involve the melachah of dash.

Tosafos further writes that the trapper is not liable for taking a life as one is for removing a fish from the sea, because perhaps the chilazon’s normal reaction is to thrash about and thereby hasten its own death. That does not apply to the Murex at all.¹⁸

It is also not clear that trapping a Murex incurs liability for tzad, since it remains in place and does not evade capture (Chosam Shel Zahav, p. 45). See Me’or HaShabbos (vol. 1, letter 3), where Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as ruling that one is not liable for trapping a turtle; see also Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (27, n. 154). Rav Shmuel Wosner writes the same in MiBeis Levi, vol. 6. Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (27:45) likewise quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman regarding an ant, ruling that there is no Torah prohibition of trapping it. This is also brought from the Tosafos Rid (Chagigah 11a), who explicitly writes that there is no liability for trapping a snail. Although it generally hides, the effort is only in finding it and not in catching it, and that does not constitute trapping. The same applies here.¹⁹

Rabbeinu Yerucham (Nesiv 12, 80b), however, holds that one is liable for trapping even worms, and this is also implied by Rashi, against whom the Tosafos Rid raises the foregoing logical objection. Chut Shani (Tzad 100) likewise rules that trapping applies, as does Orchos Shabbos (p. 422) in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman. In Kovetz Nesivos HaHalachah (vol. 36, p. 425), Rabbi Yechezkel Feinhandler writes in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman that it is only rabbinic. In any event, we have not escaped a machlokes.

As for the claim that the Yerushalmi says one is not liable for trapping it: apart from the fact that we follow the Bavli, the mefarshim gave other reasons why trapping does not apply to a chilazon—or perhaps to anything in that context—not because it is formed and remains in place.

Aristotle also writes (HaTecheiles, p. 250) that if the animal dies before it is crushed, it expels the dye [and the dye is lost]. This does not match the Gemara, which says only that the dye will not remain clear. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the case concerns squeezing it after death, but according to Aristotle it would already have discharged the dye. Pliny (p. 248), however, writes that a slow death spoiled the dye, so they killed it with a blow. That too is not exactly what the Gemara says.²⁰ It is forced.

It Fits the Siman of Kala Ilan

We find another siman regarding kala ilan: it does not come out with soap (Bava Kamma 93b). The Gemara says that ordinary dye can be removed with soap, but kala ilan cannot. Regarding Techeiles, however, Tosafos (Zevachim 95a, s.v. ha) writes: “The robe of the Kohen Gadol cannot be washed with soap, because Maseches Niddah states that soap removes even dye.”²¹ Although the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma 93b says that this is certainly true of Techeiles as well, the words of Tosafos, who are Rishonim, are surely preferable.

We see with our own eyes that tzitzis dyed with Murex are washed normally in a washing machine without losing their color. Modern detergents are stronger than the substance called tzafon, which Rashi translates there as “savon” in the vernacular and which was used throughout the generations.²² Today’s detergents also contain soap. We therefore have evidence that this is kala ilan—the one blue dye that does not come out with soap—whereas Tosafos plainly understood that Techeiles does come out.

The argument raised in response to other objections²³—that perhaps this results from differences between the dyeing method used in the days of Chazal and the method used today—does not help here. Kala ilan also did not come out in the days of Chazal, so this cannot be attributed to a modern dyeing method unless they can prove otherwise. This is extremely unlikely, since its chemical composition is identical to that of indigo. Moreover, Chosam Shel Zahav (p. 7) writes that even in antiquity purple was known as the only dye stronger than kala ilan.²⁴

Regarding Kala Ilan

In explaining the term “kala ilan,” the Tiferes Yisrael writes that kala means a lump, as in the phrase “he took a lump and threw it at him” (Rosh Hashanah 25a), while ilan is the name of the dye called indigo in the vernacular. The Nimukei Yosef writes similarly at the beginning of Eizehu Neshech.

They argue that Chazal imply that there was no other substance producing the color of Techeiles besides kala ilan, which the Aruch translates as indigo.²⁵ If so, they say, the Murex—which is not kala ilan but produces the same color—must be the chilazon of Techeiles.

This is incorrect. The Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:1) writes: “Even if it is the color of the sky, such as when it was dyed with woad, with black [meaning charcoal, according to the Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Geirushin 4], or with other darkening substances, it is invalid for tzitzis.” We see that the color can be produced with other darkening substances as well. The Sifrei at the end of Shelach likewise says: “Perhaps you will say, I will place other dyes and kala ilan in it.” (If one interprets this as placing other dyes together with kala ilan, the difficulty is even greater: the resulting shade would not be identical to kala ilan, which would explain why the extra dyes were added, whereas today they use the identical color.) Furthermore, in their time people did not know how to produce blue from the Murex, only red and purple. The leading scholars cited by the Tiferes Yisrael also wrote that it was used to dye a purple-like shade. In addition, perhaps this too is included under the general term kala ilan. The Kesef Mishneh (2:8) defines kala ilan as “a Techeiles-colored dye produced with other dyes and not with the blood of the chilazon.” The name kala ilan does not prove that it was necessarily plant-based. The Gemara (Shabbos 28a) mentions an animal called a tala ilan; as the Nimukei Yosef explains, ilan is the name of the color. Josephus likewise writes that a person disguised himself in the color of the sky, while the Gemara explains that the tala ilan was weak and thin.

The further objection—that if two different snails can produce Techeiles, why did Chazal not teach us to beware of the wrong one—is no question at all. Chazal gave us simanim for the chilazon of Techeiles, and those simanim do not apply to this creature.

The Meaning of “Porphyra”

I must first note that it is very difficult to prove anything from ancient terminology, especially from foreign languages, which are difficult to translate precisely in any event. The Rambam’s Peirush HaMishnayos is itself evidence of this. A single word often carries several meanings—for example, “Jeep” can mean a general type of vehicle or, more specifically, one particular manufacturer. There are many such examples. The word porphyra likewise has several meanings, as will be explained.

One proof they cite is that this chilazon was called porphyra in Greek, while they claim that Chazal also called Techeiles porphyra. They conclude that the porphyra must therefore be Techeiles.

In my opinion, however, Chazal did not call Techeiles porphyra. In the language of Chazal, porphyra means a royal garment. It received that name because royal garments were dyed argaman with dye from the porphyra. See HaTecheiles, p. 250, citing Aristotle, who correctly uses the term for the purple-producing mollusk. See also Midrash HaGadol (Bamidbar 4:5): “Just as a king’s porphyra is Techeiles.” If porphyra itself meant Techeiles, why would the Midrash need to say that the Techeiles is Techeiles?

See Tikkunei Zohar (48b): “The Shechinah takes a porphyra of red fire,” and Zohar, Parashas Shemos (5b): “Those who dress Him in a red porphyra to carry out vengeance.”²⁶ See also Vayikra Rabbah (Emor 26:5): “Haman said to Mordechai, ‘Wear this porphyra.’” The Targumim there identify it as a garment of argaman.²⁷ The Eitz Yosef and Matnos Kehunah explain porphyra there as a royal garment. The Radal at the beginning of Eichah explains it as a garment colored and decorated with argaman, and Me’am Loez at the end of Esther, discussing Mordechai’s rise to greatness, likewise identifies it as argaman.

They also cite the Ramban on Parashas Tetzaveh: “Even today, no one other than a gentile king would dare wear Techeiles,” and it is known that the Roman emperors wore porphyra.

This is not conclusive. First, the Ramban may hold that the Bigdei Kehunah do not require Techeiles produced from the chilazon, as some write in explaining the Rambam. See the commentaries to Hilchos Tzitzis 2:1 and Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:3, and the Tiferes Yisrael’s introduction to Seder Moed. Second, the Ramban had not personally seen what the Roman emperor wore and did not live in Rome, so no proof can be brought from this.²⁸ Third, the Ramban may be referring only to the color, not to the substance from which it was produced.

They further cite the Raavyah (Berachos 25), who quotes the Yerushalmi’s explanation of the Mishnah’s distinction between Techeiles and karsei: “between porphyrin and parifinin.” But he writes, “It is a robe called porphyra in the vernacular, and there is another color somewhat similar to it.” He clearly knew this robe. Why, then, did he not place this dye on his own tallis, or cite the laws of Techeiles in Hilchos Tzitzis? He must either have meant only the shade, or his statement “it is porphyra” refers to karsei, since that is what he is explaining as the name of a color, rather than a leek as Rashi explains. See there.

My friend Rabbi M. M. also suggested that since important garments were called porphyra, as stated above, perhaps in their language even a robe dyed with kala ilan in imitation of Techeiles was called porphyra once genuine Techeiles was no longer available, since it was an important garment. See also Tosafos, Beitzah 16a, where an ordinary robe is called porphyra. [Thus, there is no proof that the term necessarily derives from one specific color.]

In the Mekitzei Nirdamim edition, the editors explain porphyra as a red color and a garment dyed that color. Apparently they understood the Yerushalmi to mean that the difference was the same kind of distinction as between Techeiles and karsei. They also note that the Septuagint translates argaman as purpura.²⁹ Thus porphyra means argaman, not Techeiles.

Our Attitude Toward Archaeology

Before addressing archaeological proofs, we must explain our general attitude toward them. The chachmei haTorah of earlier generations did not treat archaeologists as unquestioned authorities. This was not because one cannot bring proofs from physical evidence, but because we do not necessarily accept their determination of what the evidence proves.³⁰

An example appears in Bechoros (8b). The emperor asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya how long a snake carries its young before giving birth. Rabbi Yehoshua answered; the elders of Athens challenged him with an apparent experiment; and he demonstrated that the snakes they relied upon had already been pregnant beforehand. The emperor said, “They are wise,” and Rabbi Yehoshua answered that we are wiser than they are. Rashi explains: “We are wiser than they.” Rabbeinu Gershom explains: “We are wiser than they, and we understand every matter more accurately than they do.” The emperor thought that although Rabbi Yehoshua was wise, the Athenian sages would know more in their own field of expertise. Rabbi Yehoshua answered that this was not so: even here we are superior. They form conclusions from experiments without considering every possible cause of the result, and therefore believe that something has been proven when in truth it has not. Rabbi Yehoshua demonstrated this to them.³¹

There are other examples relevant to our subject. See HaTecheiles (p. 415), which prints a letter from Rav Herzog. Scientists had previously claimed that with the Radzyner dyeing method the color did not come from the chilazon but from the other chemicals. Rav Herzog later wrote: “It has therefore become clear that the scientific experts, although they stated their negative conclusion with the confidence of certainty, did not speak from experiment but only from assumption, and that the new findings contradict them. This is an interesting phenomenon! The discerning reader can apply this lesson to many similar matters. ‘Give to the wise…’” (He nevertheless continued to reject the Radzyner identification for other reasons.)³²

See also HaTecheiles (p. 259), which writes that only a few years earlier Albright’s conclusion—that the installations he uncovered had been used for dyeing—was generally accepted. Today, the accepted view is that of Dalman, then the only dissenter, who held that they were installations for pressing olives.

Archaeological Finds

Many archaeological remains of Murex snails have been found in Eretz Yisrael. They are presented in chapter 2 of HaTecheiles. I did not find there any discovery proving that a pure blue dye was produced from them³³, only colors ranging from red to purple tending toward blue. To say that it was the source of Techeiles in general, and specifically of Techeiles for tzitzis³⁴, is therefore a hypothesis without archaeological support—unless one says that Techeiles was not pure blue. Even then, there is no evidence that it was used for tzitzis.

Pliny (HaTecheiles, p. 248), in describing the range of colors produced from the various kinds of porphyra—not only the species under discussion—lists colors ranging from ink-black and shining purple and red to a bright bluish pink. I have seen people cite the Codex and edict of Constantine, which prohibited anyone from dyeing “hyacinth” with porphyra, while hyacinth is the Septuagint’s translation of Techeiles. Yet hyacinth does not mean only pure blue; it also includes blue mixed with purple.³⁵ The law may therefore refer to blue mixed with purple, especially since the ancient descriptions of dyeing do not say that pure blue was produced.³⁶

HaTecheiles (p. 290) does report that scraps of blue cloth produced with porphyra were found at Ein Bokek and were clearly used as a patch, dating from approximately 1,400 years ago. This is not very strong evidence, since it is possible that the cloth was used only as a patch precisely because the dye came out in an unwanted color.

My friend Rabbi M. M. told me that several centimeters of cloth dyed a pure blue had been found in the Judean Desert during the previous year. (I do not know from which period it dates.) If so, this proves that pure blue was produced from porphyra, but it still does not prove that it was used as Techeiles for tzitzis, as explained above. I also saw in the pamphlet Bein Techeiles LeArgaman (Toporowitz, p. 12) that the find is no proof. The determination that it was dyed with porphyra rests on traces of bromine. This does not prove that the bromine resulted from an inability to separate the Murex’s bromine from its indigo. It may have been dyed with kala ilan in a vat previously used for argaman from porphyra, leaving traces of bromine that transferred to this fabric.

Rav Herzog cites as evidence the heaps of shells found in Tyre: the banded dye-murex was found in separate heaps, while the other two species were mixed together. It appears that this was because the banded dye-murex contains more blue pigment and was therefore used to make purple, while the others were used to make red, the color naturally produced from them.

I have seen publicized as a “proof” the discovery of a heap of porphyra shells on the Temple Mount. It proves nothing, not even that those shells were used for argaman. The Greek writers state that this dyeing process produced a powerful foul odor, and Bava Kamma (82b) indicates that such industries were forbidden in Yerushalayim. Furthermore, the heap was found four meters above the Second Temple stratum, meaning that it dates from after the Churban and was not the work of Jews. See HaTecheiles, p. 283.

A Mesorah Against the Murex?

Rav Herzog (p. 370) cites the great traveler Rabbi Binyamin of Tudela, who describes the porphyra industry on the coast of Tyre as active in his time, approximately 850 years ago, and notes that Jews were heavily involved in it. Yet he does not mention that they produced Techeiles for tzitzis. Surely he would not have omitted something so important—the restoration of Techeiles after several centuries.

The Beis HaLevi’s argument would therefore seem to apply: since this creature was known among Klal Yisrael, and Jews were capable of dyeing with it, yet did not use it for tzitzis, this itself constitutes a mesorah that it is not Techeiles. Had it been Techeiles, they would have used it.

Although production in Eretz Yisrael ceased with the Arab conquest approximately five hundred years earlier and was only later renewed, porphyra was never entirely forgotten and remained in use in Rome³⁷ until the fall of Constantinople, almost three hundred years after Rabbi Binyamin of Tudela. This is especially difficult according to the Ramban—cited by proponents of the identification—who says that Techeiles was the color worn by Roman kings. If so, it was known to be Techeiles. Why was dyeing Techeiles with it not renewed? As soon as Jews were able to obtain and use it, they should have restored the mitzvah. Their failure to do so would apparently prove that it is not the chilazon of Techeiles.

The Shade of Techeiles

An additional problem in restoring the mitzvah of Techeiles is knowing the required shade. Even after Techeiles is compared to kala ilan, kala ilan itself can produce many widely different shades.³⁸ (See the photographs in HaTecheiles.) They cannot all be valid; the shades that are almost white certainly cannot be called Techeiles.³⁹ We therefore need to know which shades are valid and which are not, and this can be known only through an unbroken person-to-person mesorah.

Besamim Rosh⁴⁰ (responsum 244) writes: “I have already written that it is impossible to reproduce the precise appearance of a color from a written description.” Chazal say that Techeiles resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod. The first plainly does not look identical to the third; Techeiles is darker than the sea, the sea differs from the sky, and the sky differs from the Kisei HaKavod.

The Rambam writes in his Peirush HaMishnayos at the beginning of HaTecheiles [according to Rabbi Yosef Kapach’s translation]⁴¹: “We do not have it today because we do not know its dyeing process. Not every blue shade in wool is called Techeiles, but only a particular blue that cannot be produced today.” This implies that besides requiring the chilazon, a particular intensity of blue is required. The Radbaz (5:1,421) does infer from the Rambam that if the color faded in the first test, it remains valid if it withstands the second, because one shade of Techeiles may be very dark while another is not quite as dark. That does not mean that every intensity is valid, only that several shades may be valid rather than one exact shade. The Radbaz’s wording implies that there is a lowest acceptable shade; anything lighter is invalid. See Alei David, which says that the Rambam disagrees with the Radbaz.

Safek Techeiles

They argue that even if it is only a safek, this is still a safek de’Oraisa and one must act stringently. The Acharonim already discussed this at length in responding to the Radzyner Rebbe. Today, however, there is an additional reason why safek de’Oraisa does not apply: there are at least two schools of thought, each claiming to have found the genuine chilazon. One says, “I found it,” and the other says, “I found it.” We therefore do not know which supposed Techeiles to wear out of doubt.

They constantly claim that it has already been proven that the Radzyner cuttlefish does not itself produce dye, but only Prussian blue. I cited above Rav Herzog’s own statement: he originally made that argument, and twenty-two years later it was conclusively demonstrated to him that it was incorrect.⁴² Both identifications remain rejected for the same reason: neither fits all the simanim of Chazal. Why should one be stronger than the other? Yeshuos Malko makes a similar argument, cited by Rav Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuvos: there is a machlokes between the Rambam and Rashi as to whether additional ingredients should be added, and who can decide between them?⁴³ Consequently, there can be no obligation based on safek de’Oraisa when we do not know whom to follow and cannot fulfill both opinions.

We will conclude with the words of the Aruch HaShulchan (9:12):

“Know that a few years ago, someone boasted that he had found the chilazon and produced Techeiles from it, and a number of people followed him. But none of the Gedolei HaDor or Klal Yisrael listened to him.” “The matter came to nothing, and will remain so until the righteous Redeemer comes, speedily in our days. Amen.”