On the Renewal of the Mitzvah of Tekhelet

Dr. Daniel Levy

In his first article, “Methods of Identification in Mitzvos” (HaMaayan, Nissan 5756), Rav Yaakov Epstein discusses the use of simanim for returning a lost object and for permitting an agunah to remarry, and concludes (p. 33):

“From all this it would appear that even a combination of several non-definitive simanim is insufficient, and certainly mitzvos that have been lost to us cannot be restored on the basis of such simanim.”

In my humble opinion, the comparison is not valid.

In order to return a lost object or permit an agunah, definite identification is necessary. But from where do we know that one may not renew the mitzvah of Tekhelet out of safek, when according to most poskim — as explained in his second article, HaMaayan, Tishrei 5757 — doing so involves no concern of an issur?

The same is true if we treat the proofs identifying the chilazon as an umdana — a reasoned inference — as discussed there in chapters 6 and 7 and footnote 5. One cannot prove that we may not rely upon an umdana to fulfill the mitzvah out of safek simply because we do not rely upon an umdana in monetary law or capital cases.

Likewise, no proof can be brought from the requirement of a mesorah for identifying kosher birds or kosher esrogim, as discussed in chapter 1.

In the conclusion to his second article, “Doubtful Tekhelet — Its Status in Tzitzis” (HaMaayan, Tishrei 5757), Rav Epstein writes that there is no obligation, either me’ikar hadin or even as a middas chassidus, to place doubtful Tekhelet on one’s tzitzis.

But I do not understand how he overlooked chapter 3 of that very article, from which it emerges that according to some Acharonim there is an obligation to fulfill the mitzvah of Tekhelet even in a case of doubt — and according to some, the obligation is even min haTorah.

In his third article, “Identification of the Murex Trunculus as the Original Tekhelet” (HaMaayan, Teves 5757), the author raises many questions and doubts regarding the identification of the chilazon.

His conclusion (p. 47) is that one may put Tekhelet on his tzitzis as a middas chassidus, but that it cannot even be considered a safek mitzvah, because the level of uncertainty is too great.

But when only the questions and uncertainties are presented, the picture created is that identifying the Murex trunculus as the chilazon of Tekhelet is little more than speculation.

Had Rav Epstein given comparable weight to the evidence supporting the identification, and had he presented possible answers in addition to the questions, a different picture would emerge — namely that there is at least a real possibility of a mitzvah here, which should therefore be fulfilled out of safek.

Let us present several points in order to give a more balanced picture:

1. Was the Source of Tzitzis Tekhelet Different from Royal Tekhelet?

The author notes (pp. 38–39) that there is no proof that the source of the Tekhelet used for tzitzis was identical to the source of royal Tekhelet.

Aside from the proof from Rashi on Shabbos 26a, which the author himself cites on p. 42, it is inherently very difficult to accept that they came from different sources.

Until the invention of synthetic dyes in the last century, there were very few possibilities for dyeing fabrics from natural sources. These were described in ancient works written by the scholars of the gentile world.

As Rav Epstein himself notes, the source of royal Tekhelet is described in these works as a marine snail. In addition, piles of broken Murex shells have been found along the coast of Eretz Yisrael.

To suggest that there existed another source of Tekhelet which was also a marine snail, but which was never described in the ancient literature and left behind no remains of its dyeing facilities, is extremely difficult to accept when the sources of Chazal can readily be explained in a manner consistent with the Murex.

2. Rav Herzog’s Rejection of the Murex

Rav Herzog zt”l did not reject the identification of the Murex as the chilazon of Tekhelet merely because “a certain Midrash [namely, ‘The Rabbis taught: this chilazon, its body resembles the sea…,’ Menachos 44a] could not be explained by him in a manner that fit the Murex … and because the color produced from the Murex did not correspond to Tekhelet according to the descriptions of Chazal,” as Rav Epstein writes (p. 41).

Anyone who studies Rav Herzog’s doctoral dissertation will find additional reasons that led him to propose the Janthina as the chilazon of Tekhelet:

(a) The scientific literature stated that the color produced by dyeing with the Murex trunculus was not durable (pp. 33, 73–74, 100), whereas the Gemara in Menachos 43a indicates that Tekhelet is extremely durable.

(b) Besides the fact that he believed the Janthina fit the descriptions of Chazal better, Rav Herzog understood that this snail had also been used in the ancient dye industry (pp. 37–38).

However, these reasons have since been shown to be incorrect.

We may reasonably assume that Rav Herzog would not have felt forced to reject the identification of the Murex trunculus as the chilazon of Tekhelet had he known what we know today:

(a) The dye produced from the Murex is extremely durable.

(b) It is impossible to dye with the liquid secreted by the Janthina.

(c) On the seabed, the shell of the Murex becomes covered with marine growth, giving it complete camouflage. It therefore truly has a “body resembling the sea” — meaning the seabed. Compare Yeshayah 11:9, Chavakuk 2:14, and Melachim I 7:23.

(d) By exposing the Murex dye solution to sunlight, the color can be changed from purple to blue. Rav Herzog himself, however, did not reach a definite conclusion regarding the precise shade of Tekhelet.

3. The Relationship Between Tekhelet and Argaman

Rav Epstein asks (p. 24):

“Argaman appears dozens of times in the words of Chazal … yet nowhere is it stated that its source is a chilazon, let alone the very same chilazon from which Tekhelet is produced.”

Presumably, he means the same family of snails.

Rav Herzog had already raised this question (p. 56), and he also proposed an explanation.

In addition, Rav Herzog emphasizes (p. 57) that there is no basis to doubt the Septuagint, in which argaman is translated as porphyra, or the testimony of Philo and Josephus that argaman came from a snail, since all of them lived during the period when the Beis HaMikdash still stood.

There is therefore a clear connection between the sources of Tekhelet and argaman.

Conclusion

A. The evidence tending toward identifying the Murex trunculus as the chilazon of Tekhelet should at the very least be regarded as equal in strength to the evidence raised against that identification. The question is therefore, at minimum, a genuine safek hashakul — an evenly balanced doubt — and it should be treated as a safek mitzvah.

B. This safek cannot be compared to the examples Rav Epstein brought in his first article, where definite identification is required.