On the Topic of the Tallis with Techeiles Tzitzis – HaRav Tzfania Drori

Regarding the Insertion of Techeiles in Tzitzis

Rabbi Tzefania Drori
Meoros Emunah

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• The Approach of the Poskim: Tzitzis with White Without Techeiles
• The Murex—Is It Techeiles?
• Those Who Reject Radzyn’s Techeiles but Support the Murex Techeiles

Introduction

With the renewal of the Techeiles dyeing process by the Gaon, the Admor of Radzyn, approximately a hundred years ago, the Poskim of the generation deliberated whether one should insert this Techeiles into his Tzitzis[1].

The foremost opponent of reviving Techeiles in that period was Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno, who ruled against inserting that Techeiles. The Gedolei HaDor of our times rely on his psak to also reject the identification of the Murex Chilazon, which was discovered by Torah scholars and scientists along the coasts of Eretz Yisrael.

HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlit”a, in a teshuvah from 5757, discusses the reasoning of those who argue in favor of inserting this new Techeiles:

“Since contemporary researchers are confident that they have identified the Chilazon, then even if we entertain a safek in the matter, it is no worse than Kala Ilan[2]. On the other hand, one gains the potential fulfillment of the mitzvah of Tzitzis in its complete form, as written in the Torah of Moshe.”

In his conclusion, HaGaon Rav Elyashiv rejects these arguments, ruling against this new Techeiles—just as the Rishonim rejected the Techeiles of the Radzyn Rebbe.

At the outset of his discussion, Rav Elyashiv questions whether this indeed is the authentic Chilazon:

“As has already occurred in the past—over a hundred years ago, one of the great Admorim announced that he had found the Chilazon and publicly declared that he had no doubt in the matter. He was bewildered as to why people ignored the opportunity to fulfill a mitzvas asei de’Oraisa. Yet, the Gedolei Yisrael of his time did not agree with him.

Some time passed, and researchers came and refuted his claims entirely, asserting that the true Chilazon was something else entirely. Then, in a later period, additional scientists emerged, claiming that all the previous identifications were baseless and that they alone had identified the true Chilazon.

Who’s to say that, in a few more years, others won’t arise and disprove their assertions as well?”

Later in his discussion, Rav Elyashiv cites the Beis HaLevi—the Gaon of Brisk, who was concerned that Techeiles may actually be prohibited:

“If this fish truly existed and the method of extracting its dye was known throughout history from the time that Techeiles ceased among Klal Yisrael, and nevertheless, our forefathers refrained from wearing it—this itself is tantamount to a mesorah that this fish is not the true Chilazon.”

This citation is clarified further in the words of the Radzyn Rebbe, who recorded the Brisker Rav’s reasoning:

“The Av Beis Din of Brisk conveyed his reasoning… to one of our acquaintances, instructing him to write and relay the following:

His esteemed honor did not specify whether his doubt concerned the discovery of the fish or the extraction of its dye. Only after this is clarified… meaning, if something had been lost and was now rediscovered, then we would be obligated to accept it and wear it.[4]

However, if the fish always existed and the dye extraction method was always known at any point in time since Techeiles ceased among Yisrael, yet our forefathers still refrained from wearing it—this itself is a kabbalah u’mesorah from our ancestors that this fish and its dye are not the true Chilazon and Techeiles, even if it matches all the simanim that Chazal provided. For even if we were to accumulate numerous supporting proofs, they would not stand against kabbalah and mesorah. Only if it could be demonstrated that knowledge of this fish or its dyeing process was lost in history, and that this mesorah had been interrupted—then it would be a matter of halachic deliberation.

Thus conclude his words, sheyichyeh. (Introduction to Ein HaTecheiles, p. 13)”

Apparently, at the time, the Radzyn Rebbe did not have a conclusive response to this challenge, and HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik (Beis HaLevi) maintained his opposition to the revival of Techeiles. However, the situation regarding the Murex Chilazon Techeiles, which has been rediscovered in our times, is fundamentally different. This will be further explained in the continuation of this essay[6].

The Approach of the Poskim: Tzitzis with White Without Techeiles

A. The Mitzvah of White Tzitzis in Our Days

The words of HaGaon Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlit”a are largely based on the position of the Yeshuos Malko. Indeed, in the teshuvos of Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno, we find the most comprehensive discussion regarding the Techeiles of the Radzyn Rebbe. His analysis of the sugya provides both a halachic and historical background to explain why Techeiles ceased among Klal Yisrael.

The three teshuvos brought in Shu”t Yeshuos Malko[7] form the primary basis for rejecting the Radzyn Rebbe’s Techeiles and for refraining from inserting Techeiles in Tzitzis—even out of safek.

However, the Yeshuos Malko did write:

“We should not engage in disputes and conflicts (against those who wear Radzyn Techeiles), since white Tzitzis are valid even if they are dyed. I did not wish to elaborate in writing, as this matter is not meant for written discussion.”

The main chidush of the Yeshuos Malko is that after the Churban Beis HaMikdash, the mitzvas asei of Tzitzis does not necessarily include Techeiles. He explains:

“And you shall place on the fringe of the garment a thread of Techeiles… so that you shall remember all My mitzvos.”

Since, following the Churban, some mitzvos were nullified, Techeiles is also not obligatory for fulfilling the mitzvah of Tzitzis.

This chidush is based on the words of the Arizal and reinforces what the Arizal HaKadosh wrote:

“There is no Techeiles except when the Beis HaMikdash is standing.”

However, we do find that even during the period of the Mishnah and later, throughout the time of the Gemara, Techeiles was inserted into Tzitzis. During the times of Abayei and Rava, they wore Techeiles and dyed with it, and until the days of Ravina, at the end of the Gemara, the mitzvah of Techeiles was still practiced.

Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno explains that as long as the halacha had not yet been established that white Tzitzis are valid without Techeiles, people were moser nefesh to fulfill both aspects of the mitzvah.

“Since without Techeiles, even the white strands would not have been valid, they endangered themselves to acquire Techeiles so that the mitzvah of Tzitzis would not be entirely nullified, as it is written ‘for their generations.'”

However, in later generations, when the halacha was established that Techeiles and white do not prevent one another, they relied on that psak and refrained from pursuing Techeiles due to the danger involved.

“And so they ruled for all of Klal Yisrael.”

B. The Dangers That Led to the Cessation of Techeiles

Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno does not specify in his teshuvos what dangers existed in the times of the Mishnah and the Gemara regarding acquiring Techeiles.

However, the Sifri, which will be discussed later, hints at these dangers as the reason why Techeiles was hidden away until the times of Moshiach.

Three primary risks can be inferred:

1. Government Bans on Dyeing Purpura (Porphyry) Colors
   From the time of Ravina onward, the Roman Empire prohibited private production of purpura dyes. The purpura dyes were made from the Murex Chilazon, which is the same dye source used for today’s Techeiles. Dyeing was centralized within imperial dyeing facilities, and anyone caught violating these laws was in mortal danger.
2. Economic Wars Over Chilazon Extraction
   Even before the Roman decree in 383 CE, obtaining the Chilazon was already extremely difficult, as noted in the Sifri. The danger was likely due to the financial struggles surrounding Chilazon extraction.
   • During the time of King Herod and Caesar Augustus, Chilazon dye was more expensive than gold.
   • The price of one kilogram of dyed wool was 40 times the price of raw white wool.
   • In the era of the Mishnah, a single kilogram of dyed wool was worth 5,200 denarii, an astronomical sum for that time.
   • The struggle to acquire Chilazon required mesirus nefesh, as merchants and dye producers fought for access.
3. The Physical Danger of Extracting Chilazon from the Sea
   The process of retrieving the Chilazon itself involved significant danger. The Chilazon had to be harvested from the sea, and its behavior made collection particularly difficult:
   • The Chilazon only swims freely for a short season each year, specifically in stormy winter months, when the sea is rough and treacherous.
   • In the summer, it burrows into the seabed, making it nearly impossible to locate.
   • This burrowing characteristic is described not only by modern researchers but also by Rabbi Menachem Azariah of Fano (Ram”a miPano):
     

     “The Chilazon is strong and embedded in the seabed like trees.” (Tzeva’os Hashem, vol. 2)

   • The Midrash Talpiyot similarly describes:
     

     “The Chilazon has the form of a human and rises from the ground like a tree.”

   • The Maharshal writes that during the time of the Beis HaMikdash, the Chilazon would rise onto the mountains (onto dry land).
   • The Radbaz likewise testifies that in Shevet Zevulun’s territory, the Chilazon would emerge onto dry land. However, once Klal Yisrael went into exile, it ceased to surface.

Thus, the search for the Chilazon was exceptionally difficult. The only place it remained accessible was in the sea, where divers had to risk their lives to retrieve it from the ocean floor, as its shell remained buried in the sand. This is why Techeiles was already rare in the times of Rabbi Yosi, as described in the Sifri.

The Murex—Is It Techeiles?

A. The Words of the Sifri Support Those Who Wear Murex Techeiles

The Sifri conveys its message in the style of Aggadah, using a cryptic and hidden language that carries deeper meaning.

“VeSefunei Temunei Chol”—Rabbi Yosi said: Once, I was walking between Keziv and Tzur, and I met an elderly man. I greeted him and asked, ‘What is your livelihood?’ He said, ‘From the Chilazon.’ I asked him, ‘Is it common?’ He replied, ‘By Heaven![8] There is a place[9] where it lies between the mountains, and lizards bite it, and it dies, and it decays in its place.’ I said, ‘It is evident that it is hidden away for the Tzaddikim in Olam HaBa[10].’”

Several historical facts emerge from the language of the Sifri:

1. During the time of Rabbi Yosi, in the era of the Mishnah, the Chilazon was already rare.
   • Nevertheless, a few merchants still dealt with it and earned their livelihood from it.
2. The location where Rabbi Yosi encountered the elderly man was in the territory of Zevulun, between Keziv and Tzur.
   • Even today, ancient purpura dyeing sites with the Murex Chilazon have been discovered in that region.
   • Archaeologists have found nearly a million Chilazon shells in Tzur and a large quantity in Tel Akko[11].
3. The reason the Chilazon was not commonly found was that it was located in a hidden place—”between the mountains”—where it was difficult to access, and it would decay in its place.
   • This description hints that the Chilazon buries itself in the ground and disintegrates in its location, rather than being easily found in motion, whether at sea or on land.
   • This aligns with what we know about Murex, which in the summer burrows into the seabed, making it undetectable when it is not actively moving.
4. A cryptic phrase in the Sifri draws our attention to a deeper meaning—the mention of lizards killing the Chilazon.[12]
   • What is the significance of the lizard (Samamiyah) in the language of Chazal?
   • This element of the Sifri invites further investigation into its deeper meaning.

Images

1. Dyed Wool from the Bar Kochba Caves – Possibly Techeiles or Indigo (Kala Ilan)?
   
2. Radzyn Chilazon – Its liquid is black, and it has no shell.
   
3. First Dyeing of Murex
   
   
4. Murex Chilazon – Buried in the sand, resembling a tree. Its shell grows with it (Pesikta D”C 11).
   
5. Murex – Conch Shell
   
6. Techeiles – Similar to the sea, with shades of blue.
   
7. Sources Validating Murex Techeiles & Printed Images from “Sefer HaTecheiles”
   

• The captions for verifying Murex Techeiles in the sources.
• The photos printed were from Sefer “HaTecheiles” (Bursteyn)

The Meaning of the Samamiyah (Lizard) in the Sifri

We can understand the role of the Samamiyah (salamander or lizard) from Maseches Shabbos 77b:

“The Samamiyah instills fear in the scorpion.”

Rashi explains that the Samamiyah enters the scorpion’s ear and harms it, while the Aruch defines the Samamiyah as either a lizard or a spider[13].

From the Aruch, we learn that this creature was ground up and used as a remedy for scorpion stings. It is possible that the name Samamiyah comes from the word Sam (medicine), as it was used for healing. Based on the Gemara in Shabbos, the Samamiyah’s venom harms the scorpion, which in turn makes it a medicine for humans who need protection from its sting.

This understanding connects with its role in the Sifri:

• The Samamiyah represents protection and safeguarding from harmful forces.
• It harms the Chilazon or those searching for it, ensuring that the Chilazon remains hidden for the future.

Today, the word Samamiyah refers to a small house lizard that does not make noise, clings to walls, and watches over a home from above. Mishlei (Proverbs) states:

“The Samamis is grasped with the hands, yet it is found in the palaces of kings.”

In Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew, and in the Sifri, the Samamiyah is seen as the guardian of hidden treasures. In the era of the Mishnah, it concealed the Techeiles within the ground until the Chilazon decayed in its place, preserving it for a future time.

B. Rashi’s Position—Rejecting Radzyn and Supporting Murex

The Yeshuos Malko (Siman 3) writes:

“The dyeing process has not been fully clarified to us. In Menachos 42b, Tosafos (d.h. ‘veSammanim’) explains that according to Rashi, the vat in which the Chilazon blood was placed for dyeing was not allowed to contain any additives—only pure Chilazon blood alone. However, the Gemara states: Abayei asked Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, ‘How do you dye the Techeiles?’ He responded, ‘We bring Chilazon blood and additives and place them in a vat [and boil it].’ This implies that the wool was first treated with additives so that it would be clean and ready to absorb the dye. But the vat where the Chilazon blood itself was placed was not allowed to have anything added—only pure Chilazon blood and wool.”

However, the Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2) rules differently:

• He follows the plain meaning of the Gemara, which indicates that the dyeing vat contained both Chilazon blood and other additives.
• The Yeshuos Malko concludes:
  

  “And who can determine the truth in our times?”

Tosafos and Rashi on the Dyeing Process

Tosafos raises a difficulty:

• The plain reading of the Gemara suggests that Techeiles was dyed in a vat with additives.
• How can anything be mixed with the sacred Techeiles?

Tosafos answers:

“Perhaps the Torah’s command to make Techeiles means to follow the standard dyeing process, and the process naturally involves boiling the Chilazon liquid with additives in a vat.”

However, Rashi disagrees, as seen in his commentary:

“Sammanim—these are soaking agents, used in dyeing, that are applied beforehand.”

From Rashi’s words, it is clear that:

• No additives were placed in the Techeiles dyeing vat.
• Instead, the wool was pre-soaked in additives before being dipped into the pure Chilazon dye.

The Yeshuos Malko suggests that Rashi’s position affects the identification of the Chilazon:

• In the Radzyn method, the Chilazon liquid is black and cannot be turned into Techeiles without chemical processing.
• If Rashi holds that the dye must be pure, then Radzyn’s process does not match the halacha.
• This is why the Yeshuos Malko rejected Radzyn Techeiles, because it can only be produced through the Rambam’s method, and there is no clear ruling on which method is correct:
  

  “And who can determine this matter in our times?”

By contrast, with Murex, the dyeing process does not require additives to produce Techeiles[15].

• According to Rashi, the wool is first soaked in additives and then placed in the boiling vat of dye.
• Modern Techeiles dyers in Kfar Adumim report that:
  • When using Murex, the wool can turn blue instantly in the boiling vat.
  • The color, however, is not as vibrant as when additives are used.

Resolving the Dispute Between Rashi and the Rambam

The Yeshuos Malko concludes:

“Who can determine the truth in our times?”

Some contemporary scholars misunderstood this to mean that we lack the ability to rule on halacha today. But this is incorrect—the job of poskim is to make halachic rulings!

• Since both methods are valid, a person who wants to be machmir can:
  • Wear one Techeiles string dyed according to Rashi’s method.
  • Wear one Techeiles string dyed according to the Rambam’s method.
  • This way, he fulfills the mitzvah whichever opinion is correct.

Indeed, Igros Moshe ruled like the Rambam and Tosafos, favoring the use of additives.

However, the main argument of the Yeshuos Malko was against the Radzyn Chilazon. He wrote:

“Both the plain wording of the Sifri and Rashi in Menachos 42b indicate that this is not the Chilazon valid for Techeiles. The Radzyn Rebbe’s claim is merely speculation and cannot be relied upon to establish the mitzvah.”

Rav Elyashiv and Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno on Murex

HaGaon Rav Elyashiv also cites Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno regarding this issue. From this, it is evident that Rav Elyashiv also relied on the Yeshuos Malko’s rejection of Radzyn because it does not match the sugyos.

On the other hand, Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno recognized that Murex fits the Gemara’s descriptions. Even those who are not fully convinced that Murex is definitely the Techeiles Chilazon should still consider wearing it out of concern for a mitzvas asei.

The Yeshuos Malko’s Proof from the Sifri

The Yeshuos Malko concludes:

“From the plain meaning of the Sifri, this is not the Techeiles Chilazon.”

His reasoning is as follows:

1. The Sifri states that the Chilazon is not commonly found, whereas the Radzyn Chilazon is abundant in Italy and other coastal regions.
2. The Sifri describes the Chilazon as a rare and valuable creature that enriched Shevet Zevulun, but the Radzyn Chilazon is not a major source of wealth.
3. The Sifri says the Chilazon decays in place (it is buried in the sand)—this matches Murex but not Radzyn.

R’ Assaf Stein, a well-known Techeiles dyer in Kfar Adumim, told me that:

• They dye Techeiles according to the Rambam’s method.
• Dr. Oren Rosen, a chemist, confirmed that his family has a 200-year-old tradition of dyeing Techeiles from Murex using Rashi’s method.
• He also possesses an old Tallis dyed Techeiles—but has yet to show it publicly.

Summary

A. Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno: If True Techeiles Were in Our Hands, It Would Be Preferable

The words of Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno are clear—the Chachamim never prohibited wearing Techeiles in any generation. He even writes that if authentic, undisputed Techeiles were found, and we knew how to dye with it properly, he himself would wear it:

“If we had the true Techeiles in our hands, there would be nothing preventing us from inserting it, as I have said.”[16]

Throughout his teshuvos, the Yeshuos Malko never suggests that Techeiles is forbidden due to the decree to conceal it[17]. The concealment only prohibited endangering oneself to obtain it.

Regarding the Radzyn Rebbe’s revival of Techeiles, Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno held that the decree teaches us to avoid uncertainty, since, in his view, the Radzyn Techeiles was merely speculation. Chachmei Yisrael had already ruled that after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, Techeiles is no longer an essential component of the mitzvah of Tzitzis.

However, despite this, Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno saw Radzyn’s discovery of a Techeiles substitute as a hint of the approaching Geulah. As Geulah draws closer, Techeiles begins to return to Klal Yisrael.

How fitting, then, that the Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, HaRav Yitzchak Herzog zt”l, dedicated himself to researching the Chilazon. His studies led him to identify the Murex mollusk as the true source of Techeiles. What delayed his final confirmation was that the dye’s color was not the correct shade of Techeiles.

That uncertainty remained until Professor Elsner’s research revealed that if the Murex’s liquid is left in the sun, it turns into the correct Techeiles blue[18].

B. Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik Would Require Wearing Murex Techeiles

Historical research can resolve the question raised by Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik zt”l (Beis HaLevi) regarding the identity of the Chilazon.

• The Chilazon in our possession today is the same Chilazon that was used for dyeing Techeiles in Shevet Zevulun’s territory.
• The dyeing ceased in the late Amoraic period due to a Byzantine government decree, which banned private production of purple and Techeiles dye for 1,000 years.
• Because of this ban, the mesorah was broken, and the identity of the Chilazon and its dyeing method was forgotten.

The Yeshuos Malko records that Techeiles ceased in the time of Ravina. Today, we understand why:

• In 380 CE, the Byzantine Empire outlawed the use of Chilazon dyes, restricting them to the imperial dyeing factories.
• This decree directly coincides with Ravina’s era.
• From 380 CE to 1400 CE, the ban remained in place until the empire collapsed.
• Jews were prohibited from producing the dye, which led to complete loss of knowledge regarding how to fulfill the mitzvah l’shmah.

Now, when the Beis HaLevi wrote that “this fish is not the Chilazon”, his intended target was the Radzyn Rebbe’s fish, which was found in Italy. The Radzyn Rebbe could not prove whether any government decree had ever banned its use.

By contrast, the Murex Chilazon, which was found in Shevet Zevulun’s region, is historically documented as having been subject to a government ban.

Based on the Beis HaLevi’s own logic, this means that in our times, we are obligated to wear Murex Techeiles[19].

“We would be required to listen… and wear it.” (Language of the Beis HaLevi).

C. According to the Arizal, Techeiles Will Return in the Time of Geulah

Rabbi Yehoshua of Kutno references the words of the Arizal, who states that Techeiles will only return in the era of the Beis HaMikdash.

These words are further elaborated in Kuntrus She’eris Yosef[20]:

“In our times, the mitzvah of Techeiles is not practiced. After the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, we lack the ability to insert Techeiles, because we no longer grasp its true nature.”

This was explained further by Rabbi Shimshon of Ostropoli, who was quoted in the same sefer:

“After the Churban, the light of Chochmah was hidden away. All that remains for us is white, which represents Binah. The Techeiles, which is from Chochmah, is no longer available. This will continue until the year 5600 (1840). In that year, the light of Chochmah will begin to shine again… and Hashem should forgive me for revealing this secret.”

Techeiles will return and be revealed in the same generation when the light of Chochmah—the wisdom of Torah and the deeper wisdom of the world—begin to unite into one great light.

The Return of Techeiles as a Sign of Geulah

How incredible it is that as the light of Geulah strengthens, we also draw closer to the return of Techeiles!

• Those who recognize the light of Geulah
• Those who see the redemption unfolding through Torah
• Those who rejoice in the ingathering of exiles
• Those who celebrate the removal of subjugation by foreign rulers
• Those who witness the flourishing of Torah and wisdom

All of these people have the zechus of seeing Techeiles return to the Tzitzis of young Jews today.