String Ratios Discussed: Chilazon - חלזון
Tags:
Bottom Line
Bottom-line summary as to the key reasons why R’ Shlomo Eliyahu Miller addresses significant concerns regarding the authenticity and permissibility of the new Techeiles derived from the Murex snail, citing halachic, procedural, and philosophical challenges. (RH):
Authenticity Concerns
- Chemical Indistinction:
- The traditional test from the Gemara and Rambam to differentiate Techeiles from Kala Ilan (indigo) fails here.
- The dye produced from the Murex snail is chemically indistinguishable from Kala Ilan, undermining a key halachic criterion.
- Production Methods Misaligned with Tradition:
- The current extraction process involves breaking the Murex shell and cutting the live creature, which may constitute prohibited actions on Shabbos, such as shearing or taking a life.
- Chazal’s descriptions imply a method free of these issues, which casts doubt on the alignment of this practice with halachic precedent.
- Archaeological Evidence Misinterpreted:
- Murex shells found in excavations were likely used for Argaman (purple dye) rather than Techeiles, as ancient processes did not include techniques now used to modify the dye’s color.
Halachic Challenges
- Safek Deoraisa Dispute:
- Debate exists whether a safek (doubtful) Torah obligation requires stringency (Rashba) or leniency (Rambam).
- R’ Chaim Soloveichik argued that one is not obligated to fulfill a safek mitzvah unless it removes all doubt. Using safek Techeiles would not fully discharge the mitzvah obligation, thus exempting it from necessity.
- This reasoning opposes the Ran’s view, which obligates safek performance during uncertain times like Bein HaShmashos (twilight).
- Bal Tosif Concerns:
- If the Techeiles is valid, dyeing multiple threads may constitute the prohibition of adding to a mitzvah. Conversely, if it is invalid, Bal Tosif would not apply, but the uncertainty remains problematic.
- Color and Garment Matching:
- Halacha requires tzitzis to match the garment’s corner when Techeiles is invalid. The Rema’s directive supports white strings in such cases, which further questions adopting Murex-dyed strings.
Philosophical and Practical Points
- Kabbalistic Implications:
- The Ben Ish Chai associates Kala Ilan with impurity (Sitra Achra), a concern not present with authentic Techeiles. Using such a dye would introduce potential spiritual harm.
- Deviations in Dye Durability:
- The extracted dye remains effective hours after the snail’s death, which contradicts traditional descriptions of Techeiles production.
- Speculative Identification:
- Proponents argue for Murex based on the absence of other viable options, but Chazal emphasized the Chilazon’s rarity, leaving room for alternative discoveries in the future.
Conclusion
- Given the unresolved halachic, procedural, and philosophical issues, R’ Miller strongly advises refraining from adopting this new Techeiles. He underscores the need for caution, maintaining traditional practice until a more definitive identification aligns with Chazal’s descriptions.
See Rabbi Yisroel Barkin’s response to Rabbi Shlomo Miller on Techeiles here.
See R’ Eliyahu Tavger’s response here.
Rabbi Miller Points-Counterpoints Summary Table
| R' Miller's Critique | Counterpoints (Rabbi/Rabbis) |
|---|---|
| 1. No way to differentiate Murex-based Techeiles from Kala Ilan, contradicting the Gemara. | - Murex dye contains unique chemical compounds (dibromo-indigo, monobromo-indigo) absent in Kala Ilan. (Rabbi Tavger) - Differentiation may depend on dye adhesion or quality rather than chemical composition. (Rabbi Tavger) - Ancient counterfeiters likely could not achieve the same dyeing quality as authentic Techeiles. (Rabbi Tavger) - If Techeiles includes bromine-rich blue, imitation Kala Ilan (e.g., with red madder) would behave differently during tests (Rabbis Tavger, Barkin). |
| 2. Cutting Chilazon during extraction violates netilas neshama or gozez. | - Netilas Neshama does not apply to guf atum entities like snails unless fully killed. Cutting small pieces from a Murex does not constitute "taking life" (Rabbis Tavger, Barkin). - Gozez applies to removable additions (e.g., hair, nails), not body parts like the Murex gland (Rabbi Tavger). - Archaeological evidence shows alternative methods (e.g., crushing whole shells) that align with halachic requirements (Rabbi Barkin). |
| 3. Murex dye remains viable post-mortem, contradicting the Gemara. | - The Gemara explicitly allows dye extraction from a dead Chilazon, aligning with Murex dye usability post-mortem (Rabbis Tavger, Barkin). - Murex dye contaminates upon death due to internal dispersion, matching Aristotle’s statement: “If it dies before processing, it vomits out the bloom” (Additional Insights). |
| 4. Using more than one thread of Techeiles violates "Bal Tosif." | - Rambam’s concern applies only to the tying thread. Excess dye on untied portions does not count as "adding" (Rabbi Tavger). - Poskim must determine correct halachic practice. Avoiding Techeiles entirely constitutes "Bal Tigra" (diminishing the mitzvah), which outweighs concerns of "Bal Tosif" (Rabbi Barkin, Additional Insights). - the Yerushalmi, numerous Rishonim and Acharonim (Raavyah, Shiltei Gibborim, Chavos Yair, Yaavetz, etc); classical writings, and archeological findings identify the Murex as the Chilazon. (Additional Insights) |
| 5. Chilazon identification lacks historical proof; it is "not found today." | - Numerous Rishonim (e.g., Ramban, Ra’avyah) and archaeological findings identify Murex as the Chilazon. (Rabbi Tavger) - Chazal’s descriptions align with Murex-based industries historically located in Zevulun’s territory (Rabbis Tavger, Barkin). - Ramban explicitly states the Chilazon was present in his time, refuting claims of its absence today (Rabbi Tavger). |
| 6. Kabbalistic concerns link Kala Ilan to impurity (Sitra Achra). | - The Ben Ish Chai’s concern applies only to deceitful use of Kala Ilan, not to sincere mitzvah observance (Rabbi Tavger). - Kala Ilan’s impurity relates to its plant origin, irrelevant to Murex (Rabbi Barkin). - Observing Techeiles sincerely eliminates concerns of impurity, as mitzvah observance is inherently meritorious (Additional Insights). |
| 7. Safek mitzvah (doubtful mitzvah) does not obligate fulfillment. | - Halachic precedent mandates fulfilling doubtful mitzvos stringently (Safek Deoraisa Lechumra), as seen in cases like doubtful tefillin or lulav (Rabbis Tavger, Barkin). - Engaging in mitzvah observance amidst doubt is inherently valuable and fulfills halachic obligations (Additional Insights). |
| 8. Tzitzis should match garment color if Techeiles is invalid. | - Halacha allows white tzitzis on non-white garments; color-stringency does not override Techeiles fulfillment (Rabbi Tavger). - The Rema and Shulchan Aruch explicitly permit this practice, emphasizing the mitzvah itself over garment-string color alignment (Rabbi Barkin). |
Main Text
Original Letter
The original letter is here: https://www.techeiles.org/library_main/michtav-harav-shlomo-miller/
בס”ד יום ב’ לפר’ ויחי תשס”ד לפ”ק לכבוד ידידי ר’ מנדל זינגר שליט”א
אודות התכלת החדשה כבר הייתי שם במקום שעושים התכלת ולדעתי כל מש”כ בזה אין שום הוכחה שזהו תכלת, אדרבה יש ב’ ראיות גדולות שאינה תכלת. א’, דבגמרא ורמב”ם מבואר שיש בדיקה להבחין בין תכלת לקלא אילן, ומה שעושין תכלת החדשה הוא ממש קלא אילן אלא שעושים את זה ממין “מורקס” ומשנים הריר עד שיהא דומה ממש לקלא אילן ואין שום חילוק ביניהם באופן כימי וע”כ א”א להיות שום בדיקה להבחין ביניהם, וכל מה שדחו ראיה ברורה זו אין בו לא טעם ולא ריח.
ב’, מה שעושין היום שאחר שבירת קצת מן הקליפה הם חותכין קצת מן החי וטוענים שכן מצאו הרבה כזה בחפירות מימים קדמונים, הנה בגמרא מפורש שמלבד איסור צידה ליכא שום איסור בפציעת חלזון ובנטילת הצבע, ובאופן שהם עושים הלא הוא גזיזת דבר מן החי שלכל הדיעות הוי מלאכה מן התורה בשבת כמו הסרת ערלה מן החי, וחייב או משום נטילת נשמה, או משום גוזז לפי”ד הש”מ בכתובות, וא”כ מפורש שמה שהם עושים אין זה באופן שעושים תכלת.
גם מפו’ בגמ’ שאופן פציעתו הוא באופן נטילת נשמה, אלא שאינו מכוין לנטילת נשמה והוי מקלקל או פס”ר דלנ”ל לגבי נטילת נשמה, והצבע שעושים הלא גם לדבריהם הלא הוא טוב ומועיל גם שעה או שעתים אחר המיתה, וא”כ גם מזה מוכח שאין תכלת שלהם תכלת של הגמ’.
גם יש להעיר מדברי תשובת ר”א בן הרמב”ם בברכת אברהם ליישב דעת אביו דחובל וחולב חייבים משום תולדות דדש, אף שאין דישה אלא בגדו”ק ומה”ט ליכא חיוב דישה מחלזון כמפורש בגמרא. וביאר דדישה ממש בעינן גדו”ק אבל תולדות דישה אי”צ גדו”ק. וכפי הנראה נטילת הריר מן החלזון אינו דישה ממש, ולכל היותר הוי תולדות דישה אשר אי”צ בהן תנאי גדו”ק לדעת הרמב”ם.
והנה יש מחלוקת הראשונים כמה חוטין בעינן לתכלת, א’ משמונה או ב’ משמונה ]דהיינו א’ מד’ חוטין שבציצית[, או ד’ חוטין מח’ ]דהיינו ב’ חוטין שלמים תכלת וב’ חוטין לבן[. והנה לדעת הרמב”ם דבעינן פתיל א’, עי’ אור שמח ריש הלכות ציצית שכתב בדעת הרמב”ם דחוט א’ חציו תכלת וחציו לבן דלצובעו כולו תכלת א”א דפתיל א’ ולא שנים. ונ’ כוונתו דלהרמב”ם דפתיל הכוונה א’ א”כ הוי בל תוסיף כשצובע ב’ חוטין ]מן הח’ חוטין דהיינו חוט שלם[, וא”כ אם התכלת כשרה ועושים יותר מחוט א’ לדעת הרמב”ם אסור והוי בל תוסיף, אבל בזה שכתבנו שהתכלת פסולה הרווחנו שלא עברו על בל תוסיף לדעת הרמב”ם.
גם ראיתי שאחד מן המחזיקים בתכלת החדשה דחה דברי הגר”ח ז”ל שאמר דמצד סד”א לחומרא ליכא חיוב לעשות מעשה שהוא ספק מצוה. והיה סבור שסברות הגר”ח שבכל ספק מצוה ליכא חיוב סד”א לחומרא, ודחה דבריו מדברי הר”ן דגם בבהש”מ מחויב ליטל לולב ואתרוג אף דלא הוי אלא ספק מצוה. ולא הבין כלל סברת הגר”ח ואינו ענין כלל לדברי הר”ן. והי’ לו לזכור הגמ’ גברא רבה אמר מלתא אין מזניחין אותו. סברת הגר”ח הוא במצוה שמחויב בתורת ודאי, ויש לפניו אופן לקיימו מספק, ואחר שיקיים מספק עדיין נשאר מחויב בדבר מדין סד”א לחומרא, א”כ ליכא חיוב מה”ת לעשות דבר שאף אחר עשייתו נשאר החיוב לעשות מוטל עליו. ואינו דומה כלל לדברי הר”ן דבבהש”מ יש חיוב מספק וע”י עשייתו הוא פוטר עצמו מן החיוב ולא נשאר שום חיוב עליו. וא”כ אף אם היה ספק השקול אם זהו תכלת, לדברי הגר”ח ליכא חיוב מצד סד”א לחומרא להטילו בבגדו.
ובעיקר סברת הגר”ח נראה דתלוי בפלוגתא דרמב”ם ורשב”א אי סד”א מה”ת לחומרא או מדרבנן לחומרא, דלדעת הרשב”א דמה”ת לחומרא א”כ אם יטיל ספק תכלת בבגדו עדיין נשאר חיוב מצוה עליו מד”ת מדין סד”א לחומרא, וכיון דלא יפטר מחיוב ע”י הטלת ספק תכלת ליכא חיוב עליו להטיל בבגדו ספק תכלת. אולם לדעת הרמב”ם דסד”א מה”ת לקולא, א”כ י”ל ע”י הטלת ספק תכלת נפטר מחיובו מה”ת ושפיר י”ל דחייב מה”ת להטיל ספק תכלת בבגדו לפטור חיוב תכלת שעליו. וידוע תשובת הר”ן לענין להתיר נדר בביהש”מ של יום חלות הנדר דתלוי בפלוגתא הנ”ל דלדעת הרשב”א דסד”א מה”ת לחומרא כבר חל הנדר ויכול להתירו מה”ת, משא”כ לדעת הרמב”ם דמה”ת סד”א לקולא. א”כ בביהש”מ עדיין מותר מה”ת וא”כ לא חל עדיין הנדר וא”א לו להתירו עדיין. אולם למש”כ החו”ד בסימן ק”י דהרמב”ם לא ס”ל דסד”א מה”ת לקולא רק בספק איסור, דמה”ת דוקא ודאי אסור, אבל לענין קיום מצות מחויב לקיים באופן ודאי וספק קיום מצוה גם לרמב”ם אינו פוטר חיובו. וא”כ אף לדעת הרמב”ם אם יטיל ספק תכלת עדיין נשאר בחיובו מה”ת, וא”ש סברת הגר”ח דליכא חיוב לעשות דבר שאף אחר עשייתו נשאר החיוב עליו, ואף שיש ראיות מכמה פוסקים דלא ס”ל כסברת הגר”ח, וגם האדמו”ר מראדזין ז”ל כבר דן על סברא זו, מ”מ עיקר הסברא סברא ישרה וא”א לדחותו בקל.
ומה שטוענים שמצאו מיני המורקס בחפירות, יתכן מאד שהיה צבע ארגמן אשר עד לפני כ”ד שנה לא ידעו שיש אופן לשנות הצבע ולעשותו קלא אילן ממש, א”כ י”ל בימים קדמונים לא ידעו מזה אלא שעשו מזה צבע אחר. ובפרט שכבר כתבתי שלפי הראיות שהביאו גם בימים קדמונים היו עושים באופן שהם עושים, וא”כ הוי מלאכה דאורייתא כמו הסרת ערלה מן החי. ועיין בן איש חי בספרו בן יהוידע על ב”מ דף ס”א שכתב ע”פ קבלה מדברי האר”י ז”ל דגוון קלא אילן יש לסט”א אחיזה ]ורק בתכלת כשרה אין לו אחיזה[, וע”ש שהאריך בזה, א”כ לדעתי שזהו קלא אילן יש קפידא על פי קבלה בדוקא שלא להשתמש בגוון זו שיש בו אחיזה לסט”א. מלבד הטעם ע”פ הלכה שאינו בגוון דכנף, דאם אינו תכלת בעינן לכתחילה שיהיו הציצית כגוון הכנף אין עושים רק ציצית לבנים וכמ”ש הרמ”א סימן ט’ ס”ה אף בשאר גוונים של בגד ומה”ט מדקדקים לעשות טלית רק גוון לבן כיון דאין עושין ציצית רק לבנים.
והנה בעיקר מה שדוחקים המדעים בזה מפני שלא ידוע שום מין אחר וע”כ צריך להיות המורקס, אבל אין זה כלום לכל יודע דבר דתמיד מוצאים דברים שלא ידעו מתחילה, ובפרט חלזון שכבר אמרו עליו שאינו מנמצא עכשיו.
סוף דבר לדעתי יש קפידא בדוקא שלא להשתמש במין תכלת החדשה הבאה מן ה”מורקס”.
ידידו, שלמה אליהו מילר
English Translation
BS”D
Monday, Parshas Vayechi 5764 (2003)
To my dear friend, R’ Mendel Singer Shlit”a,
Regarding the new Techeiles, I have already been to the place where they are producing this Techeiles, and in my humble opinion, all the proofs that have been brought forth do not establish that this is indeed the Techeiles of old. To the contrary, there are two strong reasons to believe that this is not the real Techeiles.
Firstly, the Gemara and Rambam clearly outline a test to distinguish between Techeiles and Kala Ilan (indigo). What they are calling the “new Techeiles” is practically identical to Kala Ilan, except that it is derived from the Murex species. The process involves altering the secretion so that it appears just like Kala Ilan, with no chemical distinction between them. Consequently, the traditional test to differentiate between Techeiles and Kala Ilan cannot be applied here, and the arguments they present to dismiss this clear proof are lacking any substance.
Secondly, the current method of production involves breaking part of the shell and cutting off a small piece from the living creature. They claim that similar findings were discovered in ancient archaeological excavations. However, the Gemara is explicit that aside from the prohibition of trapping (Tzeida), there is no issur in wounding the Chilazon (Ptziyas Chilazon) or in extracting the dye (Netilas HaTzeva). The way they are doing it now, however, is akin to shearing a living animal, which according to all opinions is a Torah prohibition on Shabbos, similar to removing the foreskin from a living creature. This would make one liable either for taking a life (Netilas Neshama) or for shearing (Gozez), as explained by the Shita Mekubetzes (לפי”ד הש”מ ?) in Kesuvos. Therefore, it is clear that the current method does not align with the way Techeiles was traditionally produced.
Furthermore, the Gemara indicates that the manner of Ptziya results in the taking of life, albeit unintentionally, which would be categorized as a destructive act or Psik Reisha deLo Nicha Lei (an inevitable but unintended consequence) in relation to Netilas Neshama. According to their own admissions, the dye they produce is effective even after an hour or two following the organism’s death, which also suggests that this is not the same Techeiles mentioned in the Gemara.
Additionally, there is a ha’ara from the Teshuva of R’ Avraham ben HaRambam in Birkas Avraham, who reconciles his father’s (the Rambam’s) opinion that one who wounds or milks (Chovel v’Cholev) is chayav for threshing (Dash), even though Dash generally applies only to items that grow from the ground (Gedulei Karka – (בגדו”ק ומה”ט) ). For this reason, there is no liability of Disha with the Chilazon, as explained in the Gemara. He clarifies that true Dash requires the condition of growing from the ground, but the derivative forms (Toldos) of Disha do not. It seems that extracting the secretion from the Chilazon is not true Disha, but may at most be a Toldah of Dash, which according to the Rambam does not require the condition of growing from the ground.
There is also a machlokes among the Rishonim regarding how many threads are required to be Techeiles—whether it’s one out of eight, two out of eight (which is one out of four threads of Tzitzis), or even four out of eight (meaning two full threads of Techeiles and two of white). According to the Rambam, only one thread is needed, as explained by the Ohr Sameach at the beginning of Hilchos Tzitzis, who writes that according to the Rambam, one thread should be half Techeiles and half white. Dyeing the entire thread Techeiles would be impossible since there is to be one thread, not two. It appears that the Rambam’s intent is that if two threads are dyed, it would violate the prohibition of Bal Tosif (adding to the mitzvah). Thus, if the Techeiles is indeed kosher and more than one thread is used according to the Rambam, it would be assur and would constitute Bal Tosif. However, considering that this Techeiles is pasul, we avoid violating Bal Tosif according to the Rambam.
I have also seen that one of the supporters of the new Techeiles dismissed the words of the (גר”ח) Gra”Ch (R’ Chaim Soloveichik) ZT”L, who posited that based on the principle of Safek Deoraisa Lechumra (doubt in Torah law requiring a stringent approach), there is no chiyuv to do something that is a safek mitzvah. He was of the opinion that in every safek mitzvah, there is no chiyuv due to Safek Deoraisa Lechumra. He rejected the Ran’s assertion that even during Bein HaShmashos (twilight), one is obligated to take the Lulav and Esrog, even if it is only a safek mitzvah. He failed to understand the Ran’s reasoning at all, and should have recalled the Gemara which says, “When a great man says something, it should not be dismissed.” R’ Chaim’s reasoning applies to a mitzvah that one is obligated to fulfill with certainty, and there is a way to fulfill it in a doubtful manner. Even after fulfilling it out of doubt, the obligation to fulfill the mitzvah remains due to the principle of Safek Deoraisa Lechumra. Thus, there is no chiyuv from the Torah (מה”ת) to perform an act when the obligation to fulfill the mitzvah still remains after its performance. This is not comparable at all to the Ran’s words that during Bein HaShmashos, one is obligated out of safek, and through his action, he exempts himself from that obligation, leaving no remaining chiyuv.
The crux of R’ Chaim’s reasoning seems to hinge on the disagreement between the Rambam and Rashba regarding whether Safek Deoraisa Lechumra is Min HaTorah or Miderabbanan. According to the Rashba, it is Min HaTorah, so if one places safek Techeiles on his beged, he is still left with a chiyuv from Torah law based on Safek Deoraisa Lechumra. Since he does not exempt himself from the chiyuv by placing safek Techeiles, he is not required to place safek Techeiles on his beged. However, according to the Rambam, that Safek Deoraisa is Min HaTorah and is treated leniently, one could say that by placing safek Techeiles, he would exempt his obligation from the Torah. It would be correct to say that one is obligated from the Torah to place safek Techeiles on his beged to exempt himself from the chiyuv of Techeiles on it. The Teshuvas HaRan discusses this regarding the issue of annulling a neder during Bein HaShmashos of the day when the neder takes effect (Chalos HaNeder (application of the Neder) ), which depends on the aforementioned disagreement. According to the Rashba, who holds that Safek Deoraisa from the Torah is stringent, the neder takes effect, and one can be matir it from the Torah. This is not the case according to the Rambam, who holds that Safek Deoraisa from the Torah is lenient. Therefore, during Bein HaShmashos, it is still mutar from the Torah, and the neder has not yet taken effect, so it is impossible to annul it at that time. However, the Chavos Daas in Siman 110 writes that the Rambam does not hold that Safek Deoraisa from the Torah is lenient except in the case of a safek issur. The Torah only obligates in cases of vadai issur, but regarding the fulfillment of a mitzvah, one is obligated to perform it in a vadai manner, and safek kiyum mitzvah does not exempt the obligation according to the Rambam. Therefore, even according to the Rambam, if one places safek Techeiles, his Torah obligation still remains. R’ Chaim’s klal stands that one is not obligated to perform an act when the chiyuv still remains after its performance. Even though there are rayos from several Poskim who do not agree with R’ Chaim’s reasoning, such as the Admor of Radzyn Z”L, who has already discussed this reasoning, the ikkar of this svara is yashar and cannot be easily dismissed.
As for the claim that Murex shells were found in archaeological digs, it is very likely that they were used for producing Argaman (purple dye), which until 24 years ago was not known to have a process to change its color to Kala Ilan. If so, it is plausible that in ancient times they were unaware of this method and instead produced a different color. Moreover, I have already written that based on the rayos they presented, even in ancient times, the production method was the same as it is now, and if so, it constitutes a melacha miDeoraisa like removing the foreskin from a living creature. The Ben Ish Chai in his sefer Ben Yehoyada on Bava Metzia 61a writes, based on the kabbolah of the Ari Z”L, that the color of Kala Ilan has a shaychus to the Sitra Achra (forces of impurity), while kosher Techeiles does not. He elaborates on this at length, and if this is so, in my opinion, if this is indeed Kala Ilan, there is a significant concern al pi Kabbalah to avoid using this color, which is associated with the Sitra Achra. Besides this, from a halachic standpoint, it does not match the color of the corner of the garment. If it is not genuine Techeiles, then we require, lechatchila, that the tzitzis be the same color as the corner of the garment, which is why we only use white strings, as the Rema writes in Siman 9:5, even for garments of other colors. This is also why we are careful to make the tallis white, so that the tzitzis can also be white.
To sum up, the reason the proponents of the new Techeiles push this claim is due to the lack of another known species that fits the description, leading them to conclude that it must be the Murex. However, this reasoning is not convincing to those who are well-versed in these matters, as new discoveries are frequently made, especially in regard to the Chilazon, which Chazal already noted is not commonly found in our times.
In conclusion, based on the information available, there is strong reason to be stringent and refrain from using the new Techeiles that comes from the Murex.
Your friend,
Shlomo Eliyahu Miller
