Regarding Tekhelet | Kovetz Ohr Yisrael Monsey 12 | R’ Eliyahu Tavger, Chaim Zevulun Krieger, R. Mordechai Avraham Katz, R’ Elchanan Reuven Goldhaber, R. Avraham Monhiet

To the editors of Or Yisrael, greetings and blessings.

I was very happy to see in the pages of the journal the discussion concerning Tekhelet — a mitzvah that has been forgotten by many.

I would like to add another point that was not emphasized in this discussion, and which I consider very important. The Radzyner Rebbe zt”l writes in his Maamar Pesil Tekhelet, p. 6: “In ancient Greek and Roman times as well, wool dyed with Tekhelet was considered extremely valuable, and served as a sign of the exalted rank of rulers. In accordance with the greatness of their authority, they wore belts, hand-coverings, and sashes dyed with the color of Tekhelet, each according to the breadth of his standing and rank.” It is clear beyond any doubt that if the Radzyner Rebbe were alive today, and one were to show him explicitly in books from those very times, black on white, what those Roman dignitaries actually wore, he would immediately retract his identification and rule that the purpura is in fact the Tekhelet.

Particular attention should be paid to the Radzyner Rebbe’s chiddush, rather than to the particular creature he found. What he found depended upon the limitations of the particular scientist whom the Rebbe used for assistance. His chiddush, however, depended upon his broad understanding and great spirit, and that is what represents his true position. It therefore comes out that the main argument of those who support the cuttlefish (sepia) — that they are following the great gaon and Sar HaTorah, the Baal HaTekhelet, R. Gershon Henoch Leiner zt”l, one of the famous gedolim of more than a century ago — falls away. Those who wear Tekhelet made from the Murex chilazon (purpura) are in truth the ones following in his footsteps.

Signed on behalf of those who fulfill the mitzvos completely and with hiddur.

R. Eliyahu Tavger, author of Kelil Tekhelet

Regarding the Above

To the honorable editors of Or Yisrael:

In issue 10, in the article on the subject of Tekhelet, R. Mordechai A. Katz brought a proof that the Tekhelet chilazon is the Murex. He wrote that Rashi in Avodah Zarah 28b, s.v. mashkarei chilazonei, translates it as limatzin in Old French; that this word means “snail” in French; and he further cited in a footnote Rashi on the Torah, Parashas Shemini, where Rashi writes that the chomet is limatza. From this he proves that limatzin is the chomet, i.e. the chilazon.

I checked Rashi there and did not find the word limatzin, but rather nimin in Old French. If so, what proof is there? Is nimin the same as limatza? It therefore appears that this is simply an invented claim.

I then opened the sefer of the Radzyner Gaon zy”a. On the contrary, he brings a proof for his own position from that very Gemara in Avodah Zarah. The expression mashkarei chilazonei mentioned there refers to a salve that heals pikta tata’ah. He brings that it is known to this day from medical books that the blood secretion of the chilazon-fish, the sepia found by the Radzyner Rebbe, is a remedy for hemorrhoids.

If so, the exact opposite is true: there is a proof here for Radzyner Tekhelet, not for the complete opposite, as the writer attempted to prove.

With Torah greetings,

R. Chaim Zevulun Krieger, New York

Further Regarding the Above

Regarding Tekhelet in our time, and R. Mordechai Avraham Katz’s response to the article of R. Shlomo Englard shlita of Bnei Brak, I would like to make several comments and clarifications.

The writer says that the Radzyner Rebbe was unaware of all the above, referring to the words of the Rishonim and Acharonim that he cited. In truth, it is the respected writer who was unaware of all the above.

He cited the words of the Raavad in his introduction to Sefer Yetzirah, and argued that since the Radzyner Rebbe did not cite this Raavad, it proves that he had not seen it. The writer, however — who apparently did not examine the body of Pesil Tekhelet, but only the indexes, where for some reason this matter was omitted — did not see the Rebbe’s answer to the words of the Raavad, together with the Rama MiPano and Sefer HaKanah, in os 10, p. 186. The Rebbe discusses the matter at length for fifteen pages, with the full breadth of his Torah ability. I find it astonishing that one can make such a claim and argue on him without first knowing the subject thoroughly and examining the sefer itself.

He also cited the Ran: “A chilazon is different, for it is a sealed body, like those chilazonos found in garbage heaps.” The Radzyner Rebbe quotes the entire passage of the Ran in his Ein HaTekhelet, p. 124, os 23. There he concludes that two new and clear simanim of the Tekhelet chilazon emerge from the Ran: first, that its entire body is closed and no limbs project from it, with only filaments extending outward that themselves contain no limbs; and second, that its blood, which is gathered and stored inside it, is contained in a sac. See the entire discussion there; he viewed this as a clear proof for his Tekhelet creature.

He further cites Rashi in Sanhedrin 91a, who calls it a worm. I am astonished that the writer ignores Rashi in Menachos 44a, who says, “its form resembles a fish,” with Rashi explaining this to mean the shape of its appearance; and Rashi in Shabbos 74b, who writes explicitly, “a type of small fish.” How will he resolve this apparent contradiction in Rashi? To resolve it we need the words of the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l in Ein HaTekhelet, pp. 256-258, where he gave a well-reasoned answer to a scholar who asked him this question. See there, where he explains that one cannot ignore Rashi’s statement that its form is like a fish. When Rashi calls it a worm, this is because of its small size and because it is a creeping creature of the water. In modern terminology as well, it is called a mollusk rather than a fish, and it can also live and reproduce on land.

As to what he brought from the Tiferes Yisrael in Kupas HaRochlin, from the expression “from the borrowed blood called [purpur],” is this not simply the view of Gesenius??? Yet the Tiferes Yisrael himself writes at the end of the article: “Therefore, that snail mentioned by Gesenius is another one — bal chazu shemesh!!!”

He also cited the Mussaf HaAruch: “R. Binyamin [Mussafia] says: in the Greek and Roman language, a garment of Tekhelet.” Look in the Aruch, entry chilazon 3, and in R. Binyamin’s supplement there, and you will find support for the Radzyner Rebbe’s position: the chilazon has long filaments like bent hooks at the head of a chain [see שפ”ח os 5; Ein HaTekhelet, os 20; and Sidrei Taharos, Keilim, s.v. מפני, p. 124, s.v. שלשלת]. The writer also finds support from the translation of the Aruch by the maskil Moshe Landau, who caused many breaches in the Sefer HaAruch, and who also wrote that the chilazon is a shneke, a snail. See the sharp words in Ein HaTekhelet, p. 164, and especially his conclusion there: “Because of this one Ashkenazi, shall we separate the Aruch from the Rambam, the Rash, and the Raav? It is well known that they saw the Sefer HaAruch and drank its words thirstily.” See there.

He further cited Persian and Arabic, and wrote regarding the Radzyner Rebbe that “he also did not mention the Persian and Arabic usage, which proves that he did not know those languages; and it is clear [???] that had the Rebbe zt”l seen this, he would have conceded.” We return to the same point: the Radzyner Rebbe did indeed see it. Look in the body of the sefer, not only in the index. See Ein HaTekhelet, os 24, where he brings a clear proof from the Ittur (vol. II, Shaar HaTzitzis 29), quoting Rav Nachshon, Reish Mesivta, that Tekhelet resembles the sea, etc., and that its Arabic name is lamasma. Likewise, regarding this chilazon, even today its hard shell is taken for use in the pharmacy; in the great medical work Canon, its ancient Latin translation is lamasia. See there.

In conclusion, every talmid chacham has the right to disagree with proofs and sevaros. But to say about the Radzyner Rebbe, “he erred, he did not see, and he did not know,” or “had he known, he would have retracted,” one first has to establish whether he in fact saw and knew these sources. Certainly one must examine the author’s sefarim in depth, where he brings all of the proofs raised by the present writer, saw them and knew them, and answers all of them according to his own shittah with good reason and understanding.

Later in his article, the writer discusses other matters that also deserve comment, some of them questions of hashkafah, such as “leave the Jewish people alone,” “he will go from there with strength of spirit,” as the writer presumably heard, saw, or knew, and “one cannot argue with reality,” the need to study the facts of reality, and so forth. It is difficult to respond to claims of this kind, since these are not pilpulei d’Oraisa but rather sevaros and general ideas. There is much more that could be said about this as well.

In summary, the words of the writer are not proven from every angle. Even if he did find one of these errors — some of which stem from insufficient study — this does not amount to an answer against a gadol b’Yisrael, a towering figure who was among the great Torah leaders of his generation, nor against more than eleven simanim that he brought from Shas and the early poskim, together with many strong and clear proofs from Shas and the poskim. It follows, therefore, that anyone who wishes to fulfill the mitzvah of Tekhelet, or at the very least to remove himself from the safek, is obligated to wear the Tekhelet identified by the holy Radzyner Rebbe zt”l, in accordance with the law of the Torah, b’ezras Hashem.

Elchanan Reuven Goldhaber, descendant of the Izbitzer Rebbes, New York

Response of the Author of the Article:

Before I answer his complaints, I must make clear that everything we have written is addressed only to someone who genuinely wants to clarify the truth and has no preconceived opinions on the matter. But someone who has already decided that since the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l was a towering gadol b’Yisrael and one of the Torah leaders of his generation, it is therefore forbidden or impossible to overturn his identification of the chilazon even in the face of facts and clear evidence — for such people, even a revelation of Eliyahu in the heavens would not help. The present critic is a grandson of the Izhbitzer Rebbe, and he concluded his comments by saying that anyone who wishes to fulfill the mitzvah of Tekhelet is obligated to wear the Tekhelet found by the holy Radzyner Rebbe zt”l. Yet it is well known that today virtually no one wears Radzyner Tekhelet apart from a small group of Radzyner Chassidim and some Breslover Chassidim. In this way, the writer himself has revealed which camp he belongs to. Our remarks are therefore not directed to him at all, but rather to the unbiased shepherds of Klal Yisrael, who can look at the matter and judge it with their own pure judgment.

I will also address his statement that I supposedly wrote in my earlier article the words “he erred and did not see and did not know” regarding the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l. Anyone who looks will see that those words never left my pen. Let us bring the sefer and see. What can one say about all of the writer’s arguments when he did not examine or read carefully, either in my own words or in the sources that he cited? I will demonstrate this, b’ezras Hashem.

In my article I cited the words of the Raavad in his introduction to Sefer Yetzirah, and I did overlook the fact that the Radzyner Rebbe cites it. I thank the writer for showing me the place. In fact, this only strengthened and established our position further. On the contrary, from there we have a great, strong, and clear proof for our position, because the same point is stated explicitly in the holy Sefer HaKanah, and in Tzvaos Hashem of the great mekubal, the Rama MiPano zt”l. The Rama MiPano writes: “The chilazon is mineral, it is plant, and it is living. We know this to be so because it is alive in the place where it grows and moves back and forth, even though there is no wind blowing there and no flowing water moving it. Its species has blood, and its color is green like the sea. It is plant-like because it does not move from the place where it grows; rather, its root is embedded and fixed in the seabed like the trees of the land, etc.”

The Radzyner Rebbe zt”l wished to reconcile these words so that they would not contradict his position, by explaining that they refer to hidden concepts according to Kabbalah. We have no involvement here with hidden matters. But today, when we know that this chilazon is the chomet, the snail, and that Tekhelet can be dyed from it, their words can be understood literally. The Raavad, the Sefer HaKanah, and the Rama MiPano all describe, with one voice, the actual appearance and nature of this chomet, this chilazon. It is therefore very reasonable that had the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l known of the existence of this chomet, from which Tekhelet can be dyed, he would have explained the words of these great mekubalim according to their simple meaning.

Regarding the words of the Ran, I never wrote that the Radzyner Rebbe had not seen the Ran. I merely emphasized in large letters the Ran’s expression, “like those chilazonos found in garbage heaps,” and wrote that, as is well known, no type of fish is found in a garbage heap, whereas a snail certainly is. The Radzyner Rebbe zt”l, although he discussed this Ran at length, did not address at all the fact that these chilazonos are found in garbage heaps. That applies only to the chomet, the snail, not to his fish. Here too one can say, as above, that had he known of it, etc.

As for his claim that the statements of Rashi contradict one another, and his citation of the Radzyner Rebbe’s explanation that the essential identification is as a fish and that it is called a worm only because of its small size: Rashi in Shabbos writes “like a fish” — using the kaf of comparison — and the Gemara in Menachos likewise says explicitly that it “resembles a fish,” meaning that it is not actually a fish. By contrast, when Rashi identifies it as a worm he writes in clear words, “it is a worm.” It is therefore more reasonable to say the opposite: in its essence it is a worm-like creature, while it resembles a fish in the sense that it lives in the water. This is as we wrote in the name of the Gra, that everything in the sea is called a dag. Besides, how can one say of the Radzyner Rebbe’s fish that it was called a worm “because of its small size,” when his fish averages approximately forty centimeters in length?

Regarding the Tiferes Yisrael, he asks why I quoted only what the Tiferes Yisrael brings from Gesenius and did not quote the end of his words, where he disagrees with him. Anyone who looks there will see that the Tiferes Yisrael disagrees with Gesenius only because, according to Gesenius, the color of Tekhelet is dunkelblau, dark blue, while according to the mesorah of the Gemara and the Rambam it must resemble the sky — what the Tiferes Yisrael calls helles Himmelblau, a light sky-blue. If today we have found a snail from which one can dye a Tekhelet color that is Himmelblau, then the Tiferes Yisrael too would agree. On the contrary, the question of the Tiferes Yisrael is far stronger against Radzyner Tekhelet, whose color is dunkelblau. As I brought in my article, based on a tradition received from elder Belzer Chassidim, this was the question that the holy R. Yehoshua of Belz zy”a asked the Radzyner Rebbe, and he found no answer to it.

Regarding the words of the Aruch, I do not understand what the writer wants. I cited the wording of the Mussaf HaAruch under the entry purpura: “R. Binyamin says: in the Greek and Roman language, a garment of Tekhelet.” I brought this as a proof because this remains its name to this very day in Greece. That is all. As for the support he says I brought from the maskil Moshe Landau, I did not bring him at all, neither as a question nor as a support, because we do not need him or anyone like him. As the Radzyner Rebbe himself writes there, one does not bring proofs from fools. As for the Radzyner Rebbe’s own proof from the Mishnah in Keilim 12:1 and from the words of the Aruch there, according to our position that the chilazon is a chomet, a snail with a shell, the wording of the Mishnah is understood very simply: the shell of the chilazon can be used and attached to a chain and to a wall. In manuscripts of the Aruch there is also a drawing of the chilazon resembling a snail.

In my article I brought that the word chilazon in both Arabic and Persian means a chomet, a snail, and I wrote that the Radzyner Rebbe was not proficient in these languages. Certainly, had he known this he would have conceded, because truth was his guiding light. I therefore do not understand the critic’s objection. He wishes to show that the Radzyner Rebbe was expert in languages because he quoted from the Ittur that Tekhelet is called lamasma in Arabic, and also quoted from a medical work composed by R. Yosef R. Yoash stating that the hard part of the chilazon is used medicinally and is called lamasia in ancient Latin. The critic therefore argues that the two are obviously the same word: lamasma in Arabic and lamasia in Latin. From this he wishes to show that the Radzyner Rebbe was remarkably proficient in languages. I am astonished by this argument, and I have three answers:

a) He has not answered my point at all: the word chilazon itself means a chomet, a snail, in Arabic and Persian, and the Radzyner Rebbe did not mention this. It therefore follows that he did not know it.

b) Does copying a few foreign words found in sefarim make a person proficient in that language? Would we say that someone who memorized all the French words cited by Rashi is thereby proficient in French? Obviously not. Incidentally, regarding what I wrote that Rashi in Avodah Zarah 28b explains that the chilazon is limatza in Old French, meaning “snail” in French, this is indeed the reading in manuscripts of Rashi, as cited in the sefer Targum HaLaaz by R. Yisrael Gukovitzky of London, with the haskamah of R. Chanoch Dov Padwa shlita.

c) The Radzyner Rebbe’s comparison between the Arabic word lamasma and the Latin word lamasia itself does not stand up. R. A. Halevi already disproved it in his sefer, as cited in HaTekhelet by Burstein, p. 412. The Latin lamasia corresponds to the French limatzin and refers to the chomet, the snail, while the Arabic lamasma means a blue color — Tekhelet — and is not the name of a fish at all. R. A. Halevi, as is known, was proficient in many languages. I therefore remain with my original position. I conclude by thanking the writer for the sources he cited, which only strengthened our position further. May he merit to continue revealing the truth in its fullest sense, and to increase Torah and glorify it.

R. Mordechai Avraham Katz

Further Regarding the Above, and Regarding the Forged Yerushalmi on Seder Kodashim

a) Regarding the chilazon discussed at length by R. Mordechai Avraham Katz in issue 11, please see the sefer Maaseh LaMelech on the Rambam, by my grandfather, the Av Beis Din of Waitzen zt”l, Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:3. He discusses at length the chilazon identified by the great Radzyner Rebbe zt”l, raises numerous questions and objections, and concludes that the chilazon is a worm-like creature, as is implied by the Yerushalmi, which says that it has no sinews or bones, and as the Yaavetz writes, that it is a type of chomet.

Likewise, in the chiddushim of R. Avraham Moshe Horowitz, printed at the end of the Vilna Shas, Shabbos 75a, it is implied from a number of places that the chilazon can live without water and climbs up into the mountains. Rashi in Megillah 6a likewise writes that the chilazon rises from the sea to the mountains. It follows that it is not literally a fish, but merely resembles one.

Tosafos in Shabbos 75a likewise cites the Yerushalmi that one who traps a chilazon is not liable for the melachah of trapping. This too is because it is not a fish.

b) Regarding the forged Yerushalmi on Seder Kodashim, I would like to point out that the forgery can already be detected from the kol koreh that you printed, in which Friedlander publicized his great “discovery.” It is evident from the document itself that Friedlander was not Sephardi. He refers to his brother and to the sister of his friend with the title “ס”ט,” which is an acronym for safya tamya — not, as some think, Sephardi Tahor — meaning “their end is to die.” Sephardi chachamim such as the Abudraham, the Chida, the Pele Yoetz, and the Ben Ish Chai would use this expression about themselves as a form of humility, just as Ashkenazi chachamim signed themselves hakatan, hatza’ir, hatza’ir b’alfei Yisrael, and the like. It is therefore self-evident why they would not apply such a title to another person. By doing so, Friedlander revealed his lack of familiarity with their language and manner of writing. He presented himself as a Sephardi only in order to strengthen the credibility of his testimony.

His writing style is also not the style of Sephardi talmidei chachamim, who regularly mixed into their words many expressions from pesukim in Tanach. He does so only once, with the phrase “yarad im El” at the beginning of the kol koreh. Many of his expressions as well — such as “scientific,” “literary,” “Torah-related,” and the like — are not characteristic of the language of Sephardim of that period.

R. Avraham Monhiet