Regarding the Murex

(A response to R. Y. Goldblum’s article in Issue 31)

Rabbi Moshe Navon

Ptil Tekhelet Association

First of all, it must be made clear that anyone who still supports the cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) as the chilazon of Tekhelet for the mitzvah of tzitzit is simply avoiding proofs that cannot be refuted. Even the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l would have agreed that the dye which he himself introduced could not be the Tekhelet of the mitzvah.

One of the basic foundations in identifying the chilazon is that its blood must be the actual basis of the dye. The Rebbe himself writes in his sefer Ptil Tekhelet (p. 84b):

“With Hashem’s help, I succeeded in extracting from the black, ink-like blood the color of Tekhelet, in such a way that nothing assists in producing the color other than the blood of the chilazon. The additives themselves are colorless and only serve to extract the color from the blood.”

However, the chemists have unanimously and conclusively determined that the dye produced according to the Radzyner process is the synthetic pigment known as “Prussian blue.” The process of making the dye breaks down the cuttlefish blood into its components and combines them with the additives placed together with it in the vat. Those additives are therefore an essential part of the color — in fact, even more essential than the blood of the chilazon itself. (See Wiederman’s article in Royal Purple and Biblical Blue, p. 208.)

Since the additives are not “colorless substances which merely extract the color from the blood,” we therefore have to throw the cuttlefish back into the sea of invalid dyes — just as the Radzyner Rebbe himself would have done had he recognized this objection.

A. Regarding the issue of tzad — trapping

(The following is an abbreviated version of my article, “Hatzad Chilazon,” found in the archives of the Ptil Tekhelet Association.)

The Mishnah in Beitzah (3:1) says:

“This is the rule: anything which still requires trapping is forbidden.”

The Gemara there (24a) asks:

“What is considered something that still requires trapping? Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: Anything about which one would say, ‘Bring a trap and we will trap it.’”

Rashi and the Ra’avad explain this as referring to something for which one has to seek out or devise methods in order to catch it. This is also brought in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 497:7: anything which requires a trap falls under the melachah of tzad.

The Murex, which had to be caught using nets and baskets, therefore certainly falls under the prohibition of trapping. It should be remembered that the Murex used for Tekhelet is found in the sea at depths ranging from two meters to as much as 130 meters. Accordingly, the writings of ancient non-Jewish scholars record that it had to be caught using nets and baskets. Compare — lehavdil — Shabbat 75a.

The Gemara there also discusses the distinction between a small enclosure and a large enclosure:

“What is considered a small enclosure and what is considered a large enclosure? Rav Ashi said: Any place where one can run after it and reach it in one stride is a small enclosure.”

In such a case, tzad does not apply. Now, it is true that the chilazon moves slowly, and one might therefore have thought that it could simply be caught in one movement. Nevertheless, because it is found at such great depths, one cannot say this. Nets are required, and therefore the melachah of tzad applies.

The question in our own time would be different. Today we have the ability to dive beneath the surface to such depths with diving equipment. Would catching the chilazon directly by hand then still be called tzad or not?

Many thanks to Rabbi Shlomo Y. Teitelbaum for his assistance.

In any event, according to Rashi the chomet is a land-dwelling snail — and as noted, one would seemingly have more reason to say that tzad does not apply to it than to a marine snail — and it is one of the eight sheratzim. It is therefore clear that according to Rashi — difficult as this may be for us to understand — trapping does apply to it.

There is also proof from the continuation of the Mishnah concerning the eight sheratzim (Shabbat 107a):

“With regard to other creeping creatures and reptiles, one who wounds them is exempt, but one who traps them for a purpose is liable.”

Which are these “other creeping creatures and reptiles” whose capture involves liability? Rashi explains:

“For example, worms, snakes, and scorpions.”

But a worm also moves slowly, just like a snail. Nevertheless, according to Rashi one is liable for trapping it. It follows that according to Rashi one can be liable for trapping snails even where one could seemingly pick them up in a single movement, despite the fact that they appear to be “already trapped.”

Accordingly, we must say one of three things:

1. Perhaps the principle of “already trapped” applies only to animals and birds, but not to sheratzim and other creeping creatures.
2. Perhaps the Gemara is speaking about a worm beneath the ground. This would follow the Ra’avad (Hilchot Yom Tov 2:7), who says that anything hidden from sight is subject to tzad. In other words, it is not enough that theoretically one could catch it in a single movement; in practice, one must know that it can actually be caught that way. If one does not know its exact location and therefore cannot do so — as with a marine snail or an underground worm — catching it is considered tzad. According to this answer, however, one still has to explain the case of a land snail, unless Rashi too is speaking about one beneath the surface of the ground, although that seems somewhat forced.
3. Alternatively, perhaps Rashi holds that something is considered “already trapped” only when some external factor prevents the animal from moving in its normal way. That external factor is what effectively “traps” the animal. The animal’s own naturally slow movement, however, does not count as trapping it. Therefore, one who catches such an animal is still liable. (Notes of S. Y. Teitelbaum.)

As for Rabbi Goldblum’s suggestion that the eight sheratzim are generally subject to tzad, but that there might still be some other reason why tzad would not apply to a particular one, see the Biur Halachah, siman 316, s.v. “shemoneh sheratzim,” where he asks on Tosafot how it could be possible for any one of the eight sheratzim not to involve the melachah of tzad.

B. Why did Chazal never warn against using the wrong chilazon?

Regarding the claim that Chazal never warned against using the Murex instead of some other chilazon which alone is kosher for Tekhelet, because the expense of the Murex itself would have prevented people from using it as a counterfeit:

One of the “simanim” of the chilazon is precisely that it is expensive. There would therefore have been reason to issue a warning — not because of intentional fraud, but because people might mistakenly confuse two different chilazonot from which Tekhelet could supposedly be produced.

We find elsewhere that Chazal warned against using something more expensive for a mitzvah even where it would seem more distinguished. For example, one may not write the Names of Hashem in gold in a Sefer Torah, even though there is already a halachah leMoshe miSinai that writing must be done only in ink, and Chazal explain that gold is also invalid (Menachot 34).

The apparent reason is that one might otherwise think the halachah only excludes inferior materials, whereas something more prestigious should be allowed. And indeed, with regard to ink, any black color which lasts is valid. Therefore Chazal teach us that even something more distinguished can still be invalid.

The same should apply to Tekhelet. If there were two different chilazonot from which Tekhelet could be made, and all Chazal excluded was kala ilan — which is plant-based — then one might naturally think that both of these marine creatures were kosher for Tekhelet, even without any intention to deceive. Chazal would therefore have had to state explicitly that the Murex is invalid.

Rather, the conclusion is that there are not two chilazonot from which Tekhelet can be made. There is only one: the Murex. The only natural-world counterfeit for this color is kala ilan, made from the indigo or woad plant.

C. Why does the Rambam call the chilazon a “fish”?

It is well known that the Rambam often writes in the language of the Gemara. He therefore called the chilazon a “dag” and did not explain further.

It apparently never entered the Rambam’s mind that somebody would mistakenly think the cuttlefish was the chilazon, since it is impossible to produce Tekhelet from it in the required way, as explained above. He therefore had no reason to spell the matter out further.

D. The Ra’avad and the meaning of “Tekhelet”

The Ra’avad was not coming to explain what Tekhelet itself is, as opposed to karti. Rather, incidentally, he gave us the foreign-language term for Tekhelet, which makes it easier for us to identify the color.

And why would the Yerushalmi refer to porphyrin rather than simply to a garment of Tekhelet — since both are the same color — unless the two were in fact the same thing and came from the same source?

Of course, it is common for Chazal to refer to the same thing by two different names. But this entire discussion only becomes necessary if one first raises the hypothesis that there are two different chilazonot that produce Tekhelet.

E. The cuttlefish and the Ran

The cuttlefish has arms or tentacles. Even if these are not considered actual limbs, the Ran should have explained this.

Rather, it appears that the Ran himself never imagined that the cuttlefish was the chilazon of Tekhelet. He understood the body of the Tekhelet chilazon as resembling the ordinary snails found around refuse heaps.

F. The meaning of chomet

According to Rashi, the word chomet refers specifically to a land-dwelling snail which is one of the eight non-kosher sheratzim.

The Tekhelet chilazon, which is a marine snail, could not be called a chomet, since everything living in the sea in that category would not have the same tumah status.

A land snail, however, Rashi does call a chomet. Thus, on Devarim 8:4, s.v. “Your garment did not wear out,” Rashi writes:

“Their clothing grew together with them, like the covering of this chomet, which grows together with it.”

Yet in the original source of this statement in the Pesikta deRav Kahana, the word used is “chilazon,” not “chomet.” See my article “The Chilazon of Rashi” in the Association’s archives.

G. Is Tekhelet blue or purple?

There is no question that the color of Tekhelet is blue, not purple. This is also the view of the Chavot Yair in his Mekor Chaim (siman 9, se’if 5, in his abbreviated halachot):

“Some who are particular make the four corners the color blau — blue — resembling the sky, corresponding to the idea of Tekhelet.”

The only question is why he mentions the color purpur — purple/red — at all.

The answer is simple. After the coloring liquid is extracted from the Murex, it turns purple when exposed to the air and sunlight. This is what is called the “blood of the chilazon.” Only during the dyeing process, when the liquid is heated together with the other ingredients — just as was also done when dyeing with kala ilan — does the purple liquid turn into the Tekhelet color on the fabric.

H. “Sefunei Temunei Chol”

Regarding the phrase “sefunei temunei chol”: it is true that the Gemara interprets each word as referring to a separate matter. Nevertheless, the Radzyner Rebbe writes:

“The pasuk includes all three together, since their normal place is in the sand.”

(Sefunei Temunei Chol 2:8.)

Even if there is some uncertainty regarding the tarit, the Sforno is certain that the pasuk is at least describing the chilazon:

“…and among them are things hidden and buried in the sand, such as the blood in the chilazon…”

(Devarim 33:19.)

Whatever the exact peshat of the pasuk may be, one thing is certain: the Yaavetz understood the chilazon as being found specifically on the sea floor, as can be seen from his emendation to Rashi in Menachot 44a, s.v. “oleh min ha’aretz.”