Rabbi Yehuda Goldblum

Jerusalem

Regarding the Murex: Could It Be the Chilazon of Kosher Techeiles?

(A response to Rabbi Mordechai Avraham Katz shlit”a, regarding his articles on the chilazon of Techeiles in issues 10, 11, and 28.)

A. A Proof That the Murex Chilazon Is Not the Chilazon of Kosher Techeiles

1) In Shulchan Aruch, siman 316:2, and in the Mishnah Berurah, se’if katan 7 and 8, it is explained that any animal which one can reach in a single movement, even though the animal itself is capable of moving away, is considered already trapped, and there is no Torah prohibition of tzad [trapping] involved.

Accordingly, one would have to say that there is no chiyuv of tzad for a chomet, since it moves very slowly, as I wrote in issue 10, section 6. As for the Gemara in Shabbos 107, which says that there is a chiyuv of trapping with regard to the eight sheratzim — one of which is the chomet — we would apparently have to say that this is speaking in general terms. Its main point is that these creatures are in the category of things for which trapping applies, since they are trapped for a purpose and their species is normally trapped. It could still be that in a particular case one would be exempt for some other reason. See the sugya carefully; the matter still requires further iyun.

If so, since the Gemara in Shabbos 75 explicitly says that there is a chiyuv of trapping the chilazon of Techeiles, it would seem proven that it cannot be a chomet.

2) In my opinion, it seems that this is actually a machlokes Tannaim in the Yerushalmi. The Yerushalmi says:

“One who traps a chilazon and wounds it: one Tanna teaches that he is liable for two [melachos], while another Tanna teaches that he is liable for only one. According to the one who says two, one is for trapping and one for taking a life. According to the one who says one, that one is for taking a life, and he does not hold that there is trapping here. This follows the opinion that Rabbi said: Hashem created for Moshe in the Midbar a species of kosher animal; once the work of the Mishkan was completed with it, it was hidden away.”

The Korban HaEidah and Pnei Moshe give three explanations of this Yerushalmi:

1. According to everyone, they did not trap the chilazon for Techeiles in the Midbar. They already had Techeiles from Mitzrayim. Likewise, there was no trapping involved with the rams, since they are domesticated animals. The machlokes is regarding the tachash, which was a wild animal: whether they trapped it, or whether it came to Moshe on its own. According to the second opinion, there was no melachah of trapping in the Mishkan.
2. According to everyone, they did trap the chilazon. The machlokes is whether this is considered trapping. According to the second opinion, the tachash was a wild animal and they trapped it, so the melachah of trapping was still present in the Mishkan.
3. According to everyone, they trapped the chilazon, and the machlokes is whether that is considered trapping. According to the second opinion, there was no melachah of trapping in the Mishkan at all, because he holds that the tachash was created only temporarily, and we do not derive the melachos from something that existed only temporarily.

3) There are seemingly a number of difficulties with all of these explanations:

1. According to the first and third explanations, the Yerushalmi should have told us which melachah this Tanna inserts into the count of thirty-nine in place of trapping.
2. We do not find anywhere else an opinion that there is no melachah of trapping.
3. Tosafos in Shabbos 75 explicitly indicates that, according to this opinion, it is only the chilazon for which trapping does not apply.
4. According to the first explanation, the fact that the tachash was created for Moshe in the Midbar does not prove that it did not still have to be trapped. The Yerushalmi should have said that it came to Moshe on its own. The main point seems to be missing.
5. How do we know that the melachos had to be performed specifically at the time the Mishkan was erected? Perhaps it is enough that those melachos were needed for the purposes of the Mishkan. After all, it is hardly reasonable to say that they plowed and planted the various dye ingredients in the Midbar.
6. According to the second and third explanations, Tosafos’ question remains: what is the logic for saying that trapping does not apply to the chilazon?

4) I therefore think that the machlokes may be whether the chilazon of Techeiles was the sepia — the cuttlefish — or the Murex. The rest of the Yerushalmi can then be understood according to the second explanation above. Tosafos did not give this answer because the different types of creatures called chilazon were not known to them.

5) We are also forced to say that according to the second opinion the tachash was something additional, and he does not say that in the Midbar they actually used the sepia while the Beraisa is discussing Techeiles for tzitzis in later generations.

This would indicate that, according to the Yerushalmi, the Techeiles used for tzitzis must come specifically from the same chilazon that was used in the Mishkan, and not from another chilazon. This requires further iyun in the language of the Rambam in Hilchos Tzitzis 2:4.

According to our accepted halachah, however, we follow the Bavli. The Bavli does not bring the second opinion found in the Yerushalmi and assumes that everyone agrees there is trapping involved. It would therefore emerge that, halachically, the chilazon required is specifically the sepia, i.e. the cuttlefish.

B. There Are Two Types of Chilazon

1) Everything that Rabbi Mordechai Avraham Katz shlit”a asked on this in issue 28 can, with siyata d’Shmaya, be answered.

Why did Chazal never mention that there are two different types of creatures both called chilazon?

According to the girsa of the Aruch in Menachos 44, which reads “this chilazon,” perhaps the word “this” is specifically coming to exclude other types of chilazon.

Besides, we find elsewhere in Shas two different things bearing the same name without Chazal explicitly telling us so. For example, there are two different shekiyos — or two different definitions of tzeis hakochavim — as well as Rekem and Cheger at the beginning of Gittin. See Tosafos there, and there are other examples as well.

2) Why does Chazal say that Hashem will punish someone who hangs kala ilan and claims it is Techeiles, without mentioning someone who uses Murex dye?

The answer may simply be that Chazal mentioned the dye which people ordinarily used to counterfeit Techeiles. The same principle would apply to other dyes as well.

We are forced to say this anyway, because istis dye also existed in their time and was invalid for Techeiles, and yet the Gemara does not mention it. See Lulaos Techeiles, p. 240. Certainly, then, the Murex dye — which was expensive and uncommon — would not have needed to be mentioned specifically.

3) Rabbi Katz argued that if there were two different chilazonim, the Rambam should have explained this so that people would not make a mistake.

But once the Rambam gave the identifying simanim, there was no need for him to elaborate further. In particular, the Rambam calls it a fish, not merely something resembling a fish.

Even if we say that aquatic creatures generally can sometimes be called “fish,” the Rambam here is trying to define the creature, not obscure its identity. He should therefore have called it a chomet rather than a fish. Likewise, all the other simanim fit the sepia better than the Murex, as Rabbi Shlomo Englard shlit”a explained at length in issue 11.

4) Rabbi Katz also argued that it is difficult to believe that the same word would be used for two different species.

However, the word chilazon does not appear anywhere in the Torah itself. The ordinary snail-like creature is called a chomet in Vayikra 11:30, while the chilazon of Techeiles is not named in the Torah at all.

It is only in the language of Chazal that both creatures are called chilazon. Perhaps the word comes from the languages of the nations, as Rabbi Katz himself brought from Arabic and Persian.

Since the Torah had no specific name for the sea creature used for Techeiles, people began calling it chilazon, because it too was a living sea creature from which dye was extracted, just like the Murex chilazon.

5) Rabbi Katz cited Menachos 43 as apparently showing that in Chazal’s time there was no blue dye other than kosher Techeiles and kala ilan.

But, as noted above, there certainly was also istis. We must therefore say that the Gemara simply speaks briefly. The real point is that there cannot be some additional dye which the tests fail to identify, because if so, the tests would be worthless.

This is why both tests are necessary.

6) In my opinion, this also answers why sometimes the first test exposes a fake and other times the second test is necessary. It also explains why they perform the first test at all instead of relying only on the second, which seems to require ingredients that are easier to obtain.

The answer is that there were two or more different kinds of counterfeit Techeiles — kala ilan, istis, and Murex.

C. Refuting the Proofs That the Murex Is the Chilazon of Techeiles

1. The Proof from the Raavyah

The Raavyah writes:

“From when may one recite Shema in the morning? From when he can distinguish between Techeiles and white. Rabbi Eliezer says, between Techeiles and karti. I received a tradition that there is a type of color called karti which resembles Techeiles. And we learn in the Yerushalmi: between Techeiles and karti, between porphyrin and peripinin. It is a cloak called porphyra in the foreign language, and there is another color which somewhat resembles it.”

Based on what we explained above, it is possible that this Yerushalmi follows the second opinion, according to which there is no trapping involved with the chilazon of Techeiles.

But I think there is a better answer.

Although ordinarily the word Techeiles in Shas means kosher Techeiles for tzitzis, that does not necessarily have to be true in every case. The basic meaning of the word Techeiles is the blue color itself, not necessarily the particular Techeiles that is kosher for tzitzis.

It is therefore possible that when the Yerushalmi speaks about distinguishing between Techeiles and karti, it is discussing a Techeiles-colored material which would not be kosher for tzitzis.

This idea can be learned from the Rambam in Hilchos Tzitzis, chapter 2. He begins:

“The Techeiles mentioned in the Torah in every place is wool dyed with a color resembling dark blue…”

and then says:

“The Techeiles mentioned regarding tzitzis must be dyed with a particular known dye whose beauty remains and does not change.”

This implies that the basic term Techeiles refers to the color. The requirement that it come from the chilazon, which causes the color to remain permanent, is a special din of Techeiles for tzitzis.

The same applies to Techeiles used for the Bigdei Kehunah, as the Mishneh LaMelech writes, since the two are learned from one another, as the Tiferes Yisrael explains in Kupas Rochlin. The Rambam did not explain this again in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash because this requirement is stated explicitly in the Gemara only with regard to tzitzis.

2. The Proof from the Ran

Rabbi Katz cited the Ran on Shabbos 107, who writes:

“The chilazon is different, because it is a sealed body, like these chilazonim found in garbage heaps, and it does not have limbs.”

But the Ran does not say that the chilazon of Techeiles is actually the same type or species as the chilazonim found in garbage heaps. He merely compares them in the respect that they do not have limbs.

The Ran’s main chiddush — that the Techeiles chilazon does not have limbs — is not derived from his comparison to ordinary snails. Rather, he says this in order to answer the question he is dealing with. The ordinary chilazonim are brought only as a zecher ladavar, a comparable example.

Since the Techeiles chilazon was no longer familiar in his time, it is reasonable that the creatures received the same name because of certain similarities between them.

3. The Proof from Rashi

Rabbi Katz cited Rashi in Sanhedrin 91, who calls the chilazon a tola’as, a worm-like creature.

It seems that this is actually a proof that Rashi held that the chilazon of Techeiles is not a chomet.

In Shabbos 107, Rashi explains the phrase “other creeping creatures” — meaning creatures other than the eight sheratzim, one of which is the chomet — as:

“Such as worms, snakes and scorpions.”

It is therefore clear that according to Rashi, a chomet and a tola’as are not the same thing.

There is another proof as well.

Only in Avodah Zarah 28 does Rashi translate chilazon as lime’atz, according to the version of the “Metargem.” This is similar to the word Rashi uses to translate chomet in Vayikra 11:30, limtza.

Yet in all the other places in Shas where chilazon is mentioned — seven places in total: Shabbos 26 and 75, Megillah 6, Bava Metzia 61, Sanhedrin 91, and Menachos 42 and 44 — Rashi does not translate it that way, even though Rashi frequently gives foreign-language translations.

We therefore have to say that only in Avodah Zarah is Rashi discussing an ordinary chilazon and not the chilazon of Techeiles. In all the other places, Rashi explicitly understands the subject to be the Techeiles chilazon.

4. The Proof from the Raavad

As for the Raavad and the Rama MiPano, it is perfectly possible that they are referring to an ordinary chilazon rather than the chilazon of Techeiles.

5. The Proof from the Yaavetz

Rabbi Katz cited the Yaavetz’s siddur, which says that the chilazon is:

“A sea creature resembling a fish, and a sea chomet.”

But the Yaavetz never explains in what way it resembles a sea chomet. In any event, he does not say that it actually is a chomet.

His discussion is extremely brief, and there is no basis for assuming that the identity of the chilazon was something clearly established for him.

6. The Proof from the Tiferes Yisrael

Rabbi Katz cited the Tiferes Yisrael in Kupas Rochlin at the beginning of Maseches Shabbos.

But anyone who looks there will see that the matter was not clear to the Tiferes Yisrael at all. He merely cites non-Jewish sources identifying it as a snail, and in fact raises questions against their view and rejects their arguments.

7. The Proof from the Chavos Yair

Rabbi Katz cited the Mekor Chaim of the Chavos Yair, who identifies the chilazon as the porphyr sea creature.

However, the Chavos Yair also states that the resulting color was purple rather than blue.

We therefore have to say that he did not possess a mesorah on the subject, because Lulaos Techeiles, volume 3, demonstrates at length from the Rishonim that Techeiles is blue rather than purple.

Since the Chavos Yair does not explain his reasoning or source, and merely refers to a sefer of his chiddushim which we no longer possess, we have no way of knowing how thoroughly he investigated the matter or whether his approach answers all the difficulties with that identification.

Perhaps he himself would have agreed with the Radzyner Rebbe had he known the Rebbe’s approach and proofs.

It is therefore clear that we cannot reject the Radzyner Rebbe’s explicit and demonstrated arguments on the basis of the brief and unexplained remarks of the Mekor Chaim.

8. The Proof from the Gemara

Rabbi Katz cited the drashah in Megillah 6 on “shefunei temunei chol”, arguing that it implies that the chilazon is hidden in the sand.

But the answer is already in the Gemara itself.

The Gemara derives only “shefunei” as referring to the chilazon. “Temunei” refers to tarisa — “a fish called tonina,” according to Rashi — and “chol” refers to white glass.

Although Rashi on Chumash might sound somewhat as though all of these things are hidden in sand, that plainly cannot be his intention, because we would then have to say that the tarisa fish also buries itself in sand, which is certainly incorrect.

D. The Shade of Techeiles

1) Rabbi Katz cited the Rambam’s description:

“This is the appearance of the sky visible to the eye [of the sun] when the sky is pure.”

He understands this to mean a light blue.

But we need to understand the Rambam’s wording. What does he mean by “visible to the eye of the sun when the sky is pure”?

If he simply means the ordinary appearance of the sky throughout the day, he should have said, “the appearance of the sky when the sun is shining,” or something similar.

It therefore seems that the Rambam means the dark color seen after alos hashachar, when the eye can already distinguish the color because the sunlight has begun to illuminate the sky slightly.

That is the meaning of “visible to the eye,” according to the manuscript reading, or “visible to the eye of the sun,” according to the printed editions.

The reason this particular point in time matters is because only then can one see the actual, intrinsic color of the sky. Once the sun has fully risen, its light makes the sky appear lighter than it really is, as sunlight normally does.

You can see this with any object that is half in sunlight and half in shade.

This is what the Rambam means by “when the sky is pure.” It follows the pasuk, “like the very essence of the heavens for purity,” which the Gemara in Menachos 43 cites regarding Techeiles. Onkelos translates this as leberiru, meaning the clarity or true appearance of the sky.

Likewise, in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 8:3 the Rambam describes Techeiles as:

“Dyed like the essence of the heavens,”

meaning the actual, intrinsic color of the sky, without the influence of sunlight.

2) This is also evident from the Rambam’s continuation:

“Anything not dyed with that particular dye is invalid for tzitzis, even if it resembles the sky, such as if it was dyed with istis, with black, or with other darkening substances.”

The Rambam therefore considers black something which can resemble the sky. It follows that the blue he has in mind is a very dark blue.

3) Rabbi Katz cited Rashi in Shabbos 75, who writes that:

“the appearance of its color is clear.”

But Rashi says the appearance of its color, not the appearance of its blood.

This indicates that even when it is “clear,” it still possesses color.

And in fact, tzalul does not mean colorless or transparent. It means a clear, clean color without cloudiness or murkiness.

Page 83 — Further Regarding the Chilazon

Further Regarding the Chilazon

Rabbi Mordechai Avraham Katz shlit”a wrote in issue 28 that I have taken two different kinds of chilazonim and thrown them into one net.

But I was not the one who divided the chilazon into two.

Rabbi Bornstein already preceded me in his sefer HaTecheiles, p. 34, where he lists the different opinions regarding the chilazon. He brings two descriptions in the name of the Rambam: one from Hilchos Tzitzis, where the Rambam writes that it is a fish, and another from the Rambam’s commentary on Mishnayos Keilim, where he writes that it floats.

All I did was attempt to reconcile the Rambam so that he should not contradict himself.

I therefore wrote that in Hilchos Tzitzis the Rambam is discussing the chilazon from which Techeiles is dyed for the mitzvah, whereas in Mishnayos Keilim he is not discussing that chilazon at all.

Rabbi Katz also asked why counterfeiters used specifically kala ilan rather than another chilazon which was not the chilazon of tzitzis.

The Gemara in Menachos 43 explains that one cannot distinguish between Techeiles and kala ilan without a special test.

We can therefore say that it would not have been possible to counterfeit Techeiles using a different chilazon, because people would have been able to recognize the fraud visually, without any special test. That is why they specifically counterfeited it with kala ilan.

Rabbi Katz further wrote that the Raavyah shows that Murex was used to dye Techeiles.

The Raavyah writes:

“We learn in the Yerushalmi: between Techeiles and karti, between porphyrin and perafinin, and it is a cloak called porphia in the foreign language.”

In a kuntres by Rabbi Menachem Adler, with the haskamah of HaGaon Rabbi Azriel Auerbach shlit”a, he discusses at length why one cannot build a proof from this Raavyah.

Among other things, he quotes the following passage in the name of S. Lieberman:

“The word perafinin does not exist in Greek… It is reasonable to say… since it is extremely difficult to define the color of Techeiles… porphyry can refer to any color ranging between red, violet, dark blue, yellow, and green.”

As much as I have searched, I have still not found evidence that Murex was ever used to dye Techeiles for the mitzvah.

So what difference does it make to me that the Murex is called a chilazon?

I myself wrote that it is called a chilazon. In my previous article I explained that the Rambam was medayek from the language of the Gemara, which says “this chilazon.” Meaning: only this particular chilazon has the two simanim of resembling the sea and resembling a fish. An ordinary chilazon may be the Murex, but in any event it is not a fish; it is a chomet.

Rabbi Katz also wrote that the dye of the ink-fish [cuttlefish] is produced by adding chemicals to such an extent that the resulting color really comes from the additives alone, and the fish itself makes no difference.

I will quote from HaTecheiles, p. 185. This is a passage from a letter Rabbi Shraga’i wrote to Bornstein:

“At the time when we dyed Techeiles in the home of Rabbi Herzog, a chemist was invited to be present. The chemist said that even without adding the blood of the chilazon, the threads would become blue because of the high heat. Rabbi Herzog then asked him: ‘But is that considered dyeing?’ The answer was no. Rabbi Herzog said to him: ‘Come and see. Chazal and the Rambam say that various ingredients are added. This means that the ingredients cause the black blood of the chilazon to turn blue, but the actual dyeing of the tzitzis strings is done with the blood, not with the ingredients.’ Rabbi Herzog therefore concluded that the main requirement regarding the ingredients is that they themselves contain no color — that they be entirely colorless.”

Rabbi Katz further wrote that the Raavad explicitly identifies the chilazon as the Murex.

That is correct — but he is discussing an ordinary chilazon, not the chilazon used for dyeing tzitzis.

Meir Lieberman