Renewing the Mitzvah of Tekhelet — Archaeology or Demagoguery?

A Halachic Examination of the Creature Known as Argamon Keheh Kotzim — the Murex — Which in Recent Years Has Been Publicized as the Chilazon Spoken About by the Torah, from Whose Blood Tekhelet Was Dyed¹

In recent years, some people have begun wearing a thread dyed blue from the creature known as the Argamon Keheh Kotzim, or Murex, claiming that this is the creature referred to by the Torah. I therefore began looking into the subject, studying both the material presented by those who support the identification and the arguments of those who question it.

In this article, be’ezras Hashem, we will examine the matter in light of the sugyos of Chazal and the words of our Rabbeim, to determine whether this assumption or identification is correct.³

Methodology

A.

First of all, we have to establish what method should be used to determine the identity of the Tekhelet chilazon.

One of the proponents who identifies the Murex with the chilazon writes as follows (Kelil Tekhelet, p. 302):

“The bottom line is that we will not take the beraisa, based on our understanding of it, as the starting point for identifying the signs of the chilazon. Rather, after we have found the chilazon, be’ezras Hashem, through logical investigation, perhaps we will then merit to understand something in the words of the beraisa.”⁴

In other words: first we decide what the chilazon is, and afterward we figure out how to make the beraisa fit.

Or, to use the mashal of the Dubno Maggid: first shoot the arrow, and afterward draw the target around it.⁵

Hafach bah v’hafach bah d’kula bah — once they have decided that this is the chilazon, everything is forced into place in order to make it fit their conclusion, as we shall see.

This is the opposite of the approach taken by the Radzyner Rebbe zt”l. He first published a sefer establishing, based upon Chazal, what one would have to look for, and only afterward went searching for the chilazon. And if most of the poskim of his generation did not accept even his approach, certainly there is reason for concern when using the methodology described above.

The same sefer acknowledges that in order to use this method one has to assume two things:

1. That all species of marine creatures are presently known to us.
2. That none of the simanim mentioned by Chazal disappeared since the time of Chazal.

Both assumptions are problematic.

First, it is difficult to say with certainty that we know everything that exists in the Mediterranean. Even on dry land, which is much easier to investigate, new species are still discovered from time to time; certainly this can happen in the sea. Based on such an assumption, we should presumably have found the Ten Lost Tribes already…

Second, the assumption that no species disappeared since the time of Chazal ignores the words of the Midrash Tanchuma at the end of Parashas Shelach:

“And nowadays we do not have Tekhelet, because it has already been hidden away.”

The Gra cites this halachically in his Biur HaGra on Shulchan Aruch. From the words of the Gra it would seem that nignaz means that it was actually hidden or disappeared, and not merely that the knowledge was forgotten. Why would one need a source telling us that it was forgotten? We see ourselves that it was forgotten.

Although it is not absolutely proven that it literally disappeared or that it cannot be rediscovered before Moshiach comes, one certainly cannot take it as an established fact that no particular marine species disappeared.

See also Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuvos, vol. I, siman 2, where he cites the Yeshuos Malko, who writes that for more than a thousand years it has been accepted among Klal Yisrael that Tekhelet was hidden away.

Therefore, I will arrange this article in the reverse order from their methodology, which is in my view the proper order: first we will present the simanim given by Chazal and see whether the Murex fits them, and only afterward discuss the proofs brought from Chazal and from secular scholars.

I will also state at the outset that even if it fits every one of Chazal’s simanim except for one, then it is certainly not the creature that Chazal were describing. The creature they were discussing has simply not yet been identified by us.

Therefore, although individual difficulties can sometimes be answered,⁶ a single definite contradiction to Chazal is sufficient to establish that this is not the chilazon.

The Simanim of the Chilazon

Chazal gave us simanim by which to know which chilazon they were referring to.

The Gemara in Menachos 44a teaches:

“The Rabbis taught: This chilazon:

1. Its body resembles the sea.
2. Its form resembles a fish.
3. It comes up once in seventy years, and therefore its blood is expensive.”

Rashi explains “its body” as the appearance of its body. The Rambam describes its appearance as resembling Tekhelet/the sea.

The Rambam adds two more details:

4. Its blood is black like ink.
5. It is found in the Yam HaMelach — by which the Rambam means the salt sea, i.e. the Mediterranean.

We will now examine each siman individually.

1. Its Body Resembles the Sea

The color of the sea is blue, as is well known.

The shell of the Murex itself is basically white, although greenish algae grow upon it, making it appear green. It can therefore be said to resemble the sea.⁸

2. Its Form Resembles a Fish

The Murex does not resemble a fish.

Because of this, some have written that there is really no particular shape that can be called “the shape of a fish,” and therefore the statement need not mean much.

But this is very difficult. If there is no such concept as a fish-like shape, why did the beraisa bother giving this as a siman at all?¹⁰

3. It Comes Up Once in Seventy Years

Even if we assume that “seventy years” is not meant literally — similar to the statement in Maseches Tzitzis that it comes up once in seven years — it certainly means that the chilazon is not commonly available but is rare.

Rav Yitzchak Isaac Herzog himself writes regarding the Murex:

“Moreover, it does not correspond to the siman ‘it comes up once in seventy years,’ even after we assume that this is not meant literally.”

The Murex, however, is very common. At Hof HaBonim it can easily be collected like someone gathering fruit.

Furthermore, Chazal connected the high price of Tekhelet with the rarity of the chilazon. Rashi writes:

“Therefore — because it only comes up once in seventy years — its price is expensive.”

Purple dye from Murex, however, was expensive for a completely different reason: each individual creature contains only a tiny quantity of dye, as was already recorded by Greek and Roman writers.¹²

4. Its Blood Is Black Like Ink

The liquid of the Murex becomes purple¹³ — a color composed of blue and red — and it is difficult to describe it as black.

Some claim that the Rambam means that once the substance dries, especially when a large quantity is gathered together, it becomes very dark.

Besides being a forced explanation,¹⁴ this does not solve the problem. The Rambam specifically writes “like ink,” apparently distinguishing it from other dark colors. Even after drying, the Murex substance is not the color of ink. See the photographs in HaTekhelet.

5. It Is Found in the Yam HaMelach

This does indeed fit the Murex, since the Rambam uses Yam HaMelach for the Mediterranean Sea, whose waters are salty.

The conclusion from the simanim discussed thus far is that the only siman which fits the Murex straightforwardly, without forced explanations, is the fact that it is found in the Mediterranean.

◆ ◆ ◆

There is another Gemara regarding the chilazon,¹⁵ in Shabbos 75a:

“One who traps a chilazon and wounds it is liable for two melachos… Even if you say that he wounded it while alive, he is merely misasek regarding killing it. But Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon agrees regarding a pesik reisha… Here it is different, because the longer it remains alive the better it is for him, so that its dye should remain clear.”

Rashi explains potze’o:

“He presses it with his hand so that its blood comes out.”

With the Murex, however, one does not squeeze it by hand; the shell has to be broken with a hammer or similar instrument.

See Eglei Tal, who writes that Rashi specifically says “with his hand,” because if one uses a hammer there would be no liability of dash. The material is not absorbed into the body; it is gathered inside, and one is merely removing the covering around it.¹⁶

According to that reasoning, there would be no melachah of dash with the Murex.

Furthermore, Tosafos discusses why trapping the chilazon does not itself involve netilas neshamah, as with removing a fish from the water. Tosafos suggests that perhaps the chilazon thrashes around and thereby hastens its death.

This does not apply to the Murex at all, since the Murex cannot thrash around in that manner.¹⁷

Additionally, it is not obvious that trapping a Murex would constitute the melachah of tzad, because it remains basically stationary and does not flee.¹⁸

See Me’or HaShabbos, vol. I, letter 3, from Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, as well as Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa, where Rav Shlomo Zalman is quoted as saying that such a creature may not involve tzad. Similar reasoning is given regarding an ant. Tosafos Rid writes explicitly that trapping a snail does not constitute tzad.

Although one must make an effort to locate the creature, the difficulty is in finding it, not in physically catching it. That is not tzad. The same would apply here.¹⁹

However, Rabbeinu Yerucham holds that even worms can involve tzad, and this appears to be Rashi’s opinion as well. The Chut Shani likewise holds that trapping such creatures constitutes tzad. Orchos Shabbos quotes Rav Elyashiv as ruling stringently, while Rav Yechezkel Feinhandler quotes another view that the prohibition would only be derabbanan.

In any event, the question is certainly subject to a machlokes, and according to the Tosafos Rid and those who agree with him, this cannot be the chilazon Chazal were discussing.

Aristotle also writes that if the purple-producing creature died before it was crushed, it would discharge the dyeing substance and it would be lost. This does not fit the Gemara very well, which implies that the problem is merely that the dye will no longer be clear, not that it disappears entirely.

According to Rabbi Yochanan, furthermore, the case can involve breaking open an already dead chilazon — but according to the description above, by that point the dye would already have been lost.

Pliny, on the other hand, writes that keeping it alive too long actually damaged the dye, and for that reason they would kill it with a blow. This too does not correspond exactly to the Gemara.²⁰

Consider the matter carefully.

Furthermore, Tosafos writes:

“According to the opinion that the case is where he wounds it while alive, it makes good sense that the beraisa says ‘one who traps a chilazon,’ because the normal practice is to wound it immediately after trapping it, while it is still alive.”

Tosafos clearly understood that the chilazon does not survive for a long time outside the water — which would seemingly fit the Rambam’s description of it as “a fish.” Therefore, one would normally wound it immediately so that it should not die before the dye was extracted and thereby cause the blood to lose its clarity.

Tosafos later contrasts the chilazon with the tachash and the rams used for the Mishkan: those animals could walk on their own, whereas the chilazon had to be broken open immediately, before it died.

The Murex, however, can remain alive for a considerable amount of time outside the water.

After seeing all of this, the words of Rav Herzog concerning Murex trunculus can be well understood:

“Based on all that has been stated above, one might support the identification of Murex trunculus [on the basis of various scientific arguments], and a reader unfamiliar with the Talmud might expect to find support for that hypothesis in Talmudic sources. He is destined, however, for a surprising disappointment.”²¹

The Simanim of “Kala Ilan”

We must now discuss whether the Murex itself might be kala ilan.

We find one particular siman regarding kala ilan: its color is not removed by tzafon.

Bava Kama 93b states that certain dyes can be removed with tzafon, whereas kala ilan cannot.

By contrast, Tosafos in Menachos writes regarding the robe of the Kohen Gadol that it could not simply be washed with tzafon, because elsewhere the Gemara indicates that even dye can be removed by such substances.²²

Our own eyes see that Murex-dyed tzitzis can be put into an ordinary washing machine, and their color remains.

Modern detergents are considerably stronger than tzafon, which Rashi translates as a type of soap-like cleaning substance that was used throughout the generations.²³ Modern detergent also contains soap.

We therefore appear to have before us the defining characteristic of kala ilan: it is a blue dye which does not come out with tzafon, whereas Tosafos clearly understood that true Tekhelet could come out.

Some answer²⁴ that perhaps the difference results from changes in dyeing technique between the time of Chazal and today.

That does not solve the problem. Since kala ilan itself did not come out even in the days of Chazal, the distinction cannot simply be blamed on modern dyeing technique, unless evidence is brought to establish otherwise.

This seems especially unlikely because the chemical makeup of the blue dye is identical to indigo. Furthermore, ancient purple was reportedly known as a dye even stronger than kala ilan.²⁵

On the Meaning of “Kala Ilan”

Some have argued that the expression kala ilan itself proves that it was a plant-based dye.

However, the Tiferes Yisrael explains that kala means a lump or block, while ilan is the name of the dye known in German as indigo. In other words, the phrase does not necessarily mean “a dye made from a tree.”

Some further argue that Chazal seem to recognize no other substance producing the shade of Tekhelet besides kala ilan, which the Aruch identifies with indigo. Therefore, if the Murex produces the same blue shade yet is not kala ilan, it must be the true chilazon.

This argument is incorrect.

The Rambam writes:

“Even though it has the appearance of the sky, if it was dyed with istis, or with blackening materials, or with other substances that produce a dark color, it is invalid for tzitzis.”

We see that there are other substances capable of producing the relevant color.

Similarly, the Sifrei at the end of Shelach says:

“Perhaps you will say, I will place dyes, kala ilan, and the like upon it…”

So there were clearly other possibilities as well.

Furthermore, in the ancient world they apparently did not know how to produce a clean blue from the Murex; it was used for red and purple.

And it is also possible that the Murex color itself would fall under the broader halachic category of kala ilan. The Kesef Mishneh defines kala ilan as:

“A Tekhelet-colored dye produced by other coloring substances, not from the blood of the chilazon.”

The name kala ilan itself therefore does not prove that the substance must specifically have come from a plant.

If there are two marine creatures capable of producing a Tekhelet-like dye, why did Chazal not warn us about confusing one with the other?

There is no question here at all. Chazal gave simanim identifying the true chilazon, and those simanim are not present in this creature.

The Meaning of the Word “Porphyra”

It must first be emphasized that it is extremely difficult to bring proofs from ancient terminology, especially from foreign languages where exact translation is difficult. A single word can have several different meanings.

The word porphyra itself is used in several senses, as will be explained.

One proof advanced by proponents of the Murex is that this creature was called porphyra in Greek, while they claim that Chazal likewise used the word porphyra for Tekhelet.

Therefore, they argue, the porphyra must be Tekhelet.

In my opinion, however, Chazal did not use porphyra as the word for Tekhelet. In the language of Chazal, porphyra means a royal garment. Such garments were called that because royal clothing was dyed purple with the porphyra shellfish.

See HaTekhelet, p. 250, regarding Aristotle’s description of porphyra. From the Murex used for purple, it is obvious that porphyra itself refers to argaman/purple, not Tekhelet.

The Midrash HaGadol says:

“Just as the king’s porphyra is Tekhelet…”

If porphyra itself meant Tekhelet, what would it mean to say that his “Tekhelet is Tekhelet”?

Similarly, Tikkunei Zohar speaks of:

“A red porphyra from fire.”

And the Zohar in Parashas Shemos speaks of a “red porphyra” used for vengeance.²⁷

Vayikra Rabbah says that Haman told Mordechai to put on the porphyra, whereas the translations there identify the garment as argaman.²⁸ The Eitz Yosef and Matnos Kehunah explain porphyra as a royal garment.

Likewise, Chazal at the beginning of Eichah use porphyra for a garment colored or decorated with argaman. The Me’am Lo’ez at the end of Esther also describes Mordechai’s royal garment as argaman.

◆ ◆ ◆

A proof has also been brought from the Ramban in Parashas Tetzaveh:

“And as for Tekhelet, even today no man would dare wear it except a king of the nations.”

It is known that Roman emperors wore porphyra.

However, this is not conclusive.

First, it is possible that according to the Ramban the Tekhelet used for the Bigdei Kehunah does not require dye from the chilazon, similar to what some write in the opinion of the Rambam.

Second, the Ramban never personally saw what the Roman emperor wore, since he did not live in Rome. One therefore cannot establish the identity of the dye based upon this statement.²⁹

Third, the Ramban may only be referring to the general shade of the garment, not the substance from which the dye was made.

A further proof is brought from the Raavyah, who quotes the Yerushalmi concerning the Mishnah’s distinction between Tekhelet and karti, using the terms porphyrin and perifinin.

The Raavyah writes that this refers to a cloak called porphyra in the vernacular, with another cloak somewhat resembling it.

But if the Raavyah himself knew this garment, why did he not place such a thread in his own tallis? Why does he not discuss restoring Tekhelet in Hilchos Tzitzis?

It would therefore appear that he meant either merely the shade of the garment, or perhaps that porphyra refers there to karti, since the entire discussion is explaining the color called karti rather than an actual leek as Rashi explains.

A friend of mine further suggested that since distinguished garments generally came to be called porphyra, it is possible that even an important cloak dyed with kala ilan was called by that name once actual Tekhelet was no longer available.

See also Tosafos in Beitzah, where an ordinary cloak can be referred to as a porphyra.

There is therefore no proof that the word necessarily refers to one specific dye.

See also the linguistic work on the Raavyah published by Mekitzei Nirdamim, which explains porphyra as a red color and a garment dyed with that color.

The Septuagint likewise translates the Torah’s word argaman as purpura.

Thus porphyra is argaman, not Tekhelet.³⁰

The Halachic Attitude Toward Archaeology

Because of lack of space, we will not deal here with the specific archaeological proofs. [See the original article for a discussion of those proofs.] We will merely discuss the general halachic attitude toward this type of evidence.

Throughout the generations, Torah scholars did not regard archaeologists as unquestionable authorities.

This is not because it is impossible to bring proofs from physical reality, but because we do not automatically trust their determination of what the reality actually proves.³¹

An example can be found in Bechoros 8b.

The Caesar asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya how long a snake carries its young before giving birth. The sages of Athens had performed an experiment and reached one conclusion.

Rabbi Yehoshua explained that their experiment did not prove what they thought it proved: the snakes they had used had apparently already been pregnant beforehand.

The Caesar challenged him: the sages of Athens are wise!

Rabbi Yehoshua answered, in effect: we are wiser than they are.

The point is that although Rabbi Yehoshua was a great chochom, one might naturally assume that in a specialized field the experts of Athens knew more than he did.

Rabbi Yehoshua nevertheless showed that even in their own area of expertise their conclusion was not necessarily reliable. They had relied on experimentation but failed to consider every possible explanation for the observed result. They therefore regarded something as proven when in truth it was not proven at all.³²

There are examples of this in our own subject as well.

See HaTekhelet, p. 415, where Rav Herzog writes in a letter that scientists had previously stated that according to the Radzyner dyeing process, the blue color did not actually come from the marine creature at all but from the other chemicals being used.

He later discovered that this was not true.

Rav Herzog writes:

“It has thus become clear that the scientific experts mentioned above, although they expressed their negative conclusion with complete confidence and certainty, did not speak from experiment but merely from conjecture, and the facts contradict them. This is an interesting phenomenon! The intelligent reader can draw a lesson from this regarding many similar matters. ‘Give to the wise…’”

This does not mean that the Radzyner identification is correct; there remain other serious difficulties with it.³³

See also HaTekhelet, p. 259. Rav Herzog notes that only a few years previously Albright’s determination regarding certain archaeological installations, believed to have been dyeing facilities, had been generally accepted.

Later, the opinion of another scholar, who had stood almost alone in arguing that the installations were actually used for pressing olives, came to be accepted instead.

This is their way; there is no reason for us to build halachah on such certainties.³⁴

The Shade of Tekhelet

Another problem with restoring the mitzvah of Tekhelet is determining the precise shade with which Tekhelet must be dyed.

Even if we identify it with kala ilan, many different shades of blue can be produced from indigo.³⁵ See the photographs in HaTekhelet.

Obviously not every possible shade is kosher. A blue so pale that it is almost white certainly cannot be called Tekhelet.³⁶

We therefore have to know which shades are valid and which are not.

This is something that cannot really be known except through a mesorah passed from one person to another.

The Besamim Rosh writes:

“I have already written that it is impossible to establish the precise appearance of a color merely from descriptions written in a sefer. Consider what Chazal say: Tekhelet resembles the sea, the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Kisei HaKavod. Obviously the first cannot be identical to the third. One is darker than the sea, the sea compared to the sky, and the sky compared to the Kisei HaKavod.”

The Rambam writes in his Peirush HaMishnayos, according to Rav Kapach’s translation:

“It is unavailable to us today because we do not know its dyeing process. Not every blue shade in wool is called Tekhelet; rather there is a particular Tekhelet which is not possible today.”

This seems to imply that besides identifying the chilazon, a particular form or quality of Tekhelet must also be known.

The Radbaz writes that there may be multiple valid shades of Tekhelet — some considerably darker and some not as dark.

But that does not mean that every shade is valid. It merely means that more than one shade can be kosher.

Indeed, his language implies that there is a lower boundary below which the shade would no longer qualify.

See also Rav Dovid Arama on the Rambam, who disagrees with the Radbaz.

Safek Tekhelet

Some argue that even if modern Tekhelet is only a safek, we should nevertheless wear it because safek de’oraisa l’chumra.

The Acharonim already discussed this extensively in response to the Radzyner Rebbe.

Nowadays, however, there is an additional argument why the principle of safek de’oraisa does not necessarily apply.

There are multiple competing identifications, each of whose proponents claims, “I found the true chilazon.”

If so, even if we wanted to wear Tekhelet out of safek, which Tekhelet should we wear?

As for the claim that Radzyner Tekhelet has already been conclusively disproved because the color is merely Prussian blue, we cited earlier Rav Herzog’s own experience. He himself originally advanced that claim, but several years later it was demonstrated to him clearly that the claim was not correct.³⁹

What remains is that both identifications face the same basic objection: neither corresponds to all the simanim of Chazal.

Why should one therefore have preference over the other?

The Yeshuos Malko, as cited by Rav Elyashiv zt”l in Kovetz Teshuvos, further argues that there is a machlokes between Rashi and the Rambam as to whether additional dyeing ingredients are required.

Who is to decide between them?⁴⁰

If we do not know whom to follow and cannot satisfy both opinions simultaneously, it is difficult to claim that safek de’oraisa creates an obligation.

See also the Tiferes Yisrael in his introduction to Seder Moed, who holds that even for tzitzis Tekhelet does not necessarily require a chilazon.

Nevertheless, he writes, we do not use Tekhelet today because we are not expert in the testing substances mentioned in the Gemara.

Rashi and the Rambam disagree regarding their interpretation, and therefore we cannot determine the matter with certainty.

The same reasoning applies today.

Furthermore, there is itself a machlokes concerning the identity and nature of the chilazon.

According to Rashi in Sanhedrin it is a sea worm; according to the Rambam it is a fish; according to others it is a creature with a protective casing.⁴¹

Thus we have numerous sfeikos whether this is in fact the Tekhelet chilazon.

Once there are multiple sfeikos, there is no automatic chiyuv; a sfeik sfeika can be sufficient for leniency even in a de’oraisa.

We will conclude with the words of the Aruch HaShulchan:

“Know that several years ago someone boasted that he had found the chilazon and produced Tekhelet from it, and a number of people followed him. But he had no support from the Gedolei HaDor or from Klal Yisrael, and the matter faded away, until the righteous redeemer shall come, speedily in our days, amen.”

Demagoguery

It can be “proven” that the chilazon spoken about by Chazal is actually a pine tree, from which tar is produced. The reason Chazal called it a “chilazon” was simply by way of riddle and mashal.

Come and see how amazingly it fits every statement of the Gemara:

A. “Its body resembles the sea.”

This can be explained in two ways.

First, the leaves covering it are green — and as explained in footnote 8, green can supposedly qualify as resembling the sea.

Second, its trunk is brown, and everyone knows that brown is the color of the seashore.

B. “Its form resembles a fish.”

The shape of a tree is literally like a fish standing on its tail.

The top of the tree is broad like the head of a fish. Then comes the trunk, which is narrower, like the fish as it approaches its tail. And near the ground the roots spread outward, just like the tail of a fish.

C. “It comes up once in seventy years.”

Meaning that it continues growing for roughly seventy years.

D. “Therefore its price is expensive.”

As everyone knows, pine is a very expensive wood.

E. “Its blood is black like ink.”

Obviously this refers to the tar that comes out of it, which Chazal called its “blood.” Tar is literally black like ink.

F. “It is found in the Yam HaMelach.”

Meaning that it grows, among other places, along the seashore.

The statement of the Midrash that the chilazon is found between the mountains also fits beautifully.

Based on the article “Murex — Tekhelet or Kala Ilan?” by Rav Aharon ben Yaakov, published in Kovetz Ohr Yisrael of Monsey, issue 75, with several passages omitted and a small number of additions.

Many thanks to him.

For comments, questions, or to obtain the original article, contact the “Moreh Nevuchim” organization:

mn201820@gmail.com