INVESTIGATING תכלת

BY YONI MEHLMAN

Contents

Introduction......................................................................................................................................2

Identifying the Chilazon..................................................................................................................6

Modern Research...........................................................................................................................12

Comparing to Chazal.....................................................................................................................16

Halacha..........................................................................................................................................20

Introduction

There are three parts to any discussion. First, it must be clearly understood what תכלת

was. Did it come from a specific species and, if so, how is that species defined? How תכלת

specific is the color? Furthermore, evidence from chazal and rishonim must be gathered to

determine what color was used in the times of Chazal and what the chilazon was. After

performing such an analysis, it must be determined what species known today produce similar

dyes and fit with the descriptions of Chazal. In addition, archeological evidence as well as texts

from other cultures should be considered a valuable resource in gaging the use of various dyes in

the ancient world, particularly ancient Israel. Finally, this leads to a Halachic question: based on

the evidence available, should the תכלת manufactured nowadays be worn?

Before attempting to precisely define the Chilazon and תכלת, how essential is it that one

conform to those definitions. The Torah merely says that there be a “petil techeilet.” While תכלת

may refer to a specific color (and more precisely, specifically colored wool) it does not obviously

refer to the dye being extracted from a specific animal. However, the Tosefta identifies for us a

specific species from which the תכלת originates from: the Chilazon. On this point, the Tosefta in

Menachos (9:6) is most explicit – is only kosher from the chilazon. This unambiguous תכלת

statement is made explicit by the bigdei kahuna.1 Ma’amar HaTekhelet suggests a novel source

for this requirement. The Yerushalmi learns a hekesh from shni tolaat to תכלת to learn that even

is wool. Maybe this hekesh could also be used to learn that תכלת comes from a living תכלת

creature, which Chazal specified is the chilazon.2 While one could raise a doubt as to whether the

same requirement of Chilazon applies to Tzitzis as well (although, the simple understanding

1 It is therefore particularly strange that the רמב"ם does not offer even a mention of the chilazon by the making of the bigdei kahuna.2 Yet, it is important to note that the Bavli uses a different limud to teach that תכלת must be wool. It may reject such a Hekesh in which case there would be no source for תכלת being Chilazon according to the Bavli.

dictates that תכלת by Tztitzis is equivalent to תכלת by the Mikdash), a nearly explicit Tosefta by

Tzitzis states that תכלת is only made from a chilazon. The simple reading of these two Tosefta

dictate that תכלת is only Kosher when coming from a Chilazon.

The Tiferes Yisroel may be considered the first to open the floor to discussion on this

point. He points to an interesting Yerushalmi which states that there may be no חיוב of trapping

by the chilazon. The Korbon Haeida explains that this is based upon the opinion that since there

were no chilazon’s captured in the making of the mishkan, there is no violation of trapping the

chilazon. Apparently, the chilazon wasn’t used for the mishkan, indicating that there is no

requirement to use chilazon. The Tiferes Yisroel, therefore, concludes that there is no obligation

to use a chilazon. Rather, the requirement is to have a specific color with certain qualities. The

fake known as kala ilan. While in some locations it states that only תכלת often references a גמרא

G-d can distinguish between them, in Menachos it offers a procedure to determine whether the

dye is the fake or real תכלת. The tests involve seeing if the dye fades when subjected to certain

chemical processes.3 This naturally leads to the question: is this test a sign or a cause. It may be

that only chilazon תכלת is kosher, regardless of the fastness of other dyes. Nonetheless, the other

dye known to chazal which could imitate the color would more readily fade while the תכלת

chilazon dye would not. Yet, it may be that the susceptibility to fading of the kala ilan is the

reason behind why it is פסול. When the Tosefta states that a chilazon must be used it means only

that of the blue dyes known to them, only the chilazon produces the dye of proper fastness.

Nonetheless, if a process could be engineered in later years to use an alternate source to produce

an identical dye, it would be Kosher as well.

The רמב"ם may be the earliest source to confirm such a view. Aside from leaving out the

chilazon entirely from his Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, his presentation of תכלת by Hilchos Tzitzis 3 Maybe only G-d can distinguish between the colors.

is particularly intriguing. He begins by describing the color of תכלת and goes on to say that the

color cannot fade. Any fading color is .פסול Only in the next halacha, when describing the

process by which תכלת is dyed, does he mention the chilazon. The chilazon may be part of the

technical process, but just as the process is merely the scientific procedure at arriving at the

desired color (and would hardly be considered meakeiv) so too the chilazon is the animal

available that produces the proper color.4 Yet, the Mishneh L’Melech states by Klei Mikdash that

the רמב"ם omits any mention of the chilazon there because he relies on what he said by Tzitzis.5

Apparently, he understood that the רמב"ם required the chilazon by tzitzis. Further support may be

brought from Rav Avraham ben HaRambam who states that the comes only from the תכלת

chilazon. Additionally, the adds an interesting phrase: “tzarich she’tehei tzviata tzviah רמב"ם

yeduah.” Does he mean by this phrase that the dye must be a specific dye or does he only mean

that it must be a dye which is of a known color and quality, not that it comes from a specific

species?

Despite the ,רמב"ם the generally held view is that the chilazon is required. This is

certainly the simple of the פשט is the view of Rav Avraham ben Harambam, and also ,מׁשנה

seems to be the view of who says in chumash that רׁש"י by definition comes from the תכלת

chilazon.6 The Yereim gives a svara that chilazon be required: it helps remind one of the sea.7 Of

course, one could easily argue that any sea creature should then be acceptable. Furthermore, it is

4 One advantage of this view is that one not need be concerned about a source for requiring chilazon.5 This introduces another question as to whether the רמב"ם differentiates between the mikdash and tzitzis. A careful reading of the רמב"ם suggests that he only thinks that tzitzis have a requirement that the dye be fast. Assuming the ,only requires the chilazon due to its fastness, this would explain the omission from klei hamikdash. However רמב"םthis presents a difficulty: what is the s’רמב"ם source for such a distinction. The tiferes yisroel suggests the Yerushalmi quoted earlier. However, it is hard to understand why the would רמב"ם go against an explicit Yerushalmi. 6 According to this, the source for the requirement of the chilazon is simple: it is the definition of תכלת. This would certainly apply to the bigdei kahuna as well. 7 Maybe then there would be no requirement to use a chilazon by the mikdash. This could present a third possibility in the רמב"ם. He requires chilazon by tzitzis but not by the mikdash.

unclear how seriously to treat the svara of the yereim. Nonetheless, most achronim assume that a

chilazon is an absolute requirement.

Even knowing what the chilazon is does not alleviate all concerns. Most fishes used for

dying can produce a number of colors and certainly a number of shades. Therefore, it is essential

to know the color of תכלת not only to determine what the chilazon is, but also to establish what

color to use from this dye. As will be discussed later, there are a number of different inferences

which can be made regarding the color of תכלת. It is compared to the sea, the sky, the grass, and

the evven hasapir. The מׁשנה also implies that it is close in color to a karti, which is generally

green. This leads some rishonim to say that it is a light blue, a dark blue, the color of the night

sky, and green. Some have also suggested that it is a blue-purple. If the question were merely one

regarding a machlokes rishonim then one need only find a psak regarding this issue. Yet it is

nearly impossible to discern a precise color from the words of the rishonim and .גמרא What

exactly is the color of the evening sky? How green is green? Is it really turquoise? What is the

color of the sea? Therefore, a pivotal issue surfaces. Without an extant tradition regarding the

precise color, can we ever hope to accurately reproduce the correct color? This would be

dependent on how precise the color really is. Already in the there is some range for the גמרא

color. In one of the kala ilan tests, the גמרא in Menachos mentions that the real תכלת improves in

color after the application of the test. Therefore, there clearly are different gradations of color.

Maybe one could argue that the different comparisons given by chazal really do reflect slightly

different shades and all are kosher. Maybe there are a number of shades of blue which are

acceptable ranging from greenish-blue, to pure-blue, to purplish-blue. Additionally, one could

argue that if the chilazon is required for ,by definition תכלת any color stemming from the

chilazon may be kosher. Of course, this is not necessarily true. Thus we see that the inability to

establish exactly a color for may not be a problem. Certainly there is a small range. The תכלת

question is only, how much of a range can we rely on.

Identifying the Chilazon

The primary source for identifying the chilazon must be chazal. Only when chazal speak

do we know that the chilazon and dying of are תכלת being referenced. Nonetheless, the

importance of archeological, linguistic, and historical evidence cannot be overemphasized. תכלת

did not exist in a Jewish vacuum but was known to the non-Jewish world. As seen in a number of

places in Tanach, non-Jewish royalty wore תכלת. In fact, the רמב"ן explains that this is the entire

reason behind its use for the bigdei kahuna. Therefore, looking at the dyings of other cultures

may prove useful. Archeological evidence may be the best source of direct evidence available,

and linguistics are essential for determining the meaning of various ancient translations.

However, all of these sources have one shortcoming: it is not necessarily clear that what is being

discussed is the chilazon of תכלת. Therefore, the likelihood that the archeological evidence, etc.

is related to תכלת must be carefully considered.

There is no shortage of sources in chazal which either directly or indirectly describe both

the chilazon and .תכלת The primary source for the description of the chilazon is the in גמרא

menachos which states four things about the chilazon:

1. Gufo domeh lyam

2. Briyaso domeh ldag

3. Oleh achas lshivim shana

4. It is expensive

Manhig, and the Smag all state that domeh lyam refers to the color. Additional support ,רמב"ם

can be brought from the Tosefta which states that it looks like the sky. While the רמב"ם states it

is a dag, רׁש"י and rabeinu gershom say it has a form similar to a dag. Unfortunately, the term dag

is very unclear. According to who says that it רמב"ם is a dag would this include snails and

squids? According to רׁש"י, however, it isn’t a dag but only resembles a dag. Therefore, the above

question is just as important for .רׁש"י While our ,says once every seventy years גמרא some

versions in the Tosefta state once every seven years. Nonetheless, the Rodziner Rebbe, Rav

Herzog, and others state that it only means that its behavior is periodic with times of greater and

lesser abundance. Yet, another important clue lay hidden in these words. Oleh implies that it

comes up from the sea. Indeed, explains that it rises from the ground. Further, the Nodeh רׁש"י

B’Yehuda attempts to prove this position from the fact that it is only similar to a fish (of course,

the רמב"ם thinks it is a fish. He also assumes that all sea creatures are fish). However, in many

other places in shas explains that it comes out of the sea (see gilyon hashas who quotes רׁש"י

these locations). Therefore, it is clear according to both and רׁש"י as well as the simple ,רמב"ם

.that the chilazon is from the sea גמרא of the פשט

A number of other sources also state that the chilazon is from the sea. The Zohar states

that the chilazon was from the Yam Hakineret. The Sefer Hakana also describes it as an animal

originating from the sea. Nonetheless, there are select sources which imply the opposite. The

in Sanhedrin 91a uses the chilazon as an example of Techiyas HaMeisim. It recounts a story גמרא

of a man who was walking amongst the mountains and observed but one chilazon. However, the

next day after the rain, the mountain was filled with chilazonos. This implies that the chilazon is

a land animal. Further, the Yad Ramma says this proves that it cannot come from the sea since

otherwise what proof is this for techiyas hameisim: maybe they were just washed up from the sea

after the rain! Despite this, the Yad Ramma still argues that the chilazon of תכלת originates from

the sea. He claims that Sanhedrin is referring to a different type of chilazon.8 Some, however,

explain in a simpler fashion: the chilazon is a sea animal which comes up on land (Maharsham

5:35). In fact, one could argue that this directly refers to the murex snail (which we will see is

considered the best candidate for the chilazon) since it comes from the water, hibernates during

the summer, and then emerges after the first rain.

The states that the portion of Zevulun was privileged to house the (Megilla 6a) גמרא

production of the chilazon. Yet, the general view is that Zevulun’s territory did not border the

Mediterranean. This may pose a problem to those who claim that the chilazon is from the sea.

However, this proof is not certain. It could be that the chilazon was also a land animal and would

migrate to the mountains of Zevulun (which are not too far from the coast). It may also be that

they were the main producers of תכלת despite the fact that the chilazon was from the sea; yet, this

is a very difficult explanation of the גמרא which states that the shvatim rely on Zevulun for the

chilazon. However, this presents a difficulty not only on the proposition that the chilazon is a sea

animal but also on another .גמרא Shabbos 26a defines the “yogvim” (Yirmiya 52:16) as the

catchers of the chilazon from Tzur until Chaifa. This would imply that the chilazon lives along

the coast.9 Therefore, the Gra explains the borders of Zevulun as passing through the portion of

Asher which seems to separate Zevulun from the sea.10

So far we have seen a couple of places where the Chilazon lives and is processed: both

the territory of Zevulun and a strip of land from Tzur until Chaifa. The (Sanhedrin 12a) גמרא

gives another location where תכלת is produced: Luz. In Tanach, Luz refers to the old city of Bet

8 The Yad Ramma represents a precedent for differentiating between different types of chilazon. Therefore, each source must be considered carefully to establish if it refers to the chilazon of תכלת. 9 Unless one were to claim that this refers to a different chilazon. Yet, רׁש"י equates the two. 10 Rav Elitzor offers a novel interpretation. He says that Zevulun was originally supposed to receive a portion by the sea. However, after some of the Shvatim took a portion across the Jordan the land was reapportioned differently.

El. This is in the middle of Israel. However, this may refer to a different Luz since Luz was Bet

El’s old name. The writes that the chilazon lives in the “yam hamelach.” Many explain רמב"ם

that the רמב"ם refers to the Mediterranean as Yam Hamelach as seen elsewhere.

Having established that the Chilazon is most likely a sea creature that resides in northern

Israel, probably near the coast, it becomes essential to identify which sort of sea creature it is.

We have previously seen that the רמב"ם thinks it is a fish while רׁש"י thinks it is only similar to a

fish. Yet, even if the רמב"ם thinks it is a fish, this includes many sea creatures beyond what today

we would define as a fish.<<<>>>> Elsewhere, רׁש"י states that it is a tolaas, a wormy creature.

The Yad Ramma says this as well – a tolaas residing in the sea known as chilazom in Arabic.

Some sources in Chazal lend us additional clues. In one midrash, chazal say that the chilazon’s

body grows with it (in some versions, its nartik grows with it, probably referring to shell). 11

Chazal also refer to crushing the chilazon (רׁש"י, however, reinterprets it). In keilim it refers to

the hook connecting a chain to a box as having the appearance of the chilazon. One could

imagine this describes a snakelike hook; however, the describes it as a shell. The רמב"ם מׁשנה

also compares a chilazon mum to a snake. One could argue that one type of chilazon is wormy

and one is shelled. Most of these sources in chazal are ambiguous about whether they are

referring to the chilazon of .תכלת The in Shabbos is גמרא most likely referring to the תכלת

chilazon since it refers to using it as a dye. The yad rama is also explicitly referring to a תכלת

chilazon when he compares it to a worm. This leaves two options open: the chilazon is a worm

like sea creature or a shelled sea creature. Of course, one could say that the two descriptions are

one and describe a snail, which has both a shell and a worm like body.

quotes the midrash as referring to the chomet. More likely than a different girsa, he was translating chilazon רׁש"י 11as a chomet which is most likely a snail.

There are some additional clues provided by chazal and the rishonim regarding the

identity of the chilazon. The .Yerushalmi states that the chilazon has bones and tendons גמרא

However, the korbon haeida reads this as a rhetorical question in which case they do not. In

Yechezkel, it states that is תכלת produced on the island of Elisha which Targum Yonatan

translates as Italy. There is a machlokes rishonim what the color of the blood is. According to the

thinks it is blue. Finally, there are two sources relating to the רׁש"י it is black blood while רמב"ם

halchik aspects of a chilazon. There is a machlokes if one is חייב for one or two melachos when

catching and killing a chilazon. The Bavli and Yerushalmi differ in interpretation. The bavli

explains that everyone agrees that there is a חיוב for trapping the chilazon while the machlokes

pertains to killing it. Yet, everyone agrees that the melacha isn’t the normal melacha of killing an

animal. Rather, Rebbi Yehuda thinks it is a of dash. The Bavli’s explanation is critical. It חיוב

says that there is no for killing because it is חיוב misaseik. Yet it then argues that it is a psik

reisha to which it responds that because it is lo niche lei since the dye is better when the animal

is living he is not חייב. This indicates that extracting the dye almost certainly results in death. At

the same time, the dye is better when it comes from a living chilazon. However, the Yerushalmi

assumes that everyone holds that there is a חיוב for killing it. Rather, the machlokes pertains to

trapping. According to one opinion there was no trapping performed in the construction of the

mishkan because ה' had created a special creation for Moshe. The korbon haeida explains that no

chilazon was used since it was not native to that region.12

Here is the summary of the characteristics:

It most likely lives in the sea.

It is either wormlike or a snail.

12 Rav Tendler suggested that the Yerushalmi which recided in Israel assumed there was no אסור of trapping the chilazon since they resided in shallow water where one could catch it by hand. However, in Bavel it had to be caught by fishing nets.

It has the appearance of a fish or is a fish.

It resembles the sea.

It comes out of the sea in abundance according to a periodic cycle.

It had black or blue blood.

It resides in northern Israel, most likely the Mediterranean, and may bury itself in the

sand.

The dye it produces is best when it is alive.

It dies upon drawing the dye.

It was produced in Tzur, Chaifa, and Luz.

Next, it is critical to determine the nature of the תכלת itself. In a number of midrashim,

the תכלת is said to remind one of something in nature. Generally, it says that it is similar to the

sea or similar to the sky. In the Yerushalmi it says that it is similar to the sea which is in turn

similar to the grass. The Yalkut Shimoni goes one step further and says it is similar to the grass.

Elsewhere, it says that it looks similar to the Evven HaSapir. The מׁשנה gives further indication of

its color. According to one opinion, the earliest time one can recite krias shma is when he can

differentiate between karti and תכלת. Such a comparison should not be taken as random. Rather,

it was probably chosen due to some similarity. Finally, the גמרא states that it identical in color to

the kala ilan. The Aruch translates this as Indigo. This is a well-defined blue color. Nonetheless,

the rishonim debate what color the תכלת was. רׁש"י says that the תכלת is the color of the evening

sky. This could be anywhere from a dark blue to a violet. However, the says that it is רמב"ם

comparable to the clear sky at midday, seemingly a lighter or more medium colored blue. In the

perisuh hamishnayos the רמב"ם compares it to alazrak and azrak which is a dim somewhat faded

blue. The רמב"ם in mishneh torah mentions isatas as an invalid color. This too is associated with

indigo blue. However, in רׁש"י a majority of locations says that is תכלת green. Tosfos also

suggests that תכלת is greenish. Therefore, it remains unclear from the rishonim and chazal what

color the תכלת is.

Chazal also fill us in on certain properties of the תכלת. The גמרא in Menachos records a

process to check to see if the dye is kala ilan or real תכלת. First you subject it to some chemicals

(fenugreek juice, 40 day old (or baby) urine, and liquid alum13 and soak it overnight. If it does

not fade it is kosher. If it does fade, then it undergoes a second test where it is baked with some

sort of yeast. If the appearance improves, it is kosher. If it gets worse, it is פסול. Second, the גמרא

mentions the process by which the is תכלת produced. You bring the blood of the chilazon,

ingredients to prepare the dye (but according to tosfos you actually use some other dyes), you

soak it in the vat, and you boil it (in most girsa’s).

Modern Research

Many look to Greek sources which detail the dying process to establish the identity of the

chilazon. Aristotle and Pliny are particularly rich sources. Aristotle describes in detail the

process by which they made dyes from various shelled sea creatures. One of the most commonly

used terms to describe the dyes produced is Purfura. This was clearly used to produce purple

dyes and possibly blue dyes as well. A few sources consider to be Purfura. The earliest תכלת

source is the midrash tanaim (of Yemen). Much later, the Chavos Yair, Shilteri Giborim, and

Toafos Re’em state that it is purfura. Yet, in the Targum Shivim they define it as “lakinthos”

(also known as Hyacinth). This is also found in Josephus and Philo. All of these source, written

by those who knew Greek and saw the תכלת, makes it unequivocally clear that the תכלת is the

lakinthos. This is differentiated by the Targum Shivim which translates argaman as purfura.

רמב"ם. רׁש"י 13 gives a slightly different list of ingredients.

However, it remains unclear if purfura could also be used as a more general term which could

include תכלת as well while the Targum Shivim was using its more limited use. Therefore, it is

still possible that the תכלת can be called purfura. More importantly, Rav Herzog shows that it is

not entirely clear what color the Lakinthos was. Ziderman argues that it is a violet (which is

somewhere between blue and purple). However, many are skeptical of his conclusion regarding

the color of תכלת. Therefore, a linguistic analysis of תכלת does not necessarily lead to any clear

conclusion regarding the identity of the chilazon nor the color of תכלת.

Still, some wish to argue, by virtue of the fact that תכלת was worn by royalty, some of the

royal dyes which Aristotle and Pliny describe should be the Therefore, since it is fairly .תכלת

clear that they were referring to the Murex species, the Murex is very possibly the chilazon.

While there certainly is evidence (even from the גמרא) that the Romans considered תכלת a royal

color, it cannot be said with great certainty that what they describe is how תכלת was made. Since

the kala ilan could be used as a substitute and could be made much easier, it is very likely that

the other nations would use it to make their own .תכלת Only the Jews who had Halachik

restrictions would use the chilazon. Again, nothing conclusive could be stated from the Greek

sources.

Archeology, on the other hand, has been a major player in determining the identity of the

chilazon. Many murex shells have been found in the areas where the גמרא describes that the תכלת

was made. To be precise, there are three main types of murex shells: The Murex Trunculus, the

Murex Brandaris, and the Thais haemastoma. All of these can produce purple dyes but only the

trunculus has been used to successfully produced blue dye. All three of these types of shells have

been found all over the major sites where the גמרא says תכלת was produced. Furthermore, some

argue that since the trunculus is sometimes found separately from the other two types of murex,

which are usually found together, this indicates that the murex trunculus was used to dye

something else. Maybe this was ,Of course, this inference is highly speculative. In fact .תכלת

Mendel Singer claims that you’d expect the other two types of murex to be found together

because some Greek sources mention that they were sued together to make purple. Regardless,

the high quantity of the trunculus which were used for dying indicates its clear popularity in

ancient Israel.

Coins produced during the Bar Kochba period contained a picture of a snail. Rav Lamm

says this clearly indicates that the murex was used for he claims that the picture of the) תכלת

shell looks like the murex). It is inconceivable that the coins would contain a picture of a snail,

especially since it is a non-Kosher animal unless it was used for some mitzva. Again, this is

speculative, both the claim that it looks just like the murex, and also the claim that the only

reason is because it was used for a mitzva. Further, one could always claim that the snail was

used for argamon and not for תכלת.

Additionally, purple dyed wool was found in the Bar Kochba caves. Nearby, some strings

of tztitzis were spotted. After performing chemical tests it was discovered that it was from

indigo. Since the aruch defines kala ilan as indigo, this led to the conclusion that they isolated the

fake תכלת – the kala ilan. Since the identical color can be produced by the murex trunculus when

it is exposed to sunlight (or heated), this may support the murex as the true chilazon. However,

some other (expensive) ingredients were also found (giving it its purple color (?)). Therefore, this

raises the question if is really a pure indigo. Prof. Elsner claims that they added these תכלת

ingredients to match the תכלת in the area although this is not what we consider to be the תכלת of

the mitzva. This claim, however, is a lot to swallow. Maybe one should really conclude that the

true תכלת color is purple if one were to accept the claim that the wool found was to be used for

tzitzis. Therefore, the wools found raise just as many questions about the accuracy of our

understanding of תכלת as it provides support for the murex. Further evidence is brought from a

drawing in an ancient shul of Aharon, where they colored some of his clothing blue.

Apart from the archeological evidence of kala ilan, the aruch defines kala ilan as indigo. 14

This can be one of two plants: the Isatis or the Indigofera. The רמב"ם mentions that Isatis looks

similar, and some other rishonim compare the two. However, chazal often refer to isatis by a

separate name. Therefore, it is not entirely clear which plant the kala ilan is. Nonetheless, this

could help to define more precisely what color the תכלת should be. Since the murex can produce

this color, it may be the chilazon.

To summarize: there is clear archeological evidence that the murex family of snails,

especially the trunculus, was used by the dying industry of ancient Israel in the locations where

was תכלת produced. Brining other archeological evidence and other sources proves to be

inconclusive, although a snail being the source of תכלת would fit nicely with some Greek sources

and would explain the snail picture on the coins. To determine the exact color from archeological

evidence raises more questions than it answers; however, based upon the rishonim’s

understanding of kala ilan and other similar plants, would appear to be indigo which the תכלת

trunculus can perfectly produce.

The Ma’amar Tekhelet, however, claims that the archeological evidence leads to a clear

conclusion: that the murex was the chilazon. His logic is as follows: we almost certainly know

all the shelled creatures which can effectively produce dye found in that region of the

Mediterranean. Furthermore, over the past 1500 years the climate of the Mediterranean has been

stable so extinction of old species is unlikely. After testing all the different options for what can

14 Nimukei Yosef also defines kala ilan as indigo. Rabeinu Yona says that תכלת is similar to indigo.

produce ,תכלת only the murex produces indigo, is fast, and is supported by archeological

evidence. However, his claims that we can assume there was no extinction and that we know of

pretty much all the serious prospects for the chilazon is a difficult claim to accept without a great

deal of skepticism. Most simply argue that it is nearly impossible to believe that the תכלת was

come other species for which there are no archeological remains while the murex which isn’t

has tons of archeological evidence. Some also argue that since it is known to be the color of תכלת

indigo, if it were invalid as תכלת the גמרא would have mentioned it as a fake.15 Of course, this

assumes that the chilazon is a snail for which you’d find a shell. While there is some good

evidence that it is a snail, it could be that it is not. Furthermore, Rav Herzog suggests that they

may have used chilazon shells for other uses such as jewelry.

Comparing to Chazal

Modern scholars agree that the only known option for the chilazon is the murex

trunculus.16 However, does it agree with the description of chazal? Looking at the color it

produces, it can create from a purple to a pure blue. Since the rishonim disagree about the precise

color, for some rishonim it produces the right colors while for some it doesn’t. Particularly, if

you say that תכלת is turquoise, the murex does not seem able to produce this. Yet, this is a less

common view in the rishonim. Furthermore, it doesn’t necessarily disqualify the murex from

being the chilazon. According to some rishonim, one must add some other dyes to produce תכלת.

The fact that it’s a snail fits with the indication of a number of sources. It would also make sense

of the in Sanhedrin which some rishonim thought referred to a different type of chilazon גמרא

since it both lives in the water and hibernates in the sand. Furthermore, it can also fit with the

15 We shall see later that this raises a difficulty since what is believed to be the kala ilan passes the tests the גמרא gives to discern between real and fake תכלת. 16 Although some suggest that maybe any murex is kosher. This accepts the view that the תכלת must come from the chilazon. Maybe any dye produced by a chilazon is kosher and maybe the chilazon includes all murexes.

rishonim which say it is like a worm: it has a wormy body with a shell. Additionally, the Murex

found only sticks to wool. This fits well with the גמרא which requires תכלת to be wool. Finally,

Sterman points out that the color of the dye is different from the color it will be on the wool. This

explains why the גמרא mentions that they would test the color of the dye with a piece of wool.

However, it doesn’t fit all of chazal’s descriptions. Mendel Singer claims that the main

is the one which gives its three characteristics. He תכלת for describing the appearance of ברייתא

says that this source must be taken most seriously. However, here the murex fails the most. First,

its body is not blue like the sea.17 Many claim that the רמב"ם holds that a snail is categorized as a

fish. Since he says the chilazon is a fish, the second description would match according to the

However, some say it is only similar to a fish. What is meant by that? Assuming a snail is .רמב"ם

not a fish it may mean that it lives in the sea. Some say that it spawns like a fish. Some even

claim the shell has the shape of a fish. However, according to רׁש"י who says that it is only similar

to a fish, if a snail is considered a fish then it can’t be a snail, vtazrich iyun bshitas רׁש"י. It also

fails the final description. The murex does not display any periodic behavior.18 The dye is very

expensive because of the small quantity each snail produces. However, the states it is ברייתא

expensive because it is a rare species.

Sterman justifies the Murex against these claims. He offers a new interpretation for gufo

domeh lyam. He says that the murex lays on the seabed and plants even grow off of it. Some,

however, wish to fit the murex with the even simpler understanding of the phrase and say that

some murexes are bluish. However, since this is not true by all murexes this cannot be the פשט of

the גמרא which is giving defining characteristics of the murex. To explain the periodic behavior,

17 This is how most rishonim understood. Singer proves this from its context in the גמרא which used similar terminology to say that the color of תכלת is like the sea. He, however, thinks gufo refers not to the shell but to the body itself. 18 These proofs played a major role in leading Rav Herzog to reject the murex as תכלת. They also formed the basis of his hypothesis that the chilazon is the Janthina.

some suggest that due to overfishing there would be years where the murex was scarce. They

support this with archeological evidence where very small murex shells were being used in

building. However, the Radvaz and Chida do not think that this was the normal behavior. The

Radvaz claims that only during the hamikdash did the chilazon exhibit such behavior. The זמן

Chida says that it was a miracle. Many argue that since the רמב"ם leaves out it isn’t a necessary

characteristic. Yet, maybe the merely refers to the fact that after living in the sea for a גמרא

while, the individual chilazon will eventually emerge.19

The רמב"ם says that the chilazon has black blood. The murex does not. Of course, not as

much significance can be given to this question since the presumably did not know the רמב"ם

identity of the chilazon. Singer argues that it cannot be the murex since the dye from the murex

remains good for two hours after the death of the chilazon. However, the גמרא in Shabbos says

that the dye is better from when it is live. This indicates that immediately after death the dye is

still good. However, Sterman thinks this is proof for the murex since the dye will eventually

become ineffective after two hours. Mois Navon says based on his own experiments that the dye

produced becomes gradually worse starting from as soon as 15 minutes after death. Rav Shlomo

Miller brings a halchik proof. He says that the גמרא only mentions two melchos which may be

violated by extracting the dye from the chilazon; however, the process used for the murex

involves cutting a gland. This would certainly be another melacha. Yet, Mois Navon says that it

is possible to produce the dye without this and Aristotle even describes that they would only

crush snails. Rav Per has a novel question. To violate the melacha of disha there is a minimum

shiur of a grogeres. The amount of dye produced by the murex is so minute it does not produce a

grogeres. Therefore, how could Rebbi Yehuda say one is חייב for dash. Rav Shlomo Fisher asks

a question from the halacha as well. He says there should be no חיוב of capturing since it can be

19 V’tzarich iyun why no one has suggested what seems to me to be a very simple interpretation of the גמרא.

captured easily in one fell swoop by virtue of how slowly the snail moves (shechiya achas;

trapping slow moving animals isn’t considered the melacha). However, some respond that רׁש"י

holds that it isn’t considered bshechiya achas if special instruments must be used to catch the

animal. Therefore, the chilazon which was caught with a net is under the prohibition of

trapping.20

Finally, there is a large debate whether kala ilan supports the current view of or תכלת

challenges it. The produced תכלת from the murex is able to pass the test the .gives גמרא

However, so does the kala ilan. In fact, the chemical make-up of the two are identical. Therefore,

if one accepts the murex and the color it produces one must also accept the fact that it is literally

identical to what would be the kala ilan. Therefore, one could argue that the whole thing is

wrong: both the kala ilan and the murex. However, there is convincing evidence for the identity

of the kala ilan from the rishonim.21 Maybe this would lead one to conclude that while the murex

is correct, pure blue is not the right color and the kala ilan is not pure indigo, vtazrich iyun. Yet,

Sterman suggests that maybe the way they used to die the kala ilan left it with impurities which

caused its susceptibility to fading.

Halacha

The only thing which clearly emerges from the discussion above is that it is unclear if the

chilazon is the murex and if the dye produced is the proper color of תכלת. Certainly according to

some rishonim the color being produced is correct while according to others the color is

incorrect. Yet, concern for the color alone is not enough to dismiss the use of the murex-תכלת.

As by all disagreements amongst rishonim, one need only follow the of a Rav for which פסק 20 As stated earlier, Rav Tendler says that the fact that the murex can be captured beshechiya achas is the reason that the Yerushalmi expresses no concern for tzad. However, the Bavli refers to a case where it is being trapped by fishing nets. 21 Yet, רׁש"י, tosfos, and ibn exra who say תכלת is greenish may hold that the kala ilan is a different plant.

color dye to use. Certainly the color being used would be considered legitimate by most poskim

after it is the color the רמב"ם suggests, and is the color mentioned by Rabein Yona, the Nimukei

Yosef, and the Aruch. Therefore, the more critical halachic question revolves around whether

one should use the murex for תכלת if it is only a ספק if it is correct.

The simplest view is that one is obligated to where because of lchumra תכלת דאורייתא

Since wearing the wrong color does not invalidate the tzitzit,22 and at worst is not a hiddur .ספק

mitzva,23 one should certainly wear because there is a תכלת that he can be mekayeim the ספק

mitzva. This is the פסק of the Radziner Rebbe Zatza”l and Rav H. Schachter Shlit”a. However,

Reb Chaim is quoted as saying that the only time when לחומרא דאורייתא ספק applies is when

being machmir eliminates the ספק. Since it is a ספק if wearing this תכלת even fulfills the mitzva,

even after wearing them the ספק remains. Therefore, there is no obligation to be machmir. Rav

Schachter argues that this Reb Chaim is against the Ran who says that one who did not take the

lulav and it is bein hashmashot should take the lulav. However, Rav Shlomo Miller argues that

this Ran is different from the case of Reb Chaim. In the case of the Ran, taking the lulav is the

only action you can do. After you have done it, there is no longer anything which you could be

obligated to do. However, when wearing modern תכלת, since it is a ספק if you are yotzei, maybe

one would still have an obligation to take further action. Menachem Epstein, although

unconvinced of Rav Miller’s distinction, says that תכלת would still be comparable to the case of

the Ran since there is nothing further one can do to fulfill the mitzva of תכלת other than wearing

murex תכלת. The Rodziner Rebbe mentions two other reasons why לחומרא דאורייתא ספק may not

apply: maybe it does not apply in a case where the ספק is a ספק in yediya and maybe a ספק by

mitzvos aseih are only לחומרא דרבנן which they may have only instituted when the entire mitzva

22 This is explicit in Menachos which states that if one happens to use fake תכלת, kala ilan, it is no worse than white.23 Since the רמ"א says that all strings should be white and the שלחן ערוך says one should be machmir for those who hold that the strings should be the same color as the begged.

is in a state of not just a detail in a mitzva. Both of these reasons are of course highly ,ספק

speculative and the second is certainly not a majority opinion. Furthermore, according to the

is a separate mitzva. Nonetheless, the Rodziner provides a number of examples where רמב"ן תכלת

paskon לחומרא דאורייתא in cases similar to modern תכלת. For example, the גמרא says that if one

does not know what day Shabbos is he should count six days and observe Shabbos on the

seventh. A similar comes up in cases relating to matnos aniyim, matnos kahuna, writing ספק

sifrei torah, and appointing judges where we paskon .לחומרא Epstein points out that the Pri

Megadim and the ברורה explicitly משנה paskon against such distinctions in the case of wet

tefillin. If one has wet tefillin which may be פסול, but has no other pairs which he can wear, he

should put on wet tefillin. Therefore, it seems likely that here too one would apply the principle

of לחומרא דאורייתא ספק.

There may be a more fundamental problem with saying that wearing modern is תכלת

obligatory. The Beis Halevi (as quoted by the Rav) says that one cannot reestablish תכלת without

a mesorah. Therefore, regardless of how much evidence one would bring for the murex, it has no

halchik weight: only a mesora is halchically warranted in identifying the chilazon. The Rav (in

shiurim lzecher aba mori) quotes a in support. The רמב"ם quoting Zevachim, says that ,רמב"ם

when the Jews returned after the first exile, 3 neviim were needed to inform Bnei Yisroel of the

location of the mizbeach, the dimensions of the mikdash, and whether korbonos could be brought

without a mikdash. The Rav understands that a mesora was needed and therefore these facts

could only be reestablished through nevuah. However, Rav Ariel finds the proof unconvincing: it

may just be that historically, those three neviim were the only ones that knew, and there was no

evidence which could be used to determine these facts. Others bring proof from the din found in

the רמ"א that one cannot rely on simanim to determine the kashrus of a bird. The Torah, unlike

by other types of animals, does not give simanim to determine what bird is kosher, but lists

which birds are not kosher. Therefore, determining the kashrus of a bird may be similar to

identifying תכלת, which is a specific type of dye rather than something identified by simanim.

However, this proof is difficult. The גמרא gives certain characteristics of kosher birds as a means

of determining what birds are kosher. It is only a חומרא of the רמ"א not rely on such simanim out

of fear that one might misidentify a sign. Therefore, one could use the case of birds to prove that

one can rely on signs given by chazal to identify a species. Even by תכלת the רמ"א would agree

that one can rely on simanim since to be strict is to wear תכלת. The reliability of mesora comes

up in a discussion about what hadassim to use. A case was brought before the Shevut Yaakov

where hadasim with a tradition that they were not hybrids were withered (and would therefore be

while the fresh hadasim had ,(ראב"ד but kosher according to the פסק accprding to standard פסול

no mesora for being pure hadas, but had simanim suggesting that they were pure hadas. In this

case the Chacham Tzvi ruled that one should use the fresh hadas. Apparently, he considered the

simanim reliable enough to prefer non-Mesora hadasim to mesora hadasim which are most likely

.פסול However, the shvut Yaakov disagreed and said one should use the mesora hadasim.

Nonetheless, the shvut Yaakov would probably still agree that in a case with no alternative one

use hadasim with no mesora. One could apply this to תכלת. Since there is no option for kosher

mesora תכלת, one should use what seems to be תכלת from simanim. In fact, the Maharil says that

we can renew תכלת based on the simanim which the smag gives. Rav Ariel cites an example of

where the Beis Yosef uses archeological evidence to prove a halacha. He says that archeological

evidence was found ins upport of רׁש"י tefillin. However, this case may be different because both

and Rabeinu Tam tefillin already have halachik validity and a mesora and the archeological רׁש"י

evidence is only being used as a support. Nonetheless, there seems to be minimal evidence for

the opinion of the Beis HaLevi and some compelling evidence against the Beis Halevi. Indeed,

HaRav HaGaon Rav Yosef Elyashiv shlit”a prefers a different version of the Beis Yosef, quoted

by the Rodziner. According to this version, the Beis Halevi says that if something was known to

our fathers but was not used by them, then it is a mesora that that something is not valid.

Therefore, only if the murex was known to previous generations and was still not used would

external evidence be inadmissible.24

Despite the of כלל דאורייתא ספק ,לחומרא many say one should still not use it due to

separate concerns. First, Rav Elyashiv expresses concern over relying on its validity. He says

that people thought in the past that they discovered תכלת and they turned out to be wrong. Who

knows when the murex will be proven wring as well? Of course this argument is very odd since

the evidence for the murex is much stronger than evidence in the past, and the fact that previous

beliefs were disproven has no bearing whatsoever on what is currently speculated to be תכלת. If

what Rav Elyashiv is expressing is skepticism about the reliability of archeological and chemical

evidence, the murex would at least remain a ספק. Rav Elyashiv also argues that we can’t use the

murex because we don’t know whether or not other dyes should be added ( thinks no other רׁש"י

dyes are added while tosfos thinks other dyes are added). While Rav Elyashiv is certainly correct

that we cannot know for sure that the color being produced is made in the exactly correct way,

like by any other machlokes rishonim one must paskon who to follow. Finally, he is concerned

about the to have the color חומרא of the strings the same color as the begged. However, if

modern is fake, this תכלת will not be kept. However, as stated earlier, it seems that the חומרא

possibility to keep a din trumps being choshesh for a חומרא.

24 And while Rav Elyashiv still cites the Beis HaLevi as a potential problem with using the תכלת since maybe our ancestors knew about the murex, this problem seems odd since there is no evidence that the Rishonim knew about the murex or its ability to produce תכלת.

While Rav Elyashiv is primarily concerned with the admissibility of the murex as תכלת,

Rav Schteurnbach is concerned with other halachik problems which may arise. First, he is

concerned with the problem of lo sisgodedu. If one lives in a tzibbur which does not wear תכלת,

to wear would be in violation of lo sisgodedu. Granted, this would not necessarily be a תכלת

problem in every tzibbur, and maybe if תכלת is really correct every tzibbur as a whole should try

to keep ,תכלת Rav Bernstein (HaTekhelet) refutes his application of lo sisgodedu. First, lo

sisgodedu is a problem when you, against the rest of the tzibbur, do something which is

considered ,by the tzibbur. Certainly אסור is not considered תכלת .אסור Second, lo sisgodedu

doesn’t apply to the fulfillment of Torah obligations. If one must wear תכלת then he must and lo

sisgodedu cannot uproot that. Rav Schteurnbach also argues that there is a potential problem of

bal tosif. If one were to wear תכלת thinking that it is certainly תכלת, and it turns out that what is

only תכלת ספק is not תכלת, then they violate bal tosif. Rav Shlomo Miller also thinks that since it

is unclear how many strings to use, if one uses too many strings it will be bal tosif. Of תכלת

course, this seems odd if one were to paskon like the rishon which says to use that many strings.

Rav Aviner cites yet another potential problem. He thinks that wearing תכלת should be

considered yuhara. His opion is predicated on the fact that most gedolim do not wear תכלת so for

any person to go and wear is like saying that they know better than the gedolim. Even תכלת

accepting his assumption that most gedolim do not support תכלת, Rav Ariel argues that it isn’t

halachically yuhara. Yuhara only applies to that which is a However, to where modern .חומרא

may be an absolute requirement. Furthermore, Rav Ovadiya says in Yechave Daat (2:1) תכלת

that only that which is a according to everyone is subject to yuhara. However, if some חומרא

poskim require a certain practice it is not yuhara. By ,תכלת since some poskim require the

wearing of the murex dyed it would not be yuhara.25 HaRav Ben Tzion (author of ohr ,תכלת

25 We shall also see later that the “gedolim” don’t clearly side against תכלת.

ltziyon) says that to wear is תכלת motzi laaz if your forefathers didn’t wear .תכלת This is

surprising since previous generations didn’t have access to ,Nonetheless !תכלת all agree that

neither of these concerns would be problems if one tucks in tzitzit.

Finally, some raise objections from kabalistic and agadaic sources. The Arizal says there

is no more תכלת once the beis hamikdash was destroyed. This is, however, difficult because it is

clear that they still had תכלת in the times of the גמרא. Second, the sifri says that תכלת was nignaz.

Again the sifri has the same problem as the arizal. Finally some want to say that the pasuk

supports not wearing תכלת since “ldorosam” only qualifies wearing tzitzis but not תכלת. None of

these issues can be considered serious problems in the realm of halacha (as Rav Schternbauch

himself mentions).

One the other hand, some argue that there are serious problems with not wearing modern

Most prominent, Rav Schachter argues that it can be a problem of bal tigra. There is a .תכלת

machlokes if intentionally not fulfilling a mitzva is considered bal tigra. Then, if is תכלת

considered its own mitzva, not to wear it when you potentially can would be bal tigra. The

Rodziner Rebbe says that even according to those who say that bal tigra is intentionally not

performing the entire mitzva (the position of the turei) according to those who say that תכלת is a

part of the mitzva of tzitzis, not to wear תכלת could be bal tigra.26 Based on this Rav Schachter

suggests that it may be better not to wear tzitzis at all rather than wear tzitzis without תכלת.

What emerges is that the major poskim who say one shouldn’t wear תכלת are not directly

opposed to the reasoning of nor to the potential validity of לחומרא דאורייתא ספק but to ,תכלת

extraneous problems which may arise. Yet, supporters of תכלת combat with additional problems

of not wearing תכלת. It seems that so many do not wear תכלת because the gedolim don’t wear

26 I would say that it is ספק bal tigra. If this is the case, then even Reb Chaim would agree that one should wear .violation of bal tigra ספק to remove oneself from a תכלת

Yet, this is not entirely clear. One must keep in mind that it has only been about 20 years .תכלת

that the proper color of .could be produced תכלת As quoted before, Rav Elyashiv and Rav

Schternbauch oppose 27.תכלת Rav Shlomo Fisher is firmly opposed to it, while Rav Aviner and

Rav Ben Tziyon oppose it being warn publicly.28 Rav Avraham Yosef also opposes תכלת due to a

concern of shaatnez. However, Baruch Sterman mentions a number of talmidei chachamim who

wear תכלת: Rav Re’em Hakohen, Rav Benny Kalminson, Rav Drori, Rav Lior, Rav Ariel, Rav

Yehoshua Shapira, Rav Shabbtai Rappaport, Rav Meidan, and Rav Sherlow from the “dati

leumi” kehilos, and Rav Karp, Rav Ha’ir, Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rav Yaakov Yosef,

Rav Oppman, and Rav Belsky from the more yeshivish circles. It is well known that the

Zilberman community wears תכלת. In addition, Rav Schachter, Rav Ben Chaim, Rabbi Lamm,

and Rav Tendler (I assume since he writes supporting it) from the YU community wear .תכלת

Rav Ariel quotes that Rav Mordechai Eliyahu zatzal said he does not oppose it (and I have heard

that his children may wear תכלת). Rav Kapach says that while תכלת is probably correct, there is

no חיוב to wear it. Rav Avraham Shapira suspects that most gedolim who say not to wear it have

other concern in mind.

27 However, members of Petil Tekhelet claim they spoke to Rav Elyashiv and he said he could not support it because the inability to mass produce it and because of how expensive it is. 28 And I heard from Asher Abittan that Rav Ben Shlomo also opposes wearing תכלת if your family does not wear it. I also heard from Asher that Rav Yaakov Yosef said the Rav Ovadiya, who is strangely silent about תכלת, wears it. However, Rav Ben Chaim thinks he is mistaken.