Submitted: Full disclaimer: Lakewooder FFB, part of the Yeshiva system, and my whole life growing up I never wore Techeiles – I always associated Techeiles with the Modern Orthodox, I never really understood it or why.
My journey into this started recently, sparked by a documentary film:
This led me towards a deeper dive into the sugya itself, from the Gemara and Rishonim to Achronim and more. I decided to approach this subject open-minded and hear both sides of the argument. It led me through a whole sugyah from numerous sources and reasonings, and I’d like to hear other perspectives on this, as well as share the TLDR gist of the arguments from what I gleaned. Ultimately, I just want to spread awareness, hoping that we get to the bottom of this thing already…
It’s one thing to learn the sources and disagree with the conclusion. It’s another to simply have a strong opinion about something without ever learning about it.
I am genuinely trying to understand the other side. If there are strong halachic arguments against the Murex, any reasons why it might be Assur, I would be very grateful to see them presented.
This is my short summary of what they claim (additional videos and source sheets at bottom):
Techeiles: A Couple of Facts
The mitzvah of Techeiles, lost over 1,300 years ago, is a sugya that deserves our attention. The goal here is not to issue a psak or convince anyone what to do, but to present the information so that everyone can learn the basic facts and, should they wish, bring the question to their Rov.
Btw this is just a summary, there is a ton more information out there to anyone who wants to research further, so apologies for spelling, missing sources, or anything I missed. I tried my best 😛 to compile this list!
Part I: The Evidence for the Murex Snail
The case for identifying the Chilazon with the Murex snail is built on 4 key points.
(Btw, its scientific name has been changed to Hexaplex Trunculus, formerly known as the Murex Trunculus.)
1. The Linguistic Mesorah: Chilazon is a Snail
There is a direct Mesorah identifying the Chilazon as a snail, specifically the one used for royal blue/purple dye:
-
Chilazon is a Snail:
Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom use the Old French word limace (snail) to define Chilazon. The Rambam (Keilim 12:1) states it is an aquatic creature with a shell (he uses the word צדפה/ﻗﺫذﻳﯾﻔﺔ which means a shell). -
Techeiles is Murex Dye:
The Raavyah (Brachos #19) quotes the Yerushalmi, which translates Techeiles as Purfirin—the Aramaic form of the Greek Purpura (Πορφύρα). Purpura was the universal ancient name for the Murex snail and its famous dye. -
Acharonim Concur:
A line of prominent Acharonim explicitly make this connection, including the Shiltei Giborim, Yaavetz, Chavas Yair, and Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch, who translates Chilazon as Purpurschnecke (the Purple Snail – schnecke means snail in German).
(See link to book/PDF which has all the sources for each of these points.)
2. Location & Archaeology: A Perfect Match
The physical evidence aligns perfectly with the Gemara’s descriptions:
-
Location:
The Gemara (Shabbos 26a) says the Chilazon is found “from the Ladders of Tyre until Haifa.” Archaeology confirms this exact stretch of coast was the world center of the ancient Murex dyeing industry. -
Evidence:
Archaeologists have unearthed massive mounds of Murex shells at ancient dyeing sites along this coast. Cloth dyed with Murex has been found at Masada and in the Bar Kochba caves. -
Why it was Lost:
Roman decrees made private production or possession of Murex dye a capital offense, as it was reserved for royalty. This provides a clear historical reason for why the mitzvah was lost.
3. Concordance with the Simanim
The Murex trunculus matches the specific identifiers given in Menachos 44a:
-
Gufo Domeh L’Yam (Its body resembles the sea):
Its shell is often covered in marine growth, blending into the seafloor. It even digs holes in the sand and buries itself from time to time. -
B’riyaso Domeh L’Dag (Its form resembles a fish):
It has a distinct shape that can be likened to a fish. Or you can teitch that anything in the sea is called “Dag”, even crustaceans, seals, etc. -
Oileh Achas L’Shivim Shanah (Comes up once in 70 years):
Understood by many as a reference to its rarity or a mass appearance during major storms—not as a literal lifespan. Or, as Rabbi Halberstam puts it, referring to the Roman pagan holiday when they made fun of the Jews once every 70 years, and they most likely needed the Murex dye for this party (see Gemara Avodah Zara 11b). -
Damav Yekorim (Its “blood” is expensive):
Murex dye was famously one of the most valuable commodities of the ancient world.
4. Compelling Logical Proof (S’vara)
It defies logic to assume the Chilazon and the Murex were two different snails. Both were used to produce precious dyes (either Tyrian royal purple/purpura or blue with UV light from the sun), from a snail, in the exact same location, at the exact same time.
If they were different, we would expect Jewish sources to mention the widespread Roman Murex industry, or Roman sources to mention the Jewish Chilazon industry. Neither does.
Furthermore, Chazal warned against the fraudulent plant dye Kala Ilan (Bava Metzia 61b).
If the Murex was also a counterfeit, it would have made sense to at least give a warning against it, which isn’t found anywhere.
The simplest conclusion: They are one and the same.
Part II: Addressing the “Lost Mesorah” Objection
The main objection has always been the lack of a continuous mesorah. However, the halachic framework for re-establishing a practice based on evidence is robust.
Do you eat turkey? We have no Mesorah for that! It was re-established!
Like kosher animals, the Chilazon is identified by simanim given in the Gemara. Finding a creature that verifiably matches every siman and all the surrounding data creates a powerful state of birur (clarification).
Examples of using external evidence in halacha:
-
The Tzitz: R’ Eliezer saw the golden Tzitz in Rome to clarify a dispute (Shabbos 63b).
-
The Shekel: The Ramban changed his opinion on the weight of a Shekel after seeing an ancient one in Eretz Yisrael.
-
The Meisei Midbar: The Gemara Bava Basra 74a criticizes Rabba Bar Bar Chana for not checking the tzitzis of the Meisei Midbar to resolve a machlokes.
-
Rav Elyashiv zt”l reportedly stated that one can use archaeological evidence to reconstruct a Mesorah.
-
Rav Yisroel Belsky zt”l told a colleague that with such solid rayos, it is “K’ilu there is a Mesorah.”
Part III: The Rediscovery & Current Status
-
The Discovery:
Rav Herzog zt”l identified the Murex in 1913 but couldn’t make a stable blue. The missing piece was found in the 1980s: exposing the dye to sunlight (UV radiation) during processing turns it from purple to brilliant blue. -
Support Among Gedolim:
While not universal, a significant number of Gedolei Yisrael have validated Murex Techeiles.
Examples:
-
Wore Techeiles: Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg zt”l, Rav Yisroel Belsky zt”l
-
Permit/Endorse wearing:
Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l said if you believe it’s the real deal then you are Mechuyev
Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky shlit”a, Rav Dovid Cohen shlit”a (Gvul Ya’avetz) permit wearing it
Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp shlit”a wears it publicly
Nignaz:
Sefardim, Chabad, Chassidim, and others who follow the Arizal should look at the first book/PDF to see how they explain it’s not Nignaz anymore.
Summary: Amoraim still had Techeiles even after the Bamidbar Rabbah 17:5 says it became Nignaz—likely due to the Roman ban.
A Final Consideration
We have a rule of Safek Deoraisa Lechumra—when in doubt about a Torah obligation, we are machmir. If there is a legitimate safek that this is the real Techeiles, shouldn’t we wear it?
If we were stranded on an island with questionable Tefillin, we would wear them (without a bracha). Why should this be any different?
Some argue Shev V’al Ta’aseh Adif, but:
Rav Hershel Schachter shlit”a raises a powerful counterpoint:
If this is the real Techeiles, then by wearing a Tallis without it, we are being mevatel the mitzvah in its ideal form.
He argues it may be better not to wear a four-cornered garment at all than to wear it in a deficient way.
(It’s not a Mitzvah Chiyuvis but a Mitzvah Kiyumis—see 31:30 here: http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/6521/)
Conclusion
I am still learning, and I am genuinely trying to understand all sides of this. The facts on the ground have changed since the era of the Radzyner Rebbe. I am not advocating for a particular action—only for learning.
I’m especially interested in hearing any well-sourced arguments against the Techeiles, so I can better understand the full picture.
Ask yourself: Are you worried about what your father-in-law, coworkers, or the guy at the shoe store will think?
What’s the real reason we’re not doing it? Is it the fear of being seen as “different,” or even misunderstood as “going OTD”?
I’ve asked myself these questions. You guys might have similar thoughts.
We wrap Tefillin at the airport, we shiver in the Sukkah, we fast on Tisha B’Av—we accept discomfort for mitzvos.
So: Are we willing to trade some social comfort for the sake of fulfilling a Safeik Mitzvah De’Oraisah?
Resources & Links
🎥 The documentary video (it has pros and cons):
🗣 Further discussion:
-
Rabbi Eli Stefansky:
-
Rav Asher Weiss’s opinion:
-
Rabbi Gissinger z”tl:
📘 List of Rabbonim and Gedolim who wear Techeiles today:
https://bluefringes.com/notable-wearers
📚 Further reading:
-
Levush Ha’Aron: An Examination of the Kashrus of the Murex Snail for Techeiles
https://www.amazon.com/dp/193788726X
https://tekhelet.com/pdf/LevushHaaron.pdf
🎧 Podcast discussing both pros and cons:
http://podcast.headlinesbook.com/e/6521/
📖 Sefer in Hebrew:
כל מראה הרקיע משפטים תשעז עם תיקונים
As always, ask your LOR. I’m not taking responsibility for what you decide to do. And as Yidden, we are supposed to learn Kol HaTorah Kula! This is part of it!
what about the radzin one ?
Read the 2 page summary at the end of Artscroll Menachos volume 2 for a very quick summary of techeiles in modern times. Then read Levush H’Aron (free pdf link in article) that Rabbi Belsky said he read every single page and gives his full haskama and advised people to learn the sugyah for themselves and not to poke fun at people that have learned the sugyah and now wear murex techeiles.
Levush Haaron is riddled with inaccuracies on nearly every page.
Source?
I’ve written a kunteres about it, as mentioned above. It is all sourced. If you contact me at [email protected] I’ll send you a pdf.
That is your opinion, which seems to be set in stone. Rav Belsky disagreed and said it is accurate.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Even the pro techeiles people have since moved on from what’s written there and agree it’s inaccurate.
The video above is also full of errors and distortions.
Please explain which errors and distortions you are referring to?
I’ve written about it in many places, it’s hard to go over everything here. For some reason I am not able to post a link here to where I’ve written about it in other places.
One blatant distortion from the documentary that comes to mind is when they show the codex Justinian, they literally forged a word. They showed a copy of the Blume translation, but erased the word purple and put in the word murex Instead. Such “errors” are quite typical of the techeiles movement.
Please see this article about the articulation of purple:
https://www.mywesternwall.net/2022/08/08/the-color-purple.html
Quick summary of their essay:
Chotam Shel Emet – Its Main Point: The famous ancient Murex snail was used to make PURPLE dye, not the biblical blue dye (techelet). It uses Roman and Greek sources to prove this.
The Second Document (The Essay on Argaman) – Its Main Point: The biblical word Argaman (which people often think means “purple”) actually means RED or ORANGE, according to classic Jewish scholars.
The first document attempts to prove the Murex snail makes purple.
The second document attempts to prove biblical Argaman was actually red.
were it not for rav eliyahu tavger who rediscovered the connection of the murex to the techeilis of tzizit close to 40 years ago., there would be no discussion on the subject. for his intensive study on the subject .FYI R: shmuel kaminetzky saw the actual dyeing at the home of R’ tavger at about that time. R” belsky became aware of the murex at about ttime as well. surprised you were not aware f his name
The quote from Reb Chaim Kaniyevsky is disingenuous
If his opinion is important, quote him in his entirety.
He believed that murex is not techeiles, and that a person who wore murex may stop wearing it without hataras nedarim, i.e., it is not even a safek.
Rav Chaim is quoted accurately relating to the point at had: there’s no issur in wearing blue tzitis, and someone who is convinced must wear.
Correct. Everyone should watch the last approximately 15 minutes of the video.
That’s the point.
It is accurate but misleading.
Rav Eliyashiv didnt wear it nor did Rav Shteinman or any of the other exepted gedolei hador. enough said. Do yourself a favor and learn hilchos shabbos and discover how many issurim your trangressing before you delve into techeiles
That’s a red herring. We all do mitzvos and some we’re meikil and some we are more machmir on. Some we neglect and some we do. Techeiles has a draw to certain people, and lehavdil Hachnassas Orchim, Bikur Cholim, Kiddush HaChodesh, etc also draws certain types of people.
Why am I saying this? Because I’d like to think that the crowd here is primarily Shomer Shabbos, but for example carrying with an eruv, according to some, at all times is an actual issur due to the fact that a “Reshus HaRabbim” doesn’t constitute a literal 600,000 people and therefore the dimensions mandate a much shorter amount of people (I read this Ha’ara in “The 39 Melochos” by R’ Dovid Ribiat and was shocked). Should we say then that everyone carrying on Shabbos using an accepted Eruv is sinning? I would think there are issues with that as well.
So before you say to discover how many issurim one is transgressing, I suggest you also looked into how nuanced actual Halacha is before commenting something like that.
Anyone interested about what some gedolim say, watch the last 15 or 20 minutes of the video (and that video is years old, and more rabbanim may now be open to the idea.). Also, there are reliable sources that Rabbi Sternbuch now wears techeiles sometimes in private for the sake of making a bracha, although it seems he still leaves murex as a safek.
If people know about it, it isn’t private.
I think others reading this will have no issue understanding what I meant. I would have use the word “secretly” if that was what I was trying to say. In private means in the house, not in front of the rabim, just family and any shamoshim. He allowed it to be publicized that he is not anti techeiles like he once was.
People are funny in that way. There are Rabbis that wear Techeiles on their Tallis Kattans whom I and others have personally spoken with, and they all said the same thing: they don’t want to create undue attention.
One other one (R’ Yosef Zvi Rimon) told me that he wears only on his TK because he doesn’t want to tell people what to do. I responded half jokingly that most people will do what they want indepently anyway. He smiled and we each moved on.
Most Rabbinim that support it have been fooled by the sloppy research done by the techeiles proponents.
If Rav Belsky were alive today and saw the new research done, I’m sure he would be against it.
Doubtful. See for example the YouTube video where he debates R’ Shaul Shimon Deutsch on Techeiles.
I am very interested to know what sloppy research you specifically are referring to?
Many examples are in Chosam Shel Emes. Add to this taking a Ramban completely out of context without checking the original girsa in the manuscripts, as well as a complete and total misunderstanding of everything surrounding the bans on murex. (There was a recent article in Hakirah by efraim Ayil pointing this out as well)
your assumption comes from ignorance on the subject
You’re assumption comes from ignorance as to the extent of my expertise on the subject.
Feel free to read my kunteres and respond to the points made.
Possible but hard to believe based on his teshuvos on the subject.
maybe they were it on their talis katan which no one would notice
Whoever wears tefilin on his arm and head, wears tzitsis on
his garment and has a mezuzah on his doorway is assured that he will not sin. Menachos 43
That is reason enough to strive to fulfill the mitzvah of tzitsis in its entirety. Techeiles is an integral part or the mitzvah of tzitsis, as Rabbi Gissinger said in the video.
There are so many inaccuracies in here I don’t know where to begin. You can start with the fact that there’s no evidence that it was ever used for blue dye in the olden days, and it is generally assumed to have been impossible then, since they didn’t have transparent vats. Professor Koren and Dr. Ziderman have written about this extensively. All available evidence would support the murex as being argaman and not techeiles. I’ve written a kunteres about this though for some reason I’m not able to upload it here. I can be reached at [email protected]
The kuntres Levush Ha’Aron answers all your points. Dr Ziderman makes his own techeiles from murex, just boiled and not exposed to sunlight. He sells it also, so Dr Ziderman is very pro murex. You just need to prepare it in a specific way according to him to not run into the indigo molecule issue. Look at his website here tekhelet.info Your kuntres is half a story and out of date in regards to Dr Ziderman.
Nope, Levush haaron does not answer any of my points. Dr. Ziderman is pro murex but that’s irrelevant to the point I was making. He boils the tzitzis after they were dyed to turn them blue. It is highly unlikely that was ever done in the past.
Hi Nosson (Chosam shel emes), not to defend Levush HaAron as it was published in 2013 and newer information has come out, but to address your points and comment:
“You can start with the fact that there’s no evidence that it was ever used for blue dye in the olden days…”
“and it’s generally assumed to have been impossible then…”
Therefore, your point about it being factually impossible to dye blue with murex is unfounded.
Per my initial point 2), in Spanish the word for the Techeiles color was Azul.
Well said!
Look up the rainbow photo from:
Augsburger Wunderzeichenbuch — Folio 2 (Genesis 9, 12-15)
Its an image made in Augsburg in Germany in the 16th century, and it has a rainbow with green, yellow, and red, and the artist even painted a BLUE ocean and BLUE sky! HOWEVER – the rainbow drawing itself HAS NO BLUE ON IT! This is because many languages and cultures back then had no specific name for blue, so they considered it green-like.
Also the “Augsburger Wunderzeichenbuch — Folio 184- Johannes und der Engel” has blue pigment in it but not on the rainbow.
Hi Rafi, nice to hear from you again,
You didn’t really address my points so there’s not much to respond to. Just one clarification of what I said above, that it was probably impossible to dye blue in the olden days. I was referring to the common method used nowadays of photo debromination. As I mentioned previously there are a few other ways that could have technically been possible such as Zidermans way.
(Levanon’s way needs more research, as it only worked with some of them). But there is little evidence that it was ever done in the past, (aside from one ancient textile).
Actually I did with regards to being capable of dyeing blue.
Regarding whether or not it was done in ancient times, even Otto Elsner wrote that it’s unlikely that his method was used in ancient times, but that this was his way of making “blue:” whether or not it’s Techeiles would be left up to the Rabbis (Elsner was a secular scientist so he knew where not to tread).
The above said, given that we know that Ziderman and Koren’s methods produce “blue” albeit with a wider range of shades (some of Ziderman’s own strings with his method are also greenish-blue), establishing a more efficient method has precedence. We see that with the production of Tefillin and Sifrei torah. It’s guaranteed that 2,000 years ago the ancients were incapable of making such Klaf and batim like we have now. Yet Halacha mandates that as long as the end goal is reached and it’s not using any substance or method that’s out of place, it’s Halachically kosher for use of the mitzva.
But if we don’t know at all that it was used for blue in ancient times, you kind of lost the whole proof that this is the chilazon to begin with. No reason to assume this is anything other than argaman-turned-kala ilan.
This is especially true in light of the deafening silence from all the rishonim with regards to the identity of the chilazon- despite this being a world renowned snail.
I’m not so sure about the deafening silence. We see from the Raavya’s girsa on Yerushalmi Brachos 1:2 that his tradition was Bein Techeiles L’Kartan was Bein Purphirin uBein Prisinan. Prisinos is Greek for the color green and Prasa means leek which is also green. Therefore Prisinan would best translate as a Karti cloth. Based on this, Purphirin would match for Techeiles, which is sourced from the Purpura snail. The Greeks have a long mesorah that the purphyra means murex snail. So there’s that: it’s not argaman turned kala ilan but rather, only one murex snail, the trunculus could make those blues that we associate for Techeiles. It’s no wonder why hycanthina, which included our blues, was classed under “purples.”
Regarding blue, again, see my comment on when “blue” for blue came out in the English language. Other languages do have it as “blue” in the form of azul and azurro (also see above).
Whatever the Raavyah does or does not mean, the fact that not one Rishon openly identified it as the techeiles, and all wrote that it’s lost, and even the Geonim write it was lost, despite it being a very famous snail that was still being used then, is quite a strong indicator that we;re barking up the wrong tree. This is especially true since the Geonim write that techeiles is blue, whereas the murex is never idenified with that color. Like I said, all available evidence p[oints to the murex having nothing to do with techeiles.
I’m not sure why you’re comment about the word blue in English is relevant to anything, please do explain.
The Raavya was a later Rishon, so I’m not sure what’s meant by “not one Rishon openly identified it.” And Nignaz means set aside, not lost.
On top of that, the Septuagint (with R’ Herzog himself held of even though the originals weren’t preserved) has in another place translating Techeiles as Oloporphyron, or all porphyron. As was mentioned earlier, porphyra was the term used for both the color “purple” and the murex creature. And it translates directly as Techeiles in regards to the Bigdei Kehuna.
I’ll also add that the Ramban (also a later Rishon) wrote that Techeiles in his time was being worn by the Melech goyim.
The word “blue” has relevance since your premise is that the murex was never written to dye for blue. It couldn’t because that word in English wasn’t around yet!
The Raavyah does not openly identify it i.e. “murex is techeiles” like the Chavas yair does. he is quoting a different manuscript “sefer yerushalmi” of questionable authorship and the exact meaning of what he’s saying is unclear. You would expect a lot more rishonim identifying it, openly and unambiguously
I am quite surprised you are quoting the Septuagint as proof that murex is purpura, and at the same time invoking Rav Herzog to back this up, as Rav Herzog writes clearly that it is a translation of argaman and not techeiles, and they clearly had a different girsa than we have. This is quite a good example of “sloppy research” mentioned above, if I may say so myself.
The Ramban does not say that the melech goyim wore it in his time. Check out alhatorah.org and Tur al hatorah for the correct version of what the ramban actually says.
Again, I’m mnpt sure where English comes in, as the ancient sources discussing the murex are in Greek or Latin, which had a clear word for blue. (Pretty sure English also did, but that’s irrelevant.)
I will put my money where my mouth is. I offer to buy you thermochromic murex techeiles like Dr. Ziderman makes, that do not have the indigo molecule issue.
If you’re offering a free pair, I’ll gladly take it, if it doesn’t come with any strings attached (pun intended). But I’d prefer a Koren- violet over a ziderman-BBQ tzitzis.
I’ll explain my point again. Dr. Ziderman mentions in numerous articles that the method to get blue commonly used today was not done in ancient times. For many years he was therefore of the opinion that techeiles is violet. Recently he discovered a new way to make it blue, via heating the strings. However, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that was ever done in the past (though it was technically possible).
So the most simple assumption is that techeiles is blue and this is not techeiles. (Which would explain why none of the rishonim mentioned this being techeiles, despite it being a world renowned dye).
Sorry, Ziderman sets are currently in extremely limited supply. But even so, again, the organizations would still need boil the wool if it turned violet even after exposure to sunlight (making it thermochromic to a degree), so we are going around in circles.
The above said, the Ziderman samples that I have available are a much richer outcome of blue with a very small hint of violet. But even Dr. Ziderman has mentioned to me that his method color-wise produces a wide range of blues, including the ones we are familiar with when we associate Techeiles.
I’m going to argue, without having tested this, and say that I don’t think you need transparent containers, in fact, if you search up images of vat dyeing, they used wide containers on the ground. So theoretically, if you mix the solution and stir it good, then you don’t need glass. You just need enough sunlight to reach most of the solution.
Please share which wide containers you’re referring to. I haven’t seen any. And Professor Koren explains that it’s impossible to dye with wide uncovered vats as it would cause it to oxidize.
Very nice there were some rabbanim that wore/wear however the current leading rabbanim of normal mainstream society have been approached by protecheilis groups numerous times and they still don’t. The argument may sound correct however Halacha is followed by the posek that one chooses for himself, I am not saying that one shouldn’t ask his Rav or posek to look into it, but the average layman should not read a post listen to a shiur or watch a video and feel like he is a maan d’amar in the sugya.
This is a question for everyone’s personal posek. Not the scoop
See Rav Aharon Lifshitz’s wonderful Kuntres called Chilazon Hatecheiles B’Mishnas HaRishonim (published Kislev 5778) which refutes all the proofs of the pro techeiles groups and proves that there is no proof that the murex is the correct one.
Where can I get a copy of that?
in the cover it has an email address [email protected]
Simple question, does your Rav or Rebbi wear it, if no why are you more frum than him, if yes ask him if you should.
this article was very convincing, I’m going tomorrow to buy a brand new pair of Techalet! I’m pumped!
“Are we willing to trade some social discomfort for the sake of fulfilling a safek D’oraisa?”
”are we scared of being viewed as OTD, different, modox, ‘tzioni’?”
Great. Now do Eretz Yisroel and, specifically, the Mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel.
Are you learning Chumash with Rashi?
In every place in the past couple of weeks where one could think we have to live in Eretz Yisroel, Rashi explains the possuk differently. The Ramban also believes that Rashi held it is not a mitzvah.
In the documentary “It’s not Black and White” at the 42 minute mark, there is a disagreement between several Rabbonim if the murex can be the chilazon as to whether that can be an issur tzaida (trapping) on a snail and since the Gemara discusses trapping a chilazon on Shabbos, that would depend on if you can trap a snail or not.
As far as I know Rav Wosner and most of the gedolim didn’t wear ticheles, I don’t think any of the four lakewood senior poskim wear, so we follow the leaders.
R’ Yisrael Reisman Shlita gave a shiur with extremely compelling arguments as to why the Murex is not the correct Techiles..Search ‘Rabbi Yisrael Reisman’ Techiles and it should come up
Not R’ Belsky himself wore Techiles, but it was not something his Talmidim all accepted
There are a few published responses to the points that Rabbi Reisman Shlita brought up here:
https://www.techeiles.org/harav-yisroel-reisman-shlita/
See what R’ Aryeh Lebowitz says.
Here’s an AI summary of his Shiur:
Point-by-Point Rebuttals to Rabbi Reisman’s Arguments
Argument (Nets): The Gemara mentions using nets, but you don’t need nets for snails.
Response: Nets could have been used as baited traps/baskets to filter out sand. Furthermore, ancient non-Jewish sources (Aristotle, Pliny) explicitly mention using nets to catch Murex snails.
Argument (Trapping): Trapping (tzeida) a slow-moving snail shouldn’t be a biblically prohibited act on Shabbos, yet the Gemara says it is.
Response: The prohibition of tzeida applies to any creature that normally requires a trap to capture. Since these snails burrow and hide, they require a trap for efficient harvesting, making the prohibition applicable. Other slow creatures are also included in this prohibition.
Argument (Mountain): The Gemara says the Chilazon comes up on a mountain after rain, but a Murex snail would die out of water.
Response: The Yad Ramah (a classical commentary) on that very Gemara states it’s referring to a different type of Chilazon. This proves the term Chilazon could be a general category, not a single species.
Argument (Chemical Identity): The Murex dye is chemically identical to a cheaper plant-based indigo dye (kela ilan). Why would anyone use the expensive Chilazon?
Response: In ancient times, they likely didn’t know the dyes were chemically identical. The snail dye had a longer, more established tradition and was considered more authentic.
Argument (Sunlight): The Gemara’s recipe for making Techeiles doesn’t mention exposure to sunlight, which is essential for the Murex dye to turn blue.
Response: The Gemara provides an incomplete, summary recipe, not a detailed manual. The process was likely done outdoors on the beach by default, making sunlight exposure an implicit, environmental factor rather than a formal step.
Argument (Black Secretion): The Rambam states the Chilazon’s secretion is black, but the Murex’s is not.
Response: The Rambam is the only source for this claim; it does not appear in the Gemara or Midrash. The Rambam likely had his own candidate for the Chilazon or a different tradition, one that is difficult to reconcile with other facts (e.g., his mention of the Dead Sea).
Argument (Zevulun’s Role): The tribe of Zevulun is tasked with providing the Chilazon, but their territory wasn’t directly on the coast.
Response: Zevulun were the master sailors. Harvesting commercial quantities of snails required boats to set traps further offshore, a task perfectly suited for them.
Argument (Number of Strings): There is a debate among the Rishonim on how many strings should be blue, making it impossible to pasken (rule).
Response: The Mishnah Berurah rules clearly on this matter in two places, stating the practice was two blue strings and two white strings (half and half).
FINALLY:
If you wear it: If the Murex is the correct Techeiles, you fulfill a mitzvah d’oraisa. If it’s not, there is no loss—you simply have colored strings on your tzitzis.
If you don’t wear it: You risk violating Bal Tigra (not diminishing a mitzvah) by neglecting to perform a mitzvah that is very likely available.
Final Assessment:
The speaker concludes that the bulk of Talmudic and circumstantial evidence supports the Murex trunculus, and that those who choose to wear it are on very solid halachic ground.
You should look at techeiles.org which is Techeiles Chaburah (the more yeshivish of the companies that make murex techeiles.) They have a debate section that has the pro and against arguments (responses to each) matched up. You will see many good, direct responses to Rabbi Reisman’s shiur and article.
Rav Yechiel Perr zt”l wrote a very comprehensive article on the subject. He thought that there were proofs from the gemara that the murex cannot be the chilazon.
why no disscusion on radzin techels cuttle fish semms more reliable
Because Radzyner Techeiles from the cuttlefish was scientifically disproven. The iron filings can be added to any protein source, including ox blood, to turn blue. It doesn’t need a cuttlefish per se for that. Yet Chazal never said that ox blood blue was kala ilan, so such a product never occurred to them to discount it.
The above said, even Dr. Israel Ziderman has told me that if Radzyners have a Mesorah to wear this type of Techeiles, then he can’t say anything since in the end, he strongly respects tradition. At the same time, he states that this wasn’t the Techeiles from antiquity, and anyone that doesn’t have a tradition to wear Radzyner Techeiles is best off wearing from the murex as that’s what was historically used.
That is what Dr. Ziderman claims. Many Gedolim argue that murex was not what was historically used, and the murex is rather the source of argaman and not techeiles.
A few years ago I went through this sugya in depth. The conclusion was that we should wear it misafek. Although it is not conclusive, there is strong evidence that the murex is legitimate. The proofs from historians is not very reliable as was mentioned earlier here. I am pretty sure Rabbi Yisroel Reisman was very clear about that. Using history to pasken halacha is not acceptable generally.
After I started wearing it, I had the opportunity to be meshamesh HaRav Shlomo MIller Shlit”a for a number of years. His gaonis in halacha is tremendous. He has tshuvos on the murex trunculus. He holds one should NOT wear it.
For all those asking why not? What is the chisaron? See Reb Moshe Sternbuch’s tshuvos in chelek 5. I don’t want to misquote in who’s name, but he said that if you wear and it is not the real one, there are issues with that.
Not sure why you took issue with what I said. Sounds like you agree with me. I was just pointing out that when Rafi Hecht was saying it was historically used, that is not as clear as he claims.
See the responses to Rabbi Miller on techeiles.org
The Raavya (at least from two recent Ksav Yad discoveries within the last 10 years) would like to then have a word, as he clearly writes it’s from the murex (purfirin).
You know why the ksav yad often are recnt discoveries. Because they were put in Genizah because they had mistakes in them. We go with our mesorah, and not recently discovered kisvei yad.
This is where one needs to go based on probability and a little bit of common sense.
You never heard of a copyist copying the mistake of the first copyist?
Of course. Which leads to point 3 I wrote earlier.
Rafi Hecht, but your point #3 assumes that all your other assumptions are also true, and therefore you think the other one makes more logical sense. But if all your other proofs are debunked then it doesn’t necessarily make more sense, so #3 is not a valid poiint in and of itself.
You mean this article?
https://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/0954.pdf
This argument goes on and on. Every few years new articles appear on this subject in Torah journals claiming that they are the final word, and in the next issue there are rebutals. We’ll just have to wait for Moshiach to solve this question (or we’ll simply look at his tzitzis…)
That’s one approach. Another approach is to see that there are two sides, one promoting the fulfillment of this mitzva and one against it at this time, and then making a personal decision, knowing that there are respected Gedolim on both sides, like with many areas of Halacha. After that it’s “Zil Gamur.”
There are flaws in almost all the arguments presented in favor of the murex trunculus. I do not have the time to address everything, but I will address one point and a general perspective.
The Linguistic Proof
While in many places, Rashi and other rishonim define chilazon as “limace”, for some of reason none of them do so when discussing the sugya of techeiles. In all the sugyos discussing techeiles, Rashi describes it as “tolaas” (or “dag” or “berya”). The Yad Ramah in Sanhedrin goes as far as to say that (what is clear from Rashi in Sanhedrin is that) the chilazon is NOT what is called Chalzom/chilzona in Arabic.
One of the many sources brought to prove that the chilazon is a snail is a medrash that states “ma chilazon zeh nartiko gadel imo”. Rashi in chumash brings this medrash with one difference. He omits the word “chilazon” and replaces it with the word “chomet”. Now, “chomet” is a snail according to Rashi. Yeat, Rashi never describes the chilazon as being a chomet or being similar to one. Rashi describes it as being a tolaas.
Some of the murex proponents attempt to brush this off (with regards to why the word “shablul” wasn’t used), by saying that either: A snail is just a tolaas with a shell and chomet/shablul are land snails, while chilazon is a sea snail. However, anyone being intellectually honest will realize that this answer is a mere distraction and diversion. It may be true that “A snail is just a tolaas with a shell and chomet/shablul are land snails while chilazon is a sea snail.” However, if we were coming to describe a sea snail, it would be far more logical to describe as being similar to a land snail, than to describe it as a worm/tolaas.
Linguistic proofs in general are not absolute proof for multiple reasons. First of all, languages change over the years and generations and what meant one thing many years ago can mean something else in the modern dialect and vernacular. The fact that in Old French a snail was “limace” or the diminutive “limacon” is a prime example of this. In Modern French, a snail is referred to as “escargot”, “limace” is used for a slug, and “limacon” is used in Modern English for a snail-shaped geometric curve (and in modern French for the cochlea, which is snail shaped). This is true for Arabic as well, despite it having changed less than many other languages. There are four major dialects of Arabic, besides for many more sub-dialects, with many words having completely different meanings in different dialects. Secondly, Chazal borrowed many words from other languages and expanded their usage beyond what they meant in the source-language. It is no wonder then, that R’ Sherira Gaon, who spoke Arabic fluently, translated “chilazon” (in the context of “mishakdei chilzoni”) as an oyster/bivalve – al-sadaf in Arabic. The Chida also spoke fluent Arabic, yet had no problem proposing that the “chilazon hatecheiles” is a min tahor. Thirdly, being that Chazal borrowed words from multiple languages, two words spelled the same in Hebrew could have come from different sources and have completely different meanings. Case in point: “Chilazon” from languages of semitic root, is a snail or something similar. However, when derived from Latin/Greek sources, it comes from the word meaning a hailstone and Chazal used it to describe a type of blemish in the eye.
Concerning the Raavya: The word Purpura (and other similar words) was originally used for an entire range and spectrum of colors between absolute red and (almost) absolute blue. The word was later borrowed for the family of snails that produced such dyes, as well as for garments of royalty in general. It is definitely possible that the Yerushalmi used it to describe techeiles, but that still has no bearings on the source of techeiles. It is also possible that the Yerushalmi is simply giving another sign for what is the time of bein techeiles l’karsi” and not necessarily translating the words (similar to the guideline of bein ze’ev l’kelev). The fact that if we go with the more accurate girsa of the Yerushalmi of ‘bein porphira l’poroshinin”, the second word meaning a leek, does not mean that porphira must mean techeiles. Rabeinu Yonah in Brachos understands “bein techeiles l’karsi” as the difference between techeiles and indigo. The Yerushalmi as well can also be referring to two types of dye with the words porphira and porpshinin/porphinin. (As an aside, this Rabeinu Yonah also demonstrates that the naked eye can discern between techeiles and indigo, unlike the murex proponents who would like you to believe that they are identical.)
Concerning the Achronim: We must first understand that these achronim were not writing halacha l’maaseh.
Rav Hirsch himself writes that his translations of flora and fauna in Tanach are not intended as rulings, rather as educated hypotheses and speculation. The Yaavetz himself describes the “chilazon” as being “sagur bein shnei klipos” – a bivalve not a snail.
In short, linguistic speculation is not proof. It is in no way absolute and should definitely not be the starting point. There is a reason why, of all the achronim who disagreed with the Radzyner, not a single one rejected the cuttlefish because it isn’t a snail.
Since some may wonder that some of what is written here are dchukim and dichuyim, I would like to address a few simple points before signing off.
Torah and Halacha are not scientific theory. There is an order to how thongs must be examined. We also cannot just propose a theory and see if it fits with the evidence at hand. There is also an order as to which types of proof and evidence take primacy. This brings us to two points.
1. The order of primacy: 1&2 – Statements that Chazal specifically gave as descriptions or simanim of the specific “chilazon” used for techeiles & historical and archaeological fact. (As already demonstrated, linguistic fact is non-existent and virtually impossible.) 3 – Statements that Chazal made about the “chilazon hatecheiles”, but were not given specifically as descriptions or simanim. 4&5 – Statements that Chazal made about a chilazon, but not necessarily the creature that was used for techeiles and historical, archaeological, and linguistic speculation, hypothesis, or theory.
2. Proofs and Evidence: As with any Halachic discussion, proof to establish facts must be airtight. If one were to present a phenomenon as support for a theory and an alternative theory is proposed to explain that phenomenon, the phenomenon is no longer proof to the first theory. The only way the phenomenon can be restored as proof, is if the alternative theory is proven to be untrue or untenable. It can still be used to buttress a theory that has already been proven, but it can no longer be cited as proof to establish a new theory.
Accordingly, being that the proponents of the murex techeiles are the “mechadshim”, the onus of proof is on them. Therefore, if I poke holes in their “proofs”, they can no longer be used as proof unless it is demonstrated that my alternative explanation is either untrue, untenable, or at minimum absolutely unreasonable.
Anyone with a discerning eye will notice that the proponents of the murex techeiles also begin with steps 4 and 5 in the above-mentioned order of primacy. Steps 1 and 2 are left for later and often dealt with as inconveniences that must be sorted out, often in ways that would be semi decent yishuvim if the murex was already established as the chilazon, but definitely would not lead one examining with an honest perspective to the conclusion that the murex is the chilazon hatecheiles.
One can disagree with the last few paragraphs. One can definitely treat establishing a halachic metzius as scientific theory if they choose to do so. As Rafi Hecht has said in the past “To Wear Tekhelet, One Cannot Think Orthodox”.
This statement succinctly describes the approach of the pro murex camp. However, most Bnei Torah would prefer to take the approach described above and “think Orthodox”. Therefore, most of the conversation about the murex techeiles is a virtual non-starter.
If you would like to discuss the matter in more detail and in greater length, you can email me at [email protected]
Following is clear :a)chilazon is a snail shape. B)there is shell involved. (both are mentioned by the radziner as proof for cuttlefish just he uses its 8 legs as chilazons and the beak as a shell)
The question that some say it’s a tahor species doesn’t have an answer according to both shittos.(Kuzari says it’s a between creature-meaning not a full fish)
The Lashon Rambam ‘black’ can be dark (Adom ela shelaka)
Purpura is purpura whether you wriggle this way or that.
Living outside Eretz Yisroel and under limited resources meant we didn’t have a proper holistic perspective of the situation (unlike today when every kid can see the facts cos they’re living it) (imagine finding relatives after holocaust in soviet russia) so Nignaz just followed automatically.
HOWEVER Mesora is very important even though our Tefilin was changed to ox leather only 100 yrs ago. (It helps that r nesanel sofer was charedi and most of the techeiles proponents are not, ergo their ne’emonus just doesn’t make the cut-ps I personally witnessed R Arye Finkle not relying on a Dati-written Sefer Torah).
Neither “a” nor “b” is so clear. As mentioned the blemish of the eye called “chilazon” is a dispute amongst rishonim whether it has anything to do with a snail. According to some it is from the Greek word for hailstone, while according to others it resembles a worm. A bivalve has very little resemblance to a snail as well.
A shell involved is also not certain.
These 2 are in Step 4 of the order of primacy, “Statements that Chazal made about a Chilazon, but not necessarily the creature that was used for techeiles.” The fact that the Radzyner mentioned these 2 facts is meaningless. Anyone who has gone through the Radzyner’s seforim knows that he tried to fit the cuttlefish with every mention of “chilazon” in Chazal, whether they had anything to do with techeiles or not. And yes, his explanations for fitting the cuttlefish with these two points were dchukim and not being brought as proof. His main proofs were the fact that it fit the descriptions of Step 1, “Statements that Chazal specifically gave as descriptions or simanim of the specific ‘chilazon’ used for techeiles”.
As for purpura being purpura. That is a very nice statement. However, if the word has any other possible connotation other than Techeiles, the Raavya’s Yerushalmi is not a proof.
what you write is not from your own first hand knowledge. few if any of the writers have contacted the the original discoverer rav eliyah tavger , who has far more knowledge than any one on the subject
I am not sure why you think what I write is not from my first hand knowledge. Everything I wrote in my original letter was base on my own research.
It happens to be that although I have never spoken to Rabbi Tavger, I have read all of his writings and corresponded to him directly in writing and indirectly through others in the techeiles chabura.
Your assertion that he was the original discoverer is also incorrect. Much of his information was based on research previously done by Rabbi Herzog, Dr. Ziderman, and Professor Elsner.
Your assertion that he knows more than any others is also not necessarily correct. I would vouch to say that Rabbi Yisroel Barkin, who is a veritable wellspring on the topic, and Rabbi Yehoshua Yankelewitz as well, probably know just as much, if not more, at this point than Rabbi Tavger. Their answers and explanations they give to some of the issues with the murex, are also far more cogent and coherent and not as big dchukim than those given by Rabbi Tavger.
Not going into specific names, I’ll just say that many people who claim to be experts actually know very little in the subject. I was quite surprised how many “top” experts were unaware of anything Rav Herzog writes in his doctorate. That’s just one example.
Exactly my point. There are many aspects that some people from the techeiles chabura are more knowledgeable in than Tavger AND vice versa. I would be hard pressed to find an individual who is truly knowledgeable and fluent in all the facts, history, documents, and general information relevant to the techeiles sugya. However, elya jkaufman is clearly not one of them. All he seems to know is how make baseless accusations that others are ignorant or have not done firsthand research. This is aclear projection of his own shortcomings and character.
Sof Kol Sof, at the end of the day, if someone wears it and its not the real Techeiles, are they doing any Aveirah?
Isn’t it like spilling paint on Tzitzis? Aren’t they still Kosher B’Dieved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVviFH2bOyk
Rabbi Yehoshua Yankelewitz on TorahAnytime discussing this.