INVESTIGATING

BY YONI MEHLMAN

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 Identifying the Chilazon.............................................................................................................. 6 ModernResearch ....................................................................................................................... 12 Comparing to Chazal ................................................................................................................ 16 Halacha ..................................................................................................................................... 20

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

was. Did it come from a specific species and, if so, how is that species defined? How 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 manufactured nowadays be worn? , how essential is it that one

Before attempting to precisely define the Chilazon and

conform to those definitions. The Torah merely says that there be a petiltecheilet. While 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 Menachos (9:6) is most explicit originates from: the Chilazon. On this point, the Tosefta in is only kosher from the chilazon. This unambiguous

statement is made explicit by the bigdei kahuna.1MaamarHaTekhelet suggests a novel source for this requirement. The Yerushalmi learns a hekesh from shnitolaat to is wool. Maybe this hekesh could also be used to learn that to learn that even comes from a living

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

It is therefore particularly strange that the " 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 must be wool. It may reject such a Hekesh in which case there would be no source for being Chilazon according to the Bavli.

dictates that Tzitzis states that dictate that

by Tztitzis is equivalent to

by the Mikdash), a nearly explicit Tosefta by

is only made from a chilazon. The simple reading of these two Tosefta

is only Kosher when coming from a Chilazon.

The TiferesYisroel 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 of trapping

by the chilazon. The KorbonHaeida explains that this is based upon the opinion that since there were no chilazons captured in the making of the mishkan, there is no violation of trapping the chilazon. Apparently, the chilazon wasnt used for the mishkan, indicating that there is no requirement to use chilazon. The TiferesYisroel, therefore, concludes that there is no obligation to use a chilazon. Rather, the requirement is to have a specific color with certain qualities. The often references a fake known as kalailan. While in some locations it states that only

G-d can distinguish between them, in Menachos it offers a procedure to determine whether the dye is the fake or real . 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 is kosher, regardless of the fastness of other dyes. Nonetheless, the other color would more readily fade while the

dye known to chazal which could imitate the

chilazon dye would not. Yet, it may be that the susceptibility to fading of the kalailan is the reason behind why it is . 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.

Maybe only G-d can distinguish between the colors.

The "

may be the earliest source to confirm such a view. Aside from leaving out the by HilchosTzitzis is

chilazon entirely from his HilchosKleiHaMikdash, his presentation of particularly intriguing. He begins by describing the color of cannot fade. Any fading color is which

and goes on to say that the color

. Only in the next halacha, when describing the process by

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 MishnehLMelech states by KleiMikdash that the " omits any mention of the chilazon there because he relies on what he said by Tzitzis.5 Apparently, he understood that the " required the chilazon by tzitzis. Further support may be comes only from the interesting phrase:

brought from Rav Avraham ben HaRambam who states that the chilazon. Additionally, the
"

adds

an

tzarichsheteheitzviatatzviahyeduah. 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 " the simple view of " of the , the generally held view is that the chilazon is required. This is certainly , is the view of Rav Avraham ben Harambam, and also seems to be the by definition comes from the chilazon.6 The

who says in chumash that

One advantage of this view is that one not need be concerned about a source for requiring chilazon. This introduces another question as to whether the " differentiates between the mikdash and tzitzis. A careful reading of the " 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 kleihamikdash. However, this presents a difficulty: what is the " s source for such a distinction. The tiferesyisroel suggests the Yerushalmi quoted earlier. However, it is hard to understand why the " would go against an explicit Yerushalmi. 6 According to this, the source for the requirement of the chilazon is simple: it is the definition of . This would certainly apply to the bigdei kahuna as well.

Yereimgives 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 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 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 the evvenhasapir. The . It is compared to the sea, the sky, the grass, and

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 . 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 color. In one of the kalailan tests, the there is some range for the improves in

in Menachos mentions that the real

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
7

Maybe then there would be no requirement to use a chilazon by the mikdash. This could present a third possibility in the " . He requires chilazon by tzitzis but not by the mikdash.

acceptable ranging from greenish-blue, to pure-blue, to purplish-blue. Additionally, one could argue that if the chilazon is required for by definition, 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 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 being referenced. Nonetheless, the

importance of archeological, linguistic, and historical evidence cannot be overemphasized. 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 . In fact, the " 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 related to . Therefore, the likelihood that the archeological evidence, etc. is

must be carefully considered.

There is no shortage of sources in chazal which either directly or indirectly describe both the chilazon and . The primary source for the description of the chilazon is the in

menachos which states four things about the chilazon: 1. Gufodomehlyam 2. Briyasodomehldag

3. Olehachaslshivimshana 4. It is expensive
"

, Manhig, and the Smag all state that domehlyam refers to the color. Additional support can states it is a

be brought from the Tosefta which states that it looks like the sky. While the " dag, "

and rabeinugershom say it has a form similar to adag. Unfortunately, the term dag is who says that it is a dag would this include snails and squids?

very unclear. According to "

According to " , however, it isnt a dag but only resembles a dag. Therefore, the above question is just as important for " . While our says once every seventy years, 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

NodehBYehuda attempts to prove this position from the fact that it is only similar to a fish (of course, the " thinks it is a fish. He also assumes that all sea creatures are fish). However, in explains that it comes out of the sea (see gilyonhashas who quotes and " , as well as the simple

many other places in shas "

these locations). Therefore, it is clear according to both " of the that the chilazon is from the sea.

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 SeferHakana 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 TechiyasHaMeisim. It recounts a story 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 YadRamma says this proves that it cannot come from the sea since otherwise what proof is this for techiyashameisim: maybe they were just washed up from the sea after the rain! Despite this, the YadRamma still argues that the chilazon of 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 (Megilla 6a) states that the portion of Zevulun was privileged to house the

production of the chilazon. Yet, the general view is that Zevuluns 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 is a very difficult explanation of the despite the fact that the chilazon was from the sea; yet, this 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 . 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

The YadRamma 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 . 9 Unless one were to claim that this refers to a different chilazon. Yet, " 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.

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 gives another location where (Sanhedrin 12a)

is produced: Luz. In Tanach, Luz refers to the old city of Bet

El. This is in the middle of Israel. However, this may refer to a different Luz since Luz was Bet Els old name. The " the " writes that the chilazon lives in the yam hamelach. Many explain that

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 " fish. Yet, even if the " thinks it is a fish while " thinks it is only similar to a

thinks it is a fish, this includes many sea creatures beyond what today states that it is a tolaas, a wormy creature.

we would define as a fish.<<<>>>> Elsewhere, "

The YadRamma 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 chilazons body grows with it (in some versions, its nartik grows with it, probably referring to shell).11 Chazal also refer to crushing the chilazon ( " , 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 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 . The in Shabbos is most likely referring to the chilazon since it chilazon when he

refers to using it as a dye. The yadrama is also explicitly referring to a

compares it to a worm. This leaves two options open: the chilazon is a worm like sea creature or
" quotes the midrash as referring to the chomet. More likely than a different girsa, he was translating chilazon as a chomet which is most likely a snail.
11

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. 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.

However, the korbonhaeida reads this as a rhetorical question in which case they do not. In Yechezkel, it states that is 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
"

it is black blood while "

thinks it is blue. Finally, there are two sources relating to the for one or two melachos when

halchik aspects of a chilazon. There is a machlokes if one is

catching and killing a chilazon. The Bavli and Yerushalmi differ in interpretation. The bavli explains that everyone agrees that there is a for trapping the chilazon while the machlokes

pertains to killing it. Yet, everyone agrees that the melacha isnt the normal melacha of killing an animal. Rather, Rebbi Yehuda thinks it is a says that there is no of dash. The Bavlis explanation is critical. It

for killing because it is misaseik. Yet it then argues that it is a psikreisha

to which it responds that because it is lo niche lei since the dye is better when the animal is living he is not . 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 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 ' had created a special creation for Moshe. The korbonhaeida explains that no chilazon was used since it was not native to that region.12

12

Rav Tendler suggested that the Yerushalmi which recided in Israel assumed there was no 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.

Here is the summary of the characteristics: y y y y y y y It most likely lives in the sea. It is either wormlike or a snail. 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. y y y 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 itself. In a number of midrashim, the

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 YalkutShimoni goes one step further and says it is similar to the grass. Elsewhere, it says that it looks similar to the EvvenHaSapir. The gives further indication of its color.

According to one opinion, the earliest time one can recite kriasshma is when he can differentiate between karti and . Such a comparison should not be taken as random. Rather, it was states that it identical in color to the

probably chosen due to some similarity. Finally, the

kalailan. The Aruch translates this as Indigo. This is a well-defined blue color. Nonetheless, the rishonim debate what color the was. " says that the is the color of the evening sky. says that it is

This could be anywhere from a dark blue to a violet. However, the "

comparable to the clear sky at midday, seemingly a lighter or more medium colored blue. In the perisuhhamishnayos the " blue. The " compares it to alazrak and azrak which is a dim somewhat faded

in mishneh torah mentions isatas as an invalid color. This too is associated with in a majority of locations says that is green. Tosfos also suggests

indigo blue. However, " that is.

is greenish. Therefore, it remains unclear from the rishonim and chazal what color the

Chazal also fill us in on certain properties of the process to check to see if the dye is kalailan or real

. The

in Menachos records a

. 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 mentions the process by which the . Second, the

is 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 girsas).

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

source is the midrashtanaim (of Yemen). Much later, the ChavosYair, ShilteriGiborim, and ToafosReem state that it is purfura. Yet, in the TargumShivim they define it as lakinthos (also
13

"

. "

gives a slightly different list of ingredients.

known as Hyacinth). This is also found in Josephus and Philo. All of these source, written by those who knew Greek and saw the , makes it unequivocally clear that the is the

lakinthos. This is differentiated by the TargumShivim which translates argaman as purfura. However, it remains unclear if purfura could also be used as a more general term which could include as well while the TargumShivim was using its more limited use. Therefore, it is still can be called purfura. More importantly, Rav Herzog shows that it is not

possible that the

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

conclusion regarding the identity of the chilazon nor the color of Still, some wish to argue, by virtue of the fact that royal dyes which Aristotle and Pliny describe should be the

was worn by royalty, some of the . Therefore, since it is fairly

clear that they were referring to the Murex species, the Murex is very possibly the chilazon. While there certainly is evidence (even from the ) that the Romans considered a royal

color, it cannot be said with great certainty that what they describe is how

was made. Since

the kalailan 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 . 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 describes that the

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 successfullyproduced blue dye. All three of these types of shells have

been found all over the major sites where the

says

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,

Mendel Singer claims that youd 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 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 .

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 kalailan as indigo, this led to the conclusion that they isolated the fake the kalailan. 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 ingredients to match the is really a pure indigo. Prof. Elsner claims that they added these in the area although this is not what we consider to be the of

the mitzva. This claim, however, is a lot to swallow. Maybe one should really conclude that the true 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 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 kalailan, the aruch defines kalailan as indigo.14 This can be one of two plants: the Isatis or the Indigofera. The " 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 kalailan is. Nonetheless, this could help to define more precisely what color the 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 produced. Brining other archeological evidence and other sources proves to be inconclusive, although a snail being the source of would fit nicely with some Greek sources should be. Since the murex can produce

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 rishonims understanding of kalailan and other similar plants, trunculus can perfectly produce. The MaamarTekhelet, 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 would appear to be indigo which the

14

NimukeiYosef also defines kalailan as indigo. RabeinuYona says that

is similar to indigo.

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 produce , 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 was

come other species for which there are no archeological remains while the murex which isnt has tons of archeological evidence. Some also argue that since it is known to be the color of indigo, if it were invalid as the would have mentioned it as a fake.15Of course, this

assumes that the chilazon is a snail for which youd 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 doesnt. Particularly, if you say that is turquoise, the murex does not seem able to produce this. Yet, this is a less

common view in the rishonim. Furthermore, it doesnt necessarily disqualify the murex from being the chilazon. According to some rishonim, one must add some other dyes to produce .

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

15

The fact that its 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

since it both lives in the water and hibernates in the sand. Furthermore, it can also fit with the 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 which requires 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 mentions that they would test the color of the dye with a piece of wool.

However, it doesnt fit all of chazals descriptions. Mendel Singer claims that the main for describing the appearance of is the one which gives its three characteristics. He

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 " 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

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 " who says that it is only similar

to a fish, if a snail is considered a fish then it cant be a snail, vtazrichiyunbshitas " . It also fails the final description. The murex does not display any periodic behavior.18The dye is very expensive because of the small quantity each snail produces. However, the expensive because it is a rare species. Sterman justifies the Murex against these claims. He offers a new interpretation for gufodomehlyam. He says that the murex lays on the seabed and plants even grow off of it. Some,
17

states it is

This is how most rishonim understood. Singer proves this from its context in the which used similar terminology to say that the color of 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 . They also formed the basis of his hypothesis that the chilazon is the Janthina.

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 the of

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

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 leaves out it isnt a necessary

Chida says that it was a miracle. Many argue that since the " characteristic. Yet, maybe the

merely refers to the fact that after living in the sea for a while,

the individual chilazon will eventually emerge.19 The " says that the chilazon has black blood. The murex does not. Of course, not as presumably did not know the

much significance can be given to this question since the "

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 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.MoisNavon 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 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, MoisNavon says that it is possible to produce the dye without this and Aristotle even describes that they would only crush

19

Vtzarichiyun why no one has suggested what seems to me to be a very simple interpretation of the

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 for dash. Rav Shlomo Fisher asks a of capturing since it can be

question from the halacha as well. He says there should be no

captured easily in one fell swoop by virtue of how slowly the snail moves (shechiyaachas; trapping slow moving animals isnt considered the melacha). However, some respond that " holds that it isnt considered bshechiyaachas 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 kalailan supports the current view of challenges it. The produced from the murex is able to pass the test the or

gives. However,

so does the kalailan. 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 kalailan. Therefore, one could argue that the whole thing is wrong: both the kalailan and the murex. However, there is convincing evidence for the identity of the kalailan 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 kalailan is not pure indigo, vtazrichiyun. Yet, Sterman suggests that maybe the way they used to die the kalailan left it with impurities which caused its susceptibility to fading.

20

As stated earlier, Rav Tendler says that the fact that the murex can be captured beshechiyaachas 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, " , tosfos, and ibnexra who say is greenish may hold that the kalailan is a different plant.

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 . 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 murexby all disagreements amongst rishonim, one need only follow the . As

of a Rav for which color

dye to use. Certainly the color being used would be considered legitimate by most poskim after it is the color the " suggests, and is the color mentioned by RabeinYona, the NimukeiYosef,

and the Aruch. Therefore, the more critical halachic question revolves around whether one should use the murex for if it is only a if it is correct. because of lchumra .

The simplest view is that one is obligated to where

Since wearing the wrong color does not invalidate the tzitzit,22 and at worst is not a hiddur mitzva,23 one should certainly wear mitzva. This is the because there is a that he can be mekayeim the

of the Radziner RebbeZatzal and Rav H.SchachterShlita. However, Reb applies is when being even fulfills the mitzva, even

Chaim is quoted as saying that the only time when machmir eliminates the after wearing them the . Since it is a if wearing this

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 beinhashmashot 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
22 23

, since it is a

if you are yotzei, maybe

This is explicit in Menachos which states that if one happens to use fake , kalailan, it is no worse than white. Since the " says that all strings should be white and the says one should be machmir for those who hold that the strings should be the same color as the begged.

one would still have an obligation to take further action. Menachem Epstein, although unconvinced of Rav Millers distinction, says that would still be comparable to the case of other than wearing may not by

the Ran since there is nothing further one can do to fulfill the mitzva of murex . The Rodziner Rebbe mentions two other reasons why is a

apply: maybe it does not apply in a case where the mitzvosaseih are only in a state of

in yediya and maybe a

which they may have only instituted when the entire mitzva is

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

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 in cases similar to modern . For example, the says that if one does

paskon

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 matnosaniyim, matnos kahuna, writing sifrei torah, and . Epstein points out that the PriMegadim and the

appointing judges where we paskon

explicitly paskon against such distinctions in the case of wet tefillin. If one has wet tefillin which may be , but has no other pairs which he can wear, he should put on wet tefillin. . is

Therefore, it seems likely that here too one would apply the principle of

There may be a more fundamental problem with saying that wearing modern obligatory. The BeisHalevi (as quoted by the Rav) says that one cannot reestablish

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 shiurimlzecher aba mori) quotes a " in support. The " , quoting Zevachim, says that when

the Jews returned after the first exile, 3 neviim were needed to inform BneiYisroel 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 " 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 , which is a specific type of dye rather than something identified by simanim. However, this proof is difficult. The gives certain characteristics of kosher birds as a means of determining of the " not rely on such simanim out of fear that one

what birds are kosher. It is only a

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 on simanim since to be strict is to wear the " would agree that one can rely

. 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 standard but kosher according to the " accprding to

), while the fresh hadasim had no mesora for being

pure hadas, but had simanim suggesting that they were pure hadas. In this case the ChachamTzvi ruled that one should use the fresh hadas. Apparently, he considered the simanim reliable enough to prefer non-Mesorahadasim to mesorahadasim which are most likely . However, the shvut

Yaakov disagreed and said one should use the mesorahadasim. Nonetheless, the shvut Yaakov would probably still agree that in a case with no alternative one use hadasim with nomesora. One could apply this to seems to be . Since there is no option for kosher mesora , one should use what based on the

from simanim. In fact, the Maharil says that we can renew

simanim which the smag gives. Rav Ariel cites an example of where the BeisYosef uses archeological evidence to prove a halacha. He says that archeological evidence was found insupport of " tefillin. However, this case may be different because both " and Rabeinu Tam

tefillin already have halachik validity and a mesora and the archeological evidence is only being used as a support. Nonetheless, there seems to be minimal evidence for the opinion of the BeisHaLevi and some compelling evidence against the BeisHalevi. Indeed, HaRavHaGaon Rav YosefElyashivshlitaprefersa different version of the BeisYosef, quoted by the Rodziner. According to this version, the BeisHalevi 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 , 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 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 . If what Rav

Elyashiv is expressing is skepticism about the reliability of archeological and chemical evidence, the murex would at least remain a . Rav Elyashiv also argues that we cant use the murex thinks no other dyes are

because we dont know whether or not other dyes should be added ( "

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
And while Rav Elyashiv still cites the BeisHaLevi as a potential problem with using the 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 .
24

any other machlokes rishonim one must paskon who to follow. Finally, he is concerned about the to have the color of the strings the same color as the begged. However, if modern fake, this is

will not be kept. However, as stated earlier, it seems that the possibility to keep a . ,

din trumps being choshesh for a

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

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 to wear ,

would be in violation of lo sisgodedu. Granted, this would not necessarily be a is really correct every tzibbur as a whole should try

problem in every tzibbur, and maybe if to keep

, 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, is not considered . Second, lo sisgodedu then he must and lo

doesnt apply to the fulfillment of Torah obligations. If one must wear

sisgodedu cannot uproot that. Rav Schteurnbach also argues that there is a potential problem of baltosif. If one were to wear only is not thinking that it is certainly , and it turns out that what is

, then they violate baltosif. Rav Shlomo Miller also thinks that since it is strings it will be baltosif. Of course,

unclear how many strings to use, if one uses too many

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 considered yuhara. His opion is predicated on the fact that most gedolim do not wear any person to go and wear should be so for

is like saying that they know better than the gedolim. Even , Rav Ariel argues that it isnt . However, to where modern

accepting his assumption that most gedolim do not support halachicallyyuhara. Yuhara only applies to that which is a

may be an absolute requirement. Furthermore, Rav Ovadiya says in YechaveDaat (2:1) that only that which is a according to everyone is subject to yuhara. However, if some poskim , since some poskim require the wearing of the

require a certain practice it is not yuhara. By murex dyed wear

, it would not be yuhara.25HaRav Ben Tzion (author of ohrltziyon) says that to . This is surprising since previous

is motzilaaz if your forefathers didnt wear

generations didnt have access to

! Nonetheless, 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 once the beishamikdash was destroyed. This is, however, difficult because it is in the times of the . Second, the sifri says that was nignaz.

clear that they still had

Again the sifri has the same problem as the arizal. Finally some want to say that the pasuk supports not wearing since ldorosam only qualifies wearing tzitzis but not . 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 baltigra. There is a machlokes if intentionally not fulfilling a mitzva is considered baltigra. Then, if is

considered its own mitzva, not to wear it when you potentially can would be baltigra. The Rodziner Rebbe says that even according to those who say that baltigra is intentionally not performing the entire mitzva (the position of the turei) according to those who say that is a

25

We shall also see later that the gedolim dont clearly side against

part of the mitzva of tzitzis, not to wear

could be baltigra.26 Based on this Rav Schachter .

suggests that it may be better not to wear tzitzis at all rather than wear tzitzis without What emerges is that the major poskim who say one shouldnt wear opposed to the reasoning of

are not directly , but to

nor to the potential validity of

extraneous problems which may arise. Yet, supporters of of not wearing . It seems that so many do not wear

combat with additional problems because the gedolim dont wear

. Yet, this is not entirely clear. One must keep in mind that it has only been about 20 years that the proper color of Schternbauch oppose could be produced. As quoted before, Rav Elyashiv and Rav .27 Rav Shlomo Fisher is firmly opposed to it, while Rav Aviner and due to a

Rav Ben Tziyon oppose it being warn publicly.28 Rav Avraham Yosef also opposes

concern of shaatnez. However, Baruch Sterman mentions a number of talmideichachamim who wear : Rav ReemHakohen, Rav Benny Kalminson, Rav Drori, Rav Lior, Rav Ariel, Rav

YehoshuaShapira, Rav Shabbtai Rappaport, Rav Meidan, and Rav Sherlow from the datileumi kehilos, and Rav Karp, Rav Hair, Rav ZalmanNechemia Goldberg, Rav Yaakov Yosef, Rav Oppman, and Rav Belsky from the more yeshivish circles. It is well known that the Zilberman community wears . In addition, Rav Schachter, Rav Ben Chaim, Rabbi Lamm, and Rav . Rav Ariel

Tendler (I assume since he writes supporting it) from the YU community wear

quotes that Rav MordechaiEliyahuzatzal said he does not oppose it (and I have heard that his children may wear ). Rav Kapach says that while is probably correct, there is no to

I would say that it is baltigra. If this is the case, then even Reb Chaim would agree that one should wear to remove oneself from a violation of baltigra. 27 However, members of PetilTekhelet 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 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 , wears it. However, Rav Ben Chaim thinks he is mistaken.

26

wear it. Rav Avraham Shapira suspects that most gedolim who say not to wear it have other concern in mind.