Rabbi Goldstein has identified several valid points.  However, I find none of them, and even the sum of all of them,  to be significant enough to discredit the thesis of the article.  I shall respond in order of his questions.

A. The first point he raises (if I understand him correctly) is that the fact that dye produced by k’la ilan, indigo, is the same as produced by murex, is a fact that disfavors the identification of murex as the chilazon, for if the dye chemical of murex is identical then why should one be valid and the other not valid?  It amazes me that two persons can be so divided as to how to view the very same facts.

To explain this, allow me to digress for a moment and disclose some  personal history.  My interest in the chilazon goes back to the years when I was learning in the Los Angeles Kollel.  The subjects that were studied during the kayitz zman of 5738 were sifre torah, t’fillin, mezuzos, and tzitzis, the subjects covered in הקומץ רבה and התכלת.  The Kollel had at that time, recently received as a gift, a large library, and among the s’forim of that treasure was the Radziner’s sefer regarding chilazon.  My chavrusa picked up the sefer out of curiosity, and was rather taken by its powerful arguments.  He gave the sefer to me and challenged me to refute it.   I must admit  that I, too, was quite impressed by the Radziner’s arguments.  However,  I took the matter to further research and inquired as to whether the academic world had made any discoveries during the many decades that had passed since the Radziner did his research.  I discovered that there had indeed been some research conducted concerning the ancient dyeing industry of Phoenicia and I read, to some minor degree, about the works of some of the archeologists and chemists who had done this research. 

These readings led me to conclude that one of the murex species would be a likelier candidate than sepia (or, at least, an equally likely candidate).  Though aware  that the dye produced by murex was purple (and seemed most certainly to be the source of argaman), a fact that should have dispelled the notion that murex was the chilazon,  nonetheless,  the curious fact that the dye of the murex went through a blue stage before it turned purple led me to speculate that perhaps some chemical was known in ancient times that would arrest the color change from blue to purple, and that murex was the source of of techeles as well.

When my uncle, Dr. Abraham J. Twerski, moved to Efrat, he informed me that some neighbors of his were working on manufacturing techeles.  I asked him if the species was a murex species,  and he informed be that indeed it was  murex trunculus that was the source.  I was not too surprised to find that some way had been found to use that same dye to create a blue color.  This added one more piece to the puzzle, but in my mind there was still some room for doubt. 

What really convinced me that we were dealing with the real thing was the discovery that the color dye taken from the murex (indigotin) was the very same chemical as the dye of the indigo plant.  The fact that such an unusual and rare chemical is found in nature from two such varied sources has to be one of the most astounding “coincidences” in nature.  The gemora tells us that the dye of the chilazon is identical in color to k’la ilan.  We know that k’la ilan is indigo, and we know that the dye of the murex is identical in color to k’la ilan.  To me, this was the clincher.  I must say that I would have been far less convinced of this identification if the murex produced a blue color but of a different dye chemical, since the two if of different dyes, would likely be detectable by those who have keen  abilities to discern shades and tints of color.  (The Radziner’s techeles [Prussian Blue] while a beautiful blue hue, is not identical to indigo-a color expert would have no problem distinguishing one from the other). 

I therefore marvel how the same fact that the evidence that to me was the most convincing in favor of identification with murex, is seen by Rabbi Goldstein as a point against identification.  But such is the nature of men, כשם שאין פרצופיהן שוות כך אין דעותיהן שוות.

Now, the answer to Rabbi Goldstein’s first question is obvious.  Although the chemical dye from indigo and murex is one and the same, the source is different.  One comes from the chilazon and the other comes from the indigo plant.  There need be nothing more to distinguish between the two.  By analogy, there is no question that artificial parchment, if ever invented, would be totally invalid for the mitzvah of t’fillin and mezuzos even if, in fact, it would be chemically identical to and indistinguishable from parchment made from the hide of an animal.

B) Rabbi Goldstein writes “frankly, I will admit that I fail to follow the author’s argument concerning the position of Rashi and tosafos” regarding the blue color of the dye.  Rabbi Goldstein is correct,  I was not clear enough.  The argument can be found in the Radziner’s sefer, Ein Ha’techeles  § 22, and I shall elaborate.  The strongest argument in favor of the Radziner’s identification with sepia is the statement of the Rambam, that the color of the dye is black before introducing chemicals to alter the color.  One of his opponents pointed out that Rashi and Tosafos both seem to hold that the color of the “blood” of the chilazon is the color of techeles (i.e. blue). Rashi, who states that the chemicals introduced into the dye were introduced only to fix the dye into the fabric and tosafos ad loc who ask (seemingly accepting Rashi) that if chemicals are introduced into the dye, then the  purity of the techeles would be compromised.  The one who asked the question, as well as the Radziner who accepted the question, reasoned thus; we have two choices 1) the color of the “blood” itself is blue or 2) it is some other color and chemicals were added to change the color to blue.  Since Rashi states that the chemicals are added only to fix the dye, we may infer that the purpose was not to alter the color as it comes from the chilazon.  The color of “blood” itself must therefore be blue.

Tosafos ask on the braissa: if chemicals (to fix the dye to the fabric) are introduced into the process, then the purity of the techeles is compromised.  The questioner asks that if the color of the dye would be black, then Tosafos’s question would have no validity, since it would be obvious that something must be added to the “blood” of the chilazon to change the color from black to blue. Tosafos’s answer, that it is with the added chemicals that we have the color of techeles, did not seem to him to be a total retreat from the assumptions taken in the question (though one could argue that it is).  The Radziner’s solution to this problem,  that these rishonim were merely surmising what the color of the dye was, since they did not have the chilazon in hand, for it had been in disuse for about 400 years by the time Rashi and Tosafos were dealing with the question, is certainly a valid argument.

Now, assuming that murex is the chilazon, the color of the dye, after going through several stages, is known to be purple, not blue.  What is important, however, are two points, 1) chemicals needed for the techeles dyeing process are, as Rashi assumed, for the sake of fixing the dye to the fabric (though not exactly as Rashi assumed that the chemicals were added to the wool as a mordant, but rather  in order to make the dye water soluble, which then allows the dye to saturate the wool) and 2) it is not the chemicals that create the change in color, but sunlight.  Thus, neither Rashi nor Tosafos stated explicitly that the color of the dye, as it was extracted from the chilazon was blue, only that the chemicals introduced into the dye was not for the sake of changing the color.  This is, in fact, so.  The chemicals are added to make the dye water soluble and the color is changed by the sunlight, not by the chemicals per se.  Nothing that Rashi or Tosafos say here is inconsistent with identification with murex.

I would like to address at this point, to what seems to be an incorrect implication that I noted in the first paragraph of Rabbi Goldsteins’ letter. He states (paraphrasing the article) “Contemporary research has discovered a method to produce the dye, indigo, from a mucus found in the snail, Murex Trunculus.” Implied by this is that this discovery is only of recent origin and it is quite likely that the ancients knew nothing of it.  In a footnote of my article, I noted that Otto Elsner made the discovery that if the reduced solution containing dibromoindigo is exposed to sunlight, the ultraviolet rays of the sun will detach the bromine atoms from the indigo and these would be replace by hydrogen atom, yielding indigotin. 

It would be of interest to the reader to know how the secret of obtaining  techeles out of dibromoindigo was discovered by Otto Elsner.  As anyone who has witnessed the dyeing process with murex will  attest,  the vat solution of dibromoindigo emits a strong, offensive odor (a fact noted by Pliny as well).  Elsner did much of his research in his home.  Mrs. Elsner had just about as much as she could tolerate and asked her husband to conduct future experiments out of doors.  He complied, and then, to his surprise, noticed that the resultant dye was no longer deep purple but sky-blue.  It did not take very long to realize that this was the result of the exposure to sunlight.  This being the case, it would hardly be conceivable that those who worked with dyes in the ancient world would not come to the same discovery due to the very same circumstances the led Elsner to his discovery.

C)  As Rabbi Goldstein says, the Rambam identifies the chilazon as a fish.  However, I cannot agree with him that  the source of this identification is  the braissa that describes the  chilazon as   ברייתו דומה לדג.  When attempting to describe something, one will never use the object itself as a means of comparative identification  If the חילזון is indeed a fish, in the same sense that trout, salmon or cuttlefish are fish, then it would not be said that the חילזון like or similar to a fish, for then it is a fish.  To describe a creature that is a fish by stating that it  is like a fish would be a meaningless description.  The only way to make sense of the רמב"ם in light of theברייתא  is to say that the רמב"ם means by “fish” that it is a creature of the sea, but not a fish in the common sense of the word.  If so, the רמב"ם is not be saying anything about its form.It was acknowledged in the article that the meaning of the braissa’s statement, that ברייתו

דומה לדג, is somewhat difficult to explain.  The suggested answer (that this means, in a literal sense, “its creation”, -its  way of coming into existence) was not meant to be the simplist and obvious interpretation. (At the same time, I don’t consider this a farfetched or extremely forced interpretation, either).  Perhaps there are better solutions as to how to reconcile this statement with murex.   Now, had the braissa itself used  the word תבניתו or צורתו,  I would have to agree that this would be a strong argument, perhaps even a conclusive argument, against identification with murex, but, as the Radziner said with regard to the color of the mucus, the interpretation of the term ברייתו by Rashi and other rishonim, even if in total variance with identification with murex, could nevertheless not be considered as strong evidence against such identification, since the rishonim lived long after the chilazon had disappeared from the scene.

The assertion that chilazon is a mollusk comes from a number of sources.  Foremost of these is the fact that the word is still extant in several Semitic languages and means ‘snail’ in each one.  Rav Herzog (The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue, Ehud Spanier ed. Keter Publishing, page 57) says

חלזון of the Talmudim the Midrashim, and Targum Jonathan is the Syriac Helzuna and the Arabic Halazun.  In these languages the word denotes: (1) the land shell-shail, French limacon (as distinct from limace, naked snail); (2) the sea shell-snail (limacon de mer).  It doubtless has the same meaning in the Jewish sources.  The shell of the hillazon is called נרתיק ,case:מלבוש garment, cloak.  The verb פצע employed of the crushing of the hillazon has reference in Tanaitic to some hard crustaceous substance.  An allusion to the shell seems to be contained in מגילה ז., ושפוני טמוני חול- תנא רב יוסף שפוני זה חלזון טמוני זו טרית חול זו זכוכית לבנה.  Rashi annotates: שפווני הוא דבר חשוב בלשון ברייתא.  More probably, I think שפוני is interpreted in its Biblical significance of something hidden from view, concealed treasured; the shell snail or rather the particular species yielding the precious purple dye.

We add to the list of linguistic identifications that the word for snail in Assyrian, the spoken  language language which is the direct descendent of Aramaic (as much as Spanish and French are descendants of Latin), is also chilazon.  

I would venture to say that this alone would be sufficient for positive identification as חלזון as “snail”. The braissa that states the the shell of the חלזון grows along with it adds powerful support to this identification.  Any proofs above beyond this is merely “ icing on the cake”  In my mind, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the חלזון is a snail. The question is only which snail.

I do not agree that Rashi’s statement about פציעת חלזון is at variance with the assertion that the חלזון is a mollusk. Rashi states merely that one would be פוצה a חלזון to squeeze out its blood.  I think that Rashi would also agree that the term פוצה means to crack open. 

However, that itself (the cracking of the snail’s shell) is not a מלאכה to which  the גמרא could refer to in employing this term. The גמרא is referring to the מלאכה of דש, which involves extracting one matter from another.  It is therefore the squeezing the blood out of the חלזון that is meant by the גמרא.  This is why Rashi stressing the squeezing, rather than the cracking, of the חלזון.  It is therefore quite possible for Rashi to state that one squeezes the חלזון to extract the dye, even if he agrees that it has a hard shell that will be cracked in the process, which is the source of the term פציעה.

D)  The objection to the article’s employment of the above quoted braissa in Megillah has merit.  I will explain my position, but I shall concede this point in advance.  It is of no great significance.  The identification of חלזון as “snail” stands with all the other proofs as stated above.

When viewing a Midrash, one must take into view the hints and relevant information that חז"ל may have had in mind when stating that X means Y.  Often, there is little apparent reason for a particular word to have the specific meaning the חז"ל attribute to it.  Sometimes, it is due to comparison to otherפסוקים  and sometimes it is based on the phrase as a whole, though the phrase may be broken down into several parts.  The words ספוני טמוני חול mean, literally, the buried of and  hidden of  [in] sand.  To take the word “buried” of out of its context and interpret it to mean חלזון would seem to make no sense.  To take the word in context and interpret it along with the rest of the sentence makes plenty sense.  This, however, does not deny the author of the braissa from deriving another treasure out of the word טמוני and third treasure out of the word חול itself.  Such is the method of דרש.  This is why I has assumed that the braissa would support the idea that the חלזון is a creature found buried in the sand.  However, I will concede  and withdraw this point. The other proofs offered to show that chilazon is a mollusk are more than sufficient to prove the point beyond any doubt .

E)   The final objection with regard to the identification of murex as chilazon, is the main thrust of Rabbi Goldsteins argument.  There are statements in the rishonim that are not consistent with murex being the חלזון of techeles.  There are also some statements of חז"ל that would require at least some interpretation.  The arguments in favor come from archeology, history, and chemistry along with a few supporting statements from חז"ל.  Is this sufficient, without a mesorah, to identify murex as chilazon?  Let’s take what is known. I would consider the identification of chilazon as a mollusk as a certainty based on linguistic comparisons and the statement of חז"ל that the חלזון has a shell.  Add to this 1) the  fact that the murex was known was known to be used in the ancient world for dyes, as archeology has established beyond any doubt, 2)  that the color of murex is known to be the color of תכלת , 3) that the murex is found where the חלזון of techeles was known to be found, off the coast of ancient Phoenicia, 4) the murex based dye is permanent, a feature techeles has in common with murex dyes and what was uncommon in ancient dyes,   5)  the identification of techeles as purpura by the ראבי"ה, 6) that there is no משנה or ברייתא that warns agains the use of a indigo type dye of any other mollusk source, as it did warn against the use of plant indigo.  Now, weigh all this points of evidence against the few points raised in opposition.  In my opinion this goes far beyond being a mere “scientific hypothesis” or “murky historical speculation”. I would consider this identification of murex as chilazon is proven well beyond a reasonable doubt.

F.   The last point of Rabbi Goldstein does not concern the issue of whether murex identifies with chilazon, but regarding a secondary issue, whether there is any harm in

wearing the blue dyed strings if it turns out that this is not techeles.  The article quoted the Radziner Rebbe’s position that there is no harm whatever. Rabbi Goldstein dissents by saying that we do indeed lose if we are not correct in the identification, for there is a custom quoted in the Re’ma, that only white colored strings should be used for tzitzis.  The mechaber writes (Hilchos Tzitzis 9:5) “Some say that the tzitzis should be the same color of the garment.  Those who are exacting in the fulfillment of mitzvos conduct themselves this way”.  The R’ema adds to this: the Ashkenzim make the  tzitzis only out of white material even if the garment is colored, and one should not alter this.” The source of this R’ema is the Trumas Hadeshen 46.  The question discussed in that responsa is whether one may sew a torn corner with colored silken thread.  We would normally be concerned lest the leftover thread be used for the tzitzis.  In the statement where the Trumas Hadeshen alludes to the fact that the custom is to make the tzitzis with white threads, he states, “I have never seen anyone wear anything but white tzitzis, although it makes no difference what color the tzitzis are, (emphasis mine) nevertheless, since it is not the custom (to make tzitzis out of colored threads) it would appear to me that we should not be concerned (that the colored silken threads would be used for tzitzis and it should be permitted to allow the sewing of the corners with colored silk thread).” It is apparent from the source of the R’ema that the custom to have white thread is a not built upon a concern for an Halachic opinion. It is certainly unreasonable to assume that the R’ema meant to forbid the use of blue colored threads if this would be a serious attempt to fulfill the  din Torah of wearing techeles.

Moreover, the Radziner (Ein Hatcheles §40) in addresing this issue, concludes, with cogent arguments based on the gemorra in Menachos, that the rule of the R’ema applies only to the three threads of lavan, not to the white replacement thread of techeles, which can be of any color, even in absence of techeles.

I would think that the question that poskim face is not whether this minhag of wearing only white threads should be upheld in face of wearing “questionable” techeles.  The question will be whether or not to establish techeles as a rediscovered mitzvah or not, and resistance to change and concern for tradition for tradition’s sake will be the most important negative factor.  The concept of chadash asur min hatorah will be employed by those who find comfort in maintaining exactness in keeping with the traditions of Judaism as practiced in Europe. The question is more one of attitude than of halacha.  As I stated in the article, we have no continuous mesorah with regard to techeles.  The existence of a mesorah in any mitzvah, is, of course, the most reliable source of knowledge for the fulfillment of mitzvos.  How else do we fulfill the mitzvah of arba minim or t’fillin?  However, I know of no source in the Talmud or in the Poskim that indicates that in absence of a mesorah we are obligated to push aside a mitzvah that has, beyond a reasonable doubt, been identified.  The light of mesorah is indeed bright.  However, in its absence, the light of reason and understanding is sufficient to dispel the murky darkness of ignorance.

Chaim Twerski

 







To the Editor,

I found the article “Identifying the chilazon” (JCHS XXXIV Fall 1997) truly amazing.  Contemporary research has discovered a method to produce the dye, indigo, from mucus found in the snail, Murex Trunculus.  Indigo, by the author’s own admission, is the dye Chazal called k’la ilan specifically identified as possul for techelet.  Yet the article contends to have establishe) as umdanah d’muchach- a proved assumptions-that this dye is in fact techelet.

The article mentions two serious disputes among the Rishonim concerning the identity of the chilazon.  Rabbenu Bachya is quoted as implying the chilazon is a kosher species while in Rashi in Sanhedrin describes it as a worm.  The article also quotes the Rambam’s statement that the chilazon has black “blood’ while Rashi and Tosafot imply that the “blood’ is blue (frankly I will admit that I fail to follow the author’s argument concerning the position of Rashi and Tosafot.)  This, in and of itself, should preclude the possibility of anyone from recent generations making a definitive identification.  To quote the author, “In matters of fact…both cannot be correct”.  If I understand the thesis he presents correctly, it contends that both Rambam and Rashi are wrong regarding the color of the “blood”.  The dye itself being first colorless and then purple, the blue color only appearing after the dyed fabric is exposed to oxygen.

But there are more fundamental textual problems with identifying the chilazon.  As the article states, Rashi in Sanhedrin describes it as a tola’at, a worm.  But the Rambam quite clearly identifies it as a fish (Hilchot Tzitzit 2:2).  Furthermore Rashi in Menachot 24a interprets the statement “Bri’ato is like a fish (curiously translated in the article as “its creation”) as “tavnit di’yukno”-its physical form is like a fish (see gloss za’yin in the Shita Mekubetzet-see also the commentary of Rabenu Gershom ad. Loc.)  This statement also appears to be the source of the aforementioned Rambam.

The author brings impressive evidence to show that the chilazon is a mollusk.  His explanation of “ha’potzeiah chilazon” is ingenious but it is at variance with Rashi’s interpretation.  Rashi (Shabat 75a) “ha’potzea” as one who “squeezes it (the chilazon) with his hand so that the blood comes out”.  Rashi’s explanation implies more a soft-skinned creature rather than a hard-shelled mollusk.  Tosafot and other Rishonim seem to accept Rashi’s interpretation.

The article also quotes the Baraita of R. Yosef in Megillah 6a which identifies Sfunei t’munei chol”- treasures buried in the sand” with the chilazon.  This, it is claimed, fits the murex, which burrows into the sands.  In fact, thought, the Baraita splits up the possuk and only the word ‘sfunei’-treasures is considered an allusion to the chilazon.  The word  ‘tmunei’ is explained as a reference to the fish tarit’ apparently a kosher species.  Rashi ad. Loc. Identifies is as the tunny fish.  Therefore there is no implication that the chilazon itself is to be found in the sand.

Of course if we could positively identify the chilazon, we would have to reinterpret the various statements of Chazal in light of that identification.  We could perhaps disregard the descriptions of the Rishonim inconsistent with our identification on the basis that they were unfamiliar with the chilazon.  But in fact, how can we identify the chilazon on the basis of “history, chemistry, and archaeology” and ignore the statements of the Talmud and the Rishonim.

I believe the identification of the chilazon with Murex Trunculus is a valid scientific hypothesis.  The circumstantial historical evidence that the article brings is formidable.  And the discovery of a blue dye naturally produced from a Mediterranean Sea creature is, in and of itself, significant.  But the true issue facing the poskim today is whether it is halachically significant enough to override the ruling of the Shulchan Oruch (O.C. 9:5) that the tzitzit should be the color of the talit (for Sephardim) or the ruling of the Rema (ibid.) to only use white tzitzit for Ashkenazim).

No one with even rudimentary familiarity with the Halacha process would expect to find certainty.  But mesorah, in the broader sense of the word, can provide a framework that enables us to deal the uncertainty that exists.  Without a mesorah, we are left fishing in the murky waters of historical supposition.

Aaron Goldstein

Kollel-Yeshiva Torah Moshe

Yerushalaim







To the Editor:

I would like to thank Rabbi Twerski for his very detailed response to my letter concerning the chilazon. he has clarified his position on many of the issues I brought up and definitely built up a strong case for his identification. I am sure that his article will generate much interest in the issue of techelet, particularly among the English-speaking public that may otherwise be unaware of recent research on the topic. Yeyeshar kocho.

Fully accepting his thesis should necessitate changing the way the mitzvah of tzitzit has been observed worldwide for over a thousand years. That is obviously not something which should be done lightly but neither should the contemporary research be casually dismissed. The evidence he presents is impressive and it deserves close, methodical, even tedious scrutiny. After a close reexamination of Rabbi Twerski’s article and of the points he made in his response to my letter, I find that I still have reason to doubt.

Rabbi Twerski writes that the only difference between the techelet pigment and k'la ilan is the source. "One comes from the chilazon and the other comes from the indigo plant. There need be nothing more to distinguish the two". That is incorrect. The Gemara (Menachot 42b-43a) describes a complex series of chemical tests to distinguish between true techelet and k'la ilan. I admit that I did not elaborate on this point in my first letter mainly because Rabbi Twerski mentioned it himself, almost parenthetically, towards the end of his article. He presented a possible solution which if verified would overcome this objection. He suggests that the different responses to the chemical test can be accounted for by impurities in the indigo dye. My intended point therefore was not that the chemical similarity disproves Rabbi Twerski’s thesis. But surely any claim of a definitive identification is premature before it is demonstrated that these impurities exist and that they explain the Gemara's test. The identity in color is indeed a point in favor of the identification with murex. The identity in chemical composition is a strong objection. I was very surprised that Rabbi Twerski could write as evidence for his identification, "that there is no Mishnah or Beraitha that warns against the use of an indigo type of any other mollusk source, as it did warn against plant indigo". As far as we know now, the Gemara’s test (I could not find any Beraitha that dealt directly with this issue) should be equally valid for any indigo dye. I do not know why he takes it as axiomatic that k'la ilan refers exclusively to plant indigo. Perhaps he believes that the world ilan - tree - in the name implies a plant source. But even if we accept that etymology (which is dubious - see the Aruch hashalem) there is no reason to assume that the term would not by extension be used for the same substance from other sources.

In his article Rabbi Twerski gave another possible explanation for the chemical test described in the Gemara. if I understood him correctly, he suggests that the test reflects a difference in the way plant indigo and murex indigo were reduced rather than any difference in the dyes themselves. In other words, if one were to reduce the plant indigo by the method normally used for reducing the murex indigo then the dye would test positive for techelet and vice versa. This would obviously render the test meaningless and is clearly contradicted by the sugya in Menachot 43a which accepts the test as foolproof

The kashruth of synthetically produced or artificially refined techelet pigment is an interesting question but, in my mind, still an academic one. Kla ilan, no matter what the source, would undoubtedly be possul. I do agree that if it can be shown that the impurities suggested by Rabbi Twerski exist and they behave in the way he says they should, then the otherwise similarity of the murex dye with plant indigo, coupled with the efficacy of the test, would be a strong argument in favor of his identification.

I would like to thank Rabbi Twerski for an important clarification he made in his response. In his opinion, it does not matter that Rashi and other Rishonim understand the Gemara's description of the chilazon in a manner that is inconsistent with the murex. The linguistic comparisons and archeological evidence can be sufficient for a definitive halachic identification. For those that agree with him on this, most of what I have to say will be beside the point. Personally, I find this view very troubling. I do not believe that concern for Rashi's explanation of the Gemara can be dismissed as a matter of attitude rather than halachah.

Rabbi Twerski feels he need not be concerned by Rashi's translation of the term ברייתו "since the Rishonim lived long after the chilazon had disappeared from the scene". I would have thought that the mere fact that Rashi - Rabbon shel Yisroel, the Teacher of all Israel, whose commentary is our key to any understanding of the Talmud - understands ברייתו as a physical form would be enough to give that opinion some weight. But since it obviously is not sufficient, then, in the manner of יהודה ועוד לקרא, I will explain why it is the most logical interpretati&in of the text.

The term "briah" as creation is basically limited in Tanaic usage to supernatural acts of creation such as the ששת ימי הבריאה - the six days of creation. Such a usage would obviously be meaningless as a description of the chilazon. However, the term briah meaning physiological or organic structure is well attested to in tanaic literature such as in the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages in Makot 13a (see also Tosefta Niddah 4:7). As for the merits of Rabbi Twerski's own creative explanation, I think it is best to let the reader judge for himself

Rabbi Twerski objects to my suggestion that the source of the Rambam's statement that the chilazon is a fish is the words of the beraitha – ברייתו דומה לדג. My suggestion is based on a comparison of the text of the Rambam to the text of the beraita.

The beraitha in Menachot 44a is the description of the chilazon in the Talmud. The parallel text in the Rambam is the Laws of TAtAt 2:2. The physical description of the cllilazon in the beraitha consists of two statements: גופו דומה לים), which is translated by Rashi as "its color is that of the sea", 2) ברייתו דומה לדג. The text in the Rambam reads: והוא דג שעינו דומה לעין התכלת - It is a fish whose color is like the color of techelet". The statement that the color is like that of the techelet is presumably based on the statement of the beraitha that its color is that of the sea (see Kesef Mishneh ad. loc.). The Rambam understood this as meaning the color of techelet based on the statement of Rabbi Meir (Menachot 43b), "Techelet is like the sea".

Alternatively, the Rambam is following the text of the beraitha as it is found in Massechet Tzitrit: גופו דומה לרקיע - its color is like the sky - which the Rambam (2:1) identifies as the color of techelet. Furthermore, Yemenite manuscripts of the Rambam give the text as  עינו דומה לעין הים - "like the color of the sea", rather than "like the color of techelet". This text is also found in other Rishonim (S'mag Mitzvah 26 - Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 386), who are obviously quoting the Rambam.  Whatever the precise text, there can be no doubt that its source is the beraitha. It is therefore logical to expect to find the other statement of the beraitha )ברייתו דומה לים  paraphrased in the Rambam. The statement "it is a fish" is a simplification of the wording in the beiaitha "its physical form is that of a fish". The Rambam understood that the tanna was comparing the chilazon, which he expected to be unfamiliar to his audience, to the more familiar concept - fish. I make no claim of authorship for this explanation of the Rambam The Ein Mishpat cites the Rambam Tritzit 2:2 for the statement ברייתו דומה לדג briato domeh ledag". Rabbi Yosef Kapah, in his commentary on the Rambam, discusses at length the parallels between the text of the Rambam and the text of the beraitha. I cannot accept Rabbi Twerski's contention that when the Rambam said a fish he meant some form of sea-creature, but definitely not a fish.

There is nothing inherently difficult about the description of the chilazon in the beraitha. It only becomes difficult if one makes an a priori assumption that the murex is the chilazon. It is true that an aggadic statement found in a midrash fits nicely with the murex (or any snail). But I see little reason why that should be given greater weight than an halachic statement found in the Talmud and quoted as halacha by the Rambam and other Rishonim.  I could offer some speculation regarding the linguistic comparisons mentioned by Rabbi Twerski but I do not think that is the issue. (As an American native living in Israel, I have often been thrown by English words that have become incorporated into modern Hebrew but with meanings slightly or significantly different that those I had been used to.)

In my original letter I took objection to Rabbi Twerski's translation of “potzeiah chilazon” as “cracking open” citing Rashi's explanation of "potzeiah" as "squeezing the chilazon with his hand so that the blood comes out". Rabbi Twerski writes in his response that Rashi is not inconsistent in his definition. I found his explanation puzzling. Here, too, I can only recommend that the interested reader take a look at the Rashi and judge for himself. Since I wrote my first letter I have come across the use of the word "potzeiah" in the Mishnah twice (Shev'i'it 4:9, Taharot 9:5) in reference to zeitim - olives. While the exact meaning of the term is a matter of dispute among the Rishonim, it definitely does not mean to crack open a hard outer shell. Of course this does not mean the chilazon cannot be a mollusk, but there is no evidence for it from the use of the term potzeiah.

Rabbi Twerski's explanation of the position of Rashi and Tosafot concerning the color of the "blood" was lucid and thorough. I agree with basically everything he wrote. I would just like to make two short comments. Rabbi Twerski writes, "Rashi assumed that the chemicals were added to the wool as a mordant". That is true for the text of Rashi as we have it. Tosafot, though, quotes a slightly different text of Rashi, which seems to imply that the chemicals were added to the dye itself כדרך הצובעים -as is the dyers' practice. Presumably they were to make the dye water soluble, as Rabbi Twerski argues is in fact the case. Secondly, although the Rambam describes the "blood" as black as ink שחור כדיו he writes that the chemicals are added, כדרך שהצובעים עושים as dyers do. This is almost identical to the language of Rashi and implies that the role of the chemicals was the general one of facilitating the dyeing process rather than as part of the specific formula for producing techelet. The Rambam leaves us in the dark as to how the sky-blue color of techelet is produced from the "blood". I think this casts further doubt on the Radziner's thesis but its relevance to the murex identification is minimal.

Rabbi Twerski concludes with a list of evidence in favor of his identification that he considers overwhelming. I have already discussed some of his points and frankly even if one accepts his list I do not think it can dispel all of the doubts I have raised. Nevertheless, some points on his list beg reexamination. 1) The fact that murex was known to be used in the ancient world for dyes. That is true, but its known use is for a purple dye. This almost certainly was the "argaman" mentioned in Tanach. There is no evidence for its use for a blue dye in classical sources. Rabbi Twerski writes convincingly that the blue indigo dye could have been derived in ancient times, but that it was derived and that it was used commercially remains mere supposition. 2) The fact that techelet was used by royalty in ancient times, as is evident from several references in Nevi'im and Ketuvim. True, but it does not tell us anything about the source of techelet. 3) That the color of murex is known to be the color of techelet; and 4) That the murex is found where the chilzaon of techelet was known to be found, off the coast of ancient Phoenicia. In my mind, this combination is the strongest argument in favor of the murex identification but it is still far from conclusive (the precise color of techelet is a complex issue, as a thorough reading of Rabbi Twerski's article will show). 5) The murex-based dye is permanent, a feature techelet has in common with murex dyes and what (sic) was uncommon in ancient dyes. One should bear in mind that k'la ilan was also a permanent dye, indistinguishable from techelet except through a careful and precise chemical test. The Gemara in Baba Kama 93b specifically differentiates k'la ilan from other dyes for its permanence. 6) The identification of techelet as purpura by the Ra'avya. Purpura is identified in the article as the Greek word for murex. Again, the statement is true but the Ra'avya and the Yerushalrni fragment which he quotes clearly do not mean the murex snail itself. Techelet is a dye or more precisely the wool colored with dye. Purpura in Greek also has the meaning of the dye derived from the murex. Unfortunately, it is the purple dye from the murex that is called purpura (it is probably the origin of the English word purple). The Septuagint uses "purpura" as the translation for argaman. It is strange to quote this Yerushalmi fragment as evidence for identifying techelet with an indigo blue dye. However, this makes the Yerushalmi problematic. For if purpura is argaman how can it be techelet? It is clear from the entire description of the Mishkan that they are two distinct dyes. It is tempting to say of the Yerushalmi fragment  משבשתא היא  ומהא ליכא למשמע מינה  it is a corrupt text and nothing can be derived from it.

I believe that a careful reading of the Yerushalmi can resolve all difficulties. The Yerushalmi, as quoted by the Ra'avya, is explaining the statement of R. Eliezer in the Mishnah (Berachot 1:2) that Shema may be recited in the morning when one can distinguish between techelet and karti. It apparently identifies techelet as purpura. Presumably, the Yerushalmi dates to the time when techelet was still in use. But if so, why does the Yerushalmi have to identify techelet by a Greek word? It would be as incongruous as finding t'filin defined as phylacteries in a contemporary Hebrew sefer. The full text of the Yerushaitni בין תכלת וכרתי-בין פורפורין ובין פריפינין. Clearly at the time this was written the precise meaning of at least one of the colors mentioned in the Mishnah was no longer generally understood. However, what is important for understanding the Mishnah is not the meaning of each color but the relationship between them I think the Yerushalini should be understood as saying that the relationship between purpurin and prefinin is analogous to the relationship between techelet and karti. This reading of the Yerushalmi would eliminate all the problems and I believe it fits in the context of the Ra'avya better. But since then the Yerushalmi is not telling us that techelet itself is pupura, it tells us nothing about the identity of techelet or of the chilazon.

Furthermore, if we accept the thesis that the murex-derived indigo is techelet, then exposing the dye to sunlight while it is deoxidized is the secret to dyeing techelet. if the dye is not exposed to the sun, one would end up with the more common pupura argaman dye. Yet in Rav Slimuel bar Yehuda's description of the dyeing process (Menachot 42b) one would look in vain for any mention of sunlight.

None of the points that I have mentioned nor all of them together definitely prove that the murex is not the chilazon. The evidence is contradictory and clearly there is much we do not know. Which way the balance of the evidence lies is a subjective judgment. The murex identification remains an intriguing hypothesis. But exaggerated claims can only serve the cause of ignorance, not that of reason and understanding.

Finally, Rabbi Twerski slightly misrepresents my position concerning wearing questionable techelet. I was merely attempting to properly phrase the question rather than issue a ruling. I do not consider myself a posaik and certainly no one else does. For someone who believes the murex identification has been proven the issue is irrelevant. But if the identification is still doubtful then the question of the use of blue strings as "lavan" becomes one of paramount importance. Rabbi Twerski's argument that the Ramo's ruling should not apply in the case of a serious attempt at fulfilling techelet is definitely legitimate. But what are the criteria of a serious attempt? These are the issues that I believe the poskim will have to address.

The ruling of the Ramo is itself somewhat puzzling. It does seem to be based on the Terurnat Hadeshen which is quoted in the Darchei Moshe Ha'aruch. But, as Rabbi Twerski writes, the Terumat Hadeshen specifically states that there is no deterrent to wearing colored strings while the Ramo rules that one should not change the practice of wearing only white strings. Perhaps the Ramo's ruling is best understood as an aggressive defense of traditional practice against what he considered halachically unwarranted innovations.

I do not have access to the Ein Hatechelet, but both the Malbim (Artzot Hachaim 9:5) and the Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim 3:25) write that the Rambam’s ruling, that the titzit should be the color of the talit, should be applied only to the strings that are not replacements for the techelet. I assume the Radziner’s reasoning was similar.  (It is interesting that the Chazon Ish did not advocate wearing, nor did he himself wear, the Radziner techelet although in his view there was nothing to lose.) Will this argument be accepted by all poskirn? The Machon le'Cheker hachaklaut al pi haTorah has recently published in its journal Halichot Sadeh (Number 109 Shevat 5758) a letter from HaGaon Rabbi Elyashiv Shlita discussing the issue of techelet in the present era (I believe he was referring to the murex-derived dye). In it, he quotes the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch that the tzitzit should be the color of the talit, apparently rejecting the argument of the Radziner etc.

I am sure that Rabbi Twerski will join me in the hope that contemporary poskim will address this issue more extensively, along with the other issues raised in our correspondence.

Aaron Goldstein