R' Gershon Hanoch Leiner, 1st Admur of Radzyn

Grand Rabbi Gershon Chanoch Henech Leiner of Radzin, son of Beis Yaakov, author of Orchos Chayim, Sod Yesharim, Tiferes Hachinochi, and Dalsos Shar Ha'ir, among many other seforim. The Rebbe is referred to by Radziner Chasidim as the Orchos Chaim, based on his phenomenal work on the Tzava'ah - the will - of the Tana Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol. This work was written by the Rebbe basically without any open books to his advantage, in only 12 days, during his trial on a libel fabricated against him by his adversaries. When the Rebbe published this work, he commented to his chasidim that he's happy that he got to print his Tzava'ah. In the larger world the Rebbe is better known as the Ba'al HaTecheiles. The Rebbe was brilliant in both the revealed and the hidden Torah. He was also extremely knowledgeable in several scientific fields, like chemistry, engineering and medicine. He spoke several languages fluently, and used them frequently while prescribing medicines in Latin to the countless people who turned to him for help. At the age of sixteen, the Rebbe had already formulated a spectacular idea: he would compose a "gemarah" of a sort on the mishnayos of Seder Taharos, as there is no Talmud Bavli on that tractate. In order to accomplish this, he gathered all the relevant material from the whole Bavli shas, Yerushalmi shas, and all other Braysos etc., and presented them in chronological order in a sefer he called Sidrei Taharos on Maseches Keilim. He later did the same with all the other tractates of Seder Taharos. The task took him ten years to complete. He worked tirelessly for the restoration of the techeiles of the tzitzis. He made use of his vast knowledge to research the topic, and traveled to Italy four times to conduct his study. While there he visited what was then the largest aquarium in the world, in the coastal city of Naples, and upon studying the different sea creatures, he came to the conclusion that the original Techeiles was extracted from the secretion of a squid called the cuttlefish (in Hebrew known as the Dionon). Rumors have it that on one of the Rebbe's visits to Rome; he succeeded in persuading the Vatican to allow him a quick glimpse of the Holy Vessels of the Beis HaMikdosh, to match his findings with the techeiles on the priestly garments. He published several books on the topic, such as Sefunei Temunei Chol, Pesil Techeiles, and Ein HaTecheiles , and succeeded in influencing many Gedolim with his work. At the same time, there were Gedolim who opposed to the Rebbe's discovery and did not agree with his findings. There was, however, a small number of Gedolei Yisrael who would practice the rediscovered custom of techeiles, like the Maharsham of Berzan who possessed a tallis with techeiles fringes. All his chassidim and followers wear them, as do Breslov chassidim to this day. He was the first rebbe known as "The Radziner Rebbe". Died 4 Teves 5651 (1890). Buried in Radzin. https://www.academia.edu/36793911/THE_RADZYNER_REBBE_DYNASTY_1840-2...

First Prev [ 1 2 ] Next Last

In Judaism, Tzitzit are fringes or tassles ( Hebrew: ציצית) found on a Tallit, as per the commandment in Numbers 15:38, which reads: "Speak to the children of Israel and you shall say to them that they shall make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall affix a thread of sky blue (Hebrew: תכלת - Techelet) on the fringe of each corner."

Tzitzit are also commanded in Deuteronomy 22:12, which says: "You shall make yourself twisted threads, on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself."

Tzitzit are attached today only to Jewish religous garments, such as a Tallit Gadol (Great Shawl). The cause of this is due in part to the fact that today's typical garment does not have the required 4 corners, and thus the fringes are not nessicary. Traditional Jews will wear a Tallit Katan (Small Shawl) in order to fulfill this commandment at their own volition (although some consider it a transgression to miss a commandment that one has the option of fulfilling).

1 Techelet

According to Rabbinic Tradition, Techelet (תכלת) which appears 48 times in the Tanach - the word translated as "blue" - is a specific dye of blue, and that other blue dyes will not suffice. Karaites, however, believe that any blue dye will suffice.

2 Chilazon

The Chilazon is the animal from which the Techelet Dye was obtained by the Ancient Israelites. This animal is supposedly lost, but today some claim to have re-discovered this lost animal. The primary criteria for the chilazon come from the Talmud tract Menachot 44a. There are 4 primary criteria in determining what animal is the Chilazon:

1. The color of its body is like the sea

2. It's form is like a fish

3. It comes up once in 70 years, its "blood" is used for techeilet, therefore

4. It is expensive.

3 Additional Criteria

The fishers of the Chilazon are from Haifa to Tyre (Shabbat 26a)

One who cracks open the shell of the Chilazon violates Shabbat (Shabbat 75a)

The shell of the Chilazon grows with it ( Midrash Shir ha Shirim Rabbah 4:11)

The blood of the Chilazon is the color of Techelet ( Rashi, Chilun 89a)

The blood of the Chilazon is black like ink ( Rambam Hilch Tzitzit 2:2)

It has tentacles bent like hooks (Keilim, Ch. 12 Mishna 1)

A sickness which causes red flesh-like warts and forms a snake-like shape in the eye, is called "snake" or "Chilazon" (Brachot 38a,b)

The Chilazon buries itself in the sand (Megila 6a)

It is a boneless invertebrate (Yerushalami Sabbath 1:3 8a)

4 Common Cuttlefish

The common cuttlefish is the source of the Techelet dye in the Radzin Techelet. Discovered in 1887 by Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner (The Radziner Rebbe) after a tremendous amount of research, found the cuttlefish to meet many of the above criteria, although like the Murex, it also fails some of the criteria. This new techelet quickly caught on, within a year, 10,000 Radzin followers wore the colored tzitzit, and the dye became very popular (and endorsed by many influential Rabbis such as the Breslover Rebbe: Rabbi Nachmen of Breslov) to all but a few groups: Those who were not observant in the wearing of Tzitzit, those who did not want to wear the wrong blue on accident (or worse, that God had taken away the sacred blue and to wear it would be considered a transgression), and the Kotzker Chassidim, who were still quite furious at the Radziner Rebbe for having broken away from them. The last group may have mearly not worn his discovery out of spite.

5 Murex Trunculus

The Shell of the Murex Trunculus is the source of the dye in Ptil Techelet, originally researched and endorsed by Rabbi Herzog. Many who believed this ancient snail could be the chilazon were stunned when they could not get a sky-blue dye from this animal. However, in the 1980's, a chemist named Otto Elsner discovered that if a solution of the dye was exposed to sunlight, blue instead of purple would have been produced. Eventually, in 1993, the P'til Techelet foundation was formed to produce this Techelet for the masses as well as commence with further research. Approximatly 30 Murex are needed to produce enough dye for a single Tzitzit, and since 4 are required, this means a total of 120 are needed.

Parashat Shelach 5755

IN SEARCH OF THE LOST CHILAZON

Royal

colors

The Bnai Yisroel shall put on the Tzitzit of the corners [=ritual strings that hang from the corners of four-cornered garments] a string of Techelet [=wool dyed with a certain blue dye]. (Bamidbar 15:38)

: Techelet is only kosher if it is made from the Chilazon; if it is not made from the Chilazon it is invalid. (Tosefta Menachot 9:6, Beraita in Massechet Tzitzit 1:10)

The Techelet (or Biblical Blue) dye is mentioned dozens of times throughout the Tanach, usually together with another dye named Argaman (Royal, or Tyrian, Purple). In the ancient world these two dyes were extremely valuable -- they were worth many times their weight in gold. Clothing dyed with these pigments were generally reserved for royalty, or at least for high ranking nobles. Techelet and Argaman were also used for dying the priestly garments worn by the Kohanim in the Holy Temple. In Parashat Shelach the Torah gives every Jewish man the right -- even the obligation -- to wear a string of this royal Techelet on his garments. Perhaps the inclusion of Techelet in our Tzitzit was also meant to demonstrate the idea expressed in the Mishnah: "All the Bnai Yisroel are like sons of *kings*" (Shabbat 111a). The Midrash puts it even more succintly: The Techelet reminds us of the dominion of Hashem Himself. It is attached to our garments to show all that we are none other than His own children! (Socher Tov Tehillim 90, "V'Hadarcha Al B'neihem").

Throughout the times of the Mishnah and the Talmud the Techelet string was included in the Tzitziot of the men of Israel. Even the later Amora'im [=sages of the Gemara] who lived in Babylonia -- far from the Mediterranean coast, where the Techelet was produced -- had Techelet (Menachot 43a Sanhedrin 12a). Unfortunately at some point after this time the art of the manufacture of Techelet was lost, and its use discontinued. This is already apparent in the later Midrashim (Bemidbar Rabba 17:5; Tanchuma, end of Sh'lach) which mention that the Techelet has been "hidden away" ("Nignaz"). It is conjectured that the production of Techelet ceased some time in the seventh or eighth century, perhaps as a result of the devastation and upheaval caused by the Arab conquest of Eretz Israel in 683.

What exactly is this Chilazon from which the Techelet dye is extracted? Where has it been "hidden" all these years? Is it possible to reconstruct the long-lost art of Techelet production? What is the nature of the Techelet that some men wear today on their Tzitzit -- is it authentic or just an "artificial" substitute for the real thing? Let us take an excursion into the world of the Chilazon and the Techelet dye and see if we can unravel some of the mystery that pervades this fascinating subject. Before we start, it must be pointed out that in the field of Techelet research a great debt of gratitude is due to the former chief Rabbi of Ireland and later of Israel, Rav Yitzchak Isaac Herzog, who did a major study on the topic at the age of 24 for his doctoral thesis. In it, he combines his exceptional scholarship in 8 different disciplines and 12 languages, not to mention a tremendous erudition in Judaic sources. To this day his thesis remains *the* basic, authoritative work on the subject, from both a scholarly and a Talmudic standpoint. The thesis was written in English in 1920. It was later adapted into a Hebrew version by the author, which was published in installments in the periodical "HaHed," from 1932 to 1935. The Hebrew version was recently reprinted in full in the book "HaTechelet," by Rav Menachem Burstein (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 352-437. The longer English version was printed in Israel in "The Royal Purple and the Biblical Blue," edited by Ehud Spanier (Keter, 1987).

I

Fins &

Scales?

What color is the Techelet dye? Here we have very clear, specific information. The Gemara in Bava Metzia 61b says that the color of Techelet is indistinguishable from that of indigo ("Kala Ilan" -- see Sefer Ha'Aruch). When it comes to the Chilazon, though, the information we are given is much more sketchy.

From where does the Chilazon -- the source of the Techelet dye -- come? In Yechezkel 27:7 we read that the most professional production sites of Techelet were to be found in "the islands of Elishah," which have been identified as either Italy (see Targum, ibid.) or Cyprus. The Talmud tells us in several places that the only place Techelet was to be found in Eretz Yisrael was in the territory of the tribe of Zevulun, which was along the Mediterranean coast from Haifa and northward to Tyre (Shabbat 26a, Megilla 6a).

Let us turn now to the identity of the Chilazon itself. What sort of creature is it? The only explicit source about this question is the following:

: The body of the Chilazon resembles the sea (alternate reading: resembles the sky), and its body is similar to that of a fish. It comes up once every seventy (alt. reading: seven) years. (This may be an exaggeration employed to emphasize the scarcity of the species - MK.) The Techelet dye is obtained from its blood [=secretion], and it is therefore very expensive.(Menachot 44a; Beraita in Massechet Tzitzit)

Another hint to the nature of the Chilazon is given in Shabbat 74b, where we are told that the Chilazon was gathered from the sea in nets.

Tosafot (to Shabbat 73b "Mefarek," 75a "Hatzad"), apparently basing his words on the above Gemara in Shabbat, intimates that the Chilazon is a type of fish, which squirms around in the net after it is caught. A similar view is expressed by Rabbenu Bachye in the beginning of Parashat Terumah (25:3), where the Torah mentions three dyes used in the construction of the Mishkan [=the movable Tabernacle of the desert] -- Techelet, Argaman and Tola'at Shani. The last of these three dyes is generally understood to mean "scarlet from a worm." Rabbenu Bachye asks how this is possible, since the Gemara (Shabbat 28b) says that only products which are kosher to be eaten were used in the Mishkan, and worms -- or their secretions -- are not kosher! He therefore explains that the scarlet dye in question was not actually taken from worms, but from some sort of berry that *contained* the worms. Following this approach, it may be concluded that the Chilazon, which is a sea creature, must be a regular fish, with fins and scales, for these are the only kosher sea creatures.

The approach of Rabbenu Bachye, however, is quite difficult. It seems clear from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Kilayim 9:1), and it is also a known fact, that the scarlet dye of Tola'at Shani was indeed extracted from a worm (the female Kermococcus vermilis, an insect that breeds on a certain species of oak) and not from a berry. Rabbeinu Bachye's words are therefore very hard to accept (-a copyist's error in the piece cannot be discounted). As far as how a non-kosher creature could be used in the manufacture of an item for use in the Mishkan, we must say that it is only the actual *materials* used in the Mishkan which were subject to this rule, not the dyes. The pigments, which are not tangible objects in the finished product, were not included in this prohibition. If this is so, we are not bound to assume that the Chilazon was any more a kosher creature than the Shani worm.

II

Squids &

Snails

So if the Chilazon may not be a kosher fish, then what kind of fish was it?

In the late 19th century a talmudic researcher by the name of Yehudah Levisohn wrote in his work "Talmudic Zoology" (p. 284-5) that the Chilazon was a type of squid known as the cuttlefish. Levisohn based his conclusion on an inference from a statement of the Rambam in Hilchot Tzitzit 2:2. Shortly afterwards, a brilliant Hassidic Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner of Radzin, came to the same conclusion. He carried the conclusion one step further, though, actually developing a process whereby the sepia [=inky secretion] of the cuttlefish, which normally produces a dark brown dye, was transformed into a blue dye! The dye turned out to be identical, chemically, to a common synthetic light-blue dye invented in 1704, known as Prussian blue. The Radziner Rebbe authored three large volumes to support his thesis, purporting to prove that he had re-discovered the long-lost Techelet, and set up a factory where the dye was produced. His followers adopted his opinion and began wearing the new Techelet string in their Tzitzit. With the exception of the Breslover Hassidim, however, the innovation was not accepted by the rest of the Jewish world, and his movement was even met with a substantial amount of opposition.

It is interesting to note that the method used by the Radziner Rebbe to produce Techelet consisted of boiling the sepia, iron filings and potash together at tremendously high temperatures to produce the pigment ferric ferrocyanide. Dye chemists are quick to point out, however, that this process doesn't make any unique use of the squid's inky secretion. In fact, the sepia itself disintegrates and never makes it to the final product, leaving behind only its nitrogen atoms. Any nitrogen-containing compound will produce the same result, if substituted for the squid ink! In fact, a similar process is used by any organic chemistry student as a test for nitrogen in compounds. (I thank the chemist Dr. Israel Ziderman of the Jerusalem Fiber Institute, founder of the Tekhelet Foundation, for giving me of his time to clarify this point. See also HaTechelet, pp. 413-6, for the results Rav Herzog obtained upon submitting the Radziner Rebbe's Techelet to chemical analysis.)

Unfortunately, there are a number of technical difficulties with the Techelet produced according to the Radziner method. Firstly, Techelet was known to be absolutely indelible (Menachot 43b), while the Radziner Techelet can fade (a process called "bleeding") when scrubbed with common detergents (see HaTechelet p. 179). Secondly, the blue color that he produced wasn't the blue shade of indigo, but rather a more metallic blue (see HaTechelet p. 413). Also, the squid he used is of a species that is relatively common in the Mediterranean Sea, and this does not correspond to the statements made about the rarity of the Chilazon (HaTechelet p. 177). Furthermore, there are no more squids in the land of Zevulun than anywhere else in the Mediterranean. The only place they can be found in particular abundance is in the area of Italy (HaTechelet p. 178)!

Perhaps the strongest objection to the Radziner Techelet, though, is that the word "Chilazon" is used in numerous places in Chazal as a general term, meaning "snail." In Shir HaShirim Rabba (4:11), a Chilazon is a creature that lives inside a shell (-see the Radziner Rebbe's words on this matter in HaTechelet, p. 174. His explanation is not very satisfying). Also, in Bechorot (Mishna 6:2) and in Kelim (12:1) something with a spiral or twisted appearance is dubbed "Chilazon." In Sanhedrin 91a we are told that Chilazons appear on the ground after a rain. It seems clear from all these sources that the word "Chilazon" is being used in the context of "snail," and it is therefore logical to assume that the famous Chilazon which produces Techelet is a particular kind of snail. Rashi (Sanhedrin 91a) indeed tells us that the Chilazon creature is a type of slug, which definitely allows for the possibility of it being a mollusk. The Gemara in Menachot was actually careful to point out that the Chilazon is "*similar* to a fish," i.e. a fish-like sea creature. It is not a fish itself.

The identification of the Chilazon as a type of snail enables us to solve another puzzle. Tosafot in Shabbat 75a ("HaTzad") quotes a statement from Talmud Yerushalmi to the effect that catching a Chilazon on the Shabbat does not constitute a violation of the prohibition against trapping or catching animals on Shabbat. Tosafot is at a loss to explain why a Chilazon should be an exception to the rule. Now that we have identified the Chilazon as a type of snail, however, the answer is obvious. There is a rule that if an animal cannot easily escape (if it is blind or wounded, etc.) then "catching" that animal does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of "trapping" on Shabbat (Shabbat 106b). Certainly a snail cannot move away easily from its trapper! It is true that the Talmud Bavli asserts that the prohibition against trapping *is* violated by one who traps a Chilazon. This should not be taken as evidence that the Chilazon is not a snail. The Talmud Bavli may agree to the Yerushalmi's identification of the Chilazon, but nevertheless prohibit its capture on other grounds. Perhaps picking out the barely discernible Chilazon on the sea bed cannot be compared to ensnaring a prominent helpless creature above the ground.

What of the fact that the Gemara says that Chilazons are harvested with a net? Doesn't this seem to imply that they are a type of fish? The answer to this may lie in the fact that even today snails are captured by spreading baited nets (they are considered a delicacy in many countries). The bait lures the snails into the nets, which are then raised. Alternatively, the nets may have been used to confine the already harvested snails in a saltwater environment, until the dye could be made from them. (The Gemara tells us in Shabbat 75a that if the Chilazon is allowed to die before its juice is extracted, it cannot be made into a suitable dye.)

III

Argaman &

Techelet

But which of the many species of snails is the one which produces the Techelet dye?

It was pointed out earlier that Techelet is often mentioned in conjunction with Argaman (-in fact, in the Talmudic literature, the term "Techelet" is often used to refer to either of the two). In the middle 17th century an English naturalist named Thomas Geig wrote that he found a snail which contains within it a liquid which becomes a purplish dye after being extracted from the snail and exposed to sunlight. At around the same time, someone named Saul Bochart (Hierozoicon, 1663) proved from ancient sources that Argaman was produced from snails. Shortly afterwards, researchers put the two facts together, concluding that Geig's snail was indeed the source used by the ancients to produce Argaman (HaTechelet, p.252,371,418).

In fact, archaeologists have uncovered numerous ancient dye-producing factories all over the Mediterranean coast (mostly in the north-eastern area, "from Haifa to Tyre"), with large heaps of snail shells alongside them. These shells have been identified as belonging to three distinct species of snails: Purpura Haemastoma, Murex Brandaris and Murex Trunculus. That these snails were the source of Tyrian purple -- Argaman -- has become accepted as a historical fact. These snails are in fact much more numerous along the northern coast of Eretz Yisroel than along the southern coast, with their population steadily increasing as one goes north. South of Haifa, the snails are few and far between. This corresponds nicely with the description of the Chilazon's distribution that is presented by Chazal.

The identities of these snails were well-known to Rav Herzog when he wrote his work on the topic of Techelet. And, as he himself pointed out, it seems clear from several Biblical and historical sources that the Jews and the gentiles extracted their blue dyes from the same creature (HaTechelet pp. 426-7. See also Shabbat 26a, and Rashi ad loc. "U'Lyogvim" -MK). Nevertheless, he rejected the idea that one or all of these species may be the true *Techelet* Chilazon for several reasons. First of all, the color of their shells is white, which contradicts the Gemara's description (quoted above) that the Chilazon's body "resembles the sea," i.e. is of a bluish hue. Furthermore, and more importantly, the dye extracted from these creatures is purple in color, and not indigo. The above-mentioned snails were clearly the source of Argaman, or "purpura" in Latin. However, Techelet, referred to in Latin by Josephus and Philo as "hyakinthos," may have been produced from another snail altogether!

IV

Rav Herzog's

Techelet

R. Herzog suggested that there was indeed another snail, distinct from the above-mentioned snails, from which Techelet was derived. The snail he chose is known as Janthina Pallida Harvey. It is found in the Mediterranean, and has a beautiful violet-blue shell. When excited, it discharges a secretion of the same color. It is quite rare and lives in colonies that have population explosions every four to seven years, when large numbers of them are washed ashore! All the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit now! (HaTechelet, p.427.)

Over the last two years, serious research has been done to determine whether a blue dye can indeed be made from the Janthina's secretion. So far, the efforts have not met with much success. The secretion can produce a reddish-bluish color on a fabric, but within a matter of hours the color turns black. Aside from that, the dye washes right out of the fabric when brought into contact with water. In fact, the most advanced modern testing has not been able to even dissolve the secretion in any chemical solution -- the most basic requirement of any known dye. Instead of dissolving in liquid, the Janthina's ink forms a suspension. In this state, it cannot be induced to bind to a fabric. More research into the chemical makeup of the secretion is still necessary.

Aside from this technical difficulty, there are several problems with identifying the Chilazon as the Janthina snail. For one thing, as with the cuttlefish, it is no more common along the shore of Zevulun than anywhere else in the Mediterranean. For another, as Rav Herzog himself points out, no Janthina shells have ever been discovered in any archaeological site, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Greek or Roman literature that discuss blue dye. It thus appears not to have been in use in the ancient world.

V

Modern

Techelet

A contemporary of Rav Herzog's, Alexander Dedekind of Vienna, suggested in his work Archeological Zoology (Vienna, 1898, p. 467) that the blue dye of Techelet actually did come from the snails found near the ancient dye vats. He differentiated between the Techelet and the Argaman snails, singling out Murex Trunculus (known in modern Hebrew as "Argemon Keheh Kotzim," for "short spiked Purpura") as the source of the blue Techelet. In contrast, the other two species were used exclusively for the production of Argaman. He bases this assumption on the fact that not far from Sidon an ancient dyeing site was discovered which had near it two separate piles of shells. In one pile the shells of Purpura Haemastoma and Murex Brandaris were mixed together, while in the other only shells of Murex Trunculus were found (HaTechelet, p. 421). This certainly seems to support the idea that Murex Trunculus was used for a different purpose than the other two snails. In fact, the M. Trunculus produces a slightly "bluer" dye than the other two. Although he personally favored his Janthina theory, Rav Herzog himself reluctantly admitted that "the logical conclusion would certainly appear to be that the blue pigment produced by the Chilazon was obtained using the Murex Trunculus dye... it is highly unlikely that the Techelet Chilazon was not the Murex Trunculus" (HaTechelet, p. 421). The evidence seems to point overwhelmingly to Murex Trunculus as being the source of Techelet.

Is there a way that Rav Herzog's objections (mentioned in Part III) to identifying the Chilazon as Murex Trunculus can be overcome? The first question can be answered easily. Rav Herzog pointed out that the shells of Murex Trunculus were white and not "similar to the sea." However, his conclusion was based on the color of the centuries-old shells found by the archaeologists or of museum samples. As a matter of fact, though, when the snail is first removed from the sea, it does indeed have a bluish-purple tinge to it, produced by sea-fouling. (As I gaze at the Murex shell that is presently on my desk, I can still see on it a pronounced purplish-bluish tint -- MK.)

The other problem raised was that the secretion of Murex Trunculus turns purple and not blue. Rav Herzog himself raised the possibility that "there might have been some scheme known to the ancients for obtaining a blue dye out of this secretion" (HaTechelet p. 423). Sure enough, recent research has shown that when the secretion is exposed to bright sunlight immediately upon being extracted from the snail, the sunlight breaks down a certain chemical bond in the liquid and it subsequently forms a blue dye. In fact, the resulting dye consists mostly of components bearing the exact same chemical makeup as indigo! Although this is true of all three of the snails mentioned before, Murex Trunculus yields this blue color much more readily than the others. M. Trunculus does not require a lengthy exposure to the sun in order for the chemical reactions to take place. (Credit for this discovery goes to the late Otto Elsner of the Shenkar Institute of Fibers in Ramat Gan, Israel, whose words can be found in HaTechelet, p.299-302 -- see also p. 423 note 39).

All the difficulties seem to have been adequately dealt with -- except for one. What is the once-in-seven(ty)-years cycle of "coming up" ("Oleh Echad L'Shiv'im Shana") mentioned by the Gemara? Does the Murex Trunculus snail show any unusual prominence every seventy (or seven) years? So far, no such behavior has been determined in the Murex. It should be pointed out, however, that much of the headway made in Chilazon research is quite recent, and there has not yet been sufficient opportunity to study the nature of the Murex snail. We may yet discover that there is indeed some sort of regular periodical occurrence involved in Murex's life cycle. It is interesting to note that a few kilometers north of Haifa there is a ravine known to the Arabs as Wadi Hilzun, which is near a mountain called Mount Chilazon. Rashi (Megilla 6a, Sanhedrin 91a -- see also Rashi Menachot 44a) explains the "coming up" of the Chilazon, as the Chilazon emerging from the sea and ascending the mountains. Is it possible that every few years (or decades) there is some sort of mass migration of these snails through Wadi Hilzun and up Mount Chilazon, from which these places may have been given their names in ancient times? Only time will tell!

VI

The Techelet

Team

In the practical realm, we must acknowledge the work of a scholar in Jerusalem named Harav Eliyahu Tevger (author of "Kelil Techelet"). Although faced with great technical difficulties and high costs, he undertook the project of locating and collecting enough of the M. Trunculus snails, mastering the technique of turning their secretion into a high-quality blue dye, and applying the dye to wool -- all this despite the general antipathy of the scientific community and of the Society for the Preservation of Nature in Israel. Eight years ago, his initiative first saw success, and he used his product to dye wool threads, according to the requirements of the Halacha, which were made into Techelet for Tzitzit for the first time in fifteen centuries! Along with three others who have dedicated themselves to this endeavor -- Joel Guberman, Ari Greenspan and Baruch Sterman -- Rav Tevger has formed the P'til Techelet Society (their Email address is: tekhelet@jer1.co.il. Baruch's excellent article on the subject can be obtained through their Email address. An older version of it appears in the mail.jewish archives, Volume 8 Number 12). Just two years ago, they started to mass-produce their Techelet, using thousands of snails imported from various countries on the Northern Mediterranean coast that consider the snail a delicacy. At the time of this writing (June 5755), they are in the final stages of dyeing their second 300-string batch, and already have many more orders than they can handle. Working on this project during their free time, the group is offering the Techelet to the public for cost-price; $50 a set.

So now what?

IN CONCLUSION

What does all this mean for us? Can it be said Halachically that the true Techelet -- or at least a very likely candidate for it -- has been "rediscovered?" Is it now binding upon us once again, as it was in antiquity, to add this dye to our Tzitzit?

Halachically there does not yet seem to be an obligation to wear the present Techelet. True, there is a rule that "When there is a doubt as to the correct Halachic ruling, one must follow the more stringent view when it comes to a question of a Torah (as opposed to Rabbinical) precept." This would seem to imply that even if our identification of Chilazon with Murex Trunculus is not absolutely certain, we should be obligated to wear the newly discovered Techelet "just in case." Nevertheless, due to various considerations which are not within the scope of this article, that ruling would not seem to apply in this case.

However, there is another interesting ramification of the emergence of the Techelet. Rav Chaim Vital in Shaar HaKavvanot (Tzitzit, Drush 4) writes that Techelet represents Hashem's presence being clearly felt by all. This is why, he tells us, Techelet was only widely accessible during -- or close to -- the times when the Temple was standing. These were the times when Hashem's Presence among Israel was manifest for all to see. After the exile and its attendant hardships intensified, however, when Hashem's Presence among His people is less evident, Techelet became "hidden" as well. If so, the "return" of Techelet may be taken as an indication that the manifestation of Hashem's Presence in this world, too, will be returning to its former state. (There is also a tradition from Rav Nachman of Breslov that some time before the advent of the Messianic era the Mitzvah of Techelet will be reinstated -- HaTechelet p. 186 note 21, see Likutei Tfilot 1:49). Some Rabbinic authorities even showed reluctance to acknowledge the Halachic validity of the various Techelets because of these far-reaching implications.

Whatever hidden meaning there may be in the almost mystical reappearance of the Chilazon and the Techelet during the past decades, may we merit to actually see Hashem's hand in the final redemption, speedily in our days!

Iyar 5768

Can We Identify the Techeiles?

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Written by the rabbi

Dedicated to the memory of

R' Meir b"r Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld zt"l

When we are commanded about wearing tzitzis, the Torah includes two mitzvohs. In addition to the mitzvah of wearing tzitzis threads on the corners of the garment, there is an additional mitzvah that some of the tzitzis threads should be dyed with a special dye called techeiles. (It is a dispute among the Rishonim how many threads are to be dyed techeiles.) This dye must be made from a species called chilazon (Tosefta Menachos 9:6).

Although the use of techeiles stopped over a thousand years ago, there have been a few attempts within the last 130 years to reintroduce the practice of wearing techeiles threads alongside the white threads. This article will present the differing opinions on this question and some of the issues that have been raised.

At the time of the Gemara, the nature of chilazon and its manufacture was still known and practiced (see Menachos 42b). However, some time after the period of the Gemara, the use of techeiles ended. By all indications, techeiles fell into disuse sometime between the end of the period of the Rabbonim Saborayim who completed the editing of the Gemara around the year 4330 (570) and the time of Rav Ahai Gaon, the author of the She’iltos, around 4520 (760).

It is unclear why the Jewish people stopped using techeiles. Numerous theories have been suggested why wearing techeiles ended. The wording used by the midrashim is "now we have only white tzitzis since the techeiles was concealed" (Medrash Tanchuma, Shlach 15; Medrash Rabbah, Shlach 17:5). Some poskim understand that there are halachic or kabbalistic reasons why techeiles should not be worn until moshiach comes (Shu"t Yeshuos Malko #1-3). According to this opinion, the Medrash means that the source of the techeiles was concealed and it is only to be revealed in the future at a time when Hashem again wants us to wear it again.

Other poskim disagree and contend that we should still attempt to fulfill the mitzvah of wearing techeiles on the tzitzis. They explain that the Medrash means that techeiles became unavailable. Rav Herzog zt"l, who followed this approach, speculated that persecution by anti-Semitic governments ended the production of techeiles. Still another possibility is that the knowledge how to produce the techeiles was lost, or that there was no longer availability or access to the chilazon, the source of the techeiles.

The Radziner Rebbe’s Research and Conclusion

In 5647 (1887), the Radziner Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner, zt"l, published a small sefer, Sefunei Temunei Chol, wherein he discusses the importance of fulfilling the mitzvah of wearing techeiles even today. In his opinion, the Medrash quoted above means that techeiles became unavailable, not that we are not permitted to wear techeiles. The Radziner encouraged wearing something that might be techeiles even if it there is some question as to whether one is indeed fulfilling the mitzvah. In his opinion, one who is wearing questionable techeiles should do so, because maybe he is fulfilling a mitzvah min hatorah. Thus, he contended that if he could identify a species that might be the chilazon, and he could extract a dye from it, then one should wear tzitzis that are dyed this way.

The Radziner himself analyzed every place in the Gemara where the word chilazon is mentioned and defined what characteristics would help us identify the chilazon. Based on his analysis, he drew up a list of eleven requirements with which one could identify the chilazon. Among other requirements, these included that the chilazon would be located in the eastern Mediterranean Sea; that it is a marine animal and not a fish; that it must be able to live on land at least for a brief period of time; that it produces a black ink and that it must have fins, bones, and sinews. The Radziner concluded that if one located a marine animal that meets all these requirements, one can assume that it is the chilazon.

Having completed his halachic research, the Radziner then began his scientific research to identify the chilazon. He traveled to Naples, Italy, to study marine animals that would meet all the requirements of techeiles. In Italy, he decided that the cuttlefish, which in many languages is called an inkfish, is indeed the chilazon from which one produces techeiles. The cuttlefish meets every one of the Radziner’s requirements for chilazon, including that it emits a dark dye, which is the reason why it is called an inkfish. The cuttlefish is not a true fish and is capable of living on land for brief periods of time.

The Radziner then published his second volume on the subject, Pesil Techeiles, in which he announced his discovery of the chilazon and all his proofs why the cuttlefish meets all the requirements of the chilazon. Subsequently, the Radziner published a third volume, Ayn HaTecheiles whose purpose was to respond to all the questions he has been asked on his previous volumes.

Reaction to the Radziner’s Proposal

Although the Radziner had presented his case in an extremely convincing manner, most of the Gedolei Yisroel did not support his theory. Ayn HaTecheiles was published by the Radziner to refute those who had disagreed with him and to attempt to convince others of the validity of his approach. He attempted to get several great poskim to agree with him, particularly, Rav Yitzchok Elchonon Spector (the Rav of Kovno and the Posek HaDor at the time), the Beis HaLevi (then the Rav of Brisk), Rav Yehoshua Kutno (author of Yeshuos Malko, the Rav of Kutno and considered one of the Poskei HaDor), the Maharil Diskin (who had been Rav of Brisk and was living in official retirement in Yerushalayim), and Rav Shmuel Salant (the Rav of Yerushalayim). None of these Rabbonim accepted the Radziner’s proposal. Their reasons for rejecting his proposal are significant.

Counter Arguments

Rav Yehoshua Kutno and Rav Yitzchok Elchonon disagreed with the Radziner for a different reason. In their opinion, the Medrash quoted above should be understood literally, meaning that techeiles had been placed in genizah until Hashem again wants us to observe this mitzvah. Rav Yehoshua Kutno suggests several reasons why this happened, reasons that are beyond the scope of this article.

Others were opposed to wearing techeiles because of sources in the writings of the Ari and other mekubalim that say that we are not to use techeiles until the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash, bimheira biyameinu. The Radziner did not agree with their interpretation of these sources.

An additional objection was raised against the Radziner’s position that one should wear questionable techeiles since one might be fulfilling the mitzvah. This is based on the poskim who contend that one who places blue tzitzis that are dyed with a dye other than techeiles on a white garment is not yotzay the mitzvah. Therefore, it is preferable to wear white tzitzis if one is uncertain (see Rama, Orach Chayim 9:5).

There were also objections to the Radziner’s conclusions on other grounds. Some objected to his choosing a non-kosher species as the source or the techeiles since there are early poskim who contend that the techeiles must come from a kosher species. Others contend that the color of the Radziner’s techeiles was wrong, since Rashi states that the techeiles is green.

On the other hand, there were some Gedolim that considered the merits of the Radziner’s position. The Maharsham wore a talis with the Radziner’s techeiles, although apparently he did so only in private. However, in the final result only the Radziner’s own chassidim and some Breslever Chassidim wear the techeiles that the Radziner introduced.

Rav Herzog’s Research

More than twenty years after the Radziner’s passing, Rav Herzog (later to become the first Chief Rabbi of Israel) researched the source for the techeiles. In his analysis of the halachic issues involved, Rav Herzog accepted most of the Radziner’s opinions and interpretations. However, there are some aspects of the Radziner’s approach with which Rav Herzog took issue. Whereas the Radziner assumed that every place in the Gemara where it refers to chilazon, it means the chilazon that was used in making techeiles, Rav Herzog assumes that chilazon means a sea snail, and not necessarily the snail used in making the techeiles. Thus, in Rav Herzog’s opinion, not all of the Radziner’s requirements in determining the species for the techeiles are accurate. Therefore, Rav Herzog focused on determining among the numerous species of sea snails which ones are the most likely candidates to be the chilazon that was specifically used for producing techeiles dye.

There is one major point of the Radziner’s conclusions with which Rav Herzog took issue. Rav Herzog took samples of the dye recommended by the Radziner as techeiles and had them chemically tested. Based on results that he received from the laboratories, Rav Herzog concluded that the blue color that results from the Radziner’s techeiles are not caused by anything in the cuttlefish ink. The chemists he consulted contended that the color is an artificial dye named Prussian blue which was created by the chemicals added as part of the processing. In Rav Herzog’s opinion, since he could not discern anything in the cuttlefish that causes the blue coloring, he reaches the conclusion that the cuttlefish could not possibly be the source of the techeiles. (There are answers to explain how the Radziner might have responded to this question that are beyond the scope of this article.)

Rav Herzog conducted much research on which sea snail is the most likely source for techeiles. However, in his conclusion he rejects each of these species because they do not meet all the requirements listed by the Gemara and Rambam. Thus, after much scientific and halachic research, Rav Herzog did not have a source of techeiles to recommend. Furthermore, it should be noted that all the poskim who disagreed with the Radziner’s proposal, as recorded in Ayn HaTecheiles, would all disagree with Rav Herzog’s proposals.

Recently, some have attempted to answer the questions raised by Rav Herzog. These researchers have suggested that one of the species of sea snail named murex trunculus might indeed be the source for techeiles. Rav Herzog rejected this species as the source for techeiles for several reasons that these researchers feel that they have resolved. (See also what he wrote years later in Ha’Ir HaKodesh ViHamikdash Volume 4: Section 5: Chapter 6.) These researchers have formed an organization that encourages the wearing of tzitzis dyed with murex trunculus extract as a fulfillment of the mitzvah of wearing techeiles.

It should be noted that the method currently used to process the dye from the murex trunculus cannot be the method used in the days of Chazal of dyeing techeiles threads. This is for the following reasons:

1. The current method of extracting dye from murex trunculus involves removing a gland from the snail, which would involve the melacha of gozeiz, removing part of a living creature. (According to many poskim, one violates this also by removing part of a creature that has since died.) Clearly, this could not have been the method of removing the dye from chilazon in earlier days, as can be proved from the Gemara (Shabbos 75a) since no mention is made of this prohibition in the Gemara, although it mentions other prohibitions.

2. Another objection is based on the fact that it can be demonstrated from the Gemara that the removing of the dye liquid from the chilazon kills it, although one would prefer that the chilazon remain alive for as long as possible. However, in the process used to remove the dye from murex, the snail can remain alive for several hours after the process is complete.

Neither of these problems necessarily disproves murex trunculus as the source of techeiles; they simply demonstrate that the current method is not the one used by Chazal. It might be true that there is an alternative method for extracting techeiles that was discovered today that was not used in the days of Chazal for some unknown reason.

3. A third problem with the current method of using murex trunculus requires an introduction. At the time of the Gemara, there were unscrupulous individuals who sold threads dyed with a coloring called kla ilan. This coloring is not kosher as techeiles and therefore someone wearing it on his tzitzis would not fulfill the mitzvah of wearing techeiles. According to the Aruch, kla ilan is indigo, a vegetable dye that has a blue color. Thus, the Gemara was concerned about someone selling indigo-colored threads as techeiles threads to an unsuspecting buyer. The Gemara describes a test that can be used to check whether the threads are kla ilan or techeiles, by testing the threads for colorfastness, whereby kla ilan would fade, whereas techeiles would remain fast. However, if the dye produced from murex trunculus is indigo, and the substitute is also indigo, how could a chemical test for colorfastness be used to determine what was the source of the indigo?

4. The Rambam (Hilchos Tzitzis 2:2) describes that the "blood" that is the source of the techeiles is black like ink. This indeed was one of the reasons why the Radziner considered the cuttlefish to be the source of techeiles, since its "ink" is black. However, the gland extract removed from murex trunculus is clear when removed and only changes color afterwards.

Obviously, I am not the first one to note these difficulties with the process of extracting dye from murex trunculus. However, the responses I have seen to answer these questions are very tenuous.

We see that there has been a significant amount of research about the source of techeiles and the possibility of fulfilling this mitzvah in our day. Due to the above mentioned considerations, we see that those who follow the approach of the majority of the poskim of earlier generations and wear only white tzitzis have a substantive basis in halacha.

aismFins, Scales, and Snails

By: Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld

Biblical Blue, Part 2

What color is the Techelet dye? Here we have very clear, specific information. The Gemara in Bava Metzia 61b says that the color of Techelet is indistinguishable from that of indigo ("Kala Ilan" -- see Sefer Ha'Aruch). When it comes to the Chilazon, though, the information we are given is much more sketchy.

From where does the Chilazon -- the source of the Techelet dye -- come? In Yechezkel 27:7 we read that the most professional production sites of Techelet were to be found in "the islands of Elishah," which have been identified as either Italy (see Targum, ibid.) or Cyprus. The Talmud tells us in several places that the only place Techelet was to be found in Eretz Yisrael was in the territory of the tribe of Zevulun, which was along the Mediterranean coast from Haifa and northward to Tyre (Shabbat 26a, Megilla 6a).

Let us turn now to the identity of the Chilazon itself. What sort of creature is it? The only explicit source about this question is the following:

The body of the Chilazon resembles the sea (alternate reading: resembles the sky), and its body is similar to that of a fish. It comes up once every seventy (alt. reading: seven) years. (This may be an exaggeration employed to emphasize the scarcity of the species - MK.) The Techelet dye is obtained from its blood [=secretion], and it is therefore very expensive.(Menachot 44a; Beraita in Massechet Tzitzit)

Another hint to the nature of the Chilazon is given in Shabbat 74b, where we are told that the Chilazon was gathered from the sea in nets.

Tosafot (to Shabbat 73b "Mefarek," 75a "Hatzad"), apparently basing his words on the above Gemara in Shabbat, intimates that the Chilazon is a type of fish, which squirms around in the net after it is caught. A similar view is expressed by Rabbenu Bachye in the beginning of Parashat Terumah (25:3), where the Torah mentions three dyes used in the construction of the Mishkan [=the movable Tabernacle of the desert] -- Techelet, Argaman and Tola'at Shani. The last of these three dyes is generally understood to mean "scarlet from a worm." Rabbenu Bachye asks how this is possible, since the Gemara (Shabbat 28b) says that only products which are kosher to be eaten were used in the Mishkan, and worms -- or their secretions -- are not kosher! He therefore explains that the scarlet dye in question was not actually taken from worms, but from some sort of berry that *contained* the worms. Following this approach, it may be concluded that the Chilazon, which is a sea creature, must be a regular fish, with fins and scales, for these are the only kosher sea creatures.

The approach of Rabbenu Bachye, however, is quite difficult. It seems clear from the Talmud Yerushalmi (Kilayim 9:1), and it is also a known fact, that the scarlet dye of Tola'at Shani was indeed extracted from a worm (the female Kermococcus vermilis, an insect that breeds on a certain species of oak) and not from a berry. Rabbeinu Bachye's words are therefore very hard to accept (-a copyist's error in the piece cannot be discounted). As far as how a non-kosher creature could be used in the manufacture of an item for use in the Mishkan, we must say that it is only the actual *materials* used in the Mishkan which were subject to this rule, not the dyes. The pigments, which are not tangible objects in the finished product, were not included in this prohibition. If this is so, we are not bound to assume that the Chilazon was any more a kosher creature than the Shani worm.

Squids & Snails

So if the Chilazon may not be a kosher fish, then what kind of fish was it?

In the late 19th century a talmudic researcher by the name of Yehudah Levisohn wrote in his work "Talmudic Zoology" (p. 284-5) that the Chilazon was a type of squid known as the cuttlefish. Levisohn based his conclusion on an inference from a statement of the Rambam in Hilchot Tzitzit 2:2. Shortly afterwards, a brilliant Hassidic Rebbe, Rav Gershon Henoch Leiner of Radzin, came to the same conclusion. He carried the conclusion one step further, though, actually developing a process whereby the sepia [=inky secretion] of the cuttlefish, which normally produces a dark brown dye, was transformed into a blue dye! The dye turned out to be identical, chemically, to a common synthetic light-blue dye invented in 1704, known as Prussian blue. The Radziner Rebbe authored three large volumes to support his thesis, purporting to prove that he had re-discovered the long-lost Techelet, and set up a factory where the dye was produced. His followers adopted his opinion and began wearing the new Techelet string in their Tzitzit. With the exception of the Breslever Hassidim, however, the innovation was not accepted by the rest of the Jewish world, and his movement was even met with a substantial amount of opposition.

It is interesting to note that the method used by the Radziner Rebbe to produce Techelet consisted of boiling the sepia, iron filings and potash together at tremendously high temperatures to produce the pigment ferric ferrocyanide. Dye chemists are quick to point out, however, that this process doesn't make any unique use of the squid's inky secretion. In fact, the sepia itself disintegrates and never makes it to the final product, leaving behind only its nitrogen atoms. Any nitrogen-containing compound will produce the same result, if substituted for the squid ink! In fact, a similar process is used by any organic chemistry student as a test for nitrogen in compounds. (I thank the chemist Dr. Israel Ziderman of the Jerusalem Fiber Institute, founder of the Tekhelet Foundation, for giving me of his time to clarify this point. See also HaTechelet, pp. 413-6, for the results Rav Herzog obtained upon submitting the Radziner Rebbe's Techelet to chemical analysis.)

Unfortunately, there are a number of technical difficulties with the Techelet produced according to the Radziner method. Firstly, Techelet was known to be absolutely indelible (Menachot 43b), while the Radziner Techelet can fade (a process called "bleeding") when scrubbed with common detergents (see HaTechelet p. 179). Secondly, the blue color that he produced wasn't the blue shade of indigo, but rather a more metallic blue (see HaTechelet p. 413). Also, the squid he used is of a species that is relatively common in the Mediterranean Sea, and this does not correspond to the statements made about the rarity of the Chilazon (HaTechelet p. 177). Furthermore, there are no more squids in the land of Zevulun than anywhere else in the Mediterranean. The only place they can be found in particular abundance is in the area of Italy (HaTechelet p. 178)!

Perhaps the strongest objection to the Radziner Techelet, though, is that the word "Chilazon" is used in numerous places in Chazal as a general term, meaning "snail." In Shir HaShirim Rabba (4:11), a Chilazon is a creature that lives inside a shell (-see the Radziner Rebbe's words on this matter in HaTechelet, p. 174. His explanation is not very satisfying). Also, in Bechorot (Mishna 6:2) and in Kelim (12:1) something with a spiral or twisted appearance is dubbed "Chilazon." In Sanhedrin 91a we are told that Chilazons appear on the ground after a rain. It seems clear from all these sources that the word "Chilazon" is being used in the context of "snail," and it is therefore logical to assume that the famous Chilazon which produces Techelet is a particular kind of snail. Rashi (Sanhedrin 91a) indeed tells us that the Chilazon creature is a type of slug, which definitely allows for the possibility of it being a mollusk. The Gemara in Menachot was actually careful to point out that the Chilazon is "*similar* to a fish," i.e. a fish-like sea creature. It is not a fish itself.

The identification of the Chilazon as a type of snail enables us to solve another puzzle. Tosafot in Shabbat 75a ("HaTzad") quotes a statement from Talmud Yerushalmi to the effect that catching a Chilazon on the Shabbat does not constitute a violation of the prohibition against trapping or catching animals on Shabbat. Tosafot is at a loss to explain why a Chilazon should be an exception to the rule. Now that we have identified the Chilazon as a type of snail, however, the answer is obvious. There is a rule that if an animal cannot easily escape (if it is blind or wounded, etc.) then "catching" that animal does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of "trapping" on Shabbat (Shabbat 106b). Certainly a snail cannot move away easily from its trapper! It is true that the Talmud Bavli asserts that the prohibition against trapping *is* violated by one who traps a Chilazon. This should not be taken as evidence that the Chilazon is not a snail. The Talmud Bavli may agree to the Yerushalmi's identification of the Chilazon, but nevertheless prohibit its capture on other grounds. Perhaps picking out the barely discernible Chilazon on the sea bed cannot be compared to ensnaring a prominent helpless creature above the ground.

Left, tztzis with techelet strings. Image ©Breslev Israel, 2009

What of the fact that the Gemara says that Chilazons are harvested with a net? Doesn't this seem to imply that they are a type of fish? The answer to this may lie in the fact that even today snails are captured by spreading baited nets (they are considered a delicacy in many countries). The bait lures the snails into the nets, which are then raised. Alternatively, the nets may have been used to confine the already harvested snails in a saltwater environment, until the dye could be made from them. (The Gemara tells us in Shabbat 75a that if the Chilazon is allowed to die before its juice is extracted, it cannot be made into a suitable dye.)

By: Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld

Biblical Blue, Part 3

But which of the many species of snails is the one which produces the Techelet dye?

It was pointed out earlier that Techelet is often mentioned in conjunction with Argaman (-in fact, in the Talmudic literature, the term "Techelet" is often used to refer to either of the two). In the middle 17th century an English naturalist named Thomas Geig wrote that he found a snail which contains within it a liquid which becomes a purplish dye after being extracted from the snail and exposed to sunlight. At around the same time, someone named Saul Bochart (Hierozoicon, 1663) proved from ancient sources that Argaman was produced from snails. Shortly afterwards, researchers put the two facts together, concluding that Geig's snail was indeed the source used by the ancients to produce Argaman (HaTechelet, p.252,371,418).

In fact, archaeologists have uncovered numerous ancient dye-producing factories all over the Mediterranean coast (mostly in the north-eastern area, "from Haifa to Tyre"), with large heaps of snail shells alongside them. These shells have been identified as belonging to three distinct species of snails: Purpura Haemastoma, Murex Brandaris and Murex Trunculus. That these snails were the source of Tyrian purple -- Argaman -- has become accepted as a historical fact. These snails are in fact much more numerous along the northern coast of Eretz Yisroel than along the southern coast, with their population steadily increasing as one goes north. South of Haifa, the snails are few and far between. This corresponds nicely with the description of the Chilazon's distribution that is presented by Chazal.

The identities of these snails were well-known to Rav Herzog when he wrote his work on the topic of Techelet. And, as he himself pointed out, it seems clear from several Biblical and historical sources that the Jews and the gentiles extracted their blue dyes from the same creature (HaTechelet pp. 426-7. See also Shabbat 26a, and Rashi ad loc. "U'Lyogvim" -MK). Nevertheless, he rejected the idea that one or all of these species may be the true *Techelet* Chilazon for several reasons. First of all, the color of their shells is white, which contradicts the Gemara's description (quoted above) that the Chilazon's body "resembles the sea," i.e. is of a bluish hue. Furthermore, and more importantly, the dye extracted from these creatures is purple in color, and not indigo. The above-mentioned snails were clearly the source of Argaman, or "purpura" in Latin. However, Techelet, referred to in Latin by Josephus and Philo as "hyakinthos," may have been produced from another snail altogether!

Rav Herzog's Techelet

R. Herzog suggested that there was indeed another snail, distinct from the above-mentioned snails, from which Techelet was derived. The snail he chose is known as Janthina Pallida Harvey. It is found in the Mediterranean, and has a beautiful violet-blue shell. When excited, it discharges a secretion of the same color. It is quite rare and lives in colonies that have population explosions every four to seven years, when large numbers of them are washed ashore! All the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit now! (HaTechelet, p.427.)

Over the last two years, serious research has been done to determine whether a blue dye can indeed be made from the Janthina's secretion. So far, the efforts have not met with much success. The secretion can produce a reddish-bluish color on a fabric, but within a matter of hours the color turns black. Aside from that, the dye washes right out of the fabric when brought into contact with water. In fact, the most advanced modern testing has not been able to even dissolve the secretion in any chemical solution -- the most basic requirement of any known dye. Instead of dissolving in liquid, the Janthina's ink forms a suspension. In this state, it cannot be induced to bind to a fabric. More research into the chemical makeup of the secretion is still necessary.

Aside from this technical difficulty, there are several problems with identifying the Chilazon as the Janthina snail. For one thing, as with the cuttlefish, it is no more common along the shore of Zevulun than anywhere else in the Mediterranean. For another, as Rav Herzog himself points out, no Janthina shells have ever been discovered in any archaeological site, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Greek or Roman literature that discuss blue dye. It thus appears not to have been in use in the ancient world

.By: Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld

Biblical Blue, Part 4

A contemporary of Rav Herzog's, Alexander Dedekind of Vienna, suggested in his work Archeological Zoology (Vienna, 1898, p. 467) that the blue dye of Techelet actually did come from the snails found near the ancient dye vats. He differentiated between the Techelet and the Argaman snails, singling out Murex Trunculus (known in modern Hebrew as "Argemon Keheh Kotzim," for "short spiked Purpura") as the source of the blue Techelet. In contrast, the other two species were used exclusively for the production of Argaman. He bases this assumption on the fact that not far from Sidon an ancient dyeing site was discovered which had near it two separate piles of shells. In one pile the shells of Purpura Haemastoma and Murex Brandaris were mixed together, while in the other only shells of Murex Trunculus were found (HaTechelet, p. 421). This certainly seems to support the idea that Murex Trunculus was used for a different purpose than the other two snails. In fact, the M. Trunculus produces a slightly "bluer" dye than the other two. Although he personally favored his Janthina theory, Rav Herzog himself reluctantly admitted that "the logical conclusion would certainly appear to be that the blue pigment produced by the Chilazon was obtained using the Murex Trunculus dye... it is highly unlikely that the Techelet Chilazon was not the Murex Trunculus" (HaTechelet, p. 421). The evidence seems to point overwhelmingly to Murex Trunculus as being the source of Techelet.

Is there a way that Rav Herzog's objections (mentioned in Part III) to identifying the Chilazon as Murex Trunculus can be overcome? The first question can be answered easily. Rav Herzog pointed out that the shells of Murex Trunculus were white and not "similar to the sea." However, his conclusion was based on the color of the centuries-old shells found by the archaeologists or of museum samples. As a matter of fact, though, when the snail is first removed from the sea, it does indeed have a bluish-purple tinge to it, produced by sea-fouling. (As I gaze at the Murex shell that is presently on my desk, I can still see on it a pronounced purplish-bluish tint -- MK.)

The other problem raised was that the secretion of Murex Trunculus turns purple and not blue. Rav Herzog himself raised the possibility that "there might have been some scheme known to the ancients for obtaining a blue dye out of this secretion" (HaTechelet p. 423). Sure enough, recent research has shown that when the secretion is exposed to bright sunlight immediately upon being extracted from the snail, the sunlight breaks down a certain chemical bond in the liquid and it subsequently forms a blue dye. In fact, the resulting dye consists mostly of components bearing the exact same chemical makeup as indigo! Although this is true of all three of the snails mentioned before, Murex Trunculus yields this blue color much more readily than the others. M. Trunculus does not require a lengthy exposure to the sun in order for the chemical reactions to take place. (Credit for this discovery goes to the late Otto Elsner of the Shenkar Institute of Fibers in Ramat Gan, Israel, whose words can be found in HaTechelet, p.299-302 -- see also p. 423 note 39).

All the difficulties seem to have been adequately dealt with -- except for one. What is the once-in-seven(ty)-years cycle of "coming up" ("Oleh Echad L'Shiv'im Shana") mentioned by the Gemara? Does the Murex Trunculus snail show any unusual prominence every seventy (or seven) years? So far, no such behavior has been determined in the Murex. It should be pointed out, however, that much of the headway made in Chilazon research is quite recent, and there has not yet been sufficient opportunity to study the nature of the Murex snail. We may yet discover that there is indeed some sort of regular periodical occurrence involved in Murex's life cycle. It is interesting to note that a few kilometers north of Haifa there is a ravine known to the Arabs as Wadi Hilzun, which is near a mountain called Mount Chilazon. Rashi (Megilla 6a, Sanhedrin 91a -- see also Rashi Menachot 44a) explains the "coming up" of the Chilazon, as the Chilazon emerging from the sea and ascending the mountains. Is it possible that every few years (or decades) there is some sort of mass migration of these snails through Wadi Hilzun and up Mount Chilazon, from which these places may have been given their names in ancient times? Only time will tell!

IN CONCLUSION

What does all this mean for us? Can it be said Halachically that the true Techelet -- or at least a very likely candidate for it -- has been "rediscovered?" Is it now binding upon us once again, as it was in antiquity, to add this dye to our Tzitzit?

Halachically there does not yet seem to be an obligation to wear the present Techelet. True, there is a rule that "When there is a doubt as to the correct Halachic ruling, one must follow the more stringent view when it comes to a question of a Torah (as opposed to Rabbinical) precept." This would seem to imply that even if our identification of Chilazon with Murex Trunculus is not absolutely certain, we should be obligated to wear the newly discovered Techelet "just in case." Nevertheless, due to various considerations which are not within the scope of this article, that ruling would not seem to apply in this case.

However, there is another interesting ramification of the emergence of the Techelet. Rav Chaim Vital in Shaar HaKavvanot (Tzitzit, Drush 4) writes that Techelet represents Hashem's presence being clearly felt by all. This is why, he tells us, Techelet was only widely accessible during -- or close to -- the times when the Temple was standing. These were the times when Hashem's Presence among Israel was manifest for all to see. After the exile and its attendant hardships intensified, however, when Hashem's Presence among His people is less evident, Techelet became "hidden" as well. If so, the "return" of Techelet may be taken as an indication that the manifestation of Hashem's Presence in this world, too, will be returning to its former state. There is also a tradition from Rav Nachman of Breslev that some time before the advent of the Messianic era the Mitzvah of Techelet will be reinstated (HaTechelet p. 186 note 21, see Likutei Tfilot 1:49). Some Rabbinic authorities even showed reluctance to acknowledge the Halachic validity of the various Techelets because of these far-reaching implications.

Whatever hidden meaning there may be in the almost mystical reappearance of the Chilazon and the Techelet during the past decades, may we merit to actually see Hashem's hand in the final redemption, speedily in our days!

"There is an obligation, upon all who are capable, to search for it [the Chilazon], in order to bring merit upon Israel with this commandment, which has been forgotten for the last several centuries. And he who succeeds in this will surely be blessed by the God of Israel."

(Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radzyner Rebbe)

הרב Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

The Radziner Rebbe

The third Admor of the Radzin Dynasty

Moved from Izbicha to Radzin

גרנד הרב גרשון חנוך ליינר Henech של Radzin, בנו של יעקב מבית, מחבר של אורחות חיים, סוד ישרים, תפארת Hachinochi, ו Dalsos שרע העיר, בין ספרי קודש רבים אחרים. הרבי מכונה על ידי מראדזין חסידים כמו אורחות חיים, מבוסס על העבודה הפנומנלית שלו על Tzava'ah - רצון - של טאנה רבי אליעזר הגדול. עבודה זו נכתבה על ידי הרבי בעצם ללא ספרים פתוחים לטובתו, בתוך 12 ימים בלבד, במהלך משפטו על עלילת בדים נגדו על ידי יריביו. כאשר הרבי פירסם את העבודה הזאת, הוא העיר את חסידים שהוא שמח שהוא חייב להדפיס Tzava'ah שלו. בעולם הגדול של הרבי הוא ידוע יותר כמו HaTecheiles הבעל. הרבי היה מבריק הן חשפו את התורה נסתרת. הוא היה גם מאוד ידע בתחומים מדעיים שונים, כמו כימיה, הנדסה ורפואה. הוא דיבר ברהיטות בכמה שפות, והשתמשו בהם לעתים קרובות בעת מרשם תרופות בלטינית אל אינספור אנשים שפנו אליו לעזרה. בגיל שש עשרה, הרבי כבר גיבש רעיון מרהיב: הוא היה להלחין gemarah "" מסוג על משניות Taharos של הסדר, שכן אין תלמוד בבלי על מסכת זו. כדי להשיג זאת, הוא אסף את כל החומר הרלוונטי מתוך כל ש"ס בבלי, ש"ס ירושלמי, וכל שאר Braysos וכו ', והציגה אותם בסדר כרונולוגי בבית ספר הוא קרא Sidrei Taharos על מסכת נלמדת Keilim. מאוחר יותר הוא עשה את אותו הדבר עם כל מסכתות אחרות של הסדר Taharos. המשימה ארכה עשר שנים כדי להשלים. הוא פעל ללא לאות על שיפוצו של techeiles של ציצית. הוא עשה שימוש בידע העצום שלו כדי לחקור את הנושא, ונסעתי לאיטליה ארבע פעמים לנהל את העבודה שלו. בזמן שהותו שם הוא ביקר אז מה היה האקווריום הגדול בעולם, בעיר החוף של נאפולי, ועל בוחן את יצורי ים שונים, הוא הגיע למסקנה כי Techeiles המקורי היה שחולצו מן הפרשה של דיונון שנקרא דיונון ( ב עברית המכונה Dionon). יש שמועות על זה כי באחד הביקורים של הרבי לרומא; הוא הצליח לשכנע את הוותיקן כדי לאפשר לו הצצה מהירה של כלי הקודש של HaMikdosh מבית, כדי להתאים את ממצאיו עם techeiles על בגדי הכהונה. הוא פרסם מספר ספרים בנושא, כגון Sefunei Temunei חול, Pesil Techeiles, ואת עין HaTecheiles, והצליח להשפיע על רבים Gedolim עם עבודתו. באותו הזמן, היו Gedolim שהתנגד לגילוי של הרבי ולא מסכימים עם ממצאיו. היה, עם זאת, מספר קטן של גדולי ישראל שהיו בפועל המנהג מחדש של techeiles, כמו Maharsham של Berzan מי בעל טאליס עם techeiles בשוליים. כל החסידים שלו חסידים ללבוש אותם, כמו לעשות ברסלב חסידי עד עצם היום הזה. הוא היה הרבי הראשון הידוע בשם "הרבי מראדזין". מת 4 Teves 5651 (1890).

מוסתרת כחול

לכבוד 100 הזכרון של הרב גרשון חנוך ליינר, האדמו"ר מראדזין, זרז מודרני ריבית המחודשת של חיפוש זהות של Chilazon

הרב Leibel רזניק

לפני כמה שנים, בזמן שהייתי לחקור את ההריסות בבסיס בפינה מערבית של הר הבית, נתקלתי שבר של קונכייה. הפגז היה בצבע שמנת עם הרבה כתמים חומים סגולים גדולים. זה נראה לי מוזר כי צדף יימצא כל כך רחוק כל גוף של מים. מה זה היה עושה בתוך ההריסות של הבית השני העתיק שברי כלי חרס וזכוכית התקופה הרומית חשף כי אני? זה יכול להיות קשור היצור הים האגדי, Chilazon, מן הדם אשר "" תכלת (צבע כחול) הופק עבור המצווה של Tzitzith? היה תכלת הפיקה ליד האתר הזה, בתוך הצל של בית המקדש? או, זה היה מזכרת כי הושלכה לפני כ -2,000 שנה על ידי מישהו ביקר בים? העניין שלי בנושא של תכלת ואת Chilazon היה ליבה.

התורה (במדבר [Numbers] 15:38) אומר, "הם יעמידו לעצמם Tzitzith (בשוליים) על פינות של בגדיהם במשך דורות שלהם והם יהיו לשים את Tzitzith בפינה של חוט של כחול (תכלת). "

בתוספתא (Menachot 9:6, מצאו בסוף Mesechta Chullin) קובע, "את הצבע הכחול של Tzitzith חייב להיות המופקת היצור שנקרא Chilazon." את הדם "" של Chilazon נוספה מרכיבים אחרים מבושלים (Menachot 42b, רמב"ם Tzitzith 2:2).

התלמוד מספר לנו כי תכלת היה יקר מאוד, וסוחרי חסרי מצפון מכר צבע כחול מזויפת. לכן, בדיקה כימית פותחה על ידי חז"ל כדי לקבוע אם או לא היה אמיתי צמר כחול תכלת (ראה Menachot 43a, רש"י רמב"ם).

מן הניסוח של תוספתא שצוטט לעיל, נראה כי צבע כחול צריך להיעשות מן Chilazon; כנראה שזה חלק מן המסורת שבעל פה שניתנה למשה על הר סיני. עם זאת, הרב ישראל ליפשיץ, מחבר הפירוש תפארת ישראל על המשנה, כותב HaRochlim קופת שלו (נמצא בהקדמה סדר מועד) כי אין דרישה ספציפית להשתמש תמצית של Chilazon. כל לצבוע בכחול כי יעמוד על בדיקות כימיות המפורטים בתלמוד ניתן להשתמש. (עניין זה נדונה בין הרב הראשי הראשון של ישראל, הרב יצחק אייזיק הלוי הרצוג, הרב יחיאל מיכל Tuckchinsky. שיחתם ניתן למצוא עבודה עיר הקודש V'HaMikdosh, Vol. V, pp.37-60 של הרב Tuckchinsky.)

למה אין לנו היום תכלת? האם Chilazon מינים נכחדים או פשוט קשה מאוד למצוא? למה זה נעלם? מתי היתה הפעם האחרונה צבע כחול היה בשימוש?

מדרש רבה ו מדרש Tanchumah (סוף פרשת Sh'lach ב) אומר, "כאשר יש מצווה להשתמש במחרוזות מחרוזות כחול לבן? כאשר המיתרים כחול זמינים. אבל עכשיו הכחול הוסתר, המצווה מתבצעת עם החוטים הלבנים. "

יש לציין שתי נקודות: הראשונה, תכלת כבר לא היה זמין בתקופה של המדרש והתלמוד; שנית, Medrashim להשתמש במילה "מוסתר" כדי לתאר את חוסר תכלת. השימוש במונח נראה לרמוז זה היה על ידי צו אלוהי זה הסוד של צבע כחול להיות מוסתר. ארי הקודש (פרי עץ חיים, שרע Tzitzith) תכונות היעלמותה של תכלת במסגרת העונש של חורבן בית המקדש השני. על פי השקפה זו עלינו להביא בחשבון את האפשרות כי גם אם היו מינים Chilazon להיות מחדש, זה לא יכול להיות בשימוש לפני העידן המשיחי.

מה אנחנו יודעים על הזהות האפשרית של המין Chilazon? התלמוד (Menachot 44a) אומר כי הצבע שלו היה דומה לצבע של הים, הגוף שלה היה דומה לזה של דג. רש"י (סנהדרין 91a) מכנה Chilazon תולעת-כמו יצור. אין שום סתירה בין רש"י (תולעת) והתלמוד (דגים). המונח "דגים" פשוט אמצעי יצור מימי. "תולעת כמו" מתייחס לחוסר רגל או איברים חיצוניים מורגש. על ידי שילוב התיאורים האלה אנו מגלים כי Chilazon היה חיה בים שאין לו רגליים. ברור, אנחנו לא עוסקים מינים של דגים, אחרת רש"י פשוט היה נשאר עם המונח "דגים התלמוד."

המדרש (שיר השירים רבה 7:11) אומר כי יש Chilazon פגז או במקרה (ב nartik עברית) אשר גדל עם החיה. כי פירושו Chilazon הוא מין של חלזונות ימיים. תצוגה זו מתוחזק על ידי ערוך הרב ליפשיץ. לא בטוח אם התיאור של התלמוד הים "צבע" מתייחס הגוף של החילזון, הפגז, או אולי כדי לחלץ את.

איפה נמצא Chilazon? יש שלוש דעות שונות: (1) השבת תלמוד 26a) קובע כי Chilazon נמצא בין המעלות של לצור חיפה. הם יוצאים אל הים לאדמה רק פעם אחת שבעים שנה, ולכן, את הצבע הוא מאוד יקר (Menachot 44a). מאז בערים אלה ממוקמים לאורך החוף המערבי של ארץ ישראל, זה היה המקום Chilazon של גידול ליד בצד המזרחי של הים התיכון. (2) הזוהר (T'rumah) ואת פרקי אבות ד 'רבי אלעזר אומר בים של כנרת Chilazon חייהם, מה שהופך אותו חילזון מים מתוקים. (3) Tha רמב"ם (Tzitzith 2:2) אומר Chilazon הוא נמצא HaMelach ים (מלח ים, או ים המלח). למרות כל צורות החיים הקשורות ים המלח, הרב ליפשיץ asssumes רמב"ם להיות מדויק לקח פשוטו כמשמעו. עם זאת, התלמוד שצוטטו לעיל מאתר את הגידול Chilazon ליד חיפה וצור אשר בצפון מערב, ואילו ים המלח בדרום. גם התלמוד (M'gilah 6b) אומר כי Chilazon נמצא בחלק של שבט זבולון, אשר על חוף הים התיכון הצפוני של ישראל. הרב YM Tuckchinsky (עיר הקודש V'HaMikdash Vol.5, p.48 ) להניח כי כאשר הרמב"ם הזכיר ים HaMelach, הוא התכוון כי במימי האוקיינוסים, שהם מלוחים, בניגוד אגם מים מתוקים, כגון הכנרת Chilazon חייהם.

התלמוד סנהדרין (91a) מדינות. "עבור אל ההרים לראות כי כיום יש רק אחד Chilazon, ומחר, צריך זה גשם, בהרים יהיה מלא Chilazon." רש"י מסביר כי פעם בשבעים שנה Chilazon באה מן הים ליבשה להטיל ביצים שלה. כאשר הגשמים לבוא, בוקעים את הביצים ואת ההר מכוסה עם יצורים קטנים.

מאז התלמוד עושה הפניה Chilazon כדוגמה של התחייה של המתים, נראה כי את הביצים רדום למשך זמן מה, ייבוש החוצה - גוסס, אם אפשר להתבטא כך. כאשר מגיע הזמן הנכון, את מי הגשמים revitalizes את הביצים הם בוקעות. לפי רש"י Menachot (44a), נראה כי הביצים בקעו לאחר שבעים שנה. זה יהיה דומה מחזור החיים של שבע עשרה שנה-צרצר. ישנם גם מינים של דו חיים מטילים ביצים כי ניתן המתחדשת לאחר שהיה התייבש.

פתרון אפשרי אחד סתירה בין זוהר (יצור מים מתוקים) ו הרמב"ם (יצור מים מלוחים) היא חיה מבלה חלק ממעגל שלה באגם, חוצה את אדמות להתרבות, ולאחר מכן יוצא אל הים. זה מזכיר לי צלופח מים מתוקים, המשותף החוף המזרחי של ארצות הברית, אשר מולידה באוקיינוס האטלנטי, חוצה אדמות, ולאחר מכן שוכן אגמי מים מתוקים.

יש עוד מינים כי היא ראויה של שיקול. עזרת כהנים (vol.II, p.132b), מצטט את אמא-האשם Tziv'ot עמאר, אומר כי Chilazon הוא חי, צומח ו מינרל. חלק במהלך מחזור החיים שלו, הוא מעביר על כמו חיה. שבעים שנה החיים שלה הם בילו נטועה במקום. אחרי זה מרווח זה uproots עצמו נישא אל החוף על ידי הגלים. Raavad, בהקדמה שלו ספר Y'tzirah, אומר כי אי אפשר לסווג את Chilazon כראוי כמו חיה או איזה סוג של צמחיה. Ezras כהנים גם מצטט מקור זה אומר כי את הצורה המסוקסת של Chilazon יש אדם כמו מראה, שלא כמו השורש של מנדרייק אשר נחשב לדמות את גוף האדם.

זה מרמז על coelentrates, משפחה של יצורי הים הכוללים את מדוזות, אלמוגים, ו כלניות. קצת קשה לפתח פגזים, כלומר, אלמוגים; אחרים כמו עצים עם ענפים, כלומר מסוקס, כלניות ועוד כמה אלמוגים; וכמה יש יכולת של נידות, כלומר, מדוזה. ישנם מינים שחייו התערוכה מחזור בשלבים שונים. בשלב מוקדם הם שחיינים. מאוחר יותר הם לשריין "ברגל שלהם" אל קרקעית האוקיינוס ולהיות כמו עצים. כמה coelentrates הם בצבע כחול. למעשה, מסרקן coelentrates אפילו לפלוט אור כחול ירקרק.

בזמנים קדומים, לעיר צור הפיק שתי משפחות צבעים בסיסיים של חלזונות, את murex ואת ארגמנת. בשנת 1970 המוקדמות, משלחת ארכיאולוגית בתל Keisan, הממוקם בין חיפה בצור, נמצאו שרידים של כחול [%D7%90%D7%93. סגול] מפעל לצבוע. פגזים נמחץ של murex נמצאו.

פגזים murex נמחץ נמצאו בשלושה אתרים שונים. לאחר הממצאים בתל שקמונה ותל דור הניבו ראיות למות עובד, שוב, יותר פגזים murex. המין בפרט של murex שנמצאו באתרים אלה היו trunculus Trunculariopsis, ו brandaris Murex. (עדות הארכיאולוגי של סגול דיי תעשיה מישראל, נירה כרמון ואהוד Spanier, pp. 147-158.) (על פי הרמה של הסנהדרין יד 91a, המונח Chilazon מינים שונים. ראה ערוך, Chilazon.)

[%D7%90%D7%93. זה בין החזקים הוכחות כי כחול סגול בימים המושטת כמו "חדש" תכלת מאפרת, לא יכול להיות תכלת הקדמונים השתמשו שלנו. התפשטות המונית של עבודות צבע סגול היה תעשיית הגדולות בעת העתיקה, ואילו הייצור של תכלת היה אחד בפרשה המשפחה. דרישות טקסי זעירים עבור תכלת לא יכול היה לתמוך כל כך הרבה עבודות צבע. תעשיית צבע סגול המיוצר סגול, גוונים כל אזרחיה. סגול הוא Argamon. Argamon לא תכלת.]

התורה מציינת שלושה סוגים של צמר צבעוניות: תכלת, Argamon, Tola-בבית שני. תכלת הוא במשפחה כחול ירוק או כחול. Argamon מתואר על ידי הרמב"ם בתור אדום (כלי המקדש 8), ועל ידי רש"י כמו סגול (Sh'mot [%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA] 25:4). Raavad אומר קווצות ITIS בצבעים שונים של צמר (כנראה אדום וכחול) מעוותת ביחד. Argamon עשוי גם הפרשה של חילזון. [%D7%90%D7%93. שימוש "גם" היא חוות דעת של המחבר, לא הוקם למעשה. Argamon מופק בדיוק אלה שהתגלו פגזים לעבר עבודות צבע שהוזכרו לעיל, נקודת בנוחות השקיפו על ידי המחבר.] Tola ב-שני הוא ארגמן, אדום, או ארגמן (הרב ישראל ליפשיץ, קופת HaRochlim; לראות Tsoefta Menachot 9:6) . זה מופק תולעת מסוים זרע נגוע. שני ב-Tola היא לצבוע ואולי kermes, המתקבלים נקבה ilicis Coccus חרק אשר חי על מינים Quercus coccifera של עץ אלון.

חכמי התלמוד מספר מוגבל של צבעים בסיסיים ארבע: שחור, אדום, ירוק, לבן. בפועל "צבעים" מוגבלים שתי קבוצות, אדום וירוק. "הירוק" המשפחה (ירוק) יכלול ירוק, כחול וצהוב (ראה תוספות סוכה 31b "הירוק"). תכלת, שהוא כחול, הוא חבר של המשפחה "ירוק." רש"י, ולכן, מזהה תכלת כמו "ירוק" (במדבר 15:38).

Tola ב-שני הוא חבר של המשפחה "אדום" (רמב"ם, פירוש HaMishnayot פרה 3:10). Argamon, סגול, הוא שילוב של כחול ואדום. לכן Argamon הוא שילוב של השניים "צבע" משפחות.

כל צבעי שהתגלו בישראל, שיוצרו מ חלזונות murex, היה נתון ניתוח כימי מפורט, מאז צבעים יכול לשנות במשך מאות שנים. התוצאות הראו כל צבעי להיות בצבע סגול. נראה שיש לנו מעד מעל Argamon-חילזון ולא Chilazon.

מחשבה עלה על דעתי: מאז Argamon ו תכלת שניהם עשויים לחלץ של חילזון, זה יכול להיות אפשרי ששני הצבעים יוצרו מן חילזון אותו? [%D7%90%D7%93. בהחלט לא. אין זכר בכל מקום, של Argamon בא מן Chilazon לשמש להפקת תכלת. מאז חכמי הלכה כל כך הרבה בעיות כדי להודיע לנו בכל כך הרבה מקומות, כי תכלת נובעת Chilazon, ולא בשום מקום אנחנו הודיע כי Argamon בא Chilazon אותה, זה מגוחך להציע כמו העובדה מינים אותו הפיק שני צבעים . השתמש המחבר של חילזון "" כמקור של תכלת הוא הדעה שלו לא הוקם למעשה.] המאה השבע מומחה בתהליך צביעה, וויליאם קול, תיאר את שינוי צבע אשר תמצית מעובדת של עובר כמו חילזון ארגמנת נחשף לאור השמש. זה מתחיל כמו אור ירוק, ואז הופך ירוק כהה. עד מהרה גוון של כחול ניתן לאתר את החומר פונה אל הים הירוק. דוהה הגוון הירוק הופך את הצבע הכחול. המשך החשיפה לתוצאות האור גוון אדום, והוא הופך את החומר עד שהוא הופך אדמדם אדום סגול עמוק. במאה התשע עשרה, Drs. Lacaze-Duthiers ואדריאן רוברט של מעבדה הזואולוגי של הסורבון ניסויים עם מינים שונים של murex ו ארגמנת ומצאתי שגם הם, לעבור שינוי דומה מאוד בצבע. (עברית Porphyrology, IH הרב הרצוג, pp.28-29.)

עדות זו נותנת תובנה חדשה ל-מצוטט לעתים קרובות ביטוי של רבי מאיר (Menachot 43b), "למה הוא תכלת כל כך שונה מכל צבע אחר? לקבלת תכלת דומה לים, והים הוא כמו השמים, והשמים כמו כס מלכות השמים. "

איזה צבע את כס המלוכה השמימי? תלמוד ירושלמי (ברכות 1:2), גם מצטט את רבי מאיר, אומר שזה כמו ספיר, כחול כהה. האם זה אפשרי רבי מאיר מתאר את צבע לשנות את עוברת מעובדת צבע תכלת כפי שהוא נחשף אל האור? מאז Chilazon יכול להפיק צבעים רבים, אשר אחד הוא בצבע תכלת? רמב"ם (הלכות Tzitzith 2:1) אומר כי הוא צבע תכלת של שמים בהירים, הצהריים. עם זאת, הפרשנות שלו במשנה (ברכות 1:4), הוא אומר כי תכלת דומה תרשיש אבני חן. כל Targumim [%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D] (תרגום Onkolus, תרגום יונתן, 'תרגום ירושלמי ב שמות 28:29) הוא אומר תרשיש תרשיש. רש"י (במדבר 15:41) אומר כי תכלת הוא צבע השמים מתקדרים הערב. זה היה נראה שחור כחול.

אולי אנחנו יכולים לקבל הבנה טובה יותר של הצבע הנכון מלהסתכל מזויפת. התלמוד (Menachot 41b) אומר כי הזיוף היה עשוי תכלת אילן "Kala." זה מזוהה בדרך כלל עם צבע המכונה אינדיגו (Nimukei יוסף בבא מציעא 34A). עם זאת, לעתים קרובות אינדיגו היה מעורב עם חומרים אחרים המכילים את dibromo צבע אינדיגו. תלוי את הפרופורציות של חומר נוסף, אינדיגו יכול לייצר כל גוון אדמדם מן הסגול כחול כהה, (שם, p.80.), ולכן הבעיה שלנו נשאר בלתי פתור.

בעידן המודרני, שני רבנים של מוניטין המוקדש המוחות שלהם כדי לחפש כשרונות עבור תכלת ואת Chilazon. הראשון היה הרבי מראדזין, רבי גרשון חנוך. בשנת 1887 הוא החל השנה-במסע הארוך אל היציאות השונות לאורך חופי הים התיכון. הוא ביקר אקווריומים ודיבר עם אנשי מדע. לבסוף הוא חשב שהוא מצא את Chilazon וזיהה אותו כמו דיונון המשותף (Sepia officinalis). היצור הזה לא [%D7%94%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99] פגז, [%D7%90%D7%93. מכאן עד סוף המאמר המחבר discredits Radzin של הממצאים, דרך מוזרה כבוד הרב גרשון חנוך על הזכרון שלו, 100], בניגוד לעמדתם של רשויות רבות אשר קדמו לו. בתוך שנתיים, dyeworks תכלת היה להגדיר על עשרת אלפים יהודים לבוש תכלת מראדזין.

תכלת זה נתקל בהתנגדות רבה. הרב י"י גזע, הרב יצחק אלחנן ספקטור והרב יהושע לייב דיסקין סירב לאשר את כל הממצאים של מראדזין. הרבי כתב שלושה קטנים [%D7%90%D7%93. 551 עמודים הוא בקושי קטן] ספרים על הנושא ומסביר ההשערה שלו, המסקנות שלו, הגנה על עמדתו.

הרב מנדל זקס שאל את אביו גיסה, החפץ חיים קדוש, "אם אפשר לבנות את המקדש מחדש, הכהן הגדול יכול להפוך את חגורתו של צבע תכלת להסתמך על הרבי מראדזין זה?" החפץ חיים ענה, "לא הייתי שם את הראש לתוך האש ולסכן את עצמי על ידי ביצוע שירות קדוש להסתמך על דעתו." (HaTechelet, מנחם ברנשטיין, עמ '189.) [%D7%90%D7%93. אני באופן אישי קשור מראדזין תכלת על טלית קטן הרב מנחם ברנשטיין.]

שנה לאחר מכן הרבי מראדזין מת תנועת "תכלת מת איתו. [%D7%90%D7%93. בעליל זה שקר. Radzin המשיכה צבע תכלת במשך 109 שנים, עם הפסקה קצרה במהלך מלחמת העולם השנייה.] זה היה קם לתחייה בישראל בתחילת שנות 1950 על ידי אנשי הכת של חסידות ברסלב, שהיו תמיד קרובים לקבוצה מראדזין.

בין הסיבות שניתנו על ידי Gedolim (חז"ל) לדחיית דיונון היו: (1) זה לא היה מקובל להשתמש לצבוע מן החי שאינו כשר. (קשה לדמיין את כל התיאורים המוזכרים של Chilazon כמו להיות כשרה. אין לי כל ידיעה אם coelentrates, אשר, במשך חלק של מחזור החיים שלהם הם שחיינים, ובמהלך חלק אחר הם כמו עצים, כשרים. אחד יכול משערים כי כאשר הם מניחים את העץ כמו הבמה הם אינם נחשבים Shratzim, מאז thet כבר לא נחיל "," וגם אז הם כשרים.) לדברי אברהם מגן (586:13), דבר המשמש מצווה חייבת להיות כשרה . (Nodah BiYehudah, Vol. השנייה, ערוך חיים 3, מסכים.) (2) התלמוד מתאר את Chilazon כמו דג, ואת דיונון יותר דומה מאוד תמנון. (3) את הצבע דוהה דיונון. (4) דיונון נמצא באיטליה, ואילו התלמוד אומר כי Chilazon נמצא ליד חיפה. [%D7%90%D7%93. ברור מחבר זה מעולם לא טרחו לפנות Radzin כהכנה במאמר זה. Radzin של Chilazon מסופקים על ידי דייג מקומי מן המים מול חופי ישראל. בעוד הפגזים המשמש צבע כחול סגול של הקבוצה אפרת מיובאים מספרד.] (5) זה היה להעלות על הדעת יצור כזה צריך להיות משותף הים אינו ידוע הרבנים של הדורות הקודמים.

אף הרבי מראדזין יש בתגובה כל ההתנגדויות האלה, זה הפך אקדמי, כפי שנראה בקרוב, כאשר דיונון תכלת היה נתון ניתוח כימי.

החוקר השני להתעמק בעוצמה לתוך החיפוש אחרי Chilazon מוסתרים היה הרב הראשי הראשון של מדינת ישראל, הרב יצחק אייזיק הלוי הרצוג. בשנת 1913 הוא כתב את התזה שלו לתואר ד Litt. באוניברסיטת לונדון על הנושא הזה מאוד. עבודתו נקרא עברית Porphyrology. Porphyrology אמצעי המחקר של צבע סגול. (אני משער כי הרב הרצוג שטבע את המונח.)

במסגרת המחקר שלו, הרב הרצוג היה דיונון מראדזין תכלת נתון ניתוח כימי. התוצאות הראו כי הצבע הכחול של צבע כתוצאה היה לגמרי בשל פצורת, "מלחי" וחומצות כי נוספו תמצית של דיונון. דיונון עצמה לא תרמה כלל בצבע כחול. (Cit אופוס., הרצוג, pp.114-118.) הברזל "מלחי" כימית כללו ברזל, אשלגן הידרוקסידי, אשלגן ציאניד, אניון ברזלי, ו אניון Ferric. כאשר מחוממת בחומצה מזוקקים, הם ferrocyanide Ferric צורה, צבע כחול משותפת בשם כחול פרוסי. (הלכתית היבטים להחיות את הטקס תכלת דיי, Ziderman השנייה, עמ '209.)

אחרי שנים של מחקר, הרב הרצוג למסקנה כי זהותו האמיתית של Chilazon היתה מופגזת חילזון murex קרא trunculus Trunculariopsis. אלה murex אותו פגזים אשר נמצאו מאוחר יותר של שרידים ארכיאולוגיים של מפעלי צבע עתיקים בישראל צפונית. את הצבע המופקת צדפות זה נובע לחלוטין את תכונותיו הכימיות של הפרשות של היצור, והוא אינו תלוי כל תוסף. הסיבה היחידה תוספי יהיה הכרחי כל כך כי צבען היה לדבוק צמר.

הרב הרצוג גם הציע שאת פגז מגיע במגוון גוונים של סגול כחול מינים Janthina. Janthinas כל זכר נולד, הופך בהדרגה לתוך נקבות. הם מבלים את רוב חייהם צף על פני השטח של האוקיינוס. הם להפריש נוזל בצבע סגול אשר מנטרל כל בעל חיים ארסי, כגון אדם הפורטוגלית של המלחמה, לפני האכלה עליו. הנוזל סגול הוא צבע מעולה עם יכולת גדולה לדבוק כמעט כל חומר.

חלק התנגדויות של תכלת מראדזין חלים תכלת הרב הרצוג. בעיה נוספת הועלתה כמו לצבע המדויקות Tzitzith צריך להיות צבוע תכלת הרצוג מאז יכולים להפיק צבעים רבים.

היום יש שפע של מידע זמין בנושא של Chilazon, תכלת, ביולוגיה ימית ו conchology. אם לצטט את המנוח הרב מנחם כשר, "בימינו, היא חובה לכל מי מסוגל, לחקור ולחפש במימי ארץ ישראל הפגיזו את היצור שיש לה את המאפיינים שתוארו על ידי חז"ל ועל קבע ביצירות של הרב Radzin של הרב הרצוג. אם בעזרתו של גן עדן, כזה מין זה discivered, ראוי עבור הרשויות הרבניים לשקול את חידוש של מצוה "(תורה כרך Shleimah. 22, מוסף Trumah).

כדי להציג מחדש זו מצוה, בענינים אלה צריך להיפתר: (1) איזה יצור הוא Chilazon? (2) מה צבע תכלת? (3) האם זה חובה להשתמש הפרשות של Chilazon או חומר אחר יכול לשמש אם היא עומדת בקריטריונים אחרים שהוקמו על ידי ההלכה? (4) אם אחד מוטל בספק לגבי הראשון שלוש שאלות, האם יש איסור הלכתית נגד באמצעות חומר אשר clasified כמו תכלת questioable. [%D7%90%D7%93. בעוד ההורים הם שרטוט רשימות של מה צריך לפתור, אנשים אחרים, על ידי עשרות אלפי, יש לשים תכלת על Tzitzith שלהם. בזמן רשימת מקבלי מוכנים, הם יהיו היחידים שנשארו בלי תכלת על Tzitzith שלהם.]

עד היום אין מדגם הידוע של [%D7%AA%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%AA] אותנטיים עתיקים. אף אחד מהם לא נמצא כל הגניזה, וגם יש כל החיפוש הניב כל ארכיאולוגיים. כמו המדרש אומר, הוא [%D7%94%D7%99%D7%94] באמת מוסתר.

אה, כן, מצאתי את הקליפה. יש בהיסוס זוהה fultoni Cyprae, חבר של משפחה די נפוץ אל הים התיכון, הים האדום, ואת ההודית אושן פסיפיק, למרות דגימה ספציפית מצאתי כי הוא נדיר מאוד. דגימות מעטפת למכור כי הם תמימים בשביל כמה אלפי דולרים. דבר אינו ידוע על סביבת המחיה שלהם או שימוש מסחרי אפשרי. פגז מאז שלי היה רק שבר, זיהוי שלה היה רק מהוסס, ומשמעותו לא ניתן לקבוע עדיין.

הרב Leibel רזניק הוא מגיד שיעור של בית המדרש של שערי תורה של רוקלנד. הוא מחברם של המקדש הקדוש Revisited ואוי, ירושלים.

אייר 5768

אנחנו יכולים לזהות את Techeiles?

נכתב על ידי הרב

מוקדש לזכרו של

ר 'מאיר B "R יחזקאל שרגא ברכפלד זצ"ל

כאשר אנו מצווים על לובש ציצית, התורה כוללת שני mitzvohs. בנוסף מצווה של האשכולות לובש ציצית על הפינות של הבגד, יש מצווה נוספת כי חלק האשכולות ציצית צריך להיות צבוע עם צבע מיוחד הנקרא techeiles. (זה מחלוקת בין ראשונים האשכולות כמה הם להיות צבוע techeiles.) לצבוע זה חייב להיות עשוי מזן הנקרא chilazon (תוספתא Menachos 9:6).

למרות השימוש techeiles עצר מעל לפני אלף שנה, היו כבר כמה ניסיונות אחדים בתוך לאחרונה 130 שנה כדי reintroduce המנהג של לבוש techeiles האשכולות לצד האשכולות לבן. מאמר זה יציג את דעות שונות בשאלה זו וכמה בעיות שבהן חונכו.

באותו זמן של גמרא, אופי chilazon וייצור שלה היה ידוע עדיין ולתרגל (ראה Menachos 42b). עם זאת, זמן מה לאחר תקופה של גמרא, השימוש techeiles הסתיים. ל