TACKLING THE TEKHELETH “TEIKU” *

* teiku: draw, tie (score), a halakhic argument that awaits a future solution

A Fresh, New, Orderly Presentation of the Facts
Establishing the Common Cuttlefish as the true Hilazon for tekheleth
over Murex Trunculus, the source for the Bibilical color Argaman

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Beith Midrash Ohel Moshe

* * *

I bow my head and prostrate fully before the Almighty in gratitude
for the generous support of my parents,
the selfless help of my wife Levana,
the friendship and gracious help of HaRav YaHad Yosef haKohen Witt,
the scholarship of Dr. Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D,
the G-dfearing Torah scholars who witnessed every detail of the chemical test,
the guidance of Mori Shelomo ben-Avraham,
and for the Torah student whose important question catalyzed this project.

They all have my heartfelt gratitude.
May the proofs in this work, resting on the shoulders of those greater than I, be acceptable before You HaShem,
and may my words find grace in Your Eyes as a vehicle of Torah truth and clarity.

I trust that You have Saved me from error, but if I have indeed erred,
please Cause me to learn where and how, and I will swiftly correct the work.

* * *

In Dedication to the Memory of HaRav HaGaon Gershon Hanokh Leiner ז”ל,
Grand Rabbi of Radzin, rediscoverer of the long lost Hilazon for tekheleth

* * *

May HaShem see our sincere pursuit of Torah truth
and have compassion on His People in these stormy, troubled times.
May He raise up a redeemer to be the true Messiah-king, swiftly in our days.

---

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
2. WHAT CAN BE KNOWN BASED ON FACTUAL DEFINITIONS
3. WHAT THE TORAH SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY
   • REGARDING THE BODY OF THE HILAZON
   • REGARDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HILAZON
   • REGARDING THE FLUID FOR PRODUCING TEKHELETH
4. ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DIONUN
   • A REMINDER OF THE EXODUS
   • A REMINDER NOT TO STRAY AFTER OUR HEART AND EYES
     • Warning us about the heart’s temptation to apostacy
     • Warning us about the eyes’ temptation to forbidden sexual intercourse
5. CONCLUSION: PUTTING RADZINER TEKHELETH TO THE TALMUD’S CHEMICAL TESTS
   • WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE INITIAL TEST
6. FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT THE HILAZON
7. AFTERWORD: A WORD OF RESPECT, A CALL FOR UNITY

---

I. INTRODUCTION

Tekheleth is a complex subject that most observant Jews avoid. They make one of the following choices: (1) to blindly follow their rabbi, (2) to ignore the commandment altogether, seeing that most rabbis only wear white, (3) to read a attractive pamphlet about it or attend a one-sided lecture and allow themselves to be convinced without studying the other side with the Talmudic sources with an open mind. That is unfortunate, because those options can lead us to make a wrong choice and invalidate our SiSith (fringes). Even if our studies do not lead us to wear any brand of tekheleth, being aware of the actual sources can transform SiSith-an otherwise dry commandment-into a beautiful means of higher awareness. After all, besides being the object of a commandment, SiSith are a tool to help us maintain the lofty focus that HaShem expects of us throughout our days. I hope that this article will help many to that end.

Now how can the wrong tekheleth choice invalidate the miSwah? The prevailing modern opinion is that one suffers no loss if the tekheleth you are wearing turns out to be a fake. After all, so it is claimed, there is no prohibition in wearing a colored thread in your SiSiyoth (fringes): If it’s not the true tekheleth, then it is merely kosher string dyed blue…

This position contradicts both RaMBaM’s Mishneh Torah and rational thinking. Tekheleth can actually be passul-legally invalid. Let’s consider what that means: One fact that needs to sink into our heads is taught in both Laws of SiSith-fringes 1:2, and 2:1: (1)

…ולוקחין חוט צמר שנצבע כעין הרקיע, וכורכין אותו על הענף; וחוט זה, הוא הנקרא תכלת.

…and one takes a string of wool that is dyed the color of the [dark] sky… and this string is called tekheleth.” (1:2)

תכלת האמורה בתורה בכל מקום, הוא הצמר הצבוע כפתוך שבכוחל…

The tekheleth mentioned in every place in the Torah is the wool that is dyed a shade of blue… (2:1)

We learn here that tekheleth is not merely the special color derived from a unique creature. Rather, it is the wool itself that is dyed that special color. Therefore, if your tekheleth happens to be passul (invalid) for SiSith, your whole dyed string tied into your garment is passul. Understand why:

In the same law above (2:1), we see that even if it is the proper shade of blue, tekheleth derived from indigo or other dark hues, is פסול לציצית-”passul for SiSith”: It must be the dye derived from the Hilazon-fish (2:2). This an ancient law indeed, rooted in the Tosefta, MenaHoth 9:6:

תכלת אין כשרה אלא מן החלזון, שלא מן החלזון פסולה.

Only tekheleth from the Hilazon is kosher; what is not from the Hilazon is passul.

Note now the exact same wording for the string made from the wool of a worshipped animal (1:11): המשתחווה לבהמה, צמרה פסול לציצית-”If one prostrates himself to an animal, its wool is passul for SiSith.”

It is clear that one who incorporates such a string into his SiSioth has invalidated them: He is wearing only six kosher strings instead of eight (since each string is doubled); halakhically it’s as if the invalid string does not exist. It makes no difference if the string is from idolatrous material or invalid tekheleth: both are “passul”-invalid-leaving the garment incompletely fringed. From the moment one dons such a garment, he has transgressed the commandment to be wearing proper fringes on a four-cornered garment. The blessing he recites is a blessing in vain-a grave sin (Laws of Blessings 1:15, Talmud in Berakhoth 33a). And if he goes out while wearing it on Shabboth, his fringes are considered a burden being carried; he is liable (Laws of Shabboth 19:20).

Now it is an iron-cast rule that whenever we are in doubt regarding a case of a possible Torah prohibition (as opposed to a rabbinical prohibition), we are obligated to be strict, and refrain from the doubtful act. (Laws of Rebels 1:9) Now consider the fact that when truly-kosher tekheleth is unavailable, one may fulfill the Torah commandment of SiSith with white strings only (1:4). Is it not prudent to carefully study the sources before making a hasty decision that entails such risk?

I do not hide that this article is biased in one direction, but that is only after years of highly un-biased research. HaShem has blessed me with friends and teachers in both camps. I confess that over the years, I have worn blue dyed strings according to both opinions. But back in 5760, when I came to learn of the danger involved, lacking the proper tools to judge, I backed out of the tekheleth debate and returned to wearing white. Then, two years ago, a colleague showed me new evidence, causing the scales to tilt decisively in one direction… I began to learn the facts anew in earnest. The result of HaShem’s help and my own efforts is this guide, meant to present the facts and Torah sources in a clear and simple way, so that anyone can retrace the steps to the conclusion.

There are two main opinions regarding possible sources of kosher tekheleth. These have generated two products being sold today. My intention is not to promote either one at this time, but only to compare the sources of their respective dyes-both of which are claimed to be the authentic ‘Hilazon’ for tekheleth.

First, is the “Radziner tekheleth”, according to the opinion of the Rebbe of Radzin, that Sepia Officinalis, the common cuttlefish, (dionun, in Hebrew), is the lost Hilazon. This opinion, adopted early on by the Breslover Hassidic movement, is the most-commonly derided opinion. It is the opinion commonly thrown out of hand in the ivory halls of the yeshivah world.

Second is the more popular, rabbinically-espoused opinion claiming a solid scientific base, that Murex trunculus fits the bill. It is the source of the product of the Petil Tekhelet organization. Enjoying generous financial support, it is promoted in impressive multimedia, traveling lecturers, and a “tekheleth” factory with guided tours to visitors and groups.

However, when we actually study the sources objectively, we find that the good intentions and strong funding behind the Murex movement are working to prop up an untenable halakhic position… one that twists or ignores most of the few marks of identification left to us by our Sages.

---

II. WHAT CAN BE KNOWN BASED ON FACTUAL DEFINITIONS

Before I begin with the Torah sources, I’ll reveal the known, true identity of Murex trunculus: It is none other than the source of the biblical color argaman, which is red-purple. We know this from the dictionary definition of “Helzon ha-Argaman”-the creature from which biblical purple was derived-in the exhaustive Avraham Even-Shoshan Hebrew dictionary, haMilon ha’Ivri haMerukaz. (2)

The definition states:

חלזון-הארגמן, חלזון שוכן-ים בעל קונכיה עבה ומפתלת. חלזון-הארגמן הוא בעל בלוטה המפרישה מיץ צהבהב ההופך באור לאדם-סגול. מיץ זה שמש בימי קדם לצביעת בגדים בצבע ארגמן. למשפחה חלזונות-הארגמן שיכים הסוגים: ארגמן (Murex) וארגמנית (Purpura).

Helzon ha-argaman: A sea-dwelling snail with a thick, convoluted shell. ‘Helzon ha-argaman’ has a gland that secretes a yellowish liquid that turns to reddish purple in light. This liquid served in dyeing clothing in the color argaman in ancient times. Belonging to the argaman-snail family are the types: argaman (Murex) and argamanith (Purpura).

From this we can know that the Murex cannot be the same ‘Hilazon’ that was used for tekheleth. Like tekheleth, argaman too was a very important color to the Sages; it was required to fulfill the Torah injunctions regarding the clothing of the kohen-priests, parokhoth, etc. If the same creature yielded both argaman and tekheleth, then the sages would not have spoken about it exclusively in terms of its role in producing tekheleth, but in its dual role in producing argaman as well.

-The dionun is a small squid. This, by the way, is no contradiction to the fact that the simple meaning of the word Hilazon in Hebrew is “snail.” According to the article Cuttlefish Basics, in “The Octopus News Magazine Online”: (3)

Cuttlefish are much more closely related to garden slugs and snails than they are to fish! They belong to the same group of animals as the octopuses, squid and nautilus and like a snail they are all mollusks.

Therefore, any ancient mention of Hilazon that refers to snails is no contradiction to the dionun being a type of Hilazon.

---

III. WHAT THE TORAH SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY

REGARDING THE BODY OF THE HILAZON

1) In Mishneh Torah, RaMBaM refers to the Hilazon as “dagh” – a fish. The Talmud teaches that its form resembles that of a fish, and that its actual body resembles the sea. (Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2; Talmud in MenaHoth 44a, see Rash”i ad loc and Rabbenu Gershom)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea… (RaMBaM)

ת”ר חלזון זהו גופו דומה לים וברייתו דומה לדג…

The Rabbis taught: The Hilazon’s body resembles the sea, and its form resembles that of a fish… (Talmud)

A wide variety of sea-life can fit the general category of “fish” or fish-like in form. A basic requirement to fit this description, however-the only quality that can render a sea-creature “fish-like”-is that it must swim. If it didn’t swim, the Hilazon could never have been referred to as a fish. At least it should have fish-like features, such as a fin-like appendage or eyes.

Murex trunculus, a sea-snail, sits and plods slowly on the rocks and sea floor. It has no eyes or any fin or flipper-like features; rather it is fully enclosed (from the time it is hatched) inside an odd-shaped shell (4) with asymmetrical spines… If the Sages wanted to find the best description of the Murex in few words for the benefit of future generations, would they have chosen “fish” or “fish-like in form”?

Pro-Murex scholars claim that “b’riyatho” refers to “its formation”; i.e. that the Murex trunculus spawns like a fish. However, since all bi-valve mollusks (including cuttlefish) spawn (5) why would the Sages have chosen this mark of identification for future generations? It does not help. They were clearly referring to something else that distinguishes the Hilazon from most other mollusks.

- The dionun swims freely and swiftly through the water all its life: truly a fish-like creature. It has a long fish-like fin encircling its body and two large eyes as fish do. As we wrote earlier, the root of the Hebrew name is “nun”, meaning “fish”. The same goes for its English name: Although it is a mollusk, it is called the common cuttlefish.

The Murex literature claims that Talmud’s comparison of the Hilazon to the sea was understood by the RaMBaM to refer to its coloring-that it’s coloring resembles the sea (see point #2 below). However, the Talmudic source says nothing about color: it compares the physical body of the creature to the actual sea itself. When compared to the dionun, there is little about the body of the Murex or its shell that warrants being compared to the moving water.

-On the contrary, the dionun’s long fin that wraps around its long, flattened oval (in cross-section) body from behind its head. This fringe continuously ripples with waves along the creature’s length, giving the creature a body that truly resembles the wave-action of the sea. Nothing proves this better than an actual video of the dionun in its natural environment. (6) Another must-see is this video of the dionun feeding. (7)

2) RaMBaM teaches that its color is that of the sea. (Laws of SiSith-fringe 2:2)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea… (RaMBaM)

Murex trunculus is brown. Only with its “sea-fouling” is its color blue. However, the RaMBaM never wrote “whose color is blue“, but rather “whose color is like the sea“. In seconds, the dionun’s color changes ( 8 ) dramatically to suit its surrounding color background, camouflaging it in the multi-colored undersea environment, wherever it may be. That is truer to the wording “whose color is like the sea“.

One of the ironies of the tekheleth controversy is that Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Hertzog, oft-presented as the champion of Murex trunculus as the Hilazon, rejected Murex trunculus as he did the dionun. One chief reason he had for rejecting both is clearly based on his usage of the corrupt version of the Mishneh Torah printed in Vilna. It reads (see the above source) “…whose color is similar to the color of tekheleth”. Rabbi Hertzog recognized that neither the dionun nor the Murex is blue. Had he been aware of the authentic Yemenite manuscripts which show the Hilazon’s color being compared to that of the sea itself, it is probable that he would have had more respect for the identification of the Hilazon with the dionun than with Murex trunculus..)

3) The dionun has an outer covering referred to as a “malbush”-a garment.

The Sages taught, “when it grows, its malbush grows with it“. [Midrash Devarim Rabbah 7:11] “Malbush”, meaning “garment”, seems to imply a softer covering. In his excellent work Understanding the Criteria for the Chilazon (9) for which we’re greatly indebted, Dr. Mendel E. Signer writes:

“The term malvush [sic], garment, seems to imply that is not merely attached, but covers the body of the chilazon, or surrounds it. Murex trunculus has a shell of its own, but doesn’t seem to have anything else that could be termed a malvush.”

When you look at the dionun from above or the side, it literally looks like it is wearing an external coat of some sort, a garment. You can clearly see this feature at this video link. (10) And that soft covering indeed grows with it from birth: Click here (11) to see the little “malbush” of a fetus already flapping like a coat with the beating of its heart before it has hatched.

4) The Sages describe the Hilazon as having a type of skeleton and sinews. (Talmud Yerushalmi 8a 1,3).

It is hard to imagine what “bones” or “sinews” the Sages could find in a frail, jelly-like murex specimen, needing a thick shell to house its limp body.

Now it seems that the Sages needed to formally establish the above fact (regarding the “bones and sinews”), because it was not readily perceivable. Although it is not immediately apparent, the dionun, having an inner shell (the “cuttlebone”), fits this criteria. The Sages would have referred to the cuttlebone as a skeleton: Its purpose is to give the creature shape, support, and protection of its internal organs. Furthermore, its limbs must have sinews of some kind since it can control its limbs to swim and catch prey.

REGARDING THE BEHAVIOR OF THE HILAZON

5) The Hilazon, rises up (to the shore) every seventy years; that is why it is expensive. (MenaHoth 44a, se also Rashi ad loc) It emerges from the sea onto the mountain cliffs, burrowing in the sand. (Meghilla 6a and Hulin 99a, see also Rashi ad loc)

ת”ר חלזון… ועולה אחד לשבעים שנה ובדמו צובעין תכלת לפיכך דמיו יקרים. (מס’ מנחות מד.)

The Hilazon… and it rises [to the shore] once every seventy years and with its blood tekheleth is dyed; therefore its cost is high [or "its blood is expensive"]. (MenaHoth 44a)

We spoke to the fisherman Shaul Kaplan, who harvests both the murex for the “Petil Tekheleth” organization and the dinonun. While he personally does not consider the dionun to be the Hilazon, he admitted candidly that Murex trunculus never rises up on the shore. They can be so difficult to harvest that divers are hired to vacuum the mollusks out of their shells that grip the undersea terrain.

Marginalizing this point, the P’til tekheleth literature claims that what made tekheleth expensive is that each snail yields so little dye, that it took as much as 8,000 snails to yield only one gram of dye. According to Dr. Singer’s landmark article: (9)

Rabbi Herzog [whom the Murex-adherent scholars cite as their champion when it is convenient] indicates that this requirement implies that the quantity of dye in the chilazon was not very small, which is inconsistent with murex trunculus.

Now, consider the reading of the Talmudic verse above:

Rashi explains what seems clear from a straight reading of the text: The Sages cited the Hilazon’s rare appearance as a reason for the high value of tekheleth. They say nothing about the minute quantity of dye they yield. And regarding Murex trunculus, we should rather speak about its non-appearance altogether… A further question: Today, Murex snails are harvested almost exclusively overseas, off of foreign shores. Was it ever possible from the shores of Israel to regularly harvest the inestimable number of Murex snails required to support the needs of a tekheleth-wearing nation?

Regarding the dionun, Kaplan told us that a few generations ago the tide brought up a whole slough of them up to the shore. This corroborates with reports of mass strandings of dionunim, (12) “sometimes by the thousand” (see entry for 22 May 2000) on the shore during years when they are more abundant. Moreover, the Radziner Rebbe learned that this happens between Haifa and Tzor, this being the very coastal region navigated and fished by the seafaring tribe of Zevulun. According to Talmud (see point #5 below) – Zevulun had the exclusive role of harvesting the Hilazon for tekheleth.

These mass strandings on the sea cliffs of Haifa are specifically referred to in terse, enigmatic verses in Talmud and rabbinical commentary that the Hilazon were found in the mountains (Sanhedrin 91a), and that it “rises up from the sea up to the mountains” (see Rash”i both in Meghilla 6a and Hulin 99a). This criteria is greater fleshed out in the Radziner Rebbe’s magnum opus, Sefunei Temunei Hol (“Treasures Hidden in the Sand”) (13) the foundational work on the subject. (In the online English translation, (14) see from the words “The Explanation of where the Hillazon can be found”.) Until the Radziner Rebbe rediscovered the dionun-Hilazon equation, these verses were poorly understood for centuries.

6) The Hilazon can only be a fast-moving creature that can flee. It required “Sida” (capture) like fish by expert seafarers. One who does this trapping of the Hilazon on Shabboth is fully liable for the melakhah (forbidden labor) of trapping. (Talmudic sources cited below)

We know this because harvesting the Hilazon for tekheleth was exclusively the industry of the tribe of Zevulun, the one sea-faring tribe. (This is clearly during the times when the Hilazon does not rise up to the shore-something that happens only on very rare occasion (see point #5). In this they had no competition from the other tribes along the Mediterranean coast, Dan and Asher. (Meghillah 6a). If harvesting Hilazon were as simple as collecting (“asipha” in Hebrew) sea snails off the rocks and shallow sea bed, why was the expertise of Zevulun required? It is clearly a fast-moving sea creature that demanded more experienced fishing techniques. This is why Talmud refers to those who harvested it as “Saiadei ha-Hilazon”-trappers of the Hilazon (Shabboth 26a), not “os’phei ha-Hilazon”-collectors of the Hilazon.

Now it is a principle in the laws of Shabboth that only one who traps a fast-moving creature that can flee (like fish) is liable for trapping. One who “traps” a creature that is “meHusar Sida”-unable to flee- is not liable. (hilkhoth Shabboth 10:19) Consider what is taught in Shabboth 75a:

הצד צבי וכו’: ת”ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת… אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר”ש בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שאני הכא דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה:

CAPTURING A DEER, etc. Our Rabbis taught: He who traps a Hilazon and crushes it is liable to one [sin-offering]… But Abaye and Raba both maintain: R. Shim’on admits in a case of ‘cut off his head but let him not die!’ Here it is different, because he is more pleased that it should be alive, so that the dye should be clearer.

(a re-translation by the author based on the Soncino translation of the Talmud [15] )

We see here an established law that one who traps and kills a Hilazon (in the process of removing its dye-producing fluid) on the Shabboth is only liable once: he transgressed Torah law on account of only one forbidden labor… Abbaye and Rabbah explain he is not liable for killing the creature, since that was against the intentions of the dyer (see point #7 below!). One might ask: what about the “labors” of swimming and carrying it to the shore? The answer: The surface of the sea is a zone designated in Torah law as “karmelith”: (16) While it is forbidden by the Sages, swimming in the sea and removing an object from the water and carrying it to the shore does not entail any of the 39 classical forbidden Torah labors. The only forbidden labor he has done is trapping-meaning that he must have caught a fast-moving creature that can flee.

The Murex, a sea snail, cannot flee; it is “meHusar Sida”-it cannot be “trapped” as such. It need only be collected by hand from the sea floor.

The dionun, on the other hand, a highly-active predator, is a fast-moving creature and needs to be trapped like any fish, except for the rare occasion when they are found stranded on the shore.

REGARDING THE FLUID FOR PRODUCING TEKHELETH

7) Tekheleth is derived not from an internal vital fluid, but from fluid ejected from its body. (Rash”i on BaMidbar 15:38)

…וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת. (במדבר טו:לח)

…and they shall place upon the fringe of each corner a string of tekheleth. (15:38)

תְּכֵלֶת: צבע ירוק של חלזון. (פירוש רש”י שם) (17)

tekheleth: the spat out [or "ejected"] color of the Hilazon. (Rashi’s commentary)

Remember that Rash”i’s common tradition with RaMBaM as to the visual appearance of lost, ancient artifacts is established in the case of the menorah (both understood that the arms were straight, not curved). In his commentary on the term “tekheleth”, he defines it as Seva’ yaruq shel Hilazon”-”spat out [or "ejected"] color of Hilazon“. According to this translation (as opposed to “yaroq” meaning “green”), the blood the Sages are referring to is not a vital secretion from the creature’s innards, but the color it ’spits out’ (from the verb “yoreq”)… Obviously, this has no meaning for the murex, which is not a squid, but a sea-snail.

Some scholars, reading the above term as yaroq-green-connect the term with the ominous teaching (Talmud, MenaHoth 43b):

What distinguishes tekheleth from other colors? ‘tekheleth resembles the sea, sea resembles grass, grass resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory, as it is written “and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. (Shemoth 24:10)

They say that the blue spoken of here is blue-green: turquoise. I believe this is a mistake. The correct reading is “yaruq”, not “yaroq”. Furthermore, I understand the Talmud to be describing a meditation that ‘ tekheleth’ lends itself to, which other colors do not as easily: The color first reminds you of the sea’s waves. This resembles the tall, waving grass rippling in the wind (our ancestors were describing tall prairie grass-even bluegrass, (18) (native to Israel’s greater region of the world as well), which is vividly blue. (19) This, in turn, reminds us of the sky with its rippling wave-like cloud formations. This, in turn, reminds us of prophetic visions of Heavenly sapphire…

If the Murex adherents insist that the reading is not “yaruq” (spat out, ejected) but “yaroq” (green), they undermine their own theory, since their product is neither green nor turquoise! However, when they claim that their dye turns to green on its way to blue, consider what we learned on a visit to the Radziner tekheleth-dyeing center in B’nei Brak: We saw green strings hanging. When we asked, we were told that the woolen strings turn out green when the dye is poor quality. Even if one believes that “ירוק” means “green” and not “ejected”, the Murex dye has no greater proof than the ‘dionun’.

On the other contrary, Radziner tekheleth is not derived from any such secretion of a vital gland. On the contrary, it is produced from the black ink-like color it ejects-precisely as the Sages wrote.

8) RaMBaM declares in plain language, “damo shaHor”-”its blood is black like ink”. (Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2)

ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים ודמו שחור כדיו, ובים המלח הוא מצוי…

…and afterwards blood is brought of the Hilazon, which is a fish whose color is similar to that of the sea, whose blood is black, and is found in the Mediterranean sea.

As we see from the dictionary definition above (2), the “blood” of the Murex is “a yellowish liquid that turns to reddish purple in light”, and a deep blue in bright sunlight. It is never black or even close to it. This is the clearest and simplest proof that the Murex cannot be the same Hilazon for tekheleth that our Sages wrote of.

-The very name “dionun”, meaning “ink-fish” in Hebrew, expresses in a word the key points of RaMBaM’s definition of the Hilazon (hilkhoth SiSith 2:2) in the above source: a fish whose “blood” is ink-like. The color derived from the dionun is a dark brown (which was a shade of “shaHor” ["black"] in the simple color spectrum of the ancient Hebrews), and was actually used to produce the ink called sepia in ancient times. In the language of my son’s science book, (20) its ejected color is “shaHor ki-dio”-black like ink-, the precise words of the RaMBaM regarding the “blood” of the Hilazon.

9) The dye is the best quality when removed while the Hilazon remains alive. (sources cited below)

The Talmud teaches us that the actual dye that comes out is clearer and thereby superior, when it is extracted while the Hilazon is alive. (Shabboth 75a) This is so significant that whoever kills it on Shabboth is not liable for the forbidden Shabboth labor of ne’tilath neshamah (ending a life), since his intention is that it remain alive and not die. In his crucial article clarifying the criteria for the Hilazon, (9) Dr. Singer explains how this makes little sense in context of murex trunculus:

Petil [pro-murex 'tekheleth'] followers argue that the murex secretion (mucus) loses its dyeing power a few hours after the snail’s death. This doesn’t help since the Gemara is speaking not of a few hours, but mere moments after death. Another problem is Pliny’s statement that the murex discharges its dye upon death. If so, the reason not to kill the murex when removing the gland containing the dye is because otherwise the precious few drops of dye will be lost!

In short, the Sages speak about the quality of the dye; not about the danger of losing the dye altogether. If it was not clear until now, it should now be now: the Sages were not discussing Murex trunculus.

10) Although the Hilazon has a hard shell, it is only necessary to squeeze its soft side to remove its dye.

How is it possible to remove the dye-producing fluid without killing the creature (see points 6 and 9 above)? The murex experts always point out that the Talmudic sources using the term “poS’o”, refer to “breaking open” the Hilazon. (Tosefta, Shabboth 9:2, Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabboth 52a) This seems to only make sense with the murex-a shellfish-which needs its shell to be broken open to harvest is dye. However, “PoS’o” can refer to wounding the body in general. In B’nei Brak, the Radziner dyers are usually able to harvest the ink without cracking the cuttlebone. Furthermore, even if “poS’o” truly refers to cracking or breaking, this does occur sometimes if the ink is removed from the back…

Dr. Singer (9) writes (italics and bold added for clarity):

Rashi says [ad loc] that the person squeezes (docheik) the chilazon in his hand to get out the blood (dye secretion). From Rashi’s comment we can only infer that squeezing the chilazon can make the dye come out. Rashi’s use of the word “squeeze” is difficult to understand since it seems to imply a soft substance, not a hard shell. This difficulty in understanding Rashi might be resolved if the chilazon, while being held in the hand, has a shell on one side, and flesh on the other. Thus, the person squeezes the fleshy side of the chilazon, and in the process may crack open, or crush, the hard shell on the other side. Murex trunculus has a hard, external shell that is cracked in order to get the dye out. The shell almost completely encloses the body. This would be consistent with the usual understanding of potzea, but not with Rashi’s docheik.

11) In order to derive the proper dye for tekheleth, ‘blood’ of the Hilazon must undergo mixing and boiling together with special samamanim-additives-in a process only known to expert dyers at the time. (MenaHoth 42b; Mishneh Torah, hilkhoth SiSith 2:2)

With the murex, the blood naturally achieves its tekheleth-color and dye-like properties simply by exposure to the sun. No herbal additives, no boiling… THAT IS ALL. This clearly can not be the tekheleth described by RaMBaM, quoting the early Sages, citing vivid details of something that was obviously very well-known to them.

The dionun, on the other hand, produces a color that must truly undergo an intricate process of boiling with additives (namely iron filings), to achieve its blue dye properties. While this is the dionun’s main source of derision by the Murex followers; to anyone who has studied Mishneh Torah seriously, it is actually a sign that this is the right creature.

A Terrible Misunderstanding:

To delegitimize Radziner tekhelet, the P’til Tekhelet organization gives the following version of the truth:

Rav Herzog obtained a sample of this dye and had it chemically analyzed. The chemists concluded that it was a well-known synthetic dye “Prussian blue” whose color is produced from iron filings, with the cuttlefish merely supplying nitrogen which could have as easily been supplied from a vast array of organic sources (e.g., ox blood). R. Herzog thus rejected the cuttlefish as the chilazon and some suggest that had the Radzyner Rebbe known this fact, he too would have rejected it based on his explicit criterion that the blue color must come from the animal and that all other additives are permitted solely to aid the color in adhering to the wool (P’til Tekhelet, p.168). (21)

This badly misrepresents what the Radziner Rebbe wrote, as well as its halakhic context: Mishneh Torah. How could anyone dare attribute such an opinion (that the other additives “are permitted solely to aid the color in adhering to the wool”) to the man who plainly writes the opposite? In criterion 7 of S’funei T’munei Hol, the Rebbe explains why RaMBaM gives us a sign that is not written in the Talmudic literature, that the ‘blood’ of the Hilazon is black:

…כי אם לא הודיע לנו הרמב”ם ז”ל את זאת והיינו מחפשין רק על פי הסימנים שבש”ס, אפילו היינו מוצאים ומשיגים אותו היינו מתישאין ממנו ונאמר כי ודאי אינו החלזון כיון שדמו שחור והרי אנו רוצין לצבוע זבע התכלת. ולכן הודיענו זאת שבאמת דמו שחור כדיו ורק על ידי הסממנים נוכל לצבוע בו זבע התכלת… (13)

…For if Rambam did not make it known to us (regarding its black blood) we would search for it relying solely on the signs in the Talmud. And even if we would find it we would lose hope saying that since its blood is black this is certainly not the Hillazon needed to dye the Techelet, Therefore he made it known to us that in truth its blood is black and only by adding of the substances is it possible to dye it the color of Techelet… (14)

Nowhere does the Radziner Rebbe write that the additives cannot be instrumental in deriving the color itself. He would not do so, since this would contradict the RaMBaM (Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:2), his halakhic base. Here are RaMBaM’s words, describing the dye preparation process:

כיצד צובעין תכלת של ציצית: לוקחין הצמר, ושורין אותו בסיד; ואחר כך מכבסין אותו, עד שיהיה נקי; ומרתיחין אותו באהלא וכיוצא בו, כדרך שהצבעין עושין כדי שיקלוט את העין. ואחר כך מביאין דם חילזון, והוא דג שדומה עינו לעין הים, ודמו שחור כדיו, ובים המלח הוא מצוי. ונותנין את הדם ליורה, ונותנין עימו סממנין כמו הקימוניא וכיוצא בה, כדרך שהצבעין עושים; ומרתיחין אותו, ונותנין בו הצמר, עד שייעשה כעין הרקיע. וזו היא צורת התכלת של ציצית.

How is tekheleth for SiSith-fringes dyed? Wool is taken and soaked in lime. Afterwards it is laundered until it is clean and boiled with ohala and the like, in the way of professional dyers, in order for it [the wool] to accept the color [for the dye to adhere to the wool].

[Note that here ends the preparation of the wool. What RaMBaM writes now about additives is related to the preparation of the dye itself...]

And afterwards Hilazon fluid [lit. "blood"] is brought… And its fluid is placed in a vat, and herbal additives are placed with it, such as kamonia and the like, in the way of professional dyers. Then it is boiled and the wool put inside, until it becomes the color of the sky [after dark].

RaMBaM initially describes one process for preparing the woolen string to accept the dye (so the color will not fade), with no mention of samamanim (herbal additives) whatsoever. The addition of other ingredients is written purely in the context of preparing the color itself-in order to achieve the right blue. One or more of those herbs must have been a natural source of iron or something else that interacts with sepia to produce blue.

Based on my basic understanding of chemistry, I seriously question the chemist who told Rabbi Hertzog that the only chemical ingredient with which the additives used in ‘Prussian blue’ react, is nitrogen. Can we trust that chemists from nearly 100 years ago, with limited time and budget, successfully understood all the ways that sepia interacts with its additives for producing tekheleth, according to all the properties of those chemical compounds? Secondly, there is no proof of this hypothesis ever being tested; it is an unproven statement. But it is pointless to pursue this argument any further: Even if it were true, it would make no difference: the miSwah is to use specifically the one true Hilazon-that special creature-to make the blue dye (Tosefta, MenaHoth 9:6), even though the same color can be more easily derived from other sources, such as indigo. Since when does the Torah care how large or small is the Hilazon’s chemical contribution to the chemical reaction in the laboratory?

In Section IV below, I will share my contemplations as to why-what are the very deep and powerful reasons-that HaShem mandated that we use this Hilazon specifically, the dionun, to dye tekheleth.

12) An externally-applied treatment for hemorrhoids is derived from a valuable substance from within the Hilazon’s body.

Here is perhaps the greatest proof for the dionun-Hilazon equation. The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 28b) teaches how the hemorrhoids of Rav Yaaqov were treated with the “inner fruit” of the Hilazon, as it is written:

בפיקעא אורי ליה רבי אמי ואמרי לה רבי אסי אורי ליה ליתי שב ביני אהלא תולנא וצייר ליה בחללא דבי צוארא וליכריך עילויה נירא ברקא וטמיש ליה בנטפא חיורא וליקליה ובדר ליה עילויה… ואי לא לייתי תלת טרפא קרא דמייבשי בטולא וליקלי וליבדר עילויה ואי לא לייתי משקדי חלזוני ואי לא מייתי משח קירא ולינקוט בשחקי דכיתנא בקייטא ודעמר גופנא בסיתווא

R. Jacob was suffering from an open wound in the rectum and R. Ammi – some say R. Assi – directed him to take seven grains of purple colored alkali, wrap them up in the collar of a shirt, tie it round with a white thread [of cattle-hair], dip it in white naphtha and burn it, and apply [the ashes] to the sore… Else one should take three melon leaves which have faded in the shade, burn them and apply the ashes. In the absence of these, [let one apply] ‘almonds’ [the inner 'fruit', i.e. sepia, the therapeutic ink] of Hilazons, or else take olive-oil mixed with wax and let him be covered with rag of linen in the summer and cotton wool in the winter.

(an improved translation by the author, based on the Soncino English translation of the Talmud [15] )

Murex trunculus was never known to be a therapy for this malady. Moreover, based on the writings of Aristotle and Pliny the Elder, Dr. Singer writes, (9) “as for murex trunculus, in ancient times it was considered to be bad for the bowels.”

Here is something powerful: According to the author at www.chilazon.com (see Section V):

“It is well documented that cuttlefish ink (sepia) was used for that purpose in ancient times (as noted in 1^st century texts by Pliny the Elder, Celsus and Dioscorides) and is still used today. Thus, it seems clear that the Talmud was referring to the cuttlefish when using the term chilazon as a treatment for hemorrhoids.”

Confirming the author’s point, I discovered that sepia (dionun fluid for tekheleth) is a basic ingredient in every homeopathic medicine for hemorrhoids I could find on the internet. Find it on the following homeopathy web-pages:

• http://www.pronto.com/HEMORRHOID-RELIEVER-2-oz-KING-p_766636962-PP# (22)
• http://www.xomba.com/how_to_treat_hemorrhoids_naturally (23)
• http://www.1-800homeopathy.com/products/details.html?productid=W167 (24)

What are the chances of finding a mollusk that fits all the above Talmudic criteria, whose blue-dye producing fluid has the unique chemical properties to be a medicine for the same specific physical malady for which the Talmudic Sages prescribe “Hilazon fruit”… and this mollusk not being the real Hilazon? Next to none.

Even before proceeding to points 13 and 14, we can only conclude that the dionun is indeed the true, long-lost Hilazon for tekheleth.

(Point #13 is one of the signs introduced and explained in Sefunei Temunei Hol. (13) It is not as readily obvious as the above criteria are, but requires a deeper look. Nonetheless it is a noteworthy and important clue.)

13) The Hilazon has tentacle arms shaped like bent hooks, or itself has the the shape of a bent hook.

The Mishnah in Kelim 12:1 describes a chain hanging on the wall, with an attachment called a “Hilazon” at the end. It reads:

מסכת כלים פרק יב
יב,א טבעת אדם, טמאה; טבעת בהמה, והכלים, ושאר כל הטבעות–טהורות. קורת החיצים, טמאה; ושל אסירים, טהורה. הקולר, טמא. שלשלת שיש בה בית נעילה, טמאה; העשויה לכפיתה, טהורה. שלשלת של סיטונות, טמאה; של בעלי בתים, טהורה. אמר רבי יוסי, אימתיי, בזמן שהוא מפתח אחד; אבל אם היו שניים, או שקשר חילזון בראשה–טמאה.

A person’s ring becomes impure. A ring for an animal, for untensils, and all other rings remain pure. A beam for arrows [RaMBaM: for target practice, on account of its metal projections] becomes impure. The ‘beam’ [RaMBaM: fetters] of prisoners remains pure. The [iron] collar of prisoners becomes impure. A chain that has a lock-piece becomes impure; while one that was made for tying down [immobilizing, i.e. a living creature] remains pure. The [specialized] chain of wheat merchants becomes impure; while the [simple] one of common folk remains pure. Rabi Yose said, “When is this? -When it has a single attachment [on one end]. However, if it has two interlocking ends, or if he attaches a Hilazon-hook at its end, it is impure.

(an improved translation by the author, based on the new English translation by James Neusner [25])

The Radziner Rebbe quotes Tifereth Yisrael, a commentary on the Mishnah that explains how this “Hilazon” was an iron hook attached to the end for hanging the chain. RaMBaM (who wrote his Commentary on the Mishnah in his youth), expresses an early opinion of his (before he realized the Hilazon is a “fish”-see point #1), that “Hilazon” here refers to a shell (as if the shell of a sea mollusk could serve as hook strong enough to effectively lock a chain…).

According to Dr. Singer, [9] the other key rabbinical commentaries (Idem, Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura, and Melecheth Shlomo) correctly understand that the attachment was called “Hilazon” because it was shaped like the Hilazon for tekheleth. This likely refers to the dionun’s two longer, drooping side tentacles, which are bent inwards like hooks. According to the Radziner Rebbe, the Arukh haShulHan drew a picture of the Hilazon, proving he was familiar with the creature, and knew full well that it had tentacle arms shaped like bent hooks at the end of a chain. The Mishnah might also be referring to the overall shape of the Hilazon from the side as it swims: with its eight drooping arms, it has the shape of a large hook. Whichever is correct, as Dr. Mendel Singer points out, “no part of a Murex snail would fit this description.”

14) Although authentic tekheleth must prove to be colorfast, this is only to a degree: It fades when laundered with strong detergent. (MenaHoth 41b, see Rabbenu Gershom Me’ir haGolah)

On the subject of the tekheleth string in a garment, the Talmud teaches:

רב יהודה מסר ליה לקצרא רב חנינא עביד לה סיסא רבינא חייט להו מיחט.

“Rav Yehudah would give it to the launderer. Rav Haninah would make it into a tuft [wrap it as cluster of strings]. Ravina would sew it up.”

Rabbenu Gershom Meir haGolah (13) clarifies the terse language of the Talmud:

רב יהודה מסר גלימא עם תכלת לקצרא ומפייסו שיזהר שלא יקלקל מראה התכלת, רב חנינא עביד לי’ סיסא הי’ כורך התכלת בחוטין אחרים שלא ישנה מראהו בכביסה, רבינא חייט להו מיחט תפרו בטליתו.

“Rav Yehudah would give a garment with tekheleth to the launderer and would beg of him that he take care not to damage the appearance of the tekheleth. Rav Hanina made for it a tuft-meaning that he wrapped the tekheleth with other strings in order that its appearance would not change in the laundry. Ravina sewed it up-he sewed it up into his tallith.”

(an original translation)

Again, as in point #11, a major source of ridicule of the Radziner tekheleth promulgated by adherents of the Murex dye, is an actual proof for the dionun as the true source of tekheleth, and another blow to the Murex-Hilazon equation. Radziner tekheleth is routinely derided because it fades in the laundry. The fact that it does fade is actually another hint that it is comparable to that used by the great Amoraim Rav Yehudah, Rav Hanina and Ravina. That the Murex dye is so colorfast that even today’s strong laundry detergents do not cause it to fade easily is a sign that it is another chemical altogether.

And that is why, rather than directing us to test tekheleth by giving it over for laundering with strong detergent, the Sages provided special tests to check if our tekheleth is kosher or not. They include the check of Rav YiS’Haq and Rav Ada (MenaHoth, bottom of 42b-43a), both of which are clearly explained in Mishneh Torah, Laws of SiSith 2:5:

ה כיצד בודקין אותה עד שייוודע אם נצבעה כהלכתה, אם לאו: לוקחין התבן וריר של שבלול, ומי רגליים שנתחמצו ארבעים יום; ושורין התכלת בכולן, מעת לעת. אם עמדה בעיניה ולא כהת, כשרה. ואם כהת–לוקחין בצק של שעורים שמעפשין אותו למורייס, ונותנין את זו התכלת שנשתנת בתוכו, ואופה הבצק בתנור; ומוציאין התכלת מן הפת, ורואין אותה: אם כהת ממה שהייתה, פסולה; ואם הוסיף עינה, והושחרה יתר ממה שהייתה קודם האפייה–כשרה.

“How is it [tekheleth] checked so it can be known if it was dyed according to halakhah or not? [the test of Rav YiS'Haq:] One takes straw, the slime of a slug, and urine that has been left to ferment for 40 days. Tekheleth is then soaked in this mixture for a 24-hour period. If the color remains as it is and doesn’t fade, it is kosher.”

[Rav Ada's test:] If it fades, one takes barley dough fermented for fish brine. The faded tekheleth is then placed inside of it, and the dough is baked in the oven. Then the tekheleth is removed from the bread and inspected: If it has faded even more than before, it is passul [legally invalid]. If its color was intensified and became darker that it was before the baking, it is kosher.

Now consider the precious words of the Rebbe of Radzin in another of his three seminal works, Ma’amar Pethil Tekheleth: (13)

וכן אנו נוהגין לעשות בדיקת רב יצחק בשני האופנים, הן לפי פירש”י והן לפי פי’ הרמב”ם, ואחר כך גם בדיקת רב אדא לצאת מידי כל ספק… לזאת נהגנו להבחין בבדיקת רב אדא לבתר בדיקת רב יצחק [כדברי הרמב"ם]. והגם דבלא איפרד חזותיה בבדיקת רב יצחק לכולי עלמא אין צורך עוד לבדיקת רב אדא, אכן לאשר הרב בעל ת”י גמגם ומספק עלינו את הדרך בבדיקת רב יצחק הגם שלא נראין דבריו לע”ד. בכל זה מהיות טוב נהגנו לבדוק בתרוויהו.

“Therefore our practice is to do the check of Rav YiS’Haq in both ways, both according to the interpretation of Rash”i and according to the interpretation of RaMBaM, and afterwards the check of Rav Ada in order to remove all doubt… Because of this, our practice was to test according to Rav Ada’s check after the check of Rav YiS’Haq [as RaMBaM teaches]-despite that fact that according to all opinions if its appearance doesn’t fade in the check of Rav YiS’Haq, there is no need to do Rav Ada’s check. This was according to what the author of Tifereth Yisrael muttered, supplying us with “the way” to do the check of Rav YiS’Haq, even though his words don’t make sense according to my limited understanding. In any case, to be good and proper, we checked according to both.”

We have proven thus far that Radziner tekheleth is derived from the one creature that fits every one of the detailed criteria we can glean from the primary sources of the Oral Law, in light of its authoritative commentators through the ages. Now we can also be assured that the product derived from that creature passed both of the tests that our Sages of blessed memory recorded for future generations, to ascertain whether or not tekheleth was truly dyed according to law, beyond a doubt.

It makes no difference, of course, if the Murex dye happens to pass these tests, remaining perfectly colorfast: the fact that it comes from a patently invalid source for tekheleth defeats the purpose of such a test to begin with. Similarly, if it should be discovered, HaShem-forbid, that a worthy member of a Jewish community was born of a non-Jewish mother, it makes no difference if kosher witnesses conclusively testify that the person lives a perfectly righteous Jewish lifestyle. Until the individual converts, he or she is patently a non-Jew. The difference, it should go without saying, is that there is no “conversion” process for Murex trunculus, or the blue dye derived from it.

---

IV. ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DIONUN

As mentioned above in point #11; even though dyes of the same blue color tekheleth can be derived even more easily from other sources, there is a special Torah requirement to use the Hilazon-the dionun. Why could this be? What is so special about this creature?

What amazes me about the dionun is how, by contemplating its nature, we easily recall the Torah’s purpose in the Commandment of SiSith with tekheleth: to remember the exodus from Egypt and not to go astray after the evil inclination. These lessons are vividly illustrated in the very nature of the dionun:

A REMINDER OF THE EXODUS

If tekheleth is blue, as the sources dramatically describe (see point #6 above), why is it not called kaHol or koHal-names for the color blue? Rashi teaches that the word “tekheleth” comes from the same root “tikhlah” meaning “finish” or “end”. The dark blue color (which the Sages remind us resembles both the dark sky and navy-blue sea) remind us of the Egyptians’ “end”, their demise in the Red Sea in the middle of the night.

Now consider the dionun: When it is being pursued by predators, it ejects its brownish-black ink from behind, creating a dark cloud between it and its pursuing predator. The predator is blinded, and the ‘dionun’ escapes. Here the dionun replays the role of the Israelites, as we escaped our enemies in the midst of the sea, when HaShem created a cloud of darkness between us and them. We can perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that can directly remind us of our Redemption from Egypt.

A REMINDER NOT TO STRAY AFTER OUR HEART AND EYES

The Torah source for the miSwah of SiSith-fringes that we read in the Shema’ twice daily hints that the specifically tekheleth in our SiSioth is meant to serve as a powerful reminder not to stray after the heart and eyes.

לח דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל-כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם; וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת.	38 ‘Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.
לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת יְהוָה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.	39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

In the Talmud’s discussion (MenaHoth 38a-b) on the words “u-r’ithem otho”-”that ye may look upon it”, we see how this refer to the SiSith-fringe together with tekheleth. About what specifically is it meant to warn us? The Sages taught that straying after “your heart” refers to the temptation to minuth (apostacy), while “your eyes” refer to the temptation to ‘zenuth’ (forbidden sexual relations). (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Idolatry 2:6). The anatomy, biology and behavior of the dionun-Hilazon-facts that are easily observable to anyone-remind us of these Torah lessons.

Warning us about the heart’s temptation to apostacy

RaMBaM teaches us that the mindset of minuth (apostasy) is idolatry (Laws of Idolatry 2:9). This is a simple enough equation: both are a denial of HaShem’s Kingship. The ‘dionun’ is the clearest example there could be of a creature whose very form declares its purpose-and by extension, the existence and wisdom of its Creator. With a long striped body with eight string-like arms on one end, the ‘dionun’ actually looks like an animated SiSith fringe-with its eight strings. Its zebra-like stripes suggest the windings of tekheleth stripes around the upper section of the fringe. Most incredibly, its color camouflage-constantly changing to match its surroundings-recalls the law that the SiSith fringes must match the color of the garment: If the garment is green the fringes must be green; if it is red, they too must be red. (M.T. Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:8)

This creature declares to us plainly from the depths of the sea: the Creator of this Creature and the Giver of the commandment of SiSith are ONE AND THE SAME. It is a powerful, living anecdote against luring thoughts towards apostasy.

In fact, considering the form of this 8-limbed creature might even lead us to contemplate our own form… What does it declare? We are a five-limbed creature (with a head, two arms, two legs). Each of our legs and arms have five limbs of their own (fingers and toes), while our human face has five apertures (two eyes, two nostrils and a mouth). Our sages taught: “Who knows five? I know five-Five are the books of the Torah.” (from the ancient Passover song) If the ‘dionun’ was designed for the complete fulfillment of the commandment of SiSith, then we were designed for the complete fulfillment of the precepts of the Five Books. Like the dionun, our form, too, declares our purpose and-by extention-the existence and wisdom of our Creator…

As we learned above in point #5; once in a period of many years, Hilazon are thrown up by the sea on to the land. Stranded, they attempt to burrow in the sand. They can live like that for a short period of time, but eventually die. At that very time when the sea-their “homeland”-vomits them to their doom on the inhospitable land; they are a blessing to us, enabling us to fulfill the commandment of tekheleth. Here they replay the epic tragic pattern of Jewish history:

When HaShem’s long-suffering and patience is exhausted and the Heavenly scales tilt against us, a chain of punishments begin, as detailed in the Torah portions buHuqothai in Wayiqra and Ki thissa in Devarim. If, Heaven forbid, Israel doesn’t repent from our idolatry and apostasy, the Land literally spits us out (Wayiqra 18:25). That Land-whose very air, the Sages teach, makes one wise-was given to us to be a bastion of Torah (“for out of Zion the Torah shall go forth” -Isaiah 2:4), which is related to water (M.T., Laws of Torah Study 3:8). The Talmud relates (Berakhoth 61b) how Rabi Aqivah explained to Pappus ben Yehudah how Jews removed from Torah are comparable to fish out of water. Yet even when we are dispersed among the nations, this is but the fulfillment of HaShem’s promise to Jacob that just when we are likened to “the dust of the earth”, spread out among the nations, we will be a blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Bereshith 28:14)

We can now perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that must warn us to be careful not to allow our hearts to be led astray towards apostasy and idolatry.

Warning us about the eyes’ temptation to forbidden sexual intercourse

We saw above how the commandment of SiSith with tekheleth is also meant as a reminder not to “stray after the eyes” (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Teshuvah 4:4). We see this in real life in the Talmud’s dramatic account (MenaHoth 44a) of one student of Rav Hiyya, who was particularly careful with the miSwah of SiSith. Sadly, he sank to the level of visiting a famous Roman prostitute after prepaying an enormous sum. But then, at the moment of truth-as he undressed-his four SiSith-fringes slapped him in the face, like four witnesses to the crime he was about to commit. In sudden fear of Heaven, he sank down, unable to continue. Inspired by the Torah student’s fortitude, the prostitute left all she had and came to Israel to convert to Judaism. The Talmud relates that they then married, and the very beds she used for sin could now be used with full permission.

The dionun has large, protruding, partially forward-facing, roving eyes. These, of course, call to mind our own eyes that we must guard. Its snake-like body can remind us of the snake from the Garden of ‘Eden that cast its lustful eyes on Hawwah (Eve). (Rash”i on Bereshith 3:1 [17]) Shortly after mating and the female lays her eggs, both dionun parents die; their life cycle complete. This reminds us of the laws of Sotah: We learn that when an Israelite adulteress was put to death in a ‘trial by water’, the adulterer would die independently at the same time, wherever he happened to be.

Again we can perceive the awesome wisdom of the Creator who mandated that we use THIS CREATURE to dye the fringes that must remind us not to allow our eyes to lead us to sin.

Although it might not be mentioned explicitly by the Sages, “Going astray after the eyes” can also refer to the craving for forbidden foods when we see them. As you can see in the above video clip; (7) the dionun seizes its prey (often a non-kosher creature such as a sea crab [26] ) with a powerful double-handed grasp by stretching forward two specialized arms (of the eight). For an instant, it resembles a small child who, with eyes cast on an irresistible treat, reaches with both hands to devour it.

Of course, the dionun is a perfect and blameless creature: Unlike human beings, who are expected to perfect ourselves, it is just as HaShem meant for it to be. And according to that nature, we can derive from it a beautiful, colorful reminder for our clothing that humans were meant for a distinct and elevated role above the animal.

---

V. CONCLUSION: PUTTING RADZINER TEKHELETH TO THE TALMUD’S CHEMICAL TESTS

In this work, I have presented a clear, reorganized list of our Sages’ teachings by which the true Hilazon–lost to the Jewish people for many centuries–can be identified. Point by point, I have demonstrated how the dionun (the Common cuttlefish) fits these criteria precisely, and how Murex trunculus falls short.  To do so, I have used straight logic and presented evidence never before available to past generations–scientific videos–as well as other factual sources. The original interpretations I presented are not forced, but true to the simple facts without stretching them.

I also show the testimony of the Radziner Rebbe as to how the process he employed produced the blue dye from the dionun, passed both chemical tests of our Sages-the tests they recorded for all future generations to ascertain whether or not tekheleth was actually dyed according to law.

Therefore, to my humble understanding, anyone who has been using Radziner tekheleth, trusting that his Hassidim have not veered from the original formula over the last 110 years, was making a rational and intelligent choice.

However, to remove all doubt whatsoever, we needed to ask an uncomfortable question: Can we know for a fact that, over the last 110 years, the process has remained perfectly intact, so that the Radziner product being sold today stands up to the same halakhic standard as the original?

In their attempt to discredit Radziner tekheleth, The P’til Tekhelet Organization gives the following account in their brochure: (27)

“As an interesting side note of history, during World War II with the destruction of East European Jewry, the tekhelet factories of Radzyn were ruined and the process lost. When the survivors of Radzyn made their way to Israel after the war, they asked Rabbi Herzog for the correspondence between himself and the Radzyn dye makers, and through those letters reestablished a tekhelet industry in Israel which still flourishes to this day. Thus Rav Herzog is responsible both for discrediting Radzyn’s tekhelet and at the same time for rescuing their process from destruction.”

I therefore ‘girded my loins’ and, with the help of fellow Torah scholars whom I trust, set out to attempt to establish the truth about the process once and for all. Although there is no such requirement in halakhah, I recruited two reputable Torah scholars, Rav YaHad Yosef Witt and Rav Yehudah Bolack, to rigorously scrutinize and carefully witness every step of a new experiment: the chemical test of Rav YiS’Haq (see point #14 above) in our own time, according to the instructions of RaMBaM in Laws of SiSith-fringes 2:5.

Preparation of the strong chemical solution began on the 13th day of Kislew 5769 (December 10, 2008). Then in strict accordance to the written instructions of our Sages of blessed memory, the chemical test commenced exactly 40 days later, on the 23rd day of Teveth (January 19).

Under the watchful eyes of the witnesses, the ingredients of slug slime and straw were added to the 40-day solution.

Slime from local slugs (left) and fresh straw brought from Hevron (right) were added in.

The test commenced when a new packet of fresh Radziner tekheleth was opened, and one string was fully immersed in the solution.

The new packet of tekheleth (left), and the complete solution with immersed tekheleth.

This occurred at 12:40pm Monday, and ended with the removal of the blue-colored string at 1:10 pm Tuesday, according to the words of RaMBaM, “מעת לעת”-from one time of the day to the same time the next day. (Laws of SiSith-fringe 2:5).

At first, we were suprised at how clearly the color faded:  It faded remarkably from a bright blue to a greenish grey.   That is the photograph that was posted in this article over the last few weeks.   However, what we did not take into consideration was that we were comparing a totally soaked test string to an original string from the package that was completely dry.  Two weeks later, I decided to taker another look, to contemplate the color change.  When I opened up the white paper package they were wrapped in (the original white paper background for the original test photograph) I was in for a great surprise:  Now that the string was completely dry, the color made a dramatic return to a dark turquoise blue (see below). 

WHAT CAN BE CONCLUDED FROM THE INITIAL TEST

After painstaking efforts were made that the test be done accurately and completely; not missing a single point of the halakhah, we conclude that the color has not clearly lightened.  Although the hue has shifted somewhat, we conclude that the string remains a dark blue of the sky after starlight, with the same original intensity and uniformity in its modified hue, as the original color in its hue.  We have come to a preliminary conclusion that the test was a success:  Radziner tekheleth appears to have passed the test, which would make it ‘kasher’ according to RaMBaM.  This is not yet a final ‘pesaq’ at this time.

*****WHY THE CHANGE WE OBSERVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SHINUI” IN THIS CONTEXT*****

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm and is filed under Authentic Halakhah (law) & Minhagh (custom), Torah Research and Discoveries. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.