The Rambam in contrast, did not have first hand experience dyeing with Chilazon, nor a tradition one way or the other.
There are a lot of items, in bigdei kehuna where, the Rambam, who did not have a living example of how to make it was vague about the signs or identification of materials in the mitzva . for example see, hilchot klei hamikdash, chapter 9 where the Rambam does not tell us the signs of how to identify the 12 choshen stones. The identity of these stones is subject to numerous disputes.
The fact that Rambam does not tell us fine details about Tekhelet is no surprise.
Now a general mistake that you make over and over again, is that you think, that certain signs mentioned in the gemara and the midrashim, were mentioned in order to identify Tekhelet.
This is not so. In the Gemara’s time Tekhelet still existed and the gemara had no need to identify the chilazon.
All the information about the chilazon, such as the menachot daf44 are brought for other reasons. For example, in menachot 44 they are brought to explain why it is expensive. As it says in the gemara right after giving the signs, therefore it is expensive. The signs all contribute to the explanation why it is expensive.
As far as the chilazon, having or not having bones, this is a matter of interpretation of the yerushalmi by the achronim. See Rabbi Menachem Burshtein’s book in Hebrew Hatekhelet, page 35 [5750 edition], see also page 389 of the same book.
You also asked “So why did Haza”l teach that the tekheleth color is reached by boiling it together with additives”?
The additives, seemingly were to help the Tekhelet adhere better to the wool, or to restore the blood of the chilazon to make it more similar, to when it was freshly taken, and not yet chemically reacted with the air. However based on the words of the Tifferet Yisrael on the subject, if the additives in theory added, additional blue to the threads it would not be a halachic problem. Although the evidence, at this point, supports the view that the additives did not add color.

The chemical Additives used by Radzin are indeed a proof against Radzin, because, if cows blood replaced, the “ink” of the Common Cuttlefish, it would also produce, the same blue color, because of the additives used by Radzin. Chazal would not have put importance on the blood of the chilazon, if by use of cow’s blood you could arrive at the same result.
As far as the malbush of the chilazon growing with it. I do feel that is a much better description of the shell of the murex as compared to your candidate. And indeed see kupat harochlim of tifferet yisrael printed before seder moed, where he derives from the aruch that indeed this is a נרתיק shell.

The issue of coming up alive once every 70 years, I dealt with in my article and also the issue about trapping. Neither are a problem in light of what I have written.

Your proof about the chilazon of tekhelet having to cure hemoroids is very weak.
A] Because you don’t offer strong proof that the ingredient, mentioned in avoda zara, is from the cuttlefish.In fact if you say that the ink of the cuttlefish produces tekhelet, then the gemara should have said that tekhelet is used to cure hemorroids and not משקדי חלזוני since YOU CLAIM the therepeutic ink of the the sepia,cuttlefish cures hemorroids.
B] I assume you have not done exhaustive research to prove that other chilazon candidates don’t have this ability when used in a certain way [ of which we seemingly don't have a tradition, how to use or prepare this medicine, although I didn't really research this particular issue thoroughly]
C] You have not offered sufficient proof that the משקדי חלזון which you translate as almonds of chilazon, is at all related to the chilazon of techelet. For example, rav herzog as brought in Rav Burshtein’s book hatechelet, says the aruch has the girsa משקרי חלזון and in any case does not connect, your medicine to the chilazon used for tekhelet. I also have a source that there is a non-tekhelet type of chilazon but it is not in front of me, so I prefer not to provide more details.
You also wrote :
“Neither do they fade in strong laundry detergent (this I have personally seen, from when I was wearing the Murex “tekheleth”), which proves them not to be the same tekheleth used by Haza”l. After all, the Sages would go to great lengths to protect their tekheleth from the launderer, even pleading with him to take special care of the tekheleth. (all explained and cited in my article)”

This is a very weak argument you made.
There could be other reasons why the sages would want to protect their strings from a launderer, such as being worried he would switch it with kala ilan, or perhaps harm or burn the wool strings.
You reminded me also that when Radzin’s techelet was shown to be weak against cleaning detergent, the rebbe made a very disputable claim that Kala Ilan which could stand up against the cleaning detergent as attested by Baba Kama is stronger than Tekhelet, whereas the simple understanding of the Tekhelet tests of Menachot is that Kala Ilan is close to the durability of Tekhelet and it takes 2 uncommon tests to determine the difference.
I will end off with one balancing comment. Although I wear, Murex Trunculus Tekhelet, I believe that the production/dye process has to be improved and it currently is not the dye process once used by the sages.
I heard that Professor Tzvi koren was making progress in reenacting the original dye process, but as of the time I am writing this, there is still much work to be done.
I believe with a better dye process murex trunculus would be even more durable and probably even darker blue, or perhaps blue with a slight purple tint.
I believe, once this is done, then murex techelet will be able to withstand, Rashi’s version of the first Tekhelet Test involving the urine of a 40 day old baby. See my article for details.
I have additional reasons for desiring a change in the dye process currently used for murex trunculus, but I will not mention them here.

Dear Shlomo Moshe,

Yes, I read your voluminous work in defense of the Murex. I must commend you on a serious treatment of the subject, and a bold attempt at comprehensiveness. I must admit that I personally learned new points about the Murex, and I thank you.

However, to my small understanding, enough of your arguments are laborious and employ convoluted logic — pilpul. While it is massive, your work still ignores key issues (massive, gaping holes in the Murex argument) and too often takes Haza”l’s teachings out of context. For example:

* You mention the Murex’s fluid changing colors on its way to purple as somehow fulfilling RaMBaM’s teaching that its blood is black as ink. If so, why didn’t RaMBaM teach that it changes a vivid array of colors until it be comes dark? Isn’t that an important enough of a sign about the Murex, that Haza”l would mention such a thing, so we could easily identify the creature? What about it having spines? Would that not deserve any mention?

* That leads to my greatest point of frustration with your thinking: You work very hard, trying to wrap Haza”l’s language in the signs they gave, to fit a creature that does not exhibit those signs according to the plain meaning of their words. That renders their words vague and impotent, since according to such interpretation, their words could be made to describe a number of small sea creatures… As if they intended for us to go through such headache, going through such mental contortions… No: they were precise in their wording, so that we could identify the Hilazon according to the the plain meaning of their words. If your creature does not easily fit their language, it is not the latter-day rabbis’ task to “re-interpret” what they said: It’s time to look for another creature.

* Another way your position renders the teachings of Haza”l ludicrous, is that Murex fluid is known to turn all those colors to dark purple naturally, simply by exposure to bright sunlight. So why did Haza”l teach that the tekheleth color is reached by boiling it together with additives? The P’til Techelet pamphlet is not honest about this; making it appear as if that’s the damning fact against Radziner tekheleth — when it fact, it is evidence for its validity, and a damning fact against the Murex… that is, of course, if you take Haza”l’s words seriously, and consider they are not called “Hakhamim” for nothing.

* RaMBaM departs from the Talmud’s language to call Hilazon a “dagh” (fish). It is not merely his opinion — it is HALAKHAH. So why go through mental contortions over a shell creature that doesn’t swim, has no eyes, and no fin-like appendage? RaMBaM teaches that its blood is black as ink. Not just an opinion — HALAKHAH. That means precisely what it says. Haza”l taught it has a “malbush” — not a “bayith” (house), and not “shiryon” (armor). That doesn’t seem to fit Murex as Hilazon. They taught that it comes up (alive) to the shore every 70 years. (BTW, the fact that it does can explain why, acc. to Tosafot’s understanding of Yerushalmi, that “trapping” the Hilazon can be permitted at times. So your point there is no prove of the Murex as Hilazon.) Rav Herzog’s words cannot diminish from the power of what Haza”l wrote. I know it bothers you that Murex never comes up that way, but they said what they said. But by bringing opinions that explain it away won’t change it. When you consider the dionun, on the other hand, that language matches it perfectly — with no need for mental gymnastics. And I explained in the article what is likely to be the main reason why Herzog dismissed the dionun: it had to do with his corrupt Vilna version of Mishneh Torah. Had he access to the uncorrupted Yemenite manuscripts, the history of this argument might not have existed to the begin with.

* But, indeed, let’s agree to disagree about the visible, physical characteristics that could be interpreted away. What you cannot argue with honestly are the unique medical properties to which Haza”l testified. Whatever your Hilazon candidate is, its tekheleth-producing fluid had better have the UNIQUE CHEMICAL MAKEUP to cure hemmorhoids. (see my point #12) Logically, this should be a remedy known in the ancient world. That fits the dionun to the tee: sepia is the both the fluid for producing tekheleth, and the key, active ingredient in treating hemmorhoids from the times of Pliny the Elder to modern homeopathy. In regards to Murex, there is nothing to speak about. Is it wise, fair or honest to ignore this incredible point? Are you telling us we should disregard the one creature that fits 100% of Haza”l’s signs and has these unique medical properties, for the Murex — which we know aready to be something else: the source of biblical Argaman?! Again: why would Haza”l not mention that tekheleth and Argaman are derived from the same creature?!

What is so lacking in the spectacular work of the Radziner Rebbe that you would toss out his discovery after painstaking research, in order to try and convince us that tekheleth was derived from the same source as Argaman?! With no offense –HaShem forbid– I relate the “hithnag’duth” of the Murex people to those who, are “discovering America”, having arrived in Japan, and are trying to convince the rest of us that besides being Japan; it, too, is America –the actual, true America, no less… Japan is Japan, and America is America. Murex (Argamonim) is Murex (Argamonim) and Hilazon ha-tekheleth is Hilazon ha-tekheleth. Yes, we find Murex shells in excavations of ancient Kohen dwellings because they are the source of Argaman. There is zero evidence to prove those shells were used to yield tekheleth per se.

* You speak about your tekheleth tests, as if we should doubt the honesty of the venerable sage, the Radziner Rebbe of blessed memory, “Ba`al ha-tekheleth”. I cited his precious words, how his tekheleth passed the bediqoth of Rav YiS’Haq and Rav ‘Ada numerous times, according to all opinions. The failure of Radziner tekheleth to pass your test and the uncertainty of my own test results, would –at the worst– only testify against the MODERN PRODUCT being sold today. However, being that you left out the snail/slug mucous, and may not have waited for the strings to thoroughly dry (the color returns!), your “Bediqath Rav YiS’Haq” result is not trustworthy. Moreover, my test was not a failure: the ends of the string (where the dye is more concentrated) remained 100% in their original intensity. That leaves much room for optimism, as I prepare to test a special, strongly-dyed string.

* You report the “success” in your test of the Murex strings. Of course they would not fade. Neither do they fade in strong laundry detergent (this I have personally seen, from when I was wearing the Murex “tekheleth”), which proves them not to be the same tekheleth used by Haza”l. After all, the Sages would go to great lengths to protect their tekheleth from the launderer, even pleading with him to take special care of the tekheleth. (all explained and cited in my article) While this remains a mystery for Murex proponents, it’s simple in context of the dionun: We know it passed Haza”l’s special tests in the Radziner Rebbe’s day, yet he remarks how it faded in the laundry. Again: the very point that is touted as the damning evidence against the dionun as tekheleth, is yet more evidence for that equation.

I conclude, again, with my appreciation of your sincerity, and the love of Torah I sense in your work. Despite my own passion for my side of the argument, this does not diminish my respect for all you have done. May you, I, and all Hakhme Yisrael be blessed with enough objectivity to be able to recognize the absolute truth in this matter, and achieve true ahhduth (unity), and merit to see Kohanim clothed in true tekheleth, manning their stations in a rebuilt Temple — soon and speedily in our days.

Bikhvod Rav,

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron, Beth Midrash Ohel Moshe

Shalom Shimon:

About Yerushalmi, you wrote:

“This is not a pilpul. I’m saying your pshat is going against the basic translation, ALL classical mefarshim and ANY rabbanim who learn yerushalmi and whom I asked.”

Response: Actually Shimon, you apparently assume that Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron is a NOT a “Rabbi”. In fact, if he WAS a RABBI who did LEARN Yerushalmi, you would now be forced to recant, based on your own criteria of finding “ANY RABBONIM who feel that way”. Also, that would make him one “rabbi” that was “not too blind to see it.” Of course, that is all hypothetical.

Question: Instead of asking if he would be willing to give all his property against the claim of sepia… why not ask if he’d feel comfortable reciting a kosher blessing on teHelath that passed the test recorded by RaMb”M. I suspect his answer would be a resounding “OF COURSE”. But you’ll have to ask him.

Shavuah tub
Ahmos

I’m afraid you complety misunderstood my points:

1) “Your pilpul analysis of “gidim wa-`asamoth” contradicts the clear pesha`t of those words.”

This is not a pilpul. I’m saying your pshat is going against the basic translation, ALL classical mefarshim and ANY rabbanim who learn yerushalmi and whom I asked.

Lets try this. Pick up 3 rabbanim whom you respect and who know yerushalmi. Ask them to tell you the pshat without giving them any hint about the question or the meaning. If most of them agree with me, will you change that part of your post?

2.) It is not my attept to do anything. You just didn’t list any ancient sources or modern scientific sources. I’m just not a big believer in homeopathy…

3.) Please re-read my point about halacha lemoshe misinai. “Your point that the Hilazon is not “not mentioned in gemara or rishonim” seems ridiculous and out of character with your otherwise intelligent arguments.”

Is this what I’m saying?

4.) No idea what’s the meaning of this point.

My tzitzit is white. How sure am I that janthina is the chilazon? Not much. It’s just the best candidate I know. I’m here to discuss inyanei torah, not to play any games.

Would you literarly give all your property against the claim that sepia is the chilazon? Is in not a bit disturbing that almost all rabbanim and scientist are too blind to see all the clearly proven fact that you have?

I truly believe our discussion is promoting the mitzva of talmud torah and helps to explain many aspects of this forgotten mitzva.

Bracha vetzlacha.

Shimon

You bring up interesting points, however:
1) Your pilpul analysis of “gidim wa-`asamoth” contradicts the clear pesha`t of those words.
2) Your attempt at deconstructing the known fact that sepia is a key therapeutic ingredient in treating hemmorhoids is unsuccessful. Dr. Singer is not the end all of what is known about sepia: Its identity and healing properties are known from ancient times: And as it was used in Talmud, so is it used today.
3) Your point that the Hilazon is not “not mentioned in gemara or rishonim” seems ridiculous and out of character with your otherwise intelligent arguments. I need not elaborate.
4) We state in the main article our understanding that tekheleth is an aspect of the miSwah mi-de’oraitha, not a miSwah in and of itself. The Hilazon is clearly an issue of qabalah, shmu`ah. But why bring this up? No method of “`oqer harim” is going to work here. If your tekheleth source fits every single criteria according to RaMBaM, there is what to discuss. If it does not, trying to analyze the nature of the commandment won’t make up for its lacking.

Shimon, I think you may have missed the key point of the article: WEARING THE WRONG TEKHELETH POSSEL’S ONE’S GARMENT, LEADING ONE INTO A HOST OF SEVERE INFRINGEMENTS OF TORAH LAW. If you see that we are still in doubt, testing the common product derived from the dionun (Radziner tekheleth)–a creature that completely fits all of our criteria to a tee, and fits the massorah of RaMBaM–what makes you think we would even consider wearing tekheleth strings from the Janthina, an far more dubious candidate?

Contrary to the massorah of RaMBaM, Janthina cannot be called a fish and its blood is not black. As a society of talmide RaMBaM, that’s where we become very close-minded: that’s pretty much the end of the subject for us. I know that to your classical yeshivah training (I assume), it seems strange to give such authority to “just another Rishon”. If we were face to face and had more time, I could prove to you the superior validity and wisdom of that path over any other in the Torah world. For now, at the very best, my colleagues, students and I might say about the Janthina, “attractive theory, despite the holes”, or “that’s the best of other inherently problematic candidates”. But considering the clear issues we’ve discussed, we would never run the RISK of making blessings in vain, of wearing a 4-cornered garment (Hayyav ba-SiSith) that is incompletely fringed, and carrying on Shabboth, by wearing tekheleth dyed from the Janthina.

Again, I appreciate your sincerity and willingness to share new facts about a theory that, in all honestly, we knew little about. However, once again to make it clear: it clearly does not stand up to ALL the key criteria as the dionun does, according to RaMBaM. And that, to our understanding, is the halakhah–plain and simple.

With respect and blessings,

Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron

With respect,

Michael Shelomo