| Dear Yeshiva Family:
Introduction: Identifying the True Techeiles
In this weeks Parshah, the Torah commands that one place a thread of techeiles—a specific blue-dyed wool—among the white strings of his tzitzis. This dye must come from a mysterious marine creature called the chilazon. For centuries, however, the identity of this creature has been lost, and with it, the practical fulfillment of the mitzvah of techeiles has remained dormant.
In recent decades, a growing number of Rabbanim and researchers have promoted the theory that the ancient chilazon is, in fact, a marine snail known as the Murex trunculus (M.T.), found along the Mediterranean coast. The blue-dyed strings currently being marketed as authentic techeiles are produced from the secretion of this snail. Over the next several weeks I wish to present a series of article on this topic. They will not address the halachic details of how techeiles strings should be tied (e.g., how many strings should be dyed, how the knots should be tied, etc.), nor will it delve into the broader themes and reasons behind the mitzvah of tzitzis. Instead, the goal is to evaluate the core question: Is the Murex Trunculus truly the source of techeiles as described in the Torah and Chazal?
To present this discussion clearly and fairly, the material will be structured in debate format, dividing the arguments into four sections:
- The Case For Murex – The main proofs supporting the identification of M.T. as the chilazon
- Counterarguments – Critical responses and objections raised against these proofs
- Questions and Challenges – Independent difficulties with the M.T. theory
- Responses and Resolutions – Answers offered by proponents of the M.T. view
We will also include a section exploring a practical question: Even if one is unsure whether the M.T. is truly techeiles, is there reason to wear it anyway, out of safek (doubt)? Although these articles are lengthy, it is organized around many concise and focused points, making it accessible to readers who wish to study the topic in depth, one step at a time. They are based on a version previously published, but they have been thoroughly reviewed and updated throughout. Much of the information here was found in some beautifully written sefarim and articles that can be found on the website techeiles.org/debate.
Section I: Can Techeiles Even Be Found Today?
Before we examine whether the Murex trunculus (M.T.) fits the description of the chilazon, we must first address a more fundamental question, which at least in my mind, presents the biggest challenge to the possibility of the M.T. being the chilazon: Is it even possible for techeiles to be rediscovered before the arrival of Moshiach? Some poskim and midrashim appear to suggest that techeiles has been completely hidden and will only return in the times of the Geulah. If that's the case, the entire search for it may be moot.
Claim anti the M.T.:
The Sifri and Midrashim indicate that Techeiles Is Hidden Until Mashiach
Several sources imply that techeiles has been hidden and is not meant to be recovered in our times, most notably the Sifri[1].
Let's start with the Medrash Rabbah (Shelach 17) and the Medrash Tanchuma (Shelach 29). There it states, "Techeiles achshav nignaz"—techeiles is now hidden. This seems to end the discussion before it starts.
Lest one think that these statements are 'only' in the Medrash and not brought Lehalacha, the Vilna Gaon, in his Biur HaGra (O.C. 9:2), cites these Midrashim (though not the Sifri) as normative sources in halacha—suggesting they are to be taken seriously lehalacha. The Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 9:12), referring to the Radziner techeiles, also concludes that "there is no techeiles until the coming of Mashiach," and rules it should not be distributed.
Pro Responds: - The term nignaz ("hidden") can sometimes refer to something that is simply rare or restricted. It is possible that due to the fact that the blue color was restricted by the malchus, as is indicated by the Ramban (Shemos 28:2) who notes that in his time no one would dare wear techeiles, as it had become reserved for royalty—likely due to Roman decrees forbidding commoners from wearing it[2], one could use that term nignaz. This explanation defines the Midrash to mean techeiles wasn't destroyed, just inaccessible. The Gemara in Shabbos 63a uses nignaz in a similar way. See also Rashi in Pesachim 62b.
- In other words, perhaps techeiles was indeed nignaz—but not due to a divine decree, rather as a result of natural historical forces, such as government restrictions or overfishing. As we'll see later, certain regimes enacted decrees prohibiting the use of fabrics dyed with specific royal colors, which may have included techeiles. This caused a centuries long loss of Techeiles, however, over time, as these empires fell and their decrees faded into history, the dye—and the knowledge surrounding its production—could resurface. Importantly, the Midrash never says the chilazon was hidden—only that techeiles was. This may be a precise formulation (meduyak), suggesting that while the source creature remained, the ability to produce techeiles became inaccessible due to external circumstances, not because of a permanent spiritual concealment.
- Alternatively, even if techeiles was nignaz, who says it was hidden until Mashiach? Perhaps it was only meant to be concealed for a period—and now, Hashem has already begun to reveal it once again.
Anti counter argument
It's difficult to interpret the term nignaz merely as "forgotten" or "lost" (nishkach) without stronger basis, especially when it's not clearly stated as such. But more significantly, this approach becomes even more challenging in light of the Sifri, which explicitly implies that techeiles is hidden until the days of Mashiach. This suggests a deliberate and lasting concealment—not merely a temporary lapse in access or knowledge.
Second Source against the possibility of the chilazon nowadays
The Sifri (Devarim 354) quotes R' Yosi as saying: "I was once traveling from K'ziv to Tzor and met an old man. I asked, 'How do you make your livelihood?' He replied, 'From the chilazon.' I asked, 'Is it still available?' He answered, 'By the heavens, there is a place in the sea between the mountains, surrounded by spiders. Anyone who enters is bitten and dies on the spot.' I said to him, 'It is clear that it has been hidden away for the righteous in the future.'" It should be noted that there are several versions to this Sifri. However, we are using the version that is the most quoted.
Here we encounter the term nignaz once again—this time with greater clarity, as the Sifri explicitly states that techeiles is hidden "le'asid lavo", in the future to come. We cannot say that it can be revealed at any time. Additionally, taken at face value, this implies a supernatural form of concealment, akin to the concept of the Aseres Hashevatim (Ten Lost Tribes) hidden beyond the Sambatyon River[3]. In this reading, nignaz does not merely mean inaccessible or forgotten, but rather divinely and deliberately concealed, beyond the reach of human effort until the time of the ultimate redemption.
Pro Responds: Techeiles Was in Use Long After the Sifri
· Historically, it is clear that techeiles was used well into the era of the Amoraim and even the Savoraim—centuries after the life of R' Yosi.
o Menachos 42b where Abaye asked how to dye Techeiles o Menachos 43a where Mar brought Techeiles to be tested in the days of Rav Achai, who lived hundreds of years after Reb Yosi the Tanna in the Sifri. o Chullin 95b Where R' Nosson Bar Abaye lost some techeiles. o Sanhedrin 12a where some people were arrested for transporting Techeiles. If it was truly hidden at the time of R' Yosi, how could it still be in circulation later? · Rather, we can explain in one of several ways. R' Dovid Pardo (Sifri Dbei Rav and author of the Chasdei Dovid, an 18th century Gaon) explains that there were 3 levels of Chilazon, and the Sifri was referring to the highest most expensive level. Only this top level of chilazon (or from that specific place – Sefer Chosem Shel Zahav) was hidden. Alternatively, it could be referring to it being available on a large scale to be marketed commercially. The question 'is it available' was because he thought there was not enough to make a parnassah out of it. · There is a article written by R' Yisrael Barkin shlita[4] in which he analyzes the Sifri piece by piece, offering an esoteric interpretation that avoids reading it as referring to a literal or practical divine concealment. According to his approach, the Sifri does not necessarily mean that techeiles is supernaturally hidden or inaccessible in any physical sense.
Anti counter- response.
· The above Gemaros do not clearly indicate that techeiles was still in active production during their time. It is entirely plausible that the techeiles they had access to was leftover material from earlier generations, when it was still being produced. Although several centuries passed between the cessation of production and the discussions in the Gemara, it is not inconceivable that remnants were preserved. (The Gemara with Abaye dyeing the wool does not indicate that it was a practical question relevant to that time.)
· In fact, this seems to be the most straightforward explanation. The Gemara in Menachos discusses how to test whether techeiles is genuine or counterfeit. It presents two testing methods, but the details of these tests remained unclear until Mar brought actual samples and successfully performed the procedures. This strongly suggests that until then, they did not have real techeiles readily available to test, and that Mar was working with old samples—likely produced before the dye was hidden or lost. This episode then supports the notion that techeiles was no longer in production during the period of Chazal, and the available material was from earlier times.
· As for the explanation of the Sifri, certainly the straightforward reading is that R' Yosi concluded—from the extreme inaccessibility of the chilazon, guarded by deadly spiders—that it is no longer meant to be used. His original question shows that it was not extant, and if not for the exceptional siyata dishmaya granted to that specific old man, no one would be able to reach it. R' Yosi, upon hearing where it was hidden, therefore surmised that it has been hidden for the righteous in the future, le'asid lavo. To reinterpret the Sifri as referring to a specific type or scale of techeiles production is difficult and does not align with the simple meaning of the text. If this reading is correct, it would strongly suggest that the Murex trunculus—which is readily accessible—cannot be the true chilazon of the Torah's techeiles.
· While the esoteric interpretation of the Sifri offered by R' Yisrael Barkin shlita is certainly a possibility, it should be noted that the article in which it appears concludes by quoting several Acharonim who are said to support the notion that techeiles can still be found nowadays (see below for examples). For instance, the Levush explains that he named his sefer Levush Techeiles to express the idea that just as one would be obligated to wear techeiles if he found it, so too is one obligated to observe other mitzvos when they become applicable. However, in my view, many of the sources cited there do not prove that their authors rejected the simple reading of the Sifri. Rather, they are merely affirming that the mitzvah of techeiles remains technically valid—it has not been nullified—but they are not addressing the question of whether it is currently available in practice.
o Nevertheless, R' Barkin shlita goes further and argues that in light of these sources, anyone who wishes to interpret the Sifri literally—that techeiles is hidden until the coming of Mashiach—bears the burden of proof. With respect, I find this difficult. The simple reading of the Sifri is that techeiles is indeed nignaz until le'asid lavo. This language matches that of the Midrashim, and in fact, the Vilna Gaon brings those very Midrashim lehalacha. The burden of proof rests upon an esoteric reading. o It is true that the Gaon does not quote the Sifri, but this omission is not problematic. The Sifri appears in the form of a dialogue between R' Yosi and an old man, while the Midrashim express the point as a general statement about the status of techeiles. The Gaon simply quoted the more direct sources. Moreover, even within the Sifri, R' Yosi acknowledges that the chilazon still exists—just that it is inaccessible and protected. Thus, citing the Midrashim is sufficient for the Gaon's halachic point: that techeiles is no longer available and is reserved for the future. · Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt"l, in numerous responsa (see Daas Noteh, pp. 139–141), together with other Gedolim including Rav Elyashiv zt"l, addressed the question of wearing techeiles today. Based on the Sifri, Midrashim, and the view of the Vilna Gaon—who quotes these Midrashim lehalacha—they concluded that techeiles has been divinely concealed and is not meant to be reinstated until the time of Mashiach. This has become the prevailing view among the Gedolim of our generation. o And in truth, this should not come as a surprise—even to those in the pro camp. After all, the simple and straightforward reading of the Sifri and Midrashim does not support their position. Reinterpreting these sources in an esoteric or non-literal manner, while possible, requires significant stretching. Likewise, the Gemaros that mention techeiles do not prove that it was still being produced or actively used in their time; as discussed earlier, it is entirely plausible that they were referring to remnants from earlier periods. Given all this, it is understandable—and even expected—that the majority of Gedolim concluded that the techeiles available today is not the original, and should not be worn.
Anti cites a third source for not starting the conversation.
The Position of the Arizal The Arizal (Shaar HaKavanos, Tzitzis,פע"ח שער הציצית פ"ה ) adds a kabbalistic layer: in our current spiritual state, we are meant to wear only white tzitzis. Techeiles, he writes, will return with the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash, when our connection to Hashem is fully restored. Until then, our service is meant to reflect simplicity and restraint.
Pro Responds: The Arizal Cannot Override Halacha While kabbalistic teachings are deeply respected, halacha is not generally decided based on the Arizal alone. More importantly, the Gemara clearly indicates that techeiles continued to exist post-churban, even if not produced then, which would not align with a blanket ban based on spiritual readiness.
Pro continues in a general response: Sources Don't Prove Techeiles Is Gone Proponents of M.T. argue that Rishonim and Acharonim Still Discuss Techeiles Practically - The Maharil writes that in the future, techeiles may be found again and will require careful halachic consideration, particularly regarding issues of shaatnez.
- The Radvaz (Vol. 2, §685) suggests that the chilazon may still exist, but people either do not recognize it or have forgotten how to extract the dye.
- The Smag describes the chilazon as still being present in the Mediterranean and provides signs to identify it.
- Both the Rif and Rosh, who generally codify only practical halacha, record the halachos of techeiles, implying that it was not viewed as a purely messianic mitzvah.
- A Counter-Rebuttal to this last point is that the Aruch HaShulchan, while quoting all the relevant halachos of techeiles, still concludes unequivocally that techeiles is no longer available and should not be sought out until Mashiach comes.
Summary
This first category of debate centers not around the identity of the chilazon, but whether we should even be looking for it. While several respected sources suggest that techeiles is not meant to return until Mashiach, there are counterpoints from Rishonim, Acharonim, and historical evidence that suggest otherwise and would therefore require us to learn the Sifri and Midrashim in one of the ways suggested. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that there is significant and growing evidence—both archaeological and textual—that the Murex trunculus fits many of the traditional descriptions of the chilazon. Numerous Rishonim and Acharonim discuss signs and characteristics of the chilazon, and many of these can align with the Murex. Given the weight of these considerations, the conversation is far from over. While many Gedolim have thus far not endorsed wearing the Murex-based strings, the case on the other side is substantial enough to warrant careful analysis and respectful debate. It is in this spirit that we continue our exploration of the issue—examining both the arguments in favor of identifying the Murex as the chilazon, and the challenges that remain.
Have an amazing Shabbos! Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva Moshe.revah@htc.edu
[1] The Sifri is the Medrash on Devorim, from the times of the Tannaim, and of course can be used to formulate rulings and halachos. [2] Although some proponents of the Murex theory cite the Ramban as proof that techeiles was still in use during the times of the Rishonim, this is far from conclusive. The Ramban may simply be referring to the color of techeiles—not necessarily the authentic dye derived from the chilazon. If so, it would have no halachic value and could not be used for the mitzvah. His point may simply be that access to the royal blue dye was restricted—possibly by government decree—not that the genuine chilazon-based techeiles was still available. Similarly, other sources are often quoted as hints that techeiles may have existed into the era of the Rishonim, but in my view, these too fall short of being convincing. For example, the excellent sefer Chosem shel Zahav (fn. 67) cites a Ramban (Milchamos, Shabbos 12a) who writes "in these areas where there is no techeiles," which may suggest that techeiles existed elsewhere—but this is, at best, ambiguous. The Rambam (Hil. Tzitzis 2:9) also has language that could imply the theoretical possibility of its existence, as does the Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 386), who seems to allow for its potential return. Yet none of these sources offer strong or definitive support; they are vague and open to interpretation, and do not prove that authentic techeiles from the chilazon was known or used at the time. [3] Here also the Shevatim were hidden, but various versions of stories where individual people saw the Sambatyon and their waters exist. The Tachash is another creature which is 'hidden', and although assumed to be on the planet does not mean that someone with special siyata dishmaya could be zocheh to see it on an individual basis. [4] Available at Techeiles.org/debate. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment