Why I am in favor of murex techelet, pt ii

I wrote the first part of this quite a while back and, well, here is a second part. I decided to spell this out in detail because of an email correspondence with Rabbi Joshua Maroof.

I decided to revisit it because of the mention of techelet in the beginning of parashat Terumah:

4. blue, purple, and crimson wool; linen and goat hair;

ד. וּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן וְתוֹלַעַת שָׁנִי וְשֵׁשׁ וְעִזִּים:

with Rashi explaining:

ותכלת: צמר צבוע בדם חלזון, וצבעו ירוק:

The test given in the gemara to distinguish genuine chilazon techeilet from that extracted from the kala ilan does not work, and indeed, cannot work, because they are chemically identical, assuming, as we do, that kala ilan is indigo. This would seem to rule out murex trunculus techeilet as a candidate.

Yet, there are good answers which have been offered. For example, (a) we don't know the specific process by which they made the real and fake techeilet, and it could be that there was additives in the respective processes that led to different results under this test. Or (b), according to the Rambam's understanding of the gemara, any blue dye that will stay, rather than fade when washed, is valid for techeilet, so whatever kala ilan was -- it might have been some other unknown substance -- we know that modern murex trunculus techeiles does not fade in this way.

I would also add the statement of Rava, in Bava Metzia 61b:

אמר רבא למה לי דכתב רחמנא יציאת מצרים ברבית יציאת מצרים גבי ציצית יציאת מצרים במשקלות אמר הקב"ה אני הוא שהבחנתי במצרים בין טפה של בכור לטפה שאינה של בכור אני הוא שעתיד ליפרע ממי שתולה מעותיו בנכרי ומלוה אותם לישראל ברבית וממי שטומן משקלותיו במלח וממי שתולה קלא אילן בבגדו ואומר תכלת הוא

Or, in English:

Raba said: Why did the Divine Law mention the exodus from Egypt in connection with interest, fringes and weights?¹³  The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, 'It is I who distinguished in Egypt between the drop [which produced] first-born and the drop which produced one who was not a first-born;¹⁴  even so, it is I who will exact vengeance from him who ascribes his money to a Gentile and lends it to an Israelite on interest,¹⁵  or who steeps his weights in salt, or who [attaches to his garment threads dyed with] vegetable blue¹⁶  and maintains that it is [real] blue.'¹⁷

(Edited to reflect the word tipa.) One might try (and some have) to make a diyuk that both are now identical, just like the people are identical, though they came from different sources, and that it is the source that matters. One would strictly need to do this for the other examples in the list, and for the example in the next statement in the gemara, regarding Ravina. And while one could do this for the money ascribed to the gentile, this is not necessarily so for the steeping of weights in salt, or (in the next example) entrails of non-kosher fish together with entrails of kosher fish.

Yet, there are big names out there, upon whom you can rely, who find the evidence in favor of murex techeles compelling. And you can look into the give and take on this issue. I think it is important to establish this first, that you can rely on the shitta of the Rambam, above, or on major figures who paskened in its favor.

This because what I am about to say is somewhat controversial, and one should NOT think that the only way to arrive at this conclusion in favor of murex trunculus is via my "controversial" method. This even though I believe that what I am about to say is 100% correct, both in reality and in the universe of pesak.

I need to make use of the academic method of interpreting gemara. I will not mount a comprehensive defense and argument in favor of the academic method here. This is well beyond the scope of a blog post, to lay out and certainly to convince. But here is a slight digression to introduce it.

Ravina and Rav Ashi are sof horaah. So says the gemara in Bava Metzia 86a:

רבי ור' נתן סוף משנה רב אשי ורבינא סוף הוראה וסימנך (תהלים עג, יז) עד אבוא אל מקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם

{In English}: Rabbi and R. Nathan conclude the Mishnah, R. Ashi and Rabina¹  conclude [authentic] teaching,²  and a sign thereof is the verse, Until I went to the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end.'³

This is explained in a number of different ways. To cite Soncino on this, for convenience's sake:

Rashi: Before Rabbi, the Mishnah was in no systematic order, each Tanna teaching in which order he desired. Rabbi compiled and arranged these teachings in a systematized order, admitting those which he considered authentic and rejecting others. This compilation formed the basic code of Jewish law (though Weiss, Dor. II, p. 183, maintains that he never intended it to be authoritative); subsequently scholars might define and explain it, and deduce new laws from it, but not dispute with it. In the course of time the discussions on the Mishnah grew to very large dimensions, and it was the work of Rabina and R. Ashi to compile the huge mass of accumulated material and give it an orderly arrangement. This is expressed by saying that they were at the end of authentic teaching (hora'ah), i.e., they edited the Talmud. [The signification of the term hora'ah is obscure and has been variously explained: (a) transmission of the oral Law; (b) the insertion by scholars of halachic matter in the Talmud; (c) the right to change the Talmud whether in substance or form; (d) legislative activity, v. Kaplan, op. cit., pp. 34 and 289ff.]

I have heard this statement treated, either as a source or as a melitza, to indicate that one cannot argue with the Amoraim. Just as the Amoraim took it upon themselves to not interpret pesukim as the Tannaim did, but to analyze and decide amongst Mishnayot and Braytot, so too we are only to interpret the various gemaras and decide, using established rules of pesak, what the gemara is telling us and which, amongst the positions of Amoraim, is the one we hold like.

However, while we may not argue with Amoraim, there was NOT a rule made regarding Rishonim arguing with Geonim (Rambam and Rif did this), or Acharonim arguing with Rishonim (the Gra and Shages Aryeh did this). This is indeed the position of certain major poskim, at least in theory, but I am not going to name them here so as not to get too engaged in controversy. This is certainly NOT the position of many in the chareidi world (some who maintain religiously that one is forbidden to argue on the Shulchan Aruch, which was written with ruach hakodesh, but even without getting to that point). But see here to begin exploring.

In fact, in theory it could even go beyond this. To cite Rav Herschel Schachter, who was NOT arguing in favor of wholesale rejection of gemaras as erroneous:

When Rambam formulates what he considers to be the thirteen principles of our faith (commentary to Mishna, Sanhedrin Perek Chelek) he writes that not only do we believe that at one time(maamad har Sinai) G-d revealed Himself to us, and gave us His Torah, but also that the Torah as we observe it today is min hashomayim. There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the amoraim misunderstood the tannaim, the rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the achronimmisunderstood the rishonim. “But don’t get me wrong,” they would say “– I’m Orthodox! And therefore I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is not the Orthodox position. If one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it[2]. To err is human, and a Shulchan Aruch which is full of mistakes is a man-made Torah as opposed to a Divine one. Rav Chaim of Volozhin was fond of signing off his teshuvos, “the G-d of truth gave us a Torah of truth, and our eyes are only focused on the truth.”

Regarding that point that "if one is really convinced that a certain psak is really in error, he is not permitted to follow it", Rav Schachter includes the following extremely important footnote:

It goes without saying that when evaluating a psak, one must factor in any discrepancy between his own knowledge and qualifications vs. those of the posek espousing the psak in question, and what such a discrepancy may indicate regarding which person is the one who is in error.

Of course, it is possible for a pesak to be in error. There is a masechta of Horayos which discusses what to do when the Sanhedrin makes an error, and this was not just lehagdir Torah ulehadirah!

Much of academic analysis of gemaras focuses on the original statement of an Amora and that there is a separate Savoraic (or later) layer which interprets it. We can often distinguish these layers by language (Hebrew vs. Aramaic), anonymity, and style of analysis.

I can then support the academic method, applied to certain sugyos, in one of two ways:

1. This setama de-gemara layer is post Ravina and Rav Ashi, and Ravina and Rav Ashi were sof horaah! And while statements from Amoraim are binding, later analysis, by Rishonim such as Tosafot or by Savoraim embedded in the gemara, are not.
2. Whether or not we are empowered by the above statement, I am convinced that this is the truth -- the true meaning of this particular gemara. And it would be unorthodox to stand by a false Torah out of a false sense of humility or because a belief that the halachic system stands firm even by halachot which are known to be false, for it is a legal system rather than a system of truth.

Now, saying that the Savoraic interpretation of the Amoraim is incorrect does not mean that we are saying that Chazal are idiots. Firstly, are we sure that we consider the anonymous Savoraim to be part of technical Chazal? But besides this, nobody is saying that anyone is an idiot. When analyzing a text, there are different derachim that one can take. For example, in Spain about the time of the exile, there was a derech of extreme iyun which focused on justifying every single hava amina on its own terms and learning the best local peshat  in a sugya as opposed to a sometimes more forced global peshat which would harmonize multiple sugyot. When rabbonim familiar with this derech encountered Tosafot, who analyze sugyot globally and harmonize them so as to get a sometimes forced peshat, they were rather unimpressed. In modern times, there is Brisker lomdus, and not everyone is enamored with this style of learning. And if I were to suggest to answer a seeming setirah in the Rambam by pointing out that the text was corrupted here or there, based on manuscript evidence, someone propounding a competing Brisker chakira might be unimpressed.

And different approaches are sometimes good in different scenarios. The setama degemara has a recognizable style, which often involves harmonizing statements, against the simple reading of either statement. This can be a useful and true derech, but that does not mean that it is the best approach everywhere. And, while Tosafot appears on the side of the gemara, and so the Rif, or Rosh might disagree -- and we can say the Rosh is right without calling Tosafot idiots -- , the setama degemara is embedded in the Talmudic text, and so psychologically, we think we are arguing on the gemara.

This was a long enough digression.

My reading of the relevant gemara of the tests to distinguish kala-ilan from genuine techeiles match present day reality. The problem is that people are reading the gemara together with the setama's harmonization. But unadorned, there is indeed no problem stemming from the test mentioned in the gemara.

The relevant gemara is Menachot 42b-43a. I will work my way slowly through it.

אמר ליה אביי לרב שמואל בר רב יהודה הא תכילתא היכי צבעיתו לה 

אמר ליה מייתינן דם חלזון וסמנין ורמינן להו ביורה [ומרתחינן ליה] ושקלינא פורתא בביעתא וטעמינן להו באודרא ושדינן ליה לההוא ביעתא וקלינן ליה לאודרא 

שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה טעימה פסולה ושמע מינה דבעינן צביעה לשמה ושמע מינה טעימה פסלה  

היינו טעימה פסולה היינו צביעה לשמה אמר רב אשי מה טעם קאמר מה טעם טעימה פסולה משום דבעינן צביעה לשמה

I'll use the Point by Point Summary in lieu of a direct translation:

(k) Question (Abaye): How do you dye Techeiles threads?
(l) Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehudah): We take the blood of the Chilazon (a special fish) and cook it with dying ingredients such as alum;

1. To see if it finished cooking, we take some in an eggshell, and dye a tuft of wool in it. We spill out the dye in the eggshell and burn the tuft.

(m) We learn three laws from this:

1. A dyed sample is Pasul (for Techeiles), the dying must be Lishmah, if the sample dye would be returned to the pot it would Posel all the dye inside.

(n) Question: A dyed sample is Pasul *because* dying must be Lishmah (these are not independent laws)!
(o) Answer (Rav Ashi): Indeed, the second law is merely the reason for the first, we learn only two laws.

The gemara continues:

כתנאי טעימה פסולה משום שנאמר (שמות כח, לא) כליל תכלת דברי ר' חנינא בן גמליאל רבי יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר אפילו מראה שני שבה כשר משום שנאמר (ויקרא יד, ד) ושני תולעת

Or, in English:

(p) Tana'im argue about the third law.

1. (Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): If a sample was dyed in a pot, all the remaining dye is Pasul - "Kalil Techeiles" (Rashi - nothing may be dyed previous with the Techeiles (Rashba - for this weakens it); Tosfos - because some of the dye absorbed in the sample (which was Lo Lishmah) is reabsorbed into the pot);
2. (The verse refers to Bigdei Kehunah, the same applies to Techeiles in Tzitzis.)
3. R. Yochanan ben Dehavai is Machshir - "U'*Shni* Tola'as" (we read this like Sheni, a second-hand absorption of red dye, the same applies to Techeiles).

It is interesting that while the third law is stated in the gemara as teimah pesalah, with no vav, while the first law is stated as teimah pesulah, with a vav, when discussing the Tannaitic dispute, both our gemara and our Rashi have the text as כתנאי טעימה פסולה, with a vav. Even without this, if this is a Tannaitic dispute about the third law derived from his actions, perhaps the first two are also a matter of Tannaitic dispute. (Further, this might just be a means of extracting the dye from the pot and seeing how it impacts a tuft of wool, and they didn't bother using the sample wool -- or perhaps, it was generally burned because in most cases, the techelet would not be finished yet. But all this may simply be nitpicking. We should proceed to the gemara's statement, about the tests.)

The gemara continues:

ת"ר תכלת אין לה בדיקה ואין נקחית אלא מן המומחה תפילין יש להם בדיקה ואין ניקחין אלא מן המומחה ספרים ומזוזות יש להן בדיקה וניקחין מכל אדם ותכלת

(a) (Beraisa): This is no way to check Techeiles, we must buy it from an expert (who knows that Kala Ilan is invalid);
(b) Tefilin can be checked (for missing or extra letters), still, we must buy them from an expert (who knows that the hide must be tanned Lishmah);
(c) Seforim and Mezuzos can be checked, we may buy them from anyone (the hide need not be tanned Lishmah).

Now, this is precisely the metzius as it exists today! There is no way to test to distinguish between kala ilan, that is, indigo, and murex trunculus techeiles. As a result, we must buy it from an expert, who we can trust.

Yet, there is another statement, by an Amora named Rav Yitzchak breih deRav Yehuda, who does speak of a test! There might be answers, such as what I said above, that something in production of kala ilan would show up in the test. After all, see above that for authentic techelet, they cooked it with dying ingredients such as alum. It could be that often, counterfeiters would use inferior ingredients which would show up in a test. We'll deal with this when we get to it.

But now, the setama degemara chimes in, and asks and wants to harmonize:

אין לה בדיקה? ש 

והא רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה בדיק ליה (סי' בגשם) מייתי מגביא גילא ומיא דשבלילתא ומימי רגלים בן ארבעים יום ותרי לה בגווייהו מאורתא ועד לצפרא איפרד חזותיה פסולה לא איפרד חזותיה כשרה 

ורב אדא קמיה דרבא משמיה דרב עוירא אמר מייתי חמירא ארכסא דשערי ואפיא לה בגוויה אישתנאי למעליותא כשרה לגריעותא פסולה וסימניך שינוי שקר שינוי אמת 

מאי אין לה בדיקה נמי דקאמר אטעימה 

Or, in English:

(d) Question: There are ways to check Techeiles!

1. R. Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah would bring alum, fenugreek juice and urine of a baby 40 days old (alternatively - that was emitted 40 days ago) and soak the Techeiles in the mixture overnight; if the color was ruined, it is Kala Ilan; if not, it is Techeiles.
2. Rav Ada taught, one bakes it in a potent sourdough of barley; if the color improves, it is Techeiles; if not, it is Kala Ilan.

(e) Answer: This is no way to check if Techeiles was dyed Lishmah (perhaps it was a sample, therefore we must buy it from an expert).

Frankly, this is the classic style of the setama. It is an anonymous analysis, in Aramaic, which tries to harmonize two statements, namely the brayta on one side and the two Amoraim on the other. And just as the setama often does, it reuses an answer from elsewhere, preferably from a named Amora. Since the previous analysis had to do with teimah, a sample which was thus not lishma, so too here they suggest that it is אטעימה.

And thus, the brayta was stating that there is no test for lishma (in the case of a sample, or in general), and therefore one should buy from an expert who knows that lishma is required, while these Amoraic were saying that there are tests to distinguish kala ilan from techelet.

One could propose other answers to this contradiction in sources. For example, it could be that the technology in the time and place the brayta was authored had no test. Or, as I mentioned earlier, there might have been different processes involved in kala ilan in these different places, and the common fake techeles could indeed be tested by these methods.

I'll ask another question. This brayta purportedly is stating that techelet cannot be checked for lishma, but tefillin and mezuzot can be checked for their own requirements. But what about the Divine Names in the tefillin and mezuzot, which must be written lishmah? And what about the rest of the text of the tefillin and mezuzot, which maybe must be written lishmah? See Gitin 54b. And see Rambam, Hilchot Tefillin Umezuzot, 1:15:

טו  הַכּוֹתֵב סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת, וּבְשָׁעַת כְּתִיבָה לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ כַּוָּנָה, וְכָתַב אַזְכָּרָה מִן הָאַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן--פְּסוּלִין.  לְפִיכָּךְ הַכּוֹתֵב אֶת הַשֵּׁם--אַפִלּוּ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל שׁוֹאֵל בִּשְׁלוֹמוֹ, לֹא יְשִׁיבֶנּוּ; הָיָה כּוֹתֵב שְׁנַיִם שְׁלוֹשָׁה שְׁמוֹת--הֲרֵי זֶה מַפְסִיק בֵּינֵיהֶן, וּמֵשִׁיב.

How in the world are we supposed to read this reinterpreted brayta? The gemara does not consider this introduced awkwardness.

The gemara continues:

מר ממשכי אייתי תכלתא בשני רב אחאי בדקוה בדרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה ואיפרד חזותיה בדרב אדא ואישתנאי למעליותא סבר למיפסלה אמר להו רב אחאי אלא הא לא תכילתא היא ולא קלא אילן היא אלא שמע מינה שמועתא אהדדי איתמר היכא דבדקנא בדרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה לא איפרד חזותיה כשרה איפרד חזותיה בדקינן לה בדרב אדא בחמירא ארכסא אישתני למעליותא כשרה לגריעותא פסולה שלחו מתם שמועתא אהדדי

(d) Question: There are ways to check Techeiles!

1. R. Yitzchak brei d'Rav Yehudah would bring alum, fenugreek juice and urine of a baby 40 days old (alternatively - that was emitted 40 days ago) and soak the Techeiles in the mixture overnight; if the color was ruined, it is Kala Ilan; if not, it is Techeiles.
2. Rav Ada taught, one bakes it in a potent sourdough of barley; if the color improves, it is Techeiles; if not, it is Kala Ilan.

(e) Answer: This is no way to check if Techeiles was dyed Lishmah (perhaps it was a sample, therefore we must buy it from an expert).
(f) Mar (a Chacham) bought Techeiles; it failed the test of R. Yitzchak, but passed the test of Rav Ada. He thought that it was invalid.
(g) Rav Achai: Will you say that it is neither Techeiles nor Kala Ilan?!

1. Rather, we must say that the two tests complement each other - if it passes the test of R. Yitzchak, it is Techeiles; if not, we apply the test of Rav Ada;
2. If it passes, it is Techeiles; if not, it is Kala Ilan.

(h) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): The two tests complement each other.

Thus, we see explicitly that a test can fail. Why should it fail, if it is only reacting to the chemical composition of the kala ilan and techelet, respectively? Such a test should either work or not work! And why bother applying Rav Yizchak's test, if Rav Ada's test would always work? And why do the Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael say they are complementary? (Unless we say that the second test is so much more a bother than the first, which does not really seem to be so to me.)


I would understand this gemara to mean that both tests could fail, but by applying both tests, one upon the other, one can be fairly confident. I would suggest that this has to do with the side ingredients and mechanisms involved in producing true techeiles and false techeiles. (I would also note that the specific harmonization, that one test failing and one test working proves it true, rather than that it proves it false, it the harmonization of the setama degemara, not necessarily the answer of the Chachmei Eretz Yisroel.)

Regardless, that it can sometimes pass or fail one of these tests indicates to me that we are not testing the chemical composition of the techelet or kala ilan itself. And so, indigo and murex trunculus can be kala ilan and techelet, respectively.

The gemara concludes:

איתמר רבי מני דייק וזבין כחומרי מתניתא א"ל ההוא סבא הכי עבוד קמאי דקמך ואצלח עיסקייהו

Or, in English:

(i) Rav Mani (bought and sold Techeiles - he) was careful only to buy from experts (R. Gershom - and to perform the tests), like the stringencies of the Beraisa.
(j) An elder: Techeiles merchants before you did so, and their business prospered.

I would point out that the performance of the tests is Rabbenu Gershom's interpretation and intrusion into the gemara. In fact, no mention is made of the tests.


Furthermore, the position of the brayta is introduced as a חומרי מתניתא, stringency of the brayta. Juxtaposed as it is in this particular place in the gemara, after mentioning the tests of the Amoraim, the simpler meaning is that despite the existence of these tests from Amoraim, whether we perform one test or two tests, he was machmir to only buy from experts, and not rely on chemical tests. This chumra would be that perhaps the author of the brayta knew of kala ilan that could pass both tests, or one of those tests.

This once again reinforces the idea that the brayta is stating that there is no test for kala ilan. And this is from a named Amora, Rabbi Mani, rather than the anonymous setama degemara.

This in addition to the problem I raised earlier, that the other items in the brayta also require lishma, and there would be no test for it, so why is the brayta making such a distinction.

Summary: At the end of the day, the present reality matches that of the brayta. The brayta informed us that there is no test to distinguish kala ilan from techeilet, and we know that indigo and murex trunculus dye, after being subjected to the sunlight, are chemically identical. That Amoraim gave tests to distinguish them does not matter, since we see from incidents with named Amoraim that one or both of those tests sometimes failed, and it makes sense that this would be as a result of the other incidental dying ingredients being different in the elaborate dyeing process. Further, Rabbi Mana, who dealt in techelet, did not rely on these tests, but was stringent in practice like the brayta. That the setama de-gemara harmonizes everything is nice. However, we don't need to adopt a harmonizing impulse, and in this case, it leads to an unconvincing rereading of the brayta, because of the way Rabbi Mana took the brayta and because the other elements in the brayta also require lishma, and are thus untestable.

To offer this interpretation might be chutzpadik, but I believe that it is the correct understanding of the gemara. And in light of other persuasive evidence that murex trunculus is the real deal, I am even more in favor of understanding this gemara in this manner. False humility, or incorrect belief in the fixed halachic system even in case or error, would lead one not to adopt this interpretation, and therefore reject the mitzvah deOrayta of wearing techelet. This is unfortunate.

Luckily, we can rely on the various major poskim who hold that murex is the real deal, without appealing to my interpretation of this gemara in Menachos.