Q&A: Questions Regarding the Identification of Tekhelet
Questions Regarding the Identification of Tekhelet
Question
I am studying the factual side of the question of identifying the murex as the snail from which tekhelet is produced, and I have doubts about it (especially based on Rabbi Asher Weiss’s objections).
Since the Rabbi’s view is that the identification is correct, I will present the objections here and would be glad if the Rabbi would address them:
- The Talmud in Menachot says: “This snail—its body resembles the sea, its form resembles a fish, it comes up once every seventy years, and with its blood one dyes tekhelet.” In practice, none of these signs is clearly present in the murex. It is not clear in what sense its form resembles a fish, and it is not clear in what sense it comes up once every seventy years. They do not dye tekhelet with its blood, but with a liquid from some gland in it. Regarding “its body resembles the sea,” they bring an explanation that sounds forced: since it is on the seabed and covered with small fish, one cannot distinguish it from the sea floor. Is it reasonable to think that not even one sign would be fulfilled by the snail in a clear-cut way?
- The main proof they bring for identifying the murex is a kind of archaeological-historical proof: use of the murex for dyeing fabrics blue was found in the Land of Israel, and today no other snail is known that was used for such dyeing. They also add that if there had been a known snail from which tekhelet was produced in the time of the Sages, they would have warned about it and not specifically about indigo. But the Rabbi’s views about interpreting archaeological finds are well known, and surely alternative explanations can be found—for example, perhaps the use of the murex was in a somewhat different period than that of the Sages, or perhaps it was used by the Romans and not the Jews, or perhaps its original color is not blue (and that is indeed true: without a process of exposure to sunlight it produces a purple color, and even regarding the blue produced from it afterward one could still doubt whether this is really the tekhelet being discussed). In any case, it seems that at the very least, the certainty this proof gives us is like any archaeological proof—that is, not high certainty, and subject to much conjecture and interpretation.
Does the Rabbi have answers to these objections?
Answer
Greetings.
I am no longer involved in this topic. Let me begin by saying that I never said the identification is correct, only that we have certainly not gone beyond the realm of doubt—and perhaps more than that. When I looked into the matter, I saw the various objections and got the impression that there are reasonable answers, at least enough to raise a doubt.
- These are such general and aggadic descriptions that it is hard to build anything on them one way or the other. “Its blood” does not necessarily mean blood, but something from its interior. In any case, this description was not given as identifying signs for us (like the signs of kashrut, for example), but as some aggadic description. By the way, there are more serious difficulties with the signs of kashrut, and I have not heard anyone questioning them. In short, a very weak objection.
- I do not know which rabbi you mean. True, this is a known approach, but it is of course completely unfounded. What is wrong with archaeological evidence? As long as it really is evidence. So attaching it to archaeology says nothing at all.
In short, there is very strong evidence that this is tekhelet, and the difficulties are raised only in order to refute it and spare us from the obvious conclusion (you do not know of anything else that produced a blue dye back then. That by itself is very good evidence, and everything else is possible speculation—just castles in the air). Back then they already referred me to someone who had investigated the matter of tekhelet with the “great sages of the generation,” and I heard from him that the main argument was that this is “an invention of the Mizrachi crowd,” and then I understood that apparently there are no real counterarguments. Anything new frightens the halakhic decisors, lest people come to innovate other things too, God forbid. Especially since you are supposedly casting aspersions on earlier generations who did not wear tekhelet (nonsense, of course. They did not have tekhelet). It even got as far as the absurd claim of the Beit HaLevi (against Radzyn) that we have no tradition regarding tekhelet. I have never in my life heard that the absence of a tradition exempts us from thinking, and from being lax about a positive Torah commandment.
Discussion on Answer
First, I would note that there are not “very many views” that this is not a case of doubt requiring stringency. There is Rabbi Akiva Eger and a bit more; it is a major novelty (as the Radzyner already pointed out in his book). From all the hysterical Haredim who are concerned about every last tiny tail-end of a stringent ruling even in a rabbinic-level doubt, I would have expected them to be concerned about a doubt involving a positive Torah commandment.
The fact that there were previous identifications proves nothing. Each identification has to be examined on its own merits. There have also been many scientific theories until today, so should we throw out every scientific theory? Stop thinking because we were mistaken in the past?
I get the impression that you are insisting, and I do not see any point in continuing the discussion. That is what I have to say.
I heard a claim from Rabbi Kalman Bar that the essence of tekhelet is that it come from a living creature and not from indigo. Therefore anything that comes from an animal would be valid. (Rabbi Bar is a descendant of Radzyn and wears Radzyn tekhelet; I heard this in Rabbi Guy Alaluf’s podcast with him https://youtu.be/Bx0l8MWKrow?si=MT1FALJT6eE-xjgl)
That sounds very strange to me. There are views that what matters is the color, regardless of its source. But if the source matters, then why would any animal source be fine while a plant source is not? Baffling.
The main claim is that over the last 200 years they already found 3 fish that were identified as the tekhelet snail.
True, the descriptions are aggadic, but as long as there is no tradition, and there is not just one fish but several that could be considered possibilities—especially since some of them undergo chemical processes to produce blue, which you could do with any fish—the term “doubt” is a bit far-fetched here.
Especially when it is a kind of doubt where even if we are stringent, it is not clear we have fulfilled the requirement; there is no Torah-level doubt requiring stringency here according to very many views.
Someone who wants to wear it has not committed any transgression (assuming, of course, that it is not absurd to think this is the snail, since indigo does involve a prohibition), but there is certainly no definite obligation here