Tekhelet
Tekhelet (; alternate spellings include "tekheleth", "t'chelet", "techelet" and "techeiles") is a "blue-violet", "blue", or "turquoise" dye highly prized by ancient Mediterranean civilizations and mentioned 49 times in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. It was used in the clothing of the High Priest, the tapestries in the Tabernacle, and the "tzitzit" (fringes) affixed to the corners of one's four-cornered garments, including the "tallit". Tekhelet dye was critical for the production of certain articles in the Jerusalem Temple, as well as for the commandment of tzitzit. Tekhelet is most notably mentioned in the third paragraph of the Shema, quoting  . However, neither the source nor method of production of "Tekhelet" is specified in the Bible, but according to the Tosefta the "Ḥillazon" is the exclusive source of the dye. The Talmud further informs us that the dye of "Tekhelet" was produced from a marine creature known as the "Ḥillazon". A garment with "tzitzit" has four tassels, each containing four strings. There are three opinions in rabbinic literature as to how many of the four strings should be dyed with "tekhelet": two strings; one string; or one-half string. Knowledge of how to produce "tekhelet" was lost in medieval times, and  since then "tzitzit" did not include "tekhelet". However, in modern times, many Jews believe they have identified the "Ḥillazon" and rediscovered "tekhelet" manufacture process, and now wear "tzitzit" which include the resulting blue dye. Biblical references. Of the 49 or 48 uses in the Masoretic Text, one refers to fringes on cornered garments of the whole nation of Israel (), 44 refer to the priesthood or temple clothes and garments. The remaining 6 in Esther, Jeremiah and Ezekiel are secular uses; such as when Mordechai puts on "blue and white" "royal clothing" in Esther. The color could be used in combination  with other colors such as 2 Chronicles where the veil of Solomon's Temple is made of blue-violet ("Tekhelet"), purple (Hebrew: אַרְגָּמָן "Argaman") and scarlet (Biblical Hebrew: שָׁנִי ("Shani"); Late Biblical, Modern Hebrew: כַּרְמִיל "karmiyl"). may indicate the source of the shellfish to have been the Aegean region. In addition to the above observations it should be added that all of the instances of "tekhelet" (both secular and priestly) attribute its usage to some kind of elite. From this perspective it becomes obvious that it was difficult to obtain and expensive what is further corroborated by the later rabbinic  writings. History. At some point following the Roman destruction of the Second Temple, the actual identity of the source of the dye was lost, and during a period of over 1,400 years, most Jews have only worn plain white tassels ("Tzitzit"). How was "tekhelet" lost if the Jews are supposed to wear it every day? There is a theory that it was lost due to the restrictions put on using the blue dye during the roman empire (this theory only applies if the Murex trunculus is the correct "Ḥillazon"). Caesar and Augustus restricted the use of the Murex dye to  the governing class. Nero made laws that stated no one was allowed to wear purple because it was the color of royalty, and specifically he forbid goods from the Purpura, the name used for the Murex trunculus in ancient times, and that anyone who wears it will be put to death. This idea that it was illegal to wear "tekhelet" is corroborated by the Talmud in the Tractate Sanhedrin where Rabbis were caught by troops while trying to smuggle in "tekhelet". The Ramban also describes how "tekhelet" was worn by the royalty and outlawed for other people. The reason why  the royalty used the Murex dye as opposed to indigo which looked the same was because indigo faded. However once they figured out how to make indigo endure they stopped using the Murex trunculus because indigo was much cheaper. At that time is when people stopped using the Murex trunculus for its Dye entirely. The stripes on prayer shawls, often black, but also blue or purple, are believed by many to symbolize the lost "Tekhelet" which is referred to by various sources as being "black as midnight", "blue as the midday sky", and even purple. These stripes of "tekhelet" inspired  the design of the flag of Israel. Identifying the color of "tekhelet". Despite the general agreement of the most of the modern English translations of the phrase, the term "tekhelet" itself presents several basic problems. First of all, it remains unclear to what extent the word in biblical times denoted an abstract color or the actual source material. This problem is specific neither to the "tekhelet" nor to the biblical Hebrew and the scholars often point to other languages which feature similar phenomena. Second, although with time it came to denote the color blue solely, the exact hue in the  Antiquity remains unknown. Basing on the scarce material evidence from the ancient Near East and the early biblical translations the scholars suppose that "tekhelet" probably belonged to the spectrum between blue, red and purple. In the Septuagint, "tekhelet" was translated into Greek as "hyakinthos" (, "hyacinth"). The color of the hyacinth flower ranges from violet blue to a bluish purple. The early rabbinic literature in turn provide two main expositions for the color of "techelet." One group of sources, including Bava Metziya 61a-b and Menachot 40a-b, mentions "qala ilan", an indigo dye described as visually indistinguishable from "tekhelet". Yet , although this dye was much cheaper to obtain, the rabbis cursed those who substituted "techelet" with some low-priced equivalent and in fact preferred to annul the obligation altogether rather than to compromise its value (Mishnah Menachot 4:1), which clearly proves that it was not the color which mattered most. The second and much more numerous group compares the "tekhelet" to the color of the sky or the sea which is not far off from indigo. More importantly, however, this group contains several instances (Menachot 43b, Sotah 17a, Hullin 89a, Numbers Rabbah 4:13, 17:5) which extend the comparison and liken  the "tekhelet" to the throne of glory. Apparently, the particular features of this divine chair are not speculated in the early rabbinic literature, but it can be safely assumed that, again, these were not the visual qualities which counted here but rather the extraordinary value of the object and its explicit cultic associations. Rashi describes the color of "tekhelet" as “poireau,” the French word for leek, transliterated into Hebrew. In conclusion, its color varies between central sky blue in sunlight, through the iris indigo of the rainbow to deep African violet in dull weather; translated in a German translation of  the biblical book of Exodus, as "blauem purpur". Identifying the "ḥillazon". Various sea creatures have been suggested as the "ḥillazon", the purported source of the blue dye. Section::::"Hexaplex trunculus". In his doctoral thesis (London, 1913) on the subject, Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog (1889–1959) named "Hexaplex trunculus" (then known by the name "Murex trunculus") as the most likely candidate for the dye's source. Though "Hexaplex trunculus" fulfilled many of the Talmudic criteria, Rabbi Herzog's inability to consistently obtain blue dye (sometimes the dye was purple) from the snail precluded him from declaring it to be the dye source. According  to Zvi Koren, a professor of chemistry, "Tekhelet" was close in color to midnight blue. This conclusion was reached based on the chemical analysis of a 2000-year old patch of dyed fabric recovered from Masada in the 1960s. The sample, shown to have been dyed with Murex snail extraction, is a midnight blue with a purplish hue. Additionally, in 2013, Na'ama Sukenik of the Israel Antiquities Authority verified a 1st-century CE-dated fragment of blue-dyed fabric to have used "H. trunculus" as the source of its pure blue color. In the 1980s, Otto Elsner, a chemist from  the Shenkar College of Fibers in Israel, discovered that if a solution of the dye was exposed to ultraviolet rays, such as from sunlight, blue instead of purple was consistently produced. In 1988, Rabbi Eliyahu Tavger dyed "Tekhelet" from "H. trunculus" for the "Mitzvah" (commandment) of "Tzitzit" for the first time in recent history. Based on this work, four years later, the "Ptil Tekhelet" Organization was founded to educate about the dye production process, and to make the dye available for all who desire to use it. The television show The Naked Archaeologist interviews an Israeli scientist who also makes  the claim that this mollusk is the correct animal. A demonstration of the production of the blue dye using sunlight to produce the blue color is shown. The dye is extracted from the hypobranchial gland of "Hexaplex trunculus" snails. Chemically, exposure to sunlight turns the red 6,6'-dibromoindigo in snails into a mixture of blue indigo dye and blue-purple 6-bromoindigo. The "leuco" (white) solution form of dibromoindigo loses some bromines in the ultraviolet radiation. Proofs for the Hexaplex (Murex) Trunculus. The Talmud in the tractate Chulin says that "tekhelet" is the color of the sea and the sky. So  it seems that the color is blue. The Talmud in Bava Metzia says that only God can distinguish between Kala Ilan(indigo) and "tekhelet". Which means that "tekhelet" is similar to indigo in color. The dye produced by the "Murex trunculus" has the exact same chemical composition as Kala Ilan. There is a further discussion that since they have the same chemical structure it is a proof that "tekhelet" is not the "Hexaplex trunculus" because the Talmud gave tests to distinguish between indigo and "tekhelet" but if they have the same chemical structure then the tests would not work. In the  Talmud, in the tractate Shabbat it says that the "Ḥillazon" is found from Tzor until Haifa. There is archeological evidence of an ancient dye creating industry in Tel Shikmona, south of Haifa. There were large amounts of purple coloring preserved in vats that were confirmed to have been produced from sea snails. There were also manufacturing equipment for textiles found in the area. Some people argue this was a site for producing "tekhelet" in ancient times. Hundreds of yards of murex shells have also been found in the area from Tzor until Haifa. In Parashat Eikev, it says that the  Jews' clothing did not wear out from on them and there is a midrash, an ancient commentary on Torah, that compares the Jews clothing in the desert to the shell of the "Ḥillazon" because their clothing did not wear out. Implying the "Ḥillazon" has a shell that does not wear out just as the "Murex trunculus" has a shell that grows with it making it a good comparison to the clothing. Also the Talmud in the Tractate shabbos describes extracting the dye from the "Ḥillazon" by cracking it open which could also lead to the conclusion that it has a  shell. The word porforin, or porpora, or porphoros is used in midrash as well as many other Jewish texts to refer to the "Ḥillazon" that we get "tekhelet" from and this is the Latin or Greek translation of "Murex trunculus". Pliny and Aristotle also both refer to the Porpura as being the source for purple and blue dyes, showing that the Murex has a long history of being used for blue dye. Rav Herzog wrote a doctoral thesis on "tekhelet" in 1914 and was convinced the "tekhelet" was from the Murex trunculus as he wrote “it is very unlikely that  the "tekhelet"-hillazon is not the snail called murex trunculus, but though unlikely, it is still possible.” However, in his lifetime he could not figure out how to get the dye to be blue; it always came out purple. The word "Ḥillazon" also means snail in Arabic. Another requirement according to the Talmud is that the dye cannot fade and the Murex dye does not fade and can only be removed from wool with bleach. In the Tractate Megillah it quotes a pasuk in Deuteronomy 33:19 saying that treasures are hidden in the sand and compares treasure to a "Ḥillazon  which is hidden in the sand by its shell. However, the Talmud goes on to explain that literally only the word treasure is referring to the Ḥillazon" and therefore hidden in the sand does not have to relate to the "Ḥillazon" literally being found in the sand. Proofs against the Hexaplex (Murex) Trunculus being the "Ḥillazon". In the tractate Menachot, it states that the "Ḥillazon's" body is similar to the sea. Some people argue that the body of it should be blue based on this, however the body of the Murex trunculus is not blue. The possible responses interpret  the implications of its body being similar to the sea differently. There are two other snails that produce the exact same dye as the Murex trunculus: the murex brandaris and purpura (thais) Haemastoma, so how do we know which one is the "Ḥillazon"? There is a theory that the Murex trunculus contains more natural indigo and that is why it is used. Some argue that they would all be kosher, valid to use, and considered the "Ḥillazon". The Rambam, Tosafot, and Rashi in one place says the "Ḥillazon" is a fish and the Murex trunculus is a snail not a  fish. One answer given is that maybe anything in the sea is called a fish. A midrash in Numbers says that "tekhelet" was hidden and now we only have white strings. Some people explain that hidden means hidden for good, or hidden until the messiah comes so it cannot be that we found the "tekhelet". In the Medrish Sifrei, it says that "tekhelet" is hidden until the next world. In the Tractate Menachot, it says that the "Ḥillazon" comes up once in 70 years. It is unclear what this is exactly referring to but the Murex trunculus has no  known cycle that would give rise to a statement based on cycles. It says in the Tractate Shabbat that if you trap the "Ḥillazon" on shabbat you are "over" the violation of trapping on shabbat. However, certain commentaries hold that you are not "over" the violation of trapping if you trap a snail because it is so easy to trap them. Therefore, the "Ḥillazon" cannot be a snail Others argue that since you have to take a boat into the water and it is a burden to trap the snails you would still be "over" trapping on shabbat. Section::::"Sepia  officinalis". In 1887, Grand Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner, the Radziner Rebbe, researched the subject and concluded that "Sepia officinalis" (common cuttlefish) met many of the criteria. Within a year, Radziner chassidim began wearing "Tzitzit" that included threads dyed with a colorant produced from this cephalopod. Rabbi 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" made by reacting Iron(II) sulfate with an organic material. In this case, the cuttlefish only supplied the organic material 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 "Ḥillazon" and some suggest that had the Grand Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner 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. Section::::"Janthina". Within his doctoral research on the subject of "Tekhelet", Herzog placed great hopes on demonstrating that "Hexaplex trunculus" was the genuine snail "Ḥillazon." However, having failed to consistently achieve blue dye  from "Hexaplex trunculus", he wrote: “If for the present all hope is to be abandoned of rediscovering the "Ḥillazon Shel Tekhelet" in some species of the genera "Murex" (now "Hexaplex") and "Purpura" we could do worse than suggest "Janthina" as a not improbable identification". Blue dye has in the meantime been obtained from "Hexaplex trunculus" snail and the pigment molecule itself is hypothesized to be Tyrian Purple or Aplysioviolin. In 2002 Dr. S. W. Kaplan of Rehovot, Israel, sought to investigate Herzog's suggestion that "Tekhelet" came from the extract of "Janthina". After fifteen years of research he concluded that  Janthina was not the ancient source of the blue dye. Traditional Jewish law discussions surrounding "tekhelet". There is a concept when studying Jewish law that when we are in doubt about the laws of a commandment from the Torah, we act stringently so some rabbis apply that to our case and say since we are in doubt whether we have the correct dye, we should wear it anyway. Others argue and say that concept only applies in cases such that after one acts stringently they 100% fulfill the commandment and that would not be true here since it would still  be a doubt if we wore true "tekhelet". There is another rule in Judaism based on a verse in Deuteronomy 14:1 that the Talmud explains that we should not make fractions among the Jewish people. Therefore, if a person acts differently from the rest of the Jewish people they are creating fractions. Since most Jews do not wear "tekhelet" it can be considered violating the principle of not making fractions in the Jewish People if one were to wear "tekhelet". The Rambam says the "Ḥillazon" secretes something black and the murex trunculus does not. In the Tractate Menachot and the  Rambam explain the process for making the dye for "tekhelet" and neither of them mention explicitly that it needs to be placed in the sunlight. Putting the dye in sunlight is a requirement to make the dye from the murex trunculus. There is another commandment not to detract from any law. Rav Schachter says that if we know what "tekhelet" is and we are wearing the "tzizit" strings without the blue string[s] then we are detracting from the law and are violating a commandment. Many other rabbis do not agree with this statement. Different opinions on tying "tekhelet". The Rambam  holds that half of one string should be colored blue and it should wrap around the other seven white strings. It should wrap around three times and then leave some space and then three more and leave some more space and should continue like this for either 7 or 13 groups. The first and last wrap around should be from a white string not a blue string. The Raavad holds that one full string should be blue and there should be four groups of at least seven coils alternating between white and blue both beginning and ending with blue. There  are multiple other opinions of how to tie the "tzizit" if one full string is blue. Tosafot holds that two full strings should be "tekhelet". He holds the coils should be groups of three starting with three white then three blue alternating and ending with three white. There is another way to tie using two full string that Rav Schachter follows based on the opinion of Rav Shmuel Ben Hofni Gaon.