Tzitzit - Chapter 2

See the Kessef Mishneh who mentions that although such wool is unacceptable for techelet, a garment made from such wool requires tzitzit and such wool may be used for that purpose.

The identity of the chilazon is a matter of question. Menachot 44a states that it would be visible only once in seventy years. From Bechorot 6:2, one can infer that it was a long snakelike fish. From other sources, it appears to be a snaillike animal. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 4:1), the Rambam writes that techelet is no longer available. Approximately one hundred years ago, Rabbi Gershon Chenoch Leiner of Radzin attempted to reintroduce a dye which he determined to be techelet. Similarly, Rabbi Herzog, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, and other scholars have attempted to locate the chilazon. Although, from a theoretical perspective, the Torah community appreciated the value of their research, in practice, their decisions have never been accepted by the majority of Torah scholars.

Though ים המלח generally refers to the Dead Sea, there are times when the Rambam uses this term to refer to the Mediterranean. See the conclusion of his Commentary to the Mishnah.

Menachot 42b interprets the phrase, “totally techelet” (Exodus 28:31), to mean that the entire dye must be intended for a ritual purpose.

Thus, it is unfit to be used for tzitzit. This wool should be burned lest it be discovered by someone else and unknowingly used for tzitzit.

Since it was purchased from a recognized dealer, there is no obligation to check it. Nevertheless, if it was checked, it can be disqualified. See Halachah 6.

These processes are mentioned in Menachot 42b-43a.

The concept of two seals is explained in the laws of kashrut. See Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 13:8.

Even if it proves to be techelet, we assume that it was not dyed for the purpose of being used for tzitzit.

We assume that twisted strands of techelet were made to be used for tzitzit. It is unlikely that someone would go to the trouble of twisting strands of techelet for any other purpose. (See the Ra’avad.)
Our text follows the standard published versions of the Mishneh Torah, which is supported by a responsum purported to have been written by the Rambam. The original printings and many authoritative editions of the Mishneh Torah state that even twisted strands of techelet are not acceptable when found in the marketplace. This version appears to be supported by the Rambam’s ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 19:24, which is based on the same Talmudic passage, Eruvin 96b.

We assume that a merchant will not risk tarnishing his reputation by misrepresenting an article.

The rationale for this decision is that tzitzit must be “of the same type of fabric as the fringe of the garment.” This also implies that they should share the same color as the fringe (Rashi, Menachot 43b). This decision is not shared by Tosafot, Menachot 41b, which rules that white strands are appropriate even when the garment itself is of another color. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 9:5) mentions that those who are precise in their performance of mitzvot follow the Rambam’s view. The Rama, however, maintains that one should use white tzitziot for all garments.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam’s statements are not an exact quote from his source, Menachot, loc. cit., which substitutes the word kelah ilan instead of black. Kelah ilan is a dye which looks almost exactly the same as techelet except that it is not made from the blood of the chilazon. The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the Rambam meant that any dark color is unacceptable although lighter colors would be acceptable. It is necessary that there be a contrast between the color of the strands of tzitzit, just as there is a contrast between white and techelet.

Even in Talmudic times, techelet was very expensive and difficult to obtain. As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1, according to most authorities, techelet is not available in the present era, nor has it been available for at least 1000 years.