A Solution to Fundamental Problems Regarding Tekhelet

With The Assistance of Heaven

3] Proofs That It is Possible Based on the Modern Definition of Words in Gentile Languages, to Also Define What Was the Definition of the Word Hundreds of Years Ago

I searched for proofs that it is possible based on the modern definitions of words in Gentile Languages, to also define what the word meant hundreds of years ago (for example, the word Purpur). And it has the equivalent of a legal presumption {until proven to the  contrary} that the meaning of the word hasn’t changed in the course of generations.
1] Rabbi Herzog [his words are brought in Rabbi Burshtein’s book on Tekhelet] attempted to identify both Indigo and the color of Indigo, [which is the definition for Kala Ilan according to the Arukh’s commentary], based on the modern definitions of the Gentiles for Indigo. [However, in truth I saw that Rabbi Yisrael Ariel argued against Rabbi Herzog on this point and in his opinion the Indigo of our times can not teach us anything about the Indigo of the Arukh. And therefore in his opinion we can’t prove from Indigo what is the color of Tekhelet.] 2] In Sanhedrin page 4 and in Rashi’s commentary to Exodus 13:16, Rabbi Akiva established that there are 4 compartments in the Tefillin {phylacteries} worn on the head {Totafoth [or Totafot depending on how you pronounce the letter ת ] in Biblical Hebrew}, because “Tot in a Caspian dialect denotes two and Foth or Poth in Africa denotes two”. Behold Rabbi Akiva relied upon the language of the Gentiles in order to explain a word that is written in the Torah centuries before his time.
Now perhaps, here too, there is no proof, for perhaps Rabbi Akiva didn’t rely at all on the languages of the Gentiles in his days, rather he had a tradition that at the time of Moshe {Moses} that such was how the Caspians and the Africans called the word two. However, according to this, it is a little more difficult to understand why Rabbi Yishmael argues against Rabbi Akiva, there in tractate Sanhedrin over the source of the law that the Tefillin placed on the head must contain 4 compartments.
And I saw a bit of a proof in the commentary of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the Torah (Exodus 13:16) [The Living Torah] that Rabbi Akiva did not receive an actual tradition on this matter. For according to Rabbi Kaplan, “significantly in ancient Egyptian, ftu or fot means four, while tot can denote a gathering, , resemblance, divine or hard leather. Hence, totafoth may have had the connotation of a fourfold amulet, made of leather, as the Tefillin indeed are”. This being the case Rabbi Akiva should have used as proof from the Egyptian language to define, Totafoth since this was the language that the majority of Israel recognized at the time of the giving of the Torah; and he should not have used a proof from a combination of an African language and a Caspian language. Now if Rabbi Akiva nevertheless left aside the Egyptian language and used the Caspian and African language, it is implied because in his days, specifically these words were still in use and he used a proof from the languages of the Caspians and Africans of his days.
Now one should add that there was someone who commented on the matter of Totafoth that perhaps there is no contradiction between the explanation of the ancient Egyptian language and the explanation of Rabbi Akiva. That perhaps African and Caspian are two synonyms for the ancient Egyptian language.
Now one can answer back that at least according to Tosafot to Sanhedrin 4b it is written that Caspian and African are two languages (and not one language). Although perhaps the person who raised the issue holds like Shita Mikubetzet to Menachot 34b, see there.
3] Many times in Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, Rashi compares a foreign word to  a word in the Torah and he establishes that the explanation of the Torah word is similar to the word in a foreign language. Now Rashi does this, even though there is a possibility that the meaning of the word in foreign language might have changed since the time of the giving of the Torah until the days of Rashi..
Here are some examples:

4] In Mishnat Shviit of Rabbi Yosef Leiberman, pages 112,113 a dispute,  is brought what is the position of Rabbi Saadia Gaon concerning the southern border of the land of Israel. And it seems to me that both sides were willing to rely on the Arabic language of their times to reveal what was the intention of Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Now here’s a translated quote:

Now what was written in the book, Eretz Yisrael (page 35) that Eilat is within the boundary of those that ascended from Egypt, based on what Rabbi Saadia Gaon translated for the Biblical name Maalay Akrabim as “Akaba-Akrabin”, and he wished to say that he meant Akaba which is by Eilat, his words are contradicted by the words of Tvuot Haaretz (page 25) who wrote that the intent of Rabbi Saadia Gaon was to the Maalay Akrabim in the valley of Algor (the Arava, located between the Dead Sea until Eilat) which is called in its entirety, Al Akaba on account of the Akaba city in the south, see there. Also the book Hamaaser V’Hatruma (chapter 5, page 43) makes a good critique of his viewpoint and also in his short article, “The Land By Its Boundaries”.

Later in his book, it appears to me that Rabbi  Leiberman also informs us that halachic researchers relied on modern Arabic to reveal the intent of Rabbi Saadia Gaon in his commentary to Parshat Masei; when the Gaon translated the river (or stream) of Egypt as “Wadi-El-Arish Mahser”.

5] In the Midot Vi’shiurei Torah, by Rabbi Chaim Beinish, page 69 we learn that

“the weight of the Derham which Rabbi Chaim Naeh used was the Turkish Derham that was in circulation in his days in the land of Israel, whose weight is 3.2 grams or to be more precise 3.205 grams. Based on his weighing it turns out that the weight of a “Riviit”, measurement of water according to the Rambam is 27 Derhams which is 86.4 grams, and it turns out according to the calculation based on the cubic measurements for a “Riviit” (10.8 cubic, etzbaot or fingers) that the etzba {finger measurement} of the Rambam was 2 centimeters.
See the next section in which he offers evidence that weight of the Derham has not changed since the days of Rambam. However, one should comment that even though in principle, Rabbi Chaim Naeh was correct, for major changes didn’t take place in the weight of the Derham coin, nevertheless it has been clarified to us that the Derham of the Gaonim and the Rambam was smaller than the Derham mentioned previously by 7 to 12 % and their weight ranged from 2.83 grams to 2.97 grams. See later, in chapter 30 sections 5,6, that if so the Riviit is 74-76 grams and the thumb measurement is 1.9 to 1.91 centimeters”

I do not know if for Halacha we accept the author’s words that the Derham slightly changed, but what is important to me, is the fact that Rabbi Chaim Naeh. was indeed willing to rely on what the Gentiles called in his days, Derham, as a method of revealing what was the Derham of the Rambam.
For the sake of truth, I will admit that there were additional reasons in accordance to what was brought in the book Midot Vi’shiurei Torah, by which Rabbi Chaim Naeh established the size of the halachic “Beitza” and “Riviit” . See the book for details.

6] I found two instances, where the Chafetz Chaim used terms in Gentile Languages to understand what our Rabbis had ruled for halacha. On Shulchan Aruch, O.C., siman 216, section 3, the Shulchan Aruch states that the blessing we make on 

is a blessing over the fragrance for a spice tree, “Borei Atzei Bsamim”. Mishna Brura {written by the Chafetz Chaim} comments there, that “Or Hindi” is a printing mistake and the text should state

There the Chafetz Chaim adds that Ode is a tree or wood in Arabic and Hindi is the land of India where it grows.
Similarly, in Be’ur Halacha, siman 302, with the section starting with the word “Mutar”, the Chafetz Chaim uses Greek and Roman Languages, to define an object, that teaches us that sometimes ironing or heating an object on the Sabbath can be considered a forbidden act of cleaning on the Sabbath, {which makes one liable for a sacrifice or the death penalty} if this is the standard method used to clean that object.
7] In the Responsa of Chatam Sofer, Section 1 (O.C.), Siman 3, Chatam Sofer brings a dispute by major Rabbis over the definition of “Dochsustus” and “Klaf”, which determines what type of parchment can be used for Tefillin and Mezuzot.
Both sides of the dispute, use foreign languages to try to prove what is the definition of “Dochsustus”.
8] In Tifferet Yisrael’s commentary on the Mishna, dozens of times he uses foreign languages to clarify concepts that appear in the Talmud. Here are some of the most blatant examples:

4] If it is So Clear that the  Trunculus Mollusc is Kosher as a Source for Tekhelet – Why Didn’t Rabbi Herzog  Come to the Same Conclusion?

The answer is that also Rabbi Herzog wrote that the hypothesis that Murex Trunculus is the Chilazon of Tekhelet is a very reasonable conclusion.
Just because he was left with no alternative, he chose the Janthina {sea snail} as the Chilazon, because in his opinion some of the signs of the Chilazon were lacking in Murex Trunculus. Therefore, if there was some way to explain why all the signs of the Chilazon of the Sages are in truth found in the Trunculus Mollusc [and that explanation wasn’t revealed or available to Rabbi Herzog], also Rabbi Herzog would admit that this mollusc has preference over other creatures.
Now one should note that in the opinion of Rabbi Shabtei Rappaport, what I said in regards to Rabbi Herzog is true both for the Rebbe of Radzin (but I have no proof one way or the other).

One should add that if someone might contend that the end product of the Chilazon when it is liquid, is still not sufficiently black to be called dark or black as ink, there is still the possibility to explain as Shlomo Teitelbaum did in his book, Lulaot HaTekhelet, page 260:
“All the words of Rambam are  fulfilled by the process of dyeing with the Murex  Chilazon {my addition: his intent is the Murex Trunculus – Argamoan Khei HaKotzim}. The chemical additives are for the sake of the chemical reduction of the dye material, and the blackness of the blood is from the high concentration of  Argaman {comment: my definition of Argaman is a little different than Teitelbaum’s} when it is dry and then dissolved in water and with chemical  additives and the light of the sun (or by vaporization) the Argaman is transformed to blue.

6] Does the Chilazon have a Shell? Should The Chilazon be Described as A Worm or a Fish?

Rabbi Herzog agreed that the Chilazon is similar to a worm that is enclosed in a shell that lives in the sea, and by virtue of it living in the sea it is also called by the description of a fish. Now also the Rebbe of  Radzin wrote that if not for his other proofs on behalf of a squid species (Sepia Officinalis) called the Diyunon in Hebrew (the species he chose as the Chilazon) he would have understood that the simple implication is that the Chilazon has a shell.
The Arukh brought a proof (Erech Chilazon 3) that the Chilazon has a shell {more literally a container}
based on the midrash Psi-, the words starting with “Vayehi B’shalach Paroah”. There it is written: “he said to them, the Chilazon all the while that it grows its container grows with it”. And see the book, Lulaot HaTekhelet, of Shlomo Teitelbaum, that proved that also Rashi, and also Radak, and also Rabbi Yaacov Emden, and additional Rabbis, established. that the Chilazon was similar to a snail that lives in the sea.
Rabbi Menachem Adler raised a point against the  possibility that Argamoan Khei HaKotzim – Murex Trunculus can be the Chilazon because Rambam in Mishna Torah describes the Chilazon as a fish.
At the beginning, I thought that the answer to his claim was simple. Namely, that the Rishonim had a wide  definition of what is classified as a fish that includes the Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus}. For Rashi on the Talmud, tractate Bechorot 8a, on the words “Bnei Yama“, established there is a fish in the sea that half of it has the shape of a man and half has the shape of a fish and in a foreign language it is called Shreina. And so too on Tractate Chulin page 126b Rashi on the words, “Achbar Shebayam“, established that it is a fish that resembles a mouse, and it is called “Achbar” {the Hebrew name for Mouse}. Now similarly, Rashi on Sanhedrin 91a described the Chilazon as a worm, (the intention seemingly to a worm with a shell). While in tractate Shabbat 74b and 77b Rashi established that the Chilazon was a sort of small fish.
And so too, we learn, in Kupat Harochlim of  Tifferet Yisrael, which is printed before his commentary to Seder Moed, that in the opinion of the Arukh, the Chilazon has a shell {literally a container}. [And such an idea is also brought is Shir Hashirim Rabba (Vilna) Parsha 4, with the words starting with milk and honey: “the Chilazon all the while that it grows its shell {container} grows with it”. And so too is the idea brought in Psikta D’rav Kahana (Mandelbaum) Parsha 11 Starting With [21] R’ Lazar: and so too in Yalkut Shimoni to Parshat Eikev, Remez 850.] Now in combination with all the sources that state the Chilazon is a fish that lives in the sea, the author of Tifferet Yisrael, understood that we are dealing with a snail that lives in the sea.
Now by this, the author of Tifferet Yisrael seemingly agreed to the principle of Rabbi Kook in Mishpat Cohain:

“And certainly to minimize dispute is preferable as much as it is possible. And even if a somewhat forced answer is  needed to eliminate a new dispute {of the Rabbis}, there is no objection to this, and in a similar manner we have established that we reconcile contradictions between witnesses even by forced answers, so that there won’t be a dispute between them, and we ascribe to not-likely explanations, that he doesn’t know that an extra day was added to the lunar month and that he errs by two or three hours, depending upon the different explanations given in the Talmud, and that we conclude in Choshen Mishpat, siman 29 that we explain their words, by remote usages of language, in order not to make a contradiction or a dispute between the witnesses. and so too do we respond in all matters that we can make into a convergence of views and we don’t say that there is here a dispute”.

Now so too, in accordance with the viewpoint of the Vilna Gaon (Eliyahu Rabba) on Keilim, chapter 10, Mishna 1, we can describe a snail that lives in the sea, as a fish. There he states, we do not write the words, the bones of a creature of the sea, for all that is in the sea is a type of fish in all forms that it has.
And so too, Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura on that same Mishna, on the words starting with “And the bones of fish”, writes, “if he made a vessel from the bones of the creatures of the sea, it saves {from impurity},  since they do not receive, spiritual impurity. As stated in the Mishna later on, in chapter 17, all that is in the sea is pure.
And so too, Rambam when he wrote about the things that do not receive spiritual impurity, both in his commentary to the Mishna and in his Mishna Torah, Hilchot Tumat Hameit, chapter 6 and so too in Hilchot Tumat Hameit, 21:1 he omitted any talk of creatures of the sea and just talked about fish together with all the other things counted  by the Mishna in Keilim chapter 10 as  objects that do not receive impurity.
And so too the Kesef Mishna on  Hilchot Tumat Hameit 6:1, explains that when Rambam wrote that one who makes vessels out of the bones or skin of fish, these vessels do not receive impurity, he understood as Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura did, that the source of the Halacha is based on what is written in chapter 17 of Keilim, Mishna 13, “All that is in the sea is Pure” And in Torat Cohanim (Shmini) it is derived, from the words {in the Biblical verse} “or clothing or leather goods,” that just as the clothing {that receives impurity} is dealing with clothing from products grown on dry land, so too, the animal hide is dealing with something that grows upon the dry land”.
Notwithstanding all that was stated above it is not so simple that Argamoan Khei HaKotzim, namely, the Trunculus mollusc is considered a fish according to the Rambam based on what Rambam wrote in Hilchot Maachalot Asurot 2:12

    “One who eats {non-kosher food} the size of an olive from that which swarms in the water is liable by the Torah, to lashes, for it was stated: “do not  make yourselves disgusting [by eating] any small creature that swarms, and do not impurify yourselves on their account”. Behold included in this prohibition is the creature {Sheretz in Biblical Hebrew} that swarms on the land and the creature that swarms which flies in the air and the creature that swarms from the sea.
What is the creature that swarms in the sea? These are the small creatures such as, worms and leeches of the water and also the very large creatures, which are the creatures of the sea. The principal is that whatever does not have the shape of fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, such as a seal and a dulphan {Rambam La’am’s commentary, a creature that looks, half like a man and half like a fish} and a frog and things similar to this:”.

Perhaps from here it is possible to claim that if a worm is not a fish, so too the Trunculus Mollusc, which is a worm within a shell, is not a fish. Especially this question is strong, in light of what Aruch Hashulchan {Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epshtein} on Yoreh Deah, chapter 83 understands to be the position of the Rambam. Namely, based on the above stated Halacha, we see that Rambam greatly limited what can be defined as a fish.
Two answers to this problem.
A] Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot – negative commandment 179 testifies that all those that came prior to him, called a creature that didn’t have the shape of a fish by the name of an unclean fish – see there.  Therefore when Rambam calls the Chilazon a fish, his intents is what the world calls a fish.
B] Mishbatzot Zahav’s commentary to Yoreh Deah, siman 83, comment 2, argues with Aruch HaShulchan {Rabbi Yechiel Michal  Epshtein} and he established that we should not, even according to the Rambam, limit our definition of what is a fish. See there and see Chazon Ish, to Bechorot, siman 16, point 12 to answer a side issue raised against  the Mishbatzot Zahav’s commentary.

Now I have support for the viewpoint of the Pri Megadim [author of the Mishbatzot Zahav commentary], that one should not restrict the concept of what is an impure fish, based on Rambam’s commentary to Keilim 12, Mishna 1 (according to the translation of Rabbi Kapach). There Rambam explains that the Chilazon Ornament is a Sea Shell {or from a sea creature with a seashell} and the older translation of the Rambam, defines it as a creature that swarms [Sheretz in Biblical Hebrew] of the water.

9] The Capture of the Chilazon
I asked Baruch Sterman of “The Association for the Promotion
and Distribution of Tekhelet” {Agudat P’til Tekhelet} if one can capture the Trunculus Mollusc by use of a net in accordance with the words of the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, He answered, “definitely yes”.
Now one should note that Tosafot understood from the Yerushalmi that there is no Torah prohibition of hunting on the Sabbath, regarding the Chilazon and if so upon us is the need to explain the contradiction between the Talmud Bavli and the Talmud Yerushalmi.
Now it is reasonable to assume that there is not really a contradiction, but rather the Talmud Bavli relates to the normal way of gathering the Chilazon, that in this situation there is a Torah prohibition of hunting on the Sabbath, while the Yerushalmi relates to a rare method of gathering the Chilazon that doesn’t have within it a Torah, Sabbath prohibition. Now the reason that there is no Torah prohibition is based on the words of the Rabbinic genius, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in comment 145 to chapter 27 of Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata,

“which is not the case with an ant and things similar to it, which easily can be taken, even if its way is to hide, nevertheless, this does not fall into the category of hunting. And not just to animals that are present among people do we say this, but rather, we also say this regarding animals that are not present among people, such as a turtle, if their manner is not to run away and it is easy to grab them, and it is reasonable to say that there is just the prohibition of Muktza {comment by Scheinman: which is not a Torah prohibition} that prevents us from capturing them and not the Torah prohibition of hunting”.

Now also see what I have written on the topic of “It Goes Up Once Every 70 Years” and you will see that there are rare occasions when the Chilazon is even tossed onto the dry land in the areas close to Rosh Hanikra, and then their status is definitely like the status of turtles {as far as the Torah prohibition of hunting on the Sabbath, not applying}. And in the opinion of Rabbi Tendler, this is also the law regarding molluscs that are present in shallow water, that it is possible to hunt by one easy movement, that they are exempt from the Torah prohibition of hunting on the Sabbath. [Now I don’t know enough about the laws of Sabbath to establish if the halachic ruling of Rabbi Tendler’s is accepted by all, and I don’t really require it that much to be the case].
In summary, usually they hunt the Chilazon by effort and by difficulty, therefore the Talmud Bavli makes one liable for a sin offering for accidentally hunting the Chilazon on the Sabbath. The Yerushalmi, that exempts a person is specifically in the case where it is easy to grab them.

10] Is the Chilazon Found Also In the Kinneret?
According to Rabbi Yehuda in the Zohar [Zohar, Volume 1, (Breishit) Parshat Vayechi, page 241b] the Chilazon is also present in the waters of the Kinneret:

“Rabbi Yehuda stated, Zvulun and Yissachar {Zebulun and Issachar} made an agreement. One would sit and be totally involved with the Torah and one would go out and do business and he would support Yissachar, as it is written: (Mishlei, {Proverbs} chapter 3) “And happy are those that support her”. Now he would go off to the sea to do business and his portion was such, that the sea was his inherited lot and for this reason he is described as a thigh, for it is the way of a thigh to go out and for this reason it is written (Deuteronomy chapter 33) “Rejoice Zvulun in your excursions and Yissachar in your tents”; “he shall settle by the shore of seas” {Genesis  49:13}. He travels the sea to do business by the sea shore; even though he has only one sea in his inherited lot, in two seas is he present”..

And so too it seems to me, is also the opinion of Rabbeinu B’chayei that the Chilazon is present in two seas, for Rabbeinu B’chayei on Numbers 10:2 established that the “Chilazon is a fish that is present in the Sea {or Lake} of Kinneret”. And in his commentary to Numbers 15:38 Rabbeinu B’chayei brings in the name of Ramban that the Chilazon is “a fish whose appearance resembles the sea and whose blood is dark as ink, and in the salty sea it is present”.
Now when I asked R’ Aharon Racklin, if he could explain why the Zohar noted that the Kinneret is the habitat of the Chilazon, he explained that the intent of the Zohar is not the sea of Kinneret, but rather some Kabbalistic concept that is connected to the Sephira of Malchut {Kingship}
Now I do not accept his words.
And yet one can still claim that there are two species of Chilazon that produce Tekhelet. Which is a similar idea to what Rabbi Takutzinski stated in Ir Hakodesh V’hamikdash, namely, that “the name Chilazon is a general name that includes a number of different species”. And at least according to the Zohar, there is a species, that lives in fresh water {suitable for drinking} that is kosher for Tekhelet, and one that lives in salt water.
Regarding what Rabbi Tevger wrote, “that it is not likely that the dye from any mollusc is Kosher for Tekhelet. What matter does the Torah have a need for molluscs?”
I answered him two answers:
A] To provide the tribe of Zvulun financial assistance to fulfill his blessing, “Zvulun shall settle by the shore of seas” ( based on Tractate Megilla page 6).
B] Rashi at the end of Parshat Shlach wrote on the words “P’til Tekhelet”
“On account of the bereavement of the first born, the Targum translation associates the word bereavement with the word “Tikhla” {and holds that the word Tekhelet is linked to the concept of “Tikhla”, bereavement} and their plague was at the night time. And so too, Tekhelet is a color that resembles the sky when it darkens at the time of the evening and the eight strands upon it, in parallel to the eight days that Israel delayed from the time that they left Egypt until they said a song of praise on the sea“.
If so, it is possible to say that there is a matter of importance to receive Tekhelet specifically by killing a living creature, namely, the Chilazon, as a remembrance of the bereavement of the first born of Egypt, just as the rest of the things in Tzitzit recalls to us the exodus from Egypt (Rabbi Tevger liked the second explanation better than the first).
And it is not reasonable for me to conclude that there is only one species of Chilazon, that lives both in salt water and fresh water, for if so, why didn’t Rambam and all that preceded him, omit this unusual sign to identify the creature that is a Chilazon and just pointed out less blatant signs.
Now I asked Asaf Shtein (one of those who produces the new Tekhelet) does he know whether the Murex Trunculus or any other species of Murex can live  in fresh waters such as the waters of the Kinneret?
He responded that until now they have discovered in Mexico a species of Murex (not Murex Trunculus) that lives in fresh water and that it is possible to dye cotton but not wool with it.
Now if this is so, in my opinion, it is reasonable to assume that in the days of the Rabbis who authored the Zohar, they found another type of Murex that lives in the Kinneret and they extracted both from that Murex species and also from Murex Trunculus Molluscs, dye material that is kosher for Tekhelet (And I will admit that a non-Jewish expert on molluscs in the land of Israel by the name of Mienes, told me that he doesn’t know about any mollusc that exists in the Kinneret that can provide dye material.)
Now I looked for a precedent to prove that the same word in Hebrew can include both a species that lives in the salty sea and a species that lives in fresh {drinkable} water. And an indirect proof I found in the Talmud tractate Chulin page 126b where there it states, when it {Scripture} states a mouse, it is implied even the mouse of the sea, whose name is Mouse, {“Achbar” in Hebrew}. And there Rashi explained that it is a fish that resembles a mouse and it is called by the name, mouse, “Achbar”.
And so too on the next page we learn that the Rabbis taught:

” ‘the turtle after its kind’ {Leviticus 11:29; see Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s translation for other interpretations of the Hebrew word, Tzav, here}- this is to include the species, ‘Arod’ and so too the ‘Nefillim’ and the ‘Salamandra’. {comment: I’m not clear about how these species are called in English} When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would say, ” how great are your works, Hashem! {G-d} You have large creatures in the sea and you have large creatures on the dry land. Those in sea, if they would go up to the dry land, they would immediately die. Those of the dry land if they would descend to the sea, they would immediately die; you have creatures that grow in extreme heat, and you have creatures that live in the air. Those in extreme heat if they would ascend to the air would immediately die, and those in the air – if they would descend to the extreme heat they would immediately die. How great are your works, Hashem. Our Rabbis taught: all that is present on the dry land, is also present [has an equivalent] on the sea, except for the “Chulda“.

Just as we find that among the 8 names of creatures that swarm of Leviticus 11:29 and 11:30 [except for the Chulda] that their names in fact stand for several species, those that live in the sea and those that live on the dry land, so too, it is reasonable to assume that the name Chilazon includes a species that lives in fresh water and another species that lives in salty water.
Now after this I found a much better explanation to explain why the Zohar, established that the Chilazon is found in the Sea {or Lake} of Kinneret. But in order to explain, I first have to quote from a section of the Zohar (Section 2 page 48b):

It is {literally} written: “Zvulun shall dwell by the shore of seas”. Now behold only one sea was within his appointed lot, rather, what is by the shore of seas. Definitely, our Rabbinic Colleagues have established the verse as an allusion to a secret, most high. “And his thigh is upon Tzidon {Sidon}” , as what was stated, “those that descended from the thigh of Yaakov {Jacob}”. Zvulun was the right thigh of the body; and the Kinneret was in his appointed lot and from there Chilazon for Tekhelet is found”.

From here we see that, the same opinion (the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda) that established that the heritage of Zvulun did not reach till the Mediterranean Sea, is also the opinion that holds that the Chilazon was in the Sea of Kinneret.
And why? For we learn in tractate Megilla page 6, that there was a tradition that Zvulun received the Chilazon in his allotted heritage. Now if the heritage of Zvulun did not reach to the Mediterranean Sea, we are then forced to say that the Kinneret contained the Chilazon.
Not because they saw this with their eyes, that Chilazon was in the Kinneret, but rather, in order to maintain the tradition {that the Chilazon was in Zvulun’s allotted heritage}.
Now according to this, we, who hold like the Vilna Gaon’s viewpoint to the book of Yehoshua {Joshua} 19:14 “that we have to say that the border of Zvulun cuts through the middle of Asher’s boundary, and goes to Tzidon Rabba {Greater Sidon} and there it expands a bit in its width like the shape of a thigh“, we then do not have to accept the words of the Zohar that the Chilazon is present in the Kinneret Sea.
In addition the Zohar itself also contains opinions that argue with Rabbi Yehuda’s viewpoint  that the heritage of Zvulun did not reach till the Mediterranean Sea. In the very same place that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion appears, the Zohar brings the following viewpoint:

    “Rabbi Acha said there is one sea and it is called seas, rather in the sea there is a place that has clear waters and there is a place that has in it drinkable water and there is a place where it has biter waters. For this reason it is called seas {in the plural} and on account of this it is written {Zvulun shall dwell} by the shore of seas”.

The Zohar also brings there the opinion of Rabbi Yosi who seems to be saying that the blessing of “shore of seas”, stems from the fact that the Mediterranean Sea is connected to a number of other seas and the tribe of Zvulun was heavily involved in the shipping and trading industries.
According to this when Rambam and Smag  and Sefer Hachinuch ruled that the Chilazon is present in the salty sea in accordance with the viewpoint of the Talmud, we do not have to say that they have a dispute with the Zohar, but rather they just have a dispute with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion in the Zohar.
One should also view Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna, Keilim 15:1 for a proof that when, Rambam mentioned the Hebrew expression, “Yam Hamelach” as the place where the Chilazon is found, his intent was the Mediterranean Sea and not the Dead Sea. And also it isn’t possible to explain that the blessing of Zvulun, as pointed out in tractate Megilla page 6 was in regards to the Dead Sea, for the allotted heritage of Zvulun according to all opinions didn’t reach there. And so too does Sifri recount (regarding the blessing of Zvulun) that the Chilazon is found in the sea, that is by Jaffa, Tyre, and C’ziv [a place not far from Haifa].

11] It Goes Up Once Every 70 Years

Rabbi Herzog held that even though one should not demand, based on the words of the sages, of blessed memory, that “it goes up once every seventy years” [ a different textual rendition says once every  7 years ] that the candidate for the Chilazon of ,Tekhelet goes up precisely according to this rate of time, nevertheless, one should require that the Chilazon be  rare in most years and just for a small bit of time it is present in abundant quantities. Therefore, Rabbi Herzog, did not deem the Murex Trunculus as fit for the mitzva, for he thought that this species lacked this sign (together with the sign of “its body resembles the sea”).
Moshe Raanan, an expert on the subject of molluscs (he is religious), sought to answer the demand of Rabbi Herzog, thus:

By comparison with other species that are subject to fishing, one can suppose that in the past, there were drastic fluctuations in how frequently available was the Argamoan, [Trunculus] molluscs by the waters of the coasts of the land of Israel. Perhaps this is the explanation to the saying, that “the Chilazon goes up once every seven years (or seventy)”. After a period of intensive collection, the Chilazon became rare, and therefore they were forced to gather at coasts of other lands until the revival of the local population {of molluscs}. This phenomena is unique, by the way to the Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus}. In light of familiarity with the biology of the Chilazon, it is clear that the result of reckless collection is drastic and local. In species where the larva stages are like Plankton [Veliger] there isn’t a great impact by local collection. Even total elimination of the local population doesn’t harm in the long run its availability, for immediately after the season of reproduction, a new settlement of larvae comes with water currents from other shores, be they near of far. But in contrast to species that have the swimming stage, Argamoan Khei HaKotzim, hatch from the eggs of molluscs as crawlers that do not swim, rather they complete their life span in the nearby vicinity. Reckless collection eliminates the local population, for new members are not able to quickly resupply the numbers of those that were collected. The restoration of the population is liable to take many years.
The fact that the Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus} does not produce a dense population mass close to the shores of Israel during the course of many years does not stem from the seasonal fluctuations described in the paragraph above, rather they are linked in my opinion, to large scale geological processes. Until the building of the Aswan Dam, there took place a deposition of sand, that was carried from the Nile from the heights of Ethiopia, at a fast pace, primarily to the southern part of the land of Israel. This sand provided the coastal shore with its  characteristic shape, that is to say – wide sandy shores in the south that become more and more narrow, the more we move northward. This fact that the sand is swept from the direction of the south not only influences the quantity of sand that is deposited but also on the size of the particles. In the south of the land, which is near to the sources of the sand, the particles of the sand are big, and the more we move northward the particles become smaller in size. As a result of these processes, the south of the land of Israel developed a shore of accretion (shores where sand collects and the sea retreats to the west). While in the north, erosion shores (rocky shores pierced with holes where erosion of the rock occurs). In all the region where it is present in abundance the Argamoan Khei HaKotzim shows a strong preference for being on a rocky foundation (rock or gravel) {Spanier-Kadmon, and personal observations}. An expression of the difference between the rocky and sandy shorelines of the land of Israel as far as the population of the Argamoan is already found in {rabbinical} sources and indeed the main fishing of the Chilazon of Tekhelet was in the north of the land by the rocky shores – “Yogvim – these are the people that fish {or capture} the Chilazon from the Sulamot of Tzor {literally the Ladders of Tyre} until Haifa” (Shabbat 26a). “He {the Holy One Blessed Be He} said to him {said to Zvulun} all will have need for you, on account of the Chilazon…” (Megilla 6a). The types of Molluscs called Argamoanim {plural of Argamoan}in Hebrew still dwell today by the shore of the tribe of Zvulun (between Tyre and Haifa); therefore in this region is found huge mounds of their shells since they are a by-product of the production of Tekhelet and Argaman in ancient times. It is therefore feasible that the response to this question is linked to the fact that most of the north of the land of Israel is not under our control, and most of the region of the traditional hunters of the Chilazon are found beyond the northern border. In addition the strengthening of the sandy nature of the shores of the land of Israel ever since the time that the use of the Chilazon was frequent; is also an attribute that adds extra support to the opinion that Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus} is the source for  Tekhelet, because of its association with the rocky shores (of the tribal lot of Zvulun}

An additional direction for a solution to this issue is likely to come from archaeological testimonies that describe the spread of the Tekhelet and Argaman dye industries around all of the Mediterranean Sea. It appears that the Phoenicians wandered to different places in order to engage in dyeing. The popular opinion is that they had to change the place of their dye industry because of the development of bothersome odors as a side effect from the production of the dye. In my opinion it is possible that there was an additional  factor and perhaps more important one, namely the increasing scarcity of the Chilazon population around the areas close to the dye industry centers. It is possible that demand for the dye was supplied for, not just by the population of the molluscs near the shores of the land of Israel, rather also by imports from all the Mediterranean Sea basin. The Chilazon “rises up once every seventy years” and the rest of the time there is a need to import them, and therefore, “their blood is expensive”.

One should note that the understanding of Rabbi Herzog that it goes “up once every seventy years” is not like the understanding of Rashi in tractate Megilla page 6. Therefore the explanation of Moshe Raanan is good specifically according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Herzog
Now if we want to explain in accordance to Rashi on Megilla page 6, starting with the words “Al Yaday Chilazon” namely, that the Chilazon rises up from the sea to the mountains, we will explain thus:
For in the {Hebrew} book Nof V’atarim (published by the Defense Ministry) pages 112 and 113 it is  written:

Another phenomenon that necessitates a visit  in the winter to Rosh Hanikra at the time of a storm is the shattering of the waves.  In strong storms, when the speed of the wind reaches up to 60 to 80 kilometers per hour and more, there are cases when the shattering of the waves will lift up the water with the help of the wind beyond the edge of the cliff, that is to say about 35 meters and even more. Waves that raise a man to a height of 20-25 meters are not rare at all.

If so, it is possible that at the time of the Baraita which is brought in tractate Menachot, the Chilazon really did go up to the mountains in that region of northern Israel or on the nearby islands, by force of the sea waves.
And an expert on the region, Mr. Yoram Hadar told me that he saw many [several dozens] of molluscs of Argamoan Adumat Hapeh {the Hebrew name for Purpura Haemastoma} that were thrown on to the shore from the sea, and Moshe Raanan told me that he found one or two Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus Molluscs} in the region.
In the Midrash Tana’im to Deuteronomy 33:19 [and the same general idea is found in Sifri to Deuteronomy, Piska 354 with the words starting with, Davar Acher]  it is written:

    Another interpretation, “For the abundance of the seas, they shall suck” {the literal translation of part of Deuteronomy 33:19} – this is the Chilazon. Rabbi Yosi said, once I was going up from Acco to Jaffa [in Sifri the text states from C’ziv {a place not far from Haifa} to Tyre and  an old man met up by chance with me and inquired after my well-being and then I recognized him and said to him, “my son, how do you make a living”?
He answered by this Chilazon.
I said to him, “is it really present”?
He responded, “Rabbi, By heaven, I state, that there are many places in the sea that it is cast up upon them to the mountains and the creatures called Samimayot encompass it and all that come to take from it, they bite him and he dies and withers away on the spot”.
(Rabbi Yosi answered) “My son, it is apparent that it is set aside for the benefit of the righteous for the future”.

From here we see that the Chilazon goes up not by its own power to the mountains but rather by the power of the sea and this matter definitely changes in accordance to the strength of the sea in different regions.
And regarding the demand that the Chilazon goes up precisely once every seventy years in great quantities, it is possible that this blessing existed specifically in the time when the blessings of the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 33 are in force. And just as in regards to the tribe of Asher, the blessing is not exactly in force today, for it is recounted by the words of Rashi (Deuteronomy 33:24) “that his land would draw forth olive oil like a spring, and there was an incident that the men of Ludkia needed oil and they appointed for them an agent called a Pulmostus [see there in tractate Menachot page 85, for the type of quantities involved), so too, one should assume that the blessing to Zvulun “Nations to the mount shall he call forth, for there, they will sacrifice sacrifices of righteousness, for the abundance of the seas they shall suck and by what is hidden in the secret treasures of the sand” (Deuteronomy 33:19). That is to say that the Chilazon will go up once in seventy years in great quantities in his portion. A blessing which is not precisely fulfilled in our days. And so too did the Radbaz establish that in our time we don’t have the blessing in regards to the Chilazon that it goes up once every seventy years.

12] Its Body Resembles The Sea

The Sages of Blessed Memory established in tractate Menachot page 44 that the body of the Chilazon resembles the sea.
Rabbi Herzog wrote:

“To our disappointment behold this species [ my addition: his intention is the Trunculus ] is not at all aligned to Its Body Resembles The Sea. The color of its body is whitish, dirty, spotted with brown and yellow”. [my addition: according to the Tifferet Yisrael on tractate Bechorot chapter 6 mishna 2, the worm that is inside the shell of the Chilazon is spotted with spots. and so too did the Arukh write and so too it is slightly implied by the words of Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura, tractate Bechorot chapter 6 mishna 2, and now let us return to the words of Rabbi Herzog] “If we will explain, Its Body Resembles The Sea as a description of its its shell, behold its shell is white to tan.
When I asked Baruch Sterman (one of the experts at Amutat P’til Tekhelet, The Association for the Promotion and Distribution of Tekhelet) about this sign,he answered the following.
He claimed, that this is dealing with the biological growth, that is attached to the shell of the Chilazon (for sometimes but not always, the biological growth has a blue or green color) and he explains that the intent of Its Body Resembles The Sea = its body resembles the floor of the sea. For behold in reality the Trunculus mollusc resembles the environment that it is found in and Sterman claimed that in the Hebrew of the Bible and the Talmud, the Hebrew word “Yom” means {at least sometimes} floor of the sea [that is to say, the body of the Chilazon resembles the floor and not necessarily the water of the sea}. He also explained that Rabbi Herzog was not aware of the appearance of the Chilazon when found in nature, rather he saw the shell only after they had removed the biological growth from the mollusc’s shell.
Now by telephone I asked him for proof that the word “Yom” could also be the floor of the sea and he stated two. A] that in the Biblical book of Yishaya 11:9 {Isaiah} it is written “for the earth is filled with the knowledge of G-d like the waters to a sea floor {in Hebrew, Yom} cover”. B] When we talk of the “Yom” of Shlomo, he said the intent is to the framework that holds the water similar to a regular sea, where the sea floor serves as a framework to hold the water.
And similarly I found in the words of Rabbeinu   B’chayei to Genesis 1:10 “the name Yom is not called so, on account of the water, rather it goes on what was dug out, and this is what Unkelos translated: to a house for the collection of water, that is to say  what is dug out, which is the receptacle for the water that gathers there. And so too did scripture state: “like the waters to a sea floor {in Hebrew, Yom} cover”, for the waters that cover what was dug out, is called “Yom”. And so too,  regarding the blessing to the fish and the great sea monsters on the fifth day of creation, the Bible states: “And fill the waters in the sea floors”, it is explained that the waters stand in the sea floors. And an additional proof is the “Yom” that Shlomo made, of which it is written “And the Yom he lowered from the oxen” (II Kings 16:17).
And similar to Rabbeinu Bachayei’s words I found in the words of Ramban (Genesis 1:10).
“Because the ground of the collection {of water} (a second  text substitutes water instead of collection) is called Yom, as it is written “like the waters to a sea floor {in Hebrew, Yom} cover“. [However, one should note that at least the Malbim did not explain the word Yom in the way that Ramban did.]

Now I will admit the truth. The Chafetz Chaim’s version of the text is that the body of the Chilazon resembles Tekhelet and the Chafetz Chaim did not use the text that says it “resembles the Yom, {sea or sea floor}”. However Rabbi Yosef Kapach testified (in his comment to Hilchot Tzitzit chapter 2, Yad Chazaka, the edition of Machon Mishnat HaRambam) that all the old manuscripts of the Rambam have established that its color resembles the sea (or sea floor). As so too did the author of Sefer HaChinuch write that “its body resembles the Yom {sea or sea floor}.
Afterwards I thought of a question against the explanation that I wrote that its body resembles the Yom= the sea floor. For we find that the Talmud also states that Tekhelet resembles the Yom and also the sky. This implies that the intention of the word Yom, there in the Talmud is to the color blue specifically and if so, there is more room to claim that also regarding the body of the Chilazon the Talmud is talking specifically about the color blue.
Now I found in Tractate Tzitzit, [that has a version of the text which opposes the text that is found in Tractate Menachot, on the issue of whether the sages hold that the lack of Tekhelet holds back the usage of white {non-Tekhelet} threads] “the Chilazon, to what does it resemble? Its structure {or origin} resembles a fish and its body resembles the sky”. According to this version of the text, it is clear that we should demand that the Chilazon have the appearance of the color that appears in the sky and not just the color of whatever appears on the sea floor.
Sterman responded to me that there is no creature in the world that can fulfill all the different opinions. For example, he said that according to the Zohar, the Chilazon is found in the Kinneret (water that lacks salt) but according to Rambam it is found in salt water {of the sea}. I understood from him that he holds that the correct textual version and the majority opinion of the sages fit with the characteristics of the Argamoan Khei HaKotzim {Trunculus}.
Now if, despite the opinion of Sterman, we wish to explain that the Chilazon resembles the water of the sea, just as Tekhelet resembles the water of the sea, we should still discuss whether the color of the Chilazon’s body is so vital that anything lacking this color is invalid for the commandment.
For behold the raven, is described by the Talmud, tractate Nida 20A, as a bird with a certain type of black color, which can be used to determine whether something is pure or impure, regarding the laws dealing with a menstruant woman. And so too did Rambam rule (Issurei Biah 5:9). Yet from the words of the author of “Torah Temima” on Leviticus 11:15 we learn that there is a type of raven which has a deep white appearance. From here we see that the Talmud can describe a creature as being black even though a minority has a different color. Now perhaps this is so for the Chilazon. That even though the majority has the color that resembles the sea not all of them resemble the sea.
Rabbi Tendler wrote explicitly in “Tekhelet Mitzvah B’hitchadshuta” [page 28], that there are only 2 signs that hold back the mitzva from the Torah. 1] The ability to produce the color similar to indigo 2] That the Tekhelet comes from a sea mollusc.
Further one should add, that Rabbi Nachum {Norman} Lamm wrote (“Tekhelet Mitzvah B’hitchadshuta”, page 22) “perhaps that which is invalid for Tekhelet is that which does not come from a mollusc at all, such as Kala Ilan; however, when it comes from a mollusc even if it doesn’t come from the mollusc of which the Torah intended, nevertheless, it is Kosher, for behold it still comes from a Chilazon (mollusc). And on page 25 book of Rabbi Burshtein’s, “HaTekhelet” comment 3, the Rabbi wrote that “perhaps from there {Yerushalmi Kila’im 9:1} we just need a living creature and not specifically a Chilazon or any other special type of creature”. And on page 433 the words of Rabbi Takutzinski author of Ir Hakodesh V’hamikdash are brought: on the topic:

    “And so when the rabbinic genius, the chief Rabbi, (Shlit”a) [ZT”L] has the color of Tekhelet by virtue of the unique finished look of Kala Ilan, and if the Chilazon becomes clear that it is the true one (in his words that he said to me in one of his letters that the name Chilazon is a general name that includes different molluscs, that by means of this one can settle the differences of the texts that we find in regard to the reality of the Chilazon, in accordance to our words previously in section 5) – it is possible to assume that a solution will be found also  for the question of the Avneit that I have had so much difficulty with…”

Now it is possible that all the discussion that I have brought above is hypothetical; for my hypothesis based on the research of John Edmonds who attempted to reconstruct the old method of dyeing with the blood of the Chilazon, is that in reality the body of the Trunculus mollusc resembles the sea as simply understood.
How?
In Edmond’s article, he explains that there are a number of colors for the blood [blood being an inexact expression used by me to describe the dye material] of the Trunculus mollusc (as I brought above a little bit concerning this subject). He explained that just when the blood of the Trunculus mollusc is in the green stage is it good by natural means for dyeing. However, since very quickly after the blood is extracted from the body of the mollusc it develops to a stage of a blackish color which is no longer good for dyeing (by natural means); and since on a commercial basis it was difficult to put large amounts of the Chilazon blood on the wool before it reaches the blackish stage, there was a need to process the blackish blood in some way to get it back to the green stage where it would be good for dyeing.
Edmonds took the body of a different species   of molluscs called Cockles and with the help of bacteria, the body of the mollusc at the end of treatment was used to affect the blackish blood of the Trunculus mollusc [which he received from “The Association for the Promotion and Distribution of Tekhelet” {Agudat P’til Tekhelet}] to transform it back to the green stage. And with the green blood he dyed Tekhelet on wool strings.
Based on his research I guess that in the distant past they took the body of the Trunculus mollusc and transformed the body with the help of bacteria to the color of the sea, and by virtue of the “body resembling the color of the sea” they were able to get green Trunculus blood [which is good for dyeing] from all the blackish blood that was in their possession.
Now I will admit that at this stage according to the tests that I performed, the Tekhelet produced by Edmonds is not so durable. [Either because he didn’t use the body of the Trunculus mollusc, but rather a different species of mollusc or because a stage of his dye process was missing or faulty). But nevertheless, I hypothesize that if we invest energy into researching the issue we can at the end reach a durable Tekhelet that somehow resembles the current dye process of Edmonds.
Now if the reader of this article is stubborn enough to demand blood from a Chilazon whose body is naturally [without the help of bacteria] the color of the sea, one can respond that I know that in some of the molluscs that were classified as the Purpur fish by the Greeks, there are molluscs that at least part of them have shells whose color resembles the sea and sky in a literal way.
Now if we can extract Tekhelet from them that succeeds to pass the Tekhelet tests of the Talmud, then even Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger [head of “The Association for the Promotion and Distribution of Tekhelet” {Agudat P’til Tekhelet}] admits that such Tekhelet would be kosher for use for Tzitzit [in addition to the Tekhelet from the Trunculus mollusc].
One should comment’ that the mollusc, which in the end Rabbi Herzog noted as the Chilazon mollusc for Tekhelet, namely, the Janthina, does in truth have a body that resembles the sea. However, regarding this mollusc, there remains at least three strong questions which makes it difficult to identify the Janthina with the Chilazon used for the Tekhelet dye.
1 When Shaul Kaplan who dyes with the Janthina, demonstrated his dye process before me, I saw that he succeeded to frighten the Janthina to release “his dark blue blood” for the needs of dyeing by means of a needle, without killing it. [The Talmud however, tells us that one who hunts or fishes the Chilazon and breaks it open {to extract the dye material} on the Sabbath is liable to one sin offering and not two, since though it is  inevitable that the Chilazon dies while removing the dye material,  since it is an undesired consequence, it is not considered as the prohibited labor of taking life {Psik Reisha D’Lo Neicha Lei}. If the Janthina is the Chilazon, the Talmud should not say that it is inevitable that the Chilazon dies when extracting the dye material.] 2 From Rashi to Deuteronomy 33:19 and so too in the Sifri, it is implied that the Chilazon of Tekhelet lives while it is covered and buried in the sand of the sea. The Janthina floats on the surface of the sea and can not live in the sand underneath the water [Kaplan responded that we are dealing with Chilazon molluscs that were washed up by a storm on to the sandy shore.] 3 I have no information that the Romans called the Janthina by the name of Purpur fish [however, Kaplan says that there is another non-Jewish name for the Chilazon, namely, the Yakinton, that he believes is somewhat similar to the name Janthina].
Rabbi Kosman at least, holds that it is possible to find answers to the questions I raised, and in his opinion both the Trunculus and the Janthina are Kosher {for Tzitzit} if the Tekhelet produced from their blood is durable and can pass the chemical tests for Tekhelet of the Talmud. He holds that just as there are several types of gold [see Yoma 44b], and all of them have the status of gold, so too, there are several types of Tekhelet.

14 What is Kala Ilan?
Rabbi Burshtein wrote in his book “Hatekhelet” that Arukh defined the term Kala Ilan as “Indico”. A matter which recalls to us the famous indigo dye that has lasted for an extended period of time. (In our days they create it mainly from synthetic materials). But the source of the indigo dye is not clear. They assume that two plants served as the source for the ancient dye: Isatis Tinctora and Indigofera Tinctora called Neel in Arabic.
The reasons to assume such:
1] Rabbi Burshtein brought that in the responsa of the Gaonim from the Geniza ‘Geonika Leginsburg‘ where it is written (Volume II, page 333 line 11) that Kala Ilan in Arabic is called Neel.
In addition Rabbi Burshtein brought a comment #180 in the Fysh Edition to Midrash HaGadoal, Numbers 15:38. That brings a translation that Kala Ilan is Neel.
2] Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura [Bartenura is a place in Italy] to tractate Kilayim chapter 2, mishna 5 wrote on the word Isatis (or according to some translators, the word is pronounced here as Istis). “Its color resembles Tekhelet and they call it in Arabic by the name Neel and in a different foreign language by the name ‘Indico’ .And it is usual to cut it and it grows back again, and what grows back the second time is called ‘Sefiach’ “.
Now in the commentary to the Arukh of Meir Meizlish he explained that in the Italian language Indico is equivalent to what would be called Indigo in other languages.
3] Rambam recounts Isatis as an example of a substitute for Tekhelet: “And all that is not dyed with that type of dye is invalid for Tzitzit even though it has the appearance of the sky, for example, that they dyed it with Isatis or other dark dyes – behold it is invalid (Hilchot Tztitzit 2:1). And it is reasonable to assume that he didn’t use the expression of the Talmud, Kala Ilan, for in Rambam’s time they called the source for the forgery of Tekhelet by the name of Isatis.
4] Rabbi Burshtein brought two halachic responses of Rambam in the Blau Edition part 1, siman 91 that translates Indian Neel as Indian Isatis. This implies to me that there are at least two types of Neel. The regular Isatis and the Isatis from India corresponding to what Rabbi Burshtein brought earlier that “they assume that two plants served as the source for the ancient dye: Isatis Tinctora and Indigofera Tinctora called Neel in Arabic”.
5] In the Tifferet Yisrael Commentary to tractate Kilayim chapter 2 mishna 5, the author explained that Isatis – Weiderkroit [or Voiderkroit] that they make from it “Indig” [I assume that is the same as Indigo].
6] In the responsa of the Radbaz, part 2, siman 685, Radbaz writes, the dye that resembles Tekhelet which is very common, that is to say Isatis, which is called in Arabic, Neel and they dye it in the fashion of craftsmanship where it is not removed even when  ironed.{or cleaned thoroughly}.
7] Rabbi Burshtein brought the words of Rabbi Herzog who wrote: the word Kala Ilan, it appears to me, is testimony of direct commercial contact between our forefathers in the land of Israel and the countries of India. Kala in Sanskrit tells us:  the deep blue color which is called “Indiga” in European languages. Ilan is as it is understood simply {Hebrew for} a tree. The word tells us that it is Kala which is made from a tree, to exclude the deep blue that is made from non-living materials [such as “Ancient Blue”, “Egyptian Blue”, Alexandrian Blue”]. By paying attention to the fact that the plant that gives out the “Indiga Dye” reaches the height of 5 English Feet (about 1 and a half meters) we should not be astonished by the fact that the nation nicknamed it as a tree. (See for example: Succah 35, Rashi starting with the words “Vechayavim B’Orlah” and Yerushalmi, Kilayim, chapter 5, Halacha 8)”.
One must admit that a minority of the commentators wrote differently than Rabbi Burshtein’s opinion (such as, Sefer Haeshkol, that wrote that Kala Ilan comes from a living creature), but my underlying assumption is that Rabbi Burshtein was correct.

With samples received from her created in Jewish year 5759 (1999) the sample that was dipped in this dye material one time was blue-gray and very light. The sample that was dipped twice had a stronger blue color and the sample that was dipped six times had a very dark appearance. Most of the tests of wool dipped in Isatis were with wool dipped once or twice in the dye material, because of this I had a big supply.
With samples that I have from Y. Safrai of Indigo from Jewish year 5761 (2001) [that were pasted to a page of paper in order to show me the difference in color between one dipping in Indigo and 6 dippings] all the samples that were pasted to the page, even those that were dipped 6 times had turned white. [And there are other old samples that she sent me that today look green as leeks (called Carti in the Mishna).
In those samples that turned white over the years, she explained that she dyed them in the following way

1. I took off the leaves
2. I put them into water for 3 days.
3. I strained the water to remove the leaves
4. I put the wool into the blue water every time for about an hour
   She added: “This is a direct method. There are other methods to preserve the dye material. I am still not expert in them.

Through the generosity of Yehudit Safrai, I received samples of naturally dyed indigo and Isatis. She dyed her “Kala Ilan” by methods that were available to the ancient world.

In the beginning I started to test in accordance to Rashi’s viewpoint.
I discovered that according to the more simpler understanding of Rashi, the first test of Tekhelet didn’t succeed to have an influence on the wool sample that was dyed with Isatis that I soaked in the materials of the test for twelve hours from evening to morning. The sample was covered after the test with some external dirtiness, that departed after I washed it lightly in water. And even without washing the sample at all, I believe that I once checked to see what would happen and the sample in fact improved after I checked it with the second Tekhelet test (baking it in barley dough that is hard and moldy).
To be more specific, I tested my samples with the urine of an adult that had aged 40 days and also on a different occasion with urine of a child aged 40 days (from the time it left the person’s body) together with Chilba [ Fenugreek ] Tea and also cold water mixed with Chilba/Fenugreek powder, together with Alum.
In one experiment, the test succeeded to slightly affect for the worse, the color of the Isatis sample and the Trunculus Tekhelet. This occurred on two separate occasions by using urine that came from a baby who was born 40 days earlier together with the other ingredients that I mentioned previously. However both the Isatis and the Tekhelet improved in the second test.
Before I gave up hope in trying to decipher the tests in accordance to Rashi’s viewpoint, I tried to test if by changing the type of Alum I used to Cubic Alum, hoping this might change the results of my tests. However, I saw that changing from regular Alum to Cubic Alum had no impact on the results and I should add that even when I checked a sample of Radzin Tekhelet (Prussian Blue) with this solution, it also passed the test.
It is self-evident, that perhaps I made a mistake during one of the stages of the experiment and perhaps there is a way to test Tekhelet according to Rashi’s viewpoint, however, this is above my capabilities.
Afterwards I decided to experiment using Rambam’s version of the tests, however, I had a doubt if the ingredient liquid or mucus of a “Shablul” in his test is to be interpreted in the most simple manner, that is to say as a snail or perhaps Rambam was referring to Chilba/Fenugreek tea, that after strong boiling in water, the tea looks a bit like mucus. I also had a doubt whether to use the urine aged for 40 days  from an adult or from a small child. I also had a doubt if the straw in Rambam’s test is to be interpreted in the most simplest manner (and if it so which part of the wheat stalk should be taken) or perhaps that this is referring to the stem of the Chilba / Fenugreek plant, which in the past they called by the name, Greek Hay.
In my first experiment to try to recreate Rambam’s version of the Tekhelet tests of the Talmud,  I used Chilba / Fenugreek Tea and water mixed with Chilba / Fenugreek powder, urine of an adult, aged  for 40 days and wheat bran [ I believe I also added a wild growing plant that appeared to me to be wheat ] .
In this experiment I placed all the ingredients together at the very beginning (when the urine was fresh) but I waited until day 40 until doing the Tekhelet test.
For this experiment I used 5 different samples

1. A new sample of Trunculus Tekhelet which I bought from Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet}. The sample was dark blue with a slight tint towards purple.
2. An old sample of Trunculus Tekhelet which I bought from Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet} that had already been washed with soap or detergent several times and at the very start was medium blue [ that is to say bright blue] .
3. In addition I used a sample that I obtained from a non-Jewish dye expert, John Edmonds. His sample was dyed with the “blood” from the Trunculus mollusc, but not by modern methods. Rather by rotting the body of a mollusc called Cockles [because he didn’t have the body of a Trunculus mollusc available]. The rotted body of the Cockles mollusc changed the black or near-black “blood” of the Trunculus mollusc back to the color green, which is good for dyeing purposes. Go to section 5] The Color of the “Blood” of Chilazon for some more background information about the blood of the mollusc. I should also point out that John Edmonds Tekhelet dye weakens even when just boiled in water.
4. I also tested a sample of Radzin Tekhelet.
5. I also used a sample of Isatis.

After soaking all the samples for 24 hours I discovered that almost all the dye was removed from the Radzin sample, but after washing with water and exposure to air – much of the color slowly returned. John Edwards very light blue Tekhelet, the Isatis sample and my old Tekhelet sample {sample #2 on the list of 5 samples mentioned above} acquired a greenish-blue look to a certain degree, that didn’t go away with a mild wash in water. [The Edmonds sample was the worst of the three] Sample #1 remained blue but it appeared to me that the intensity of its blue color was weakened.
Afterwards I tried several possible explanations of Rambam’s second Tekhelet test.

1. Baking in a liquid batter of barley dough that had gone very stale [in contrast to Rashi’s test where the dough is hard or has some strong leaven within the dough].
2. I also baked the samples in barley dough mixed with fish brine or fish jelly.
3. I also baked in dough kneaded with salt water (two parts salt and a third water).

The Isatis as well as both samples of Tekhelet by Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet} improved. Radzin Tekhelet failed again and lost its color.
Afterwards on another occasion, I made another experiment involving the 5 types of samples mentioned above. However, this time I used urine of a 5 year old boy {aged for forty days} together with the other ingredients. On this occasion samples from Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet} passed the first Tekhelet test while Isatis failed and of course, Radzin Tekhelet failed, but the Radzin dye did not fade to the same extent as it did when I had used adult urine {but on the other hand less color returned after exposure to the air}. In this test also the John Edmonds Tekhelet failed.
In still another experiment, I received from Moshe Raanan’s assistant in Michlala of Bayit Vegan, the mucus of a large snail called in Hebrew, “Shablul” Africani.
The following is a link to how the snail looked like, more or less http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/20122005/967159/ngs26_0096_g_wa.jpg
In addition I used straw obtained from a straw broom and I used urine of an adult aged 40 days. The Tekhelet of Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet} , and the Radzin Tekhelet strings as well as the Isatis sample all passed the first test after I soaked these samples in the ingredients for 24 hours.
On the next day I added Wheat Germ to the ingredients of the experiment {used the day earlier} and I soaked new samples within the mixture. This time the test made Radzin Tekhelet fail , but did not affect Tekhelet of Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet} nor the Isatis {after a weak rinsing in cold water}.
After this test, I heard that Rabbi Yosef Rothstein had succeeded in making  Tekhelet from a combination of 91% “blood” from Murex Brandaris and only 9% from the “blood” of the Trunculus mollusc.
I tested his Tekhelet with urine from an adult aged 40 days and in a separate experiment with urine from a child. Together with the urine I used Chilba / Fenugreek Tea and water mixed with Chilba/Fenugreek powder and wheat germ. And it appears to me that also his Tekhelet was weakened a bit.
At this stage I want to make additional experiments before I come to definite conclusions.
I should note that in a different experiment  that I performed with urine from a child that left the child’s body 40 days earlier, together with Chilba / Fenugreek Tea and wheat germ, it seemed that even the Tekhelet of Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet}was slightly damaged, that the intensity of the strength of the blue color weakened and in one sample, there appeared a small bit of green together with the general blue appearance of the wool.
Now it is possible that the reason for the change in results where sometimes Amutat P’til Tekhelet passes the first test and sometimes not, was because of the state of the urine in the various experiments (for example, change in the amount of exposure to light  during the 40 day period or the influence of weather conditions) as I somewhat alluded to previously by my quotation from tractate Nida page 63. Another possible explanation is that in this latter experiment I didn’t add wild wheat or pure straw to the mixture, but rather I just relied on the wheat germ by itself.
Another important point that for now I don’t have an immediate answer: Is the test which I call the Rambam test capable of weakening all samples of Indigo and Isatis that were dyed by natural means or perhaps a sample that was dyed several times with indigo and is dark blue might actually have the capability of passing the test?
I hope that my words will bring others to make a thorough examination of all these issues.
On the sixth of Nissan 5764 {spring of secular year 2004) I made one last attempt to try to answer some of the questions raised by my previous tests before publicizing the results. I performed three separate experiments testing a dark blue (but not very dark) indigo sample. In the first experiment I placed the indigo sample  in urine of an adult aged for 40 days which also had within it straw from a straw broom for a 40 day period. I added to this wild growing wheat [at least that’s how it looked to me] on the day of the test, Chilba / Fenugreek tea and ground Chilba {Fenugreek}. The Chilba was only coarsely ground, and I don’t know if all of it came from the seed of the Fenugreek plant or if part of my Chilba/Fenugreek material was also from other parts of the plant. The Chilba I should point out was also placed into the above mixture on the day of the test.
For experiment #2 I placed the indigo sample within the urine of an adult aged 40 days: wheat bran, and straw that I placed in the mixture just on the day of the experiment. This in addition to Chilba/Fenugreek Tea and Chilba/Fenugreek powder which was only coarsely ground, and I don’t know if all of it came from the seed of the Fenugreek plant or if part of my Chilba/Fenugreek material was also from other parts of the plant.The Chilba I should point out was also placed into the above mixture on the day of the test.
For experiment #3 I placed the indigo sample in urine from an adult aged 40 days together with Chilba/Fenugreek Tea and Chilba/Fenugreek powder which was only coarsely ground, and I don’t know if all of it came from the seed of the Fenugreek plant or if part of my Chilba/Fenugreek material was also from other parts of the plant. The Chilba I should point out was also placed into the above mixture on the day of the test. In this last experiment I didn’t add any other materials.
In all three experiments that I performed on the sixth of Nissan I soaked the samples for 24 hours.
The results in all 3 tests were that the indigo and the Tekhelet string from Amutat P’til Tekhelet {The Society for the Promotion of Tekhelet}became less purely blue and failed the first test.
[Reminder: ONLY A FAILURE IN BOTH TEKHELET TESTS OF THE TALMUD INVALIDATES THE SAMPLE]

An Introduction

There are Rishonim, such as, Rambam, that ruled that one thread out of the eight (after it has been tied) will be Tekhelet and the rest will be white (or other colors).

    There are Rishonim such as,  Meiri, who held that two out of the eight threads be Tekhelet.

    Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, Rosh and Baal Ha’itur, and more, held that four out of the 8 threads be Tekhelet.

    Rabbi Tzvi (Hershel) Schachter established that for practical halachic purposes the ruling is four out of eight threads.

    As sources for  his opinion he brought Mishna Brura, Chapter 9, siman katan 7 and the author of the Shulchan Aruch, to chapter 12, siman 1, on the matter of torn threads, who brought the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam*, as halacha, that we always use two threads of Tekhelet and two of white [before tying them into 8]. And so too, see the Mishna Brura, Chapter 9, siman katan 14, in the name of the Malbim, that with two threads [before tying] that are like the garment  and two threads that are made from wool, he has done properly, for there are two separate parts to the commandment regarding Tzitzit, two strings of white and two strings of Tekhelet.

    *In my humble opinion, although Mishna Brura rules that two out of four strings be Tekhelet, he leans more towards Rashi’s view on why  two Tekhelet strings should be used and not Rabbeinu Tam’s view [see comment #11 of the Mishna Brura to O.C. chapter 12].

    Also the Tur and the Chazon Ish (and in the view of the Beit Yosef {Rabbi Yosef Karo}, even the Raavad) stated that we should make the strings of Tekhelet in accordance to the amount mandated by Rashi and Tosafot {Rabbeinu Tam was one of the Tosafot} and so too does the author of Aruch Hashulchan {Rabbi Epstein}  lean (but not in an absolute way). However, I must admit the truth, that currently, from what I see on the street, the majority (who are in actual way using Tekhelet) seem to be going by Meiri’s viewpoint and in accordance to the textual version of Raavad’s critiques of Rambam that we have (namely 2 out of 8). And some important Rabbis (for example, Rabbi Dov Lior, Shlit”a) act in accordance with Rambam’s viewpoint.

Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger, Shlit”a wrote:

    On the question of the position of our Rabbi, the Gaon of Vilna, on this issue, we seemingly have a great confusion. In three places our Rabbi relates to the subject, regarding the number of strings of Tekhelet, and in each one, he expresses a different opinion. In his commentary to Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 12:5) he holds like the view of Rashi and Tosafot and shows support for their views from various sections of the Gemara and Sifri. In his commentary to Safra Dtsniuta (chapter 5, on the words Shiva Rehitin) he explains in accordance to Rambam, and in his commentary to the Zohar, Yahel Ohr (Parshat Pinchas 228b), he explains according to Raavad’s opinion {comment: that in his critiques of the Rambam, it is written in the texts that we have, that we use 2 Tekhelet strings out of the 8) and he writes that viewpoint that should be accepted is as he {Raavad} says.

For Rabbi Eliyahu Tevger’s explanation for the contradiction within the words of the Vilna Gaon, see the internet article in Hebrew at http://tekhelet.com/pdf/hagra.pdf . But in my humble opinion, there is another way to explain the words of the Vilna Gaon.
In the commentary of Tifferet Yisrael to Menachot Chapter 4, the author of Tifferet Yisrael establishes:
“That it is a mitzva to put on the each corner 4 strings. One or two strings of Tekhelet and the rest white. But if all of them were white or all of them were Tekhelet, he has fulfilled his obligation”.
Now it appears to me that in the opinion of Tifferet Yisrael there is an option either to use one Tekhelet string or two. For in his opinion, from the verse “G’dillim {a Hebrew term defined by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan as, bound or doubled tassels} you shall make for yourself”, we learn just that there is an obligation to put 4 strings (before tying into 8) on every corner. But we don’t learn from this verse at all, how many strings out of the 4 have to be Tekhelet.
And if so it is possible to fulfill the obligation of the verse “and the corner is a P’til {a Hebrew term to be defined later on}of Tekhelet”, either by one string of Tekhelet or by two.
Now many ask, how is it possible that P’til  of  Tekhelet be more than one string, for seemingly, there would have been a need to write P’tilei {which denotes the plural form of P’til} if the intent was for two?
Now one can respond that this is an ancient dispute. For Beit Hillel and seemingly Targum Unkelos to Numbers 15:38 indeed held that P’til= a string. However, Beit Shammai (and the halacha is in accordance with Beit Shammai on this matter) and the Targum Yerushalmi explain that P’til = a twisted ply as shown in the attached picture (and does not instruct us on the amount of Tekhelet strings that we should use).

I partially unravelled a Tekhelet string for this picture to show that each Tekhelet string is a twisted ply.

And so too, Rashi in his commentary to the Torah (Exodus 39:31) proves that the term P’til Tekhelet is not limited specifically to one string. Now here is a translated quote:
“And do not be surprised that it didn’t say {in the text that discusses the strings that fasten certain garments of the Temple priesthood} P’tilei Tekhelet {which more simply denotes multiple strings} since they are multiple {strings}, for behold we have found regarding the breastplate and the Ephod –‘They laced the breastplate … with a P’til Tekhelet‘ (Exodus 39:21) and you are compelled to agree that there were not less than two, for behold at the two edges of the breastplate were two rings of the breastplate and on the two shoulders of the Ephod, that were opposite them, and according to the way of tying, there were four strings, but in any case less than two is not possible”, {end of quote.}

that appears in the section describing the mitzvah of Tzitzit (Numbers 15:39)

where the word Oto is either defined in English as the word, it or as the word, him, although it is in the singular form, still is not a proof that one should use only one string of Tekhelet, for our Sages used  this word to derive the Torah’s viewpoint on other issues regarding Tzitzit {not connected to the issue of how many Tekhelet strings to use}.
Therefore it appears to me, that as far as the absolute truth is concerned, the Vilna Gaon held that it is sufficient to use one string out of the four {before tying} for Tekhelet, however because there is an option similar to the viewpoint of the Tifferet Yisrael to use either one or two, for practical halachic action, we are obligated to be stringent in accordance to the views of Rashi and Tosafot (who demand that two out of the four strings be Tekhelet).

In the commentary of the Rosh on the Torah in the book Hadar Z’kainim, at the end of Parshat Shelach it is written:
And I heard that the windings for each corner be 3 sets of 9 windings and the last set of 12 windings. The three sets of 9 windings and the 1 set of twelve windings = 39 which has the same numeric value as the words G-d is one. Furthermore I have heard that the sum of all the windings and sets of windings called Chulyot and knots and strings = 248, like the limbs of a man, and check and find if you are proficient in numbers: 4 * 39 = 156, and 5 knots and 4 Chulyot and 8 strings behold this is equal to 23***; if so if we multiply 4 * 23 we arrive at the sum 248.
*** Now this needs further investigation for we need another 6 to reach the number 23; now it is possible that we can complete the number in the following manner: 5 double knots which behold is 10 + 8 strings + 4 chulyot + the hole in the garment to which they are tied = 23 or perhaps one can reach the number 23 by counting the G’dil (the upper third of the strings of the Tzitzit) instead of counting the hole.
Now in Hilchot Ketanot, Hilchot Tzitzit of the Rosh, printed in the back of tractate Menachot in point # 15 it is written:
“Tekhelet wrapped around the majority of the length of the strings is kosher. And even if he just wrapped one Chulya {singular of Chulyot} it is kosher. And the beautiful fulfillment of the mitzvah of Tekhelet is a third Gedil and two thirds Anaf {that is that one third of the length of the strings are tied and wrapped together and two thirds of the length is loose as separate strings}. Now, what is the measurement for a Chulya {set of windings}? It was taught that Rebbe says, so that one can wind {around the other strings} and repeat this a second time and a third time. It was taught in a Baraita one who wishes to do less should not do less than 7 and one that wishes to add should not do more than 13. One should not do less than 7 in correspondence to the 7 heavens. and one should not add more than 13 in contrast to 7 heavens and the 6 spaces {or atmospheres} between them. It was taught in a Baraita, one begins with the white and ends with white, one goes up in holiness and does not lower it. Now it seems that specifically when there is Tekhelet do we have to be scrupulous about the number of Chulyot. For the Tekhelet is recognized by the Chulyot and resembles the heaven {or sky} and the white resembles the spaces {or atmospheres} between each heaven. However in our times that we lack Tekhelet we do not have to be scrupulous about the number of Chulyot {as defined by Rebbe earlier, these are sets of three windings} and for this reason we do not have to knot  the strings to differentiate between each of the Chulyot, for such or knotting is to recognize the number of Chulyot. And as far as making 5 knots, we have not found a support for this; for in the days of the sages they would make at the very least 7 knots. As it was stated, “one who wishes to do less should not do less than 7” and upon each Chulya {set}, a knot. But if we will explain that the obligation to tie that was stated,  refers to one set of white together with one set of Tekhelet, then we will find a basis for the 5 knots. For at the beginning one ties a knot close to the corner of the garment and then wraps a Chulya {set} of white and a Chulya of Tekhelet and then ties another knot, behold there are now 2 knots. Then another white and another Tekhelet which is then tied with a knot, behold there are now three. And still another white and another Tekhelet, which is then tied with a knot, behold this is a total of 4. Then one ends with white alone and ties a knot and behold there are 5. Now Rashi commented that in regards to what they said that the mitzva of Tzitzit is equivalent to all the commandments, the reason being is that the Gematria {numerical value of the letters} of the word Tzitzit equals 600 which together with 8 strings and 5 knots comes to the value of 613 {the total number of Torah commandments}.
Now on first glance there is a contradiction between the words of the Rosh in Hadar Z’kainim {which I quoted at the beginning} and his words in Hilchot Ketanot.
Now in my humble opinion one can explain this in one of two ways.
If the words of the Rosh on the Torah were stated after his words in Hilchot Ketanot, one could explain that the Rosh discovered that indeed there is a strong basis for the words of our sages that one should tie Tzitzit with 5 knots (also in the time that Tekhelet exists}. For behold the Zohar and so too the Targum, Yonatan Ben Uziel \ Targum Yerushalmi on the end of Parshat Shelach, obligate us to tie 5 knots. And so too, did Midrash Tanchuma write in accordance with Rashi’s view that the Gematria of the word Tzitzit together with 8 strings and 5 knots equals 613.
After the Rosh saw that there was room to establish the custom of 5 knots, he decided that it is fitting to combine the custom with the simple wording of the Talmud. That is to say that the first and last Chulya {set} be white and that there should be a total of 7 Chulyot {sets} of Tekhelet, corresponding to the 7 heavens and 6 Chulyot {sets} of white corresponding to the empty spaces {or atmospheres}.
And it is possible to tie in the following way in order to fulfill all the required numbers:
1] A double knot close to the corner of the garment, a Chulya of white, a Chulya of Tekhelet and then another Chulya of white.
2] A double knot, a Chulya of Tekhelet, a Chulya of white, and a Chulya of Tekhelet.
3] A double knot, a Chulya of Tekhelet, a Chulya of white, and a Chulya of Tekhelet.
4] A double knot, a Chulya of Tekhelet, a Chulya of white, and a Chulya of Tekhelet followed with a final Chulya of white.
5] A double knot
Or else, even if we say that the words of the Rosh in Hilchot Ketanot come after his commentary to the Torah, it is possible to say that the Rosh himself, was not convinced that there is an obligation to tie with 5 knots. But his rabbis were convinced. So the Rosh, though he did not find a strong proof to support the words of his rabbis also did not find a reason to oppose the words of his rabbis.