White or Blue - What should you do? בענין התכלת וקלא אילן

The Sages taught: This ḥilazon, which is the source of the sky-blue dye used in ritual fringes, has the following characteristics: Its body resembles the sea, its form resembles that of a fish, it emerges once in seventy years, and with its blood one dyes wool sky-blue for ritual fringes. It is scarce, and therefore it is expensive.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: There is no mitzva, however minor, that is written in the Torah, for which there is no reward given in this world; and in the World-to-Come I do not know how much reward is given. Go and learn from the following incident concerning the mitzva of ritual fringes.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about tekhelet from all other types of colors such that it was chosen for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is because tekhelet is similar in its color to the sea, and the sea is similar to the sky, and the sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10), indicating that the sky is like a sapphire brickwork. And it is written: “The likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Ezekiel 1:26).

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: The punishment for not attaching white strings is greater than the punishment for not attaching sky-blue strings, despite the fact that the sky-blue strings are more important. Rabbi Meir illustrates this with a parable: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a king of flesh and blood who said to his two subjects that they must bring him a seal. The king said to one of them: Bring me a seal of clay, and he said to the other one: Bring me a seal of gold. And both of them were negligent and did not bring the seals. Which of them will have a greater punishment? You must say that it is this one to whom he said: Bring me a seal of clay, and despite its availability and low cost, he did not bring it.

The absence of the sky-blue [tekhelet] strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva of ritual fringes with the white strings, and the absence of white strings does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the sky-blue strings. If one has only one, he wears it without the other.

One would have thought that since each one of these parts do not require their counterpart, each one would be a separate commandment. As with their saying (Menachot 38a), "The tekhelet is not impeded by the white, and the white is not impeded by the tekhelet" [...]

This is if we had not found a clear statement from them in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Yishmael. It says there, "One might have thought that the command of white and of blue are two commandments. The verse, 'It shall for you as tzitzit,' teaches that it is one commandment and not two commandments."

So it has been already made clear to you that even parts that do not impede one another sometimes constitute one commandment - when their content is singular. For the intention of the tzitzit, is "in order that you should remember" (Numbers 15:40). If so - that the principle of the required thing is the remembering - it is counted as one commandment.

(3) Thus, this mitzvah contains two commandments: to make a tassel on the fringe [of a garment], and to wind a strand of techelet around the tassel. [Both these dimensions are indicated by Numbers 15:38, which] states: "And you shall make tassels... and you shall place on the tassels of the corner a strand of techelet."

(4) The [absence of] techelet does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the white strands, nor does the [absence of] the white strands prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] techelet. What is implied? A person who does not have techelet should make [tzitzit] from white strands alone. Similarly, if [tzitzit] were made from both white strands and techelet, and afterwards, the white strands snapped and were reduced until [they did not extend beyond] the corner [of the garment], and thus only the techelet remained, it is acceptable.

(5) Although the [absence of] one does not prevent [the mitzvah from being fulfilled with] the other, they are not considered as two mitzvot, but instead, they are a single mitzvah. The Sages of the early generations (Sifre Zuta) related: [Numbers 15:39 states:] "And it shall be tzitzit for you." This teaches that they (the white and blue strings) are both one mitzvah.

(Note: This explains why in Sefer HaMitzvot Positive Commandment 14, he only lists the mitzva of wearing tzitzit on a four cornered garment, because having techelet is one of the details of the same mitzva.)

Let the Merciful One write only: “You shall not wear diverse kinds.” Why do I need it to say “wool and linen”?

It is written: “Neither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds mingled together” (Leviticus 19:19), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since the word garments is stated in the Torah unmodified (without stating from what materials those garments were made), and the verse specified in one of the places [that is says garments - in connection to tzara'at]: “A woolen garment or a linen garment” (Leviticus 13:47), so too, all other [garments mentioned in the Torah] are wool or linen.

Why do we need the phrase: “Wool and linen” (in relation to sha'atnez) from the Torah? Learn from this that [the superfluous passage] is free. (Therefore we can use it to derive the allowance of woolen tzitzit on a linen garment from it.) [...]

(Paraphrased:) The Gemara asks: Even without the extra phrase "wool and linen", we would know that you can use woolen tzitzit on a linen garment because tekhelet has to be made from wool, and you have to put tzitzit [with tekhelet] on all garments including those made from linen - [because] the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: All garments in the Torah are of wool or linen.

And from where do we know that tekhelet has to be made from wool? Since [the priestly garments are made from shesh and tekhelet, and] shesh means linen, tekhelet must be from wool.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This was the custom of R' Yehuda bat Ilai: On Fridays they would bring him a bowl filled with warm water, and he would wash his face, hands and feet, and wrap [in his clothes] and sitting in linen cloaks with tzitzit, and he would look like an angel of God.

And his students would hide the corners of their [own] garments from him. He said to them: My sons, have I not taught you that for linen cloaks with tzitzit, Bet Shamai exempt it and Bet Hillel obligate it [in tzitzit], and the halakha follows Bet Hillel.

But the [students] held that there was a gezeira (Rabbinic decree to protect a Torah law) [not to put woolen tzitzit on a linen garment] due to garments worn at night [when there is no mitzva of tzitzit, but the prohibition of sha'atnez would apply].

And our rabbis, what do they do with, "and you will see it" (Numbers 15:39)? It is needed by them for like that which is learned, "'And you will see it and remember' – see this commandment and remember another commandment that depends upon it. And which one is that? That is the recitation of Shema." As it is taught in a Baraita, "From when do we recite the Shema in the morning? From when he recognizes the difference between tekhelet and white.

It is taught in another baraita: "'And you will see it and remember' – see this commandment and remember another commandment that is adjacent to it. And which one is that? That is the commandment of forbidden mixtures (kelayim), as it is written, 'Do not wear shatnez, wool and linen together. Make for yourselves fringes' (Deuteronomy 22:11-12)."

It is taught in another baraita: "'And you will see it and remember all the commandments of the Lord' – once a man is obligated in this commandment, he is obligated in all of the commandments." And that is [according to] Rabbi Shimon, who said that it is a positive time-bound commandment [and women are exempt from it].

It is taught in another baraita: "'And you will see it and remember all the commandments of the Lord' – this commandment is equal to all of the other commandments."

And it is taught in another baraita: The verse states: "'And you will see it and remember […] and do them' – seeing leads to remembering and remembering leads to doing. ​​​​​​​And Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, 'Anyone who is diligent in this commandment will merit to receive the face of the Divine Presence. It is written here, "And you will see it (oto)," and it is written there (Deuteronomy 6:13), "You shall fear the Lord, your God, and He (oto) will you serve"'"

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to ritual fringes on a linen cloak, Beit Shammai deem the cloak exempt from ritual fringes due to the fact that the sky-blue strings must be made from wool, and there is a Torah prohibition against wearing a mixture of wool and linen. And Beit Hillel deem a linen cloak obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes. And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.

Aside: Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok says: But is it not the case that anyone who affixes sky-blue strings to a linen cloak in Jerusalem is considered nothing other than one of those who causes others to be astonished at their behavior [because they are wearing a wool and linen garment which is normally prohibited]?

(Note: Even thought some people wore kala ilan (a different blue) instead of the proper tekhelet, as evident below, the "controversial" behaviour was wearing blue wool on a linen garment, when it was technically allowed. Wearing a different blue than the tekhelet was not consdered controversial or problematic.)

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If so, that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel and a linen cloak is required to have ritual fringes, why did the Sages prohibit attaching ritual fringes to linen garments in Jerusalem? It is because people are not well versed in the halakha and might ultimately wear garments of wool and linen even when it is not necessary for the mitzva of ritual fringes.

Rava bar Rav Ḥana said to Rava: If that is the concern, then let ten people take linen cloaks with ritual fringes and go out to the marketplace and thereby publicize the matter [that sha'atnez does not apply where it is for another mitzva].

Rava answered: All the more so people would be astonished at us.

The Gemara suggests: Let the Rabbis teach it during their public lecture.

The Gemara answers: Wearing strings on a linen garment is prohibited because of a rabbinic decree due to the concern that people might use strings that were dyed blue with indigo [kala ilan], instead of with tekhelet, the sky-blue dye produced from the ḥilazon (see 44b), in which case they would not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and would violate the prohibition against wearing garments containing wool and linen.

The Gemara suggests: Even if one’s blue strings are not dyed with tekhelet as required for the mitzva, let them be considered merely as white strings. In the absence of tekhelet one fulfills the mitzva with white strings, and therefore it should be permitted to affix white woolen strings to a linen garment.

(Note: The Gemara does not reject this line that the worst that could happen with wearing kala ilan (a different blue than the tekhelet) is that it is considered like another white string. It comments instead that it would be a problem to wear woolen strings on a linen garment if not for it being the real tekhelet.)

The Gemara explains: Since it is possible to affix white strings that are the same type of material as the garment, i.e., linen, and thereby fulfill the mitzva without overriding the prohibition against wearing a garment made from wool and linen, one may not affix white wool strings to a linen garment.

The Gemara notes: This is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Any place where you find a positive mitzva and a prohibition that clash with one another, if you are able to fulfill both of them, that is preferable; and if that is not possible, the positive mitzva shall come and override the prohibition. In this case, the clash is between the mitzva of ritual fringes and the prohibition against wearing a garment that contains wool and linen. One can fulfill both of them by using white strings that are linen instead of wool if the garment is made from linen.

The Gemara suggests: And let them test the strings to ascertain whether they are dyed with indigo or with tekhelet, as explained by the Gemara (42b).

The Gemara responds: Rather, the prohibition against affixing ritual fringes to a linen garment is a rabbinic decree due to the concern that perhaps the sky-blue strings were colored with tekhelet dye that had been used for testing the color of the dye in the vat and therefore became unfit (see 42b). In such a case, there would be no fulfillment of the mitzva of sky-blue ritual fringes to override the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

The Gemara suggests: Let the Sages write letters informing dye producers that tekhelet that was used for testing the color of the dye in the vat is unfit for ritual fringes. The Gemara explains: Shall we go and rely on letters, assuming that dye producers will follow the instructions they contain? Rava responded to this and said: Now, with regard to the prohibitions against eating leavened bread on Passover and eating on Yom Kippur, which are punishable by karet, we rely on letters sent from the rabbinical court in Eretz Yisrael publicizing whether the year was declared a leap year and when they have declared the New Moon; here, with regard to the mitzva of ritual fringes, which is merely a positive mitzva, is it not all the more so correct that letters can be relied on?

Rather, Rava said: This is a statement that I said, and it was stated in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my opinion: The reason for the rabbinic decree is lest one’s cloak rip within three fingerbreadths of the edge of the corner of the garment, which is where the ritual fringes are placed, and he sew it with linen string and then use the excess string for ritual fringes. And in such a case the ritual fringes would be unfit because the Torah states: “You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” (Deuteronomy 22:12), which teaches: Prepare it, and not from what has already been prepared. Consequently, the strings must be attached to the garment for the sake of the mitzva of ritual fringes. When the individual places the linen string there in order to stitch the garment and then decides to use it for the mitzva of ritual fringes and adds sky-blue wool strings, he does not fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes and violates the prohibition against wearing a garment of wool and linen.

Because of this rabbinic decree, Rabbi Zeira untied the ritual fringes and removed them from his linen cloak.

Rav Zeira said: The rabbinic decree prohibiting ritual fringes on a linen garment is also due to the concern that one might affix ritual fringes to a nighttime garment. Since the mitzva of ritual fringes does not apply in that case, if one wears the garment he would not fulfill the mitzva and would violate the prohibition against wearing a garment with wool and linen.

(Paraphrase:) The Gemara says that we don't put tzitzit/tekhelet on a linen garment. One of the reasons suggested in the Gemara is as a gezeira due to kala ilan, a dye that is similar to [but different from] the tekhelet.

There is a question of why the "gezeira due to kala ilan" applies specifically to a linen garment - if we are concerned that someone might be wearing the wrong tekhelet, then tekhelet would never be worn [on a garment of any material] and the mitzva* of tekhelet would never be kept [out of concern that perhaps the dye is not the correct one].

(*Note: Rashba implies that there is a separate mitzva for tzitzit and tekhelet, whereas Rambam says they are part of the same mitzva.)

The answer is that in a woolen garment we would still be able to wear tekhelet. If it's the right dye, you are fulfilling the mitzva of tekhelet. And if it is kala ilan which is not the real tekhelet, although you are not fulfilling the mitzva of tekhelet, there is no issue because:

• you are not transgressing sha'atnez; and
• [it is not bal tosif, adding more to the mitzvot of the Torah, because] you are not using any additional strings and the kala ilan blue strings would be considered the same as wearing white strings, and people wear 8 white strings when they aren't wearing tekhelet, so this would be considered the same, and you would be doing the mitzva in the same way as someone who just wears the white strings.

So when it says that there is a "gezeira due to kala ilan", it is referring specifically to wearing tekhelet on a linen garment [which is forbidden by the Rabbis]. We know this because if it the woolen string were not the correct tekhelet and was instead kala ilan, that would be kilayim (=sha'atnez) where there is no mitzva [if it is not the proper tekhelet].

This explains why the Gemara then asks, "let [kala ilan] be considered white". For a woolen garment, the gezeira not to wear kala ilan does not apply, and the strings are considered white, else the mitzva of tekhelet would never be applicable (because there is always a risk that you could be wearing tekhelet not from the proper source), as we explained above. So the question being asked is, why can't someone wear tekhelet on a linen garment, and if it's the proper tekhelet they are fulfilling the mitzva of tekhelet, and if it's not the proper tekhelet [but is kala ilan], it would be considered like white strings which are part of the mitzva of tzitzit, so there should be no issue of sha'atnez because it is part of a mitzva.

And the answer of the Gemara is based on Reish Lakish's view (that you could have fulfilled the same mitzva of wearing white strings if they were made of linen, so you can't excuse yourself from the prohibition of sha'atnez).

Techelet should not be attached to a linen garment. Rather, one should [make the tzitzit] from white threads of linen alone.

This is not because [the prohibition against] sha'atnez supersedes [the mitzvah of] tzitzit, but rather it is a Rabbinical decree [imposed] lest one wear the garment at night, when one is not required to wear tzitzit, and thus violate a negative commandment when the performance of a positive commandment is not involved.

[This is because] the obligation to wear tzitzit applies during the day, but not at night [as can be inferred from Numbers 15:39]: "And you shall see them." [The mitzvah applies only] during a time when one can see.

[Nevertheless,] a blind man is obligated to wear tzitzit. Even though he does not see them, others see him [wearing them].

Abaye said to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda: How do you dye this sky-blue wool to be used for ritual fringes? Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said to Abaye: We bring blood of a ḥilazon and various herbs and put them in a pot and boil them. And then we take a bit of the resulting dye in an egg shell and test it by using it to dye a wad of wool to see if it has attained the desired hue. And then we throw away that egg shell and its contents and burn the wad of wool.

Learn from this three halakhot:

1. Learn from it that wool that was dyed for the purpose of testing the dye and not for use as ritual fringes is unfit for ritual fringes. Consequently, one burns the wad of wool so that no one will use it for ritual fringes.
2. And learn from it that we require dyeing for the sake of the mitzva.
3. And learn from it that using dye for testing renders all the dye in that vessel unfit. Therefore, some of the dye is removed from the pot before it is tested.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There is no reliable method of testing sky-blue wool, and therefore it may be purchased only from an expert. [...]

The Gemara asks: And is there no method for testing sky-blue wool? But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, test it to ensure it was dyed with tekhelet?

(Note: The tests given in this Gemara check whether the dyed wool retains its colour when soaked in a particular solution or when baked.)

He would bring alum clay, and water of fenugreek, and urine that was forty days old. He would soak the sky-blue wool in this solution from night until morning. If its color would fade, the sky-blue wool was determined to be unfit, as it was not dyed with tekhelet derived from a ḥilazon. If its color would not fade, the sky-blue wool was determined to be fit.

And Rav Adda said before Rava in the name of Rav Avira: One brings hard [arkesa] leavened barley dough and bakes the sky-blue wool in it. If the color of the sky-blue wool changes for the better, meaning that the process intensifies the color of the sky-blue wool, then it is fit. If the color of the sky-blue wool changes for the worse, i.e., it fades, then it is unfit. And your mnemonic is: Change reveals falsehood and change reveals truth.

What does it mean when it says: There is no reliable method of testing sky-blue wool? It means that there is no way to test whether it was dyed for the sake of the mitzva or for the purpose of testing the dye.

Mar, a Sage from Mashkhei, brought sky-blue wool in the years when Rav Aḥai was a preeminent Sage. They tested it in the manner described by Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and its color faded. They then tested it in the manner described by Rav Adda and the color changed for the better. The Sages thought that the sky-blue wool should be deemed unfit because it did not pass the first test. Rav Aḥai said to them: But how could it be that this wool is not tekhelet, as it failed one of the tests, and is also not kala ilan, as it passed the other?

(Note that here kala ilan is shown to be the opposite of tekhelet, and the test can verify whether it is tekhelet or kala ilan.)

Rather, conclude from it that these halakhot were stated together: if we tested the wool in the manner described by Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, and its color did not fade, it is fit, but its color faded, then we test it in the manner described by Rav Adda, with hard leavened barley dough. If the color changed for the better it is fit; if the color changed for the worse it is unfit. The Gemara adds: They sent a message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael: These halakhot were in fact stated together, as explained by Rav Aḥai.

Rava says: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of the halakhot of the prohibition against interest (see Leviticus 25:37–38), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt with regard to the mitzva to wear ritual fringes (see Numbers 15:39–41), and the mention of the exodus from Egypt in the context of the prohibition concerning weights (see Leviticus 19:35–36)?

Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes.

Ravina happened to come to Sura on the Euphrates. Rav Ḥanina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina: Why do I need the mention of the exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in the context of creeping animals: “Do not make yourselves detestable with all the creeping animals that swarm…for I am the Lord Who brings you up from the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 11:43–45)?

Ravina said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who intermingles the innards of non-kosher fish with the innards of kosher fish and sells them to a Jew, who is unable to distinguish between them.

(Paraphrase:) Maharshal disagrees with Tosafot and says that the more simple reading of the Gemara is that you shouldn't sell kala ilan as if it were tekhelet, because that is misleading others in business.

(1) The term techelet mentioned throughout the Torah refers to wool dyed light blue - i.e., the color of the sky which appears opposite the sun when there is a clear sky.

The term techelet when used regarding tzitzit refers to a specific dye that remains beautiful without changing. [If the techelet] is not dyed with this dye, it is unfit to be used as tzitzit even though it is sky blue in color. For example, using isatis, black dye, or other dark dyes, is unacceptable for tzitzit.

The wool of a ewe that a goat gave birth to is unacceptable for use as tzitzit.

(2) How is the techelet of tzitzit dyed? Wool is taken and soaked in lime. Afterwards, it is taken and washed until it is clean and then boiled with bleach and the like, as is the dyers' practice, to prepare it to accept the dye. A chilazon is a fish whose color is like the color of the sea and whose blood is black like ink. It is found in the Mediterranean* Sea.

The blood is placed in a pot together with herbs - e.g., chamomile - as is the dyers' practice. It is boiled and then the wool is inserted. [It is left there] until it becomes sky-blue. This is the manner in which the techelet of tzitzit [is made].

(*Note: There are times when the Rambam uses the term ים המלח to refer to the Mediterranean. See the conclusion of his Commentary on the Mishnah. As Rav Qafih and Rav Makbili point out, what we call the Dead Sea nowadays, does not have any fish or similar creatures living in it, so it can't be where the Hilazon is found, and in Arabic, البحر المالح, the salty sea, can also be used to refer to the Mediterranean Sea. See also Why the Mediterranean is One of the Saltiest Seas in the World - GreekReporter.com)

(3) One must dye tzitzit techelet with the intention that it be used for the mitzvah. If one did not have such an intention, it is unacceptable.

When one places some wool in the pot in which the dye was placed, to check whether the dye is good or not, the entire pot may no longer be used [for tzitzit]. [If so,] how should one check [the dye]? He should take some dye from the pot in a small container and place the wool he uses to check in it. Afterwards, he should burn the wool used to check - for it was dyed for the purpose of checking and pour out the dye used to check it, since using it for an experiment disqualified it. Afterwards, he should dye [the wool] techelet with the remainder of the dye which was not used.

(4) Techelet should only be purchased from a recognized dealer because we are concerned that perhaps it was not dyed with the intention that it be used for the mitzvah. Even though it was purchased from a recognized dealer, if it was checked, and it was discovered that it was dyed with another dark dye which is not of a permanent nature, it is not acceptable.

(5) How can techelet be checked to see whether it has been dyed properly or not? One takes straw, the secretion of a snail, and urine that had been left standing for forty days and leaves thetechelet in this mixture for an entire day. If the color of thetechelet remained unchanged, without becoming weaker, it is acceptable.

If it became weaker, we place the techelet which changed color inside a dough of barley meal that was left to sour for fish brine. The dough is baked in an oven, and then the techelet is removed. If it became even weaker than it was previously, it is unacceptable. If this strengthened the color and it became darker than it was before being baked, it is acceptable.

(6) One may purchase techelet from an outlet which has established a reputation for authenticity without question. It need not be checked. One may continue to rely [on its reputation] until a reason for suspicion arises.

Should one entrust techelet to a gentile for safekeeping, it is no longer fit for use, [because] we fear that he exchanged it. If it was in a container and closed with two seals, one seal inside the other, it is acceptable. If, however, it had only a single seal, it may not be used.

[...]

(8) When a garment is entirely red, green, or any other color [besides white], its white strands should be made from the same color as the garment itself. If it is green, they should be green. If it is red, they should be red.

Should the garment itself be techelet, its white strands should be made from any color other than black*, for it resembles techelet. He should wind one strand of techelet around all the strands, as one does with other tzitzit that are not colored.

(*Note: The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's statements are not an exact quote from his source, Menachot, ibid., 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.)

We also observe with regard to Maimonides; although in his commentary on the Mishna, at the beginning of the chapter Hatechelet (in tractate Menachot) wrote that "we are not in possession of it (ie. the Techelet) presently, because we do not know how to dye it since not all blue dyes usable for wool are called by the proper name 'Techelet' only the specific 'Techelet', we therefore can not dye it at this time, and thus we use only the white (strings for Tzitzith)," and he repeats this in Responsum 46, that now we use only the white (strings).

Nevertheless, from his later work (Mishna Torah) it is implied that he eventually succeeded in finding the Hillazon and obtaining Techelet, for in Hilchot Tzitzith (chapter 2 Law 2) he provides a list of the distinguishing features of the Hillazon and its blood (as will be elaborated upon later at length) and also describes how it was extracted, and in the process he provides features that find no mention at all in the Talmud, which he would not have known unless he actually obtained it and saw it. Also from his responsum to the sages of Luniel, quoted by the Kesef Mishna where he explains the practical application of the law regarding the Techelet it seems evident that it was available to them and that they conducted themselves in accordance with the Mitzvah of Techelet (on the Tzitzith). Therefore it seems clear that the designation 'was hidden', found in the Midrash does not mean that it was totally unavailable and not to be found at all, only that its use among the Israelites was interrupted due to the great expense and the tribulations and wanderings of the exile, it was unavailable to them, and although some great and esteemed individuals of the generations did succeed in obtaining it, it was referred to as 'hidden'.

So too, we must certainly say that in order to explain the passage of the Holy Ari of blessed memory in Pri Etz Haim (Sha'ar Hatzitzith) who associated the reason for the cessation of the Mitzvah of Techelet with the destruction of the Holy Temple, [...] his intention of blessed memory is to provide the reason why the mitzvah of Techelet is not so abundantly available for all of Israel.