<p>There have been a number of responses to this shiur including:</p> <p>http://www.tekhelet.com/RavReismanNotes.pdf</p> <p>http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/762092/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Techeiles:_A_Response_to_Rabbi_Reisman</p> <p>http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/762320/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/Parshat_Chukat_Has_Techeiles_Really_Been_Rediscovered</p>

<p>I am having difficulty understanding how the Rabbi's explanation in of the gemara in megilla fits with the continuation of the text:&nbsp; "mi modiaini ..."&nbsp; It would seem to imply that the chilazon, what ever it might be, is something that one could, b'derekh hateva, take from the territory of Zevulun without&nbsp; the members of the tribe knowing.&nbsp; I have trouble understanding how one could fit this with the thought that chilazon is a deep water creature requiring the sailors of Zevulun to harvest.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Also, in the time of Chazal and the Rambam, there was no useful artificial light, and factory or workshop windows would not have glass (it was way too expensive until the invention of processes for plate glass were invented), so one wouldn't expect anyone to mention that a process needed sunlight--it would be the need to avoid sunlight, like making a purple dye from murex, that would be worthy of comment.</p>

<p>Josephus writes (Antiq V 1:22): "The tribe of Zebulon's lot included the land which lay as far as the Lake of Genesareth, and that which belonged to Carmel and the sea"</p><p>This sounds like the Mediterranean to me.</p>

<p>The Arizal clearly writes that it is found in the KINERET while this is not found in the Kineret (see Shaar Maamre Rashbi pg. 120 NEW edition).</p>

<p>That's irrelevant. As R. Reisman says at 3:30-4:00 in this lecture, Kabbalah is not a valid halakhic source--especially when, as in this case, it contradicts the Talmud, which says that the chilazon is found between the cliffs of Tyre and Haifa.</p> <p>And even if R. Luria did say that, and meant it literally, how did he know? 'Ruach Hakodesh' is no answer. Even if it means something equivalent to prophecy, which is highly doubtful, it cannot change halakha.</p>

<p>a lenghly discussion of this question can be found here:&nbsp;<a href="http://bit.ly/1lbubwD" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/1lbubwD</a></p>

<p>more material on Rabbi Reisman's objections to the validity of the Murex can be found here:&nbsp;<a href="http://techeiles.org/debate.php#ryr" target="_blank">http://techeiles.org/debate.php#ryr</a></p>