On Concealing Tekhelet and Revealing the Shekhinah

In the article entitled “The Mystery, Meaning and Disappearance of the Tekhelet” (JBQ, vol. XXXIX:2, April-June 2011) it is suggested that the disappearance of the biblical blue dye was due to a deliberate concealment devised to curb overly enthusiastic mystics. It is my contention that this theory is entirely baseless, as is the proposed application of the term nignaz (concealed). To support their theory, the authors bring only two proof texts regarding one individual, R. Meir.

The first text quoted is one in which R. Meir famously articulates the unique quality of tekhelet as being a reminder of God’s throne through gradations (TB Menahot 43b). The authors see in this simile a crossing of normative boundaries and an expression of practical mysticism that was to be shunned. They write: “The tekhelet mystics held fast to the notion that by wearing the blue thread one becomes a participant in a cosmic drama that would permit one to behold the Divine Presence.” But surely attempting to behold the Divine Presence is not, and was never, beyond the pale of normative Judaism. Indeed, throughout the Talmud, Midrash, and halakhic literature, it is taught that performing certain acts endows the practitioner with the merit of beholding the Shekhinah. Examples of this are: 1) Going from the beit keneset to the beit midrash (TB Berakhot 64a); 2) Not viewing illicit scenes (Massekhet Derekh Eretz, Arayot 13); 3) Giving a perutah to a beggar (TB Bava Batra 10a); 4) Last, but not least, “by being meticulous in performing the mitzvah of tzitzit,” R. Shim’on Bar Yohai teaches, “one is worthy of seeing the Divine Presence” (TB Menahot 43b). Although one might argue that this refers to wearing tekhelet, the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 24:6) and others quote this statement long after the tekhelet was lost, thus applying it to those wearing tzitzit without tekhelet.

Clearly tekhelet was not unique in its ability to provide access to the Divine Presence; and, in any case, seeking the Shekhinah was never viewed as something to be shunned. On the contrary, it was, and is, something to which one should aspire.

The second proof text brought in support of the theory that tekhelet was concealed to curb mystical enthusiasm is an anecdote describing R. Meir’s great loyalty toward his apostate teacher, Elisha ben Avuyah, in an effort to save him from hell (TJ Hagigah 2:1). The authors surmise: “It was possibly if not probably understood by those assembled that R. Meir had command of supernatural powers (locked in the thread of blue), capable of saving his master from the punishment meted out to heretics in the hereafter, without being entirely dependent on God’s mercy.” First of all, there is absolutely no indication that tekhelet plays any role in the story. But more importantly, the conjecture that R. Meir intended to exert special powers to circumvent God is unfounded, unnecessary and wholly uncharacteristic. A simple reading of the story shows that R. Meir intended to use the merit of his teaching Torah as a demonstration of the merit of his teacher. And although R. Meir’s students argue that this is only efficacious for a son to a father, R. Meir responds that a teacher is like a tashmish kedushah (accessory to holiness) for his student, and the student’s merits can therefore elevate the teacher.¹

Having dismissed the claims of purported mystical excesses associated with tekhelet as being the impetus for the deliberate removal of tekhelet, it is also important to note that the term nignaz (stored away) has varying applications in the Talmud and Midrash. One usage is that brought in the article: deliberate concealment of “questionable” biblical books. A different usage of the term is brought in the Mishnah (Me’ilah 17:2), the Tosefta (Pe’ah 4:18) and the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 104a). Here the word refers to a ruler storing away precious items for safekeeping. R. E. Tavger² cites the Ramban (Ex. 28:2) who writes in this vein: “Today, no one but kings dare wear tekhelet.” The implication being that tekhelet was stored away by kings for royal use, thus creating dangerous circumstances which made its use impossible for anyone outside the royal court.

In consonance with this understanding, the Yeshu’ot Malko (R. Israel Trunk) does indeed argue that tekhelet had become too dangerous to wear. However, he makes the astounding conjecture that owing to this danger, the Rabbis annulled the biblical mitzvah of tekhelet. This argument is very difficult, for it is unheard of that a biblical commandment can be annulled for all time. In his refutation of Yeshu’ot Malko, Rabbi Gershon Hanokh Leiner asks how such an extraordinary annulment could be made without a single mention anywhere in the Talmud!³

Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Ari, mentions the time of this “storing away” in connection with the destruction of the Second Temple (c. 70 CE) – “For the truth is that at this time, after the destruction of the Temple, we do not have the power to wear tekhelet.”⁴ However, by all accounts, tekhelet was still in use following the Temple’s destruction, the earliest date given for its loss being 474 CE. Commenting on this discrepancy, R. Yehiel Tykocinski explains: “It is therefore understood that only during the time of the Temple was it found in abundance, after which it was nignaz – not stored away completely, but less to be found.”⁵

In conclusion, there is no compelling reason to assume that tekhelet was annulled in general or deliberately hidden away to curb the spiritual aspirations of immortal teachers such as R. Meir, whose only desire was to be worthy of the Divine Presence through Torah learning and mitzvot.