I was recently told by someone that the sages hid the tekhelet on purpose because it was expensive and thus differentiated between poorer and richer Jews.
Are there any sources that back this claim?
-
2There are a dozen mitzvos that differentiate between richer and poorer Jews. Leket, shich'chah, peah, maaser ani, etc. If this were true why would it be the one asei d'oraisa that chazal were trying to prevent people from doing?Yehuda– Yehuda2025-11-22 21:32:37 +00:00Commented Nov 22 at 21:32
-
@Yehuda there is an objective difference between rich and poor, and a manufactured one. The mitzvot you listed are there to reduce the objective difference, causing the rich to give to the poor. The idea behind OP seems to be trying to reduce the manufactured one. Therefore, I surmise that the mitzvot you listed and the idea being brought both are serving the same purpose, and therefore it's not a kasheRabbi Kaii– Rabbi Kaii2025-11-22 21:51:09 +00:00Commented Nov 22 at 21:51
-
I have not heard this idea about rich and poor but I vaguely remember hearing something about only white tzitzis being connected to moshiachDude– Dude2025-11-23 00:53:05 +00:00Commented Nov 23 at 0:53
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I have not found any sources that state that the sages hid the techelet because of its costliness. Whoever told you this may have misinterpreted a common historical explanation for the midrashim that state that the techelet was "hidden" (נגנז),1 which is that over time, especially due to the economic machinations of the Byzantine Empire, making techelet became more difficult and buying it became more expensive, and so gradually less and less people used it,2 until it disappeared from usage altogether. See for example Ephraim S. Ayil, 'Philological Insights on Tekheleth', Hakirah 37 (2025), pp. 296-301. A different, more spiritual explanation was suggested by Rabbi Yisrael Krauss, 'When was the Techelet Hidden and Why?' (in Hebrew), Vehaya Lachem Letzitzit 12 (5778/2018), pp. 83-87, though it does not contradict the natural processes that led to the gradual disappearance of the techelet (see pp. 85-86).
1 See: Tanchuma (Buber) Shelach 29:1; Tanchuma Shelach 15:1; Bamidbar Rabbah 17:5, and thought to perhaps be hinted at in Bavli Bava Batra 74b and Sifri Devarim 354:7.
2 Mordechai Kirshenbaum, 'Seventy Five Years to the Renewal of the Techelet' (in Hebrew), Sinai 53 (5723/1963), p. 161 wrote as much (can be found on Otzar Hachochmah):
"מכאן, שאין כוונת המדרש שנגנזה התכלת ושלא נמצאה כלל, אלא לפי שלא היתה מצויה אצל כלל ישראל בשל יוקרה הרב, ואף קשה היה להשיג אומן בקי ומומחה במלאכת הצביעה, על כן משתמש המדרש בלשון "נגנז", כלומר: נשתכח (ראה רש"י פסחים סב, ב: "נגנז - נשתכח"). אבל באמת היה החלזון מצוי, אלא שיכלו להשיגו יחידי סגולה בלבד ובייחוד העשירים והמקורבים למלכות."
"Therefore, it must be said that the midrash did not mean that the techelet was hidden away and could not be found at all, but rather since it was not found by all of Israel because of its great cost, and since it was also difficult to find an expert craftsman knowledgeable in the art of the dyeing, therefore the midrash used the phrasing "hidden", meaning: forgotten (see Rashi on Pesachim 62b: "Hidden - [means] forgotten"). But in actuality the snail was found, but only special people could get it, and especially rich men and those close to the royal court."