Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree over the circumstances which mandate the donations detailed in Shemot 30:12-16. One group of commentators explain that the census is the determining factor. Within this option, Shadal maintains that half-shekels were given only in the very first census in the wilderness, while Rashi asserts that a similar procedure was followed in subsequent countings as well.
A second category of exegetes argues that support of the Mishkan or Mikdash is the main purpose, and that there is no need to give during a census. This approach also divides, with Josephus positing that the verses describe a one-off contribution to build the Mishkan, and R. Saadia claiming that the Torah is speaking of an annual obligation to support Hashem's Sanctuary. Finally, some commentators suggest that both a census and the Mishkan play a role, with Chizkuni positing that a combination of both a census and a capital campaign was required for there to be an obligation to donate, and Ramban concluding that either factor alone could suffice.
Census Focused
Shemot 30:12-16 commands Moshe to conduct a census using shekalim, rather than through a simple headcount. While the proceeds are used for the Tabernacle, this is not the main objective, and the Torah is not mandating a regular donation to the Mikdash.
One-time Obligation
These verses were an instruction on only a single occasion in the wilderness to count the nation via the giving of half-shekels. All future censuses, in contrast, do not require a similar donation.
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם" – Shadal asserts that, at the time of the Exodus, the Children of Israel believed in the concept of an "evil eye" ("עין הרע"), and thus feared that a census could cause a plague. Although this was an erroneous notion, it had the beneficial effect of leading the nation away from excessive hubris and reliance on one's own numbers and might ("כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי"). Thus, Hashem did not completely dispel it,2 but instead commanded the people to give a "ransom payment" ("כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ") which would act as an "atonement" ("כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים") and thereby allow them to conduct a census without fear of harmful consequences.3
The "evil eye" and natural order – Shadal expounds at length on how Hashem built in to the laws of nature that man's arrogance will bring about his downfall. This phenomenon, he explains, was commonly misattributed to the harmful effects of the "evil eye".
One-time protection for all-time – According to Shadal, the half-shekels were given on this one occasion only.4 As long as the Tabernacle existed, the presence of the half-shekels in its foundations allayed the nation's concerns over the "evil eye", such that they no longer felt a need to make redemption payments during subsequent censuses.5
"כִּי תִשָּׂא" – Shadal asserts that this refers to a one-time command to count the nation. This census occurred before the building of the Mishkan.6
Why now? Shadal explains that the census is being taken at this point because the people have just become a nation,7 and it is a mere coincidence that it occurs before the building of the Mishkan.8
"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – According to Shadal, this terms refers to the one-time labor of constructing the Tabernacle,9 and not to its ongoing upkeep.10 The half-shekels collected in the census were used for fashioning the silver sockets, as described in Shemot 38. However, Shadal emphasizes that the obligation to give was not motivated by a need for donations.11
Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26 – In both of these censuses, there was no further need for half-shekels. Thus, none are mentioned.
Post-census donation in Bemidbar 31 – Shadal asserts that this case is unrelated to the instructions in Shemot 30, as the giving in Bemidbar follows a census rather than preceding it, and is of gold and silver articles rather than half-shekels.12
Shaul's censuses – These do not mention the giving of half-shekels as, once again, none were necessary. Shadal would likely explain that both "בָזֶק" and "טְּלָאִים" are names of places.13
David's census and Divine punishment – David was punished because he undertook a census merely for his own personal glorification,14 and not because the count was performed without half-shekel donations. Even had shekalim been given, the epidemic would not have been averted.15
Contributions mandated by Yoash – Shadal would likely maintain that this was a special command of Yoash to bring donations for the renovation of the Mikdash, and not an annual obligation. The reference to the contributions as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" would need to be understood as an imprecise analogy used for rhetorical purposes.
One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah – This had nothing to do with the Torah's commandment, and it rather constituted a new decision by the nation to contribute annually to finance the Mikdash. As such, it is not perplexing that the amount given was different from that collected in the time of Moshe.
The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels – According to this approach, this custom is of Rabbinic origin, and is not Biblically mandated.
All Future Censuses
These verses constitute an enduring ordinance that all future censuses be performed through the counting of donated items such as half-shekels, rather than via a forbidden headcount.
"כִּי תִשָּׂא" – Rashi interprets this phrase to refer to any occasion on which the people are counted.
Why now? According to Rashi, a census was required at this juncture since many people had just died as a punishment for the sin of the Golden Calf. This is consistent with Rashi's position that all of Shemot 25-31 is not recorded in chronological order and the Mishkan instructions were transmitted to Moshe only in the aftermath of the Golden Calf.17 Rashi thus maintains that the primary motivation for the donation of the initial half-shekels was the census,18 and not the collection for the building of the Mishkan (which was taking place simultaneously).
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם" – Rashi explains that a simple headcount without using shekalim might bring on an "עין הרע" ("evil eye"),19 and this could result in a plague. Rashi views the "evil eye" as a real concern, and not just a figment of the people's imagination.20
Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26 – Rashi states that the census in the second year in the wilderness was also performed using shekalim.21
Post-census donation in Bemidbar 31 – Rashbam, citing his father, asserts that the donations are related to the command of Ki Tisa. Before counting the people, the officers had pledged to contribute so as not to incur a plague. As in Parashat Ki Tisa, the contributions were given to the service of the Mishkan.
Shaul's censuses – Rashi follows Bavli Yoma,22 in explaining that Shaul counted objects, rather than simply counting the people themselves. They read "בְּבָזֶק" and "בַּטְּלָאִים" as the names of those items.
David's census and Divine punishment – Rashi, in the footsteps of Bavli Berakhot, understands that the plague came in the time of David because he counted the people without using shekalim.
"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – The silver collected from the census in the first year was used for the silver sockets of the Tabernacle. Thus, for Rashi and Cassuto, "עֲבֹדַת" refers to the construction work of the Mishkan, rather than its ongoing service.23
Contributions mandated by Yoash – This approach would need to explain like Shadal above.24
One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah – Cassuto notes that this ordinance was completely distinct from the obligation of the half-shekalim in any census. Thus, it was also a different amount.
The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels – Rashi in his alternate interpretation of 30:15 notes that our verses contain a "hint" ("רמז") to the annual obligation to donate a half-shekel to the Mikdash.25 It is likely that he would maintain that this is not Biblically mandated.
Mishkan Contributions
The Torah is mandating financial support for the Mikdash, and a census is merely a vehicle through which this is achieved.
One-time Building Fund
The verses in Shemot 30 were an ephemeral command to donate for the construction of the Tabernacle, and this was in effect only during the first year in the wilderness. This obligation does not apply to future generations.
Why only one time? This position maintains that the collection was required for the initial construction of the Tabernacle, and as such was a one-time donation.27
"כִּי תִשָּׂא"
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם" – Hoil Moshe views the shekalim as atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf, and might suggest that without them, the nation would have deserved further punishment. Abarbanel asserts that a direct headcount might lead to plague due to the "evil eye".30
"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – According to Rashbam, this refers to the initial building of the Tabernacle.
Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26 – No shekel donations are mentioned since regular censuses do not require such a contribution.31
Post-census donation in Bemidbar 31
Shaul's censuses – Shaul did not count via shekalim since there is no obligation to do so. Hoil Moshe would likely explain both בָזֶק and טְּלָאִים as place names. According to Abarbanel, in contrast, Shaul feared the "evil eye" and, of his own volition, used a ransom in the form of lambs ("טְּלָאִים") or small stones ("בָזֶק").32
David's census and Divine punishment – Abarbanel maintains that the plague resulted from the "evil eye" since this census was not Divinely commanded, and thus not Divinely protected. Hoil Moshe asserts, instead, that David is punished for the actual counting, not for the fact that he did so without taking some redemption from the people.33 As David's decision to count stemmed from a desire for honor and had no other utility, it deserved punishment.34
Contributions mandated by Yoash – This approach could suggest that Yoash's request for contributions for the upkeep of the Mikdash was modeled after the one-time Torah obligation.35
One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah – This can be viewed as a new obligation taken by the people upon themselves after returning to Israel. Presumably, they were influenced by the original donations given in Shemot.36
The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels – This approach would assert that this is simply a Rabbinic tradition, likely learned from the original contributions for the Tabernacle.
Ongoing Maintenance
These verses are an eternal mitzvah to provide annual support for the Mishkan or Mikdash.
"כִּי תִשָּׂא" – Though the phrase refers to an annual counting of the people, what is actually being mandated is an annual giving of half shekels, through which the nation's number will be known. The census is really a means to an end.
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם" – The plague results from a laxity in giving contributions to the Mishkan or Mikdash and is unrelated to the census.37
"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – This refers to the general upkeep and ongoing service of the Mikdash, including provisions for the sacrifices and the like.38
Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26 – As there is no obligation to count via shekalim, none are mentioned in these censuses.
Post-census donation in Bemidbar 31
Shaul's censuses – Here, too, there is no mention of shekalim since they are not a requirement for counting.
David's census and Divine punishment – R. Saadia asserts that David erroneously believed that the plague resulted from his counting, when in reality it was due to a different sin altogether, the nation's participation in Avshalom's rebellion.
Contributions mandated by Yoash – This story serves as the basis for this position. R. Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra prove from Yoash's rebuke to the nation "מַדּוּעַ לֹא דָרַשְׁתָּ עַל הַלְוִיִּם לְהָבִיא מִיהוּדָה וּמִירוּשָׁלִַם אֶת מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" that the annual contributions are mandated by Moshe in the Torah.
One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah – According to R. Saadia, this was an additional third beyond the half shekel mandated by the Torah. As the returning nation was small in number, they realized that the Mikdash expenses would not be covered if each just gave a half shekel.39
The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels – According to R. Saadia, this is not just a custom, but a Torah-mandated law.
Polemical motivations – R. Saadia may be motivated by a desire to find explicit support in Torah for the Rabbinic position regarding annual contributions to the Mikdash, in order to counter the arguments of the Karaites who claimed that there was no such obligation.
Combination of Factors
Both the need for a census and the requirement to support the Mishkan/Mikdash are involved in the obligation to give the half-shekels. Commentators discuss whether both factors must be present, or whether each factor suffices on its own.
One time or ongoing?
- A periodic obligation – According to Chizkuni, the two commands are connected and relate to only certain periods in history. Any time that there is both a need to count and a need to build a Tabernacle/Temple, one must do so through a half shekel donation.
- Both are ongoing – Ramban asserts that there is both an ongoing obligation to give a half shekel whenever there is a census and a separate annual obligation to contribute shekalim to the Mikdash.
- One and one – According to the GR"A, the command to give some sort of redemptive object when counting is an ongoing obligation for future generations,40 whereas the command to give half shekels for the Tabernacle was a one time command for the generation of the desert.41
Extended protection – According to Chizkuni, the donations to the Tabernacle/Temple afford protection not just during the act of giving but for the entire period in which the Mikdash stands. The building itself (or the half shekels used for its construction) can serve as the necessary ransom or atonement to prevent plague.
"כִּי תִשָּׂא" – According to this approach, the command to give something (either shekalim or another redemptive object) when counting is an ongoing one. The language "when you count" can be understood in its simple sense.
"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם" – Though not mentioned explicitly, this approach apparently assumes that counting people directly somehow results in a plague.
"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – According to Ramban, this refers to maintenance of the Mikdash, while according to Chizkuni and the Vilna Gaon it refers to the actual building of the Tabernacle/Temple.
Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26 – Chizkuni asserts that no ransom was necessary as the silver from the first census was still in use in the Tabernacle. Ramban, in contrast, maintains that half shekels were collected during these censuses even though they are not mentioned in the verses.42
Post-census donation in Bemidbar 31
Shaul's censuses – The Vilna Gaon maintains that any redemptive object can be used when counting and would likely explain "טְּלָאִים" as lambs and "בָזֶק" as another object. According to Chizkuni, it is possible that the protection afforded by the Tabernacle was still in effect and so nothing was needed when counting.
David's census and Divine punishment
- Sin of pride – Ramban43 asserts that David's census did actually involve a collection of shekalim,44 but a plague came nonetheless since David had no purpose in the counting and was thus culpable of a certain hubris.45
- Lost protection – Chizkuni argues that the plague came because the silver from the Tabernacle was no longer around to protect during a census.
- No ransom – According to the GR"A, the plague came because David did not count in the proper way, and did not collect some redemptive object.46
Contributions mandated by Yoash – According to Ramban, this is related to the annual contribution that is mandated by the Torah. The others might suggest that this was the king's personal request of the nation.
One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah – Ramban asserts that this was an additional contribution above the half shekel as there were extra expenses when the nation returned from exile.47 The other commentators might suggest that it was simply an innovation of the people.
The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels – According to Ramban, this is Biblically mandated, while according to the Vilna Gaon it is a הלכה למשה מסיני.