Difference between revisions of "Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle/2"
>Import script (Original Author: Neima Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
>Import script (Original Author: Neima Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
<point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – In both of these censuses, the nation was not counted via half-shekels, and thus none are mentioned.</point> | <point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – In both of these censuses, the nation was not counted via half-shekels, and thus none are mentioned.</point> | ||
<point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – These do not mention the giving of half-shekels as, once again, none were needed. Shadal would likely explain that both "בָזֶק" and "טְּלָאִים" are names of places.<fn>See Yehoshua 15:24.</fn></point> | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – These do not mention the giving of half-shekels as, once again, none were needed. Shadal would likely explain that both "בָזֶק" and "טְּלָאִים" are names of places.<fn>See Yehoshua 15:24.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – David was punished because he undertook a census merely for his own personal glorification,<fn>Shadal cites the <multilink><aht source="TanchumaKiTisa9">Tanchuma</aht><aht source="TanchumaKiTisa9">Ki Tisa 9</aht><aht parshan="Tanchuma">About the Tanchuma</aht></multilink> which faults David for conducting an unnecessary census.</fn> and not because the count was performed without half-shekel donations. Even had shekalim been given, the epidemic would not have been averted.<fn>Shadal | + | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – David was punished because he undertook a census merely for his own personal glorification,<fn>Shadal cites the <multilink><aht source="TanchumaKiTisa9">Tanchuma</aht><aht source="TanchumaKiTisa9">Ki Tisa 9</aht><aht parshan="Tanchuma">About the Tanchuma</aht></multilink> which faults David for conducting an unnecessary census.</fn> and not because the count was performed without half-shekel donations. Even had shekalim been given, the epidemic would not have been averted.<fn>This is true for Shadal because he maintains that the shekalim only "solve" the imaginary problem of the "evil eye", but they do not prevent a Divine punishment for blameworthy actions. Shadal adds that, as a result of this event, David resolved to collect donations for the Mikdash, which could then serve as a future atonement.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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. Yoash is upset, not because a Torah prescription is unfulfilled, but because of the lack of contributions. The reference to the contributions as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" would need to be understood as an imprecise analogy used for rhetorical purposes.</point> | <point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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. Yoash is upset, not because a Torah prescription is unfulfilled, but because of the lack of contributions. The reference to the contributions as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" would need to be understood as an imprecise analogy used for rhetorical purposes.</point> | ||
<point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – This donation constituted a new decision by the nation to contribute annually to finance the Mikdash, and it has nothing to do with a census. As such, it is not perplexing that the amount given was different from that collected in the time of Moshe.</point> | <point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – This donation constituted a new decision by the nation to contribute annually to finance the Mikdash, and it has nothing to do with a census. As such, it is not perplexing that the amount given was different from that collected in the time of Moshe.</point> | ||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
<point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – According to most of the commentators, this refers to the initial building of the Tabernacle. According to Qumran 4Q159, in contrast, it refers to ongoing service.</point> | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – According to most of the commentators, this refers to the initial building of the Tabernacle. According to Qumran 4Q159, in contrast, it refers to ongoing service.</point> | ||
<point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – No shekel donations are mentioned since regular censuses do not require such a contribution.<fn>Abarbanel asserts that in censuses mandated by Hashem there is no fear of an "evil eye" since if Hashem commands the count, he will surely protect the nation.</fn></point> | <point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – No shekel donations are mentioned since regular censuses do not require such a contribution.<fn>Abarbanel asserts that in censuses mandated by Hashem there is no fear of an "evil eye" since if Hashem commands the count, he will surely protect the nation.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – 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").<fn>He was able to use whatever he wanted since there is no mandatory ransom that must take the form of shekalim.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – 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").<fn>He was able to use whatever he wanted since there is no mandatory ransom that must take the form of shekalim.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – Hoil Moshe asserts that David is punished for the actual counting, not for the fact that he did so without taking some redemption from the people.<fn>He points out that Yoav chides the king on the census itself and makes no mention of David not using shekalim.</fn> As David's decision to count stemmed from a desire for honor and had no other utility, it deserved punishment.<fn>Compare to Shadal above who explains similarly.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – Abarbanel maintains that the plague resulted form 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.<fn>He points out that Yoav chides the king on the census itself and makes no mention of David not using shekalim.</fn> As David's decision to count stemmed from a desire for honor and had no other utility, it deserved punishment.<fn>Compare to Shadal above who explains similarly.</fn> </point> |
<point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – This approach could suggest that Yoash, on his own, requested contributions for the upkeep of the Mikdash, unconnected to any Torah obligation.<fn>As above, it is possible that Yoash refers to these monies as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" to give more credence to his request, and to compare them to the original donations to the Tabernacle, but not because they were commanded by Moshe.</fn></point> | <point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – This approach could suggest that Yoash, on his own, requested contributions for the upkeep of the Mikdash, unconnected to any Torah obligation.<fn>As above, it is possible that Yoash refers to these monies as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" to give more credence to his request, and to compare them to the original donations to the Tabernacle, but not because they were commanded by Moshe.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – 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.<fn>Since there is no Torah obligation, they could choose whatever amount they wanted. It is possible that much of the population was poor, and so a lower number was set.</fn></point> | <point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – 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.<fn>Since there is no Torah obligation, they could choose whatever amount they wanted. It is possible that much of the population was poor, and so a lower number was set.</fn></point> | ||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <point><b> | + | <point><b>Extended protection</b> – 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 Temple stands. The building itself (or the half shekels used for its construction) can serve as the necessary ransom or atonement to prevent plague.</point> |
<point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – Though not mentioned explicitly, this approach apparently assumes that counting people directly somehow results in a plague.</point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – Though not mentioned explicitly, this approach apparently assumes that counting people directly somehow results in a plague.</point> | ||
<point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
− | + | <point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – 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.<fn>He suggests that the language of "תפקדו אותם" rather than simply "תמנו" hints to this as it connotes a certain watching over.</fn></point> | |
− | <point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – Chizkuni asserts that no | + | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – 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.</point> |
− | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – 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. | + | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – |
− | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – Ramban<fn> | + | <ul> |
+ | <li><b>Sin of pride</b> – Ramban<fn>This is his position in Bemidbar 1.</fn> asserts that David's census did actually involve a collection of shekalim,<fn>Ramban finds it inconceivable that David would not be aware of the prohibition, or that Yoav, who was upset at the request, would not have corrected this aspect himself. Moreover, he points to the usage of the word "מפקד" as support that the census was done via objects.</fn> but a plague came nonetheless since David had no purpose in the counting and was thus culpable of a certain hubris.<fn>In his comments in Shemot, in contrast, Ramban suggests that David did not know that the law was for all generations and thus erred.</fn></li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Lost protection</b> – Chizkuni argues that the plague came because the silver from the Tabernacle was no longer around to protect during a census.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>No ransom</b> – According to the GR"A, the plague came because David did not count in the proper way, and did not collect some redemptive object.<fn>This is not explicit in his comments but appears to be what he is suggesting.</fn></li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </point> | ||
<point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – Ramban asserts that this was an additional contribution above the half shekel as there were extra expenses when the nation returned from exile.<fn>Compare with the similar explanation of R. Saadia above.</fn> The other commentators might suggest that it was simply an innovation of the people. </point> | <point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – Ramban asserts that this was an additional contribution above the half shekel as there were extra expenses when the nation returned from exile.<fn>Compare with the similar explanation of R. Saadia above.</fn> The other commentators might suggest that it was simply an innovation of the people. </point> |
Version as of 04:06, 14 February 2014
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 view also divides, with Rashbam 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 requiring a combination of both a census and a capital campaign to create an obligation to donate, and Ramban concluding that each factor alone warrants a collection.
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.
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.
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 a transient 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.
Ongoing Maintenance
These verses are an eternal mitzvah to provide annual support for the Mishkan or Mikdash.
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.
- 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 Temple.
- 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 generations37 whereas the command to give half shekels for the Tabernacle was a one time command for the generation of the desert.38
- Sin of pride – Ramban40 asserts that David's census did actually involve a collection of shekalim,41 but a plague came nonetheless since David had no purpose in the counting and was thus culpable of a certain hubris.42
- 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.43