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 72: | Line 72: | ||
<multilink><aht source="HoilBemidbar1-2">Hoil Moshe</aht><aht source="HoilBemidbar1-2">Bemidbar 1:2</aht><aht parshan="Hoil Moshe">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</aht></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="HoilBemidbar1-2">Hoil Moshe</aht><aht source="HoilBemidbar1-2">Bemidbar 1:2</aht><aht parshan="Hoil Moshe">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</aht></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
− | + | ||
− | <point><b>Why only one time?</b> Most of these commentators maintain that the collection was required for the initial construction of the Tabernacle, and as such was a one time donation. | + | <point><b>Why only one time?</b> Most of these commentators maintain that the collection was required for the initial construction of the Tabernacle, and as such was a one time donation.<fn>Cf. <aht source="4Q159">Qumran 4Q159</aht>which suggests that every individual is simply required to give a once in a lifetime contribution. It is not clear when this was given, but presumably at some point after the person reached the age of twenty.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> | <point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – 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."<fn>Such a fear exists only in cases where a count is not commanded by Hashem.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – 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."<fn>Such a fear exists only in cases where a count is not commanded by Hashem.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – According to | + | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – According to this approach, this refers to the initial building of the Tabernacle. </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> – 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>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, | + | <point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – This approach could suggest that Yoash, on his own, requested contributions for the upkeep of the Mikdash, modeled after the 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> | ||
<point><b>The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels</b> – This approach would assert that this is simply a Rabbinic tradition, likely learned from the original contributions for the Tabernacle.</point> | <point><b>The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels</b> – This approach would assert that this is simply a Rabbinic tradition, likely learned from the original contributions for the Tabernacle.</point> | ||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
<p>These verses are an eternal mitzvah to provide annual support for the Mishkan or Mikdash.</p> | <p>These verses are an eternal mitzvah to provide annual support for the Mishkan or Mikdash.</p> | ||
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
− | |||
<multilink><aht source="RasagCommentaryShemot30-11">R. Saadia Gaon</aht><aht source="RasagCommentaryShemot30-11">Commentary Shemot 30:11</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Cited by Ibn Ezra Shemot Long Commentary 30:12</aht><aht parshan="R. Saadia Gaon" /></multilink>, | <multilink><aht source="RasagCommentaryShemot30-11">R. Saadia Gaon</aht><aht source="RasagCommentaryShemot30-11">Commentary Shemot 30:11</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Cited by Ibn Ezra Shemot Long Commentary 30:12</aht><aht parshan="R. Saadia Gaon" /></multilink>, | ||
<multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Shemot Long Commentary 30:12</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-16">Shemot Long Commentary 30:16</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort30-12">Shemot Short Commentary 30:12</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort30-16">Shemot Short Commentary 30:16</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> | <multilink><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Ibn Ezra</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-12">Shemot Long Commentary 30:12</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotLong30-16">Shemot Long Commentary 30:16</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort30-12">Shemot Short Commentary 30:12</aht><aht source="IbnEzraShemotShort30-16">Shemot Short Commentary 30:16</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" /></multilink> | ||
Line 104: | Line 103: | ||
<point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – The plague results from a laxity in giving contributions to the Tabernacle or Temple and is unrelated to the census.<fn>One can count without fear of repercussion even if no redemptive money is collected. Conversely, even if one counts via shekalim, if no monies were donated to the Temple, plague might result.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – The plague results from a laxity in giving contributions to the Tabernacle or Temple and is unrelated to the census.<fn>One can count without fear of repercussion even if no redemptive money is collected. Conversely, even if one counts via shekalim, if no monies were donated to the Temple, plague might result.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – This refers to the general upkeep and ongoing service of the Temple, including provisions for the sacrifices and the like.<fn>R. Saadia points to the similar language in Yehoshua 22:27, "לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת ה' לְפָנָיו בְּעֹלוֹתֵינוּ וּבִזְבָחֵינוּ וּבִשְׁלָמֵינוּ" where עבודה explicitly refers to sacrifices.</fn></point> | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – This refers to the general upkeep and ongoing service of the Temple, including provisions for the sacrifices and the like.<fn>R. Saadia points to the similar language in Yehoshua 22:27, "לַעֲבֹד אֶת עֲבֹדַת ה' לְפָנָיו בְּעֹלוֹתֵינוּ וּבִזְבָחֵינוּ וּבִשְׁלָמֵינוּ" where עבודה explicitly refers to sacrifices.</fn></point> | ||
− | |||
<point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – As there is no obligation to count via shekalim, none are mentioned in these censuses.</point> | <point><b>Censuses in Bemidbar 1 and 26</b> – As there is no obligation to count via shekalim, none are mentioned in these censuses.</point> | ||
<point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – Here, too, there is no mention of shekalim since they are not a requirement for counting.</point> | <point><b>Shaul's censuses</b> – Here, too, there is no mention of shekalim since they are not a requirement for counting.</point> |
Version as of 04:26, 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