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 76: | Line 76: | ||
<point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> | <point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>Rashbam appears to view the census as a byproduct of the collection; once Moshe was gathering the people to collect donations, he was told to also count them.<fn>The language of "כִּי תִשָּׂא" | + | <li>Rashbam appears to view the census as a byproduct of the collection; once Moshe was gathering the people to collect donations, he was told to also count them.<fn>The language of "כִּי תִשָּׂא" is difficult for this understanding as it connotes both an ongoing and intentional commandment, not something that is simply an afterthought related to a one time event. One might also have expected the order of the verses to be reversed, with the request for shekalim preceding the counting.</fn></li> |
− | <li>Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe view the counting as a ploy by which to ensure that enough contributions were made for the Tabernacle.<fn>Hoil Moshe posits that the verses are achronological and occurred after the sin of the Golden Calf. He suggests that Moshe desired to count the remaining members of the nation and Hashem | + | <li>Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe view the counting as a ploy by which to ensure that enough contributions were made for the Tabernacle.<fn>Hoil Moshe posits that the verses are achronological and occurred after the sin of the Golden Calf. He suggests that Moshe desired to count the remaining members of the nation and Hashem advised him that this was an opportunity to collect shekalim which could atone for their sin and be used to build the Tabernacle. The opening "כִּי תִשָּׂא" then, does not have to refer to an ongoing obligation but is rather Hashem's suggestion to Moshe regarding his immediate actions – "when you count, [make sure to do so via shekalim]". Abarbanel similarly views Hashem's words to Moshe as "good advice" ("עצה הגונה") rather than an actual command to take a census. He understands the word "כִּי" to mean "בעבור" and suggests that Hashem is saying "since you desire to count – [do it in the following way]".</fn></li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
<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 | + | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – 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.<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, 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>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> | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
<point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – The plague results from a laxity in giving contributions to the | + | <point><b>"וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם"</b> – The plague results from a laxity in giving contributions to the Mishkan or Mikdash 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 Mikdash, plague might result.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – This refers to the general upkeep and ongoing service of the | + | <point><b>"עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"</b> – This refers to the general upkeep and ongoing service of the Mikdash, 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> | ||
<point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>David's census and Divine punishment</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Contributions mandated by Yoash</b> – 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – 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 | + | <point><b>One-third shekel donation in Nechemyah</b> – 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.<fn>He supports the idea that this was an additional obligation taken upon the people by themselves from the language in Nechemyah 10:33, ""וְהֶעֱמַדְנוּ עָלֵינוּ מִצְוֹת לָתֵת עָלֵינוּ שְׁלִשִׁית הַשֶּׁקֶל בַּשָּׁנָה </fn></point> |
<point><b>The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels</b> – According to R. Saadia, this is not just a custom, but a Torah-mandated law.</point> | <point><b>The halakhic requirement to give half-shekels</b> – According to R. Saadia, this is not just a custom, but a Torah-mandated law.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – R. Saadia may be motivated by a desire to find explicit support in Torah for the Rabbinic position regarding annual contributions to the | + | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – 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.</point> |
<!-- | <!-- | ||
<point><b>Crux of the position</b> – </point> | <point><b>Crux of the position</b> – </point> | ||
Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>A periodic obligation</b> – 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.</li> | <li><b>A periodic obligation</b> – 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.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Both are ongoing</b> – 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 | + | <li><b>Both are ongoing</b> – 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.</li> |
<li><b>One and one </b>– According to the GR"A the command to give some sort of redemptive object when counting is an ongoing obligation for future generations<fn>Since the Vilna Gaon maintains that the census in the desert only took place in the second year, he can not say that the first verse applies to the present. This leads him to separate it from the rest of the section.</fn> whereas the command to give half shekels for the Tabernacle was a one time command for the generation of the desert.<fn>The GR"A sees the unit as being composed of two distinct sections. While verse 12 is a command aimed at future generations, the rest of the unit is aimed only at the generation of the desert. As such, the collection of shekalim relates only to the Tabernacle donation, while future cenuses mandate any redemptive object.</fn></li> | <li><b>One and one </b>– According to the GR"A the command to give some sort of redemptive object when counting is an ongoing obligation for future generations<fn>Since the Vilna Gaon maintains that the census in the desert only took place in the second year, he can not say that the first verse applies to the present. This leads him to separate it from the rest of the section.</fn> whereas the command to give half shekels for the Tabernacle was a one time command for the generation of the desert.<fn>The GR"A sees the unit as being composed of two distinct sections. While verse 12 is a command aimed at future generations, the rest of the unit is aimed only at the generation of the desert. As such, the collection of shekalim relates only to the Tabernacle donation, while future cenuses mandate any redemptive object.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</point> | </point> | ||
− | <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 | + | <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 Mikdash 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 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>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. 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> |
Version as of 05:57, 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 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.
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 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 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