Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle/2

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 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 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.

Sources: ShadalShemot 30:12Bemidbar 31:48About R. S.D. Luzzatto¹

"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.

Sources: RashiShemot 30:12Shemot 30:15Shemot 30:16Bemidbar 1:2Shemuel I 11:8Shemuel I 15:4About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamShemot 30:12,16Shemot 35:1Bemidbar 31:49About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Shadal in his HaMishtadelShemot 30:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto,¹⁶ U. CassutoShemot 30:11-16About U. Cassuto

"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 –

Shaul's censuses – Rashi follows Bavli YomaYoma 22bAbout the Bavli,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 BerakhotBerakhot 62bAbout the Bavli, 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.

Sources: JosephusAntiquities 3:8:2 (194-196)Antiquities 18:9:1 (312)About Josephus, AbarbanelShemot 30 Questions 1-4Abarbanel Shemot 30:11-14Abarbanel Shemot 30:15Abarbanel Bemidbar 1:2About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,²⁶ Hoil MosheBemidbar 1:2About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

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"

• 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.²⁸
• Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe view the counting as a ploy by which to ensure that enough contributions were made for the Tabernacle.²⁹

"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.

Sources: R. Saadia GaonCommentary Shemot 30:11Cited by Ibn Ezra Shemot Long Commentary 30:12About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 30:12Shemot Long Commentary 30:16Shemot Short Commentary 30:12Shemot Short Commentary 30:16About R. Avraham ibn Ezra

"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.

Sources: RadakShemuel II 24:1Melakhim II 12:5Divrei HaYamim II 24:6About R. David Kimchi, ChizkuniShemot 30:12Shemot 30:16About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, RambanShemot 30:12Bemidbar 1:3Bemidbar 16:21About R. Moshe Nachmanides, RalbagShemot 30:12,15-16Shemot 30, Toalot 1-2Bemidbar 1:1-3Shemuel II 24:1Melakhim II 12:5Nechemyah 10:33Divrei HaYamim II 24:5-7Divrei HaYamim II 24, Toelet 13About R. Levi b. Gershon, Minchah BelulahShemot 30:13About R. Avraham Rappo of Porto, Vilna Gaon (GR"A)Aderet Eliyahu Shemot 30:12About R. Eliyahu Kramer, MalbimShemot 30:12About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

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.

¹ This is the position of Shadal reflected in his Commentary on the Torah. This commentary was compiled from Shadal's various writings and published posthumously (1871) by his students. As can be seen from Shadal's HaMishtadelShemot 30:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto (an earlier version of his commentary which he published himself in 1847), what is published in the posthumous commentary was Shadal's original interpretation which he later dissected and rejected in HaMishtadel. It is unclear what prompted the decision by Shadal's students to nonetheless incorporate his earlier position, and it is possible that, toward the end of his life, Shadal had another change of heart which caused him to readopt his original position. Were this true, however, one would have expected Shadal to address the objections he himself raised in HaMishtadel. Furthermore, the editors' selections appear to have been inconsistent, as what they printed for Shadal's interpretation of Bemidbar 31:48 ("ולא משום כי תשא את ראש, כי המצווה ההיא איננה אלא כשימנו העם כולו") matches Shadal's position in HaMishtadel, whereas they should have opted here too for Shadal's original draft ("ולא משום כי תשא את ראש, כי איננה מצוה לדורות") [cited in HaMishtadel] in order to be consistent with the posthumous commentary on Shemot 30.

² For similar cases in which Shadal suggests that Hashem left the nation to continue in their benign though false conceptions, see About Shadal. A similar notion regarding Rabbinic attitudes toward misguided beliefs is expressed by the MeiriPesachim 109bAbout R. Menachem HaMeiri.

³ Shadal must interpret these phrases as well as "וְלֹא יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף", as being merely according to the beliefs of the people (לשיטתם).

⁴ Shadal deduces from the obligation described in the subsequent verses to utilize the silver for the construction of the Mishkan (a one-time event), that the entire command applied only on this one occasion. This is also supported by the fact that, in contrast to the surrounding units (Shemot 30:8,21,31), the Torah here makes no mention of the obligation being "לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם". Additionally, as noted below, the giving of half-shekels never appears in any subsequent Biblical census. However, other exegetes (see below) dispute both Shadal's interpretation that "עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" refers to the building of the Tabernacle and his claim that the entire unit of Shemot 30:11-16 constitutes only a single unitary obligation. In fact, in his HaMishtadel, Shadal himself notes that Shemot 30 never mentions the silver sockets (it becomes clear only in Shemot 38 that this donation of silver was used for them), but rather employs a more general description which could include both building as well as ongoing maintenance. Shadal also points out there that the Torah does not specify that the efficacy of this single donation shekalim would endure forever.

⁵ Cf. Chizkuni below "יש מפרשים כל זמן שהמלאכה הנעשית מכסף זה היתה קימת אין צורך לתת כופר פעם אחרת כשיהיו נמנים".

⁶ Shadal acknowledges that the language of "כִּי תִשָּׂא" would seem to imply that the command applies specifically in the future (cf. ChizkuniShemot 30:12Shemot 30:16About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach and RambanShemot 30:12Bemidbar 1:3Bemidbar 16:21About R. Moshe Nachmanides). However, he states that he is forced to conclude otherwise because of the concluding verse of the unit – see the analysis above.

⁷ According to Shadal the total from this census is provided in Shemot 38. He asserts that this census is distinct from the one described in detail in Bemidbar 1, despite the fact that their totals are precisely the same. See his discussion in Bemidbar 1:46 for his explanation of the coincidence of the identical totals. For a broader analysis of the issue as a whole, see Censuses in the Wilderness.

⁸ Shadal would maintain that the command is located in the midst of the instructions regarding the Mishkan since the proceeds benefited the Mishkan. However, this was just a collateral benefit, not the primary objective of the census.

⁹ Cf. Shemot 39:32 and many other verses.

¹⁰ See Shadal in HaMishtadelShemot 30:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto who discusses whether the phrase "‏וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי ה'‏" must imply that the contributions were used for an everlasting part of the Mishkan's structure, and cf. Cassuto below.

¹¹ Shadal argues against Abarbanel who views the collection as part of a plan to ensure that enough silver was collected, pointing out that the nation brought more than enough of every other material, so there should have been no concern that there would be a shortage of silver. According to Shadal, the only reason the shekels were incorporated into the foundations of the Tabernacle was so that there would be no future worries about the "evil eye" (at least as long as the Tabernacle was in existence).

¹² Shadal thus rejects the contrasting view (cited below) of R. Meir, the father of Rashbam.

¹³ Cf. "טֶלֶם" in Yehoshua 15:24.

¹⁴ Shadal cites the TanchumaKi Tisa 9About the Tanchuma which faults David for conducting an unnecessary census.

¹⁵ 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. See also Radak below. 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.

¹⁶ See above that Shadal's later Commentary on the Torah reflects a shift in his position.

¹⁷ See Chronology of Shemot 19-34.

¹⁸ Rashi further states that the total from this census is recorded in Shemot 38:26, and it matches the total population for the census in Bemidbar 1. Since Rashi maintains that these were two different censuses, he attempts (in 30:16) to explain the coincidence of the identical totals as well as the need for both. For elaboration and analysis, see Censuses in the Wilderness.

¹⁹ Cf. Bavli Bava Mezia 42a cited by R"Y Bekhor Shor and others.

²⁰ Cf. Shadal above.

²¹ He would presumably hold the same position regarding the count in the fortieth year.

²² See also TanchumaKi Tisa 9About the Tanchuma.

²³ See the discussion above of Shadal's interpretation.

²⁴ The commentary on Divrei HaYamim (II 24:5-6) attributed to Rashi understands "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" to refer to the obligation of giving half-shekalim. However, this is not Rashi's own commentary.

²⁵ The basis for Rashi's position may be found in both Yerushalmi ShekalimShekalim 1:1About the Yerushalmi and Bavli MegillahMegillah 29bAbout the Bavli.

²⁶ Cf. Akeidat YitzchakShemot #52 Questions 1-4About R. Yitzchak Arama.

²⁷ Cf. Qumran 4Q159 which suggests that every individual is simply required to give a once in a lifetime contribution. This was presumably given when a person reached the age of twenty ("מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה"), or the age of majority in Qumran.

²⁸ 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.

²⁹ 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]".

³⁰ Such a fear exists only in cases where a count is not commanded by Hashem.

³¹ 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.

³² He was able to use whatever he wanted since there is no mandatory ransom that must take the form of shekalim.

³³ He points out that Yoav chides the king on the census itself and makes no mention of David not using shekalim.

³⁴ Compare to Shadal above who explains similarly.

³⁵ As above, it is possible that Yoash refers to these monies as "מַשְׂאַת מֹשֶׁה" to give more credence to his request and to link them to the original donations to the Tabernacle, but not because they were commanded by Moshe.

³⁶ 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.

³⁷ 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.

³⁸ 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.

³⁹ 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

⁴⁰ 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.

⁴¹ 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.

⁴² He suggests that the language of "תפקדו אותם" rather than simply "תמנו" hints to this as it connotes a certain watching over.

⁴³ This is his position in Bemidbar 1.

⁴⁴ 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.

⁴⁵ In his comments in Shemot, in contrast, Ramban suggests that David did not know that the law was for all generations and thus erred.

⁴⁶ This is not explicit in his comments but appears to be what he is suggesting.

⁴⁷ Compare with the similar explanation of R. Saadia above.