S.A.L.T. – PARASHAT PEKUDEI

By Rav David Silverberg

Motzaei Shabbat

            The Torah in Parashat Pekudei describes the fashioning of the bigdei kehuna (priestly vestments), in accordance with the specifications outlined earlier, in Parashat Tetzaveh.  Like the rituals that the kohanim perform, the bigdei kehuna are a permanent part of the priestly code.  Throughout the generations, the kohanim must wear the same garments in the same fashion, and they are subject to the same laws.

            Rav Soloveitchik zt”l noted the contrast in this regard between the kohanim and a different group of leaders in ancient times – the prophets.  Whereas the kohanim were required to don the exact same garments and perform the exact same rituals, the prophets were not bound by any particular system.  They dressed as they wished, and (according to most opinions) they were given the freedom to formulate their prophetic message in any manner they chose.  Indeed, we find in the books of the prophets, and sometimes even within one prophet’s writings, a variety of linguistic styles.  The prophets dressed in accordance with the accepted dress styles of their time, and the messages they delivered addressed the particular circumstances in which the Jews of their time found themselves.  And these messages were formulated in the style that best suited those circumstances and the audience that the prophet addressed.

            These two models reflect the two roles of religious leadership.  As “kohanim,” the leaders bear the responsibility to meticulously preserve our halakhic tradition.  The bigdei kehuna represent the formality and rigidity of Halakha, which forms the basic structure of Torah life.  Just as the kohanim wear the same garments and perform the same rituals as their forebears, similarly, our religious leaders are assigned the task of receiving the mesora from the scholar of previous generations, guiding its implementation in the present, and ensuring its successful continuation in the future.  By contrast, the second role of leadership, the role of “prophets,” demands a degree of creativity and independent thinking.  Like the nevi’im of ancient times, the leaders must find the appropriate and most effective media with which to inspire the people to change and guide them through the difficult and complicated road of Jewish history.  And just like, as Chazal teach, no two prophets employed the precise same style of presentation, leaders should not necessarily seek to mimic their predecessors in determining the proper method for addressing the needs of the generation and articulating solutions.  Alongside their responsibility as bearers of the permanent and immutable halakhic tradition, they must also exercise creativity in their quest to rouse the hearts of their constituents, finding the right words, the right media, and the right strategies for guiding their ship through the often-turbulent seas of history.

(See Rabbi_Dovid_Gottlieb’s “When Clothes Do Make the Man”

Sunday

            In the special reading for Shabbat Shekalim, we read of God’s command to count Benei Yisrael through the system of the machatzit ha-shekel, the half-shekel tax whose revenue was transferred to the Temple treasury.  The Torah warns that Benei Yisrael expose themselves to the risk of a plague if they fail to use this method for counting the nation.  Indeed, as many commentators note, a devastating plague struck Benei Yisrael during the reign of King David after a census was taken (Sefer Shemuel II, chapter 24).  The obvious question arises as to why Benei Yisrael are punished for taking an ordinary census, and why specifically the system of machatzit ha-shekel saves them from the deadly consequences of a nationwide count.

            The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Medan shelit”a, explained the significance of the machatzit ha-shekel by examining more closely the census taken by King David.  It seems clear from the context and description of that census that King David ordered a counting of Benei Yisrael in preparation for a major military campaign.  The order of the census was given to Yoav, his general, and the results were “eight hundred thousand sword-bearing soldiers” (24:9), clearly indicating that King David was preparing to mobilize an army.  Rav Medan further noted that prior to this census, Benei Yisrael had waged a fierce, heroic war against a powerful alliance of Aram and other nations.  King David succeeded in securing and expanding the nation’s borders, and Benei Yisrael emerged as the most powerful and feared kingdom in the region.  If he now looked to mobilize an army, his intent, seemingly, was to conquer the surrounding nations and turn his kingdom into a vast empire.  As Rav Medan noted:

David was now faced with the temptation of trying – like the kings of Greece, Persia and Rome who came after him – to seize control of the entire known world. With this in mind, we may well imagine that David asks the chief of staff of his armed forces to carry out a military head-count with a view to launching a war of conquest.

            The sinful nature of the census becomes even clearer when we consider King David’s response to the devastating plague.  Immediately after the plague, David purchases a plot of land in Jerusalem from Aravna, a Yevusite, and this site became the future site of the Beit Ha-mikdash.  Furthermore, David devotes the rest of his reign to preparing for the construction of the Temple (see final chapters of Sefer Divrei Ha-yamim I).  The sin of the census was rectified by laying the groundwork for the Temple.  If so, then we can perhaps understand the gravity of the census.  As Rav Medan explained:

At a time when Eretz Yisrael is not yet firmly and completely conquered, organized and established, there is no room for entertaining thoughts of conquest for conquest’s sake. The path taken by most of the great historical world leaders included attempts at world-wide conquest while their own countries were falling apart. Their conquests were intended to bring glory to the rulers, whose might and glory were measured by the number of territories that they could claim. This is not the way of Israel. God punishes David because while he is planning his conquest, to bring glory to himself, God still has no dwelling place, and His city is not yet conquered.

David was punished because he set his sights upon expanding the kingdom into a large empire – even while the site of the Temple was still in Yebusite hands.  Before tending to the nation’s immediate spiritual needs, King David instead devised plans for imperialist expansion.

            The Torah commands that a census be taken specifically through the machatzit ha-shekel, which is used to fund the sacrifices in the Mikdash.  Benei Yisrael must not mobilize for warfare before supporting the Temple, before ensuring the spiritual stability of the nation.  Preparations for war must therefore be done specifically within the context of donations to the Mikdash.

   In this vein, Rav Medan suggested a possible explanation for the Gemara’s puzzling comment in Masekhet Megila (13b), “God knew that Haman would weigh out shekalim against Israel; therefore, He made their shekalim precede [Haman’s].”  According to the Gemara, it was through the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel that the Jews earned salvation from Haman’s edict.  Rav Medan explained that the Purim story occurred in between the period when the Persian Emperor Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael and build the Temple, but before the Temple was built.  Despite the sorry state of affairs in Jerusalem, with the construction of the city and the Temple repeatedly stalled, the Jews in Persia enjoyed the luxurious and indulgent lifestyle that characterized the society of the time, as indicated by the Megila’s elaborate description of Achashverosh’s feasts.  The Temple lay in ruins, but the Jews of Shushan celebrated contentedly in Achashverosh’s courtyard.  This is likely the reason God brought upon them the threat of Haman.  What rendered them deserving of salvation, though, was the machatzit ha-shekel – the funds the Persian Jews had sent toward the construction of the Mikdash.  Although they were, on one level, guilty of neglecting the Temple, they had to their credit the financial support they lent to this project, and for this they were rewarded.

The message of the shekalim, then, is the priority that must be afforded to our individual and collective spiritual pursuits.  Before investing effort and resources into luxuries and grandeur, we must ensure that all our spiritual needs are cared for, that our “shekalim” precede the “shekalim of Haman,” and our priorities are in their proper place.

Monday

            The Mishna in Masekhet Shekalim (1:4) records a debate among the Tanna’im as to whether the kohanim were included in the obligation of machatzit ha-shekel, the annual half-shekel tax collected from each member of Benei Yisrael.  A man named Ben Bukhri, the Mishna relates, testified after the Temple’s destruction that kohanim were given the option of donating the machatzit ha-shekel tax, but were not obligated to do so.  Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, however, disputed this ruling, and held that the kohanim were included in the obligation, though many of them mistakenly assumed that they were exempt.

            It is worth noting Ben Bukhri’s formulation in presenting his testimony concerning the kohanim’s exemption from the machatzit ha-shekel obligation: “Kol kohen she-shokel eino chotei” – “Any kohen who pays the [half-] shekel does not sin.”  Ben Bukhri did not simply state that the kohanim’s donation was optional.  Rather, he said that it was acceptable for a kohen to donate, and no transgression was entailed in this voluntary donation.  This formulation clearly indicates that there was reason to think that a kohen would be barred from participating in the machatzit ha-shekel donation, that he would be not only exempt, but forbidden from donating.

            The commentaries (see Rabbenu Ovadya of Bartenura) explain that one might have viewed a kohen’s voluntary donation as a “nidvat yachid” – a donation made privately, as an individual.  The public sacrifices purchased with the funds of the machatzit ha-shekel must be just that – public sacrifices.  To that end, they must be purchased with public funds.  If a kohen donates the machatzit ha-shekel voluntarily, that half-shekel might be assigned the status of a private donation, and thus sacrifices purchased with that money cannot be used to represent the nation.  Ben Bukhri therefore informs us that a kohen’s voluntary machatzit ha-shekel donation is accepted, because we may assume that a kohen donates with complete sincerity, intending for his donation to “blend in” with the public funds.  A kohen’s private donation becomes public funds because of his presumed sincerity, wholeheartedly giving over his half-shekel to the public treasury, rather than viewing it as his private donation.

            A voluntary gesture is, by definition, a private, individual act, motivated by very personal feelings and thoughts.  When we perform obligatory mitzvot, even if some of the trimmings allow a degree of individualism and creativity, fundamentally, we all perform the same act.  But voluntary gestures are, at their core, personal, as they originate from an individual’s unique goals and ambitions.  And as in the case of a voluntary machatzit ha-shekel donation, the concern arises that voluntary gestures are done insincerely, with the aim of earning distinction, making one’s personal mark, or making an impression.  Chazal were ambivalent toward voluntary religious measures partly because of the likelihood of insincerity, that such measures are done for selfish purposes, to serve the ego rather than serve the Almighty.  We must follow the example of the kohanim, who could be trusted to make their voluntary donations with sincerity, to fund the public rituals in the Mikdash.  Creativity and volunteerism certainly have their place in religious life, but we must ensure that voluntary religious measures are undertaken out of a sincere desire to serve the Almighty, and not out of a simple desire to express our individuality or earn recognition.

Tuesday

            In presenting the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel – the annual half-shekel tax which funded the public sacrifices in the Mikdash – the Torah writes, “The wealthy person shall not increase, and the impoverished one shall not decrease, from the half-shekel” (30:15).  According to the simple reading of the text, the Torah here emphasizes that the amount of this tax – a half-shekel – remains constant regardless of a person’s financial status.

            The Ramban, however, claims that in this verse the Torah issues a prohibition against giving more or less than a half-shekel.  This does not simply clarify that the required amount is a half-shekel; rather, it forbids giving more or less than this value to the Temple treasury.  The Ramban observes that the Rishonim who listed the 613 Biblical commands did not include this prohibition, and indicates his disapproval, as he believes that this prohibition should be counted among the Biblical commands.  Oddly enough, however, as many later writers noted, the Ramban himself did not include this prohibition in his critique of the Rambam’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot, where he lists the commands that the Rambam omitted.  (It should be noted that the Rashbatz indeed counts as two Biblical commands the prohibitions against donating more and donating less than a machatzit ha-shekel.)

            Amidst his discussion in his commentary to this verse, the Ramban suggests that this prohibition may explain a comment in the Gemara concerning the procedure of the machatzit ha-shekel.  The Mishna (Shekalim 3:1) describes that the half-shekels were assembled in a special chamber in the Beit Ha-mikdash, and three times of year, the kohanim would fill money boxes with half-shekels from this chamber, with which to purchase animals for sacrifices.  The Gemara in Masekhet Ketubot (108a) writes that when the kohen assigned to this role would take money from the chamber, he would have in mind those whose half-shekel was lost on the way to the Temple, and those who had not yet paid the half-shekel.  In order that these people do not forfeit their share in the public sacrifices, the kohen would have in mind to take funds from the lishka (chamber) on their behalf.  The surplus half-shekels in the lishka would thus be used to cover those whose payment never reached the Temple or who had yet to pay the tax.  The Ramban suggests that this was done because of the prohibition of “ha-dal lo yam’it,” which forbids paying less than a half-shekel.  In order that the people would not transgress this prohibition if their machatzit ha-shekel was lost or if they did not yet have a chance to pay, the kohen would have in mind to cover these  groups of people when he took funds from the lishka.

            The Ramban adds that the kohen would also help those who donated more than a machatzit ha-shekel, by having in mind not to take from the excess beyond the half-shekel from these donations.  In order to ensure that these donors would not transgress the prohibition of “he-ashir lo yarbeh,” the kohen would think in his mind that the he does not take any funds beyond the half-shekel that the Torah designated for this tax.

            The question of whether this verse was intended as a prohibition against paying more or less than a half-shekel may have already been addressed in the Talmud Yerushalmi.  According to one version of the text of the Yerushalmi (Shekalim 1:1), there is a dispute between Rabbi Chagai and Rabbi Bon as to whether or not this verse refers only to the terumat adanim, the machatzit ha-shekel tax levied upon Benei Yisrael for the construction of the Mishkan.  As we read in Parashat Pekudei (38:25-28), each member of Benei Yisrael donated half a silver coin toward the Mishkan, and the silver was used for the sockets that formed the foundation of the Mishkan (and the surplus was used for the hooks and adornments of the Mishkan’s pillars).  According to Rabbi Chagai, when the Torah forbids donating more or less than a half-shekel, it referred only to this initial donation toward the Mishkan, but not to the annual half-shekel tax.  Rabbi Bon disagreed, claiming that it applies even to the annual machatzit ha-shekel tax.  (According to other versions of this text, including that of the Vilna Gaon, all views agree that this verse applies even to the annual machatzit ha-shekel tax.)

            Rabbi Shlomo Sirilio, in the introduction to his commentary to Masekhet Shekalim, notes that the question as to whether this prohibition is included among the 613 Biblical commands likely hinges on this debate in the Talmud Yerushalmi.  If the verse prohibiting larger or smaller donations refers only to the terumat adanim, then it should not be listed among the 613 eternally binding commands.  If, however, the verse refers to the annual machatzit ha-shekel tax, then, seemingly, the Ramban is correct that it should be listed as one of the 613 mitzvot.  (This observation is also made by Rav Yerucham Perlow, in his commentary to Rav Saadia Gaon’s listing of the mitzvot.)

Wednesday

The Rambam, toward the beginning of Hilkhot Shekalim (1:1), writes regarding the annual machatzit ha-shekel tax, “One does not give it at numerous times, a bit today and a bit tomorrow, but rather gives it all together at one time.”  According to the Rambam, the machatzit ha-shekel payment must be made in a single installment, and may not be divided into small payments.  One cannot, for example, pay two semiannual installments of a quarter-shekel.  The entire sum of a half-shekel must be paid all at once.

            Later scholars noted that there is no explicit source for this requirement in the Talmud or elsewhere in the writings of Chazal, and different theories have been proposed to explain the basis of this ruling.  The Mabit, in his Kiryat Sefer, suggests that the Rambam inferred this provision from the Torah’s command that one may not pay less than a half-shekel (“ve-ha’dal lo yam’it mi-machatzit ha-shakel” – 30:15).  At first glance, this command seems unnecessary; once the Torah introduces an obligation to pay an annual half-shekel tax, it is obvious that one does not fulfill the mitzva by paying less than this sum.  The Rambam thus understood that the Torah’s command not to pay less than a half-shekel must mean that one may not pay the half-shekel in smaller installments, and must instead pay it in one lump sum.

            The Rogatchover Gaon, in his Tzofnat Panei’ach, suggests that the Rambam’s ruling is based on a halakha established by the Gemara in Masekhet Bava Kama (110a) concerning the law of gezel ha-ger.  A gentile who converts to Judaism is no longer considered halakhically “related” to his family members after conversion, and thus, unless he begets children after conversion, he has no heirs.  If a person had stolen property from a convert and the victim dies before the thief decides to return the stolen funds, since there are no heirs to whom to return the property, he gives it to a kohen (Bamidbar 5:8).  The Gemara establishes that the stolen funds must be returned in a single lump sum; the thief does not fulfill the mitzva by paying the kohen in multiple installments.  The reason, the Gemara explains, is that the Torah (ibid.) refers to this payment as an “asham” (“guilt-offering”), and therefore just as a sacrifice is obviously offered as a single entity, similarly, the return of the stolen funds must be done in a single payment.  The Shita Mekubetzet interprets the Gemara to mean that anything that must be given for the purpose of kapara, to earn atonement, must be given in full, and not divided into partial installments.  The Torah describes the purpose of the machatzit ha-shekel tax with the term “le-khaper al nafshoteikhem” (“to atone for your souls” – 30:15), clearly indicating that this payment is made to earn atonement.  As such, it must be given as a complete payment, and not in partial installments.

            Both these explanations – that of the Mabit and that of the Tzofnat Panei’ach – seem to assume that this requirement to make a single, complete payment is part of the Biblical command of machatzit ha-shekel.  A different view, however, is offered by the Maharit Algazi, in Hilkhot Bekhorot (8:81), who claimed that the Rambam refers here to a mitzva min ha-muvchar, the higher standard of performing the mitzva, rather than a strict obligation.  One fulfills the mitzva by annually paying a machatzit ha-shekel even in several installments, but one achieves a higher standard of mitzva performance by paying the full amount all at once.  According to the Maharit Algazi, then, the Rambam did not stipulate this condition as a Biblical requirement, but rather as an additional enhancement, of sorts, to the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel.

(See Torah Sheleima – milu’im to Parashat Teruma, 1)

Thursday

            The Mishna in Masekhet Shekalim (2:4) relates that when groups of Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia to build the Second Temple, they fulfilled the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel – the annual half-shekel tax to the Temple treasury – through darkonot.  The darkon was a gold coin that served as the primary currency of the Persian Empire at the time, and the Jews would pay a darkon to the Temple treasury to fulfill the obligation of machatzit ha-shekel.  The Mishna continues that they later used a currency called sela’im, and then later teva’in.

             Several commentators, including the Ramban (in his commentary to the beginning of Parashat Ki-Tisa) and the Korban Ha-eida commentary to the Yerushalmi, explain this to mean that at the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, the Jews paid more than the value of a half-shekel for this annual tax.  Due to their small numbers and the large expenses entailed in rebuilding the Temple, the Jews who returned from Babylonia paid an annual tax of a darkon, which was equivalent to two full shekalim.  Later, as conditions improved, they made annual payments of a sela, which was equivalent to a whole shekel, and then they were able to pay just a teva, which equaled a half-shekel.  The Mishna then tells that as the need for tax revenue further decreased, it was proposed that the people pay only a dinar, or a quarter of a shekel, but this idea was rejected, as the mitzva requires paying no less than a machatzit ha-shekel.

            The Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishna, offers a much a different explanation.  He attributes the different payment methods not to a change in the need for revenue, but rather to a change in currency.  According to the Rambam, the machatzit ha-shekel obligation requires paying half the prevalent currency of the time.  In the beginning of the Second Commonwealth, the prevalent currency was a darkon, and so the people paid a half-darkon.  Later, the currency changed, and the sela was used, whereupon the Jews fulfilled the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel by paying a half-sela.  When the teva was used, they had no choice but to donate a full teva, which was the value of a half-shekel, since the machatzit ha-shekel had to equal no less than a half-shekel.

            The Rambam codifies this halakha in his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Shekalim 1:5): “The mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel is to give half of the currency of the time, even if the currency was more valuable than then shekel of the Sanctuary.  But one never pays less than a half-shekel that was used in Moshe Rabbenu’s time…”

            The Rambam’s ruling should perhaps be understood in light of his position concerning multiple payments, which was discussed in yesterday’s edition of S.A.L.T.  As we saw, the Rambam held that one fulfills the mitzva only by paying the entire half-shekel sum at one time, and not in multiple installments.  Apparently, he understood the mitzva as entailing more than simply a financial obligation to the Temple treasury.  The Rambam ascribed to the machatzit ha-shekel donation a certain formality, involving the delivery of a half-shekel to the treasury.  The mitzva requires not merely paying dues, but a certain formal procedure of delivering a half-shekel.  By the same token, the mitzva does not prescribe a specific monetary value that one must pay.  Rather, it requires the formal procedure of paying a “half-currency.”  Although even the Rambam acknowledges a minimum value that the mitzva requires, he viewed the mitzva as, fundamentally, requiring the donation of a “half-currency” toward the Mikdash, rather than a financial obligation to help fund the Temple treasury.  At its core, the mitzva is defined not as annual “dues” to the Temple, but rather as a more formal procedure of donating half the prevalent unit of currency.

Friday

            The Mishna Berura (685:2) writes that if, on Shabbat Shekalim, the congregation forgot to read the special section of Parashat Shekalim, and they realized their mistake only after the reading of the haftara, they must open a Sefer Torah and read Parashat Shekalim at that point.  This applies also to the other three Shabbatot in this season requiring special readings (Zakhor, Para and Ha-chodesh).  In such a case, the Mishna Berura adds, the special haftara for this Shabbat is read after the reading of the special parasha, but without the berakhot before and after the reading.  Even though the congregation had already read a haftara – the regular haftara for that week’s parasha – they must, upon realizing their mistake, read the special haftara for that Shabbat, albeit without the berakhot.

            If the congregation realized their mistake earlier, while or after the reader recited the berakha before the haftara, then, according to the Mishna Berura, he should read several verses from the regular haftara for the week’s parasha, and the congregation should then open a Sefer Torah.  A person should be called to the Torah for the reading of the special section (Shekalim, Zakhor, etc.), and the person receiving that aliya recites the berakhot before and after the reading, as usual.  After the reading and the concluding berakha, kaddish is recited, and then the special haftara for that Shabbat is read, without the preceding berakha (which had already been recited before the mistake was realized), but with the usual berakhot after the haftara.

            The Chid”a, in his Birkei Yosef (685:3), writes that these special sections may be read only until the recitation of the musaf prayer.  If the congregation realized their mistake only after musaf, then they should not bring a Sefer Torah from the ark especially for this reading.  The Tzitz Eliezer (16:21) clarifies that the Birkei Yosef made this comment only with regard to the readings of Parashat Shekalim and Parashat Ha-chodesh.  The other two – Parashat Zakhor and Parashat Para – are treated with greater severity, and thus if a congregation forgot to conduct one of these readings before musaf, they may, and should, bring a Sefer Torah from the ark and read the section afterward.

            Rav Shimon Sofer, in his Hit’orerut Teshuva (4:68), claims that even with regard to Shabbat Shekalim, it is possible to make up a missed reading after musaf.  He writes that in such a case, a congregation may read Parashat Shekalim at mincha on Shabbat afternoon.  They read the first two aliyot from the weekly parasha, as usual, and then read Parashat Shekalim as the third aliya.

            If a congregation forgot to read one of these special readings and remembered only after Shabbat, can the reading be made up on the following Shabbat?

            The Mishna Berura (ibid.) cites the Sha’arei Efrayim (a work by Rav Efrayim Zalman Margoliyot on the halakhot of Torah reading) as ruling that these readings cannot be made up on a different Shabbat.  Interestingly enough, however, the Maharam Shick (O.C. 335) makes an exception for the reading of Parashat Shekalim.  He notes that the reason for this reading, according to most sources, is to commemorate the call for the annual machatzit ha-shekel donation which would be made starting from Rosh Chodesh Adar.  Since the machatzit ha-shekel could be paid at any time during the month of Adar, the Maharam Shick notes, it stands to reason that the commemorative reading could similarly be conducted at any point during this month.  The Talmud Yerushalmi (Megila 4:4) gives a different reason for the reading of Parashat Shekalim, namely, that the Jews in Ester’s time were saved in the merit of the mitzva of machatzit ha-shekel, and we therefore conduct a commemorative reading in advance of Purim.  According to this reason, the Maharam Shick writes, it should be acceptable to read Parashat Shekalim at least before Purim.  In his view, then, a congregation that forgot to read Parashat Shekalim on the Shabbat before Rosh Chodesh Adar may read it on the following Shabbat.

            Several contemporary poskim, however, including Rav Shemuel Wosner (Sheivet Ha-levi 4:71) and Rav Ovadya Yosef (Yalkut Yosef – Mo’adim, p. 268), rule against the Maharam Shick’s position.  In their view, since Chazal designated a particular Shabbat for the reading of Parashat Shekalim, it cannot be read after that Shabbat.

(See Piskei Teshuvot, vol. 6, 685:1-2)