Shekalim 6: Sale of Joseph

Daf Ditty Shekalim 6: Sale of Joseph

6a] Halakha 3 · MISHNA With regard to one who gathers together small coins and said: These are for my shekel, and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. Beit Shammai say: The leftover coins are placed in the collection horn designated for a free-will offering, as the money is consecrated property, but it does not have the status of a shekel. Beit Hillel say: The leftover money is non-sacred property since, ab initio, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property.

However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said:

These are for my sin-offering, then if he had accumulated more than was needed, they agree that the leftover money must be designated as a free-will offering. However, if he originally said: That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover money is non-sacred property.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? Rather,

4 the issue is that shekels have a fixed value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, a sin-offering has no fixed value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no real fixed value. For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics, which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, they reverted to contributing with a sela, a silver coin of equal weight to the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-sela for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, they reverted to contributing with a tiva, a different coin which is worth a half- shekel. Some people wished to contribute only dinars, which are half the value of the tiva, i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages refused to accept it and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value.

It is written: This they shall give, everyone that passeth among 13 גי הֶז ,וּנְתִּי לָכּ - רֵבֹעָה לַﬠ - םיִדֻקְפַּה -- them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel ַמ תיִצֲח ,לֶקֶשַּׁה לֶקֶשְׁבּ :שֶׁדֹקַּה םיִרְשֶׂﬠ םיִרְשֶׂﬠ of the sanctuary--the shekel is twenty gerahs--half a ,הָרֵגּ לֶקֶשַּׁה -- תיִצֲחַמ ,לֶקֶשַּׁה הָמוּרְתּ הָמוּרְתּ ,לֶקֶשַּׁה תיִצֲחַמ .shekel for an offering to the LORD .הָוהיַל Ex 30:13

“This they shall give, everyone who passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary” Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree with regard to the reason for the mitzva. One said: Because they sinned with the Golden Calf at the midpoint of the day, they should give a half-shekel. And one said: Because they sinned at the sixth hour of the day, they should give a half-shekel, whose sum is equal to six garmisin, a small coin that was prevalent in that period.

Rabbi Yehoshua of the house of Rabbi Neḥemya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: Because the Jewish people transgressed the Ten Commandments at the time of the Golden Calf, each one of them shall give ten gera, which equals a half-shekel, as it is written: “This they shall give, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary; the shekel is twenty gera” (Exodus 30:13). Since the Jewish people violated the first commandment, it was as if they transgressed all ten (Sifrei, Shelaḥ).

The Gemara cites an additional reason for the obligation to give a half-shekel: It atones for the sin of the sale of Joseph. First, it introduces this topic. Rabbi Berekhya and Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Since the sons of Jacob sold Joseph, the firstborn of Rachel, for twenty silver dinar, the nation was commanded that each of them must redeem his firstborn son with twenty silver dinar, which is five sela, as there are four dinar in a sela.

The Gemara returns to the subject of the obligation to contribute a half-shekel: Rabbi Pineḥas said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Since ten of Jacob’s sons sold Joseph, Rachel’s firstborn, for twenty silver dinars, each of them received two dinars, which amounts to a tiva or a half-sela; therefore, each and every man must give a tiva for his shekel every year.

Torah T’Mima to Gen 37:28

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna: One who gathers together coins and says: These are for my shekel, if he finds that he has more than a half-shekel, then according to the opinion of Beit

10 Shammai, the remainder is designated for a free-will offering, and according to Beit Hillel the remainder is non-sacred property.

Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? With regard to one who gathers coin by coin [peroterot], adding small coins bit by bit until they amount to a large sum. It is assumed that he intended to contribute only a half-shekel but did not pay attention to the fact that a larger sum had accumulated. According to Beit Hillel, an item that was consecrated by mistake does not become consecrated, and thus the leftover money is non- sacred property.

Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Beiva said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With regard to what do they disagree? When one gathers coin by coin. In that case Beit Shammai maintain that the leftover money is designated for a free-will offering. Since they hold that an item consecrated by mistake is in fact consecrated, all the money that he accumulated becomes consecrated property and must be designated as a free-will offering. However, with regard to one who takes a stack of coins and says: These are for my shekel, everyone agrees that the leftover coins are non-sacred property. Even Beit Shammai agree that he did not intend to consecrate a sum of money so beyond the requirement of the half-shekel ab initio.

Steinzaltz

Jastrow

Rav Avraham Adler writes:1

If a person gathers small coins one by one, and proclaims that “these will go towards my shekel,” Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are in a disagreement about what to do with any money above the shekel amount, where Beis Hillel maintains that this extra money is chullin (non-consecrated), while Beis Shammai holds that it should go towards a nedova – a voluntary offering. However, if the person proclaims, “that I will bring from them (will be the shekel)”, than all agree that the remainder is a nedova (since the leftovers are included in his proclamation.)

When it comes to gathering coins for a chatas that one is obligated in bringing, even Beis Hillel agrees that the remainder is considered a nedova. Rabbi Shimon says the difference between shekalim and chatas is that shekalim are always a fixed amount (therefore it is possible to say that the remainder will be chulin,) contrasted with the chatas that has no fixed amount, so the entire sum that he has amassed will be a nedova.

Rabbi Yehuda brings an historical account that at times when more funding was needed for the Beis Hamikdosh, the Jews brought an amount larger than a half shekel for their donation, so therefore any remaining coins should be a nedova. Rabbi Shimon answered that even at those times, each Jew brought the same amount. But any chatas can be of a different value.

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_6.pdf

13 The Gemora cites a discussion if Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai are arguing only when the person actually collected the sum coin by coin, or even in a case when his hand reached into a container of coins and grabbed a “random” amount, which was more than a half shekel's worth.

Ezra Hasofer proclaimed to the people, “We have established a mitzva to donate a third of a shekel each year towards the House of Hashem.” This verse has been interpreted in the Gemora to mean that there was a time in history when the Jews donated three half shekalim each year, instead of the normally prescribed half shekel. As long as each Jew donated the same amount, this was permitted to do. The Gemora derives several other lessons from this verse:

1. Beis Din cannot make more than three appeals a year for public donations. 2. The shekalim funds were utilized in the Beis Hamikdosh three times a year (before Pesach, before Shavuos, and before Sukkos.) 3. The funds were stored in three containers, and they were all emptied out in sequence.

When Moshe Rabbeinu ascended Har Sinai to bring down the Torah, he told the Jews that he will return in forty days. They didn't realize that his calculation started the following day. So precisely at midday of the fortieth day (of their calculation) when he didn't return, they turned to commit the chet ha'egel (the Golden Calf). The Gemora understands that since this sin was committed at the exact half of the day, the proper atonement shall be a half a shekel. Another explanation is that since the sin was done on the sixth hour of the day, the Jews shall donate a half a shekel, equivalent to six Garmasin coins (a currency during the time of Moshe Rabbeinu.) The Gemora now draws a few other similar comparisons:

1. The Torah writes that a shekel is worth twenty Geras, therefore a half shekel is worth ten Geras, which would atone for the chet ha'egel which was a violation of the Aseres Hadibros (Ten Commandments.)

2. The brothers sold Yosef for twenty silver coins, and to atone for that sin, each Jew has to redeem his first-born son with an amount of silver of the same equivalence. (The mitzva of Pidyon Haben is to give 5 Sela coins to a Kohen, and each Sela is worth 4 Dinars, altogether equaling 20 silver coins.)

3. Ten of the twelve brothers sold Yosef. (There are two opinions on which two weren't present then. One is that neither Binyomin nor Yosef were involved in the sale. The other is that Binyomin and Reuven weren't present. Yes, Yosef too is at fault, since he instigated their jealousy of him, it is as if he himself was actively involved in his own sale!) Therefore, each Jew has to donate a half shekel (each shekel is worth two silver coins, multiplied by ten equals the twenty coins of the sale.)

The Gemora notes (via its arguments, and back-andforth logical negotiations) several points regarding Kodshim (korbanos), both related and not related to our original topic, of what is done with the surplus of donations.

14 • If a person set aside the shekel coin, but died before he donated it, that coin will go towards a nedova.

• A Kohen Godol who has leftover asiris ho'eifa (a mincha flour offering) shall bring this extra flour and dispose of it at sea. (Since one cannot derive benefit from it, but one doesn't transgress the meila prohibition either.)

• If the asiris ho'eifa belonged to a regular Jew (not the Kohen Godol,) then the remaining flour shall be a nedova.

• A Korban Pesach that was slaughtered with the intention of being a Shlomim will be considered Shlomim (since any korbanos that the animal is either a sheep or a goat will be a Shlomim. The two exceptions to this rule are an Olah – which can also come from cattle, and an Oshom – which can only be a ram, but not a goat.)

• The general rule is that the word “min” (from) comes to limit, and concerning Korban Pesach, the word “min” limits this Korban that it should come only from a female animal, who is less than two years old.

We mentioned that Yosef Hatzaddik is partially to blame for his own sale, since he instigated the matter by arousing his brother's jealousy. The Ksav Sofer (Al HaTorah) in Parshas Mishpotim (Ex 22:23) writes a very similar thought. The Torah warns us not to afflict a widow or an orphan, and if they are afflicted and turn to Hashem, Hashem will hear their cries. Hashem will then become angry, and will kill those who hurt these downtrodden people. Subsequently, the children of the oppressors will themselves become orphans, and their wifes will be widows. The Ksav Sofer asks, isn't it obvious that if Hashem kills these men, then their children will become orphans, and their wifes widows? He answers with the general rule that anyone who causes someone else to be punished, he himself will also be punished. The widows – who cried to Hashem after being afflicted – have inadvertently caused the oppressors to be killed by Hashem's wrath. Therefore, they themselves are now subject to punishment, and their children will too be orphaned.

Atonement of the Shekalim

The Shem mi’Shmuel explains why the commandment to us to bring shekalim could forestall the shekalim of Haman. We read concerning Amalek, “Asher karkha- who cooled you,” (Dvarim, 25:18) and “they camped in Rephidim” (Shmot, 17:8); where the Jewish avodah became weakened and casual, then there came Amalek. Eisav, Amalek and Haman, were devoted to a cooling of the Avodah of Israel, to a cooling of the relationships of one Jew to the next and to the resultant separation of Israel from Hashem.

We need to understand the discussion2 as to which sins the shekalim came to atone for. One said that it was for their error of the Golden Calf that they had made at midday while another said that that had been at the 6th hour of the day. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Nechemiah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, as they had transgressed the Ten Commandments, each one in

2 Yerushalmi, Shekalim, 2, halakha 3; Also the Midrash Ki Tisah, 10

15 Israel had to bring in atonement, a half shekel, that is a tenth of a gerah in weight. Rabbi Shimon Ben Levi taught that as they had collectively sinned by selling Rachel’s first born for 20 pieces of silver, each descendant of the 10 brothers had to bring a coin, in memory of their share of the sale price, in atonement.

Those scholars that relate the shekalim to the error of the Golden Calf saw their test as being their inability to serve Hashem even without wisdom or knowledge [that is only with their bodies]. Wisdom and knowledge were missing at that time, either because Satan had caused confusion and ignorance amongst Israel at the absence of Moshe that obviated their wisdom [Israel said, “We do not know what has happened to the man Moshe” (Shmot, 32:1)], or because the number 6 represents the unity of the diverse parts of our bodies, but does not include our wisdom, that is the innermost part of us, represented by the number 7.

Rabbi Shimon ben Levi, who held that the shekel came to atone for the sale of Yosef, argues that that sin was one of the mind and the intellect. They had to judge him with their minds but there occurred a distortion in their intellectual wisdom that led to an error in judgment. The two aspects that are contained in the shekalim will show that there is no difference between the Sages. There was the numerical element of shekalim and there was the element of the silver in them. The numerical element is reflected in the 6th hour and this refers to the chet haeigel.

There is an insistence on silver in the shekalim; “All the hekdeishot may be redeemed [by payment with near money] except for shekalim that have to be brought in silver coins” (Bechorot, 72).This insistence on silver is a reminder of the knowledge and intellect involved in the sin of the selling of Yosef. The Maharal explains that “You shall love your G-d with all your might, meodekha”, [that means as Rashi comments, ‘with all your possessions’] refers to our minds, intellect and wisdom since our possessions are at the heart of everything and Mankind is immersed in their possessions.

That is why they are called ‘Kesef’ since our kissuffim, all our yearnings, are for them. Now we can understand the saying of our Sages, that Hashem commanded us to bring shekalim, to forestall the coins of Haman. In that period, the Jews had committed two sins; one with their bodies, in that they partook of the king’s feast and one with their minds and intellect, in that they bowed to the idol. The shekalim atoned both for their bodily sin and for the intellectual one, since they combine both body and mind.

THE REASON FOR HALF A SHEKEL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:3

According to one opinion, the half-Shekel is given as atonement for the brothers' sale of Yosef. The ten brothers sold Yosef for 20 Dinarim, and thus each brother received two Dinarim, which

3 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-006.htm

16 are equivalent to one half-Shekel. All of the descendants of the ten tribes are obligated to give a half-Shekel each year to the Beis ha'Mikdash as an act of atonement for the sin of their forebears.

If the Machatzis ha'Shekel is an atonement for the sale of Yosef, why is the money given to the Beis ha'Mikdash? It should be given to Yosef (or to his descendants)!

According to the explanation of the VILNA GA'ON (as recorded by the TIKLIN CHADTIN), it is clear why the money is not given to Yosef. The Vilna Ga'on explains that Yosef also acted wrongly by instigating his brothers' wrath against him, and thus he also bears responsibility for his sale. Of the twelve brothers, only ten were responsible for the sale of Yosef, including Yosef himself. Reuven and Binyamin were not involved in the sale of Yosef. This explains why the money is not given to Yosef. Why, though, is the money given specifically to the Beis ha'Mikdash?

Furthermore, since Reuven and Binyamin did not participate in the sale of Yosef, why are their descendants obligated to give the Machatzis ha'Shekel?

RAMBAM (in Moreh Nevuchim 3:46; see also Yalkut Shimoni #521) writes that the goats (Se'irim) brought as public sin-offerings on Rosh Chodesh and on Yom Tov, as well as many other Korbanos, are intended to serve as an atonement for the sale of Yosef. (This is because the brothers slaughtered a goat in order to use its blood to give the appearance that Yosef had been killed (Bereishis 37:31).)

Perhaps this explains why the half-Shekel is given to the Beis ha'Mikdash in order to attain atonement for the sin of the sale of Yosef. The half-Shekel is given to the Beis ha'Mikdash for the purpose of purchasing the Korbanos which atone for that sin.

SHEYAREI KORBAN on the Yerushalmi explains why the descendants of Reuven and Binyamin are obligated to give the Machatzis ha'Shekel. When the Gemara says that the half- Shekel serves as atonement for the sale of Yosef, it is not giving a reason for the Mitzvah to give Shekalim to the Beis ha'Mikdash; the purpose of the Mitzvah is for the sake of purchasing Korbanos. Rather, the Gemara's intention is to give a reason for why the amount that must be given is half a Shekel. Since most of the tribes sinned with the amount of one half-Shekel, it was designated as the amount that each tribe must give.

17 ONE WHO SLAUGHTERS THE "MOSAR PESACH" WITH INTENT TO MAKE IT AN "OLAH"

The Mishnah teaches that "Mosar Pesach l'Shelamim" -- a Korban that was designated as a Korban Pesach but was not offered at the appropriate time becomes a normal Korban Shelamim. The Gemara says that the Mosar Pesach is a valid Shelamim only if it was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim, with specific intent that it be offered as a Korban Shelamim, but not if it was slaughtered with intent to be a Korban Pesach.

The Amora'im argue whether the Mosar Pesach becomes a valid Shelamim if it was slaughtered with intent to be an Olah. According to one opinion, the Korban is invalid and may not be brought at all, even as a Shelamim. According to the other opinion (Rebbi Yochanan), it is a valid Shelamim.

The Gemara then discusses the Halachah of a Mosar Pesach that was slaughtered with intent that it be an "Olah with a Machshavah of Pesul." That is, not only did he slaughter the animal to be an Olah, but he slaughtered it to be an invalid Olah. The Gemara asks whether such an animal will be a valid Shelamim or not. The question is left unanswered.

What is the Gemara's question? According to both of the previous opinions (with regard to slaughtering the Mosar Pesach l'Shem Olah), there should be no question. According to the first opinion, which says that the animal is not a valid Shelamim when slaughtered l'Shem Olah, it does not make a difference if he also slaughtered it with a Machshavah of Pesul, since it already became invalid when he slaughtered it l'Shem Olah.

According to the second opinion, which says that a Mosar Pesach slaughtered l'Shem Olah becomes a valid Shelamim, the Korban obviously will be disqualified when one slaughters it with a Machshavah of Pesul, an invalidating thought.

KORBAN HA'EDAH (as explained by the PNEI ZAKEN) explains that the Gemara's question applies only to the second opinion. The Gemara refers to a type of Machshavah of Pesul which constitutes Pigul only for an animal designated as an Olah, but not for an animal designated as a Shelamim. The Gemara asks what the Halachah is when a person has in mind this type of Machshavah of Pesul when he slaughters the Mosar Pesach to be an Olah. For example, his intent to offer the flesh of the Korban on the following day causes a Korban Olah to become Pigul, because the flesh is part of what is offered on the Mizbe'ach on the day that it is slaughtered, and thus intent to offer it after its proper time constitutes Pigul. In contrast, such a Machshavah does not disqualify a Korban Shelamim, because its flesh is not offered today on the Mizbe'ach. Rather,

18 its flesh is supposed to be eaten tomorrow, and thus one who burns it, or has intent to burn it, tomorrow does not invalidate it at all.

Accordingly, is the animal considered Pigul because he slaughtered it l'Shem Olah, or is it not considered Pigul because it does not actually become an Olah, even though he slaughtered it l'Shem Olah? This is the Gemara's question.

This is what the Gemara means when it says, "Do you consider that it has been changed to an Olah with regard to a Machshavah of Pigul (that is, the type of Machshavah which invalidates only an Olah) [and thus the Korban will be disqualified], or do you not consider that it has been changed to an Olah with regard to a Machshavah of Pigul [and thus the Korban will not be disqualified]?" (This also appears to be the understanding of the TIKLIN CHADTIN in his initial explanation of the Gemara's question.)

RABEINU MESHULAM and the TALMID SHEL RABEINU SHMUEL BAR SHNEUR explain that the Gemara here is merely repeating its previous question. The Gemara asked whether or not the Mosar Pesach becomes a valid Shelamim when it is slaughtered l'Shem Olah. The Gemara now gives another practical ramification and asks again, "Does a wrongful Machshavah during the Shechitah (such as intention that it be an Olah) disqualify it?" The practical difference will be in a case in which one has a Machshavah of Pigul. If the animal remains a valid Shelamim when slaughtered l'Shem Olah, then a Machshavah of Pigul will make it Pigul. If the animal does not become a valid Shelamim when slaughtered l'Shem Olah, then it is already Pasul and a Machshavah of Pigul will not affect it, because a Korban that is already Pasul cannot become Pigul.

RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY takes this explanation one step further. Perhaps the Gemara, in its question here, follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who says that if one slaughters the Mosar Pesach l'Shem Olah, it is a valid Shelamim. The question applies in a case in which he slaughters it l'Shem Olas Pigul, to be an Olah but with a Machshavah of Pigul -- is his intention able to make the Korban into a Shelamim (albeit a Pasul one) or not? Perhaps only when he slaughters it l'Shem Olah Kesherah, to be a valid Olah, does it become a Shelamim. The Gemara then asks that in either case, the Korban is Pasul. The Gemara answers that if such a Machshavah makes the Korban into a Shelamim, then it will be Pigul. If such a Machshavah is unable to make it into a Shelamim, then it remains a disqualified Korban Pesach and it cannot be made Pigul.

TIKLIN CHADTIN has a different approach (as he explains in the Gemara's conclusion). He says that the Gemara follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, who says that when the Mosar Pesach is slaughtered l'Shem Olah it becomes a valid Shelamim. The question is whether the

19 Korban, since it was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, lacks a degree of completeness and is a valid Shelamim only b'Di'eved, or whether it remains a completely acceptable Shelamim, as though it was slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim.

The Gemara is asking whether a Machshavah to make the Korban into an Olah changes something in the Korban and makes it acceptable only "b'Di'eved" -- and thus it cannot become Pigul, because only a completely valid Korban can become Pigul, or whether such a Machshavah does not detract at all from the Korban and it remains completely valid and thus can become Pigul.

Rabbi Ethan Linden writes:4

The half shekel tax, as we have already seen, derives from an explicit biblical obligation. In the Torah, the collection of shekels serves the dual purpose of taxation and census-taking, and the obligation is incumbent on everyone over the age of twenty — an equal obligation for both rich and poor, with no one paying any more or less.

The Torah also explains why. The half shekel was collected “in order that no plague come upon them...” (Exodus 30:12). As opposed to what we have been reading for the last few days, the Bible understands this not as taxation for road maintenance, but as a shield against future plague — that is, against divine wrath.

The Bible has an idea that counting people is dangerous. There is a narrative in 2 Samuel 24 that explicitly connects King David’s census of the fighting men to a plague sent by the Lord as a punishment. (I Chronicles 21:1 even puts the blame for David’s decision to count the Israelites on Satan!) In the Torah, the half shekel is a means of attenuating that danger.

On our daf today, we find alternative explanations for the half-shekel obligation, and though they also may amount to assuaging divine wrath, in this case the midrashim lean heavily on the description of the half shekel has “expiation money” (kesef kipurim) found in Exodus 13:16. That is, the half shekel atones for previous sins.

Several midrashim link the half-shekel tax to the sin of the Golden Calf, the moment when Moses went up Mount Sinai to receive God’s commandments and Israel, distraught without their leader, turned to idolatry:

Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nehemaya. One says: Since they sinned half the day let them give one shekel. The other says: Since they sinned at six hours into the day, let them give half a shekel, which makes six garmesin.

Both of these explanations are based on a midrash in Shabbat 89a that calculates the timing of the sin of the Golden Calf at six hours into the daylight hours, or the midpoint of the day. The first

4 Myjewishlearning.com

20 position makes it simple: half a day’s worth of sin means a half-shekel of atonement money is required. The second position is based on a slightly more complex monetary calculation: six garmesin (one for each hour of sin) which equals half a shekel.

A third explanation, from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, also links the half-shekel to the sin of the Gold Calf, but the currency calculation is again different. In this case, Israel owes ten geirah, one for each of the Ten Commandments (and this, too, is the equivalent of half a shekel).

But the fourth and final suggestion links the half shekel obligation to a very different ancient sin: the sale of Joseph into slavery.

Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Levi says: Because they (Joseph’s brothers) sold the first born of Rachel for twenty pieces of silver and each one of the brothers received a tabaah, therefore let each one give for his shekel obligation a tabaah.

Yet more ancient currency conversion! In the end each brother ended up with — you guessed it! — the equivalent of half a shekel. Israel repays that half shekel every year in atonement for this sin that involved the ancestors of the entire community.

Whether linked with the sin of the Golden Calf or the sale of Joseph into slavery, these midrashim render the half-shekel a symbol of communal responsibility, not just in the present, but in the past as well. Thus, what originally appeared a simple tax turns out to be a means of fulfilling one’s obligation not only to one’s present community, but also forging connection with the community that came before.

Like later generations in Israel, we personally neither worshipped the calf nor sold our brother into slavery (at least I hope you’ve never done those things!) but these crimes are part of our story, and as we give our half shekel, that is, when we give to contribute to the maintenance of our present community, we are meant to remember the ways in which those sins, and others too perhaps, remain an essential part of who we are, and who we wish to be.

Two statements are cited, each in the name of R’ Levi, to explain which mitzvah atones for the brothers of Yosef having sold him down to Egypt. R’ Brachya tells us that the mitzvah of redeeming one’s first born son atones for the brother’s having sold the first born of Rachel. R’ Pinchas b. Levi teaches that the mitzvah of the half-shekel corrects for the brother’s having collected money to sell Yosef into slavery.5

5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim/Shekalim%20006.pdf

21 notes that פה נ י ם הארמ There seems to be practical differences between these two approaches. The if redeeming one’s son is rooted in the sale of Yosef, we know that Yosef was sold to gentile merchants, and our sages comment that in certain halachic references, these nations are compared This, then, is the basis for the rule that a first born donkey must also). מחל ו ר דה ו המ םע ) to donkeys redeemed by giving the kohen a sheep. Those who associate the mitzvah of the half-shekel to the points ברק ן יש ר י selling of Yosef do not account for the inclusion of donkeys in this halachah. The out that there is an opinion in our Gemara that the mitzvah of the half-shekel is designed to atone for the sin of the Golden Calf.

Why, then, he asks, should the tribe of Levi also participate in this mitzvah, when we know that they did not participate in the sin of the Golden Calf?

Furthermore, according to the opinion that the half-shekel is due to the selling of Yosef, why should the members of the tribes of Yosef, Binyamin, and Reuven be included, when they were explains that the mitzvah of the half-shekel is רהמ”ק י ת ו פס ו ת ?not guilty of the sin of selling Yosef in order to collect communal funds for everyone to be included in the offering of the nation. Even the tribes that were not part of the debacle of the Golden Calf or the selling of Yosef must contribute.

Our Gemara is merely explaining the rationale for the amount of half-shekel. Of course, all the tribes must contribute the half shekel, but it is the amount of money which our Gemara expounds upon symbolically.

According to our daf, the half shekel atones for the sin of the golden calf. The Shem MiShmuel, zt”l, explains that the Jewish people sinned because they were unable to properly harness their intelligence.

As soon as they saw what appeared to be the body of Moshe Rabbeinu, their minds became clouded, and the Soton was then able to entrap them. How, then, should they have responded to such a frightening vision? By transcending their rational minds and strengthening their emunah. This is the deeper meaning of using an amount that is made up of six garmesin: “she’chatu b’shesh”—they “sinned with the six” lower emotional attributes that make up every person.

The second opinion is that the shekalim come to atone for the selling Yosef HaTzaddik. The brothers failed their challenge to use their minds and clear thinking to transcend their personal, ulterior motives. Their jealousy obscured the truth from their eyes and clouded their judgment regarding their brother’s fate. A coin atones for the sale of Yosef, because each of the brothers walked away with a coin. The fact that it is half-shekel symbolizes the borhter’s need to have admitted their ulterior motives, and to have accepted that their minds were only working “half as well” as they should have. The shekalim atone for both the sin of the sale of Yosef and the sin of

22 the golden calf, because the roots of both sins were the same. “These and those are the words of the living God.”

A man from London came to Israel for a visit, and while he was in the country he decided to take the opportunity to visit the Chazon Ish, zt”l. When he was about to leave, he asked the Chazon Ish for a message to bring back to the Jews of London. The Chazon Ish answered, “The verse says that Noach was a pure Tzaddik in his generation. This teaches that people are judged according to the challenges of their time. And in ours, the main test is strengthening our emunah!”

Atonement for the Sale of Joseph

Reb Yehonasan Gefen writes:6

This shall they give - everyone who passes through the census - a half shekel of the sacred shekel, the shekel is 20 geras, half a shekel as a portion to Hashem." (1)

In Parshas Ki Sisa, the Torah instructs every man to give half a shekel (known as machsit hashekel) towards the communal offering given in the Mishkan (Tabernacle). Since the destruction of the Temple, we no longer merit to have this mitzvah, however, we remember it every year when we read Parshat Shekalim. Accordingly, there still remain valuable lessons that can be derived from the machsit hashekel.

The Midrash Rabbah offers a surprising reason for the mitzvah, and in particular, why the specific value of half a shekel, must be given. The Midrash explains that the giving of the half shekel is an atonement for the sale of Joseph by his brothers. The brothers sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. This is equivalent to five shekel. Ten of the brothers sold Joseph, each one receiving one tenth of this value, making a half shekel each. Accordingly, since each brother gained half a shekel in the sale, their descendants were instructed to give half a shekel as an atonement. (2) The obvious question to be asked is what is the connection between the giving of half a shekel and the sale of Joseph?

6 https://www.aish.com/tp/i/gl/246766021.html

23 In order to answer this, we need to deepen our understanding of the sale of Joseph. The brothers knew that twelve tribes were destined to come from Jacob. Each tribe would have its own unique qualities and they would all join together to combine to make up the Jewish people as a whole, with tribe complementing the others. The brothers decided that Joseph had lost his right to be part of this group, because of what they perceived to be his dangerous attitude and behavior. Therefore, they believed that they could remove Joseph from the destined 12 tribes, and be left with only eleven. The chiddush (novelty) of this approach was that they planned to remove one of the twelve pieces to the puzzle that would constitute the Jewish people. They felt that they could do without Joseph's potential contribution to the Jewish people, and the Jewish people could continue without him.

With this understanding we can now explain how the mitzvah of Shekalim atones for the sale of Joseph. The commentaries note the significance of the fact that one must give half a shekel as opposed to a full shekel. Many explain that it comes to teach us about the importance of unity amongst the Jewish people by showing that each person is only 'half a person' without combining with the strengths of his fellow man. (3) One should not think that he can separate from his fellow Jews and be unaffected. A person who ha this attitude he will be incomplete. In this way, the mitzvah of giving half a shekel can act as an atonement for the sale of Joseph. Joseph's brothers thought that they could get along fine without Joseph's contribution to the Jewish people. Their mistake was that even if they believed him to be erring, he was still an essential part of the Jewish people. By giving half a shekel we remind ourselves that this is not the correct attitude - all Jews are part of a unified whole, and everyone needs to combine with their fellow.

This idea even extends itself to people who are not behaving in the most optimal fashion. Shortly after the mitzvah of giving half a shekel, God commands us to combine a number of spices to make the incense. One of these is the chelbanah, which the Sages tell us has a foul smelling odor. Why then is it included in the ingredients for the incense? The Talmud explains that any communal fast that does not include sinners is not considered a proper fast. (4) Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains that when the Jewish people are not united, then they are not considered one unit, and therefore the power of the community is drastically weakened.(5)

The Bostoner Rebbe epitomized the attitude that every Jew should be treated with respect regardless of his religious affiliation. His funeral testified to this by the fact that there were numerous people attending who would not be classified as regular Bostoner Chassidim. He expressed his attitude in this area briefly: He said, "When people try to disassociate one group from another, that's part of the 'Torah' of sinat Yisrael (hatred of Jews). Every person can improve. Every group can improve. But it doesn't mean that these people have to be blackballed because some people think that they're not exactly the way they are..." (6)

We have seen how the Midrash connecting the episode of the sale of Joseph to the mitzvah of giving half a shekel, teaches us that we should realize that we should never 'blackball' other Jews, regardless of who they are. May we all merit to learn from the words of the Bostoner Rebbe and emulate his actions, in striving to unite all Jews.

NOTES

24 1. Ki Sisa, 30:13.

2. Bereishit Rabbah, 84:17. With commentary of 'Matnot Kehunah'. One may ask, that according to this reasoning, the descendants of Joseph and Benjamin (who was not involved in the sale) should be exempt from this Mitzva. It seems that there are other reasons for the Mitzva of Shekalim which obligate every man to give it, however the amount of half a shekel is fixed by the calculation made by the Midrash.

3. See Tallelei Orot, Shemot, chelek 2, p. 202 in the name of the Chida, and beshem amroo, Shemot, Ki Tisa, 30:13 in the name of Arvei Hanachal (author of Levushei Srad on Shulchan Aruch).

4. Krisus, 6b.

5. Sichot Mussar, Maamer 54, p. 231.

6. Quoted in Mishpacha Magazine, Issue 287, 22 Kislev, 5770, p. 41.

Merchants counting money by (after) Salomon Koninck

Mark Kerzner writes:7

If one was collecting small coins to accumulate for his half-shekel obligation - having declared "this is for my half-shekel" - but eventually he collected more then needed, Â what is he to do with the surplus? Even though his designation of the surplus coins was invalid, since he did not need them in the end, it still becomes consecrated, and the money should be put into the collection box in the Temple, to be used when the Altar is idle - this is the opinion of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel disagree: Temple consecration in error is still an error, and the money remains his. However, if he

7 http://talmudilluminated.com/shekalim/shekalim6.html

25 declaration was, "I will bring my shekel from this money," all agree that the extra money remains his.

What if he was collecting money for his sin-offering and collected more than he needed? Here the surplus definitely goes to the Temple. Why? Because the cost of a sin-offering does not have a fixed limit, whereas the half-shekel does - so explains Rabbi Shimon. However, Rabbi Yehudah argues with his explanation and says that the half-shekel also is not a fixed amount: when the Jews just got back from Babylon, they donated the "darkon" coin, which is 4 times more valuable, then they switched to two times more, then to half-shekels, although never less than that.

So, it depends on the basic currency unit. Still, Rabbi Shimon answers that the half-shekel is fixed in the sense that all give the same amount. The Talmud describes other surpluses, for example, the surplus money of the Passover sacrifice must be used for another Passover sacrifice.

SOURCES

NACHMAN LEVINE writes:8

The piyut “Eleh Ezkerah” (‘These I Will Remember’) on the Ten Martyrs by the unknown medieval Ashkenazic author “Yehudah” (as signed in its acrostic) appears among the closing selichot penitential poems following (in the Ashkenazic Maḥzor) the Yom Kippur Avodah describing the Yom Kippur Temple Service. Of the many medieval Kinot elegies (on the Temple’s destruction, the 1171 Blois martyrdom, the Crusades, etc.) once said after the Avodah and selichot, only “Eleh Ezkerah” remains. Its description of the martyrs’ Sanctification of God’s Name took on central poignancy in Jewish consciousness as a focal point in the Yom Kippur liturgy, and its emotive reading is shared by Sephardim who read this Ashkenazic poem in the Kinot of Tishah b- Av when Ashkenazim say another kinah about the Ten Martyrs, “Arzei ha-Levanon” of the13th century R. Meir b. Yehiel.

8 http://www.hakirah.org/Vol13Levine.pdf