DAF DITTY SHEKALIM 5: HAMAN’S SHEKEL

Michelangelo’s “The Punishment of Haman”

In Michelangelo’s depiction in the Sistine Chapel, “The Punishment of Haman” pays Haman the theological compliment of crucifying him. Though the Jewish (and literal) reading of the Book of Esther is that Haman is the evil antagonist, Michelangelo seems to imply the opposite: Haman’s attempt to kill the Jews was justified, and the fact that the Jews persecuted and killed Haman makes him like Jesus.

1

Halakha 1 · MISHNA When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, they may combine their shekels and exchange them for darics [darkonot], which are large gold coins, due to the burden of the way. Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: Just as there were collection horns in the Temple to receive the half-shekel contributions, so too there were collection horns in the rest of the country, i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem.

§ With regard to the residents of a town who sent their shekels to the Temple and they were stolen from the agent on the way or were lost, if the collection of the chamber had already been collected before these shekels arrived, the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers [gizbarin].After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents.

2

If the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have not yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must take an oath to absolve themselves to the residents of the town. Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, the residents of the town must contribute other shekels in their place. If, after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels were found or the thieves returned them, both these original shekels and those newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated shekels and belong to the Temple. However, they do not count for the following year. The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that residents of a town can exchange their half-shekels with gold darics in order to ease their burden on the way to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: If the goal is to ease the agents’ burden by combining the coins into a more valuable commodity, let them make them, i.e., exchange them with, gems [margaliot], which are more valuable than darics and much lighter to carry. The Gemara answers: They do not do this due to concern lest the price of the gems decrease, since, like all commodities, their price can decrease and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.

3

Like that which we learned in a mishna there, in tractate Bekhorot: All of them, all items that can be redeemed, such as different types of consecrated items and the firstborn male who is redeemed from the priest, may be redeemed with money or with an equivalent value of money in commodities, except for shekels, which may be redeemed only with money. The question remains: Why is it that one may not redeem the shekels with vessels or any other type of equivalent value of money in commodities? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that it is due to concern lest the price of vessels decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose. This is not the case with money, whose price remains fixed. So too here, they do not exchange shekels with gems out of concern lest the price of the gems decreases and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.

RAV AVROHOM ADLER WRITES:1

A city could collect shekalim from all its inhabitants, and then appoint a messenger to bring the money to Yerushalayim. If subsequently the money was stolen or lost from the messenger, he would take an oath that he didn't embezzle the money, and the loss will be Hekdesh's.

This is only true if Hekdesh's treasurers already used the funds towards korbanos. But if the money was still unused, the messenger would swear to the individual people who entrusted him with the funds, and they will have to donate once again. The Gemora says that this is only true if the messenger was a shomer chinam (he was watching it for free), but a paid messenger will be liable for stolen or lost objects. But Rav Abba feels that even a paid messenger is exempt, since this case is similar to an armed robbery or an object lost at sea, where even a paid messenger is exempt.

The Gemora continues discussing the case when the shekalim were stolen or lost, and the messenger must take an oath before being acquitted of the allegations.

The fact that the messenger swears to the treasurer can only work according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that if one is responsible for the value of Kodshim, they are considered his property. Here too, the treasurers took possession of the shekalim, thus they are held responsible. Rabbi Yochonon argues this point, and says that this works according to the Chachomim as well. Chazal were so concerned for the "safety" of Temple property that they mandated an oath here. The Gemora asks: This explains why the Mishna first said that the messenger swears to the treasurers, and then to the

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_5.pdf

4 city's inhabitants. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer (the first opinion), why is the messenger swearing to the treasurers - the shekalim do not belong to them?

Rabbi Eliezer answers that the treasurers are "awarded" this oath so that they don't suspect the messenger of stealing, and that the messenger shouldn't be perceived as a sinner.

The next Mishna discusses the case when one gives his friend a shekel to bring to the Beis Hamikdosh, but the latter takes it for himself.

If Hekdesh's treasurers already used the funds, then the person has transgressed the halacha of Me’ilah (unauthorized use of Hekdesh.) The sin has been committed even before any korbanos were purchased with the funds and sacrificed – says Rabbi Shimon – since the Kohanim are very quick to perform the Service.

When one commits Me’ilah, he has to benefit from the Hekdesh. The benefit here (simply speaking, just donating a coin isn't considered pleasurable) is that since Beis Din could have taken a collateral from him had he not donated his shekel, and now he is exempt from that, this is a derived benefit.

The Kli Chemda asks a very basic question. Why did the Torah prescribe that a poor person should not bring less than a machtzis hashekel, and a wealthy man should not bring more – regardless of each person's economic situation?

The Torah generally disallows adding or detracting from a mitzva (Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra.) He derives a proof from our first mishna. The shekalim were stolen or became lost, and were returned or found after the people donated another shekel.

The halacha is that both coins are considered this year's shekolim, and the second one cannot be considered an early donation for next year. Only in the mitzva of Shekolim – where the Torah openly says that one cannot give more or less than the required amount – does the prohibition of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra not apply.

Otherwise, how could the replacement shekolim be used for this year's donation? In all other mitzvos however, the prohibition of Bal Tosif and Bal Tigra will apply.

Maseches Shekalim in Place of Machatzis HaShekel

Today, we have no Beis HaMikdash and we are unable to bring the machatzis hashekel. However, our study of Maseches Shekalim takes the place of this mitzva. A hint for this can be found in the Gemara (Megilla 13b):

“It was known before the Holy One, Blessed-be-He, that Haman was destined to offer Achashverosh shekalim to destroy the Jewish people. Therefore, Hashem prepared our shekalim first, to counter Haman’s. As we learn: ‘On the first of Adar [Beis Din] announces about Shekalim.’”

5 We can interpret this Gemara to mean, “Hashem prepared our shekalim…. as we learn.” By learning the Mishna and Gemara, it is considered as if we offered the shekalim (Elef HaKsav).

Sara Ronis writes:2

Our daf discusses the logistics of how Jews who lived far from Jerusalem sent their half shekels to the Temple each year. The Mishnah imagines a messenger was tasked with bringing all the shekels of his town to Jerusalem — a not insignificant physical burden. It’s a funny image, but it would also have been a painful and difficult journey.

Given the physical weight of these coins and the logistical difficulty, the first mishnah of chapter 2 concedes that:

They may combine their shekels into darics because of the burden of the road.

Darics were Persian coins of gold and silver, and were worth substantially more than a half shekel. A messenger could thus carry a much smaller bag of coins on the road to Jerusalem.

The Talmud then asks: why not exchange the half shekels for something even more precious than darics? After all, wouldn’t we want the messengers to carry the lightest possible burden on his travels? Later on in our daf, the Gemara is going to explore what happens if the messenger is robbed along the way — so clearly the rabbis know that someone carrying a large bag of money on the open road is a target for thieves. The Gemara asks:

Why not exchange (the half shekels) for pearls?!

The anonymous voice of the gemara rejects this possibility:

The value of pearls may decrease, and the Temple treasury of consecrated property will lose.

The Talmud is contrasting gold and silver coins, which it sees as having a fixed value, with other commodities whose value fluctuates based on supply, demand and other factors.

2 Myjewishlearning.com

6 Does currency really hold a constant value?! Today, the United States economy has a system of fiat money, meaning currency’s value is not tied to a particular object but to a standard set by the government, society as a whole, or some other collective body. But today’s daf reminds us that not all economies have had this same system. Many ancient economies were based on a system like the gold standard, in which a fixed value associated with a precious metal undergirded the monetary system.

The Talmud is worried that tying the half shekel value to something other than gold or silver could lead it to depreciate. And if that happened, a distant Jewish community’s contribution to the Temple in pearls would be worth less than it had intended (or, more to the point, than it owed!). This disparity meant that the Temple officials’ annual revenue would be smaller than they had foreseen and could cause a real financial challenge to the maintenance of the Temple and the sacrificial service.

Given this concern, why not just insist that the half shekel could only be donated as a half shekel? Why start messing around with exchanges at all?

Today’s daf strikes a balance between these ancient economic realities and a recognition of the needs of the actual people who were charged with collecting and transporting the half shekel payments.

ONE WHO USES THE SHEKEL OF ANOTHER PERSON FOR HIS OWN OBLIGATION

RAV MORDECHAI KORNFELD writes:3

The Mishnah discusses a case in which one gives his friend a Shekel and asks that he give it to the Beis ha'Mikdash on his behalf, and his friend gives it instead to the Beis ha'Mikdash on his own behalf. The Mishnah teaches that the friend is liable for Me'ilah if the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already done. The Mishnah discusses a second case in which one has money of Hekdesh (designated for Bedek ha'Bayis) in his home and he gives it as his payment to the Beis ha'Mikdash for his obligation of Machatzis ha'Shekel. If the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done and the Korban was offered, he is liable for Me'ilah.

3 https://dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-005.htm

7 Why does the Mishnah mention only in the second case that he is liable for Me'ilah only after the Korban has been offered, and it makes no mention of this in its first case? If one is liable for Me'ilah for misappropriating the money of Hekdesh only when its value was already used to buy a Korban, then the same should apply in the first case. On the other hand, if one is liable only because the Terumas ha'Lishkah was already done, then why does the Mishnah mention in the second case that the Korban was offered?

The ROSH (in PERISHAS HA'ROSH), BARTENURA, and KORBAN HA'EDAHexplain that the transgression of Me'ilah is comprised of two parts. First, the object that one uses for his personal benefit must be Hekdesh in order for him to be liable for Me'ilah. Second, one must misuse the Hekdesh in such a way that its value as Hekdesh is diminished. With regard to the first element of Me'ilah, normally the Shekel that one gives to fulfill his obligation of Machatzis ha'Shekel is not Hekdesh, even after it is given to the collector. It becomes Hekdesh only when the Terumas ha'Lishkah is done, at which moment all of the donated Shekalim become Hekdesh. The Mishnah states that in the first case the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done, and that is why the Shekalim are considered Hekdesh.

In the second case, the Mishnah discusses an object that was already Hekdesh, and thus there is no reason for the Mishnah to describe how it became Hekdesh. Rather, the Mishnah discusses the second point: in what way does the person's misuse of Hekdesh diminish the object's value? Even though the Gemara explains that the benefit he receives from the object (the Shekel) when he gives it to the Beis ha'Mikdash is that he prevents the seizure of his property as collateral for the Shekel that he otherwise would owe, that benefit alone does not make him liable for Me'ilah. In order to be liable for Me'ilah, one must do something with the object that diminishes its value for Hekdesh in some way. When he gives a Shekel that was Hekdesh to the Beis ha'Mikdash, it is still usable by Hekdesh and has not lost any value. Therefore, the Mishnah says that he is liable for Me'ilah only after the Terumas ha'Lishkah is done and the Korban is brought. At that moment, the Shekel was actually used for a purpose for which it was not intended.

The Bartenura explains that the same applies in the first case as well. The person is liable for Me'ilah only when the Shekel is used to purchase the animal for the Korban. Until that moment, the Shekel has not actually been misused. The Mishnah does not mention this point in the first case because it does not discuss what form of misuse was done with the Shekel, but rather it discusses what makes the Shekel into Hekdesh such that one who misuses it can be liable for Me'ilah.

RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY explains that the Halachah in the Mishnah is the subject of a dispute between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah, which the Yerushalmi here mentions and which the

8 Tosefta in Me'ilah (ch. 1) explains in more depth. The first case in the Mishnah expresses the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, and the second case expresses the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

Rebbi Shimon maintains that as soon as the Beis ha'Mikdash is able to use the money, it is considered as if it has been used already. Rebbi Yehudah says that the money is considered as used only when the animal was actually purchased and the Zerikah performed.

According to the Yerushalmi, the Mishnah does not mention that the Korban was offered in the first case because that case expresses the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that once the money has been given and is able to be used, it is as if it has been used already and the person who uses that money for his personal benefit transgresses Me'ilah. The Mishnah, in the second case, mentions that the Korban was offered because it expresses the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.

VILNA GA'ON (cited by the TIKLIN CHADTIN) explains that a condition in the laws of Me'ilah says that in certain circumstances, liability for Me'ilah applies only when the person not only benefits from the object of Hekdesh, but also causes damage or depreciation to the object. Without damage, there is no liability for Me'ilah (as mentioned above). This clause applies only to the type of object that is damaged or diminished through ordinary use. When one uses such an object for personal benefit, he does not transgress Me'ilah unless his usage diminishes it in some respect and causes it to depreciate. In contrast, when one uses an object of Hekdesh that does not depreciate with normal use, he is liable for Me'ilah for merely using it, even if it does not depreciate.

In the first case, the Mishnah discusses one who uses his friend's Shekel for his own obligation. The purpose of the act of giving the Shekel is to add it to the Lishkah. This usage does not diminish its value in any way. Therefore, as soon as one benefits from it (in that he no longer needs to offer an item as collateral for his debt), he is liable for Me'ilah. (The Terumas ha'Lishkah must have been done in order to make the Shekel considered Hekdesh, but not to make it considered used, for it is not necessary for it to be considered used in order for Me'ilah to apply.)

In the second case, the Mishnah discusses Hekdesh of Bedek ha'Bayis. This type of Hekdesh is used to buy things needed for the Beis ha'Mikdash. The ordinary use of such Hekdesh, spending, diminishes it. Therefore, one is liable for Me'ilah only when he does something with the object that diminishes it. Accordingly, the Mishnah here says that one is liable for Me'ilah only when the money was used to buy the animal.

Rav Chaim Kanievsky (in Shekel ha'Kodesh, Bi'ur ha'Halachah to 3:11) questions this point. First, the Shekel itself is not just placed in the Lishkah -- it is used up by being spent, just like any other object

9 of Hekdesh. Second, spending is not considered using it up; spending does not diminish the value of the object, because one ends up with the same value in a different form. Perhaps the Vilna Ga'on means that in the second case of the Mishnah, a person gave as his Machatzis ha'Shekel a half-Shekel which had previously been dedicated as Hekdesh to the Beis ha'Mikdash. Such a coin could be hammered into a silver utensil for the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since the coin was intended to be made into a utensil, and the utensil eventually would be used and lose some of its silver during the course of normal usage, the coin is considered an object that is used in a way that diminishes its value. Therefore, one is liable for Me'ilah only once it is spent (or devalued).

RAMBAM (Hilchos Shekalim 3:10) records the first case of the Mishnah as the Halachah, and he adds that "one paid [his Shekel obligation] with his friend's Shekel in order that they not take a collateral (Mashkon) from him."

Perhaps the Rambam understands that the liability for Me'ilah depends on whether Beis Din is actively trying to take a collateral from him. If Beis Din is presently in the process of collateralizing his property, then he has immediate benefit when he gives his friend's Shekel to Beis Din, and thus he is liable for Me'ilah immediately, even before an animal is bought with the money.

In contrast, the second part of the Mishnah refers to a case in which one was not under pressure to give the Shekel in order to prevent a collateral from being taken from him. His benefit (in preventing his property from being taken as collateral) is not immediate and does not constitute Me'ilah. Therefore, he is liable for Me'ilah only when the coin is actually used to buy an animal. (In Hilchos Me'ilah 6:12- 13, however, the Rambam does not add "in order that they not take a collateral from him" when he discusses these cases, as he adds in Hilchos Shekalim.)

RA'AVAD (in Hilchos Me'ilah 6:8, and in TORAS KOHANIM, Vayikra Dibura d'Chova 11:6, as cited by Rav Chaim Kanievsky in Shekel ha'Kodesh 3:76) explains that the second case of the Mishnah refers to a person who is a Gizbar (treasurer) of Hekdesh himself. A Gizbar of Hekdesh does not commit Me'ilah when he picks up an object of Hekdesh with intention to take possession of it for himself. He commits Me'ilah only when he actually spends or gives away the object. This is because the object, while it is in the Gizbar's possession, is considered to be safe and in the possession of Hekdesh even when the Gizbar picks it up.

Why, though, does the Gizbar not derive benefit from the coin of Hekdesh when he uses it to fulfill his obligation of Machatzis ha'Shekel? After all, he uses the coin of Hekdesh to prevent a collateral from being taken from him. The answer is that the Gizbar does not receive that benefit, because collateral is not taken from a Gizbar in the first place, just as it is not taken from a Kohen, as the Mishnah earlier teaches (see Ra'avad in Toras Kohanim, cited by Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Shekel ha'Kodesh 1:76).

10

The first case in the Mishnah, however, refers to a person who is not a Gizbar, and therefore he is liable for Me'ilah immediately when he picks up the Shekel for his own use and gives it to the Gizbar (the Shekel was considered Hekdesh already because the Terumas ha'Lishkah was done). When he picks up the Shekel of Hekdesh, he transfers it to a new domain (i.e. his), and he derives benefit from it by not having to give a collateral.

When the Half-Shekel Collection is Lost or Stolen

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

The second perek of Massekhet Shekalim opens with a discussion of how the shekalim are delivered to the Temple. The Mishna on our daf clarifies that there was no obligation for every individual to bring half-shekel coins to the Beit haMikdash, rather they could be collected in every community, exchanged for larger coins and sent with a messenger to Jerusalem.

What if the money was lost or stolen en route to the Temple? The Mishna teaches that responsibility for lost or stolen money depends on when the money disappeared.

With regard to the residents of a town who sent their shekels to the Temple and they were stolen from the agent on the way or were lost, if the collection of the chamber had already been collected before these shekels arrived, the agents must take the oath of a bailee to the treasurers [gizbarin]. After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents. If the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have not yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must take an oath to absolve themselves to the residents of the town. Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, the residents of the town must contribute other shekels in their place.

In order for the communal sacrifices that were brought in the Temple to be considered to have come from the entire nation, even before the half-shekel donations arrived in the Mikdash, money was set aside on Rosh Hodesh Nisan for the purchase of sacrifices. This money – called terumat ha-lishkah – was, in essence, a loan that was to be repaid when the half-shekalim arrived, as can be seen from the above Mishna.

One of the concerns of the Gemara is whether the messenger in the story is paid (a shomer sakhar) or a volunteer (a shomer hinam). The law of shomer sakhar, as described in the Torah (Shemot 22:9-12), understands that in exchange for payment the guard accepts a high level of responsibility for the object he is watching. In such a case he will have to replace the object

4 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim5/

11 if it was lost or stolen. A shomer hinam, on the other hand (see Shemot 22:6-8) can swear that he did not act irresponsibly and will not be responsible for it.

Although at first glace it appears that the case of our Mishna must be talking about a shomer hinam, who can swear and be free of any responsibility, the Gemara on our daf concludes that it could also be discussing the case of a shomer sakhar who can, in this case, swear that money had been lost or stolen because it was “lost” when the boat he was on sank or “stolen” by armed robbers. These cases are considered circumstances beyond the control of the guard, who is, therefore, not held responsible for the loss on any level.

The people of a town sent their half-shekel coins with a messenger, and the money was lost or stolen along the way. The Mishnah rules that if the money was lost before the funds for the new year had begun to be used, the loss must be settled between the messenger and the townspeople. If, however, the loss took place once the funds for the new year had begun to be appropriated, the townspeople are credited with having fulfilled their obligation, and the loss of the money is an issue between the messenger and the treasurer. In each case, the messenger takes an oath to defend his lack of culpability.

12 The rule is that an oath is not given when consecrated money is in question, and the oath regarding the half-shekels of the treasurer needs to be understood. Rabbi Eliezer explains that the coins are based upon the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and the oath of the messenger is ילוח ן considered and the oath is only שדקה Rabbi Yochanan explains that the money is indeed. אדמ ו ר י י את ד rabbinic, administered in order that the messenger take his mission seriously.

of the Mishnah stated that the messenger takes an oath for the treasurer. This is clear אפיס The according to Rabbi Yochanan. However, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the oath between the messenger and the treasurer is puzzling, because the money is consecrated at the time it was lost, . אדמ ו ר י י את and no oath should be taken

learns that the oath is between הדעה ברק ן .learns that this question is not answered תדח י ן לקת י ן ק the messenger and the townspeople, and it is in order for the messenger to collect his wages. The treasurer is present in order to remove any element of suspicion he might have.

For anything that requires redemption in order to remove its sanctified status one may use either actual money or any other item of equal value. An exception to this rule is the half-shekel, which can only be redeemed using a halachically valid coin. The Gemara in Bechoros 51a includes ma’aser sheni as well in the list of exceptions. The question arises regarding what is considered acceptable “money” for redemption.5

In the times of Chazal, coins were made of gold, silver, or copper, and had intrinsic value; nowadays, however, coins are made of inferior metals and do not have the same intrinsic value. Nevertheless, the Chazon Ish (1) writes that our coins are halachically valid for redeeming ma’aser sheni since they have value in that they are accepted as a form of currency. Following this reasoning, even paper money should be regarded as halachically valid money and would be suitable for redeeming ma’aser sheni.

In practice, however, it is not permitted to use paper bills, for we do not initiate new concepts without a tradition from earlier generations. Another reason we do not use paper money is that one should not come to dishonor the process of redemption.

For a pidyon haben, however, one does not need to use actual money. Any item of the requisite monetary value is sufficient, such as a piece of silver weighing 96 grams (2) (although it is customary to use 100), or even paper money (3).

5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20005.pdf

13 However, the accepted custom (4) is to act with stringency and not use paper money for a pidyon haben. Nonetheless when one purchases silver coins from the kohen to use for the redemption (5), the kohen should be careful not to sell them at too low of a price (6).

We find in today’s daf that although certain money-offerings can be changed into different denominations, shekalim are an exception. Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak says that the issue is that we worry perhaps the medium of exchange will be devalued, and will violate the hekdesh. Each half- shekel must retain its exact original worth, because each one represents a precious Jewish soul.

The Likutei Halachos, zt”l, explains that the half shekel symbolizes our interdependence— that we each need one another to be whole. Alone, we are incomplete, and Hashem wants us all to be counted together. None of us are exactly the same, and each of us has his own, unique way to come close to Hashem, and his own unique strengths and talents.

Accordingly, the only way to come completely close to Hashem is through craving unity with the rest of the Jewish people. Although the Arizal was free from any sin, he still said the viduy every day. When asked why, he explained, “All Jews are one, and we are responsible for one another. When my friend does wrong, I must confess on his behalf— we are like two parts of one body.”

14

One time, the Noam Elimelech, zt’l, returned from an extended exile from his home. As he entered Lizensk, he heard people saying that a child was sick. As he got closer to his house, he realized that the ill child lived on his lane. When he got home, he learned that the unfortunate child was actually the neighbor’s and not his own. Naturally, he felt tremendous relief. As soon as he felt it well up inside, he exclaimed, “It’s time to turn right around and go back into galus! If I still feel that my child is more precious than my friend’s, I have a long way to go to true love of my fellow Jew!”

Mark Kerzner writes:

If the half-shekels were too heavy to carry, one could exchange them for smaller golden coins of larger value, called "darkon." The collection chests, called "shofar" due to the shape, were set up in every city. They were regularly emptied and transported to Jerusalem.

If, while being transported, the coins were lost or stolen, the agents who transported them would have to swear an oath that they have not been negligent - and then they would be free of the obligation to pay. Who do they swear to? If in the Temple the money has already been separated for the purposes of buying sacrifices, then the condition was that the money on the way would also included. Thus, in this case the money was considered in the possession of the Temple, and the agents would swear to the Temple's treasurers. However, if the accident happened before the money was separated, the agents would swear to the townspeople - and the latter would have to undertake another collection.

If, after being thought missing, the coins were found, then both the first and the second collection have acquired the designation of "half-shekel" and cannot be taken back; moreover, the extra coins they cannot be used for the next year either, because they were designated for this year. What do they do? They put them in another collection box, called "Old shekalim". These monies were used not for sacrifices but for the betterment of the city of Jerusalem.

Megilla 13b

15

Therefore, Haman concluded:

;If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed 9 ט םִא - לַﬠ - ֶלֶמַּה ,בוֹט בֵתָכִּי ;םָדְבַּאְל ;םָדְבַּאְל בֵתָכִּי ,בוֹט ֶלֶמַּה and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of תֶרֶשֲׂﬠַו םיִפָלֲא רַכִּכּ - ,ףֶסֶכּ לוֹקְשֶׁא לַﬠ - those that have the charge of the king's business, to bring it ְי יֵד יֵשֹׂע ,הָכאָלְמַּה ,איִבָהְל לֶא - יֵזְנִגּ יֵזְנִגּ '.into the king's treasuries .ֶלֶמַּה Esther 3:9

“If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will weigh out ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries”

Reish Lakish said: It is revealed and known in advance to the One Who spoke and the world came into being, that in the future Haman was going to weigh out shekels against the Jewish people; therefore, He arranged that the Jewish people’s shekels that were given to the Temple preceded Haman’s shekels.

HAMAN'S 10,000 KIKAR OF SILVER6

The Gemara (Megilla 13b) relates that Hashem foresaw that Haman would pay 10,000 Kikar- weights of silver to Achashverosh in return for the right to kill all of the Jews. Hashem "prepared the cure before the illness": He commanded the Jews who left Mitzrayim (nearly 1000 years before the events of Purim) to donate a half-Shekel each to the Mishkan (Shemos 30:13).

TOSFOS (16a) writes that the total weight of the silver Shekalim which the Jews gave in the wilderness was equal to the 10,000 Kikar of silver which Haman offered Achashverosh.

The words of Tosfos are puzzling. The total weight of the half-Shekels which the 600,000 Jews donated does not come near 10,000 Kikar of silver. In fact, the Torah explicitly states that the total weight of the Shekalim was just 100 Kikar (Shemos 38:26-7), only a fraction

6 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-013.htm

16 (1/100) of what Haman gave to Achashverosh.7 Many answers have been offered by the Rishonim and Acharonim to this question.

(a) One explanation is based on the Midrash (Esther Rabah 7:19) which explains that Haman paid 50 Shekels (or 100 times a half-Shekel) for each of the 600,000 Jews who left Mitzrayim. RABEINU BACHYE (Shemos 38:25) elaborates on this. The Torah ascribes a Halachic value (Erech) to a person based on his gender and age group (Vayikra 27). The highest value ascribed to any person is 50 Shekels. Haman therefore gave that amount for each of the 600,000 Jews. (Although many Jews obviously had a lower Erech due to their gender or age group, Haman did not want to take any chances and thus he gave the highest Erech for every Jewish soul. See also SEFER ROKE'ACH#235 and the Roke'ach's commentary on the Torah, end of Parshas Bechukosai.)

Tosfos, however, says that Haman paid "half a Shekel" -- and not 50 Shekels -- for each Jew. RAV YAKOV EMDEN suggests that the text of Tosfos in our edition may be an error caused by a printer's misreading of an acronym. The original text of Tosfos may have read that Haman paid "Ches-Shin" (the letter "Ches" for Chamishim (fifty), and the letter "Shin" for "Shekalim") for each Jew. In a later edition the acronym was misinterpreted as "Chatzi Shekel" (a half-Shekel) for each Jew.

(b) Others point out that the discrepancy is lessened significantly by a detail mentioned in the Gemara in Bechoros (5a). The Gemara there says that the Kikar-weight used in the Mishkan was not the ordinary Kikar but rather it was double the value of the ordinary Kikar. Each Kikar of the Torah equals two ordinary Kikars. Haman presumably used the ordinary Kikar-weight of silver. (See PNEI YEHOSHUA and others) This lessens the discrepancy by half, but it does not fully explain Tosfos' calculation. Haman still paid 50 times more than the value of the half-Shekels the Jews gave in the wilderness.

(c) However, further investigation demonstrates that the silver paid by Haman to Achashverosh was exactly equal in value to the weight of the half-Shekels donated to the Mishkan. It can be proven that each of Haman's Shekalim were worth only one-fiftieth of the value of an ordinary Shekel. He paid 50 times the amount which the Jews gave in order to compensate for the difference in value of the two types of Shekel.

The Gemara in Kidushin (12a) quotes Shmuel who says, "If a man betroths a young woman with a date fruit, although dates [in their region] are so inexpensive that a 'Kur' of them are

7 See MAHARSHA, CHIZKUNI to Shemos 30:14, VILNA GA'ON to Esther 3:9, RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN in Divrei Sofrim (p. 84), and others.

17 sold for one Dinar, we must nevertheless assume that Kidushin has taken effect (and the woman must receive a legal divorce before she may marry someone else) because in the country of Mede, a single date is indeed worth a Perutah."

Shmuel seems to be saying that since dates were in high demand in Mede they were worth more there than in other countries (see Rashi there).

The VILNA GA'ON (printed at the end of Mishnayos Zera'im, and in Kol Eliyahu #226), however, understands Shmuel's statement differently. The Vilna Ga'on contends that it was not the value of dates that was different in Mede, but rather the value of silver. Silver was so abundant in Mede that even for a single date the Medes were willing to pay a Perutah, a coin whose value is determined by the price of silver. He bases his interpretation on a verse in Yeshayah (13:17) which states that Hashem will deliver Bavel into the hands of the Medes, "who do not value silver and who are not interested in gold."

The Medes to whom the verse refers are the ones who conquered Nevuchadnetzar of Bavel and later shared a kingdom with Achashverosh of Persia (see Megilah 11a). It can be assumed that the Medes and Persians shared a common currency system as well.

The relationship between the value of silver in the kingdom of Persia-Mede and in other areas can be calculated as follows:

1. In areas other than Persia-Mede, a Kur's measure of dates sold for one Dinar, as the Gemara in Kidushin says. According to that ratio, what measure of dates sold for one Perutah? The conversion rates of volume are: 1 Kur = 30 Se'ah, 1 Se'ah = 144 Beitzah (see Rashi Eruvin 83b). One Dinar is equivalent to 144 Perutah.8

Accordingly, 30 Beitzah-measures of dates sold for one Perutah. This is in stark contrast to Persia-Mede, where only one date could be acquired for the same Perutah's worth of silver. 2. How many dates fit into the size of 30 Beitzah-measures? The Vilna Ga'on asserts in his commentary on Mishlei (22:9), based on the Midrash ha'Zohar, that 3 1/3 olives fit into the volume of one Beitzah. Consequently, the problem may be expressed as, "How many dates fit into the size of 100 olives (i.e. 30 eggs)?"

8 according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in Kidushin 12a, whose assessment of the value of the Perutah is the largest of all of the opinions.

18 3. The answer to this may be inferred from the Gemara in Kerisus (14a) which states that exactly two olives fit into the volume of one date. Accordingly, exactly 50 dates fit into the volume of 100 olives.

4. This means that 50 dates, the equivalent of 30 Beitzah-measures of dates, cost one Perutah in all other places, while in Persia-Mede each date cost one Perutah. The silver in that kingdom obviously was worth one-fiftieth the value of silver elsewhere.

This explains why Haman, who lived in the kingdom of Persia-Mede, paid exactly 50 times the amount of silver that the Jews donated to the Mishkan in order to buy the right to destroy them.

The Census and the Plague

Harav Yaakov Medan writes:9

I. The Census and the Plague

And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying: When you take the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul to the Lord, when you number them, that there be no plague among them, when you number them. This they shall give, every one that passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gera); a half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. Every one that passes among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give the offering of the Lord. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give the offering of the Lord, to make atonement for your souls. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel and shall appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting; that it may be a memorial to the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for your souls.

Ex 32:1-6

9 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/parashat-ki-tisa-census-and-plague

19 It is not clear from the verses why the numbering of the people of Israel should lead to a plague or why their counting requires atonement by way of the half-shekel. The question becomes stronger in light of what happened in the days of David, who counted the people, in the wake of which a plague arrived that led to the deaths of seventy thousand people. The plague in the time of David ended and did not kill additional people only after the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi was purchased with the money offered by the people of Israel; only then did the attribute of mercy rest upon them.

The answer proposed by Rashi, Rabbeinu Bachya, and other commentators is that a count allows an evil eye to be directed at the number of the people of Israel, especially at a time when we hope for blessings: "Which cannot be numbered for multitude" (Bereishit 32:13). However, that answer no longer satisfies many, now that our understanding of the evil eye has diminished. The Abravanel and Shadal addressed the meaning of the “evil eye.” In their view, there is no substance to it; it is a popular belief that causes no harm. The idea may be to strengthen the belief in God's providence and the need to avoid pride, to which a count might lead as a result of population growth. Therefore the Torah permitted a count, and to address the popular concern about the evil eye, the Torah established the cure of giving shekels for the service of the Tent of Meeting, in order to strengthen the hearts of Israel so that there would be no plague.[1]

This answer also does not satisfy, and we will follow here the words of the Chizkuni:

When you count them – When they go out to war. (Shemot 30:12)

According to the Chizkuni, counting the people does not cause a plague. Rather the count itself is conducted primarily in order to know the size of the army in preparation for battle with the enemy. A census is usually taken on the eve of a difficult battle, and war is a time of danger when Satan stirs up trouble. There is no guarantee that we will emerge victorious in battle or that it will not exact a heavy price from us, even if we do win. The soldiers should therefore give God a ransom for their souls in order to receive His help and protection in battle and so that, in His mercy, He will prevent them from falling into enemy hands.

We may prove this from the verses describing the war waged against Midyan:

20 And the officers who were over the thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near to Moshe; and they said to Moshe: Your servants have taken the sum of the men of war who are under our charge, and not one man of us is missing. We have therefore brought an offering for the Lord what every man has gotten of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and girdles, to make atonement for our souls before the Lord. And Moshe and Elazar the priest took the gold of them, all wroth jewels… And Moshe and Elazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it to the Tent of Meeting, a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord. (Bamidbar 31:48-54)

The great similarity in wording between the passage about the war waged against Midyan and the section dealing with the counting of Israel cited earlier proves the connection between them. There too, the people who were counted brought an offering for the service of the Tent of Meeting as a memorial before God that not one man was missing in war. There, the offering was brought after the war, whereas in our parasha the atonement is required before the war. It seems, then, that this is the purpose of giving the half shekel in our parasha: the offering to the Tent of Meeting will protect the soldiers from death when they come into contact with the enemy.

II. The Census and the Plague in David's Army

We are left with two questions: 1) Why did a plague break out among the people after David counted them?[2] 2) How does an offering to the Tent of Meeting protect the soldiers in battle?

The Ramban deals at length with the first question. He explains that it is permitted to count the people before a war by way of the half shekel, as stated in our parasha. But they must not be counted unnecessarily, and David counted the people unnecessarily:

But in my opinion the anger against him was because he counted them unnecessarily, because he was not going out to war, and he was not doing anything with them at that time; [he counted them] only to gladden his heart that he ruled over a great number of people… And I saw in Bamidbar Rabba (2:17): "R. Eliezer said in the name of R. Yose ben Zimra: Whenever the people of Israel were counted for some necessity, nobody was missing; unnecessarily, people were missing. When were they counted for some necessity? In the days of Moshe, for the standards, and for the division of the Land [of Israel]; unnecessarily, during the days of David. (Ramban, Bamidbar 1:2-3)

21 In my humble opinion, if this is a tradition, we will accept it; but if by logical reasoning, this can be refuted. David did not count the entire people, but only the soldiers, and presumably he did so in preparation for war:

But the king's word prevailed against Yoav and against the captains of the host; and Yoav and the captains of the host went out from the presence of the king to number the people of Israel.

And Yoav rendered the sum of the census of the people to the king; and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand warriors, that drew the sword; and the men of Yehuda were five hundred thousand men. (II Shmuel 24:4, 9)

In Divrei Ha-yamim, the number is slightly different:

And Yoav gave the sum of the number of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Yehuda was four hundred and seventy thousand men that drew sword. (I Divrei Ha-yamim 21:5)

But it is clear from both places that David counted only the armed forces – including, of course, the reserves – and that the people conducting the count were the general of the army and his captains.

It may be assumed that if David counted his entire army – about one and a half million soldiers – he did this for a military purpose. It is possible that the plague that broke out among the people prevented the war, because the people were weakened and David was forced to change his war plan. But why did the plague break out?

Chazal say (among other things), that the plague broke out as a punishment for the people's failure to demand that the Temple be built:

To what may David be likened at that time? To one who would beat his son, who did not know why he was being beaten. At the end he said to him: Know that I beat you in revenge for So-and- So. Similarly all those people who fell, fell only because they had not demanded the building of the Temple (Midrash Shmuel 31:4; this explanation appears also in Midrash Tehilim 17).[3]

22 And yet, what is the connection between the punishment of the plague and the count of the people?

It is possible that the census was connected to David's great war on the eastern front against the allies of the people of Amon. The nations who participated in that war against David were Aram Tzova, Aram Naharayim, Aram Damasek, Ma'akha, Tov, Amon, and apparently also Moav and Edom. For this war, David needed an especially large army owing to the great size of the front and the large number of enemies and their power.[4] It is possible that the great military census conducted by David did not find favor in God's eyes, just as his many conquests in the east were not favorable in His eyes.

The reader may wonder about the claim that expresses reservations about David's conquests in the east, seeing that they strengthened his kingdom and brought to realization God's promise to Avraham to give him the land until the Euphrates River. And yet, with all of the importance of the conquests in the east, when they come not in the proper time, the damage they cause may be greater than the benefit they bring:

David acted improperly. The Torah says: After you conquer the Land of Israel you will be permitted to conquer outside the Land. But he did not do this, but rather he conquered Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova, while the Yevusi close to Jerusalem he did not conquer. God said to him: The Yevusi close to your palace you did not conquer. Why then do you conquer Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova? (Sifrei, Eikev 51)

David conquered Aram Naharayim until the banks of the Tigris, but the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi, Mount Moriya, still remained in foreign hands. Aravna the Yevusi was not just any other Yevusi who owned a field in Jerusalem. He was the king of Yevus:

All these things did the king Aravna give to the king. (II Shmuel 24:23)

Yevus as a kingdom had degenerated and no longer existed as an independent state. But the king of Yevus preserved his "historical rights" in the threshing floor of Aravna as the heir of the kings of Yevus. Because of his desire to maintain good neighborly relations with the remnant of the kingdom of Yevus, David left Mount Moriya in the hands of the Aravna the Yevusi. The Sifrei criticizes him for having gone to conquer distant lands before conquering the site of the Temple, located at the entrance to the City of David.

23 But it is possible that the criticism is not confined to the priority that should have been given to the conquest of Mount Moriya over that of Aram Naharayim, but rather relates also to the priority that should have been given to national and other social needs over conquests in the east. The successive wars might inflict a devastating blow on the wholeness of the families when the heads of those families are found for so long far from their homes. They might bring to unbearable economic disparities between those who go out to war and those who remain at home and advance their own prosperity. Those wars might also lead to the moral corruption connected to raising capital resources for the war effort,[5] and undermine Torah study and the spiritual progress of the people towards their encounter with God.[6] The effects of war continue even after the war is over, as the land is flooded with slaves taken from among the prisoners of war and with female captives with whom the soldiers are permitted to engage in sexual relations, and later marry.

It is possible that political and military aggrandizement and conquest of expanded frontiers are part of the spiritual and social uplifting of the nation, and they are desirable only together with this uplifting. These conquests are similar to the conquest of Eretz Yisrael after the exodus from Egypt, which took place only after the giving of the Torah, the declaration of "We shall do, and we shall obey," and the social cohesion in matters of righteousness and justice, to which the difficult journey in the wilderness, together with the food and water shortages that were experienced there, were directed. David initiated the campaign of conquests in the east even before he saw to the people's progress in the aforementioned areas, and to a certain extent the plague put a brake on that campaign. Chazal might be expressing the disadvantages of David's external conquests while there were still tears in Israel's internal wholeness through the fact that David had still not conquered the area "close to his palace" – Mount Moriya, the site of the Shekhina – and yet he sent his troops to Aram Tzova and Aram Naharayim.

III. The Purchase of the Threshing Floor of Aravna and the Atonement Achieved Through the Shekels

And Gad came that day to David, and said to him: Go up, rear an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi. (II Shmuel 24:18-19)

The angel tells David to "conquer" the threshing floor of the Aravna the Yevusi before counting his soldiers for the great war in the east. We are certainly not dealing with forceful, military conquest. Aravna the king of Yevus, despite the lofty title, conducted himself at his threshing floor

24 as a simple farmer, and had never tried to raise his head against David who ruled in Jerusalem. There was certainly no reason or moral justification to go against him with a military force. The "conquest" was conducted through the purchase of the threshing floor at full price, and specifically with shekels:

And the king said to Aravna: No, but I will surely buy it of you at a price; neither will I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God of that which costs me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. (II Shmuel 24:24)[7]

Buying Aravna's threshing floor and establishing an altar there, at the site where an altar would be built by Shlomo in the Temple, constitutes a demand for the building of the Temple, which, according to Chazal, atoned for the fact that they had not demanded the Temple's building beforehand. It is possible that in the wake of the purchase of the threshing floor and the establishment of the altar, David brought the ark up from Kiryat-Ye'arim to Jerusalem, as related inII Shmuel (chapter 6).

Let us move from here to the essential connection between the giving of the shekels for the service of the Tent of Meeting and the atonement for the census and the prevention of the plague in themitzva in our parasha. The Temple, the heart of Israel, is located on Mount Moriya, on the site where Avraham stood with a knife at Yitzchak's neck, at the neck of the people of Israel across the generations. At this foundational moment, the ram that was caught in the thicket was seen, and then slaughtered in place of Yitzchak. Yitzchak came down from the altar alive and well, and from his seed emerged God's people. When the people of Israel are in danger, at a time of war which requires counting the people for war, the shekels come in their place and redeem them from the danger of death, just as the five shekels redeem the firstborn son from the plague inflicted upon the firstborns.

The giving of shekels took place also in the Mishkan in the wilderness, even though it was not Mount Moriya. The Mishkan as well is the heart of Israel, and strengthening it on the eve of battle – through the giving of half shekels by all those who go out to war – strengthens the hand of Israel's fighters who leave the camp to wage war against their enemies. Even when they are in the external camp, which is defiled by those who fall in battle, they are still connected to the Mishkan, the heart of Israel. Giving the half shekels strengthens also the inclination of God, who leaves

25 the Mishkan in order to go before the camp of Israel in war, to save the soldiers and strike out at their enemies.

For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you. (Devarim 23:15)

IV. In the Days of Achashverush

"If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver" (Esther 3:9). Resh Lakish said: It was well known beforehand to Him at whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay shekels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore, He anticipated his shekels with those of Israel. And so we have learned: "On the first of Adar proclamation is made regarding the shekels and the mixed seeds.” (Megilla 13b)

According to the simple understanding, Resh Lakish's exposition relates to the customary practice of reading the section dealing with the shekels before the holiday of Purim. But Haman asked of Achashverush to destroy the Jews on the thirteenth of Nisan: "On the first month on the thirteenth day thereof" (Esther 3:12)!

The words of Resh Lakish might be alluding also to something else. The half shekels of the census in our parasha were used primarily for the silver sockets for the boards of the Mishkan, and thus they constituted the base for the walls of the Mishkan:

And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was a hundred talents, and a thousand seven hundred and seventy five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; a beka for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for everyone that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty men. And of the hundred talents of silver were cast the sockets of the sanctuary, and the sockets of the veil; a hundred sockets of the hundred talents, a talent for a socket. (Shemot 38:25-27)

26 In the Temple, the walls were made not of boards, but of stone. The bottom row of stones was set in place in a stronger manner than the rest of the wall, and it marked the direction and length of the wall. This row stood in place of the sockets of the boards of the Mishkan. In the building of the Second Temple, this row of stones was related to with special affection:

Now in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubavel the son of Shealtiel, and Yeshua the son of Yozadak, and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they who were come out of the captivity to Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites from twenty years old and upward to superintend the work of the house of the Lord… And when the builders laid the foundation for the Temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaf with cymbals, to praise the Lord, according to the form prescribed by David king of Israel. And they sang responsively in praising and giving thanks to the Lord; because He is good, for His steadfast love endures forever towards Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. (Ezra 3:8-11)

The builders only laid the foundation of the Temple – the bottom row of stones, which corresponds to the silver sockets in the Mishkan. Then an accusatory letter was sent by the enemies of Yehuda and Binyamin to the Persian king (apparently Koresh),[8] and the work on the building was stopped for eighteen years. According to Chazal's calculations, during most of those eighteen years, Achashverush ruled as king, so that in his days as well the work on the Temple was stopped. It was only in the days of Daryavesh that the construction work was resumed. The 24th of Kislev of the second year of Daryavesh's reign is mentioned by the prophet Chaggai as the last day of the eighteen years of work stoppage, and on that very day (or on the next day), the construction of the Temple continued:

And now, I pray you, consider from this day onward. Before a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Lord. (Chaggai 2:15)

In other words, the first row of stones was laid down already in the days of Koresh by those who returned to Zion. The second row was laid down only in the days of Daryavesh, after an eighteen- year hiatus.

27 In the days of Achashverush, in those eighteen years, the work on the Temple was stopped, and the people of Israel sat down to enjoy the meal prepared by Achashverush in his palace.[9] This was not an isolated meal, but with a way of life, which preferred loyalty to Achashverush, who cancelled the construction of the Temple, over loyalty to God's Temple. As in the days of David, when the people of Israel became liable for the plague because they did not demand the building of the Temple, so too Haman's decree threatening Israel's annihilation stemmed from their forsaking the building of the Temple.

Now we can understand the midrash: In those days of accusation, God in His mercy remembered that the first row of stones had already been laid, and it was likened to the half shekels of Israel, to the silver sockets. Haman was too late. Israel's shekels preceded those of Haman; the shekels intended for the building of the Temple preceded the shekels intended for Israel's annihilation.

[1] According to them, David's count stemmed from pride and was not really necessary, and it therefore caused the plague. In our parasha, the situation was different because the count was meant as preparation for entering the land; there was no concern whatsoever about it.

[2] See II Shemuel 24 and I Divrei Ha-yamim 21.

[3] The explanation provided by the midrash of the sin that led to the punishment for the count is not alluded to in the verses that preceded the punishment of the plague, but it fits in well with the fact that the solution to the plague was the purchase of the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusi and the establishment of the altar of the Temple in it, as well as the fact that when the fire descended from heaven to the offering, the plague stopped. According to Chazal – and this too is supported by the verses – the threshing floor was purchased with the shekels of all of Israel by way of a law similar to that of the half shekel.

This method of interpretation, locating the sin by way of the solution, is found in several places. One striking example is the unexplained sin of Moshe when God meets him at the place where he spends the night and seeks to kill him (Shemot 4). Most of the commentators conclude that the sin was that he did not circumcise his son based on the fact that the solution and the atonement arrive when Tzipora circumcises her son, at which point the angel lets him go.

[4] The count may have been after the war and for the purpose of continuing David's great conquests in that war, or it may have been before the war, which was not viewed favorably by God.

28 Let us add a little about one of the wars on the eastern front, the war of revenge against the people of Amon for the humiliation of

David's emissaries (II Shemuel 10). David's emissaries to the king of Amon were sent as part of a show of gratitude on the part of

David for the kindness performed for him by the late king of Amon. It may be demonstrated that another motive was involved. It is possible that the pact with Amon, which David sought, was connected in one way or another to the desire to return to the conquests of Shaul in the east, which reached the Euphrates river, and perhaps even further, for David also defeated the king of

Aram Naharayim, which lies between the Euphrates and the Tigris.

[5] See especially I Shemuel 8; Mikha 2-3; and elsewhere.

[6] Moshe Shamir, in his important book, Melekh Basar Va-Dam, proves at length the extent to which wars waged by a king of

Israel (in his case, King Yannai) out of lust for conquest are liable to harm the proper spiritual development of the people. According to him, the Sages opposed Yannai's military moves, as is alluded to in tractate Kiddushin (66b).

[7] In the parallel chapter in I Divrei Ha-yamim (21), mention is made of six hundred shekels. Chazalexplain that each tribe contributed fifty shekels towards the purchase of the threshing floor. This explanation brings us close to each person of Israel giving a half shekel, the rich not giving more, and the poor not giving less; here, the same was done by the tribes.

[8] See Ezra 4:5, 24.

[9] See Megilla (12a) regarding the sin that caused Haman's decree of annihilation that threatened Israel.

Pre-empting Haman

Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:10

“Reish Lakish said: It was well known beforehand to Him at whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay shekels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore, He anticipated his shekels with the [half] shekel of Israel. And so we have learned, on the first of Adar, we announce [the obligation of giving] shekalim”

10 https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/parshat-shekalim-pekudei-pre-empting-haman

29 Megillah 13b

The obligation for all Jewish males over the age of twenty to give a half shekel is described in the Torah itself as the method to be used in counting the population. Presumably, this census was needed in order to ascertain the number of soldiers that would be available for the conquest of the land of Israel; thus, the mitzvah is only operative from the age of twenty, the age of biblical army service. The Mishna “expands the role” of the half shekel, detailing how the money raised from this collection would serve as the main source of revenue for the running of the Temple in Jerusalem. Yet Reish Lakish, living in an era where there was no census and no Temple, saw the half shekel as the protector of the Jewish people. “Each one shall be counted by giving a kofer, an atonement offering, for his life” (Shemot 31:12).

The machazit hashekel was our pre-emptive strike against Haman, somehow ensuring that nothing would come of his plan to raise shekalim towards the destruction of the Jewish people. Apparently the half shekel the Jews gave was so powerful, its effect was felt nearly 1,000 years later in the Persian Empire. How did that work?

The machazit hashekel served to unify the Jewish people. Each family had to participate, and participate equally. “The rich may not give more and the poor may not give less than this half shekel” (31:15). Even the notion of a half shekel speaks to the unity of the Jewish people. The individual Jew is incomplete, needing a fellow Jew to become whole. It was the half shekel that enabled the Temple to function, and when the Jewish people started to demonstrate discord— engaging in fighting and hatred—the shekel became just a worthless coin, and the Temple was lost.

Haman, very possibly having witnessed the destruction of the Temple, surmised that the time was ripe to finish off the Jewish people. “And Haman said to King Achashverosh: There is a nation, mefuzar umefurad, scattered and dispersed amongst the people” (Esther 3:8). While normally understood as Haman's pointing out how the Jews are different from all others and unworthy of protection, mefuzar umefurad can be understood to refer to the internal status of the Jewish people; they are separate and divided from each other. Haman's next argument, “V’dateihem shonot , and their religions are different”, would be referring to the “many religions” (note v’dateihem is in plural) of the Jews. The Jewish people had divided into differing religious factions, rendering our shelakim useless and setting the stage for Haman to literally buy off the King and carry out his plan of genocide.

“And Mordechai knew all that had transpired” (4:1); “and Esther said to reply to Mordechai, ‘Go gather all the Jews to be found in Shushan’” (4:15). Mordechai and Esther understood that in order to thwart Haman, all Jews would have to join forces. It is no coincidence that Purim is celebrated by sending gifts to poor and rich alike. The mishloach manot and matanot l'evyonim are not just ways to celebrate the victory of the Jewish people; they are the reason for that victory.

Our Sages teach that on Purim there was a reacceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah. Just as at Sinai, where the Jews stood “with one heart, like one person”, the renewal of Torah at Purim could only be accomplished by all Jews joining as one. Soon after the story of Purim, the second

30 Temple was built. Unfortunately, over time, the message of the machazit hashekel and Purim was forgotten, and a long and often bitter exile ensued.

Our generation has merited returning to the land of Israel and the ingathering of so many exiles. Let us ensure we meticulously remember the importance of that little half shekel.

Haman and the Half-Shekel

I read that the Half Shekel that Jews give relates to Haman's offer to pay 10,000 "kikars" to Achashverosh for the right to annihilate the Jews (Esther 3:9).

My question: If one kikar equals 3,000 shekels, and Haman offered 10,000 kikars, then he gave 30 million shekels. But you wrote that he gave 300,000. If you could resolve this question, I would appreciate it.

Also, what is the approximate value of the biblical half-shekel in today's U.S. dollars?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:11 You're right about one thing - the math here is confusing! Let's try to work through the steps:

A) Haman offered 10,000 kikars, and since one kikar equals 3,000 shekels, Haman was in effect putting a price tag of 30 million shekels on the Jews.

B) There are 600,000 main souls in the Jewish nation (see Numbers 2:32). At one half-shekel per person, that equals 300,000 shekels.

C) However, the "Holy Temple" currency is actually worth twice the value of a regular currency (such as that given by Haman). So actually the Jewish half-shekels totaled 600,000 of Haman's shekels.

D) Additionally, the obligation to contribute the yearly half-shekel begins at age 20 (Numbers 1:3). Given an average lifespan of 70 years, that means 50 years of giving half-shekels. Fifty (years) multiplied by 600,000 (main Jewish souls) equals 30 million - the exact amount offered by Haman to Achashverosh.

11 https://www.aish.com/atr/Haman_and_the_Half-Shekel.html

31 All this is explained by the "Bach" - Rabbi Yoel Sirkes (17th century Poland), based on the commentary of Tosfot to the Talmud (Megillah 16a).

Had enough? Another explanation is as follow: Since 50 shekels is the donation value of an adult male (as specified in Leviticus 27:3), this amount multiplied times 600,000 souls equals 30 million.

This and other explanations are given by Rabbi Yaakov Emden on the Talmud; Rabbeinu Bachaye - Parshat Pekudei; Midrash Chazkuni - Parshat Ki Tisa; Panim Me'erot 3:30; Binyan Tzion 144; Tzitz Eliezer XI 1:8.

As for the current value of a biblical half-shekel, Maimonides records it as weighing 160 grains of barley, which is equivalent to 8 grams, or 0.28 ounces. With the current rate of silver at about $28 USD per ounce, that means a biblical half-shekel equals about $8.

In other words, Haman was willing to pay about $200 million to annihilate the Jews.

Now don't you wish you'd been paying more attention in ninth grade math class?

The Symbolism of Haman’s Offer of Silver Shekels

Rabbi Yissocher Frand writes:12

The Megillah [Esther 3:9] states that Haman offered to increase the King’s coffers by 10,000 kikar silver in exchange for the right to get rid of the Jews. (Tosfos in Tractate Megillah [16a] indicates that this was a half Shekel for every Jewish person.) The simple analysis of Haman’s offer is that Haman was afraid that Achashverosh would object to the loss of Jewish tax revenue if he killed them all. To pre-empt that financial objection, Haman was ready to sweeten the deal for the King by making an offer of ten thousand kikar silver.

On the metaphysical level, however, the Rabbis tell us that Haman was trying to negate the merit of the Jews annual half Shekel contribution to the Temple’s upkeep. The Gemara [Megilla 13b] says that since HaShem [G-d] knew that Haman would offer Shekels to Achashverosh to ‘purchase’ the right to destroy the Jews, HaShem pre-empted Haman’s contribution through the half- shekel. The merit of the Jews contributing the annual half-shekel protected them (in the future) against Haman’s evil designs.

12 https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5760-purim/

32

I once heard an interpretation of this Gemarah in the name of the Yismach Yisrael. Haman’s potential for destroying the Jewish people was hinted at in his own description of the nation: “There is a people that is dispersed and divided…” [Esther 3:8]. It is only because there is division and unjustified hatred within the Jewish nation that their enemies have the ability to harm them. When the Jews are divided, they represent only individuals — not a Klal [a communal entity]. When that happens we have lost our strength.

Haman’s whole plot was based on the division of the nation. That is why G-d insisted that each Jew should give exactly one half shekel. The symbolism of the half shekel is that each Jew is only a fraction of the entity. He needs to combine with his fellow Jew to make a significant contribution. If we think we can be ‘an entire shekel unto ourselves’, that is not going to work. Our strength is through the recognition that we need each other, and the realization that we need to set aside our petty differences to come together to provide a complete shekel.

This is the strength that ultimately saved the Jewish people. Because of the terrible calamity that was hanging over them as a result of Haman’s decree, they decided to put away those ‘dispersions and divisions in the nation’ and came together as a unit and as a whole.

33