כי תשא

The half-shekel 'atonement’

The national census required each individual to donate a half-shekel:

כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַה' בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם (שמות ל:יב)

From a later verse we learn that the silver collected was used for the sockets placed under the walls of the Mishkan (see Ex. 38:27).[1]

Leaving aside the questions of when and how the census was carried out,[2] it seems clear that a serious threat was perceived which required 'atonement' (or ‘protection’ depending on the translation of the verb k-p-r). Yet the Torah does not specify the cause of the danger and how it was to be mitigated via the half-shekel donation.

Most commentators assume the danger related to the census itself. Rashi and various other commentators associate it with the 'evil eye':

ולא יהיה בהם נגף. שֶׁהַמִּנְיָן שׁוֹלֵט בּוֹ עַיִן הָרָע, וְהַדֶּבֶר בָּא עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בִימֵי דָּוִד

This is not the place for a lengthy discussion of the evil eye. To summarise briefly, some understood it in 'scientific' terms based on the way they (incorrectly) understood the eye to function. The Abarbanel and the Ralbag on our verse explain it literally as a destructive ray emitted from the eye.

Such explanations can be traced to Plato’s emission theory that vision is facilitated by the emission of beams from the eye which interact with the object being perceived. We now know that the opposite is true; visual perception comes from light rays entering the eye. Nevertheless, this was a widely held view until at least the eighteenth century.[3]  

Others adopted metaphysical explanations for the evil eye without attempting to ground it in explained natural phenomenon. Of particular interest is Shadal's semi-rational approach:

כשאדם מונה את כספו ואת זהבו, או כשהמלך מונה את אנשי צבאו, קרוב הדבר מאד שיהיה בוטח בעשרו וברבוי חייליו, ויתגאה בלבו ויאמר בכחי ועוצם ידי עשיתי חיל, או אעשה חיל; ואז יקרה על הרוב שיתהפך עליו הגלגל ותבואהו שואה לא ידע... ומזה נולדה בכל העמים אמונת העין הרע, ונראה שכבר התפשטה האמונה הזאת בישראל בדורות שקודם מתן תורה, והנה לא רצה ה' לבטל האמונה הזאת מכל וכל, יען יסודתה על אמונת ההשגחה, והיא מרחיקה את האדם מבטוח בכחו והונו, וזהו עיקר כל התורה כלה...

ואומר כי קצת מן המתפלספים כגון רלב"ג בקשו לפרשו על דרך הטבע, ואמרו שהאידים היוצאים מעיני המביט אל פני האיש הנשקף יוכלו להיות ארסיים ולהזיקו או להמיתו, הכל לפי טבע המקבל; וחכמי דורנו בהפך, רובם לועגים על אמונת העין הרע על דברים אחרים רבים הבלתי מובנים על דרך הטבע. ולדעתי אלו ואלו טועים. אבל העולם איננו מתנהג על פי חקות הטבע החמרי לבדן, אבל יש עוד חקות אחרות, חקקה אותן החכמה העליונה בתחלת הבריאה..

Acknowledging that the evil eye was a widely held belief, Shadal initially writes that the Torah went along with it on the basis that it promoted good beliefs about providence and was a useful tool for preventing self-glorification and overconfidence. But then taking aim at the Ralbag, he ascribes to it an objective reality which cannot be explained in pure natural terms.

The Rambam, on the other hand, appears to have rejected its existence (at least as an objective reality) altogether.[4] 

Stepping away from the particulars of the evil eye, various alternatives have been proposed for identifying the underlying problem of the census.

Some have conjectured that counting has the effect of breaking up a collective unit, thus creating a danger of being judged as an individual rather than as part of a community.[5] Others have seen the threat in the opposite direction insofar as the counting reduces an individual to a mere 'number' causing them to lose their individuality. The fact that these explanations are so diametrically opposed is perhaps indicative of their subjective nature.[6] Furthermore, the concern of a potential plague seems exaggerated if the problem of counting was no more than symbolic.

The Talmud brings an altogether different source for not counting the Jewish people:

כׇּל הַמּוֹנֶה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵר בְּלָאו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה מִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּחוֹל הַיָּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִמַּד״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: עוֹבֵר בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִמַּד וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר״ (בבלי יומא, כב:)

This suggests the problem is that counting the Jewish people symbolically limits the blessing that they will be too large to count.[7] In any event it is noteworthy that the Talmud makes no reference to our passage as the source of the prohibition.

Another alternative is proffered by Nahum Sarna who suggests that the anxiety generated by a census was derived from its historical association with preparation for war or the imposition of a new tax.[8] This subsequently developed into a superstition towards any form of census. Such a theory would explain why the Torah may have felt it necessary to relate and respond to such fears, but it is difficult to suffice with this explanation alone. When the Torah engages a foreign superstition, we generally expect to see some form of positive adaption to the Torah's own value system.

An alternative explanation

The above explanations assume that the purported danger arose from the census itself. As already mentioned, however, the Torah does not specify the cause of the danger. Moreover, there are other occasions in Tanach where the people are counted without any concern or special measures taken.[9] This leaves open the possibility that the danger which necessitated the half-shekel payment, was something other than the census itself. Within the surrounding passages the obvious event which posed an existential threat to the Jewish people is the episode of the golden calf. Indeed, there are a number of textual parallels connecting them:

עגל הזהב (שמות:לג:ל-לה)	שמות ל:יא-יד (מחצית השקל)
וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם	כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל
אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם	וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ... לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם
וַיִּגֹּף ה' אֶת־הָעָם עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת־הָעֵגֶל	וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף
וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם חַטָּאתָם	בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם... כׇּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים

If we adopt Rashi's view that the golden calf episode preceded the instruction to build the Mishkan and the census, then it is relatively simple to explain the census as an atonement for the sin of the golden calf.[10] Such a view is explicit in the Midrash:

וְאַף כָּאן, מִי גָּרַם לַשְּׁבָטִים בְּפָרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים שֶׁיִּתְּנוּ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן, מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל (תנחומא, כי תשא ב')[11]

Even if we do not accept Rashi's chronology, and instead follow the plain meaning that the instruction for the Mishkan came prior to the golden calf episode, it is still clear that the Mishkan was a response to an inherent need for tangible symbols to be employed in the service of God. The golden calf episode simply exposed the void when such symbols are entirely absent. The Mishkan provided the authorised mode of worship of the infinite within a regulated tangible framework. Based on this, we might suggest that the half-shekel donations used in the structure of the Mishkan were intended as a collective defence against the trappings of idolatry, the likes of which led to the tragic episode of the golden calf.[12]

Discipline as protection against idolatry 

The contribution of the gold for the golden calf is characterised by lack of self-control and inhibition:

וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל־הָעָם אֶת־נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל־אַהֲרֹן (שמות:לב:ג)

With the building of the Mishkan, on the other hand, though all the materials (including gold) were donated en masse, it was specifically the half-shekel of silver which provided atonement. The half not the whole, and the silver not the gold. The contribution of a modest but equal amount – 'the rich cannot give more and the poor cannot give less' – demonstrates a form of discipline which protects against a crossover into idolatry arising from the excessive assertion of the self into the worship of God. 

The reservations towards ostentatious building projects constructed 'for the sake of God' comes into focus when King David expresses a desire to build the Beit HaMikdash. God initially rejects the proposal noting that He has thus far been content dwelling in a 'tent':

כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת לְמִיּוֹם הַעֲלֹתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּאֹהֶל וּבְמִשְׁכָּן׃ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בְּכׇל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲדָבָר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי לִרְעוֹת אֶת־עַמִּי אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר לָמָּה לֹא־בְנִיתֶם לִי בֵּית אֲרָזִים׃ (שמואל ב, ז:ו-ז)

God does eventually agree that King David's son, Solomon, will build the Beit Hamikdash, but only – it would seem - as a concession to a fundamental human weakness. The Beit HaMikdash will be grand and glorious, but that addresses a human need, not God's needs. The placement of the building of the Beit Hamikdash alongside Solomon's own (and even grander) palace speaks volumes about the entanglement of glorification of God and self-glorification.

A day of accounting

Following the episode of the golden calf, the nation was not entirely forgiven and only succeeded in receiving a suspended sentence. This basically meant that a future 'day of accounting'[13] could trigger a recall of the original sin of the golden calf. This is highly relevant to understanding the significance of the ‘remembrance' constituted by the half-shekel:

וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי ה' לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם (שמות ל:טז)

The need to ‘remind’ God of the half-shekel donations can be seen as counteracting the incriminating taint of the golden calf and the resultant danger hanging over the people. As much as God threatens to recall the golden calf, He must also take account of the merit of the half-shekel donations.

In light of what we have said, however, we can reframe this in terms which undercuts the root cause of the golden calf rather than simply offsetting the punishment. The Mishkan, for the reasons discussed above, is the approved alternative to idolatry. Critically, the Mishkan comprises a physical framework in which the Divine presence can be manifest, whilst not representing God in any material form. It is thus the Mishkan enterprise, collective funded by the half-shekel donations, which creates a natural shield against future relapse. As mitigation is the real concern of the Torah, this should be seen as the deeper objective of the half-shekel remembrance and the ‘protection’ it affords.[14]  

 

 

 

---

[1] Silver was also used for the decorative bands on the posts of the outer courtyard, but it seems that the silver from the half-shekel was specifically used for the lower sockets of the planks of the Mishkan.

[2] The issue is that we do not see a full census carried out until the second year and there is debate whether there were two censuses or one. With respect to the manner of the count, Rashi assumes that they counted the half-shekel but the more straightforward reading is that they counted the people in the standard manner and simply made the half-shekel payment as they were counted.

[3] For further discussion, see Rationalism v Mysticism: Schisms in Traditional Jewish Thought (N. Slifkin), pp. 411-431  

[4] Responsa 48. Readers can make up their own mind about the tone of the response. The question he is responding to is why he only required a wall of 10 tefachim between gardens when the Talmud apparently concludes היזק ראייה שמיה היזק:

תשובה שאלה זו לא היה ראוי לאנשים גדולים כמותכם לשאול אותה וכי לא שני לכו בין היזק ראיה שהוא היזק גדול ודאי שיראה אדם חברו שהוא עומד ויושב ועושה צרכיו ובין היזק ראיה שיראה קמת חברו משום עינא בישא שאלו דברי חסידות הן שלא יהיה אדם עויין בעין רעה את חברו ואותו השינוי שנוי בעלמא הוא ואינו אליבא דהלכתא...

[5] See Rabbeinu Bachya (Ex. 30:12)

[6] See R Yehudah Amital here. The psychological association between numbering people and loss of individuality was presumably strengthened by memories of the holocaust. 

[7] This is also implied by the verses in 1 Chron. 27:23-24

[8] N. Sarna, JPS commentary, p.195

[9] The standout exception is the census taken by King David (2 Sam. 24) which requires its own analysis.

[10] See Rashi (Ex 31:18). It is somewhat perplexing that Rashi waited until this point to make this comment given its relevance to the chronology of the previous six chapters. It is also noteworthy that the proof Rashi offers relates to the building of the Mishkan and not the instruction. 

[11] Rashi himself did not proffer such an explanation

[12] Kapparah does not necessarily presuppose sin. Though there are various suggestions as to the precise meaning of Kapparah, Ibn Ezra's view that it refers to 'protection' appears to be best supported. See article here by R' Yehudah Rock and here by R' Menachem Leibtag. I have nevertheless used the more common 'atonement' translation throughout. 

[13] It is not entirely clear what triggers this 'day of accounting'. Presumably it refers to a time when they commit a sin similar to the golden calf (cf. Rashi). However, it may refer to any day of reckoning where God's judgement is triggered. According to Ibn Ezra it refers to Rosh HaShanah but it is also possible that a census was itself considered a trigger event.

[14] This is further supported by the fact that the opening phrase 'Ki Tisa' ('when you count') is open ended rather than limited to a specific moment in time. This has been understood as alluding to a regular obligation to donate half-shekel to sustain the sanctuary (see Rambam, Aseh 171). The protection of the half-shekel mentioned in the passage is perpetuated by virtue of the ongoing obligation enabling it to counter the ongoing threat of the golden calf and potential relapse.