R. Yehudah sagte: Ben Buchri sagte in Yavneh aus: Jeder Cohein, der den Schekel gibt, sündigt dabei nicht [obwohl er nicht verpflichtet ist, ihn zu geben. Die Annahme (dass er sündigen würde) ist, dass, wenn er es gibt, (was sollte) ein Gemeinschaftsangebot (bis zu einem gewissen Grad) von (der Gabe) eines Individuums kommt. Wir werden daher darauf hingewiesen, dass er nicht sündigt, indem er diesen halben Schekel vollständig der Gemeinde gibt, und wir befürchten nicht, dass diesbezüglich ein gewisser Vorbehalt von seiner Seite besteht.] R. Yochanan b. Zakkai sagte zu ihm: Im Gegenteil, jeder Cohein, der den Schekel nicht gibt, ist ein Sünder [Und der Vers: "Alle, die passieren, um nummeriert zu werden", ist folgendermaßen zu erklären: "Alle, die passieren" durch das Rote Meer (z alle von ihnen gingen durch das Rote Meer) "um nummeriert zu werden" (sowohl diejenigen, die von sich selbst nummeriert wurden, als auch diejenigen, die mit dem Rest Israels nummeriert wurden) "sollen die Terumah des Herrn geben". Und obwohl geschrieben steht (2. Mose 38:25): "Und das Silber der Zahl der Gemeinde war einhundert Talente ... für sechshunderttausenddreitausend usw.", das in Bezug auf die Terumah für die Gemeinde geschrieben wurde Steckdosen, an denen der Stamm Levi nicht teilnahm; aber Kohanim, Leviten und Israeliten nahmen gleichermaßen an der Terumah für die Opfergaben teil.]; aber die Cohanim erklärten diesen Vers für sich selbst (dh zu ihrem Vorteil), nämlich. (3. Mose 6:16): "Und jedes Speisopfer eines Priesters soll vollständig verbrannt werden; es soll nicht gegessen werden." (Sie sagten :) Wenn das Omer und die Doppelbrote uns gehören würden (wie sie es wären, wenn die Cohanim zu ihrem Kauf mit den Shekalim beitragen würden), wie könnten sie gegessen werden! [Der Irrtum: Nur in Bezug auf das Speisopfer eines einzelnen Cohein steht geschrieben: "Es soll vollständig verbrannt werden", und nicht in Bezug auf ein Opfer, an dem er zusammen mit der Gemeinde beteiligt ist. Und die Halacha ist, dass Cohanim verpflichtet sind, den halben Schekel zu geben, und dass ihnen wegen "der Wege des Friedens" keine Zusagen genommen werden.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא – for even though he is not obligated to give the [one-half] Shekel, and you might think that I would say that if he gives the [one-half] Shekel, it would be found that the community sacrifice is offered from an individual, this comes to inform us that he does not sin since he gives this one-half-shekel to the community completely, and we should not suspect that he would not completely deliver it appropriately.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Introduction
In this mishnah we see two early tannaim arguing over whether or not a priest donates the half-shekel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא – and the Biblical verse (Exodus 30:14): “Everyone who is entered into the records,” he expounds it this way: He who passes through the Sea of Reeds, that is Kohanim, Levites and Israelites, all who passed through the sea “on the records”, whether they were counted alone, whether they were counted with Israel, “shall give the LORD’s offering,” and even though in the Torah portion of "אלה פקודי"/”These are the records [of the Tabernacle],” it is written (Exodus 38:25): “The silver of those of the community who were recorded,” for six-hundred and three-thousand [and five-hundred and fifty men]” (Exodus 38:26). That is written for the Terumah of the sockets, but for that Terumah, the Levites did not take part, but the Terumah of the community sacrifices, the Kohanim, Levites and Israelites were equal.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. Ben Bukri assumes that a priest is exempt from the shekel offering. The midrash which explains this appears below, in section two. His testimony is that despite the fact that the priest need not donate the half-shekel, if he does donate it he has not transgressed. We might have thought that person who is not liable to pay the half-shekel may not donate it. The problem with a voluntary donation of the half-shekel is that public sacrifices must come from the entire public, meaning from the half-shekel. A voluntary donation may be seen as an individual paying for a public sacrifice. Ben Bukri testifies that we don’t perceive of the priest’s half-shekel in that way. Rather it is a gift to the community, which belongs to the community as a whole. As such it may be used to purchase public sacrifices.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Shekalim
לעצמן – for their benefit, but this is not for a homily, for specifically, in the meal offering of the Kohen alone, the Biblical verse stated (Leviticus 6:16) : “[So, too, every meal offering of a priest] shall be a whole offering”/"כליל תהיה" - and not with that which has the participation with the community. But the Halakah is that the Kohanim are obligated to bring the one-half Shekel and we don’t exact pledges from them for the sake of peace (see end of Mishnah 3).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Shekalim
But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten? Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai reasons the exact opposite from Ben Bukri. He holds that the priest is liable to donate the half-shekel and if he doesn’t do so, he transgresses in much the same way that any person who doesn’t give the half-shekel transgresses. The priests tried to use some midrashic reasoning to get out of giving the half-shekel. The Torah states that any minhah, a meal-offering, given by a priest, must be wholly burnt. The half-shekel is used to purchase certain meal offerings, namely the omer (the barley offering brought between Pesah and Shavuot), the two loaves brought on Shavuot, and the weekly showbread. All of these are eaten by priests and not burnt. The priests claim that the fact that these are eaten proves that the priests did not pay for any of them, for had they paid for them they would have had to have been wholly burnt. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai says that the priests’ midrash is mistaken. Only individual minhah offerings of the priest are wholly burnt. Public minhah offerings paid for partly by priests may be eaten. Hence the priests are liable to pay the half-shekel. We should note that aside from the technical aspects of this debate, there may be an underlying social/religious issue. The question is, are the priests a part of the people or are they a separate class, with their own unique relationship to God? This might be an interesting way of examining Jewish religious leadership in general are leaders a part of the Jewish people, or are they a class on their own. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s answer would seem to be clear the priests must give their half-shekel, they are part of the Jewish people and not above, or even truly separate from the rest.
