R. Yehudah a dit: Ben Buchri a témoigné à Yavneh: Tout Cohein qui donne le shekel ne pèche pas pour cela [même s'il n'est pas obligé de le donner. L'hypothèse (qu'il serait en train de pécher) est que s'il la donne, (ce qui devrait être) une offrande communautaire viendrait (dans une certaine mesure) du (don d'un) individu. Nous sommes donc informés qu'il ne pèche pas, en ce qu'il donne ce demi-sicle entièrement à la congrégation et nous ne craignons pas qu'il puisse y avoir une réserve de sa part à cet égard.] R. Yochanan b. Zakkai lui dit: Au contraire, tout Cohein qui ne donne pas le sicle est un pécheur [Et le verset: «Tous ceux qui passent pour être comptés» doit être expliqué ainsi: «Tous ceux qui passent» par la mer Rouge (car tous ont traversé la mer Rouge) "pour être dénombrés" (ceux qui ont été dénombrés par eux-mêmes et ceux qui ont été dénombrés avec le reste d'Israël) "donneront la terumah du L rd." Et même s'il est écrit (Exode 38:25): "Et l'argent du dénombré de la congrégation était de cent talents ... pour six cent mille trois mille, etc.", cela est écrit en ce qui concerne la terumah pour le prises, auxquelles la tribu de Lévi n'a pas participé; mais Cohanim, les Lévites et les Israélites ont participé également à la terumah pour les offrandes.]; mais les Cohanim ont exposé ce verset pour eux-mêmes [c'est-à-dire à leur avantage], à savoir. (Lévitique 6:16): "Et toute offrande de repas d'un sacrificateur sera entièrement brûlée; elle ne sera pas mangée." (Ils ont dit :) Si l'omer et les doubles pains étaient à nous (comme ils le seraient si les Cohanim contribuaient à leur achat avec les shekalim) comment pourraient-ils être mangés! [L'erreur: Ce n'est qu'en ce qui concerne l'offrande de repas d'un Cohein individuel qu'il est écrit: "il sera entièrement brûlé", et non en ce qui concerne une offrande à laquelle il a une part avec la congrégation. Et la halakha est que les Cohanim sont obligés de donner le demi-sicle, et les promesses ne leur sont pas enlevées à cause des «voies de la paix»].
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.
