R. Yehudah ha detto: Ben Buchri ha testimoniato in Yavneh: Qualsiasi Cohein che dà il siclo non pecca così [anche se non è obbligato a darlo. Il presupposto (che avrebbe peccato) è che se lo desse, (ciò che dovrebbe essere) un'offerta comune verrebbe trovata (in una certa misura) dal (dono di) un individuo. Pertanto, siamo informati che non pecca, in quanto dà quel mezzo siclo interamente alla congregazione e non temiamo che possa esserci qualche riserva da parte sua al riguardo.] R. Yochanan b. Zakkai gli disse: Al contrario, ogni Cohein che non dà il siclo è un peccatore [E il versetto: "Tutti coloro che passano per essere contati" deve essere spiegato così: "Tutti quelli che passano" attraverso il Mar Rosso (per tutti loro attraversarono il Mar Rosso) "per essere numerati" (sia quelli che erano contati da soli che quelli che erano contati con il resto di Israele) "devono dare il terumah della L.". E anche se è scritto (Esodo 38:25): "E l'argento dei numerati della congregazione era di cento talenti ... per seicentomila e tremila, ecc.", Che è scritto rispetto al teruma per il orbite, alle quali la tribù di Levi non partecipò; ma Cohanim, Leviti e Israeliti parteciparono ugualmente alla teruma per le offerte.]; ma i Cohanim hanno esposto questo versetto per se stessi [vale a dire, a loro vantaggio], vale a dire. (Levitico 6:16): "E ogni offerta di pasto di un sacerdote sarà completamente bruciata; non deve essere mangiata". (Dissero :) Se il omer e i doppi pani fossero nostri (come lo sarebbero se i Cohanim avessero contribuito al loro acquisto con gli shekalim) come potevano essere mangiati! [L'errore: è solo rispetto all'offerta dei pasti di un singolo Cohein che è scritto: "deve essere completamente bruciato", e non rispetto a un'offerta con cui ha una parte insieme alla congregazione. E l'halachah è che i Cohanim sono obbligati a dare il mezzo siclo, e gli impegni non vengono presi da loro a causa delle "vie della pace".]
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.
