Shekalim - (Melakhim II 12:1-17)

 

a. 

We learn in massekhet Megilla (29a): 

"If Rosh Chodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read parashat Shekalim. If it falls during the week then we read Shekalim on the Shabbat preceding it...on the second [week of the month of Adar we read parashat] Zakhor, on the third [week we read parashat] Para Aduma, and on the fourth "ha-chodesh"..." 

 

Thus we have four special parshiot, each with its own special haftora. It is interesting that although the Amoraim in the gemara are divided with regard to what exactly should be read as parashat Shekalim (Megilla 29b) - Rav maintains that we read "Command the children of Israel and tell them, My offering..." (Bamidbar 28:1 and on) while Shmuel maintains that the proper excerpt is "When you count..." (Shemot 30:11-16) - the haftora is unanimously agreed upon (ibid.): "We read as a haftora for parashat Shekalim about Yehoyada the Kohen."

 

Therefore, what we seek is a connection not between the regular parasha and the haftora but rather between the special parasha - Shekalim - and its haftora. But first we need to clarify the requirement of reading parashat Shekalim at this time.

 

b.

From the gemara (Megilla 29b) we learn that the reading of this special parasha on Shabbat Rosh Chodesh Adar or on the Shabbat preceding Rosh Chodesh represents a kind of declaration regarding the 'shekalim.' As we learn at the beginning of massekhet Shekalim, "On the first day of Adar we announce about the shekalim." This announcement is meant to remind and encourage the nation to donate the required half-shekel, which is the annual "tax" that every citizen of Israel is obligated to pay as his contribution towards the communal sacrifices. At the time of the Temple, when sacrifices were brought, the announcement was made on Rosh Chodesh Adar. With the destruction of the Temple, it became customary to read parashat Shekalim on the Shabbat on or preceding Rosh Chodesh Adar, as a kind of remembrance of the Temple. The timing - Rosh Chodesh Adar - is selected because Adar is the month before Nissan, when the shekalim for the new year begin to be used for the acquisition of the communal offerings.

 

But we find explanations by Chazal (our Sages) that link the subject of shekalim to Purim:

"Resh Lakish said: it is revealed and known before He Who spoke and the world was created, that Haman was destined to weigh shekalim against Israel; therefore their shekalim are commanded before his." (Megilla 13b)

 

In the Talmud Yerushalmi (Megilla 3:4) there is an explicit connection made between parashat Shekalim and Purim:

"R. Levi said in the name of Resh ben Lakish: The Holy One saw that Haman the wicked was destined to weigh his money against Israel. He [God] said, let the money of My children precede the money of that evil one. Therefore we read parashat Shekalim earlier [i.e., before Purim]."

 

What benefit is there in the "technical" precedence of Israel's shekalim in relation to the shekalim of the wicked Haman? The explanation might be that the money proposed to Haman is accompanied by the declaration, "There is a nation dispersed and separated among the nations" (Ester 3:8) - which connotes also a certain measure of internal disunity (as the Ibn Ezra explains). This separation and disunity is among the main foundations for the accuser's case against Israel and for the ability of Israel's enemies to decree destruction. The solution lies in unity and ingathering, and there is nothing that unifies Israel more than the contribution of the half-shekel by every individual in Israel to the public treasury in the Temple, by means of which the communal sacrifices are purchased.

 

c. 

Let us now examine the connection between the haftora and parashat Shekalim (which, as we know, was decided according to the opinion of Shmuel: we read the beginning of parashat Ki-Tisa, Shemot 30:11-15). The similarity between the two is striking: both readings deal with monetary contributions meant for the Temple. It would even seem that this parasha is what Yeho'ash had in mind when he told the priests, "All the money of the sanctified things that is brought to the house of God, in current money, and the money of individuals, which is valued in souls..." (Melakhim II 12:5). This is reminiscent of expressions in parashat Shekalim: the use of the word "oveir" in verse 14 - "whoever is included in the census," and the use of the word "nefesh" in verse 15 - "to atone for your souls."

 

Moreover, according to the interpretation of Chazal, three distinct instances of giving are hinted at in the parasha, and three in the haftora. The instances in the parasha are listed explicitly in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim 1:1):

"Rabbi Avon said: in the parasha we find three contributions: "a half-shekel contribution to God" (13); "he will give the contribution to God" (14) and "to give the contribution to God" (15)."

 

In the Talmud Bavli (Megilla 29b) we read:

"Rav Yosef taught - there were three contributions: of the altar for the altar, and of the sockets for the sockets, and of the upkeep for the upkeep."

In other words, "of the altar" refers to an annual tax for the purchase of sacrifices for the altar. "Of the sockets" refers to the one-time collection of a half-shekel at the time of the census, and silver sockets are made from the silver collected, and "upkeep" refers to the money collected for the ongoing maintenance needs of the Temple and its vessels.

 

Along the same lines, we find in the haftora that the words of Yeho'ash (12:5) indicate three categories of donations.  The verse begins with a general statement that is followed by its details: "All the money of the sanctified things that is brought to the house of God" is the general statement, followed by three categories:  

(1) current money, 

(2) the money of individuals, which is valued in souls

(3) the money of any person whose heart prompts him to bring to the house of God

 

In two of the details - the half-shekel for the altar and the money for maintenance - there is an exact parallel between the parasha and the haftora, while the contribution for the sockets was a one-time contribution for the mishkan in the desert.

d.

So we find in the lengthy commentaries of Chazal. But at first glance it would appear that the quantities of contributions in the parasha are not equal to those described in the haftora. The parasha stresses the obligatory aspect that rests equally on everyone: "the wealthy shall not bring more nor shall the poor bring less than a half-shekel" (15). In contrast, the contribution of the haftora is characterized by generosity; it is not an obligation placed on everyone but rather "the money of any person whose heart prompts him to bring to the house of God." There is no upper limit here, nor any lower limit.

 

Thus, the haftora complements what we are told in the parasha. While the parasha discusses the minimal obligation that is shared by all, the haftora describes a voluntary gift, allowing each person the opportunity for individual expression in accordance with his means and with the generosity of his heart.

Translated by Kaeren Fish