Parshas Ki Sisa
1. On the verse "זה יתנו וגו׳ מחצית השקל" ("This they shall give… half a shekel"), the Jerusalem Talmud and the Midrash1 state: "כמין מטבע של אש הוציא הקדוש ברוך הוא מתחת כסא כבודו והראהו למשה ואמר לו: וכו׳ כזה יתנו" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, took out a kind of coin of fire from beneath His Throne of Glory, showed it to Moshe, and said to him: … like this they shall give") — that is, G‑d took out a kind of coin of fire from beneath the Throne of Glory, showed the coin to Moshe, and told him: a coin such as this is what Jews should give as the half-shekel. Tosafos2 explains that G‑d's showing Moshe a "coin of fire" was not because Moshe found it hard to understand what a half-shekel means; rather, he wondered: how can a person give a "כופר" ("ransom"), a redemption, (through a half-shekel) for his soul? As the Midrash says there: "Who can give the ransom of his soul? 'עור בעד עור וכל אשר לאיש יתן בעד נפשו' ('Skin for skin, and all that a man has he will give for his soul')3, and still it does not suffice, etc." (that is, a person gives away everything he owns for his soul — and it is still not enough). In answer to this, G‑d showed him a "coin of fire."
Now, the matter of sacrifices — which are also an atonement for sins — was stated even before the command of the half-shekel: right after the Giving of the Torah it already says4 "וזבחת עליו את עולותיך ואת שלמיך" ("And you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings"); nevertheless, Moshe Rabbeinu did not wonder how they could be an atonement. Only at the command of the half-shekel did Moshe Rabbeinu wonder how this could be a ransom for the soul. The explanation of this is: the half-shekel was an atonement for the sin of the Golden Calf5, which was a sin of idolatry — so Moshe Rabbeinu wondered: how can the half-shekel be an atonement for such a sin? Mitzvos are comparable to limbs6. Just as among a person's limbs there are distinctions — there are particular limbs, each of which has its own particular vitality from the soul (and these themselves divide into two categories: limbs on which life depends, and limbs on which life does not depend), and there are general limbs, such as the brain and the heart, in which the soul principally rests7, the vitality for the entire body — so too the same distinctions exist among mitzvos: particular mitzvos and general mitzvos. "אנכי" ("I am [the L‑rd your G‑d]") and "לא יהיה לך" ("You shall have no [other gods]") are the general principles of the entire Torah8; they touch the very essence of the soul, and on them depends the bond of Jews with G‑d. Therefore, when G‑d commanded that the half-shekel be given as an atonement for the sin of idolatry, as a "כפר נפשו" ("ransom for his soul") — an atonement for the soul itself, which the sin of the Calf had touched — Moshe Rabbeinu wondered how the half-shekel could reach the soul itself and be an atonement for it.
2. With this we will understand the interpretation of the holy Or HaChaim on the verse "כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם" ("When you take the head count of the children of Israel according to their numbers"): that the verse speaks of the passing of tzaddikim, the heads of the children of Israel. "When you take the head of the children of Israel" — when a tzaddik passes away before his time, it is "לפקודיהם" (from the term for lack, as it says9 "ולא נפקד ממנו איש" ("and not one man of us is missing")) — because of the lack, the sin of the Jewish people.
All the interpretations of a single verse are connected with one another10. What, then, is the connection between the interpretation of the Or HaChaim and the plain meaning of the same verse? But since according to the plain meaning the verse speaks of the sin of idolatry, a general sin and a general blemish, it is therefore connected to the interpretation of the Or HaChaim, for a general sin touches the soul in its generality and touches the general soul. As indeed happened with the sin of the Calf: it brought about a descent in Moshe Rabbeinu, the head of Israel (although he himself had nothing whatsoever to do with the sin; at the time it was committed he was entirely on high), as our Sages say: "לך רד מגדולתך" ("Go, descend from your greatness")11. And because the sin of the Calf brought about death — for through the giving of the Tablets there had been "freedom from the Angel of Death"12, and the sin of the Calf reawakened the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, which brought death into the world — this is therefore also reflected, in the same way, in a general soul, which is the matter of the passing of tzaddikim.
3. One must understand, however: since Moshe Rabbeinu had no difficulty with what the half-shekel means, but rather wondered how the half-shekel could be a "ransom for his soul" — how was his question resolved when G‑d showed him a "coin of fire"?13
This can be understood through a parable (some say the parable originates with the Baal Shem Tov): A person learned the craft of gold- and silversmithing. The one who taught him the craft showed him how to carry out all its details, but the detail that one must place fire beneath the gold and silver he did not tell him, because it was so obvious. When the student later followed all the details of the work he had been shown, but left out that one detail — he did not place any fire beneath it — it is understood that nothing at all came of his work, and the gold and silver remained the same raw lump as before.
And this was also G‑d's answer to Moshe Rabbeinu in showing him a "coin of fire": the giving of a coin by itself indeed cannot reach the essence of the soul and become an atonement for it. But when one uses fire along with it — when one gives the coin with fervor and fire that come from the essence of the soul, from "נר הוי׳ נשמת אדם" ("The soul of man is the lamp of G‑d")14 — then the half-shekel can become a ransom for the soul.
4. In every mitzvah, the deed of the mitzvah itself alludes to its intent and inner content. We must say, then, that in the mitzvah of the half-shekel too, the act of giving itself alludes to the spiritual intent of the mitzvah — that it is a service bound up with the fire of the essence of the soul. This is not understood: the coin of fire was shown by G‑d to Moshe Rabbeinu, but the half-shekel that every Jew gave was a plain coin, in which, seemingly, nothing of fire was alluded to at all.
One cannot explain this by the virtue of the mitzvah of tzedakah — that a person gives away of his money, for which he toiled with all the powers of his soul, or with which he could buy the necessities of life15, and therefore it is something that touches the essence of the soul. This is no explanation for the mitzvah of the half-shekel, for it is not a special virtue of this mitzvah; it is present in tzedakah in general.
Nor can one explain it by the fact that from the half-shekel the sockets of the Mishkan were made, the foundation of the Mishkan — which in man's service is the matter of accepting the yoke [of Heaven], giving oneself over to G‑d beyond reason and understanding, which comes from the essence of the soul (and also in later years, when the half-shekel went toward sacrifices, it was used not for individual offerings but for communal offerings, in which the unity of all Jews together was expressed, which comes from the essence of the soul). This, however, is expressed only in what was done with the half-shekel later, after the giving; but in "זה יתנו" ("this they shall give"), in the act of giving the half-shekel, the service that stems from the essence is seemingly not expressed.
Nor can one say that the connection of the half-shekel with the essence of the soul lies in the fact that the half-shekel contribution was different from the other donations to the Mishkan: in the other donations there were distinctions between rich and poor, and each person gave according to the generosity of his heart, but with the half-shekel all Jews were equal — "העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט" ("The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less") — which points to a service that stems from the essence, for from the standpoint of the essence of the soul all Jews are equal, and the distinctions come from the inner powers.
This, however, is not alluded to in the matter and command of the half-shekel itself; the same would have been true of any other sum that the Torah would have commanded all Jews to give equally. We must say, then, that the fire of the essence of the soul is alluded to also in the very fact that "זה" — the half-shekel — "they shall give."
5. In the command of the half-shekel, the wording of the Torah is: "זה יתנו גו׳ מחצית השקל, עשרים גרה השקל, מחצית השקל תרומה לה׳" ("This they shall give… half a shekel; twenty gerah is the shekel; half a shekel as an offering to G‑d"). That is: first the Torah says that one should give a half-shekel; and so that one should know the correct sum of the half-shekel, the Torah explains that a whole shekel contains twenty gerah, and that half of it — ten gerah — should be an offering to G‑d.
One must understand: why all this length? The Torah could have said briefly that one should give ten gerah. And even if the Torah specifically wants to mention "half a shekel," it would have sufficed to say that one should give a half-shekel, which is ten gerah. Why must it be mentioned here that a whole shekel is twenty gerah?
This is proof that the precise point is that one should give specifically half of a whole shekel: the ten gerah that one must give are not a sum and entity in their own right, but half of a sum — of a whole shekel consisting of twenty gerah. And this is not understood: the Torah always demands that one give G‑d the best one has — "כל חלב לה׳" ("All the choicest fat is for G‑d")16 — so why is it said here that one should give no more than half a thing? Had the Torah not specified "half" here, there would be no question why one is not told to give a larger coin — every mitzvah has its own matters and measures, and in a particular mitzvah a particular sum of the coin is what matters. But since the Torah emphasizes "half a shekel," the mitzvah is bound up with the shekel (and not with a smaller coin) — so why should one give no more than a half (the opposite of completeness), and not a whole shekel?
Especially according to what was explained earlier: the half-shekel was an atonement for the sin of the Calf, which was a denial of G‑d's Oneness and a separation from G‑dliness, which encompasses everything. The atonement for this sin should therefore have been measure for measure — to give away everything to G‑d and leave nothing at all for oneself. Yet the Torah instructs, on the contrary, that a whole shekel one may not give — "The rich shall not give more"17 — one must give only a half, and specifically then is it "a ransom for his soul."
Even more is not understood: we find that the Torah describes the half-shekel itself (in a different context, however) as a thing in its own right, a whole thing. Rashi says18 that the gold nose-ring weighing a "בקע" ("beka") that Eliezer gave to Rivkah alludes to the half-shekel; yet there the Torah does not say that he gave her a beka of a (whole) thing, of a shekel, but that he gave her a beka — a thing in its own right. Here, however, in the contribution of the half-shekel, it must specifically be half of another thing (a shekel), of a complete entity.
6. As mentioned earlier, the sin of idolatry is separation from G‑dliness. Therefore the mitzvah of the half-shekel, the rectification of the sin of the Calf, must have as its theme — unity. The true meaning of the unity demanded of a Jew is not only that he give away his all to G‑d — that is, that he is an entity and gives away his things to G‑d — but even more: that he himself is not an entity; he is no more than half a thing. Through what does he become an entity and a complete thing? Through attaching himself to G‑d.
And this very feeling and service call forth and reveal the same matter Above as well: that G‑d's completeness is, so to speak, dependent on Jews. This is why G‑d calls the Congregation of Israel by the name "תמתי" ("My perfect one") — the one who makes Me, so to speak, "tam," whole19. The Congregation of Israel, so to speak, makes Him whole.
The bond of Jews with G‑d is not a joining of two things; rather, they are one thing. Each by itself, without the other, is no more than a half20; only both together are one complete whole.
And this is the meaning of the half-shekel. There is one whole shekel, which contains twenty gerah. One ten gerah are the ten powers of the soul, which the Jew must give to G‑d; and this draws down the second ten gerah — the ten supernal Sefiros of G‑d. (Although G‑d is not confined to any form whatsoever, heaven forbid, nevertheless, because of His great love for Jews, He contracted Himself and placed Himself into ten Sefiros, from which the ten powers of the soul in man evolve21 — man ("אדם") being "אדמה לעליון" ("I will be likened to the One Above")22; they resemble the ten Sefiros of the Supernal Man.) And these two — the ten powers in man and the ten Sefiros of G‑d — are not two separate things; both together are one whole "holy shekel." Each of them, without the other, has no completeness.
And this is how the intent of the mitzvah — the "coin of fire," the fire of the essence of the soul — is alluded to in the deed of the mitzvah of the half-shekel: the half-shekel shows that Jews together with G‑d are, so to speak, one whole thing, and this is through the bond of the essence of the soul with G‑d's Essence. In the bond of the revealed powers with G‑dliness there can at times be a blemish, but the essence of the soul is always attached and united with G‑d — "חבוקה ודבוקה בך, יחידה לייחדך" ("embraced and cleaving to You, singular to unify You").
Therefore the half-shekel is also an atonement for the sin of the Calf, because all sins, even the sin of idolatry23, do not touch the essence. The essence of a Jew is always whole. And when one reveals the essence (through the half-shekel, as explained above), this also affects the revealed powers, so that they too become united with G‑dliness24.
7. This is also what is related in Parshas Ki Sisa: after Moshe Rabbeinu asked G‑d to forgive the Jews for the sin of the Calf, and G‑d granted his request to pardon them, G‑d said to him: "הנה אנכי כורת ברית" ("Behold, I make a covenant"). The concept of making a covenant is to bind and unite the parties to the covenant, by dividing a whole thing and having the parties to the covenant pass between the two halves25, as we find at the Covenant Between the Parts, which G‑d made with Avraham Avinu. Seemingly, though, cutting a thing in half is a matter of separation — the opposite of the unity intended by making a covenant? But the explanation is that, on the contrary, specifically in this is true unity evident: just as each of the parts (the cut pieces of the thing through which the covenant is made) is no more than half a thing, so too the parties to the covenant, those who pass between the parts — each of them is completed specifically through the other.
And this explains what G‑d said to Moshe Rabbeinu, in connection with the atonement for the sin of the Calf, "Behold, I make a covenant": from Above, the true unity of Jews with G‑d was revealed — the bond of the essence of the soul with G‑d's Essence, which nothing at all can touch, not even the sin of idolatry, as G‑d says26: "בין כך ובין כך בני הם ולהחליפם באומה אחרת (ח"ו) אי אפשר" ("Either way they are My children, and to exchange them for another nation (heaven forbid) is impossible").
8. Just as the covenant between Jews and G‑d began with Avraham Avinu (though with Moshe Rabbeinu it was in a higher manner)27, so too the matter of the half-shekel began with the Patriarchs. This is alluded to in the "beka" that Eliezer gave to Rivkah, as mentioned above. For "מעשה אבות סימן לבנים" ("The deeds of the fathers are a sign for the children")28: from the Patriarchs come the sign and the empowerment for all the matters of the children after the Giving of the Torah29.
That is why Eliezer gave the beka in connection with marriage. Marriage in general, and the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah in particular30, alludes to the union of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is called the Groom, with the Congregation of Israel, which is called the Bride. Therefore there, too, was the giving of the beka — akin to the half-shekel — to allude to the union of G‑d with Jews: that the Congregation of Israel, through its service, calls forth the half-shekel Above.
However, since the deeds of the Patriarchs are no more than a sign and an empowerment for the children, and true unity was brought about only at the Giving of the Torah (for until then there was still the decree that separated the upper realms from the lower), the bond at that time was not yet in the manner of "half a shekel," but in the manner of a "beka"31: the service below did indeed bring about the drawing down from Above, but it was like a bond of two things, one of which acts upon the other32. And only after the Giving of [the Torah]…
[Continues on the next page.]
Notes
1) Yerushalmi Shekalim 1:4. Bamidbar Rabbah 12:3. And elsewhere. Cited in Rashi, Shemos 30:13.
2) Tosafos, s.v. "Zos HaChayah," Chullin 42a.
3) Iyov 2:4.
4) Shemos 20:21.
5) Yerushalmi Shekalim 2:3. Tanchuma, Tisa 10.
6) See Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 30 (74a, end). Tanya, ch. 23.
7) Tanya, beginning of ch. 9. And see Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 21 (53a); ibid., Tikkun 27 (72b, beginning).
8) Shelah, beginning of Parshas Yisro, in the name of the early authorities. Tanya, ch. 20. And see above, Parshas Yisro.
9) Bamidbar 31:49.
10) See above, Parshas Toldos, p. 782.
11) Berachos 32a. Cited in Rashi, Shemos 32:7.
12) Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 57 (91a).
13) See along similar lines also in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 1, Parshas Tisa (and Parshas Terumah), and the sources cited there.
14) Mishlei 20:27.
15) Tanya, ch. 37.
16) Vayikra 3:16. Rambam, end of Hilchos Issurei Mizbe'ach.
17) See Ramban, Tisa 30:16.
18) Bereishis 24:22.
19) Shir HaShirim 5:2. Likkutei Torah there (35d).
20) Along the lines of the Maggid's interpretation of "שתי חצוצרות" ("two trumpets") as "שתי חצאי צורות" ("two half-forms") (Or Torah, Behaalos'cha; cited and explained in the Tzemach Tzedek's Reshimos on Tehillim, p. 98 ff.).
21) Tanya, ch. 3.
22) Sefer Asarah Ma'amaros, Ma'amar Em Kol Chai, part 2, ch. 33. Shelah 20b.
23) See Sanhedrin 43b ff.
24) This is also why the half-shekel nullified Haman's decree (Megillah 16[a], and Tosafos there). The reason for the decree was that they had bowed to the image (ibid. 12a), and the half-shekel awakened the essential bond between Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He — both from the side of Israel, who stood firm with self-sacrifice throughout the entire year, and from Above: the essential choice of Israel, that "either way they are My children," etc. — According to the above, we will also understand why on the first of Adar the announcement is made concerning the shekalim: the half-shekel is connected with the month of Adar (itself, and not only because it precedes the month of Nissan), for the main point of the month of Adar is Purim, whose main theme is the revelation of the essential union of the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Congregation of Israel (which is why the festival is named Purim — for a name indicates the essence of the thing it names; see above, in the sicha for Purim, note 21); and this is one theme with the half-shekel.
25) Yirmeyahu 34:18. And see Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim 44b; the maamar beginning "Hineh Anochi Kores Bris," 5654; the maamar beginning "Ki Chelek Havaya Amo," 5702, section 12.
26) Kiddushin 36a (Responsa of the Rashba, sec. 194). Rus Rabbah, Pesichta 3. Pesachim 54a, and there.
27) For the covenant with Avraham concerns the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos, while the covenant with Moshe concerns teshuvah, as explained in the maamar beginning "Hineh Anochi Kores Bris," 5654.
28) See above, Parshas Lech Lecha, and the sources cited there.
29) This explains the connection between the beka that Eliezer gave to Rivkah, which alludes to the half-shekel (Rashi there), and the two bracelets, which allude to the Tablets (see Kli Yakar, Bereishis 24:22): for the innovation of the Giving of the Torah is the union of the upper and the lower, which is akin to the matter of the half-shekel.
30) Therefore the first marriage mentioned in the Torah that came about through man's service, and not from Above (like the marriage of Adam and Chavah), is the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah. And see Likkutei Torah, Berachah (96c); Or HaTorah, the maamar beginning "Yafeh Sichasan," that the marriage of Yitzchak and Rivkah is the general union of Mah and Ban.
31) [The text of this note is on the next page.]
32) [The text of this note is on the next page.]
Key Lesson
A Jew on his own is only "half a shekel"; he becomes whole only by binding himself to G‑d, and G‑d, so to speak, finds His completeness in the Jewish people. That essential bond, rooted in the very core of the soul, is never broken by any sin, and when we serve G‑d with the "fire" of that core, even an ordinary deed reaches the depths of the soul and brings atonement.