Halakhah su Esodo 30:12

1. The source which suggests itself most readily is Exodus 30:12. Moses is commanded to count the children of Israel by collecting a half-shekel from each person in order "that there be no plague among them when you number them." Indeed, the Gemara, Berakhot 62b, depicts God as telling David, "Behold I will make you stumble over a matter which even school children know, namely, that which is written, 'When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord … [that there be no plague among them].' " Here the Gemara declares that even "school children" are aware of a prohibition expressed in Exodus 30:12.

This verse also serves to explain that counting the people of Israel is prohibited because of an inherent danger, viz., the danger of plague attendant upon direct counting of individuals. Rashi explains that the rationale underlying the prohibition against census-taking is danger re-suiting from an "evil eye." This concept is explained by Rabbenu Baḥya, Exodus 30:12, as predicated upon the manner in which divine providence is manifest. Providence may extend to an individual either qua individual or as a member of a larger group. When providence is directed toward a group even an undeserving individual may receive benefits since judgment is made with regard to the preservation and well-being of the group as a whole. However, when providence is directed toward an individual qua individual only his personal actions and merit are considered in determining whether he is to be deemed worthy of divine guardianship. The counting of individuals, explains Rabbenu Baḥya, has the effect of singling out the individual counted in this manner for particular scrutiny. If he is found lacking in merit he may receive punishment for misdeeds which otherwise might escape scrutiny. By way of analogy, Rabbenu Baḥya draws attention to the words of the Shunammite woman. Elisha asked her, "What is to be done for thee? Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king or to the captain of the host?" And she answered, "I dwell among my own people" (II Kings 4:13). The Shunammite woman did not wish to be singled out for mention to the king or to the captain of the host. So long as she remained anonymous she had nothing to fear from them. She was fearful, however, that were Elisha to cause those individuals to focus their attention upon her, the result might be detrimental rather than beneficial.⁴See also Seforno, Exodus 30:12. Cf., however, Ralbag, Exodus 30:12, and Akedat Yiẓḥak, Parshat Tazri’a, sha’ar 61, as well as Kli Yakar, Exodus 30:12. For amplification of Rambam’s position regarding the “evil eye” see Teshuvot ha-Rambam (ed. Freimann), no. 260; Migdal Oz, Hilkhot Shekhenim 2:16; and Bet Yosef, Ḥoshen Mishpat 158. See also Me’iri, Pesaḥim 109b. Cf., Abarbanel’s commentary on Exodus 30:12 in which he offers a naturalistic explanation of the harm caused by the “evil eye.”

This also might explain why Chazal do not criticize Yoav for not resisting David Hamelech’s order to count the nation (see Shmuel II ch.24). Rav Itamar Warhaftig (Techumin 15:153) suggests that Yoav assumed that David felt that it was permissible to do so, as there are certain situations where counting the nation is permitted (see, for example, Ramban to Shemot 30:12 and Bemidbar 1:3). Therefore, a military order that is unambiguously wrong, such as gratuitously harming a peaceful demonstrator who is not endangering anyone, should be disregarded. If, however, the Prime Minister orders Tzahal to do something that is halachically ambiguous, it seems that the order must be obeyed.

Maharsha, in his commentary on Yoma 22b, questions why, in this discussion, the Gemara cites prophetic verses in establishing a prohibition and fails to rely upon Exodus 30:12 as does the Gemara in Berakhot 62b. Maharsha explains that Exodus 30:12 might be understood as requiring the contribution of a half-shekel for each person as "a ransom for his soul unto the Lord" because of the prior transgression incurred in serving the golden calf. However, absent such transgression, it might be presumed that a census poses no danger and hence is not prohibited.

Addressing the same question, Rabbi Weinberg and Rabbi Waldenberg both suggest that citation of a verse from the prophetic writings is necessary in order to establish a prohibition against the taking of a census "even for purposes of a mizvah" since the pentateuchal verse does not necessarily encompass such contingencies.⁷R. Chaim Joseph David Azulai, Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b; R. Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter of Gur, Sefat Emet, Yoma 22b, and R. Yisrael Yehoshua of Kutna, Yeshu’ot Malko, Likkutei Torah, p. 74b, suggest that, in context, Exodus 30:12 refers only to a census of the entire populace. Accordingly, Yoma 22b adduces verses from prophetic sources in establishing a prohibition against counting even a portion of the populace. Cf., however, Ḥiddushei Ḥatam Sofer, Yoma 22b, cited below. See also Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 11, who suggests that other more explicit verses are required because Exodus 30:12 might be interpreted as forbidding a census only when undertaken by a “king or leader of Israel.” Indeed Midrash Talpiyot, no. 20, cites an opinion to the effect that “a ransom is required only when the census is undertaken by a king.
It should however be noted that Rambam, Hilkhot Temidim u-Musafim 4:4, cites only the reference to I Samuel 15:4 discussed in Yoma 22b and omits any reference to Exodus 30:12 as a source for such a prohibition. Unlike Berakhot 62b, Yoma 22b may have regarded Exodus 30:12 as referring only to the census undertaken in the wilderness, but not as establishing a prohibition for posterity. If so, the prohibition against counting would be regarded by Rambam as binding solely by virtue of prophetic tradition (mei-divrei kabbalah) rather than as expressly biblical in nature. See Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 19f; cf., however, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, and Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 1. It is, however difficult to sustain any explanation which posits a conflict between Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22. In Berakhot it is R. Eleazar who cites Exodus 30:12 as the source of the prohibition and it is also R. Eleazar who is quoted in Yoma as establishing the prohibition on the basis of Hosea 2:1. A similar explanation is advanced by lyun Ya'akov and Ez Yosef in their respective commentaries on Ein Ya'akov, Yoma 22b.⁸See also Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b; cf. Be’er Sheva, Tamid 28a.

According to Rashi, who views the verses in Genesis as establishing a prohibition against counting the population of Israel, it may perhaps be presumed that the Gemara, Yoma 22b, adduces prophetic verses because the verses in Genesis refer only to the counting of all members of the community of Israel. The prohibition established on the basis of the prophetic verses cited in Yoma 22b, however, clearly applies to the counting of even a segment of the populace. Thus, Scripture records that when Saul took the census prior to his battle against Ammon "The children of Israel were 300,000, and the men of Judah 30,000" (I Samuel 11:8); later, prior to the war against Amalek, Saul counted "200,000 footmen and 10,000 men of Judah" (I Samuel 15:4). The small numbers recorded, as well as the discrepancy between the figures, clearly indicate that the potential warriors counted by Saul constituted only a portion of the populace. Moreover, the Gemara, Yoma 22b, declares that, in the Temple, each priest extended a finger to be counted because it is forbidden to count people.¹⁰Cf., however, Rambam’s novel interpretation recorded in Hilkhot Temedim u-Musafim 4:3. The counting of only the priests in the Temple certainly would not have constituted a census of the entire people. Nevertheless, it was permitted to count only outstretched fingers but not the priests themselves.¹¹R. Meir Dan Plocki, Klei Ḥemdah, Parshat Ki Tissa, explains that although it is forbidden to count individuals directly, the counting of fingers is deemed a permissible form of indirect counting. Translated literally, Exodus 30:12 states “when you count the head of the children of Israel …” The prohibition, explains Klei Ḥemdah, is understood as applying only to the counting of “heads” or of “organs” upon which life is dependent. A similar explanation is advanced by the author of Pe’at ha-Shulḥan and rebutted by Ḥatam Sofer, Koveẓ She’elot u-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5733), no 8. Cf., Abarbanel, Exodus 30:12. Thus, according to this analysis, the direct counting of even a portion of the populace is forbidden.¹²As noted earlier Petaḥ Einayim, Sefat Emet and Yeshu’ot Malko independently explain that, in establishing a prohibition against the direct counting of the populace, the Gemara cites the verse describing the census taken by Saul rather than Exodus 30:12 because the latter passage serves to prohibit only the counting of the entire populace while the prophetic verses serve to prohibit the counting of even a portion of the populace.

Curiously, the sources which serve to prohibit even a partial census were apparently overlooked by one biblical commentator. R. Elijah Mizraḥi, in his supercommentary on Rashi, Exodus 30:12, expressed the opinion that "perhaps" the prohibition against counting the populace is operative only if the entire people, or the major portion of the populace, is counted, as was the case with regard to the census undertaken by Moses in the wilderness. For this reason, opines Mizraḥi, there were no untoward results when David took a census prior to engaging in battle against Absalom and his company (II Samuel 18:1-2). On that occasion David divided the people into three groups and assigned Joab, Abishai the son of Zeruiah and Ittai the Gittite to conduct the census, charging each with counting one-third of the populace. Thus, there was no single census of the entire people. Subsequent writers have pointed out that Mizraḥi's position is contradicted by the Gemara's statement declaring that it was forbidden to count the priests in the Temple. Indeed, Mizraḥi's view also seems to be contradicted by the Gemara's analysis of the census conducted by Saul. Even though only a segment of the nation was included in that census, Saul found it necessary to count the populace by means of shards and lambs in order to circumvent the prohibition.¹³Cf., Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b. For a summary of various attempts to reconcile Mizraḥi’s comments with these sources see Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, secs. 35-37.

Particularly perplexing is the fact that King David apparently ignored the prohibition against counting the populace despite the protestations of Joab (II Samuel 24:1-4 and Chronicles 21:1-3) who demanded, "Why does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause to trespass to Israel?" (I Chronicles 21:3). Joab was indeed correct in opposing the undertaking of a census as indicated by Scripture: "And God was displeased with this thing; therefore He smote Israel" (I Chronicles 21:7); "So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men" (II Samuel 24:15). David himself conceded his guilt saying, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done … for I have done very foolishly" (II Samuel 24:10; and, with minor variation, I Chronicles 21:8).¹⁴Cf., however, Abarbanel, Exodus 30:12, who maintains that the misfortune which was visited upon the populace following David’s census was a punishment for their treasonous conduct in supporting Sheba ben Bichri. Abarbanel’s interpretation appears to be at variance with both Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22b as well as contrary to the plain meaning of these scriptural verses. See R. Ben-Zion Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Inyamin Kellaliyim, no. 2. Biblical commentators have advanced a variety of theses explaining the nature of David's error. A number of halakhic ramifications flow from those diverse explanations.

1. Ramban, in his commentary on Exodus 30:12, explains that David did not properly understand the nature of the prohibition and endeavors to elucidate the nature of David's error. Ramban notes that Exodus 30:12 fails to specify whether the prohibition against counting the people is binding in all generations or whether it was intended to apply only during the period of wandering in the wilderness. According to Ramban, David erred in assuming that the prohibition lapsed upon entry into the promised land.¹⁵Maharal of Prague, Gur Aryeh, Exodus 30:12, explains that David erred in assuming that danger of an “evil eye” existed only in the wilderness where all of Israel was assembled in one location. Ben Yehoyada, Berakhot 62b, asserts that David erred in assuming that the prohibition pertained only to a census conducted in the wilderness which was a place of danger, but not in the Land of Israel where the merit of residence in the land protects against danger. Kli Yakar, Exodus 30:12, opines that David’s error lay in assuming that only the first census, which was undertaken when population figures were entirely unknown, required collection of half-shekels; however, subsequent counting, when the numbers were known at least in an approximate manner, in David’s opinion did not require collection of half-shekels, Cf., however, Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 53, and Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 31, note 11, and p. 36, note 1. Ramban thus clearly understands David's census as having been undertaken in a direct manner and not by means of counting half-shekels or the like. This is certainly the interpretation placed upon the incident by the Gemara, Berakhot 62b. According to Ramban, only a direct census is forbidden; indirect counting by means of half-shekels or a similar expedient is permitted.¹⁶As will be noted below, R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Ḥayyim, Exodus 30:12, permits indirect census-taking in the absence of a legitimate “purpose” only by means of collecting half-shekels. Cf., Koveẓ She’elot u-Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, no. 8. Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec, 22. suggests that according to Or ha-Ḥayyim who permits census-taking only by means of collecting half-shekels, such a procedure may be permissible only when the half-shekels are delivered to the Temple treasury.
R. Jacob Zevi Mecklenburg, Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah, Exodus 30:12, advances a novel view in stating that a portion of the populace may be counted indirectly by means of pieces of shard, or lambs, or the like. However, in his opinion, the entire populace may never be counted, even indirectly, other than by means of half-shekels which serve as a “ransom.” This is also the position of Rambam, Hilkhot Temidim u-Musafim 4:4.¹⁷This interpretation is also reflected in the comments of the Zohar, Parshat Pekudei, p. 225b. Cf., Ẓeidah la-Derekh, Exodus 30:12.

This is also the position of Tosafot Rid, Yoma 22b; Redak, I Samuel 15:4 and II Samuel 24:1; and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b. It should however be noted that Tosafot Rid and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan speak of indirect counting being permitted for the "purpose of a mizvah" rather than simply for any "purpose." Similarly, R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meromei Sadeh, Berakhot 62a, stipulates that the counting must be for the purpose of a mizvah.¹⁹Cf., however, R. Chaim Kanievsky, Naḥal Eitan 6:10, sec. 7, who understands the concept of counting for the purpose of a miẓvah formulated by Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan as permitting even indirect counting only upon specific divine command, rather than for the purpose of enabling the fulfillment of some other commandment. A similar position is advanced by Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b, in the name of R. Menachem Azariah of Panu. On the other hand, R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 30:12, permits the indirect counting of even the entire populace by means of half-shekels despite the absence of a legitimate "purpose."

4. R. Mordecai Jaffe, Levush ha-Orah, and Mizraḥi, in their respective commentaries on Exodus 30:12, explain that King David erred in assuming that this verse does not establish a prohibition against census-taking. According to this interpretation, David understood Exodus 30:12 as requiring a half-shekel simply as a "ransom" to avert a calamity and, assuming that the "ransom" need not necessarily be delivered prior to the census but could be paid after the counting as well, intended to collect such an offering subsequent to completing the census.²³R Yeruchem Fischel Perla (Marhari Perla), in his commentary on Sa’adia Ga’on’s Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot lo-ta’aseh, nos. 264-65, p. 322b, opines that, in the event that a person has been counted, he must contribute a half-shekel to charity as “ransom.” Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 16, suggests that, according to Marhari Perla, any coin minted as a half of the monetary unit which constitutes the coin of the realm may be sufficient for this purpose even if its value is less than that of half a shekel. However, Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer fails to offer compelling evidence in support of this contention. Maharal of Prague, Gur Aryeh, Exodus 30:12, advances a similar explanation but comments that David believed that the half-shekel donated annually by each person for the purpose of purchasing communal offerings was sufficient to serve as "ransom." Levush further comments that the true import of the commandment was not known until after the misfortune which occurred following David's census.

Parenthetically, it should be noted that Levush, Mizraḥi, Maharal and Rashbam apparently maintain that the collection of half-shekels serves to permit a direct head count of the populace. Such a position is entirely compatible with a literal reading of Exodus 30:12 and Numbers 1:2. Similary, Yalkut Shim'oni, Parshat Ki Tissa, speaks of individuals passing beyond a wooden platform, presumably for purposes of being counted directly. However, Rashi, Exodus 30:12, carefully explains that the collection of half-shekels was designed to enable the census to be taken indirectly by means of counting the half-shekel coins rather than by a direct count of individuals. According to Rashi, direct counting of people is never permissible.

The counting of people, even of a portion of populace, in a manner that is not designed to yield an accurate reckoning, asserts Hatam Sofer, may be undertaken only by means of half-shekels which serve as "ransom."²⁵Cf., Or ha-Ḥayyim, and Ha-Ketav ve-ha-Kabbalah, cited above, note 16.
It should be noted that in his concluding remarks Ḥatam Sofer states that counting by means of half-shekels or by way of goral is permitted only for the purpose of a miẓvah. The extension of fingers by the priests, even though it was not accompanied by collection of half-shekels, asserts Hatam Sofer, was permitted because it was not done as a means of counting the priests but by way of goral, or lot, in order to assign roles in the performance of the sacrificial ritual. The procedure began with the announcement of an arbitrarily selected number. Thereupon, the outstretched fingers were counted seriatim until the previously announced number was reached. The number announced prior to counting the fingers extended by the priests might indeed be greater than the total number of individuals present. This would require that at least some priests be counted more than once. Thus the intention was clearly not to obtain a census in any sense of the term. In a highly novel explanation, Hatam Sofer asserts that the shards and lambs collected by Saul were similarly designed, not to establish a census, but as a device by which to assign various roles in combat. Since the procedure was in the nature of a goral, rather than of a census, half-shekels were not required. It would appear that, according to the opinion of Hatam Sofer as expressed in this responsum, a contemporary census, even if undertaken in an indirect manner (and even if it be imprecise in nature) is not permissible since it is not accompanied by the contribution of a half-shekel. On the other hand, the author of Pe'at ha-Shulḥan, as quoted in Kovez Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, as well as Kiel Hemdah and Pardes Yosef in their respective commentaries on Exodus 30:12, permit the counting of nonvital organs or of items of clothing as constituting indirect forms of census-taking.

It is noteworthy that a thesis similar to that advanced by Rabbi Goren is propounded by one biblical commentator in order to resolve the contradictory midrashic explanations of the nature of King David's transgression. Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 30—12, explains that David erred in conducting a census which was not undertaken for a valid purpose. In advancing this explanation Or ha-Hayyim follows Ramban, Numbers 1:3, and the midrashic sources cited by the latter. As noted earlier, the Gemara, Berakhot 62b, indicates that, had David followed the procedure stipulated in Exodus 30:12 and taken the census by means of a collection of half-shekels, he would have incurred no transgression even though the census was undertaken in the absence of a legitimate purpose. Ramban regards this contradiction as reflecting diverse midrashic traditions. Or ha-Hayyim, however, resolves the contradiction by postulating that, when undertaken by means of half-shekels which are contributed to the sanctuary as a "ransom," a census may be undertaken even in the absence of a valid "purpose."³²See Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 22, cited above, note 16. Or ha-Hayyim, however, does not restrictively define the concept of "purpose" as limited to a matter involving danger to life.

That is that He commanded us to give over a half shekel-coin each year. And that is His, may He be blessed, saying, "and a man shall give a ransom for his soul to the Lord" (Exodus 30:12), and His saying, "This shall they give, every one that passes among them that are numbered, etc." (Exodus 30:13). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Shekalim; and it is explained there that this commandment is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Sheqel Dues 1.)