Halakhah su Esodo 30:76

There are eight table blessings, and they are: netilat yada’im [over hand-washing], ha-motzi [over bread], the four blessings of birkat ha-mazon [grace after meals], and twoblessings over the wine (before and after the meal). The reason for these eight has to do with the table being considered equal to the altar of the Temple. Just as the altar atones, so does the table. Look – when you put bread on the table to feed the poor, it is like a sacrifice on the altar. Just as the incense on the altar (which atoned more than all the sacrifices upon the altar of bronze) was made of eight kinds of spices – four in the anointing oil- myrrh, cinnamon, aromatic cane, and cassia; and the four in the incense itself which are specified in Scripture: stacte, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense–¹Ex 30:34, following the Jewish Study Bible’s translation. we are commanded to say eight different kinds of blessings over the table corresponding to them. Most people do not take this into consideration or pay attention to this matter. Butit is necessary for person to make himself holy at his table during his meal with these eight blessings that correspond to the eight kinds of spices specified in the Torah, which used to be in the Temple, in order to fulfill the commandments in their essence, and to direct one’s mind in the blessings to their basic foundations.

The first blessing is al netilat yada’im -“over the washing of the hands”. Our rabbis z”l specifically fixed the form of this blessing with the word “netilah,” which literally means “raising high,” as the Targum translates “then a spirit lifted me up [va-tise’ni]”²Ez 3:12. – “raised me up” [va-nitaltni]. These two verbs are also used synonymously when it is written “He raised them and lifted them up [va-yitlem va-yinas’em] all the days of old.”³Is 63:9.It is necessary to raise up one’s hands when saying this blessing. Moreover this would include the point of raising hands in prayer, to concentrate one’s mind on them (i.e., the ten fingers of one’s hands) to be made holy by them from the ten sefirot. It is like someone who raises their hands upward to concentrate on opening the source above, pulling and drawing down the divine energy flow. This is what Scripture means when it says, “I reach up for your commandments which I love.”⁴Ps 119:48. This verse teaches you that in some of the commandments there is an imprint or picture above, which a person needs, in order to follow them below, so you should raise your hands toward them above. Even here over the table when you are eating, you ought to lift up your hands and raise them above.⁵Or “ought to perform the ritual of al netilat yada’im raising his hands upward …;” the Hebrew can mean either, or most likely, both. You should concentrate on the ten sefirot when you lift (or wash) before you eat, and likewise after you eat with the mayim aharonim [i.e., the washing after the meal]. Scripture talksabout this when it says, “Lift your hands toward the sanctuary and bless the Lord.”⁶Ps 134:2Similarly with the ten things that are necessary for a cup of blessing, according to the custom of those in the past.⁷R. Bahya is referring to b. Berakhot 51a:
Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Abahu – others say it is taught in a beraita: “Ten things were said to have been required for of a cup of blessing: (1) washing and (2) rinsing it before use, (3) undiluted, (4) a full cup (5) closing it [itur] (6) covering with a cloth [ituf], (7) lifting it up with two hands and putting it in the right, and (8) elevating it at least a handbreadth from the ground, (9) looking at it; and some say, (10) sending it as a gift to household members.” Rabbi Yohanan said, “we know of only four: Washing, rinsing, undiluted, and full.”
Though R. Yohanan’s view became the accepted practice, R. Bahya is suggesting that there nevertheless was an ancient custom that did associate the rituals concerned with blessing a cup of wine with the ten sefirot. That is why Rabbi Zeira et al. specified ten, according to R. Bahya’s interpretation of his rationale. So Chavel in his notes explains R. Bahya’s reference to “the custom of those in the past.” See below, where R. Bahya discusses in more detail the ten things connected with the cup of blessing. See also the Zohar 2:157b. All this is to hint that the purpose of concentrating on our eating at the table is only for our body to be sustained and be able to serve theCreator so that our soul will merit to stand among “the ten,” and that the brilliant light be her food and hover protectively over her. And know the truth, that the structure of the body with ten fingers on the hands that can be raised above, and ten toes below, with our body in the middle – was designed this way, to get us to visualize the connection between heaven and earth. Just so, our body links our upper and lower ten digits.⁸In other words, the connection between our 10 toes and fingers with our body in the middle is analogous to the connection between our 10 fingers lifted up in netilat yada’imdown here on earth and the 10 sefirot in the upper world. This is the “imprint” of the cosmos in the human body to which R. Bahya just referred. Perhaps R. Bahya’s particular wording here to introduce this analogy, “Know the truth [ha-emet],” is an allusion to Ps. 85:11: “Truth [emet] will spring up from the ground.”

And understand for this reason the Torah describes the sanctification of the priests’ hands and feet, as Scripture says, “They shall wash their hands and feet, that they may not die.”⁹Ex 30:21. This washing Targum Onkelos (may his memory be a blessing) translates with a word that connotes holiness, even though in the other places where “they shall wash” is written, it is translated “they shall remove the dirt from” [va-yes’hun], but here he translated it “they shall sanctify” [va-yikadshun]. This is to explain that the priest used to sanctify his hand and his feet. With his right hand for his right foot and his left hand for his left foot, he would concentrate on “the ten” and make himself holy through their holiness, and draw upon the blessing from their blessedness, and with this thought in mind the priest would sanctify his hands and feet in the basin when he approached the altar. Thus the table is called an altar. For this reason they [the rabbis] were very severe with the punishment for someone who makes light of hand washing; he is to be “uprooted from the world.”¹⁰B.Sotah 4b. The severity of this punishment is because hand-washing hints at the thing upon which the whole world depends. So whoever makes light of “lifting” the hands (for washing) causes a washing that destroys the world. As it has been said, “wash before or be fed pig meat; wash after or a life might be lost.”¹¹B.Hullin 106a. Chavel explains this somewhat elliptical saying in his notes by bringing two stories. First, there was a Jewish shopkeeper who would sell kosher meat that he would cook and feed to a Jew, but when a gentile came into the store, he’d feed him trayf. But if a Jew came to eat and didn’t wash his hands, thinking he was a gentile, the storekeeper would feed him pig meat. As for the danger of not washing afterwards, Chavel retells the story of the man who entrusted his wife with purse of money, and then went out to the market without washing his hands after the meal. A wicked man came along who saw the husband give his wife the purse. He came to the woman and said to her, “Give me the purse that your husband gave you.” She replied to him, “Give me a sign” (i.e., that proved he know her husband and that he sent him). He told that he knew her husband just ate lentils (since he had seen them on her husband’s unwashed hands). So she gave him the purse. When her husband came home, she told him what happened, and he killed her! And this also was said about netilat yada’im: “whoever makes light of hand-washing will end up poor.”¹²B.Shabbat 62b. Wealth is accumulated by the work of one’s hands, and so it is written, “in all that you extend your hand to,”¹³Dt 15:10: “The Lord your God will bless you in all you do, and in all that you extend your hand to.” and blessings are linked to “the ten.” This is hinted at in “you shall surely set aside a tenth,”¹⁴Deut. 14:22. that is, “from ten [‘eser] so that you will become rich [tit-‘asher].¹⁵B.Ta’anit 9a, which interprets the Biblical Hebrew emphatic infinitive absolute construction: ‘iser te-‘aser (“you shall surely set aside a tenth”) as ‘eser te’asher (“ten will make you rich”), punning on the similar spelling and sound of ‘eser, “ten” and ‘osher, “wealth.” They proved that ‘osher –“wealth” – which is a shibboleth [“an ear of wheat” spelled with a shin] is from the ma’aser [“tithe” spelled with a sin] which is a sibboleth [that is, the letter shinin ma’aser is pronounced like the letter samekh in “sibboleth,” to hint that blessing and wealth is linked to “the ten” (the ten sefirot).¹⁶The point of the midrash is that ‘eser (ten) and ‘osher (wealth) are more or less equivalent, even though one is pronounced with an /s/, the other with a /sh/ sound. Of course this an allusion to the story in Judges 12 where the Gileadites used the word shibboleth as a password to distinguish their people from the Ephraimites, who could only pronounce it “sibboleth.” Though R. Bahya on the one hand seems to stress the interchangeability of shibboleth and sibboleth to make his point, I would not put it past him to be also hinting that knowing the equivalence of ‘eser, ‘osher, and the mystical secret of the connection between the ten sefirot and acquiring blessing is itself a sort of “shibboleth,” as it were. Having the wisdom to make these connections distinguishes the Torah scholars from those who don’t know or appreciate the secrets of the Torah and their benefits. Proof of this is in the birkat kohanim (the priestly) when they raise and extend their hands.¹⁷I.e., to draw down the blessings from the ten sefirot through their ten fingers. R. Bahya in effect implicitly associates the lifting of the ten fingers when to draw down blessing when one washes before eating at the table, to the blessings drawn down by the hereditary priests. It should become clear from this that the more a commandment requires this sort of thinking directed above, the greater the punishment for making light of it. This is like the issue of saying “Amen.” As great as one’s reward is for answering “Amen,” double is the punishment for making light of it. This is what our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash: “Everyone who is careful to answer “Amen” in this world deserves to answer “Amen” in the world to come.” David (peace be upon him) said, ‘Blessed is the Lord forever, Amen and Amen;’¹⁸Ps 89:53. ‘Amen’ in this world, and ‘Amen’ in the world to come. For everyone who answers ‘Amen’ deserves two worlds: this world and the world to come.¹⁹M. Tanhuma 96:7. And in the Temple, when The Name of God was spoken aloud as it is spelled, they did not answer “Amen.” But in the precincts of the Temple where it was not permitted to say it as it is spelled, they would say aloud “Amen” instead of The Name, because the word “Amen” hints at the letters of The Name.²⁰B. Berakhot 63a. The numerical equivalents for the names of God ADoNaY (65) and YHWH (26) when added together equal AMeN (91). Therefore, greater is the one who says “Amen” than the one making the blessing using a circumlocution for the actual name of God.²¹I.e., like saying “Adonai” instead of pronouncing YHWH. And everyone who makes light of saying “Amen,” their punishment is double in the circles of hell, that is, the circle called “a land whose light is darkness,”²²Job 10:22. which is lower She’ol. The prophet who spoke about those that make light of answering “Amen” referred to this when he said “They have forsaken Me, the Fount of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns which cannot even hold water.”²³Jer 2:13. But whoever answers “Amen” with its letters opens “the Fount” and draws out the flow of blessing. And accordingly the verse refers to those who make light of it when it says “hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns.” That is to say, they are punished with a double punishment, the one worse than the other.²⁴R. Bahya is picking up on the repetition of the word “cisterns” (be’erot) to hook his midrash. Thus you learn that the greater the reward is for doing something, the greater the punishment for not doing it. Now right after washing and drying his hands, he ought to eat, and so they said, “Right after washing his hands, ha-motzi’.²⁵B.Berakhot 52b, which actually says, “right after washing hands, the meal.”

There is a distinction between washing before (mayim rishonim) and washing after (mayim ahronim) a meal in many particulars. Mayim rishonim require a person’s effort, either another person to pour it over his hands, or he himself to pour it with one hand over the other. That is not the case with mayim ahronim, for which a person’s effort is not required to make it flow. Mayim rishonim require raising the hands in a way so as not to bring them back down and make them unclean. That is not the case with mayim ahronim, for which it is required to lower one’s hands downward to remove the dirt. Mayim rishonim require wiping dry, because the wiping dry is crucial to the point of the hand washing; mayim ahronim do not require wiping dry. ³⁵The point of the mayim rishonim is to purify one’s hands in order to eat with pure hands. If one doesn’t dry them, they can become unclean again (see the previous note), defeating the purpose of netilat yada’im before the meal. The point of the mayim ahronimhowever is merely to get the dirt off one’s hands after finishing eating, so it doesn’t really matter if they become ritually unclean once the meal is over. Mayim rishonim require that there be nothing on one’s hands separating them from the water, such as wax, pitch, flour, or feces on one’s fingernails. For mayim ahronim, it doesn’t matter whatsoever if there is or isn’t something separating one’s hands from the water. With mayim rishonim, the hands can be washed either with a vessel or over the ground. In other words, we need not worry if the water falls onto the vessel or onto the ground. With mayim ahronim, one only washes with a vessel, since the water has to fall into the vessel and not onto the ground. With mayim rishonim, if one has rubbed his hands together, he has to do netilat yada’im all over again; with mayim ahronim it is not necessary.³⁶Chavel: if one rubs his hands under the water, the water may have missed a spot, leaving it unclean. With mayim rishonim, one recites the blessing “al netilat yada’im.” With mayim ahronim, there is no blessing, except for someone saying birkat ha-mazon, who says the blessing “al rehitzat yada’im” (“concerning the washing of the hands”).³⁷As opposed to “al netilat yada’im” – literally, “taking up the hands [to wash them].” Mayim rishonim require pauses; it shouldn’t be poured all at once. Rather, taking up his hands, one washes and pauses, and then takes up and washes and pauses again.³⁸Halakhah, Chavel notes, following Orah Hayim 122:2, actually requires three distinct pourings of the mayim rishonim, pausing between each: the first pouring to remove dirt or anything else separating the surface of one’s hands from the water, and then a second pouring to wash off the dirty water; but the water for both of these pourings remains impure. Only after one pours yet a third time does the water purify the water that was on one’s hands. But the mayim ahronim one may pour all at once. Mayim rishonim specifically requires water, and not other kinds of liquids. But for mayim ahronim, even other liquids are acceptable, such as wine and milk, since they are only used to remove the dirt. Mayim rishonim require a vessel (from which to pour it), as it is written about the priests’ washstand: “from it;”³⁹Ex 30:19: “Let Aaron and his sons wash their hands and feet [in water drawn] from it.” (JSB). Chavel points out that the commentators explain “from it” (mi-meno) to specify that they were to wash in water poured from it, not in it, and that the Torah’s rules about the Temple priests’ washing apply to netilat yada’im as well. one should not remove or rub off the water in a river; for mayim ahronim, it is permitted. Mayim rishonim go as far as the perek (“the joint”) which is where the hand ends, where the hand and the arm bones are joined. Mayim ahronim are required only up to the edge of the hand where the fingers end. And there are some who say that this is the extent that is required for mayim rishonim – the place where the fingers end. And that the extent for mayim ahronim is up to the middle section of the fingers, since mayim ahronim are only to remove the dirt, and from that point and higher the cooked food is unlikely to get on them. A specific quantity is required for mayim rishonim, namely a quarter of a log,⁴⁰About the size of 1½ eggs. but mayim ahronim do not require a specific quantity. One can extend the effect of mayim rishonim by setting a condition, but one cannot extend the effect of mayim ahronim with a condition.⁴¹In other words, one can say, “The washing I’m doing now before this meal applies to all the meals I’m going to eat today,” that is, “I’m as ritually clean as a priest to eat this and all my subsequent meals today.” However, since the washing after is to remove actual, visible food from one’s hands, obviously simply stating the condition that “my first hand-washing after a meal will remove any food I get on my hands at subsequent meals during the day” is not going to remove the food stuck to one’s hands after later meals. It seems that R. Bahya and the source he quotes virtually verbatim for all these differences between mayim rishonim and mayim ahronim (R. Abraham ibn Daud, Kol Bo 23: Din Netilat Yadayim) recognize a distinction between what some today might call “ritual” vs. “actual” washing, but what I would prefer to call “theurgic” vs. “pragmatic” washing. After all, they are both rituals. But the former seems explicitly intended to change one’s subjective, spiritual status (“now I’m as pure as priest”); the latter primarily merely one’s observable physical status (no more food scraps on the hands). The ruling that one can verbally condition the “validity” of the mayim rishonim as opposed to the ahronim supports my view that R. Bahya appreciates the difference between rituals whose primary intent is to affect one’s subjective status, vs. those which primarily affect one physically. However, R. Bahya would not say that the former type of ritual was somehow more “spiritual” or important than the latter. On the contrary, one of the main points of Shulhan Shel Arba is to show that even those rituals that primarily affect one physically are designed implicitly to reinforce one’s awareness that eating meals is a way to worship God. A mnemonic for all of these differences between mayim rishonim and mayim ahronim is KoHe”N He”N Sha’A”H MiKaPeRe”T (“For the precious priest, the hour atones”): K – Ko’ah adam (“by human power”); H – Hag’ba’ah (“raising up”); N- Niguv (“wiping dry”); H-Hatzitzah (“nothing separating”); N- Netilah bayn klay beyn ‘al gabay karka’ (“washing into a vessel or onto the ground”); Sh – Shifshuf (“rubbing”); ‘A – ‘Al netilat yada’im (the blessing ‘al netilat yada’im); H – Hefsek (“pausing between pours”); M – Mayim (“water, and nothing else”); K – Klay (“poured from a vessel”); P- Perek (“up to the joint”); R – Revi’it log (“a quarter of a log”); and T- Tenai (“setting a condition”).

One should recite along with the sacrifice passages the verse: "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord...." (Leviticus 1:11).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

One should recite along with the sacrifice passages the verse: "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord...." (Leviticus 1:11).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

Some have the custom to say the passage of the Laver (Exodus 30:17-21), and afterwards the passage of the removal of the ashes (Leviticus 6:1-6), and afterwards the passage of the continual-offering (Numbers 28:1-8), and afterwards the passage of the Incense Altar (Exodus 30:7-10) and the passage of the spices of the Incense and its preparation (Exodus 30:34-36).

The third classic case of discovering ancient artifacts is recorded in some editions of the Ramban’s commentary to Shemot 30:13, where the Ramban discusses the debate between Rashi and the Rif regarding the weight of a shekel. This impacts a number of areas of Halachah, such as determining the minimum weight of the coins used for pidyon haben. According to Rashi’s opinion, the shekel is one-sixth lighter than the Rif believes it to be. Though the Ramban originally supported the opinion of the Rif, he writes that when he made aliyah, the local Samaritans showed him an ancient coin with “shekel hashekalim” written on one side and “Yerushalayim hakedoshah” written on the other. Upon weighing this ancient shekel, he discovered that it accorded with Rashi’s view, whereupon he concluded, “And behold the words of Rabbeinu Shlomo (Rashi) are supported⁴Note that the Ramban states that Rashi’s opinion is “supported,” not “proven,” by the discovered artifact. by a great support.”⁵Rav Yonatan Adler (Techumin 24:497) reports that many such coins have since been discovered throughout Eretz Yisrael and have been dated by academicians to the period of the last years of the Second Temple.

Interestingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 305:1) does not rule in accordance with Rashi despite the Ramban’s discovery. This might be based on two criticisms of the Ramban’s evaluation of his discovery. The Abarbanel (Shemot 30:13-14) notes that it is possible that the shekel lost some of its weight over time.⁶I have been informed, though, that whether or not the shekel lost weight can be tested scientifically. In addition, the Tashbeitz (3:226) is disturbed that the Ramban relied on Samaritans to decipher the writing on the coin. Since we have profound ideological differences with the Samaritans, their testimony holds no halachic credibility. These two criticisms of the Ramban’s approach foreshadow the two main concerns that some poskim express today regarding the reliability of ancient finds – the integrity of the discoveries and the credibility of archaeologists who are not observant Jews.

You should know that sometimes commands appear in the Torah; yet those commands are not commandments, but rather preliminaries to the doing of the commandment - as if He is recounting how it is appropriate for you to do the commandment. An example of this is His saying, "You shall take fine flour and bake of it" (Leviticus 24:5). As it is inappropriate to count the taking of fine flour as a commandment or the making of bread as a commandment. Rather that which is counted is His saying, "And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). Behold the commandment is that the bread always be before the Lord. And afterwards, He explained how this bread should be, and from what it should be - and He said that it should be from fine flour and that it should be twelve loaves. And in this very same way is it inappropriate to count His saying, "to bring you clear oil of beaten olives" (Exodus 27:20); but rather "for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly" - which is the maintenance of the lamps, as is explained in Tamid 83a. And in this very same way does one not count, His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself" (Exodus 30:34); but rather the offering of the incense every day - as Scripture explains about it, "he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps. And when Aharon lights the lamps" (Exodus 30:7-8). And that is the commandment that is counted; whereas His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself," is only a preliminary of the command, to explain how you should do this commandment and what matter this incense should be from. And likewise should one not count, "Take choice spices for yourself"; but rather certainly count the command that He commanded that we anoint the high priest, the kings and the holy vessels with the anointing oil described. And apply this to all that is similar to it, such that you will not add what is inappropriate to count. And this is our intention about this principle, and it is a clear matter. However we mentioned it and it has come to our attention because many have erred also about this, and counted some of the preliminaries of the commandments with the commandments themselves as two commandments. This is clear to the one who understands the count of sections that Rabbi Shimon ben Kiara mentioned - he and all those who followed him - to mention the sections in their counts.

You should know that sometimes commands appear in the Torah; yet those commands are not commandments, but rather preliminaries to the doing of the commandment - as if He is recounting how it is appropriate for you to do the commandment. An example of this is His saying, "You shall take fine flour and bake of it" (Leviticus 24:5). As it is inappropriate to count the taking of fine flour as a commandment or the making of bread as a commandment. Rather that which is counted is His saying, "And on the table you shall set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). Behold the commandment is that the bread always be before the Lord. And afterwards, He explained how this bread should be, and from what it should be - and He said that it should be from fine flour and that it should be twelve loaves. And in this very same way is it inappropriate to count His saying, "to bring you clear oil of beaten olives" (Exodus 27:20); but rather "for lighting, for kindling lamps regularly" - which is the maintenance of the lamps, as is explained in Tamid 83a. And in this very same way does one not count, His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself" (Exodus 30:34); but rather the offering of the incense every day - as Scripture explains about it, "he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps. And when Aharon lights the lamps" (Exodus 30:7-8). And that is the commandment that is counted; whereas His saying, "Take the herbs to yourself," is only a preliminary of the command, to explain how you should do this commandment and what matter this incense should be from. And likewise should one not count, "Take choice spices for yourself"; but rather certainly count the command that He commanded that we anoint the high priest, the kings and the holy vessels with the anointing oil described. And apply this to all that is similar to it, such that you will not add what is inappropriate to count. And this is our intention about this principle, and it is a clear matter. However we mentioned it and it has come to our attention because many have erred also about this, and counted some of the preliminaries of the commandments with the commandments themselves as two commandments. This is clear to the one who understands the count of sections that Rabbi Shimon ben Kiara mentioned - he and all those who followed him - to mention the sections in their counts.

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.

Rabbi Goren presents a general discussion of the classical distinction between obligatory wars, permissible wars and wars of defense. More noteworthy is his presentation of sources pertaining to the establishment of minimum and maximum ages with regard to the conscription of soldiers. The chief difficulty in establishing a minimum age is that although Rashi, in his commentary on the Pentateuch (Exod. 30:14 and Num. 1:3), states that warriors must be "twenty years old and upward," Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, is silent with regard to any such provision. The question of a maximum age limit centers upon the proper textual reading of the Sifre, Numbers 197, which establishes an upper limit of either forty or sixty years of age, depending upon which of the variant readings is accepted as accurate. Another problem to be resolved is whether these limits pertain only to permissible wars (milḥemet reshut) or are applicable to obligatory wars (milḥemet ḥovah) as well.

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.

That is that He commanded the priests to wash their hands and their feet any time they needed to enter the [Temple] chamber and do the service. And this is the sanctification of the hands and the feet. And this is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And let Aharon and his sons wash their hands and feet [from it]. When they enter the Tent of Meeting" (Exodus 30:19-20) And one who transgresses this positive commandment is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - meaning to say that a priest that serves in the Temple without sanctification of the hands and feet is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And that is His, may His name be blessed, saying, "they shall wash with water, that they may not die" (Exodus 30:20). And the regulations of this commandment have already been completely explained in the second chapter of Zevachim. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, The Chosen Temple 8.)

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.

As it is required for the house of Israel to read from the scrolls, and to teach in the Torah, and to conclude with the prophets, on each day according to its subject matter — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot, as it is written "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44), and it is commanded to read every matter at its time and extrapolate on the subject of the day, as taught, "Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:¹In our manuscripts, it says "The Rabbis taught" here. Moses ordained for Israel that they would investigate and extrapolate on the matter of the day — laws of Pesaḥ on Pesaḥ, laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, laws of Sukkot on Sukkot" (Megillah 32a:17). On Ḥanukkah we read the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim we read "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). "And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for the new moon, and one from Ki Tissa. And Rabbi Yitzḥaq Nappaḥa said: when Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, bring three Torah scrolls, and read one for the matter of the day, and one for Rosh Ḥodesh, and one for Ḥanukkah" (Megillah 29b:22). On Ḥanukkah and on Purim three people read, on Rosh Ḥodesh and on Ḥol ha-Moed four people read — since there is Musaf, we add [mosifin] a person. When Rosh Ḥodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read the portion of the sheqalim (Exodus 30:11—16). When it falls on another day of the week, we advance the reading of the portion of the sheqalim, and interrupt the special readings. On the second² Shabbat of the month we read 'Remember' (Deuteronomy 25:17—17). On the third, the red heifer (Numbers 19:1—22). On the fourth, 'This month' (Exodus 12:1—20). If it falls on the sixth, then 'This month' is on the fifth. After that they return to the regular order. And everyone interrupts the order for Rosh Hodesh, Ḥanukah, Purim, fast days, festival days, and Yom Kippur (Mishnah Megillah 3:5). On Pesaḥ they read the portion of the festivals. And a mnemonic is: "during the bull, sanctify with money, cut in the desert, send the firstborn." On Shavuot, "On the third day" (Exodus 19:1–20:23), and on the second day, "Every firstborn" (Deuteronomy 15:19—16:37). On Rosh Hashanah, "And haShem remembered Sarah" (Genesis 21:1–34) and on the second day, "And God tested Abraham" (Genesis 22:1—24). On Yom Kippur, "after the death" (Leviticus 16:1—34). On Sukkot, the offerings for Sukkot (Numbers 29:12—34). On Ḥanukkah, the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, "And Amalek came" (Exodus 17:8—16). On Rosh Hodesh, "And on your new months" (Numbers 28:1–15). On the watches, the matter of creation (Genesis 1:1—2:3). On fast days, "And Moses petitioned" (Exodus 32:11—14, Exodus 34:1–10). On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat in the afternoon they read according to the order, but they are not counted in the order. As it is said, "And Moses spoke the appointed-times of haShem to the children of Israel" (Leviticus 23:44) — it's commanded that they read each and every one at its time.

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.

Another limitation upon the prohibition against teaching Torah to non-Jews is expressed by Maharsha, Haggigah 13a. Maharsha states that the prohibition is limited to instruction in the "reason and secret of the mizvot."²⁸The Gemara, Ketubot 111a, speaks of a solemn oath sworn by Israel not to reveal “the secret.” Rashi, in one explanation, states that this oath binds Jews not to reveal the “reasons of the Torah.” This position is based on the fact that the terminology employed in the formulation of the prohibition is not: "It is not permitted to teach the words of Torah to non-Jews," but rather: "It is not permitted to give over the words of Torah to non-Jews."²⁹Zekan Aharon, II, no. 71, equates the entire Oral Law with “reasons and secrets.” Other authorities understand the phrase in a much narrower sense; see, for example, Mishpat le-Ya‘akov, no. 24. Similarly, Me'iri, Haggigah 13a, speaks of a prohibition against transmitting "secrets of the Torah" to a non-Jew. Maharsha states that the prohibition against teaching "reasons and secrets" extends to instruction in these aspects of Noachide commandments as well.³⁰See Mishpat le-Ya‘akov, no. 64, who cites an explanation advanced by Keter ha-Melekh in support of this distinction. The biblical passage containing the prohibition reads, “He declareth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances unto Israel.” Jews are recipients of both ḥukkim and mishpatim, statutes and ordinances. With regard to non-Jews the Psalmist continues, “He hath not done so with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.” Statutes have been bestowed upon non-Jews, but not ordinances. The distinction drawn in rabbinic sources between ḥukkim and mishpatim is well known: ḥukkim are laws for which no reason is given; mishpatim manifest a readily perceived rationale. Non-Jews are recipients of ḥukkim, i.e., unexplained statutes, but are not privileged to receive laws as ordinances whose reasons are conveyed to them. Therefore, continues the explanation, they may be taught Torah as ḥukkim, unexplained law, but not the reasons and explanations associated with mishpatim; cf., Midrash Rabbah, Exodus 30:6. See also R. Elia Menachem Chalfan, Jewish Quarterly Review, IX, 504, who notes that the numerical equivalent of the word “khen” in the passage “lo asah khen le-khol goy” is identical with that of the word “sod,” meaning “secret.” Cf., R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, II, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 17, sec. 8, who states that despite his use of the terms “reason” and “secret,” Maharsha intended to forbid only “secrets” but does not prohibit either “reasons” or explanations which enable the non-Jew to make proper deductive inferences. In direct opposition to this latter point, Me'iri, Sanhedrin 59a, indicates that insofar as the content of the Noachide Code is concerned there are no limitations upon the nature of instruction which may be provided. It would appear then, that, according to Maharsha, there is no restriction upon teaching the factual content of any portion of the Torah to non-Jews.³¹This also appears to be the position of Rashbam, Baba Batra 115b. Teshuvot Be'er Sheva, Be'er Mayim Hayyim, no. 14, makes a similar distinction between "reasons and secrets" and other aspects of Torah study insofar as the prohibition is concerned, but nevertheless cautions against teaching Torah in any form to non-Jews. A similar position is maintained by Teshuvot R. Eliyahu Mizraḥi, no. 57. This authority adds, however, that it is forbidden to disclose the rationale underlying a mizvah or law only when it is possible to avoid doing so. When, however, one cannot readily extricate oneself from such a situation even this information may be provided.

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.

He prohibited us from anointing [anyone] besides the high priests and kings with the anointing oil that Moshe made. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "It must not be poured on the flesh of any man" (Exodus 30:32). And it is explained that one who is anointed with it - if he was volitional, he is liable for excision; and if inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained at the beginning of Keritot. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 5.)

He prohibited us from making a vapor with the configuration of the [Temple] incense - meaning that it be from those spices and proportionate to its measurements - and have the intention to vaporize it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "according to the composition of it, you shall not make it for yourselves" (Exodus 30:37). And it is explained that anyone who transgresses and makes its likeness, to smell it, is liable for excision - His saying, "Whoever makes any like it, to smell of it, shall be excised" (Exodus 30:38) - if he was volitional; and if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)

He prohibited us from making a vapor with the configuration of the [Temple] incense - meaning that it be from those spices and proportionate to its measurements - and have the intention to vaporize it. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "according to the composition of it, you shall not make it for yourselves" (Exodus 30:37). And it is explained that anyone who transgresses and makes its likeness, to smell it, is liable for excision - His saying, "Whoever makes any like it, to smell of it, shall be excised" (Exodus 30:38) - if he was volitional; and if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. (See Parashat Ki Tissa; Mishneh Torah, Vessels of the Sanctuary and Those who Serve Therein 2.)

This is the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3) - that in this commandment, the arrangement of the lights is the lighting, as we have explained. However, the opinion of other commentators (Rashi on Exodus 30:7) is that the arranging is the removal of the ashes, the cleaning, and the fixing of the wicks; and that it is a commandment in of itself (besides the lighting). And so does it appear in the chapter [entitled] Hatekhelet in Tractate Menachot 49b-50a (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 3).

The commandment of burning the incense: That the priests were commanded to burn the incense of spices twice every day upon the golden altar, as it is stated (Exodus 30:7), "And Aharon will burn incense of spices each morning in his arranging, etc." And in each and every year, it is a commandment upon them to make some of it so as to burn it, as we have said. And its making and the commandment [of burning] that is done with it every day is considered one commandment, since the end of the commandment of making it is only to burn it. And even though we find two passages of commandment between the making and the burning - as it is stated about its making in Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:34), "Take for yourself spices, etc." and here it is written, "And Aharon will burn incense, etc." - nonetheless, I have seen that the enumerators of the commandments count it all as one commandment, and there is no disagreement about this among them at all. But they do disagree about another matter in it - as Rambam, may his memory be blessed, counts the burning in the morning and in the evening as one commandment, but Ramban (at the end of Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam), may his memory be blessed, counts them as two. And his proofs are in his book.

The commandment of burning the incense: That the priests were commanded to burn the incense of spices twice every day upon the golden altar, as it is stated (Exodus 30:7), "And Aharon will burn incense of spices each morning in his arranging, etc." And in each and every year, it is a commandment upon them to make some of it so as to burn it, as we have said. And its making and the commandment [of burning] that is done with it every day is considered one commandment, since the end of the commandment of making it is only to burn it. And even though we find two passages of commandment between the making and the burning - as it is stated about its making in Parshat Ki Tissa (Exodus 30:34), "Take for yourself spices, etc." and here it is written, "And Aharon will burn incense, etc." - nonetheless, I have seen that the enumerators of the commandments count it all as one commandment, and there is no disagreement about this among them at all. But they do disagree about another matter in it - as Rambam, may his memory be blessed, counts the burning in the morning and in the evening as one commandment, but Ramban (at the end of Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam), may his memory be blessed, counts them as two. And his proofs are in his book.

To not burn incense and not to bring sacrifices upon the gold altar: To not bring sacrifices upon the gold altar in the chamber except for the daily incense, besides the sprinkling of bloods from [one] Yom Kippur to [another] Yom Kippur, as it is stated (Exodus 30:9), "You shall not offer foreign incense on it, or a burnt offering or a meal offering; nor shall you pour a libation on it."

The commandment of the giving of the half shekel during the year: That each one of Israel from twenty years and up - whether poor or rich - give the half shekel, which is the weight of ten gerah of silver, each year to the hand of the priests, as it is stated (Exodus 30:13), "This is what everyone who passes the count shall give." And they would place all of it in a compartment in the Temple. And from there they would take them out (Mishnah Shekalim 4) to buy daily offerings, additional offerings and any sacrifice brought for the community and their libations, the salt with which they would salt the sacrifices, the wood for the arrangement, the bread of display and the wage of the one making the bread of display, the omer, the two-breads, the red heifer, the goat sent away and the golden strip [it would carry].

From the laws of the commandment is for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Shekalim 1:1) that on the 1st of Adar, we announce about the shekel-coins; that even the poorest of the poor is liable for it, and if he does not have it, he borrows from others or sells the cloak that is upon him and gives it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:16), "and the poor may not lessen." And [that] he does not give [it] over several times, but rather all at one time; that its weight is [equal to] eighty grains of barley, as the weight of the whole shekel that was in the days of Moshe was one hundred and sixty barley [grains]. And that all are obligated to give it, priests, Levites, Israelites, converts and freed slaves; but not women, slaves and minors. But if they give it, we accept [it] from them, but not from gentiles - they do not have a share and inheritance among us. And [that] they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Mishnah Shekalim 1:6) that anyone who does not give an exact half-shekel which was a coin at that time; but gives silver of its weight for it or [its equivalent] in small bronze coins (perutot) [instead], must add a little to the weight of his shekel - and that little was called a kalbon (small coin). And that this little is the wage of the moneychanger who gets his wage for changing the perutot into the half shekel that was fixed. And therefore two that brought a whole shekel between the two of them [also] require a kalbon - since if they wanted to exchange it, they would need to give the moneychanger a kalbon. And so too must they give it to the [Temple] treasurer, since Scripture obligated them in a half shekel (and not a whole one) - and so they are obligated about it or its value precisely. And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Shekalim 2:1) is the law about one who loses his shekel on the way. And the rest of its many details are [all] elucidated in the Tractate built upon this, and that is Tractate Shekalim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sheqel Dues 1).

From the laws of the commandment is for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Shekalim 1:1) that on the 1st of Adar, we announce about the shekel-coins; that even the poorest of the poor is liable for it, and if he does not have it, he borrows from others or sells the cloak that is upon him and gives it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:16), "and the poor may not lessen." And [that] he does not give [it] over several times, but rather all at one time; that its weight is [equal to] eighty grains of barley, as the weight of the whole shekel that was in the days of Moshe was one hundred and sixty barley [grains]. And that all are obligated to give it, priests, Levites, Israelites, converts and freed slaves; but not women, slaves and minors. But if they give it, we accept [it] from them, but not from gentiles - they do not have a share and inheritance among us. And [that] they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Mishnah Shekalim 1:6) that anyone who does not give an exact half-shekel which was a coin at that time; but gives silver of its weight for it or [its equivalent] in small bronze coins (perutot) [instead], must add a little to the weight of his shekel - and that little was called a kalbon (small coin). And that this little is the wage of the moneychanger who gets his wage for changing the perutot into the half shekel that was fixed. And therefore two that brought a whole shekel between the two of them [also] require a kalbon - since if they wanted to exchange it, they would need to give the moneychanger a kalbon. And so too must they give it to the [Temple] treasurer, since Scripture obligated them in a half shekel (and not a whole one) - and so they are obligated about it or its value precisely. And so [too,] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Shekalim 2:1) is the law about one who loses his shekel on the way. And the rest of its many details are [all] elucidated in the Tractate built upon this, and that is Tractate Shekalim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sheqel Dues 1).

The commandment of sanctifying the hands and the feet at the time of the service: To wash (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 24) the hands and the feet at all times when one enters into the sanctuary and when one comes to do the service (see Tosefot on Yoma 5b, s.v. lehavi) - and that is the commandment of the sanctification of the hands and the feet - as it is stated (Exodus 30:19-20), "And let Aharon and his sons wash their hands and feet [...] When they enter the Tent of Meeting, etc. or when they approach the altar to serve, etc."

The commandment of anointing the high priest and the kings of the House of David with anointing oil: To make the anointing oil according to the way that the Torah commanded to make it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:25), "And you shall make it, a holy anointing oil, etc." [This is] so that it be ready to anoint every high priest that is appointed, as it is written (Leviticus 21:10), "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured." And so [too], we anoint some of the kings. And so [too,] they also anointed the vessels of the Temple with it, but they will not need to anoint [them] in the future, as they will be sanctified by their service. And this is [the meaning] of what is written (Exodus 30:31), "and it will be for Me for the generations." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sifrei Bemidbar 44.

The commandment of anointing the high priest and the kings of the House of David with anointing oil: To make the anointing oil according to the way that the Torah commanded to make it, as it is stated (Exodus 30:25), "And you shall make it, a holy anointing oil, etc." [This is] so that it be ready to anoint every high priest that is appointed, as it is written (Leviticus 21:10), "The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured." And so [too], we anoint some of the kings. And so [too,] they also anointed the vessels of the Temple with it, but they will not need to anoint [them] in the future, as they will be sanctified by their service. And this is [the meaning] of what is written (Exodus 30:31), "and it will be for Me for the generations." And so did they, may their memory be blessed, say in Sifrei Bemidbar 44.

To not rub a foreigner (layman) with anointing oil: To not anoint [anyone] with the anointing oil that Moshe made, except for priests alone - as it is stated (Exodus 30:32), "It must not be rubbed on any person’s flesh." And it is elucidated in the Scripture that one who anoints (is anointed) with it volitionally is liable for excision, as it is stated (Exodus 30:33), "and one who puts any of it on a foreigner, shall be cut off." And if he is anointed by accident, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering - meaning to say that there is no difference between the poor and the wealthy, but rather it is a set thing for all.

To not rub a foreigner (layman) with anointing oil: To not anoint [anyone] with the anointing oil that Moshe made, except for priests alone - as it is stated (Exodus 30:32), "It must not be rubbed on any person’s flesh." And it is elucidated in the Scripture that one who anoints (is anointed) with it volitionally is liable for excision, as it is stated (Exodus 30:33), "and one who puts any of it on a foreigner, shall be cut off." And if he is anointed by accident, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering - meaning to say that there is no difference between the poor and the wealthy, but rather it is a set thing for all.

To not make [oil] according to the specification of the anointing oil: To not make the anointing oil, as it is stated (Exodus 30:32), "and you shall not make according to its specification."

To not make [incense] according according to the specification of the incense: To not make incense identical to the [Temple] incense, meaning to say that its composition be the same weight measurements and he have the intention to provide incense for himself, as it is stated (Exodus 30:37), "and you shall not make for yourselves according to its specification." And it is stated (Exodus 30:38), "A man that makes any like it, to smell of it" - meaning to say that when he is making it, he intends to provide incense for himself.

To not make [incense] according according to the specification of the incense: To not make incense identical to the [Temple] incense, meaning to say that its composition be the same weight measurements and he have the intention to provide incense for himself, as it is stated (Exodus 30:37), "and you shall not make for yourselves according to its specification." And it is stated (Exodus 30:38), "A man that makes any like it, to smell of it" - meaning to say that when he is making it, he intends to provide incense for himself.

Yizkor, the memorial service for the departed is recited on Yom Kippur, because remembering the departed saddens and humbles a man's heart, and for the additional reason, that the dead, too, need atonement, as expounded in Sifri: "Forgive Your people Yisrael," (Deuteronomy 21:8) refers to the living, "whom You have redeemed," refers to the dead, this teaches us that the dead need atonement. We pledge to give charity on their behalf, (see chapter 67:3 and when doing so you should say "without making a vow"). A support for this practice is found at the end of the portion of Tetzaveh (Exodus 30:10) where it is written, "He shall make atonement once each year," and this is followed by the verse (verse 12) "Each shall give an atonement offering to God." The charity is credited to the departed, because God, Who tests the hearts, knows that if this man were alive, he, too, would have given charity. The living can pray to make the judgment of the dead less severe, just as David did when he prayed for [his son] Absalom (Maseches Sotah 10b); and the righteous dead appeal to God on behalf of their offspring. Also on the last day of Pesach, on the second day of Shavuos, and on Shemini Atzeres, Yizkor is said, because on these days we read Kol habechor [Every male first-born], (Deuteronomy 15:19), where it is written, "Each person according to the gift of his hand" (16:17). Because of that, people pledge money for charity. Since pledges are made to charity, it became the accepted custom to make these pledges on behalf of the departed souls, that God may remember them for good, and that He may also remember us along with them for good, through their merits. It is customary for those whose father and mother are living to leave the synagogue during the Yizkor service. It is also the custom, during the first year after the death of one's father or mother to leave the synagogue [during Yizkor].²¹Many Poskim disagree, and rule that Yizkor must be said even during the first year. (Penei Baruch 38, Penei Hachaim 31)

The Shabbos before Rosh Chodesh Adar that is closest to the month of Nisan, is [called] Shabbos, Parashas Shekalim. If Rosh Chodesh occurs on Shabbos, then that Shabbos is Parashas Shekalim. We take out three sifrei Torah. We call six persons to the first seifer Torah, for the reading of the weekly portion. In the second seifer Torah we call a seventh person for the reading of Rosh Chodesh, beginning with Uve'yom haShabbos. Then half-kaddish is said¹The third seifer Torah is placed next to the second one when the half-kaddish is said. (Mishnah Berurah 685:5) (see Chaper 78:1 and 79:1 above). In the third seifer Torah we read the Maftir of Parashas Shekalim, [Exodus 30:11–16], and the Haftarah of Parashas Shekalim is read. If by mistake they began to read the section of Parashas Shekalim first, they should finish reading it,²This ruling applies to Shabbos, Parashas Hachodesh as well. (Ibid) and for Maftir they should read the section of Rosh Chodesh, and the Haftarah, too, is that of Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.

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.)

1. On the New Moon of the Adar nearest to Nisan which falls out on the Sabbath, we read the Portion of Shekalim, which is "When you shall take..." [Exodus 30:11–12] until "You shall make a copper Washstand..." [Exodus 30:17–18], and the haftarah is "And Yehoyada cut a treaty..." [II Kings 11:17–12:17]. We take out three [Torah] scrolls — in one [the Reader] reads the weekly portion, in the second that of the New Moon, and in the third he reads the maftir of the Portion of Shekalim.

1. On the New Moon of the Adar nearest to Nisan which falls out on the Sabbath, we read the Portion of Shekalim, which is "When you shall take..." [Exodus 30:11–12] until "You shall make a copper Washstand..." [Exodus 30:17–18], and the haftarah is "And Yehoyada cut a treaty..." [II Kings 11:17–12:17]. We take out three [Torah] scrolls — in one [the Reader] reads the weekly portion, in the second that of the New Moon, and in the third he reads the maftir of the Portion of Shekalim.