Fluctuating Machatzit HaShekel

Shekalim (2:5) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 years ago

This Mishnah (2:3) discusses the case where one gradually collects money for the machatzit ha'shekel and has an excess. Beit Shammai maintains that that excess is treated as a nedava - it must be given to the Beit HaMikdash to fund the public voluntary korbanot. Beit Hillel however argues that the remainder is chullin -- it has no kedusha and is considered regular money. If however one declared that he was going to take his machatzit ha'shekel from a large sum of money, then everyone agrees the excess is chullin.

The Mishnah however continues that if one was collecting money for his sin offering then everyone agrees that the excess must be used for a nedava. If however one declared that the funds would come from a collection of money, then the excess is chullin.

Note that the difference between whether the money was for machatzit ha'shekel or a chatat is only within the position of Beit Hillel and if one was gradually collecting the funds. For machatzit ha'shekel they argue the remainder is chullin, while if the money was for a chatat the remainder is treated as a nedava.

R' Shimon in the next Mishnah (2:4) explains that the difference between the two cases is that machatzit ha'shekel has a fixed amount. The Baretnura explains that therefore any excess was consecrated in error and can be considered chullin. A sin offering however does not have a fixed value. Consequently, all the money collected would have kedusha and the excess would be used for a nedava.

R' Yehuda however argues that historically we find that the value that was contributed for the machatzit ha'shekel did change. R' Shimon however answers that nevertheless, at any given moment, there was a standard value of what needed to be contributed. That being the case, Beit Hillel would maintain that any excess was consecrated in error.

How the machatzit ha'shekel contribution could change is the subject to debate. The Rambam (Shekalim 1:4) explains that the mitzvah is to contribute half the standard coin of the day, provided its value is greater than the half shekel in the time of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Raavad however argues that the obligatory value did not change. That said, when there was a financial need in the Beit HaMidkash, they had the right to demand more money. That is what occurred at the times listed in our Mishnah.

The Chazon Ish however reasons that our Mishnah makes more sense according to the Raavad's understanding. R' Yehuda argued that machatzit ha'shekel should be considered the same as chatat considering that the value can change. According to the Raavad, the argument is that even though there is a fixed obligation, if deemed necessary, the obligation can be increased. Consequently, the machatzit ha'shekel is also variable and the excess should be considered a nedava. According to the Rambam however, the obligation is determined by the coin of the day. Even if everyone wanted to change the mandatory obligation, they would not be able to do so. Consequently, the machatzit ha'shekel is not variable at all, making R' Yehuda's argument difficult to understand.

Rav Chaim ztz"l (Shekel HaKodesh 1:6, Beur Halacha) suggests that it is true that according to the Rambam the machatzit ha'shekel is indeed determined by the coin of the day. However, that too can be changed! They might agree to increase the standard coin's weight, which would increase the value of the half coin. Accordingly, the base obligation is also variable albeit requiring greater effort to do so.

Rav Chaim continues that R' Shimon's only response is that the reason why machatzit ha'shekel is different to the chatat is because that change would be universal. Were it not for that argument, one might thank that when separating the money, one might be concerned that the base obligation might have increased. Consequently they would consecrate the remainder such that the excess would need to be used for a nedava (see Keritut 23b).

Download