Parashat Fikudei

If it is good to the King, [he should] write to destroy [the Jews] and I will pay 10,000 Kikar of silver by the hands of the laborers to the King’s treasury.

Megilas Esteir, 3:9

Haman wasn’t the only anti-Semite of his generation. In fact, the Malbim explains, the populous hated the Jews so much they would pay money to kill a Jew! Haman assessed a certain price per Jewish head, added up the values, charged the nations this value, estimated the total monetary gain at 10,000 Kikar, and promised this money to the King. The language Haman uses to describe the agents of this genocide, Osei HaMelacha, hints back at a different event in history, the construction of the Mishkan:

Said Reish Lakish: It was known before the One Who spoke “Let the World be” that Haman would pay Shekalim for Yisrael; therefore, He preceded their [obligation to bring] Shekalim before his.

Meseches Megila, 13b

I heard that 10,000 Kikar of silver corresponds to a half-Shekel from each Jew (who were 600,000 when they left Mitzrayim) and [Haman] said to give to Achashveirosh their entire Pidyon. Check this yourself and you will see.

Tosafos, Megila 16a

Tosafos completes the striking parallel that Chazal outlined centuries earlier. Hashem commands that Klal Yisrael pay for their own lives years before Haman places a price on their heads. When Haman finally comes to power, Hashem considers the Jews to have already bought themselves, thus guaranteeing their salvation.

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately, 600,000 half-Shekels does not equal 10,000 Kikar after all. According to the pasuk in Parashat Fikudei (38:27), the 603,550 half-Shekels donated amounted to about 100 Kikar (plus another 1775/3000 Shekalim, to be precise). To make matters simpler and the numbers rounder, Tosafos approximates the total to 600,000 half-Shekalim, bringing the total quantity of collected silver to exactly 100 Kikar, 9,900 Kikar short of Haman’s estimate.

As for Tosafos’s approximation, there are two possible ways to justify the oversight of the extra 1775 Shekalim. The pasuk also states that 100 Kikar of silver was used to cast the 100 Adanim of the Ohel Mo’eid (48 Krashim, two Adanim per Keresh, and 4 Amudim holding up the Paroches, one Oden per Amud). The rest of the silver was used to hold up the Klayim, the curtains around the Chatzer (by means of hooks and belts). It is therefore possible that Tosafos focuses only on the significance of the silver used in making the Ohel Mo’eid. Secondly, Tosafos doesn’t say that only 600,000 donated half-Shekalim but rather that 600,000 people ascended from Mitzrayim, which happened the year before the collection of Shekalim. In other words, Tosafos might possibly only focus on the Shekalim of the Yotzei Mitzrayim, the Jews above the age of twenty when the nation was initially redeemed. Regardless of Tosafos’s intent, there are certainly enough Midrashim that refer to Klal Yisrael as 60 myriad strong to justify this approximation; this difficulty therefore does not fall upon Tosafos’s shoulders but rather upon those of the Midrashim.

As for Tosafos’s miscalculation, there are again two possible ways to assess the disparity in Shekel values. The Shekalim of Haman’s era were worth exactly half that of a Shekel Kodesh; therefore, whether one presumes that Haman’s 10,000 Kikar were Kikar Kodesh or Kikar Chol will affect the math. If one assumes he charged Kikar Kodesh, then Haman promised Achashveirosh exactly 100 times the value of Yisrael’s Shekalim. If one assumes he charged Kikar Chol, then Haman pledged only 50 times more.

The Chizkuni takes the latter approach. He explains that Klal Yisrael gave half-Shekalim on a yearly basis. Each Jew begins donating at the age of 20 and lives, on average, to the age of 70, thereby donating 50 half-Shekalim along the course of his life. Haman’s Shekalim, therefore, correspond to the cumulative donations of the 600,000 Yotzei Mitzrayim.

The Chizkuni’s proposal is by far the most popular resolution to Tosafos’s comments; the Ba”Ch, Maharsha, and Rabbeinu Bachya all take this stance. However, the calculation does little to explain a third difficulty within Tosafos, namely the placement of this esoteric comment. Presumably, Tosafos should compare Yisrael’s Shekalim to Haman’s where the gemara says that Hashem preceded their obligation before Haman’s. Instead, Tosafos comments on a completely different incident:

Haman arrived to ride Mordechai on the King’s horse, and saw him teaching the Rabanan the laws of Kemitza… he asked [the Rabanan,] “what were you discussing?” They replied to him, “when the Beis HaMikdash stood, one who promised a Mincha would bring a Kometz of fine wheat flour, and this would atone for him.” [Haman] replied, “along came your Kometz of flour and wiped away my 10,000 silver Shekalim!”

Meseches Megila, 16a

Tosafos’s comments look like an aside, an alternative means by which Klal Yisrael pushed away the Shekalim of Haman. Perhaps one could say Tosafos even contradicts the gemara at hand! Why then should these comments appear in regard to the conversation between Haman and the Rabanan? Why not comment where Reish Lakish discusses the Shekalim of Yisrael?

Perhaps Tosafos’s comments don’t really contradict this gemara but rather provide a resolution between Reish Lakish’s statement and Haman’s gesture, somehow connecting the significance of the Kometz to that of Yisrael’s Shekalim.

The Aruch LaNeir favors the former approach, the notion that Haman paid in Kikar Kodesh. By this count, Haman offered one hundred times the donation of Klal Yisrael. Taking note of Tosafos’s use of the Lashon “Pidyon,” the Aruch LaNeir reasons that the Pidyon (Erech, as detailed in Parashat BeChukosai) of an average male, one between the age of 20 and 60, is 50 Shekel Kodesh. Each member of Klal Yisrael, therefore, donated a hundredth of his essential value towards the building and upkeep of the Mishkan. The Torah’s concept of Terumah is to donate a hundredth the value of one’s possessions (for the only MiDi’oraissa Terumah is Terumas Ma’aseir); therefore, Hashem made each Jew bring a Terumah of his Erech, as the pasuk says, “Machatzis HaShekel Terumah LaHashem” (Shemos 30:13). Haman, on the other hand, donated their entire value, Kol Pidyonam.

By the Aruch LaNeir’s measure, the money Haman paid and the money Yisrael donated were indeed not equal. In fact, this was exactly Haman’s intent, to outweigh Klal Yisrael’s measly donations and buy out each individual. Haman set his price at fifty Shekel per Jewish head; any Goi could simply pay this Erech for the right to kill a Jew.

But Haman’s calculation was for naught, for he misunderstood the very essence of a Terumah. The notion of offering only a hundredth of one’s possessions to Hashem is not an act of stinginess; rather, the retention of the other ninety-nine hundredths acknowledges that the goods and benefits Hashem gives to Man in this world are meant to be enjoyed, to be appreciated, and to bring him closer to a true love for his Maker. Of course, the offering of Terumah reminds him where the other ninety-nine percent comes from, thereby allowing him to appreciate and love Hashem as the source of all good.

In Hashem’s eyes, Haman’s 50 Shekel bounty was a relatively meaningless gesture. The gesture of Terumah has enduring properties, for it not only increases the donor’s awareness of Hashem’s presence at the time of the donation but also every time he partakes of the leftover ninety-nine percent. The Erech bears no such effect. Once he donor pays off his obligation, he can proceed with his life without ever again considering his donation, withot ever considering Hashem’s presence.

In this sense, the Kometz plays a very similar role in combating Haman’s Shekalim. A Korban Mincha consists of a large quantity of flour, usually some oil, and some Levonah. The Kohein removes a fraction of this Mincha and burns it on the Mizbei’ach to Hashem, in turn permitting the rest of the flour for the Kohanim’s consumption. How little flour is donated to Hashem and how much flour is enjoyed by the Kohanim! Yet with that miniscule Azkarah, the Mincha becomes Kodesh Kadashim MeiIshei Hashem (VaYikra 2:3), worthy to be enjoyed by Man through his recognition of Hashem.

Rashi comments that Mordechai was teaching the Rabbanan about Kemitza that morning because the topic pertained to the matters of that day, namely the 16^th of Nissan. When the Beis HaMikdash stood, this was the day that Klal Yisrael would bring the Korban Omer.

The Maharsha takes serious issue with this conjecture. Granted the Omer required a Kemitza, but the Rabbanan clearly state to Haman that Mordechai was teaching about the Kometz of fine wheat flour, and the Korban Omer is brought of barley! This, however, is no question at all, for Rashi never said that Mordechai instructed regarding the details of the Korban Omer, but rather regarding the Inyan, the essence of these laws. Before the Korban Omer is brought, a Jew may only use Kemach Yashan, grain harvested in the previous year. But after the Korban, one can use even the new grain, the Kemach Chadash. In this sense, the Korban Omer is exactly like the Azkarah of the Kemitza. Man, with just the smallest donation of barley to Hashem, a donation one would hardly consider fit for human consumption, can enjoy his entire year’s produce.

With these words, Mordechai offered Chizuk to the Rabbanan, promising them that no matter how little of themselves they could offer to Hashem, so long as they remain aware of His presence and committed to His service, they should never doubt their share in this world and should never question whether Hashem would come to their rescue. May we be Zocheh to the same in our days, to give of what we have and in turn appreciate and love Hashem through our enjoyment of the rest. May the good we intend towards G-d and towards one another precede the bad our enemies intend towards us, as the Shiklei Yisrael preceded the Shiklei Haman and gave Hashem what to cherish about His nation. And may we bring a Geula Shleimah BaAgalah, return to offering the Kometz Minchah, and achieve a full and sincere Kapara.