A Valued Added Read: Ki Tisa

Western Civilization struggles with matters of wealth disparity and individual self-worth. The Torah Portion Ki Tisa tackled both topics in the most unusual of ways; a construction and maintenance project- the Tabernacle.

In this instance, a Torah Commandment, rather than a pronouncement, shaped public opinion.

Ki Tisa

In Ki Tisa, specific individuals were mandated to monetarily contribute for the Tabernacle’s construction and maintenance.

“Who was required to contribute?” and “How much?” are the queries that tapped into Israelite societal expectations, beliefs and values.

To appreciate the Commandment’s rationales, some background is needed concerning the Tabernacle.

The Tabernacle

The Tabernacle- or Tent of Meeting- was the most vaunted of Israelite institutions. It was the portable and sacred sanctuary where they would meet with their God.

Beyond the physical structure, the building bore a symbolic relationship to the nation. As far as utilization, a Torah passage described the Tent’s function.

“And it would be: everyone seeking the Lord would go out to the Tent of Meeting, which was outside of the camp. And it would be, when Moses would go out to the Tent, all the people would stand up, each one at the entrance of his tent, and they would look after Moses until he came to the Tent. And it would be, when Moses came to the Tent. And it would be, when Moses came to the Tent, the column of cloud would come down, and it would stand at the entrance of the Tent, and He would speak with Moses. And all the people would see the column of the cloud standing at the entrance of the Tent, and all the people would get up and bow, each at the entrance of his tent. And the Lord would speak to Moses face-to-face.” Exodus 33:7-11.

The passage’s import, for this post’s purpose, is two-fold. Not only was the Tent of Meeting aka Tabernacle the most important institution, it was inclusionary; intended for all.

[Note: Richard Elliott Friedman notes scholarly tension with addressing the contents of the various tent passages. Friedman agreed with Commentators Rashi and Ibn Ezra with respect to their explanations. Textually, “[i]t appears that Moses’ tent serves as the Tent of Meeting until the Tabernacle is set up. The Tabernacle then replaced Moses’ tent as the Tent of Meeting.” Commentary on the Torah, P. 287.]

Essentially, the Tent of Meeting was a people’s place in terms of both intent and access. The institution was comparable to the United States government buildings. Secularly, the White House, the United States Capitol Building and the Supreme Court Building in combination compare to the Tabernacle.

With this in mind, the mandatory contribution requirements were addressed in Ki Tisa.

Ki Tisa’s Half Shekel Contribution

Ki Tisa provided for the amount, the rational and the reason for the contribution within the following passage:

“Everyone who passes through the counts shall give this: half of a shekel by the shekel of the Holy (the shekel is twenty gerah) half of a shekel as a donation to the Lord.

Everyone who passes through the counts, from twenty years old and up, shall give the Lord’s donation. The rich one shall not multiply, and the poor shall not diminish to make atonement for your lives.

And you shall take the atonement money from the Children of Israel and give it for the service of the Tent of Meeting, and it shall become a commemorative for the children of Israel in front of the Lord, to make atonement for your lives.” Exodus 30: 11-16.

This passage expresses a multitude of values. The problem is ascertaining them.

“I Know It When I See It” Values

Identifying scriptural values is somewhat tricky. For this post, the modern day approach employed from a famous United Supreme Court Case will do. Justice Potter Stewart, on a topic quite different from positive values, famously asserted “I know it when I see it.”

While Justice Stewart was not looking into quite different, the adage rings true for values. At times, while one can see the ether, they wonder as to the true essence. Can these values be articulated? Or will perception get in the way?

As such, a methodical analysis of the provision is necessary.

The Values

Every specific contribution requirement imparted societal values. An individual’s societal value, societal expectation, and sacrifice were all addressed.

Inclusion

Starting from the Ki Tisa passage’s beginning, there is the concept of “everyone” counting.

Each individual within society is to be accounted for. This regulation is a recognition of their role and purpose.

While the exact role or purpose of the mandate is unclear, there is a divine expression that each individual matters. One can glean that the intent was that all people are part of the collective nation. This counters many viewpoints. This is a message that not all places are exclusive to the privileged and prosperous.

Giving

Then, there is the concept of “giving.” In this passage, each individual is expected to make their financial contribution. The giving would be for the building and maintenance of the nation’s most sacred institution. The intent is to excise the act of giving from the amount given. Each individual has the capacity to give; to be contribute; to donate.

The “amount” expresses other values. According to Chabad.org, the one-half shekel related to silver. As such, with market fluctuation, the modern amount of the contribution is estimated to be anywhere from $5.00 to $10.00. While the amount is not nominal, it is also not excessive. One could say it is the cost of a meal. [Note: The cost of meal implies that someone might go without a meal to make the contribution. Could there be some connection to fasting?]

Maturity

“Adulthood” is a matter that strikes to the heart of self-worth. The provision, which had an age requirement, perhaps served as a wake-up call to adult responsibilities. Part of maturation is the expectation of incurring financial responsibilities. With that comes the expectation of working.

This financial obligation concept flies in light of the contemporary infantilization of young adults. In modern industrial societies, many children are not being prepared to deal with the workforce. They lack work ethic, are easily distracted, and are entitled. Their parents often view employment as “adult day care.”

Equal Burden

The amount of the contribution being the “same” strikes as wealth disparity. In this moment, excessive money does not solve problems. The wealthy’s money is no better than the poor’s. The Lord, in setting the amount, recognizes human inequality. For the Lord, however, all people are the same.

Thus, this act places the modern conceptions of equality and equity on its head. Modernity focuses on equitable distribution versus equal contribution. For some, modernity seeks exemption from contribution for some and excessive contribution from those with wealth.

Atonement

Then, there is the the concept of “atonement.” This is a complicated and multi-leveled matter. Atonement in general terms addresses a cleansing of past bad acts. Religiously, they have been divided into two categories- sins against man and sins against the Lord.

Secular society struggles with matters of atonement. There are no particular rules laid out. No procedures. Further, some individuals get off while other pay a heavy price. There is no specified orderly procedure in the secular world to clean one’s slate. Sometimes, remediation may be part of this process. Jail time, charitable acts, or may also be part of the process.

Conclusion

John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” is both one of the most famous modern Presidential quotes and the most ignored.

Many individuals are fixated on the government delivering for them. Not too many, however, seek out ways they can contribute to the betterment of society. Kennedy arguably captured the giving spirit within Ki Tisa’s mandated Tabernacle contribution.

Beyond that concept, Ki Tisa addressed wealth disparity and self-worth. It set expectations that did not concern one’s station in life. Individuals were to be considered as equals. Additionally, each individual’s matters of sin are taken equally.

Ki Tisa’s also addressed atonement’s psycho-social component. The acknowledgment that both a nation and an individual are involved in a continuing cleansing process. The process’ intent was to address past mistakes, misdoings and matters of impurity. It is important to note that all individuals have access with respect to this process.

This concept advanced into modernity with Judaism’s Yom Kippur High Holiday. Its role serves to address the need for resolution concerning both human-human sin as well as human-deity sin.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share.