Parshas Ki Sisa
1. On the verse "זה יתנו" ("This they shall give"), the Yerushalmi1 says: "Rabbi Meir said: The Holy One, blessed be He, took out a kind of coin of fire from beneath His Throne of Glory, showed it to Moshe, and said to him: 'This they shall give' — like this they shall give." For Moshe found it difficult — the matter of the half-shekel was hard for Moshe — and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him, etc.
Tosafos in Chullin2 explains that it was not difficult for Moshe to understand what the half-shekel means; rather, he wondered at G‑d's saying that one should give "כופר נפשו" ("an atonement for his soul"): how can one give an atonement for one's soul? After all, "עור בעד עור וכל אשר לאיש יתן בעד נפשו" ("Skin for skin, and all that a man has he will give for his life"), and even so it would not reach [atonement]3.
Accordingly, we must understand: how was this question — how there can be an atonement for the soul — answered for Moshe Rabbeinu through G‑d's showing him a coin of fire from beneath the Throne of Glory?
2. To understand this, we must first explain the concept of a coin of fire from beneath the Throne of Glory, which contains three elements: a) a coin; b) fire; c) the Throne of Glory.
Coin: The Gemara4 says that a coin is "חריף לצאת" ("readily spendable"). This is the difference between a coin and an item of monetary value (shaveh kesef). Not everyone appraises an item of value equally: one person needs the object more, so to him it is worth more; another needs the object less, so to him it is worth less; and a third does not need it at all. But a coin is readily spendable, that is, a coin has a fixed value, and it is the same for everyone.
Fire: The difference between fire and the other elements is well known. The other elements descend downward; and even air, which does not descend downward, nevertheless remains in its place, where it is found — and its place is below, as it says, "ורוח אלקים מרחפת על פני המים" ("and the spirit of G‑d hovered over the face of the waters") — and it remains in that place. But fire by its nature rises upward, to the point that one must seek various devices with which to bring the fire down and keep it below, so that it should give light there5.
The Throne of Glory: Within the Throne of Glory itself there are two elements: a) the throne (kisei), b) the glory (kavod). Kisei is related to the word kisui, "covering," as stated in the sefarim. Kavod means that the throne adds glory. By way of analogy, with a king of flesh and blood, his sitting upon his throne of glory adds to his glory. Seemingly, though, these are opposite concepts. For glory comes specifically through revelation: when the king reveals his greatness, he casts awe upon everyone and all give him honor; but when he is hidden and concealed, this does not bring about any honor — on the contrary. So what is the combination "Throne of Glory," since these are opposite concepts?
The explanation, however, is in the words of the Maggid6: if the abundance and immensity of the brilliance above were to shine, created beings would be unable to receive from it. Therefore there must be a covering, which hides and conceals the brilliance. Yet it is not a complete hiding and concealment; it only hides and conceals the light that is beyond what created beings can receive, and thereby the light that is commensurate with created beings is revealed, and this revelation affects them so that they give honor to G‑d.
This is also the meaning of a throne in its plain sense: one sits on a throne, and it is known that sitting signifies lowering — when one stands, one is higher, and sitting is a lowering. This is the meaning of the Throne of Glory: G‑d contracts and lowers Himself to created beings.
This is also indicated by the letters of the word כסא (throne) in "Throne of Glory" — כס and אל"ף. The alef — the Or Ein Sof, blessed be He, the "Aluf" (Master) of the world — conceals Himself in the כס (covering), and thereby He is revealed to created beings.
This, then, is the meaning of the Throne of Glory — the bond between G‑d and created beings, the beginning of the revelation of the Or Ein Sof, blessed be He, within created beings. (As is known, the Throne of Glory is in Beriah, the world of the Throne.)
3. The revelation of the Throne of Glory evokes in created beings two different movements: ratzo and shov (running forth and returning).
Ratzo: Since created beings sense the transcendence of G‑dliness — the richness of G‑dliness — which they cannot grasp within their vessels, neither in intellect nor in the feeling of the heart, it evokes in them a ratzo and a yearning to the point of expiry, so that they go out of their vessels and limitations and want to be absorbed in G‑dliness.
— The level that is entirely higher than the Throne of Glory cannot evoke an expiry of the soul (klos hanefesh). For since it is utterly beyond comparison, one cannot sense even any transcendence in it. But the level of the Throne of Glory is such that one can sense, at least, its transcendence. —
Shov: Knowing the will and intent of G‑d — "שנתאוה הקב"ה להיות לו יתברך דירה בתחתונים" ("that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms"), for which reason He concealed Himself through the Throne of Glory in order to descend into created beings — evokes a movement of shov: that one should stand in kabbalas ol (acceptance of the yoke) and fulfill Torah and mitzvos here below.
4. These two movements, ratzo and shov, are also the two concepts of coin and fire.
Ratzo is the concept of fire, whose nature is to rise upward — ratzo and a yearning to the point of expiry, to rise upward. Shov is the concept of a coin, which is readily spendable — it is accepted by everyone, and it is the same for everyone.
For the difference between ratzo and shov is as follows:
Ratzo stems from the feeling of the created being: he feels the transcendence of G‑dliness, how it is above and beyond his powers, and this evokes in him an expiry of the soul. Consequently, there are differences of levels in this, for the yearning and expiry depend on the degree of one's understanding and feeling of the loftiness and transcendence of G‑dliness relative to his will, intellect, and emotions.
By contrast, the service of shov does not stem from appraising the distance and transcendence of G‑dliness relative to his limitations, but from kabbalas ol malchus Shamayim (acceptance of the yoke of Heaven's sovereignty) — he wants to carry out G‑d's will — and consequently it is the same for everyone.
Another reason why "matbei'a" (coin) indicates "shov": matbei'a is related to the word teva, "nature."
The two interpretations of matbei'a are connected. For the fact that a coin is readily spendable and has a fixed value does not depend on the feeling of each person who uses it; rather, it is a "nature" and a result of the properties of the coin's material and the like, and therefore it is equal for a multitude of people who differ from one another in all their other matters. And this is the concept of "shov" and kabbalas ol — an equality in each and every one, which comes from the recognition that G‑d desires, as it were, a dwelling place in the lower realms: in the world, in physicality, and in the garments of nature.
5. The goal is that there be a "coin of fire" — the combination of coin and fire together.
By human nature, when one does something out of feeling, one has vitality and enthusiasm in it (which is an additional reason why ratzo is called by the name fire — because of the vitality and enthusiasm in fire); but when one does something out of kabbalas ol, one has no fervor and no vitality in it7.
But there must be a "coin of fire," both things together. There should be a coin — kabbalas ol — and nevertheless one should have enthusiasm and fervor in it. The fervor should not be in matters that he wants, but in matters of kabbalas ol malchus Shamayim.
6. How does one bring about that both opposites be together? Through the power of the created being this indeed cannot be; rather, it comes from the revelation of G‑dliness in created beings, for He is the "bearer of opposites."
And this is the meaning of "a coin of fire from beneath the Throne of Glory": from where does the "coin of fire" come? From beneath the Throne of Glory, which is the beginning of the revelation of G‑dliness in created beings, as explained above.
Specifically, in the souls of Israel, the Throne of Glory is the essence of the soul, which is "hewn from beneath the Throne of Glory," and within which is "the small spark of the Creator"8. And by virtue of it there is the service of a coin of fire.
7. Based on this we can now understand why G‑d's showing him a coin of fire from beneath the Throne of Glory was an answer to Moshe Rabbeinu's wonder at how there can be an atonement for the soul.
For sins and blemishes, even the sin of the Golden Calf, affect only the revealed levels, but the essence of the soul is always whole, and "even at the time of the sin it was faithful to Him, may He be blessed"9. Thus, through the service of the "coin of fire" — the combination of ratzo and shov — which comes from beneath the Throne of Glory, the essence of the soul, it also has an effect on the revealed levels, so that there is atonement (kapparah) in the sense of "wiping clean": it removes all blemishes, and even more, until he becomes desired as before the sin10.
8. With the above explanation of the half-shekel, we will understand various particular laws that applied to the half-shekel:
a) The law of the half-shekel is: "העשיר לא ירבה והדל לא ימעיט" ("The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less"). Seemingly, since he is rich, why indeed should he not give more? Even more puzzling: since the half-shekel was used to buy communal offerings, and the law regarding offerings is that "a rich man who brought a poor man's meal-offering has not fulfilled his obligation"11, why then "the rich shall not give more"?
But according to what has been explained, it is understood: the difference between a rich man and a poor man is only in the revealed powers; but from the perspective of what transcends the revealed powers, and all the more so from the perspective of the essence, "they are all equal, and they all have one Father," etc.12 Thus, when a service that stems from the essence is required, all are equal.
b) The half-shekel had to be given specifically in money and not in an item of monetary value13 — because a service stemming from the essence of the soul, in which there are no differences, must be specifically with money, a coin that is readily spendable, the same for everyone.
c) The half-shekel was used to buy communal offerings and not individual offerings14. With individual offerings there is differentiation, and if a rich man brings a poor man's meal-offering he has not fulfilled his obligation; communal offerings are a matter that stems from the unity and collectivity of Israel, in that all Jews together form one complete structure.
d) The half-shekel was used to make specifically the sockets (adanim) of the Mishkan, and not the curtains and the beams. The curtains and the beams were given "איש כפי נדבת לבו" ("each man according to the generosity of his heart") — because the curtains and beams relate to the revealed powers, in which there is differentiation; whereas the sockets of the Mishkan, the foundation of the Mishkan, are, in the service of G‑d, the concept of kabbalas ol15.
9. After the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, the half-shekel was transferred to tzedakah16. We find that tzedakah is given in the morning before prayer, as our Sages say17: "יהיב פרוטה לעני והדר מצלי" ("He would give a coin to a poor man, and then pray").
The connection between prayer and tzedakah is: a) "תפלות כנגד תמידין תקנום" ("The prayers were instituted corresponding to the daily offerings")18, and the daily offerings are communal offerings. b) Prayer is the foundation of the service of the entire day (for it is the beginning of the whole day's service), and it engages the entire person "עד מיצוי הנפש" ("to the point of draining the soul"), in the words of the Sifri. Consequently, the connection of tzedakah to prayer is understood, for tzedakah takes "all of one's animal soul," etc., "the life of his soul," etc.19
10. Just as in the half-shekel there is the combination of coin and fire, so too in tzedakah.
Tzedakah means that he gives away his money to the poor man. Earning the money is likened to fire, for he toiled all day for the money, or at least he could have bought "the life of his soul" with the money; consequently he is invested in it with enthusiasm and vitality20.
And he gives it away "to a poor man who has nothing of his own" — that is, he has no reason or rationale21 for which he gives (for if he gives because of some reason, it is not the giving of tzedakah to a poor man in its purity; and the other is then also no longer "a poor man who has nothing of his own," since he has something by virtue of which he deserves to be given) — but solely out of kabbalas ol.
This is a matter of a coin of fire: he takes his "fire," his vitality, and makes of it a coin — kabbalas ol.
Even more: the kabbalas ol itself is with vitality and feeling, for there must also be "the one who appeases him" — the feeling. But the feeling does not stem from something the other person deserves; it stems from kabbalas ol.
And this is why tzedakah is called a coin of fire, for two reasons: a) he gives away his vitality for the sake of kabbalas ol; b) the kabbalas ol itself is with vitality.
And since the combination of the two opposites stems from kabbalas ol and the essence of the soul, as explained above, it becomes "an atonement for his soul," and "וחטאך בצדקה פרוק" ("Redeem your sin with tzedakah")22. It becomes an atonement for all sins, including the sin of the Golden Calf, which resembles the sin of the Tree of Knowledge23 and caused the departure of the Shechinah24. Through tzedakah one atones for all sins, until "he is found worthy to see the face of the King" — "אחזה פניך" ("I shall behold Your face") — the indwelling of the Shechinah, as it is written, "ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם" ("They shall make Me a Sanctuary and I will dwell within them") — within each and every Jew.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Shekalim, 5710)
11. Today's Haftarah relates what Eliyahu the Prophet did at a time of distress — which came about, like every time of distress, because of confused ideas and bewildered minds. Eliyahu the Prophet gathered all the prophets of Baal together with all the Jews and said to them: "עד מתי אתם פוסחים על שתי הסעיפים" ("How long will you waver between two opinions?").
Seemingly, why did he demand of them, "How long will you waver between two opinions"? He should have demanded, "How long will you serve the Baal? It is high time for you to stop serving the Baal and begin saying 'הוי' הוא האלקים' ('Hashem is G‑d')."
We will understand this by first explaining the difference between idolatry (avodah zarah) and wavering between two opinions.
12. In truth, it is not understood: how could a Jew be an idol-worshipper? Jews are "believers, the children of believers," and have no connection whatsoever to heresy, G‑d forbid.
We will understand this according to what the Rambam25 says: that the beginning of idolatry came about because the influence from above passes through the stars and constellations; therefore they bowed down to the stars and constellations and gave them honor, so that the stars and constellations would bestow influence upon them.
The truth is that although the influence passes through the stars and constellations, one need not give them any honor, since they are nothing more than "an axe in the hand of the hewer."
And as is explained in Chassidus26, the difference between father and mother, whom we were commanded to honor, and the stars and constellations — regarding which not only were we not commanded to honor them, but on the contrary, it is even a transgression — is that father and mother possess free choice, whereas the stars and constellations are like an axe in the hand of the hewer.
And when one gives honor and bows to the stars and constellations, this is idolatry, which is among the gravest of transgressions, as stated in the Gemara27: "חמורה עבודה זרה שכל הכופר בה כאילו מודה בתורה כולה" ("So severe is idolatry that whoever repudiates it is as if he acknowledges the entire Torah").
It follows that the reason they served idolatry was in order to obtain from them — according to their false conception — physical influences; that is, for the sake of their own personal motives.
And this is the reason why even Jews, who are believers, the children of believers, could fall, may the Merciful One save us, into the sin of idolatry — because it is not that they serve the idol with truth, G‑d forbid; it is only for the sake of personal motives.
(When a Jew serves G‑d, it is not only so that He should provide him with his needs, but because he is devoted to Him with truth "ובלב שלם" ("and with a whole heart"), "שלא על מנת לקבל פרס" ("not for the sake of receiving a reward"); whereas for an idol-worshipper, to make the distinction, it is only for the sake of the influences that it bestows.)
This is also the reason why they served the Baal, as it is written28: "ומן אז חדלנו גו' חסרנו כל" ("And since we stopped… we have lacked everything").
13. Although the general matter of idolatry is for the sake of the influences one receives through it, within this itself there are two modes: idolatry, and wavering between two opinions.
Idolatry means that he truly believes that the idol gives him influence. So although it is indeed for the sake of a personal motive, nevertheless the motive is held by him with truth: he really holds that by serving the stars and constellations, they will give him influence.
By contrast, one who wavers between two opinions is in doubt; and there are those who are always in doubt, and from time to time he decides that the idol has real power. There is yet another mode of wavering — the concept of shituf (association): he believes in G‑d and also in the idol, to make the distinction.
Yet the truth is that even serving idolatry with association or out of doubt — even if only in speech alone or in action alone, without any belief in the heart at all — is also an extremely grave transgression, to the point that a Jew gives up his life even for this, as stated in Tanya29.
14. According to this, we will understand that in many details, wavering between two opinions is worse than idolatry.
Although in general idolatry is worse, for he is constantly corrupt — he is a heretic, may the Merciful One save us — yet with regard to teshuvah, one who wavers between two opinions is worse, because it is harder for one who wavers between two opinions to do complete, true teshuvah.
In this there are two details:
a) One who believed in the idol — when he realizes that "Hashem is G‑d" and that until now he has been in bitter error, he then feels the great sin that he committed, and consequently he does teshuvah as it should be, and then "ושב ורפא לו" ("he will return and be healed"). By contrast, one who wavers between two opinions, since he also believes in G‑d, even later on does not feel the magnitude of the sin so strongly. He thinks to himself: "What great sin did I commit? From the outset I was only in doubt, even outwardly; and in truth I have always been, like all Jews, a believer," etc., etc. Consequently he has no regret with truth, and his teshuvah is not complete30.
b) One who believes in idolatry without association is utterly corrupt, may the Merciful One save us; he is mistaken and thinks that the Baal is — G‑d forbid — G‑d. It is possible, however, that although he is cut off from the true G‑d, spirituality in general matters to him. By contrast, one who wavers between two opinions with association displays such corruption that not only does he not want a connection to the true G‑d, he has no connection to spirituality in general. The proof of this: knowing the truth that "Hashem is G‑d," he is willing to exchange — G‑d forbid — G‑d for physical things, to exchange "מקור מים חיים" ("the source of living waters") in order "לחצוב בארות נשברים" ("to hew out broken cisterns")31.
An idol-worshipper, if spirituality touches him, will do teshuvah when he realizes his error. By contrast, one who wavers, etc. — since spirituality does not matter to him, and only his physical needs matter to him — even when he comes to the truth that physical things depend only on G‑d, will still not return to G‑d in truth, but only for the sake of the physical things.
15. All this is only with regard to himself. But there is another respect in which wavering between two opinions is worse than idolatry, and that is: with regard to others.
No Jew will learn from one who serves idolatry, may the Merciful One save us. Knowing that he is a heretic, no one has any dealings with him. By contrast, one who wavers between two opinions, since he is a believing Jew, falls into the category of one who causes the public to sin, and "המחטיא את הרבים קשה מכולם" ("one who causes the public to sin is the worst of all").
16. The Gemara32 says that the evil inclination for idolatry had its power nullified; but the matter of wavering between two opinions is still today stronger than the evil inclination for idolatry — whether in its subtlest of subtle forms, in its subtle forms, or even more.
There are those who, for the sake of physical motives — livelihood, imaginary honor, and "what will people say" — temporarily compromise on many matters of Torah and mitzvos. For those few days or those few weeks, he puts the Shulchan Aruch, together with G‑d, as it were, away on the shelf, so that people should not say of him that he is a batlan (an impractical idler), that he does not understand the present times — and especially since here in America one has to bend the old ways; one must conduct oneself a little according to the spirit of the times, etc.
And for the sake of this — so that people should not say of him that he is a batlan, in order that he should have imaginary honor, or more money (when in truth the money goes away on doctors, etc., for since the money does not come in accordance with G‑d's will, it goes away on undesirable things, because lacking is the blessing "יברכך גו' וישמרך" ("May [Hashem] bless you… and guard you") — from harmful things) — he is willing to sell, at least temporarily, G‑d, as it were, together with his own soul.
One must know that in many details this is even worse than idolatry, for the reasons mentioned earlier:
[The Sicha continues on the next page.]
Notes
1) Shekalim 1:4.
2) 42a, s.v. "Zos hachayah."
3) Iyov 2:4.
4) Bava Metzia 44b.
5) See Tanya, ch. 19. Bamidbar Rabbah 14:12.
6) Or Torah, at the beginning. See also Torah Or by the Alter Rebbe, at the beginning.
7) See also Likutei Sichos, vol. 2, p. 426ff.
8) Etz Chaim, Shaar Drushei ABYA, ch. 1; cited in Likutei Torah, Parshas Re'eh, the discourse beginning "Vesamti kadkod" (the second), ch. 2.
9) Tanya, ch. 24.
10) Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 2.
11) [OCR unclear: the source reads "נעים"; probably Menachos] at the end.
12) Tanya, ch. 32.
13) Bechoros 49b.
14) See also above, p. 164.
15) See also above, pp. 165–166.
16) See Shaarei Teshuvah on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, sec. 694.
17) Bava Basra 10a.
18) Berachos 26b.
19) See Tanya, ch. 37.
20) See Yoma 85b.
21) See also Likutei Sichos, vol. 2, p. 507ff.
22) See Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 3, and elsewhere. Note also Mechilta, Mishpatim (on 21:30).
23) Zohar I, 52b.
24) Bereishis Rabbah 19:7 — regarding the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, and consequently it is understood also regarding the sin of the Golden Calf.
25) Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:1.
26) See the discourse beginning "Mayim rabbim," 5717 (Sefer HaMaamarim Meluket, vol. 1, p. 54ff). See also Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek, Mitzvas Milah.
27) Nedarim 25a.
28) Yirmiyahu 44:18.
29) Ch. 19.
30) On this, see also Rabbeinu Yonah at the beginning of Berachos; Orach Chaim, sec. 603; Kuntres Uma'ayan, Maamar 14, ch. 2.
31) Yirmiyahu 2:13.
32) Yoma 69b, and in Chiddushei Aggados there.
Key Lesson
The "coin of fire" G‑d showed Moshe is the ideal of avodah: kabbalas ol that is the same for every Jew, yet carried out with warmth and vitality, drawn from the essence of the soul, which stays whole even at the time of sin. That is why it, and tzedakah given in its spirit, can atone even for the Golden Calf. In contrast, wavering between two opinions, setting the Shulchan Aruch aside for livelihood or for what people will say, can be worse than outright idolatry, both for oneself and for others, so a Jew must stand firm and wholehearted.