NOTE: BETWEEN DECEMBER 2013 AND JANUARY 2019 NEW POSTS OF SERIOUS DIVREI TORAH WERE POSTED ONLY AT Beis Vaad L'Chachamim, beisvaad.blogspot.com AS OF JANUARY 2019 I PLAN TO POST IN BOTH PLACES


For private communication, write to eliezere at aol

Showing posts with label Ki Sisa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ki Sisa. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Ki Sisa, Shemos 34:34. The Masveh and Hiskashrus with a Rebbi

 Upon returning with the second Luchos, Moshe Rabbeinu was granted a Keren of light, an illumination that bespoke his embodiment of the Torah, as the Kiryas Sefer says in the Hakdama. This light frightened everyone, so he covered his face. He removed the cover only when he spoke to Hashem and when he taught Klal Yisrael what Hashem had imparted to him.

ויהי ברדת משה מהר סיני ושני לחת העדת ביד־משה ברדתו מן־ההר ומשה לא־ידע כי קרן עור פניו בדברו אתו

וירא אהרן וכל־בני ישראל את־משה והנה קרן עור פניו וייראו מגשת אליו

ויקרא אלהם משה וישבו אליו אהרן וכל־הנשאים בעדה וידבר משה אלהם

ואחרי־כן נגשו כל־בני ישראל ויצום את כל־אשר דבר ה אתו בהר סיני

ויכל משה מדבר אתם ויתן על־פניו מסוה

ובבא משה לפני ה לדבר אתו יסיר את־המסוה עד־צאתו ויצא ודבר אל־בני ישראל את אשר יצוה

וראו בני־ישראל את־פני משה כי קרן עור פני משה והשיב משה את־המסוה על־פניו עד־באו לדבר אתו

The Gemara in Chagiga 16a says that one who looks at three things weakens his eyesight: the rainbow, Kohanim during duchening, and a "Nasi." 

It is clear that this ״ונתת מהודך עליו״ refers to the keren ohr of Moshe, because of the Medrash Tehillim 21, which equates the וייראו מגשת אליו in our parsha by the keren of light with the "וייראו אותו כאשר יראו את משה by Yehoshua and states that this was a result of ונתתה מהודך עליו :

מדרש תהלים (בובר) מזמור כא 

"גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹדוֹ בִּישׁוּעָתֶךָ הוֹד וְהָדָר תְּשַׁוֶּה עָלָיו" (תהלים כא ו) הוד של רב, והדר של תלמיד, כענין שנאמר: "ונתתה מהודך עליו" (במדבר כז כ). מהודך ולא כל הודך. והיכן ניתן לו ליהושע? ר' יודן אמר: בירדן ניתן לו. במשה כתיב: "וייראו מגשת אליו" (שמות לד ל), וביהושע כתיב: "וייראו אותו כאשר יראו את משה" (יהושע ד יד).

Question: If the luminous countenance of Moshe Rabbeinu was so fearsome, indeed dangerous, such that he covered it to protect all that saw him, why did he not cover his face when he taught Klal Yisrael Torah?

Certainly there was the benefit described in the Ramban, that everyone that saw and heard him knew that when he said "I am your God," he was repeating verbatim the words of Hashem, and not his own thoughts. (One might ask, on the contrary, there is a greater concern of misinterpretation when a man that shines with supernal light says "I am your God."  I suppose the answer is that because Moshe was careful to cover his face all the time except when giving over Hashem's words, it was clear to everyone that when he had the mask on, he was functioning as Moshe ben Amram, and when he removed his mask he was delivering a message from Hashem.)

רמב"ן ויקרא י"ח ב
וטעם דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם אני ה' אלהיכם כאילו הוא אומר "ואמרת אליהם בשמי אני ה' אלהיכם" וכן קדושים תהיו כי קדוש אני ה' אלהיכם (ויקרא י״ט:ב׳) ואפשר כי הטעם כי בצאת משה מלפני השם בלא מסוה ויצא ודבר אל בני ישראל את אשר יצוה איננו צריך לומר להם "כה אמר ה'" כי ידוע להם כי רוחו ידבר בו ומלתו על לשונו לא ידבר מעצמו וכן במקומות רבים במשנה תורה כך ידבר כמו והיה אם שמוע תשמעו אל מצותי אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום ונתתי מטר ארצכם ונתתי עשב בשדך (דברים יא יג טו) ואין משה הנותן מטר על פני ארץ ושולח מים על פני חוצות ומצמיח עשב בשדה אלא ה' יתברך 

But that does not explain why he couldn't say "Koh Amar Hashem." There has to be a direct reason for removing the mask while teaching Torah.

Reb Moshe, in the new Kol Rom, says that the light was the Hod of Hashra'as HaShechina that rests on those that learn Torah, just that for Moshe it was open and brilliant, and for others, it is internal - 

האור שקרן מעור פניו של משה הוי הוד של השראת שכינה לאלו שעוסקים בתורה, והוא היה למשה בגלוי ולכל ישראל הוא בפנימיות

Therefore, when Klal Yisrael was learning Torah, they, too, had this light, and they were worthy to see the light shining from the face of Moshe Rabbeinu.

ולכן בעת שלמדו את התורה אצל משה גם להם היה אור זה בפנימיותם, והיו ראויים לראות באור שהיה על פניו.

The idea that this light shines from every oseik baTorah is also found in the Zohar, and it doesn't matter much whether it is the light of Hashra'as HaShechina or the Ohr Haganuz.

But even with Reb Moshe's pshat, that when they were learning they were worthy to see the light, that when they were learning it did not frighten or harm them, there has to be a reason why is was necessary for Moshe to take off the mask when he taught them Torah.

The answer, of course, is that a  talmid has to see his rebbi when he learns, as the Netziv says in 34:35.
הוריות י"ב
"וכי יתביתו קמי רבכון, חזו לפומיה דרבכון, שנאמר: (ישעיהו ל') והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך".
עירובין י"ג
אמר רבי: האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לרבי מאיר מאחוריה, ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי — דכתיב: ״והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך״.

It is true that the Mahrsha sees this as a purely rational, technical idea - that facial expressions communicate more than words alone.
הוה מחדדנא טפי כו'. דבהסברת פנים הוה מחדדי טפי דיש להבין בקריצת עינים וברמיזת שפתים והיינו רואות את מוריך שמראה לו  פנים טפי וק"ל:

But others, including the Radbaz, learn that there is more to it.
אמרו בספרי החכמה כי בהיות האדם מתכוון אל רבו ונותן אליו לבו תתקשר נפשו בנפשו ויחול עליו מהשפע אשר עליו ויהיה לו נפש יתירה וזה נקרא אצלם סוד העיבור בחיי שניהם. וזה הוא שנאמר "והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך"

The Radbaz, of course, was among the greatest of the Mekubalim and among the greatest of the poskim. The Arizal learned in his yeshiva, he was on the Beis Din with the Beis Yosef, and in general he was a living Sefer Torah by the standards of his generation of malachim. Every word he says has to be measured like diamonds.
Here you see that he says that in order to understand Torah properly, you need a kesher to a rebbi, and that is created by looking at him and hearing his divrei Torah.

The lesson here is that learning Torah requires a kesher to a Rebbi. When that kesher is created, the light of the Torah that he has is shared with his talmid. This does not happen with a tape recorder or a book. It is personal and intimate.  As explained by Rav Chatzkel Levenstein -  
תלמידי הגה"צ רבי יחזקאל לוונשטיין זצ"ל שאלוהו: מדוע שיחה הנשמעת מטייפרקורדר אינה משפיעה כל כך חזק כמו שיחה ששומעים מפי החכם עצמו? והוא ענה: בשיחה מוקלטת חסר הצלם אלוקים"


This concept of creating a kesher with a rebbi in order to be spiritually elevated is found in other sefarim, primarily among the Chasidim, which has been inflated into a serious problem. For example, the Breslevers are famous for saying 
“הריני מקשר עצמי.., לכל הצדיקים האמיתיים שבדורנו , ולכל הצדיקים האמיתיים שוכני עפר קדושים אשר בארץ המה, ובפרט לרבינו הקדוש, צדיק יסוד עולם, נחל נובע מקור חכמה, רבינו נחמן בן פֵיגֶא, זכותו יגן עלינו, ועל כל ישראל, אמן.
But it's not only the Breslevers. It is pretty fundamental in Chabad as well. From the Sefer HaTanya:
בכל דור ודור יש ראשי אלפי ישראל שנשמותיהם הם בבחינת ראש ומוח לגבי נשמות ההמון ועמי הארץ... יניקת וחיות נפש רוח ונשמה של עמי הארץ הוא מנפש רוח ונשמה של הצדיקים והחכמים, ראשי בני ישראל שבדורם... על ידי דביקה בתלמידי חכמים קשורות נפש ורוח ונשמה של עמי הארץ ומיוחדות במהותן הראשון ושורשם שבחכמה עילאה

On the other hand, Reb Chaim in Nefesh HaChaim, describing Avodah Zara deoraysa:
נפש החיים שער ג פרק ט
ומהם שהיו משתעבדים ומזבחים ומקטרים לאיזה אדם שראו שכח ממשלת מזלו גדול מאד. בחשבם שע''י השתעבדם ועבודתם אליו יעלה מזלם עם מזלו.
ומהם אף שלא היתה כוונת עבודתם להשפעת הנאות עוה''ז. אבל כוונתם היתה להשיג עי''ז איזה השגות שכלים שחמדו להם. כמו חכמת הקסמים וכיוצא איזה השגות.
ומהם שהתדבקו לעבודת איזה אנשים כדי להמשיך השפעת אמונת אמון ועניני עתידות. וזהו הכל עכומ''ז גמורה. ובכלל לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים כמ''ש הכל הרמב''ן ז''ל בפירושו על התורה שם. ועיין לק''ת ס''פ נח בענין דור הפלגה:
ואפילו להשתעבד ולהתדבק באיזה עבודה לבחי' רוה''ק שבאיזה אדם נביא ובעל רוה''ק. גם זה נקרא עכומ''ז ממש. כמו שמצינו בנבוכדנצר שהשתחוה לדניאל. ג''כ לא בעבור שהחזיקו לאלוה בורא כל. אלא שכיון בהשתחויתו להשתעבד ולהתדבק לרוח הקדש שבו. כמ''ש (דניאל ב׳:מ״ו) באדין מלכא נבוכדנצ' נפל על אנפוהי ולדניאל סגיד ומנחה ונחחין וכו' מן קשוט די אלהכון הוא אלם אלהין כו' וגלה רזין. די יכלת למגלא רזא דנה ושם (סי' ד') ועד אחרין על קדמי דניאל כו' ודי רוח אלהין קדישין בי' וכו'. ורז''ל אמרו (סנהדרין צ''ג א') הטעם שלא היה דניאל בעת ציווי ההשתחוי' לצל' שאמר דניאל איזיל מהכא דלא לקיים בי פסילי אלהיהם תשרפון. ונ''נ אמר ג''כ יזיל דניאל מהכא דלא לימרו קליי' לאלהי' בנורא. וע' ז''ח רות ס' ע''ב. ובב''ר פ' ל''ו ובתנחומא ר''פ ויחי וכן אתה מוצ' בדניאל וכו' מה כתיב באדין מלכא נבוכדנצ' וכו' ומנחה ונחחין אמר לנסכא לי' אבל דניאל לא קיבל למה שכשם שנפרעין מעובדי עכומ''ז כך נפרעין מהעכומ''ז עצמה. וכן אמרו שם זה הטע' גם על יעקב אבינו ע''ה שלא רצה ליקבר במצרים הרי שקראו ז''ל ענין זה עכומ''ז. אף שהכוונה היתה לרוח אלהין קדישין דבי'.

I am not competent to decide whether Reb Chaim's definition would cast Breslevers, and to some extent most Chasidim, as ovdei avodah zara deoraysa, and if you can bring rayos from reality, it is apparent that the war against Chasidus is long finished, and they won. But I do know that because of a technicality, it does not matter. Avoda Zara requires specific acts, and talk is not among them. As Reb Chaim goes on to say,
ועם כי עיקר אזהרת הכתוב על כל העבודה זרה הנ"ל היינו בארבע עבודות דוקא. אמנם עתה שעבודת התפלה ובהשתעבדות כוונת הלב הוא במקום עבודת הקרבן ודאי גם על זה שייך האזהרה וזהו שאמר הכתיב שמות זובח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו היינו שלא לכוין חס ושלום בשום עבודה וענין לאיזה כח פרטי מכחות שקבע הבורא יתברך כי שם אלקים משותף לכל בעל כח פרטי שיהיה כידוע וכמו שנתבאר לעיל רק לכוין לשם העצם המיוחד לו יתברך לבד שפירושו מהוה הכל היינו כללא ומקורא דכל הכחות כולם כנ"ל וזהו שמע ישראל ה' אלקינו ה' אחד רצה לומר שכל הכחות פרטיים שנמשכים מהויי"ה ברוך הוא המה מאוחדים ונקבצים בכחו יתברך שמו כלל מקור אחדותו הוהוא מצד התחברותן יתברך עם העולמות 

Still, one has to wonder. For us Bnei Yeshiva, non-chasidim, followers of the derech of Reb Chaim, is there a problem taking the Radbaz literally? Even if it is not יהרג ואל יעבור, is it not fort a hashkafa that we totally reject?
The answer is, no, of course not. As Reb Moshe said in the Kol Rom at the beginning, we are talking about a Rebbi Talmid relationship that arises from teaching and learning. The kesher created by this act of lilmod ule'lameid is not Avodah Zara, it is exactly what mesoras Hatorah is meant to be, it is pure Avodas Hashem.

So the answer to the questions we posed is that the mesora of Torah requires a personal, direct, visual, intimate connection between Rebbi and Talmid. Without dwelling on it, the term the Radbaz uses, סוד העיבור, is meant seriously. When that happens, Klal Yisrael had no fear of the "קרן עור פניו" because that "Torah התקשרות" between Rebbi and Talmid elicited within Klal Yisrael the very same Karnei Ohr that Moshe Rabbeinu had.   

I once printed these mugs and gave them to certain members of my shiur.

UPDATE:
I asked two of my grandchildren the question. Their answers are better than mine. One of them, Yaakov Jofen, is named after his great grandfather, Rav Yakov Jofen the Rosh Yeshiva of Beis Yosef in Flatbush. The other is Moshe Eisenberg, named after his great great grandfather, Reb Moshe Feinstein. Yakov said something deep, something his namesake would have enjoyed. Moshe said what Reb Moshe says in his Kol Rom.

Moshe's answer was, like Reb Moshe's that I mentioned above, that the Kedusha of Torah protected them. The light from Moshe Rabbeinu was kedushas haTorah, and when they were learning, that light was in them as well. 

My nephew, Harav Yitzchak Buchalter, added something important to Reb Moshe's answer.  He pointed out Rashi in 34:30,
וייראו מגשת אליו. בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל עֲבֵרָה שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא פָשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בַּעֲבֵרָה מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? וּמַרְאֵה כְּבוֹד ה' כְּאֵשׁ אֹכֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (שמות כ"ד) – וְלֹא יְרֵאִים וְלֹא מִזְדַּעְזְעִים, וּמִשֶּׁעָשׂוּ אֶת הָעֵגֶל אַף מִקַּרְנֵי הוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה הָיוּ מַרְתִּיעִים וּמִזְדַּעְזְעִים (ספרי):
Rashi/the Sifri is saying that the fear was a consequence of their yerida. It makes perfect sense that when they were שקוע in לימוד התורה that they would be able to look and not be harmed or afraid.

Yaakov's answer I never would have thought of. He said that they were only afraid when "a man" shone with the light of God. But when Moshe was teaching them Hashem's words, he was representing and channeling the Ribono shel Olam, שכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו של משה, and it made perfect sense for him to shine with divine light. Just like it was natural for Har Sinai to be קולות וברקים ועשן ואש, it was natural for Moshe to appear like that. In his swift mashup of an answer, he said that it was both the shock of the uncanny, of the Godlike visage of the Man, and the discomfort that they were merely men while he was the ideal, the perfected man.  


Sunday, February 24, 2019

Ki Sisa. Interesting Facts About the Chelbenah in the Ketores

The chelbe'na symbolizes "Poshei Yisrael," and RChbBiz in Krisus 6 says that a community fast that does not include sinners is not a fast at all.
Krisus 6b
א"ר חנא בר בזנא א"ר שמעון חסידא כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל אינה תענית שהרי חלבנה ריחה רע ומנאה הכתוב עם סממני קטרת אביי אמר מהכא (עמוס ט, ו) ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה
A similar thought is expressed in two other places.

Menachos 27a by the four minim on Sukkos
ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות וב' מהם אין עושין פירות העושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לשאין עושין ושאין עושין פירות יהיו זקוקין לעושין פירות ואין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בהן עד שיהו כולן באגודה אחת
Maharsha there
ד' מינין שבלולב ב' מהן עושין פירות כו' וב' מהם אין עושין כו'. כל דברי המאמר מפורש בפיוט יום ראשון דסוכות וכמו בעץ הדר ריח וטעם כן כו' וכמו הם אגודים כו' ולכפר אלה על אלה כו' ע"ש באורך דהיינו ב' כתות מהן שעושין פירות דהיינו מעשים טובים נדמו לאתרוג ולולב שעושים פירות ושנים מכן שאין עושין פירות ומעשים טובים נדמו להדס ולערבה דאין עושין פירות וצריכין להיות אגודה א' שיגינו צדיקים על רשעים וק"ל:

Sanhedrin 37a by Yitzchak's bracha to Yaakov where it says וירח את ריח בגדיו.
סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה של שושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות והיינו דאמר ליה ההוא מינא לרב כהנא אמריתו נדה שרי לייחודי בהדי גברא אפשר אש בנעורת ואינה מהבהבת אמר ליה התורה העידה עלינו סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה בשושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות ריש לקיש אמר מהכא (שיר השירים ו, ז) כפלח הרמון רקתך אפילו ריקנין שבך מלאין מצות כרמון ר' זירא אמר מהכא (בראשית כז, כז) וירח את ריח בגדיו אל תיקרי בגדיו אלא בוגדיו 


There are four approaches to that statement.

1. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and we should not reject them. (Rashi here)

2. They are sinners, but they still join us in the fast, and they play an important part in our community so we should welcome them. (Drashos HaRan Drush 1.)

3. This are only welcome when they are sincere about their tefillos, and want to do teshuva, but they are not strong enough to really do teshuva, so our prayers will join with theirs and enhance their Teshuva. (Maharal, his neighbor the Kli Yakar, and their contemporary the Mabit, and the Chida.)

4. This are only welcome if they already did teshuva. If they didn't, we don't want them. (Rabbeinu Gershom in Krisus, the Maharsha in Krisus.)



Another interesting fact about the Chelbenah for Purim:

We all know that Mordechai is alluded to in the fragrances that comprised the shemen hamishcha in Mor Deror, translated as "Mira Dachya." This Mor was also used in the Ketores - the Mor that we mention in Pittum HaKetores, which is among the other ingredients that are not explicit in the Torah. (The Ramban/Malbim in 30:34 say they are hinted at in the word "Samim" that begins the Ketores, which means "take the samim mentioned above that were used in the Shemen HaMishcha, and also....."  However, the Avnei Nezer holds that the Mor (cholem) in the Shemen HaMishcha was musk from the musk ox and the Mor (kametz) in the Ketores was a plant derivative.)   Not everyone knows that the Chelbe'nah, in the Ketores, is the same gematria as Haman. Off the cuff, this might be reflected in the fact that Haman's grandchildren were talmidei chachamim. Alternatively, it might be because it was Haman's threat of extermination that led to Kimu v'Kiblu. And, of course, many baalei machshava have said that the former is related to the latter.

It would be nice if we could find a connection between the Ketores and Esther, but all I can think of is the fact that she was perfumed for a year in several of the ingredients used in the ketores, a pretty poor connection - ששה חודשים בשמן המר וששה חדשים בבשמים. Or that she was called Hadassa, a fragrant plant, but it is not an ingredient of the Ketores.

Alternatively, we could say that Esther was not merumaz in the Ketores, but she is in the daled minim, in the Hadassim. True, the Haddas is a symbol of maasim tovim without peiros, but, unfortunately, that was Esther's fate as well, considering that her children were not part of Klal  Yisrael. So both Mordechai/Mor Dror, and Esther/Haddas, are present in places where they are bound up with people without any zechusim of their own, the Chelbenah and the Aravos. 

Friday, February 22, 2019

Ki Sisa. The Daf Yomi and Bittul Torah

My father זכר צדיק לברכה discouraged me from learning Daf Yomi. He was among the great talmidim of Slabodka in Litteh, and all the Gedolei Yisrael looked forward to talking to him in learning, including his chavrusa (and upstairs neighbor) Reb Chaim Zimmerman, his dear friend and telephone chavrusa Reb Chaim Stein, his mechutan Reb Moshe, and the Ponovezher Rov. He was one of those legendary Bnei Torah that actually kept their feet in a pail of cold water so they could stay awake longer. He spent ten years in Slabodka, and all those years he learned with one chavrusa, Reb Leizer Platzinski. He said that they learned the Gemara three times. The first time, he knew it better. The second time, they were equal. The third time, he said, Reb Leizer knew it better. When they shared a room, Reb Leizer got the bed and my father slept on the floor, because Reb Leizer was from the Alter's family.

The point is that my father embodied the Gadlus of the Torah of Litteh and the hashkafos of the Slabodker Yeshiva. He discouraged my interest in the daf because he believed that real limmud meant iyun, and the daf did not allow serious iyun. He felt that the time would be better spent learning more slowly and carefully.

For what my opinion is worth, I think that the Daf can have tremendous value. It broadens the perspective, and it mandates a discipline that ensures that a day does not go by without learning. Also, for many people the camaraderie and interaction of the Daf is a tremendous mechayeiv, and without it, many people would not go to any shiur at all. If you stick to it, you will end up learning a velt. I've seen many people grow from total ignorance to serious Yediyas HaTorah and Halacha l'maiseh from taking the Daf seriously. Certainly, everyone should go through the cycle once, and chazer. But I also understand what my father meant, and I believe that a person that a yeshivamahn that does not spend serious time b'iyun because he is busy learning the Daf is oiver on bittul Torah. His wily Yetzer Hara knows that he can't take him away from the precious Torah, so he gives him a keviyas ittim that prevents him from real ameilus, which is, for him, Bittul Torah, with a capital B.

In our parsha, passuk 32:15
  והלחת מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלחת

In Avos 6:2 the Mishna says


אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב ומכרזת ואומרת, אוי להם לבריות מעלבונה של תורה. שכל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה נקרא נזוף, שנאמר (משלי יא) נזם זהב באף חזיר אשה יפה וסרת טעם. ואומר (שמות לב) והלחת מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלחת, אל תקרא חרות אלא חרות, שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה. וכל מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה הרי זה מתעלה, שנאמר (במדבר כא) וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות:

Rav Bergman in his new Shaarei Orah here says

פשטות כוונת רבי יהושע בן לוי היא שכל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה, מלבד עצם עוון ביטול תורה, יש במעשיו משום עלבון לתורה. שהרי הקב״ה ברחמיו נתן לנו חמדה גנוזה, יקרה מפנינים, וראוי לכל איש ישראל להדבק בה ללא הפסק, ואם אין עושים זאת אלא משאירים את התורה מונחת בקרן זוית, דבר זה נחשב ל׳עלבונה של תורה׳.

אך באמת מהפסוק שהביא - ׳נזם זהב באף חזיר׳ - משמע לא כך. שהרי ביאור הפסוק הוא כדברי רש״י: ״׳נזם זהב באף חזיר׳ - שמלכלך אותה באשפות, כן תלמיד חכם הסר מן הדרך הטובה. ׳אשה יפה וסרת טעם׳ - פורש מן התורה״, ואם אינו עוסק בתורה אם כן אין כאן לא ׳נזם זהב׳ ולא ׳אשה יפה'.  על כרחנו צריכים אנו לבאר שאין כוונת רבי יהושע בן לוי למי שאינו .לומד כלל, אלא מדובר באדם שלומד תורה רק שאינו עושה ממנה ׳עסק', ו'עסק׳ היינו כמו שכתב הב״ח (אר"ח מ'ז ג) בביאור לשון הברכה ׳לעסוק בתורה׳: ״שעיקר ההבטחה שהבטיחנו הוא יתברך לא היתה אלא על עסק התורה. היא העמל והטורח וכו', לכך תקנו לברך "לעסוק בדברי תורה״, וכן כתב הט״ז(שם סק״א) ״עיקר מעלת עוסקים בתורה דוקא דרך טורח ויגיעה, ואל זה כיונו בברכה ׳לעסוק, בדברי תורה,. דרך לימוד התורה היא דוקא על ידי עסק ויגיעה בעומק העיון, רק אז מובטחים אנו למצוא את המטמונים החבויים בה, ורק על לימוד כזה אמרו חז״ל (מגילה ו:) אם יאמר לך אדם יגעתי ולא מצאתי אל תאמן, לא יגעתי ומצאתי אל תאמן, יגעתי ומצאתי תאמן, ויש לדקדק בפירוש רש״י לאבות (וי״א שהוא  פירוש הרמב״ם) שכתב לבאר: נזם זהב באף חזיר שאינו משמרו אלא הולך ונובר באשפה וממאיס, כן  תלמיד חכם שחסר מטעמים של תורה הוא מאוס כמנודה הזה״, כלומר שמי שאינו יגע בתורה בעומקה אינו זוכה למצוא את ה׳מטעמים של  תורה' 

וכבר אמר בזה הסבא מסלבודקא שכל מי שיכול ללמוד בעומק וביגיעה ואינו עושה זאת, נחשב לו הדבר כבטול תורה, ולמד זאת מדברי הגמרא בריש מגילה (ג:) שמבטלין תלמוד תורה למקרא מגילה, והרי גם מקרא מגילה נחשב לתלמוד תורה? אלא מוכח שכיון שבמקרא מגילה חסר לו לאדם את הלימוד בעומק, ממילא נחשב הדבר כבטול תורה. וכן דרשו חז״ל במגילה (ג.) ״וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק, אמר רבי יוחנן מלמד שלן בעומקה של הלכה״, כלומר שגם קודם לכן למד תורה, אלא שהיה חסר לו ב׳עומקה של הלכה׳, ומבאר שגם חסרון זה נחשב לבטול תורה.

על זה אומר רבי יהושע בן לוי שכל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה כראוי, אף אם הוא לומד אך לא מתעסק ומתייגע כפי שיכול   לעשות, הרי זה עלבונה של תורה, והוא בבחינת ׳נזם זהב באף חזיר, אשה יפה וסרת טעם׳. כי כיון שאינו עמל ומתייגע, חסר לו הן מצד עצם לימוד התורה, והן משום שאינו זוכה למצוא בתורה את ה׳מטעמים׳ הטמונים בה. מובן מאד איפוא שלימוד כזה הוא ׳עלבונה של תורה׳.

מדברים אלו יש ללמוד עומק נוסף בחובת כבוד תלמידי חכמים העוסקים בתורה בכל כוחם. כי חוץ מעצם זכות למוד התורה שלהם, הם גם מעלבונה על ידי כך שהם מתייגעים ומוצאים את המטעמים הטמונים בה.

I took the liberty of quoting Rav Bergman because I also heard this from the Alter from both my father and my Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Ruderman.  Also, I was amazed at his strong language - נזם זהב באף חזיר. But he's making a point, and he wants it to make a roshem.  

I have nothing to add, other than to explain the segue to the the second half of the Mishna which discusses the passuk in our Parsha. 

ואומר (שמות לב) והלחת מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלחת, אל תקרא חרות אלא חרות, שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה. וכל מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה הרי זה מתעלה, שנאמר (במדבר כא) וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות:

The Mishna is telling us that in order to be mis'alleh, in order to not be an eved to the Yetzer Hara, in order to be a Ben Chorin, it's not enough to learn. You need davka Yegiah to the extent you are able.

In a Mashal Hedyot, but a useful and true Mashal Hedyot, let me add something from my own observation of חילוץ עצמות. There's a method of exercise popularized by a Dr Doug McGuff called Body by Science, described as "a weekly high-intensity program for increasing strength, revving metabolism, and building muscle for a total fitness experience." To me, the word "fitness" is misused. Fitness means the ability to do your task well. Fitness for a stevedore is very different from fitness for a CPA. But one thing I do know, and that is that my seventy year old brother, he should be maarich yammim v'shanim, went from being overweight and practically handicapped to having the energy and appearance of an athletic twenty five year old. He looks, as he did in days of yore, intimidating and formidable. Setting aside his meshugassen with Atkins and supplements, this is all because he took on this program. 

The program discourages treadmills and daily workouts and instructs you to work against resistance to the absolute limits of your ability. A curl, for example, should take ten seconds up and ten seconds down, and it should be the maximum weight you can handle. When I visited my brother, he took me to his gym and put me through the paces, and he enjoyed watching me stagger out of the gym, and then wake up the next morning feeling like I was experiencing rigor mortis while still alive.

I am making a point. We develop when we work to the limits of our ability, not when we just do easier things again and again and again. If you want to be a real Ben Torah, then you need to invest yourself intellectually to the absolute limit of your ability. Do not let the Yetzer Hara trick you into using the Daf Yomi as an way to cripple you.



NOTES AND COMMENTS:

Reb Avi Lencz showed us the Beis Ephraim, as follows:

בגמ' מגילה ג' ע"א אמרו דמבטלים תלמוד תורה לשמוע קריאת המגילה, והקשו המפרשים והרי קריאת המגילה ג"כ לימוד התורה, ותירץ הבית אפרים דחסרון בעמקות הלימוד וערכה הוא ג"כ בחינה של ביטול תורה. וא"כ י"ל הכא, דאכן יושב בדין כעוסק בתורה, אבל הצטערו הני אמוראי על שלא היו יכולים להעמיק בלימוד ולהוסיף פלפול ולקח, שזה הוא כביטול תורה וכנ"ל.

Reb Micha, of course, refers us to the Aruch Hashulchan, whose words encapsulates the issue. We really need to carefully analyze what limmud is optimal, and to follow through on a plan. A realist, though, recognizes that for some people, the only likelihood of success is through the Chevreh Ein Yaakov, or the Daf Yomi.

Micha's words:
I consider the Arukh haShulchan's comment to typify Litvishe attitudes toward daf yomi. Or, in his day, the chevrah shas -- which also typically covered a daf a day, it just wasn't coordinated with other shuls' chevrei shas.
AhS YD 246:17:
... וט"ז סעיף קטן א שכתב בשם הדרישה: הבעלי בתים שלומדים רק איזה שעות ביום טוב, יותר שילמדו ספרי פוסקים ולא גמרא, עיין שם. ובוודאי שעל כל איש לידע דיני "אורח חיים", ומקצת דינים מ"יורה דעה" ו"חושן משפט" ו"אבן העזר" המוכרחים לכל איש, עיין שם בהלכות תלמוד תורה להגרש"ז ז"ל. אמנם ראינו כי אם כה נאמר להם – לא ילמדו כלל, כי רצונם רק ללמוד דף גמרא בכל יום. על כן אין להניאם, והלואי יעמדו בזה. וכל דבר תורה משיבת נפש, ומביאה ליראת ה' טהורה.

Friday, March 01, 2013

Ki Sisa, Shemos 33:16. The Shechina Still Rests Upon Us.

Moshe Rabbeinu asked that Hashem dwell amidst the Jews, a Hashra'as HaShechina unique among the nations of the Earth.  Sometimes we wonder about Hashem's relationship with us.  Our endless experience of being despised and hounded can become tiresome.  So it's nice to hear stories about the Gedolim, such as the story I heard this morning about Rav Eliashiv.

Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein just put out another two volume eight hundred page sefer, in Hilchos Pesach, but one of the volumes, while nominally on the Hagada, is mostly stories.  This is a story about his brother-in-law, Reb Chaim Kanievsky, and their father-in-law, Rav Eliashiv Zatzal.  When Rav Zilberstein tells a story about his father-in-law and brother-in-law, you can take it to the bank.

A couple had been married for fifteen years, and they remained childless.  Finally, agonizingly, and with many tears, they decided they would have to divorce, hoping that perhaps if they married others, at least one of them might have a child.

Two months after the divorce, they found out that she was pregnant.

The man was a kohen.

He came to Reb Chaim Kanievsky, and cried his heart out, and Reb Chaim told him there was nothing he could do for him; the halacha was cut and dried.  He is a kohen, and he could not marry a woman that had been divorced, even if he himself was the one that had divorced her.  But, he said, go to my father in law, go to Rav Eliashiv, see what he will say to you.

So the man, with his heart in his throat, went to Rav Eliashiv and told him his story.  Rav Eliashiv told him that the halacha is clear, and there was nothing he could do for him, and he advised him to do two things.  He should remind himself of the story of the Asara Harugei Malchus, the story of the ten great and holy martyrs, and remember that Hashem's gzeiros are impossible for man to understand, and he should accept the gzeira with faith and love of Hashem.  Also, he said, go to the Kosel and cry your heart out to the Ribono shel Olam.  The man began crying, but accepted what he had been told, and left.  As he was leaving, in total despair, he was thinking to himself that there was no reason to go to the Kosel.  What's finished is finished, he had to accept the din of the dayan ha'emes, and that was it.  But, he decided, Rav Eliashiv said go, so I'll go.

And he went, and he came close to the kosel, and he began saying Tehillim, and he cried, he cried for what he had lost, he cried for the loss of his beloved ex-wife, and for the loss of a normal relationship with his long prayed for child, and he cried for finding out that his dream of having a child had come true at precisely a time when he had just thrown away what the dream could have meant to him.

A man, a stranger, came over to him, and tapped him on the shoulder, and said, I see you are suffering, that you're in a lot of pain. I wish there were something I could do to help.  But if you can, I suggest that you go and talk to your father, and discuss your problems with him.  Sometimes that helps.  The man thanked him for his concern, and ignored him, and continued davenning.

A few minutes later, the same man came over, and said, again, I really think it would be a good idea.  Go and talk to your father.

The man went home, and thought to himself, what do I have to lose.  Rav Eliashiv told me to go to the Kosel, this guy comes over and tells me to go and talk to my father, my father's old, maybe I should go.  So he bought a ticket to go to the US to visit his father, who was in a nursing home.

He came to the nursing home, and the nurses told him that his father had deteriorated pretty badly, and hadn't talked in a week already.

He sat down with his father, and he began to pour out his heart to him, and told him the whole ironic and tragic story.  His father began talking, and said, I have something to tell you.  Your mother and I had decided never to tell you this, but you were adopted as an infant.  Your birth father was not a kohen.  You are a Yisrael.

Sunday, March 04, 2012

Ki Sisah, Shemos 32:19. The Breaking of the Luchos.

I originally published this in 07.  I am now refining and re-posting what I've done in the past and incorporating good comments, besides posting new Divrei Torah.  This particular post didn't have any good comments.

In Pesachim 87b last line, Avos D’Rav Nassan 2, the Ramban from the Medrash (9:11) and Rabbeinu Bachaye on 32:16 it says that when the letters flew off, the luchos became too heavy to carry, or Moshe Rabbeinu realized that there would be no point in giving blank luchos to Klal Yisroel, and only then did he throw them down. Whatever it was, it says “היו האותיות פורחות,” the letters flew off of the luchos and floated in the air.

Chazal tell us that the letters of the Torah were engraved into the luchos. See Rashi here 32:15 D"H Charus. See also Gittin 20a Tosfos d’h “L’memra.” Engraving means that the letters existed only as an area of removed stone surrounded by unremoved stone.

This raises a difficult conceptual problem. If the letters were engraved, what does it mean that the letters flew off? Even if we were to say that the openings in the stones closed up, what was there to fly off? An empty space? Later, in 34:29, Chazal say that the קרני אור, the beams of light that emanated from Moshe Rabbeinu's face, were from the leftover ink in the pen, which Hashem placed on Moshe's face. Apparently, by the second Luchos, something was written with ink, though it is not clear what that was; see the Netziv there and various medrashim that say not like the Netziv. But in the luchos rishonos, there is nothing to discuss: there was no ink. The luchos were engraved. And an empty space cannot be porei’ach anywhere.

Maybe pshat is that they were engraved and the engraving was filled with ink. (hereinafter Teretz #1, also suggested by the Korban Ha'eidah in the Yerushalmi, Taanis 23a) If so, we have to understand what the point of double writing is. Also, this would mean that there are two possibilities: that the ink flew off and the engraving stayed on the stone, or that the ink flew off and the engraving closed up also. (The Gemara in Gittin seeks proof that engraving is a legally valid form of writing for a Get or a Sefer Torah, and Tosfos asks that the Gemora should have proven that to be the case from the luchos. Teretz #1 would answer Tosfos’ kashe. On the other hand, the fact that Tosfos doesn't suggest this answer indicates that he didn’t think this was the case.)

A better pshat (hereinafter Teretz #2) : usually when you engrave, you create the image by removing stone. Here, on the other hand, the luchos were engraved by inserting letters. Torah is Light (Torah Orah), and, as the Ramchal is always saying, it is true supernal light, so we can say that Hashem took the letters of the Torah, and by putting them on the stone, the earthly substance of the stone receded. The letters were intangible and spiritual, but when Hashem inserted them into the luchos, the stone moved and the letters were enclosed within the stone. So when the Luchos came within the tchum of the Eigel, the letters of Torah that had been inserted flew off, and the stone flowed back to its original position, it regained its original contour. This is what the Gemora in Psachim means by “chazru l’mata’asan,” the Luchos reverted to their original state.

Here's a way of looking at it.  If you take clay and push your finger into it, while your finger is there there are two things: a hole in the clay, and your finger.  If you take out your finger, the hole remains and your finger is elsewhere.  Here, too, Hashem inserted the letters of the Torah.  When the letters flew away, the hole they made remained there.  Reb Chaim Brown was kind enough to direct me to the Alshich, who says explicitly that the letters of the first luchos were the same letters used to make the second luchos.

Now: the Gemara in Beitzah and the Yerushalmi talk about the letters that completely enclose a space, like Samach.  The Bavli says that, for example, the middle of the Mem was suspended miraculously, because the carved sides left nothing to support the middle.  According to Teretz #2, the pshat is that the letter was there.  It wasn't simple Chok Ye'reichos, it was a letter that took up the space, and that letter supported the middle of the Samach.  I'll bet that when the letters flew away, the middles of the Samachs all fell down.  (Moshe Eisenberg's he'ara in 2010.)

Maybe the kashe doesn’t begin, because (hereinafter Teretz #3) even though the letters were formed by engraving into the stone, once they were there they had the kedusha that is inherent in the letters of Torah, so when the engraving on the stones was smoothed out, it was that kedusha that was floating in the air. In fact, the second teretz, that the letters were engraved by means of inserting the letter, and the third teretz, that once the letters were engraved they had kedusha, are not too different.  (It could be said that this pshat is implicit in the Maharsha in Pesachim 87b.)

In any case, there are two lessons to be derived from this discussion. The mussar haskeil of this Gemara is that kedusha is never destroyed. Just like in the story of the martyrdom of Rav Chanina ben Tradion, who said, as he was burned along with a sefer Torah, "gvilin nisrofin v’osios porchos ba’avir", although a physical repository of kedusha is destroyed, the kedusha that it held is eternal, and remains forever inviolate. His physical body was being destroyed, but his neshomo is eternal. Here, too, the osios may have closed up, but the kedushas haluchos is eternal and has a roshem that cannot be damaged at all. The kedushas ha’osios was, and still is, porei’ach ba’avir.

The second lesson is that removal of a davar gashmi in the pursuit of ruchniyus does not merely leave an void. It creates an intangible but nonetheless real- maybe more real than its predecessor- spiritual space. For example, Mi ha'ish hechafetz chaim; not saying lashon hara is not merely a means of avoiding spiritual damage. It is called a sahm hachaim. Not saying lashon hara is not merely avoiding poison, it is the rejuvenating panacea of life.

Friday, February 18, 2011

Ki Sisa, Shemos 32:10-11. Different Kinds of Tefilla

 When Hashem told Moshe of the Chet Ha'Eigel, Hashem said "leave Me and My anger will burn and I will destroy them...."  Rashi says that this showed Moshe that there was still hope, that if Moshe would refuse to "leave", he could accomplish something.  In fact, Moshe immediately prayed for mercy, and Hashem let the moment pass without destruction.  Looking at Onkelos, you see something interesting.  In Hashem's words to Moshe, the idea that Hashem didn't want Moshe to pray are read into the sentence.  The word for prayer there is B'u'sa.  But when Moshe did pray, the word for prayer is not B'u'sa.  It is Tzlusa.

וְעַתָּה הַנִּיחָה לִּי, וְיִחַר-אַפִּי בָהֶם וַאֲכַלֵּם; וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אוֹתְךָ, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל.  יא וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו
וּכְעַן אָנַח בָּעוּתָךְ מִן קֳדָמַי, וְיִתְקַף רֻגְזִי בְּהוֹן וַאֲשֵׁיצֵינוּן; וְאַעֲבֵיד יָתָךְ, לְעַם סַגִּי.  יא וְצַלִּי מֹשֶׁה, קֳדָם יְיָ אֱלָהֵיהּ

Is there any difference between B'u'sa and Tz'lusa?  There must be.  The most famous example of the two words being used together is in Yaakov's charge to Yosef in Breishis 48:22.  Yaakov said
וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ, שְׁכֶם אַחַד--עַל-אַחֶיךָ:  אֲשֶׁר לָקַחְתִּי מִיַּד הָאֱמֹרִי, בְּחַרְבִּי וּבְקַשְׁתִּי
I have given you, Yosef, an additional portion, that which I conquered from the Emorites with my sword and bow.  But Onkelos reads the words of Yaakov metaphorically; the sword and bow are metaphors for prayer, and translates בְּחַרְבִּי וּבְקַשְׁתִּי as  בצלותי ובבעותי.  This interpretation is also found in Bava Basra 123.  Similarly, in Melachim I 8:28, Shlomo Hamelech said
  וּפָנִיתָ אֶל תְּפִלַּת עַבְדְּךָ וְאֶל תְּחִנָּתוֹ ה' אֱלֹקי:  לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶל הָרִנָּה וְאֶל הַתְּפִלָּה אֲשֶׁר עַבְדְּךָ מִתְפַּלֵּל לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם
the Targum Yonasan translates אֶל הָרִנָּה וְאֶל הַתְּפִלָּה as tze'lusa and be'usa.

The Meshech Chochma and the Netziv there in Breishis explain the differences between the two terms for Tefilla.  According to Reb Meir Simcha, Tzlusa is formal tefilla, and Be'usa is personal and from the heart for a specific occasion.  The Netziv  in the Harcehiv Davar says like Reb Meir Simcha, that Tzlusa, the sword, refers to daily normal tefilla, and be'usa means tefilla for an extraordinary event of the day.  He explains that the sword means the supplicant goes out to battle the usual foot soldiers, the things that normally prevent him from reaching his goal, while Be'usa, the arrow, means that he stays where he is and shoots his weapon to a great distance to finally achieve his ultimate purpose by eliminating the source of the problem.

I want a good explanation of what Onkelos means here.  Evidently, when Hashem said "Don't daven, Moshe," Hashem meant one form of tefilla, and Moshe understood that the time for that tefilla had passed and it wouldn't help, so he immediately used the other type of tefilla.  I need to know the difference, why the former wouldn't work, and why the latter would.  The Meshech Chochma and the Netziv don't help here at all, as far as I can tell.

  • First of all, I really don't understand exactly what they mean.  Obviously, the difference is not one of degree, that the second form is greater than the first, because if it were, why bother with the first?  It reminds me of the time that a very frightened husband came to see Reb Moshe.  His wife had  advanced cancer, and he asked for Reb Moshe to be mispallel for her and for a bracha.  But then has asked if Reb Moshe could possibly learn an extra five minutes a day in his wife's zechus.  Reb Moshe was nonplussed, and responded with vague and noncommittal assurances.  Reb Moshe spent every possible moment learning, and the few minutes he didn't learn, he was doing something that absolutely needed doing.  Same thing with Moshe Rabbeinu.  It is not possible that sometimes he davenned distractedly, or with less kavana.  Whatever he did, he did as perfectly and intently as a human being could do.  So when he was told that one would not work, it was not because he needed to have more kavana.  Clearly, the difference between be'usa and tzlusa is not one of effort and kavana.  So it's a categorical difference, a difference of type.  What is that difference? What characterizes that difference? And how and why would one form of tefilla be inappropriate or inadequate, and the other effective?  And if the answer is beyond our comprehension, why did Chazal bother to tell us about it?
  • Secondly, here, Hashem told Moshe not to daven with Be'usa, so Moshe davenned with Tzlusa.  According to the Netziv and Reb Meir Simcha, that would mean that he was told to not daven with innovative event-focused tefilla, but instead he should daven the formal generic tefilla.  How does that make sense?

This is not a set-up so I can drop my great teretz on people.  I simply don't have a good pshat, and would be happy to hear one.

The first comment refers to something Reb Yosef Ber (YU) said about this, and I got a copy of the sefer that quotes him.  This is "Ahl Hatefila,"  shiurim translated from the Yiddish by Reuven Grodner.  Since it would be problematic to translate it a third time, this is what he says: צלותא הוא תפילה ובקשה בעותא הוא שאלה ודרישה.  He then explains that Tzlusa is asking for what you need.  Be'usa is asking to give us wisdom to understand how to serve Hashem and how to become wise and how to do His will in difficult times.  In Shmoneh Esrei, which is Tzlusa, we say אתה חונן לאדם דעת....חננו מאתך דעה.  But in Ahava Rabba, before Shma, we engage in Be'usa, and say האר עינינו בתורתיך, we seek wisdom.  I would say, then, that Tzlusa addresses problems, and Be'usa seeks growth and wisdom.

It's hard to apply this to Moshe Rabbeinu and to Yaakov Avinu in the pesukim we're addressing.

Micha sent me a link to post he published in which he said:
The Targum Yonasan renders “becharbi uvqashti” as “betzelosi uva’us-hi — with my prayers and my requests”. This is also in Bava Basra 123, “‘Charbi‘ — this is tefillah,qashti‘ – this is baqashah [request].”
Based on this, R’ YB Soloveitchik explains the Targum’s “tzelosana” to refer to our immediate requests — sword-like, in comparison to the longer reach of the bow and arrow. "Tzelosana" is thus our request for health, income, peace in our homes, etc… Whereas the arrows of “bausana” are for things like the coming of mashiach, the restoration of justice, etc…
Personally, I don’t follow. Shemonah Esrei is such an archetype for the form of prayer, Chazal simply refer to it as tefillah or tzelosana (depending on the language). Shemoneh Esrei, even in its immediate requests speaks in the plural, referring to the Jewish people as a whole, not my own immediate needs, and the majority of its requests are a progression describing the ultimate redemption. We have the list of prayers in the gemara (Berakhos 16b) that various tannaim, “after tzelosana — his Shemoneh Esrei — he would say like this”. In contrast, Elokai Netzor, the post-Shemoneh Esrei petition that made it into our liturgy, is written in the first person, about my own religious needs and protection from those who want ill for me personally.
So, in contrast with what Rabbi Soloveitchik suggests, it would seem from usage that tzelosana actually denotes the longer term, less immediate, requests.
If the notion that I am contradicting Rav Soloveitchik didn’t make me insecure in my position, I would think that the similarity driving the parable isn’t immediacy, but something else.
The Vilna Gaon characterizes two kinds of prayer: tefillah and tachanunim. As RYBS himself notes, as does Rav Hirsch, lehitpallel is in the reflective; something we do to ourselves. Teaching ourselves to turn to Hashem, and what things ought to be our priorities. Our primary tefillah was therefore organized by Anshei Keneses haGdolah in the sunset of the prophetic period, as a means of impressing us with the art of dialogue with the A-lmighty.
Turning to our Father with the needs actually on our mind is called tachanunim. An ideal time for tachanunim is immediately after tefillah, as we find in the above-mentioned list of tannaim‘s requests. As well as tachanun. Tefillah is always in the plural, placing ourselves in the context of the community. Tachanunim, like E-lokai Netzor, can also be in the singular. Because E-lokai Netzor exists as a framework for what should essentially be spontaneous, we have a long tradition of adding various requests to it, rather than preserving the tanna‘s coinage untouched.
Just as the tachanunim we say as part of regular davening has this element of a pre-written framework, of tefillah, we allso do not call for pure tefillah with no element of personal outpouring. We ask for the health of a sick friend with an insertion in “Refa’einu“, or Hashem’s help showing our children how to embrace the Torah’s wisdom in “Atah Chonein“, etc… “Whomever makes their tefillos fixed has not made their tefillos into tachanunim.”
This inseparability of these two types of worship might be an implication of the opening words of Mesilas Yesharim. The Ramchal begins, “יסוד החסידות ושורש העבודה – the foundation of piety and the root of work/worship…” The words’ initials are an acronym spelling out the name of G-d. However, three of the letters are prefixes. The Ramchal could have equally written “יסוד העבודה ושורש החסידות” and still have had the same acronym. Why did he choose to associate the more artificial “foundation” with piety, and the image of the more natural “root” when it comes to avodah, which means work? It would seem to me he is intentionally showing that the two are inherently mixed. That conscious work on our relationships with Hashem and with other people must flow from natural growth from the root, and our free emotional expression can’t be divorced from consciously building a foundation. This is AishDas — the inseparable fusion of fiery passion and precise ritual.
Returning to the Vilna Gaon’s distinction, the core difference between tefillah and tachanunim is that tachanunim are a raw primeval reaching out to the A-lmighty, and tefillah is an exercise in how we are supposed to reach out to Him.
In this light, the core of the metaphor in the verse is not distance, but usability. A sword in the hands of an expert is formidable, but even in the hands of a klutz, a sword is dangerous. Arrows shot by someone with no experience at marksmanship are pretty much useless. Thus, tefillah, like those pre-composed by Anshei Keneses haGdolah or Chazal, is more like a sword — of utility to anyone. The art of techinah, of personally composed baqashos — that requires greater skill and for the person to already feel that connection to the A-lmighty that their reflexive response is to cry out to Him, to be of any value.
(The Maharsha on this gemara in Bava Basra comments as follows: “Becharbi” is in response to Esav’s “al charbekha yichyeh — you will live by your sword”, as Yitzchaq described his destiny. “Beqashti” is his defense against the Torah’s description of Yishma’el, “vayhi roveh qashas — and he became great with a bow”. Yaaqov described two tools against two kinds of threat.)



And great unknown sent me to the Netziv on this week's parsha, which I had missed.  After reading the Netziv, this is what I wrote:
The Netziv says that every personal tefilla requires shvach in the beginning. But that's not true when we insert personal tefillos in shmoneh esrei, because it already has shvach in the beginning. But Moshe Rabbeinu never davenned a regular tefilla because he was on a madreiga of no-teva, so there was no concept of regular tefilla for daily needs. So when he did daven for some special need, he had to begin with Shevach. But here, Hashem told him that because his people fell, he was diminished as well, so he was no longer on a hanhaga nissis, so he had to insert the tefilla into a daily normal derech hateva tefilla, which begins with shevach as do all our shmoneh esrei tefillos that begin with avos gevuros and kedusha. Basically, Hashem told him not to do Be'usa- which meant shevach plus special event tefilla. He needed to do the derech hateva tefilla, which already has shevach in it.

So this only tells us the difference in form; tzlusa, daily and formal for normal needs, begins with shevach. Be'usa, special occasional needs, inserted into tzlusa. It doesn't really tell us what the essence of the difference is.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Ki Sisa, Shemos 30:34. The Ketores.

The Ketores, the incense used in the Beis Hamikdash, is very briefly described in this parsha.  The Torah says
וְעָשִׂיתָ אֹתָהּ קְטֹרֶת רֹקַח מַעֲשֵׂה רוֹקֵחַ מְמֻלָּח טָהוֹר קֹדֶשׁוַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה קַח לְךָ סַמִּים נָטָף וּשְׁחֵלֶת וְחֶלְבְּנָה סַמִּים וּלְבֹנָה זַכָּה בַּד בְּבַד יִהְיֶה
וְשָׁחַקְתָּ מִמֶּנָּה הָדֵק וְנָתַתָּה מִמֶּנָּה לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד
"Take for yourselves (the ingredients) and make the Ketores....and place it...in the Ohel Moed."
I called this a brief description because the Torah only lists four of the eleven ingredients, the remainder of which were left to Halacha Le'Moshe MiSinai.

1.  Would you say that there is a mitzva to make Ketores?  The Smag (167) holds that the mitzva is to fabricate ketores and to use it; as he explains later (last line of Mitzvah 192), he holds they are both equal parts of one mitzvah.    On the other hand, the Rambam and the Chinuch hold there is no mitzva to make the ketores.  The Mitzva is to burn the ketores at the proper time and place.  The Rambam and the Chinuch hold that making the ketores is just a hechsher; you're going to need ketores, so you'd better make it, and the way to make ketores is.....  The Smag holds that the fabrication is not merely a hechsher, it is part of the mitzva; it is an equal part of the mitzvah, as you can see in the way he writes the Remez of Mitzva 167. I would say that according to the Rambam and Chinuch, the Avtinases did not make a bracha on their work, while according to the Smag, they did.  This is reminiscent of the Machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi about making the Sukkah.

In any case, we all have the minhag to read the braisa that describes the making of the Ketores.  Some read it every day, some only on Shabbos.  But everyone agrees it's a good thing to read it; In fact, the Rama in 132 says that the only reason Ashkenazim don't read it every day is because Chazal say that if one skips one ingredient, he violates a very serious issur.  During the week, people are rushed and daven too quickly, and if one said the parsha of ketores and skipped one ingredient, it would be a very bad thing.  So we limit it to Shabbos, when only tipshim daven quickly, so we can say it calmly and carefully.  Indeed, the Magen Avraham says that Talmidei Chachamim should say it every day.

I always wondered, why on earth are we reading the Braisa that describes the preparation of the ketores?  If you want the zechus of a korban, you should read the halachos of the sacrificing, the hakrava, not the preparation.  You want a korban chatas?  You don't have to read about raising sheep.  You read about where you shecht it and so forth.  So why are we reading about how to make ketores?  For the mitzva of limud hatorah, the time would be better spent learning something be'iyun, instead of just reading a Braisa.  Learn a Ketzos instead!  For the mitzva of haktara, say the parsha that talks about the actual avoda of haktara.  (As I discuss below, the Chasam Sofer's teshuva in OC 159 seems to hold like this.)

At least according to the Smag, we have a teretz on this question, because the Smag holds that the making of the Ketores and the burning of the Ketores are two equal halves of one mitzvah.  According to the Rambam and Chinuch, the question remains.

2.  We are told (Krisus 6b) that a person that makes the Ketores and fails to include any one ingredient is subject to a divine punishment of untimely death.  Is this for making it, or for burning it in the Azara?  The answer is that 99% of the meforshim hold there are two issurimg: making it and burning it.  However, Rashi in Krisus there implies that there is no punishment for burning it except for on Yom Kippur.  The Pirush on the Rambam called Orah Ve'Simcha (5 Avodas Yom Hakppurim 25) says that the Rambam holds like that as well, that one is chayav missa for burning incomplete ketores only on Yom Kippur.  He says that Rashi holds that there isn't even a punishment of missa for making incomplete Ketores the whole year, only for burning it on Yom Kippur.  The Rambam, he admits, holds there is a separate punishment for making it at any time.  But all the other meforshim agree that there is a chiyuv all year for making incomplete ketores, and all year for burning it. (see, e.g., Mishna Lemelech 2 Klei Hamikdash 3 who gets very upset about this whole discussion.)

3.  The Gemara in Yoma 38 and Shkolim 14 says that the family that made the ketores, Beis Avtinas, was praiseworthy, because their family tradition was that no Avtinas woman left the house wearing perfume, so that nobody should suspect that they had benefited from the Ketores.  Any woman marrying into the family was warned about this minhag and had to agree to do so.  Lately, some communities of Bnei Torah have begun to discourage women from wearing makeup and perfume outside of the house.  They feel it is inappropriate, because it might engender inappropriate thoughts in other men.  This extends the Avtinus chumra to all of Klal Yisrael, which I think is sad.  There's enough ugly in the world as it is, and we don't have to add to it.


4.  The Mishna in Yoma 26a says that while other tasks done in the Beis Hamikdash were allotted by daily lottery, this was not the case with the avoda of burning the Ketores.  In this case, the lottery master would announce "Those who have never done the Ketores may come to this lottery."  The reason for this restriction is that doing the avoda of the Ketores makes the person wealthy, and everyone deserves a chance.  The source for this is the passuk in Devarim 33:10-11, 
 יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ וְכָלִיל עַל מִזְבְּחֶךָ. בָּרֵךְ ה' חֵילוֹ וּפֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה
that associates Bracha with burning the Ketores.  The Chasam Sofer (Tshuvos OC 158) asks, but parnassa is a matter of Mazal.  How can the Ketores affect something that is fated by Mazal?  He says that the Ketores has the power to change a person's Mazal for the better.
 כשם שאמרו חז״ל (מו״ק כח ע״א) בני חיי ומזוני לאו בזכותא תליא מילתא כי אם במזלא, צ״ל דהקטרת קטורת המעשיר היא כמו זכות גדול שמשתנה המזל על ידו כמ״ש תום׳ בשבת קנו ע״א ד״ה אין.


5.  The Chasam Sofer (there and the following teshuva) also says that this bracha applies to the people that are actively involved in a Bris Milah.  By "actively involved" he means at the moment the bris takes place, namely the Mohel and the Sandek.  (He brings from Rabbeinu Peretz that this applies more to the Sandek than to the Mohel.)  He says that the Bracha of wealth by the Ketores also only applies to the Kohen that puts it on the Mizbeiach, and not to the House of Avtinos, because Avtinos only prepared it, but weren't actively involved when it was burned on the Mizbeiach.
ויצאו מתקני האזמל ואנשי בית אבטינס, ונכנס הסנדק להיות מסייע שיש בו ממש בשעת עשיית המצוה ממש
So according to the Chasam Sofer, if you're saying the parsha of Ketores because of the Segula of wealth, you should realize that the whole Pitum braisa is not going to help you.  It just describes how the Avtinos family made ketores, and not the act of burning it on the Mizbeiach.  But the Chasam Sofer doesn't really matter, as I've brought above the mekubalim that say that the braisa of Pittum is essential to the bracha.



6.  What about those Pittum Haketoreses that are written by a sofer on parchment?  Is this completely abnormal?  No.  It is not.  It is a time honored custom among the Sfardim and the Kabala oriented.  There are mekoros for this.  A man named Moshe ibn Machir, who was the Rosh Yeshiva at a Yeshiva called Ein Zeisim, near Tzfas, in the time of the Arizal, wrote a sefer called Seder Olam.  This is a highly respected sefer.  In fact, our version of Modeh Ani was introduced by him in this sefer.  In the same sefer, he says that one should write the Pittum Haketores on Klaf in Ashuris- and that he takes responsibility for the fulfillment of your wishes:

כתב בספר סדר היום (סדר עבודה, עמי טו דפו״ה) לרבי משה בן יהודה מכיר ד״ע ריש
 מתיבתא בעין זיתון היא צפת מרבנן קשישאי בתקופת דור דעה האר״י הקדוש ומרן הבית יוסף זיע״א
 וז״ל: החושש עליו ועל נפשו ראוי להשתדל בכל עוז בענין הזה ולכתוב כל  ענין הקטורת
 בקלף כשר בכתיבת אשורית ולקרות אותו פעם אהד בבוקר ובערב בכוונה גדולה, ואני ערב



In fact, the Zohar (Vayakhel) talks about it in the same superlatives.  He says that if people realized the supernal benefit of saying Pitum Haketores with deep comprehension, and if they knew how precious it is before Hashem, they would take the words and make them into a golden crown for their heads.

מלה דא גזרה קיימא קמי קודשא בדיך הוא, דכל מאן דאסתכל וקרי בכל יומא עובדא

דקטרת, ישתזיב מכל מלין בישין וחרשין דעלמא, ומכל פגעין בישין, ומהרהורא בישא,
ומדינא בישא ומותנא, ולא יתזק כל ההוא יומא, דלא יכיל סטרא אחרא לשלטא עליה,
ואצטריך דיכוון ביה. אמר רבי שמעון, אי בני נשא הוו ידעי כמה עלאה איהו עובדא דקטרת
קמי קודשא בדיך הוא, הוו נטלי כל מלה ומלה מניה, והוו סלקי לה עטרה על רישייהו
ככתרא דדהבא, ומאן דאשתדל ביה, בעי לאסתכלא בעובדא דקטחז, ואי יכוון ביה בכל
יומא, אית ליה חולקא בהאי עלמא ובעלמא דאתי, ויסתלק מותנא מניה ומעלמא, וישתזיב

מכל דינין דהאי עלמא, מסטרין בישין ומדינא דגיהנט ומדינא דמלכו אחרא. ע״ש



Then there's Reb Chaim Falagi's Kaf Hachaim, in which he tells us to write it on klaf in Ashuris like a sefer Torah and to read it, because it will make you wealthy and immune to parnassa problems.

יכתוב פרשת הקטורת על הקלף או גויל בכתב אשורית כספר תורה, ויקרא בו, ויעשה לו סגולה
 דהקטורת מעשיר, ומובטה לו דלא יופסק פרנסתו ותמיד יהיה לו פרנסה טוב וכלכלה בריוה
 ולא בצמצום.



So, for some, it is a time-honored and worthy minhag.  (I saw some available on the web.  They start at around 500, but 900 and upwards is more common.  That's American dollars.)   


For a talmid of the Litvishe mesora, doing this would be as appropriate as eating grasshoppers.



Monday, March 01, 2010

Ki Sisa

Divrei Torah on Parshas Ki Sisa

Winged Hollows (2007)
~
Alphabetic and AtBash Palindromes (2008)
~
The Thirteen Middos and the Key to Tefillah (2009)
~
~

Remember, if you have something worthy and original, send it to me at Leizer@earthlink.net.  Original wins more points.  Example: On Shabbos, a young Kollel fellow told me that he had a teretz on a question many people ask:  Assuming that the specific sequence of mitzvos (1. conquest of the land, 2. seating a king, 3. destruction of Amalek, and 4. building the Mikdash) is mandatory, how could Shlomo have built the Mikdash?  They hadn't yet destroyed Amalek, as evidenced by Amalek's later recurrence in the time of Haman.  So what right did they have to build the Mikdash?  You can't do #4 before you've taken care of #3!  (There are a million answers on the question.  That's not the point here.)  He answered that since the only survivor of Amalek was Agag, once Agag was killed, there was no current obligation of Mechiyas Amalek.  Although later Agag's child was born, that child had not yet necessarily been conceived when Agag was killed, so there was a putative time, albeit of short duration, when there was no miztva of Mechiyah, at which point the mitzva of Mikdash was triggered.  Once that mitzva went into effect, it was not removed when Amalek reappeared.
That's an example of a creative teretz that, it could be argued, is less than 100% defensible, but earns points for originality.
ON the other hand, I subtract points for sincerity, earnestness and naivety; in short,
Ingenious- good. 
Ingenuous- bad
So don't be upset if I don't post it.
~
~

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Ki Sisa, Shemos 34:6. The thirteen Middos and The Alshich's Key to Tefilla

Only speaking from how I personally feel about this discussion, and in light of the superficial and easily distracted nature of most internet reading, please allow me to suggest that you print and read it.

Rosh Hashannah 17b–
אמר רב יהודה ברית כרותה לי"ג מדות שאינן חוזרות ריקם שנאמר (שמות לד) הנה אנכי כורת ברית
Amar R Yehudah: Bris krusah le’yud gimmel middos she'einan chozros reikan. A covenant is sealed on the Thirteen Middos that they do not return empty-handed. Rashi– they never go unanswered when they are recited in the tefillah of a tainis.

The Alshich in Shlach 14:17-20 says that the question has been asked that this Chazal contradicts our experience; plenty of times we say it over and over, and it doesn't do a thing! (An interesting question! Most teachers would react to a question like this with a frask in punim--"Who are you going to trust, you sheigetz, Chazal or your lying eyes???? A more confident didact would respond with the usual "Sometimes ‘No’ is the best answer", or "They can’t overcome a gzeira that was finalized with a shevu’ah", or that "The effect of the tefilla is hidden or pending".)

The Alshich brings an answer from the Livnas Sapir: The recital of the Thirteen Middos is only effective when the person who says them fulfills the Gemara in Shabbos 121 "mah hu rachum v’channun...," just as He is merciful, you too be merciful, just as He is long tempered, etc., that the person emulates the traits of God that are enumerated in the Thirteen Middos.

Another way of putting the Alshich’s (Livnas Sapir) teretz is "It is not enough to say the yud gimmel middos. You have to be the yud gimmel middos."

Imagine a father who is an achzar with his children, who says with great kavana "Oy, Avinu, Ha'av Harachaman, racheim aleinu!" He's a father, and he has no rachmanus on his children! Or, someone who is mean and heartless, who is davenning "ki eil melech chanun verachum atta" with real kavana and dveikus. How do you think the Ribbono Shel Olam should respond to such people? What good are such tefillos? If, on the other hand, you think, as you daven, that this is a middah that one should emulate and express in one’s life, and you determine to do so, then the tefilla would certainly mean a great deal more. The great chiddush of the Alshich is that this is true even regarding the Bris of the 13 Middos.

Even farther: the Tzror HaMor in Ki Sisa (34:9) says
אבל אם הם אכזרים ועושי רשעה, כל שכן שבהזכרת י"ג מדות הם נתפסין. וזהו 'וחנותי את אשר אחון' (שמות לג, יט) - מי
שראוי לחון ולרחם עליו
that if a person is cruel and wicked, and he recites the Middos praising Hashem's kindness and piety, this will bring down punishment upon him even worse than had he not said them.

Now that the Alshich applies this concept even to the Middos, it opens a whole new perspective on what tefillah means. Everyone knows there is a mitzva of Tefilla. Everyone knows there is a mitzva of emulating Hashem's middos: (Shabbas 133b:
אבא שאול אומר ואנוהו הוי דומה לו מה הוא חנון ורחום אף אתה היה חנון ורחום
Zeh Eili ve'anveihu-- Abba Shaul omeir; mah Hu rachum vechanun.... Rashi-- Ve'anveihu-- ani ve'Hu. ani veHu. hevei domeh Lo; velashon ve'anveihu, Ani vehu, and Sotah 14a:
ואמר רבי חמא ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (דברים יג) אחרי ה' אלהיכם תלכו וכי אפשר לו לאדם להלך אחר שכינה והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ד) כי ה' אלהיך אש אוכלה הוא אלא להלך אחר מדותיו של הקב"ה מה הוא מלביש ערומים דכתיב (בראשית ג) ויעש ה' אלהים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם אף אתה הלבש ערומים הקב"ה ביקר חולים דכתיב (בראשית יח) וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא אף אתה בקר חולים הקב"ה ניחם אבלים דכתיב (בראשית כה) ויהי אחרי מות אברהם ויברך אלהים את יצחק בנו אף אתה נחם אבלים הקב"ה קבר מתים דכתיב (דברים לד) ויקבר אותו בגיא אף אתה קבור מתים
Acharei Hashem Elokeichem teileichu....le'haleich achar midosav shel HKB"H. The din of "Ve'halachta Bidrachav" is codified in the Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos 8 and the Chinuch 611.) The chiddush here is that these two dinim are mutually dependent; one without the other is ineffective and incomplete. The independent mitzvah of vehlachta bidrachav has a separate application: it is also the necessary prerequisite for the tefilla of the Yud Gimmel Middos. You have to do the Middos, and you have to stand like a shliach tzibbur and ask for them from Hashem.

Tefilla without incorporating into yourself what you hope to elicit from Hashem is not Tefilla at all. Tefilla is not an arm's length entreaty that, if heard and fulfilled, enables you to passively observe as your prayers are answered. Tefilla is part of a process that includes dveikus or inspired zimra and tehilla or bitachon, that enables you to become a fitting vessel for the achievement of Hashem's will. The answer to successful Tefilla is the opportunity to participate in the result. By becoming God-like, you can become a fitting conduit that allows the will of God to flow, through you, to this world. Energy can't flow through 'nothing.' There's got to be a medium that is hospitable to the energy to allow it to move. The medium is you.  The least you need to do is to be a conductor, not an insulator.

We find the same concept in Nedarim 40a--
כל שאין מבקר חולה אין מבקש עליו רחמים לא שיחיה ולא שימות
one who has not been mevaker choleh, his prayers on behalf of the sick are totally ignored. Bikkur Cholim without tefilla, good, but not good enough. Tefilla without bikkur cholim? A waste of time. You want to invoke Hashem's mercy on the sick through your prayers? Don't bother to daven unless you yourself have been mevakeir choleh. But tefilla after you were mevakeir choleh? Ah, that's something special.

This pshat is supported by the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 17b. There, the Gemara says that Hashem was mis'atef with a tallis like a shli'ach tzibur, and said the 13 Middos, and told Moshe "Im ya'asu banai lefanai kaseder hazeh Ani mochel lahem." The word "Ya'asu" implies action, even though the context is speech, tefillah by a shli'ach tzibur. But according to the above, the two concepts are congruous: the bris of the 13 Middos involves tefilla, speech, which reflects or generates action, the act of emulating Hashem.

A Commenter pointed out that the Alshich learned in Reb Yosef Karo's yeshiva, and he had a fellow talmid named Reb Moshe Cordevero, who wrote the Tomer Devora. The entire theme of the Tomer Devora is a discussion of the obligation, and how, to emulate Hashem's 13 Middos. He ends the first chapter by saying "Just as a man behaves below, so he will merit to open himself "Middah Elyonah Mil'e'maalah." Exactly as he behaves, "kach mashpi'ach mi'le'maalah," and he causes that Middah to shine in the world." With that in mind, it seems evident that this theme, as quoted by the Alshich from the Livnas Hasapir, was, among RYK's talmidim, an important and very carefully considered hashkafas hachaim.

This approach reminds me of the Nefesh Hachaim’s idea of "Hashem Tzilchah, " (see Nefesh Hachaim 1:7 DH V’zeh she’omar Dovid Hamelech Hashem Tzilchoh and the next paragraph, and 1:9 DH Omnom ho’inyon, and the Hagoho there who says the Anaf Yosef’s vort about Tapu’ach which I bring here, which R Chaim Volozhener also says klor in his pirush on Shir Hashirim 2:3) and what I wrote in Devarim Eikev 10:17:


Ha’eil hagadol hagibor vehanorah. Yoma 69— the Anshei Knesses Hagdolah were called that because ‘hecheziru atara liyoshna’. Yirmiah took off ‘nora’, and Daniel took off ‘gibor’. But they said that aderabba— his gevura is his arichus appaiyim to the resha’im, and his morah is what keeps us in existence interspersed among the nations. The idea here is that we cannot describe the actual character of Hashem, but instead only describe the characteristics that we think underlie what we observe to be his actions in our world. This is what is stated in ‘anim zemiros’, that ‘Himshilucho velo kefi yeshcha, vayashvucha lefi ma’asecha.’ What we say about Hashem is, first of all, only a mashal, and second of all, only what we perceive through His behavior. The Rambam says "Kol hato’arim she’anu omrim al Hashem Yisbarach ein hakavana al to’arim atzmi’im chas veshalom rak al to’arei hape’ulos."
An example of this: the Gemora in Shabbos 88a says, "Amar R’ Chamma bar Chanina, ‘ketapuach be’atzei hayaar...’, lama nimsh’lu Yisrael l’Tapuach?" etc. Rabbeinu Tam asks there, that in that passuk, it is not Klal Yisroel being compared to a Tapuach, but rather Hashem? The Anaf Yosef in the Ein Yakov brings down the Nefesh Hachaim that answers that if Klal Yisroel perceived and compared Hashem to ‘tapuach’, this is definitely because Klal Yisroel are comparable and the behavior is similar to ‘tapuach’, because "kederech she’anachnu misro’im lefonov yisborach, kach hu yisborach shemo bo lei’ra’os el ha’olamos al zeh ha’hadraga vehashiur mamash." From this vort you see that not only does Hashem appear in a fashion that reflects our behavior, but that what we call His semblance is just one of the ways that He communicates with us through His behavior.


Back to the Alshich.


The Panim Yafos (written by the Ba’al Hafla’ah) disagrees with the Alshich, because how can we possibly emulate "Hashem Hashem", which is also part of the thirteen middos. So he holds that it has nothing to do with the Gemara in Shabbos, and the guarantee applies to simple recital, to saying it alone.

See the Rosh at the end of the first perek of Rosh Hashannah, where he brings two shittos, the Geonim and Rabbeinu Tam, about the first two sheimos in the Middos and whether both or only one is a Middah, and the Korban Neshanel there in #10 who brings the Arizal and the Sefer Chassidim. The Arizal in Shaar Hakavonos Drush "Vayaavor" 3 holds the Middos begin with "Keil." But the Sefer Chassidim (250) holds it begins with "Rachum." If the Alshich/Livnas Sapir hold like the Sefer Chasidim, the Hafla'ah's question would not begin.
Furthermore, the in the Ramak's Tomer Devora, he describes how to emulate, or reflect, the Middos of, for example, Malchus. Obviously, then, the Hafla'ah's kashe would not be shver.
~
Reb Chaim B. pointed out to me that the Bnei Yisaschar says that the machlokes between the Alshich and the Hafla'ah was something that Esther Hamalka thought about, and she decided that the Bris was for Amira alone, based on the midda of "Eil," as the Hafla'ah says. See comments for the Mareh Makom and discussion.
~
Reb David Guttmann pointed out a fascinating thing:
The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim is very similar to the Alshich, and yet very, very different. The Rambam also agrees that mere tefilla is inadequate. What, says the Rambam, makes the recitation of the Middos effective? Understanding what they mean! This is what the Rambam says in the Moreh 1:54, when he discusses what it was the Moshe sought from Hashem, and what Hashem taught him about the Middos: (Kafach translation)

הודעני נא את דרכיך ואדעך וכו' ,
והתבונן במה שנכלל בלשון זה מן המופלאות, אמרו 'הודעני נא את דרכיך ואדעך', מלמד על היותו יתעלה נודע בתאריו, שאם ידע הדרכים ידעהו. ואמרו 'למען אמצא חן בעיניך', מלמד כי מי שידע את ה', הוא אשר ימצא חן בעיניו. לא מי שצם והתפלל בלבד , אלא כל מי שידעו הוא הרצוי המקורב, ומי שסכל ידיעתו, הוא הזעום המרוחק. ולפי ערך הידיעה והסכלות יהיה הרצון והזעם והקרבה והריחוק.
"Not one who only fasts and prays, but instead one who knows Him, he is the desired one who is drawn near. The senseless one is distanced and draws anger. Exactly proportionate to one’s wisdom or foolishness is one’s closeness or separation."
~
So, the Alshich says, talk is cheap; mere tefilla is not enough. You have to live the Middos. The Rambam says, mere tefilla is not enough. You have to understand, to know, the Middos. The Panim Yafos says "amira," and maybe he really means simple recital. More likely he would agree with the Rambam, that it requires at least an awareness and understanding of the Middos.
~
Now please don't go telling me that they agree, because you can't live them unless you understand them, and once you know them, you will live them. That may be true, but it is irrelevant. The Rambam and the Alshich are saying totally different things, Period.
~
And don't go looking at the Tomer Dvorah for help in determining how the Tzefas people defined the Middos, because he only works with the passuk of "mi keil komocho," which alludes to the Middos. He very carefully does not mention even once exactly which words in the passuk in Ki Sisa the Middos comprise.
Also, note that after the chet hameraglim, Moshe used an incomplete set of the middos, and see the meforshim there, including the Ramban.
~
I’ve used the Alshich to explain the din in Yoreh Dei'ah 265 about Sande’ka’us being like bringing ketores, and Rabbeinu Peretz’s shittah that one should not be sandek for more than one of a person’s children, because the Gemara says that bringing the Ketores made the Kohen wealthy, and in order to distribute the segula as widely as possible, no Kohen was allowed to be maktir the Ketores twice. Since Sande'ka'us is like bringing Ketores, he says, one should not be a sandek twice for children from one family. The Gaon says not to worry about it, because he hasn't seen anyone becoming rich from being a sandek. I said that can answer the Gaon's kashe the same way the Alshich answered his kashe: It's not enough to be the sandek or to be maktir the ketores-- you have to become the ketores. It's a great line, and it has the smell of a truth, but it's hard to know what exactly it means. Maybe having a good smell, i.e., a good reputation. Maybe it means being m’kareiv avaryanim, like the chelb’nah, as the Rambam stresses in 8 Tefilla 1. The connection to Bris Millah is that there is one thing that distinguishes us from Gentiles, and also engenders within us a great kedusha, and that is the Bris Millah, the sign of the covenant with God. One must be aware of the potential for kedusha it represents, and also that every single Jew, every Mahul, is part of the Covenant; Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheilek; and so our sense of arvus, our loyalties and empathies, should actively extend to every Ben Bris, of all stripes, from Meretz to Neturei Karta to normal people like me... and you. Distasteful as it can be, we are all Guf Echad and we all have the potential to add something important to Klal Yisrael. But it certainly doesn’t mean the mere ma'aseh kof of haktarah/sandeka'us.
~
By the way: I said in the beginning that the Alshich's question is surprising, and that if a student asked it, we would be disturbed at his apparent lack of faith. The truth is that the Alshich wouldn't have written the kashe in the sefer unless he had a teretz that he thought adequately answered it, as the Ra'avad says in Deios on Yedi'ah Ube'chira.

Rav Moshe Alshich (1508 - 1593, Tzfas), known as the Alshich Hakadosh, was a student of Rav Yoseph Caro in Tzefas. Among the Alshich's students was Rav Chaim Vital. The Livnas Hasapir is, as you can tell from the name, a Kabbalah Sefer, from, I'm told, the twelve hundreds.
~