Friday, February 19, 2016

Titzaveh. Lishmah is Not Binary. Where you need Lishmah, More is Better.

Several months ago we wrote about a disagreement we had with a friend.  Harvey Zupnick said from the Satmarer that given the choice between tefillin written by a yarei shamayim artist, whose work was uniquely beautiful, and that of a known tzadik and parush, whose work was less beautiful, the better choice is that of the great tzadik.

We initially resisted this idea, because we believed that Lishmah is an on/off- if the sefer or the tefillin was done lishma, it's kosher. If it's not, it's not kosher.  Like kavana by a mitzvah if you hold tzrichos kavana.  Later, we learned that certainly in the case of safrus, where lishma involves a great deal of effort and knowledge, it is better to take that of the tzadik.  We also found this to be the case by Bris Millah.

In today's parsha, we found the Netziv addresses this like an arrow.



העמק דבר שמות  כח ג ד"ה ועשו בגדי אהרון לקדשו

ועשו את בגדי אהרן לקדשו. דאחר שנצטוה אהרן להתקדש נתן המקום לו בגדי קודש שיסייעו לו לדבר. 
וידוע דכ״ד שבקדושה לבד שטעון עשיה לשמה עפ״י דין עוד כל מה שמכינים יותר הפעולה לשם קדושה מועלת יותר לתכליתה 
כמש״כ לעיל י״ט ב׳ ובכ״מ מש״ה נצטוה משה שיזהיר להאומנים שהם בעצמם יראי ה׳ לעשות הבגדים באופן שיועילו יותר לקדשו. ובאשר הוא דבר שבלב ע״כ הקדים לומר להם אשר מלאתי את אהרן רוח חכמה והוא יבין וישכיל מכח הבגדים איך שהם פועלים על לבו. היאך נעשו. ומש״ה נצטוה בזה משה בעצמו שידבר אל כל חכמי לב. ולא בצלאל שזה הפרט אינו נוגע לחכמות המלאכה אלא לחכמת המוסר:


Pretty clear. And the funny thing is that his citation to what he says in י״ט ב׳ doesn't seem to be any proof at all. Evidently, he doesn't care, because he holds that it is common sense and should be self evident.  ידוע.  So not only am I wrong, I'm obviously wrong. 

Yes, we could be stubborn and say that Bigdei Kehuna are special, as the Ramban says in 28:1-
הבגדים צריכין עשייה לשמן ויתכן שיהיו צריכין כוונה ולכן אמר ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב אשר מלאחיו רוח חכמה שיבינו מה שיעשו וכבר אמרו דמות דיוקנו מנצח לפני בבית מלחמתי
and Rav Sternbuch says that this is a unique din by bigdei kehuna-
 בדבריו אלה נתכוין הרמב"ן לתרץ את כפל הלשון שבפסוק כיון שכבר אמר הפסוק חכמי לב לשם מה הוצרך להוסיף ולומר אשר מלאחיו רוח חכמה וע"ז תירץ כי הראשון הוא חכמת לב לעשות במלאכה והשני שמלבד תבונת כפיו בקי ומלא הוא בחכמה ויודע לכוון לשמה אולם דבר זה צריך ביאור איזו חכמה צריך לכוונת לשמה והלא כל המצוות שכוונת לשמה מעכבת בהן כל אחד מישראל שהגיע לגדלות והוא בר דעת כשר לעשיית לשמה 
אמנם בזוה"ק כאן מפורש שכדי ראוי הבגדים צריך להיות בעל רוח הקדש ואולי זה רמוז במה שדקדק הכתוב ואמר אשר מלאתיו רוח חכמה היינו שלא די בחכמת התורה שזכה בה ע"י עמלו וטרחו רק צריך גם שיזכה שתשרה עליו רוח ממרום רוח חכמה ובינה רוח דעת ויראת ה' ולזה רמז הרמב"ן במה שהוסיף בקוצר לשונו הזהב וכבר אמרו דמות דיוקנו מנצח לפני בבית מלחמתי ואלו היו דבריו של אלכסנדר מוקדון כשראה את שמעון הצדיק ולמדנו מכאן שהכהן הגדול הוא מלאך ה' צבאות לבוש במלבושי משרתי עליון עד שנעשה בבגדים דמות כרובים ולכן צריך רוח הקדש כדי להיות ראוי לעסוק במעשה הבגדים 

And we could be stubborn and say that you can't prove anything from the klei hamikdash in general, because we know that there's a din of ויקחו לי and Betzalel had Ruach HaKodesh to use the gold from the bigger tzadik in the Aron, for example, and the lesser one for the Brichim, as Reb Chaim Volozhiner said about Lachashov Machashavos.

But that's not what the Netziv says.  He says this is true by Kol Davar Shebikdusha that needs asiyah lishma.  

Similarly, Reb Elyah Lopian in his Lev Eliyahu II 232 brings from Reb Chaim Volozhiner that if you learn from a sefer written by a person who is not good, you might not be successful in your learning, and this is why Sefer Torah sheksavo min yisareif- not just that it MAY be burned, but it SHOULD be burned. But he goes on to apply this even to devarim shel chol that are used in the environment of doing mizvos, which is not consistent with what we're saying.

So it's not just Safrus, or Milah, or Chinuch ( כמה גדולים מעשי חייא.)  It's every place where there's a din of lishmah.

We still say that by regular "tzrichos kavana," it's a simple binary.  

There happens to be a nafkeh minah- by Matza Shemura.  Reb Boruch Ber in Gittin says that the din Lishma by Shemura is really the din of tzrichos kavana, not the lishma like by safrus.  So, if is just a din of kavana, then just have kavana and it's fine.  If you say not like Reb Boruch Ber, and you understand the din of Shemura to be in the parsha of Lishmah, then "more lishmah=better matza."

Harav Oppenheimer points out that it not logical to apply this to all cases that need lishma.  I thought about this over Shabbos, and I think he's right.  Where the object has kedusha, it can have greater kedusha.  Where the object does not have kedusha, such as Tzitzis and Matza Shemura, the din of lishma is yes/no. The Netziv's words support this, of course.  He says כ״ד שבקדושה that needs lishmah, not every case that needs lishmah.  And it's logical. If we're talking about an enhancement in the object, we must be talking about objects which are intrinsically changed.  I don't think that's the case with tashmishei mitzvah.   Does it need genizah?  If it doesn't, then the lishma it is not a change in the cheftza, it's just a hechsher for something else.


The only issue that remains is the Machlokes brought in the Mishna Le'Melech in Klei Hamikdash about whether Bigdei Kehuna are Klei Shareis or not. Klei Hamikdash 8:5, as follows:

ובגדי כ"ג שבלו גונזין אותם.... ובגדי כהונה אם יש להם דין כלי שרת עיין בתוס' קידושין (דף מ"ד) שכתבו שאם עדיין לא נתחנכו אין להם דין קדושת כלי שרת אלא קדושת בד"ה אבל אם נתחנכו יש להן דין כלי שרת שקדושים קדושת הגוף אך הריטב"א שם חולק בזה וסבירא ליה דאינן קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופם ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינן כקדושת דמים ע"כ. 
(It's not only the Ritva, it's the Ramban there in Kiddushin, too.)
If Bigdei Kehuna are only machshirim, like the Ritva, then it doesn't make sense that there should be dargos of hechsher, because the begadim are not the cheftza that matters.  Either they're machshir or they're not.  Of course it's very likely that the Netziv is going with 
Tosfos in Kiddushin that they are klei shoreis, i.e., that they are devorim kedoshim. OR that even if they're not klei shareis that they have kedusha, and are not merely tashmishei mitzva like tzitzis.  For one thing, it could be that they are tashmishei kedusha, not tashmishei mitzva, and that might make a difference. 


I mentioned this problem to Harav Gedaliah Finkel of the Mir Yerushalayim, who brings the Netziv in the introduction to one of his many Imrei Gedaliahs.  Our families were very close, and we've known each other, since we were children here in Chicago. This is what he said.
Probably what the Netziv means is the etzem levisha of the bigdei kehuda [not the making of them] is the necessary hachana that made Aaron hakohen more muchsher for kedusha and avodos hakohanim.

Harav Gedaliah, l'aniyus daati, is right and wrong.  He is right in what he says, because the Netziv does say אשר מלאתי את אהרן רוח חכמה והוא יבין וישכיל מכח הבגדים איך שהם פועלים על לבו. But if that's all the Netziv said, it would be fine.  The problem is that he goes on to say 

מש״ה נצטוה בזה משה בעצמו שידבר אל כל חכמי לב. ולא בצלאל שזה הפרט אינו נוגע לחכמות המלאכה אלא לחכמת המוסר:
But the truth is, he could still be right.Somehow, and I don't know how, the pshat is that the way they were made is po'eil on Aharon to become more kadosh.  In other words, they are more than a machshir, they are poeil al leiv Aharon, which is equivalent to things that have kedusha.  But then one might say the same thing about Matzah and Tzitzis.  Or, as I mentioned above, we can be mechaleik between tashmishei mitzva and tashmishei kedusha. I've  reached the end of the road. Either approach seems valid.  In any case, one thing I do know- that sometimes, more lishma means a better mitzvah.

6 comments:

  1. It could be that the idea of "more lishma" is only by mitzvos that have a kedusha component. Perhaps by matza this won't apply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. He does say כ״ד שבקדושה. This would exclude, for example, Tzitzis. It's interesting, though, that whether Bigdei Kehuna bichlal are more like Klei Shoreis or like Tzitzis is a machlokes rishonim brought in the MLM in Klei Hamikdash 8:5, as follows:
      ובגדי כ"ג שבלו גונזין אותם.... ובגדי כהונה אם יש להם דין כלי שרת עיין בתוס' קידושין (דף כ"ד) שכתבו שאם עדיין לא נתחנכו אין להם דין קדושת כלי שרת אלא קדושת בד"ה אבל אם נתחנכו יש להן דין כלי שרת שקדושים קדושת הגוף אך הריטב"א שם חולק בזה וסבירא ליה דאינן קדושת הגוף ככלי שרת שהרי אין משתמשין בהן בגופם ומכשירי עבודה הם ודינן כקדושת דמים ע"כ. Of course it's very likely that the Netziv is going with Tosfos in Kiddushin that they are klei shoreis, i.e., that they are devorim kedoshim.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Thank you. I appreciate the "shkoiach" especially since this all started because I was so sure of something that turned out to be wrong. Ein adam omeid....
      Have a good Shabbos.

      Delete
  3. Thank you so much for including my thoughts in your post. I certainly would have also thought that lishma is “yes/no” but the proofs to the contrary are indisputable. This reminds me of a somewhat related incident. When I was in Yeshiva a chassidishe bachur quoted the saying that if tevila in a mikva can make a gentile into a Jew imagine what it can do to someone who is already Jewish. I replied sarcastically “if a Maaseh Kiddushin can make a single woman into a married woman imagine what it can do to a woman who is already married”. My implication, of course, was that certain things are “yes/no”. A mikva can make a gentile into a Jew and a tamei Jew into a tahor Jew. Who says it does anything to an already tahor Jew? The Rosh Yeshiva, who happenned to be standing there, said that although in sevara I was correct, we see from the kohen gadol’s multiple tevillos on Yom Kippur that in fact I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome.
      The shakla vetarya by tevilla has happened to all of us, but I never heard your Rosh Yeshiva's answer. The kal vachomer is still wrong, and you could ding zach on the raya from Yom Kippur because five tvilos and ten kiddushim is a gzeiras hakasuv davka for meshaneh meiavoda leavoda on yom kippur. But it's still a good answer.

      Delete