Behar, Vayikra 25:3. Shmittah, Shabbos, and Working for a Living.

The Torah says that we will plant and harvest for six years, and then in the seventh year, we will let the land rest.  שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמֹר כַּרְמֶךָ וְאָסַפְתָּ, אֶת תְּבוּאָתָהּ.  וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ.  The Lubavitcher in his first Likutei Sichos asks, why say that you will work for the six years?  Just say that the seventh year is assur!  Same thing by Shabbos Breishis, Saturday— work six days, and on Shabbos don’t work.  All that is necessary is to teach us the special laws pertaining to the seventh year and to the seventh day!  

 He answers that there are two avodos man has;  one is to be mevareir the gashmius, that is, to suffuse gashmius with ruchnius through kiyum hamitzvos in this world, and that is the avodah of the weekdays and of the six years.  The other is to draw one's self close to Hashem in a way of lema’ala miderech hateva.  The weekday work is called Avodas Elokim, because ‘Elokim ‘ is gematria ‘hateva.’  The avodah of Shabbos is Avodah of (Yud Kei Vov Kei) Hashem, which is lema’ala miderech hateva.  He says that each avodah depends on the other.  Only a person that is mekadeish gashmius a whole week can come to Shabbos and rise above the teva, and only a person who is elevated by the kedushas Shabbos can be mekadeish the gashmius.

R’ Moshe in his original Dorash (the first Hebrew one and not the one I translated that was later printed in Hebrew) says that the lesson is that in the six years you cannot be someich ahl haneis, you can't rely on miracles, but instead you must plan and work.  In the seventh year, you are obligated to rely on miracles, you must be someich ahl haneis, as the Torah tells us “v’nasati es birkasi.”  This is a mussar haskeil that a person should not say that if he davens properly and is kovei’a ittim it will eat into his parnassah; the Torah teaches us that we should be kovei’a itim and the Torah says we should daven.  In the time you should be working, you must work, but in the time you should be learning and davenning, you must be someich on the Ribbono shel Olam that the ultimate yield will be at least as great as it would be if you skipped the mitzvos.

Note that ‘ultimate yield’ can mean many things; it can mean equal income, or fewer sudden losses or illnesses, or being satisfied with less, and so on.  As I've discussed elsewhere,  the the Gemara in Eiruvin 18  brings the pasuk in Parshas Noach, Breishis 8:11,  that says “omro yona...”  Let my food be bitter as olives from the hand of Hashem, rather than sweet as honey from the hands of man.  I explained that although hashgachas Hashem predetermines whether a person will have enough to eat, it does not necessarily guarantee that the quality, or the quantity, or the pleasantness of the food will be the same as it otherwise would be.  The Yonah said “I realize that by choosing to subsist directly from the yad Hashem I might have to settle for food that is as bitter as olives, while if I shnorr from Noach I would get food that is as sweet as honey, but I prefer the yad Hashem.”  This is also clear in the Gemora in Sahnedrin 20a that says that in the generation of R’ Yehuda B’reb Ila’i that was characterized by universal limud hatorah, “hoyu sisha miskasim betallis echad.”  The point is that what we think of as the bottom line is not the bottom line.  There are many lines under it!  The raw number that indicates ‘income’ is not absolute or interchangeable with other similar numbers!  A person might have a high income but high tzaros, or be audited, or have tremendous personal expenses for unexpected needs or even meshugasen.  Here, Hashem promises that the bottom line will not suffer because of the person’s keeping the mitzvos.

This lesson reinforces something we've discussed in the past.  The Chasam Sofer says that  the reason the Bris Milah is on the eighth day is to ensure that the child experience the beginning of a Shabbos and the end of a Shabbos.  We explained that every Jewish child needs to learn that there is a Shabbos and there is a Motzei Shabbos.  Just as the kedusha of Shabbos is essential, so, too, the work week, the mundane activities we undertake, must be imbued with the kedusha of Shabbos.

Tazria, Vayikra 12:3. Bris Mila on the Eigth Day

The Taz (YD 265 SK 13) brings a Medrash that says the reason the Bris Mila is on the eighth day, and the reason one cannot bring an animal sacrifice until eight days after it is born, is that Hashem says "Do not come before me until you have appeared before/seen My Matron."  The "matron" here refers to Shabbos.  The Torah requires the eight day wait to ensure that at least one Shabbos will have passed before the special day.  At my oldest son's bris, Reb Moshe (as partially cited in Kol Rom III p. 395) connected this to the requirement that Aharon and his sons, at their original investiture in the Mishkan,  had seven days of Miluim and could only do the avoda on the eighth day.  Similarly, the Kohen Gadol is relocated from his home to a chamber on the Har Habayis for seven days before Yom Kippur.

What does this Medrash teach us?

1.  Only Hashem can allow us to serve Him, and He does so by stating the manner and granting us the means of doing so. Reb Moshe said that we learn two things: that we cannot invent novel means of serving Hashem.  Hashem can only be served in a manner that He expressly sanctions.  Anything else is "Sh'chutei Chutz," as if we brought a sacrifice outside the Beis Hamikdash, which is a cardinal sin.  The second thing is that we can only approach Hashem after we have been imbued with a special kedusha, and it is only only after going through  Shabbos that is one changed by a kedusha that makes avodas Hashem possible.

2.  Bris Mila is a form of Korban.  That Bris Mila shares certain characteristics of a sacrifice.  Indeed, the Abarbanel says that the bris is a type of Korban.  The reason it is done lechatchila on the eighth day and not later is because every korban needs to be without blemish, physically perfect.  But this korban has less to do with the physical as it does with the spiritual.  Thus, mila should be done on a neshama that is spiritually perfect.  This is best done as soon as possible after birth, before the child has a chance to do what people are wont to do.  Seize the moment when the neshama is still perfect.

3(a)1.  Kedusha that leaves a residual effect elevates us; Kedusha that does not leave a residual effect degrades us.  What does Tumah come from?  Or rather, what brings about Tumah?  The Zohar (see Shem MiShmuel Tazria, years '74-5) says that all Tumah comes from the departure of Kedusha.  The way the Baal Ha'akeida (brought in Malbim "Torah Ohr" beginning of Chukas) puts it is so:

אחר שכל דבד אשר יופסד הוא נתהפך אל הדבר היותר רע, ויותר נמאס, מן השורש הזה נמשכו דיני טומאה, כי המיתה הוא הפסד בעה״ח או הצומח, וכשימות האילן שאין בו רק נפש צומחת, נתהוה ממנו רקב ועפר, ואין בו שום טומאה, אבל כשיופסד הבע״ח שיש בו נפש חיונית יקרא נבלה, ויש בה טומאת מגע ומשא, אולם כשיופסד האדם השומר תורה ומצות שיש בו נפש אלקית, נבלתו פחותה ומאוסה יותר מפגרי בע״ח, ויש בו טומאת אוהל וטומאת שבעה

Life is kedusha.  When life leaves any living being, the remains can be tamei.  When the spirit of Hashem leaves a human being, his body causes the greatest tumah.  When a woman ends the time she might conceive a child, she becomes a Niddah.  When a woman gives birth, and the extra neshama of the child leaves her, and she is t'mei'ah.  A Metzora is tamei, because he has lost his connection to Klal Yisrael.

So, why  it that a bris milah can only take place after experiencing the kedusha of Shabbos?  On the contrary!  True, the experience of Shabbos invests us with kedusha, but shouldn't the departure of Shabbos result in Tumah?  We have a neshama ye'seira on Shabbos.   When it leaves us, shouldn't it bring Tumah in its wake? (also discussed in the Shem MiShmuel.)  Life =Kedusha; Life ends, Tuma enters. Shabbos=Kedusha; Shabbos ends...... what should happen?

The answer is that when life departs, it leaves nothing behind.  If anything, the object that has lost its life is worse than if it had never lived.  That is not the case with kedusha.  When kedusha leaves, some effect remains.

3(a)2.  The greater the Tzadik, the greater the residual effect of his Kedusha.  There has been a recurring assertion that the bodies of tzadikim gemurim do not become tamei.  See, for example, Rabbeinu Chaim Kohen brought in Tosfos Kesuvos 103b DH Oso, and the Medrash brought in Tosfos Bava Metzia 114b, middle of the page, though Tosfos disagrees, and the Ramban in Chukas about Missas Neshika;  The issue was exhaustively covered and conclusively laid to rest by Rabbi Marcus Spielman in his Tziyun L'Nefesh Tzvi, Brooklyn, 1976, in which he brings hundreds of mekoros on the topic, and more importantly the sefer has haskamos from Reb Moshe, Reb Yaakov, Rav Rudderman, Rav Hutmer, and Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in which they all unequivocally state that le'halacha, we are not someich at all on the shittas hamatirim.  (See a very nice review of the sources here.)  But the point is that there seems to be some concept that there is less tuma on the bodies of Tzadikim.  Why would this be so?  On the contrary.  According to the Akeida and the Zohar, there should be more!  The answer is that Tzadikim convert their bodies into holy things, and even after their death, their bodies retain kedusha.  The Malbim cited above says something very similar, as does the Shmaitsa in the Hakdama.

3(b).  Each and every Shabbos is an opportunity to incorporate and concretize the spiritual growth of the previous week.  When I was in Yeshiva, my Mashgiach and Rebbi, Reb Dovid Kronglas, knew that I hadn't gone to the Mikva before Rosh Hashanna and he knew why:  I am of Lithuanian derivation, and going to the Mikva was not something men did.  So he came over to me and said, "Elezer, it is kedai to go to the mikva, it is brought in Shulchan Aruch, and every baal teshuva is required to go to the mikva, just as a geir must go to the mikva."  I'm not sure it was he who added that "If tvila can make a goy into a Jew, imagine what it can do for a Jew!"  I, being who I am, immediately decided that the example of a ger is irrelevant, because while going once can have an enormous effect, there is no difference between going once and going a million times.  It's like annealing clay: once it's been in the kiln, it's not going to get any harder if you put it into the kiln another time.  Or it's like hechsher for tuma.  Once it was touched by water, it's muchshar forever.

Of course, I was wrong, and it's certainly a minhag tov to go to the mikva, at least once every year or two.  But I'm not sure about the effect of Shabbos.  We see from the Medrash that experiencing Shabbos is an enormously powerful spiritual event that forever changes whatever it touches.  It makes a person fit to serve Hashem.  It even makes a non-sentient animal fit to be offered as a sacrifice.  But we don't see from the Medrash that the second Shabbos has any effect at all.

But according to what Reb Moshe said at the bris, it changes the whole meaning of the Medrash.  If the idea of Pnei Matronisa applies to the Milu'im, then it must be that Shabbos enables growth in Kedusha not only for a newborn, but even for old wrung out shmattehs.  Each and every Shabbos is an opportunity to incorporate and concretize the spiritual growth you worked for during that week.

4.  You can make a Shalom Zachar on Yomtov instead of Shabbos. The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe Parshas Emor DH Mimacharas, the third one with that DH) says that if there's a Yomtov after the baby is born that comes before Shabbos, then the Yomtov does the same thing that Shabbos normally does.  Theoretically, then, (according to the Taz in 265 brought in the beginning of this piece,) you ought to have the Shalom Zachar on the Yomtov and not wait till Shabbos.  But it's best not to mix people up, unless you live in a community of Talmidei Chachamim who would enjoy the azus panim more than worry about the minhag.

5.  It's a good thing Shalom Zachars are not by invitation only.  This last piece, which speaks of the Shalom Zachar, is interesting, but best left in Yiddish, because it might lead to some very lonely Friday nights.

דער חידושי הרי״ם איז אמאל אריינגעקומען אויף שלום זכר.  האט ער זיך ארומגעקוקט און געזאגט מיט גרויס התלהבות: דאס ענין פון שלום זכר איז דאך מקבל צו זיין פני מטרוניתא פארן ברית, באדארף מען זען, אז עם זאל ניט זיין ווער פון די ד׳ כתות וועלכע זיינען ניט מקבל פני שכינה.

~

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.

Obviously, this makes the Gemara's promise less exciting.  The one consolation is offered by the Pri Megadim in his sefer "Sefer HaMagid" Volume III Drush 7 at the end, where he says that if the Middos require "being," the members of the tzibbur are viewed as one- one might contribute "Rachum," another "Chanun," etc., because it's very unlikely that one person will have all the 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.

~

Trumah, Shemos 25:18. A Socratic Dvar Torah about the Kruvim

Here are four questions. These are not questions that misdirect or require knowledge of obscure facts. Any student of the Chumash will, with a little thought, find the answers to these questions. This process will help you realize something fundamental about the character and nature of the Kruvim.

1. Everyone is familiar with the Kruvim that stood atop the Aron Kodesh in the Mishkan. People who are ma’avir sedra also know of the Kruvim that were woven into the inside layer of the cover of the Mishkan. But where else in the Torah are Kruvim mentioned?

2. In what sense are the other Kruvim diametrically opposed to the Kruvim mentioned here?

3. In what sense is the purpose of the other Kruvim identical with that of the Kruvim mentioned here?

4. How do you understand the striking differences and similarities of the character and task of the Kruvim of the Mishkon and the other Kruvim?

UPDATE:
When I posted this, I posted only the questions and left the thinking to the reader. As it happened, one reader, an anonymous baal machshava, nailed the answers. Please see the comments for his answers to these questions. I still don't get why he/she would not use their name. Bishlema me, I need to latitude to post whatever I want without consequence. But I still don't get why a commenter would do that, and I am still consumed with curiosity as to who that anonymous was.