Ki Sisa, Shemos 30:12. Charity, Palindromes, and Chiasms.

Ki Sisa...Vna’se’nu. The beginning of the Parsha describes one of the several obligations for individuals to donate money for the public good. In discussing the mitzvah of tzedakah, the Gemara (Shabbos 151b) brings the following story:

 אמר לה רבי חייא לדביתהו כי אתי עניא אקדימי ליה ריפתא כי היכי דלקדמו לבניך אמרה ליה מילט קא לייטת להו אמר לה קרא קא כתיב כי בגלל הדבר הזה ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל גלגל הוא שחוזר בעולם 

R Chiya told his wife to give bread to the poor even before they ask, so that her descendants would be helped in a similar way when they are hungry, that they would be offered sustenance before they had to shame themselves by asking. She was taken aback by her husband's words, and asked if he was cursing her by saying that her descendants would be beggars! He answered that he was not cursing her, he was just being honest about the inevitable: poverty is an inexorable cycle, a גלגל החוזר בעולם . (See also Yevamos 63a about R’ Chiya and his wife.)

The Gaon, brought in Pninim MeShulchan HaGra uses this to as an explanation for the cantillation (trop) on the word ונתנו, which is kadma v’azla, literally, proceeding and receding. The point is that the mercy one shows others will redound to him and be shown to his descendants when they need mercy.

A less gloomy illustration of this idea is the Remez of the Baal Haturim here. The Baal Haturim notes that the word ונתנו is a palindrome. He explains that the palindromic form symbolizes the fact that tzedakah rebounds towards the giver-- tzedakah does not cost the benefactor anything, because Hashem will bestow grace and kindness upon him (Mishlei 19:17: מלוה ה' חונן דל וגמלו ישלם לו.  He has lent to Hashem, one who is gracious to the poor, and He (Hashem) will repay him.)

There is a wonderful vort from the Rama MiPano ( in Maamar Chikur Hadin 3:20 who calls it אחד מן הרמזים הנחמדי׳ בכפל מלת צדקה שהוא בא"ת ב"ש צדקה אחרת ) and the Shelah (in his Maseches Megilla Amud Hatzedaka, d’h “Yeish mefazeir venosaf”, not in his general tzedaka pieces) on the same topic. I'm saying over the Shelah, because that's where I saw it first, and because he speaks about this at greater length.  He begins by saying that he holds that you can’t test Hashem by giving monetary tithes-Maiser Ksafim- and expecting wealth, because that only is guaranteed with with tithes of wheat, Maiser Tevuah, and being meyasheiv the Tur that seems to hold not like that.  Then he brings the Gemara in Shabbos 151 that Reb Elazar Hakapar says that the word 'biglal' in “בגלל הדבר הזה” refer to poverty-aniyus, because poverty is a “גלגל החוזר בעולם”, and 'biglal' is related to 'galgal.'  He then explains that the words galgal hachozeir mean that “צדקה בא"ת ב"ש חוזר ג"כ לאותיות צדקה, זהו גלגל חוזר.” (Aht Bash is an exigetical formula that pairs and equates each letter with a letter at the opposite end of the alphabet, so Aleph is paired with Taph, Beis with Shin, etc., so Aht is Alpeh/Taph, Bash is Beis/shin, Gar Dak Hatz vahp, etc.) This means that the structure of the word ‘tzedaka’ shows its nature. The outside letters, tzadi and hey, are an Aht Bash pair, and the inside letters, daled and kuf are an Aht Bash pair: in the aht bash formula, tzadi equals hey, and daled equals kuf. So the letters of Tzedakah proceed toward the middle, and are repeated, in a different form but with the same essence, as in a mirror, on the other side, like the word ABBA-- It's a Palindrome! The word Tzedakah is an Aht Bash Palindrome! This is because tzedaka reflects back tzidkas Hashem on the giver, malveh Hashem chonen dal, aseir beshvil shetisasher (in this world or the next, according to the Shelah.)

This is not to say that one should give charity out of "selfish altruism." The Torah teaches us to deeply feel the needs of others and to react with kindness and mercy. The point is that the giving of charity benefits the benefactor no less than the beneficiary, both in an abstract and in a concrete manner.

NOTES AND ADDENDA

1. When I told this to my shiur in October 2005/end of ‘65, Reb Benny Singer pointed out that the three leaders of Klal Yisroel at one time all had palindrome names– Yishai, Dovid, and Nosson Hanovi. I’m sure it is just a coincidence, and no more significant than the names אסא or גוג or Yehoshua's father נון, or things like שמש, גג, סוס, לול, תות, and שיש, but it’s interesting.

Thank you, Rabbi Dr. Eli, for pointing out the passuk in Shmuel II:5:14 and Divrei Hayamim I:3:5 that says that one of Dovid Hamelech's sons was named Nassan as well-

ואלה שמות הילדים לו בירושלם:  שמוע ושובב ונתן ושלמה

and

ואלה נולדו לו בירושלים:  שמעא ושובב ונתן ושלמה ארבעה לבת שוע בת עמיאל

so the three consecutive generations were ישי,דוד, ונתן, all palindromes. Unfortunately, we don't know the names of Nassan's sons.  In light of these three consecutive generations, we probably can forget about it being a coincidence, though its significance remains obscure.

2. Here are some more Hebrew Palindromes, often attributed to the Ibn Ezra. Allegedly, the Ibn Ezra was asked whether whether pieces of bees that are in honey make it treif. He was mattir, because
פרשנו רעבתן שבדבש נתבער ונשרף
which means "we have explained that the consumer in honey (the bee) is consumed and incinerated." this is also a Magic Square- it is the same in four directions:

פ ר ש נ ו

ר ע ב ת ן

ש ב ד ב ש

נ ת ב ע ר

ו נ ש ר ף

Another palindrome:
דעו מאביכם כי לא בוש אבוש שוב אשוב אליכם כי בא מועד
and
?אבי אל חי שמך למה מלך משיח לא יבא

3. Here are two more Palindromes which are Magic Squares, both from Harav Dr. Avrohom Isenberg Shlitah of Chicago and his father, Harav Tzvi Hirsh zatzal, both Dikduk Gurus:

משה שמש השם

לבן בלב נבל


4. If you write out the vowels of the words, it would be nearly impossible to find a palindrome in Hebrew. This doesn't matter, though. It's a semiotic conceit, and it functions just fine in the written form, just as Gematria does not take vowels into consideration; even Reb Shimon that holds Yeish Eim LeMikra darshens Gematrios, though I can't think of any specifically at the moment.

5.  Besides palindromes, I mentioned At Bash א"ת ב"ש above.  I have nowhere better to put this, so here's a list of appearances of א"ת ב"ש that comes to mind.  If you know more, please let me know.

• Tosfos in Menachos 43b on the sugya of מאה ברכות בכל יום brings a yesh mefarshim that the word מה in מה ה' אלוקיך שואל מעמך, equals one hundred if you make it an א"ת ב"ש, because Mem = Yud/10 and Hey = Tzadik/90.  This is also found in the Machzor Vitri, where he says ויש או' מה בגימטרי' מאה בא"ת ב"ש ה"ץ י"ם שים צ' במקום ה"ו'" במקום "מ'" הרי י"ץ ונמצא מה בגימטריא מאה .
• The Tanchuma in Korach 16:12, and the Yalkut in הושע רמז תקלג:

כל תשא עון וקח טוב (הושע יד ג).רבי סימון אומר: כל תשא עוון וקח טוב. טוב בגימטרייה בא"ת ב"ש- נפש. אמרו ישראל: הרי חלבנו ממנו מנפשותינו. יהי רצון מלפניך שתהא כפרה עלינו, ונשלמה פרים שפתינו 

(Here, the word "Gematria" has nothing to do with numerical value, it just means using letters as code.)

• Rashi to Bamidbar 7:20, based on Bamidbar Rabba, 13:15-16, that Ketores is Gematria 613 but only after you switch the Kuf to a Beis through  א"ת ב"ש.
• The Zohar that says that the word מצוה is a remez to Hashem's name, because the מ and the צ become a י and a ה, and the last letters stay the same.
• Yirmiahu Hanavi, (see 51:1,) for some reason, used atbash to refer to, respectively, Bavel and the Kasdim, with the names ששך and  לב קמי .
• The Gemara in Shabbos 104a, has a lengthy drush that they heard from young children (אתו דרדקי האידנא לבי מדרשא ואמרו מילי דאפילו בימי יהושע בן נו"ן לא איתמר כוותייהו) on the letters of At Bash and other methods.
• פסיקתא רבתי מ"ג: א:  ויהי איש מן הרמתים צופים ושמו אלקנה בן ירוחם בן אליהו בן תוחו (שם א' א') אמר רבי יוחנן לשון גימטריקון הוא תחו הוא אסף א"ת ב"ש ת"א ח"ס ו"ף

א"ת ב"ש אותי תעב אתאוה לו ב"ש בי לא חשק שמי יחול עליו ג"ר גופו טימא ארחם עליו ד"ק דלתותי נעל קרניו לא אגדע עד כאן מדת רשעים אבל מדת צדיקים א"ת ב"ש אם אתה בוש ג"ר ד"ק אם אתה עושה כן גור בדוק ה"ץ ו"ף חציצה הוי בינך לאף ז"ע ח"ס ט"ן ואין אתה מזדעזע מן השטן י"ם כ"ל אמר [שר של] גיהנם לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם לים כל אמר הקב"ה אח"ס בט"ע גי"ף אני חס עליהם מפני שבעטו בגי"ף דכ"ץ דכים הם כנים הם צדיקים הם הל"ק אין לך חלק בהן ומרז"ן ש"ת אמר גיהנם לפניו רבונו של עולם מרי זניני מזרעו של שת א"ל א"ל ב"ם ג"ן ד"ס להיכן אוליכן לגן הדס ה"ע ו"ף אמר גיהנם לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם עיף אנכי ז"ץ ח"ק הללו זרעו של יצחק ט"ר י"ש כ"ת טר יש לי כיתות כיתות של <עובדי כוכבים> {אומות העולם} שאני נותן לך:

• The Daas Zkainim in Vayechi.  Thank you Reb Yitzchak Perlmutter.  The Daas Zkainim says that there is a remez in the word Vayomer that the messenger was Ephraim, because Vayomer is an anagram of Ephraim other than the Vov in Vayomer and the Phei in Ephraim, which are the same letter under At Bash.

 ויאמר ליוסף אז״ל זה אפרים ואומר הרב משה זכר לדבר כי אותיות ויאמר כאותיות אפרים בהתחלף וא״ו בפ״א דו׳יו מתחלפת בפ״א באלפא ביתא דא״ת ב״ש

• Also from Reb Yitzchak; Rabbeinu Bechaya in Devarim 28:10 says that the Shin on the Shel Rosh, and the Shin that begins Shir Hashirim, is At Bash Gematria of the four letter name of Hashem.  This is also brought in the Beis Yosef in OC 32 from the R'I Iskandarani.  

• I was asked to include this.  I don't think it belongs here, but I am your humble servant.

There is a famous calender use of At Bash, first noted in the Tur OC 428 (not counting day 7,) which connects the day of the week upon which the days of Pesach occur with the day of the week other holidays will occur during the forthcoming year (example, this year, the first day of Pesach will be on Monday, so Tisha Ba'av will be on a Monday as well) except for Purim which is of the previous month, not the following year, as follows:
Alef (1st day of Pesach) = Tav, Tishah B’Av
Beis (2nd day) = Shin, Shavu’os
Gimel (3rd day) = Reish, Rosh HaShanah (and first day of Sukkos and Shmini Atzeres)
Dalet (4th day) = Kof, K‘rias HaTorah (“Torah reading”, i.e. Simchas Torah outside of Eretz Yisrael)
Hay (5th day) = Tzaddi, Tzom (“Fast”, i.e. Yom Kippur and Tzom Gedaliah)
Vav (6th day) = Pay (the previous Purim)
Zayin (7th day) = Ayin, (Yom) Atzma’ut or the fifteenth of Av, when there was a yomtov for finishing the preparation of the wood for the Ma'arach in the Mikdash, called the Yomtov of עצי המערכה.

• Chiastic structures.  The Chiastic Structure is a kind of  א"ת ב"ש in which words or concepts are organized in A,B,C...C,B,A pattern or ABBAABBA pattern.  The word comes from the Greek letter khi, or ches, which is shaped like an X.  This is used in many types of literature, and we find it in the Torah as well.  In spoken words, it can be effective and memorable, such as Kennedy's "Ask not what you country can do for you; ask, instead, what you can do for your country."  I came across one fellow who seems to have become infatuated with the form.) Whatever purpose it serves elsewhere is not the focus of this discussion.  In the Torah, it is clearly intended to highlight a mirroring of concepts and centrality of one focal idea.  I am indebted to Rabbi David Fohrman for discovering and disseminating those that follow.  Rabbi Fohrman's lectures are available at his website, alephbeta.org.  This one is from his drasha on Pekudei.

(A) Shemos 24:15-16  The Hashraas HaShechina represented by a cloud with fire inside resting on Har Sinai, and Moshe entering the cloud.
(B) 25 to 31:15 Command to build Mishkan.
(C) 31:15-17 Mitzva of Shabbos.
(X) 32-35  First Luchos and Eigel HaZahav and Second Luchos
(C) 35:2  Mitzva of Shabbos
(B) 35:3.... Description of Mishkan
(A) 40:33-34 The Hasraas HaShechina represented by a cloud resting on the Mishkan, and the pillar of Fire at night, and Moshe was not able to enter the Mishkan because of the Cloud.

Within the narrative of the Eigel, the X in the structure, you find an internal X.
32:31 we find, for the first time in the Torah, the word ויקהל, where the people gathered to demand from Aharon a replacement for Moshe Rabbeinu- the Eigel HaZahav.
35:1, after the kappara for the Eigel, the word ויקהל appears for the second time, where Moshe gathers the people and tells them to observe Shabbos.

Another example he gives is in Lech Lecha, where the Chiasm involves
(A) Avram falling on his face
     (B) Told he will be a father
         (C) Name change from Avram to Avraham
              (D) The word והפרתי
                  (E) Eternal covenant
                       (X) God/Land/God
                       (X) Covenant
                       (X) Circumcision/Covenant/Circumcision
                  (E) Eternal Covenant
             (D) The word הפר
         (C) Name change from Sarai to Sarah
     (B) Told Sara will be a mother
(A) Avraham falling on his face.

And finally, R Jesse Stone just printed a book that develops the chiastic structure formed by Yosef and Moshe Rabbeinu.  Stated most simply: Yosef started as a shepherd, became a prince, and brought Klal Yisrael to Mitzrayim. Moshe started as a prince, became a shepherd, and took Klal Yisrael out of Mitzrayim.  

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.

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.

Ki Sisa, Shemos 30:34. The Ketores.

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.

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.

Why 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.   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?  99% of the meforshim hold there are two issurim: 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.  

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.   It is a time honored custom among Sfardim and Mekubalim to read the parsha from klaf. There are mekoros for this.  Rav  Moshe ibn Machir writes this in his Seder HaYom.  (Our version of Modeh Ani was introduced by him in this 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

החושש עליו ועל נפשו ראוי להשתדל בכל עוז בענין הזה ולכתוב כל ענין הקטורת בקלף כשר בכתיבת אשורית ולקרות אותו פעם אחת 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 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 בריך הוא, דכל מאן דאסתכל וקרי בכל יומא עובדא (נ"א פרשתא) 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 בריך הוא, הוו נטלי כל מלה ומלה מניה, והוו סלקי לה עטרה על רישייהו ככתרא דדהבא, ומאן דאשתדל ביה, בעי לאסתכלא בעובדא דקטרת, ואי יכוון ביה בכל יומא, אית ליה חולקא בהאי עלמא ובעלמא דאתי, ויסתלק מותנא מניה ומעלמא, וישתזיב מכל דינין דהאי עלמא, מסטרין בישין ומדינא דגיהנם ומדינא דמלכו אחרא.

Reb Chaim Falagi's Kaf Hachaim, also says this.

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.

OLD CHATTY VERSION:

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 issurim: 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 universally held in the highest respect called Seder HaYom.  (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

החושש עליו ועל נפשו ראוי להשתדל בכל עוז בענין הזה ולכתוב כל ענין הקטורת בקלף כשר בכתיבת אשורית ולקרות אותו פעם אחת 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 בריך הוא, דכל מאן דאסתכל וקרי בכל יומא עובדא (נ"א פרשתא) 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 בריך הוא, הוו נטלי כל מלה ומלה מניה, והוו סלקי לה עטרה על רישייהו ככתרא דדהבא, ומאן דאשתדל ביה, בעי לאסתכלא בעובדא דקטרת, ואי יכוון ביה בכל יומא, אית ליה חולקא בהאי עלמא ובעלמא דאתי, ויסתלק מותנא מניה ומעלמא, וישתזיב מכל דינין דהאי עלמא, מסטרין בישין ומדינא דגיהנם ומדינא דמלכו אחרא.

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.

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 eliezere@aol.com  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.
~
~

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.

~