Shlach, Bamidbar 14:34. Yom Le'Shana- A Year of Exile for each Day.

great unknown once told me a vort, which he heard in Ner Israel when it was still on Garrison Boulevard, which means many, many years ago.  I have since seen it attributed to Reb Eizikel Charif.

It says here that the punishment was “yom leshana,” a year of wandering in the desert for each day that the spies were in the Land of Israel  (14:34).  The Meraglim were in Israel forty days, so they were doomed to wander in the desert for forty years.  (Rashi in 14:33 explains that even though the Meraglim event was in year 2, the 40 was counted from the Eigel, in year one, and the partial year after the Eigel counted as year one.) Now, Klal Yisrael left Mitzrayim on the 15th of Nissan, and went into Eretz Yisroel on the 10th of Nissan, which means that they weren’t in the desert a whole 40 years, but were given 4 days off. Also, even if they had gone straight from Mitzrayim to Eretz Yisroel, it would have taken them 11 days, so those eleven days have to be subtracted.  The net result is that they got 15 days off of the forty year sentence.  Why?

The passuk in 13:3, talking about the Meraglim as they began their mission, describes them as "Anashim."  Rashi says that Anashim in Tanach expresses chashivus, social prominence and spiritual eminence.  Considering what soon transpired, this is a surprising way to describe the Meraglim.  Rashi, therefore, explains that Be'osa Sha'a, kesheirim hayu- at that hour, the first hour of their mission, they were kasher, they were upstanding and good. 

And with this, he said, we can answer the question:  If the punishment was “yom lashana”, 24 hours equals 12 months, two hours equals one month, and one hour equals half a month.  Since “be’osah sha’ah kesheirim hayu,” that one hour’s worth, fifteen days, was subtracted.

Who, you wonder, was Reb Eizikel, or Isaac'l, Charif?  My father Zatzal, who spent the majority of the waking hours of his life either learning or helping Talmidei Chachamim, loved to say things he heard in Reb Aizikel's name.  (Charif is pronounced with a patach, not a kametz, and it's mi'le'eil, not like the hot pepper sauce.  Cha' rif.)  The problem is that there were two people that were called that.

• There was the Rav of Pietrekov.  His name was Yitzchak Charif.  You can see a little sefer of his ksavim here, printed by his grandson in 1940, and, according to the grandson's introduction, having been written around one hundred years before he printed it.  The copy linked to was photographed from the Lubavitcher library; also see the haskama from Rav Sonnenfeld, (in which he refers to the author as Reb Yitzchak'l Charif) next to Rav Kook's haskama.  It reminded me that Rav Kook's kever on Har Hamenuchos is right next to or one away from that of Amram Bloi, not that chas veshalom I'm comparing any two people in this paragraph to each other.
• And there was this Reb Izele Charif, whose family name wasn't Charif, but the adjective was so appropriate that it became his name anyway:  (From Shlomo Katz's Hamaayan on Torah.org) R' Yehoshua Isaac Shapiro z"l
  ("Reb Eizel Charif") R' Eizel was born in 1801 in Glubki, near Vilna, and his first teacher was his father, R' Yechiel. R' Eizel was a child prodigy whose genius was recognized by the age of seven, and he was soon nicknamed, "The Iron Head" (presumably because he never forgot what he learned). He later earned the nickname "Charif" / "The Sharp One," although he claimed, in his humility, that it was only an acronym of "Chatan Reb Yitzchak Fein" / "son-in-law of R' Yitzchak Fein."
  
  At one point, R' Eizel was a disciple of the chassidic rebbe, R' Aharon of Staroselya (a leading disciple of Chabad's founder, R' Shneur Zalman), but he later became a critic of chassidut. He also studied in the famed Blumke's kloiz in Minsk, where, it is said, he used to review the entire Talmud every month. In 1832, R' Eizel was appointed rosh yeshiva and darshan / preacher in Minsk's Kloiz Chevra Kadisha.
  
  R' Eizel received semichah / ordination from R' Abale, the av bet din / chief rabbinical judge of Vilna, and through the latter's recommendation was appointed a dayan / rabbinical judge in Kalvaria, Lithuania. After 1839, he held rabbinic positions in Kutna and Tiktin.
  In 1853, R' Eizel was appointed rabbi of Slonim, the town with which he his associated for posterity. In every town where he served, R' Eizel somehow found time, despite his superhuman schedule of learning and writing, to engage in numerous communal and charitable activities. In addition, many dinei Torah / legal disputes were brought to R' Eizel for resolution, and he was one of the three judges appointed to rule on the dispute involving the leadership of the Volozhin Yeshiva.
  R' Eizel's nickname, "Charif," alludes in part to his sharp sense of humor, which he readily used to humble those who he felt needed humbling and to criticize those whose scholarship was not up to par with the standard that he expected of Torah leaders. (Chassidic rebbes were frequent subjects of his witticisms.) In particular, R' Eizel was adept at making puns or plays on the words of verses and Talmudic statements.
  R' Eizel died in 1873, leaving 11 works including Emek Yehoshua, Nachalat Yehoshua and a commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud, Noam Yerushalmi. Many of his derashot are in the style of the 18th century Parashat Derachim, explaining midrashic stories and actions of biblical figures in halachic terms. All exhibit a wide-ranging knowledge of halachah, midrash and Tanach. 

     I once had the pleasure of hosting the Gadol Batorah Rabbi Yankel Drillman.  He told me another thing from Reb Aizikel.  Someone brought Reb Aizekel a sefer for a haskama, and he refused.  The shliach kept insisting, and said, "But this Rebbe and that Rebbe gave me haskamos, why won’t you?"  Reb Aizikel answered, as a Litvak would, that “Onu maskimim, ve’heim maskimim.  Onu maskimim ledivrei torah, ve’heim maskimim lidvorim be'teilim."

If  you have something from Reb Aizikel, I would love to hear it.

Another story about a haskama.  Late one night, Reb Eizekel's rebbetzin heard him pacing back and forth, muttering under his breath.  She went into the room, and heard that he was saying "Besser unter der barg! Besser unter der barg!"  "Reb Eizekel," she said, "what do you mean by that?"  He answered "Reb Ploni left me a sefer because he wanted a haskama from me.  I went through his sefer, and I remembered that when Hashem picked up the mountain and told Bnei Yisrael that if they accept the Torah, then fine, but if they don't, He will drop the mountain on them and they would be buried there.  And I say, if this is the Torah, then Besser unter der barg!"
~

Shlach and Kavod Hatorah

In scholarly journals, the first citation of an individual's name is complete: Mr./Dr./Professor/Rabbi/Cantor Ploni Baumvulshpinner. Thereafter, the citation is only to the surname-- Baumvulshpinner. Some Modern Orthodox scholarly journals adhere to this protocol as well, which is why we often see citations to Karelitz, Soloveitchik, Kotler, Kamenetsky, and Feinstein.

I have always found this unpleasant, certainly not kevod hatorah, perhaps even bizayon hatorah. Yes, it is the standard form of citation in scholarly papers and journals, but I felt that because in our tradition one always refers to an Adam Gadol by his given name and with an honorific (Sanhedrin 82a and 100a and the Margalios Hayam on Sanhedrin 102a; Bamidbar Rabba 18:7; Shemos Rabba 52:2; Shmuel I:20; Sotah 35a* ), to not do so was just another example of a mah yafiskideh aping (aping: shameless mimicry, often with absurd result; Yiddish- Nochmachen vi a malpeh) of foreign manners and mores. Like saying imitatio dei instead of ve'halachta bidrachav.

BUT, eventually I realized how jejune and provincial a criticism this is. In this week's parsha we actually find that Moshe Rabbeinu's own brother in law, one of his greatest disciples, does exactly this: see Rashi in Bamidbar 13:30. From here we see that this form of referring to Gedolei Yisrael has an ancient provenance among the Jews.

*Mar'ei me'komos credit to Beis Aharon from R. Aharon Maggid, NY tof shin choph zayin, vol 4 p. 265.

Here is another example: The leader of the Shevet of Shimon, also refers to Moshe Rabbeinu by his last name: The Gemara in Sanhedrin 82a says that Zimri ben Salu, the Nasi of the tribe of Shimon. and no doubt an honorable man, called Moshe Rabbeinu "Ben Amram."
~

Coincidentally, Rabbi Yitchok Adlerstein just posted an article on a similar topic: the monstrous and, ultimately, sterile Chimera created by the application the methodology and attitudes of modern scholarly analysis to issues of Hashkafa and halacha.
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2009/06/19/conversion-standards-hockey-bats-and-the-academic-approach-to-halacha/
~
And for you horror buffs-- for a skin-crawling experience, here's a download of a recent article that illustrates the problem of iconoclasts masking as preservationists- ironically, Kalev's strategy employed in pursuit of exactly the opposite result.
http://www.bmj.org.il/pdf/books/Sperber_ln.pdf
His basic thesis is that Rashi, nebach neither a historian nor a scholar of Greek or Latin, didn't understand the Gemara, the Amora'im didn't understand the Tana'im, and the Tana'im didn't have clue as to the sociological mileu of the Dor Hamidbar and therefore misunderstood Moshe Rabbeinu, and really, Hashem also probably didn't really mean a lot of what He said literally, so in the name of intellectual honesty we, the enlightened, really ought to toss 90% of the mesora in favor of scientific analysis of what happened on Har Sinai, and the fact that we don't is only out of bemused loyalty to Klal Yisrael's quaint habits. I, on the other hand, think that the idea that interpretation and application of a religion is best left to its most loyal practitioners is so elementary that even a sheigitz like Augustine understood it-- "Securus judicat orbis terrarum". The determination of truth by the people as a whole can be trusted.  Or, as GB Shaw once said, there is such a thing as a fundamental rectitude that can bear any quantity of superficial aberrations.


More seriously, for examples of the use of only the family name to belittle someone, see Taanis 3a and Sanhedrin 41b, where it is clear that a young student was referred to by his father's name, and after semicha or other gaining of higher status, the personal name was used.
~

Shlach: The Sins of Humility, Faith, and Scrupulosity

Brought in the name of Rav Kook in Chaim Sabato's Ahavat Torah:

Only with humility is Eretz Yisroel conquered: it says “tovah ha’aretz me’ohd me’ohd,” and in Pirkei Avos it says “me’ohd me’ohd hevei shefal ru’ach.” This unusual expression, "me'od me'od", shows a relationship between humility and our ability to acquire the land of Israel.

Rav Kook adds that this is what it means in Tehillim 37:11 “ve’anavim yirshu eretz,” the meek shall inherit the earth; Aretz, in this passuk, means Eretz Yisrael. (Also quoted by the Nesivos Shalom from the Rebbe of Lechowitz. Also, see Reb Isaac Sher's similar approach to the mistake of the Meraglim.)

So it was known to the Meraglim that humility was a central ingredient in Yerushas Eretz Yisrael, and no doubt they prepared themselves accordingly; they learned mussar with hispa'alus, they did a cheshbon hanefesh, a spiritual audit. They went on their mission well prepared, with the requisite shiflus haru'ach. But it seems that this good thought was misapplied, and was ultimately counterproductive. They felt that the hanhaga of lema'ala miderech hateva, the supernatural protection of the Jewish people, would stop upon entering Eretz Yisrael, and Hashem would leave them to their own zechusim and abilities: they said they felt like chagavim, that bederech hateva they had no hope of conquering the land, even if Hashem would help in a derech hateva way. Their sin was misapplied humility.

Scrupulosity is the conviction of spiritual uncleanliness, of unworthiness, the inflation of trivial failings into major catastrophes. Scrupulosity, and its brother, unctuousness, perhaps are, perhaps are not, sinful. I've known several people who were classically unctuous as young men, but who ended up becoming successful and influential Mashgichim. (By the way; the etymology of unctuous is the Latin word for oily, or greasy, because these people often walk around rubbing their hands around each other as if the are rubbing oil into their hands. Thus, the epithet 'greaseball' in the Yeshiveshe jargon. This phenomenon, evidently, is not exclusive to our yeshivos.) But these traits, unless carefully controlled, certainly can become counter-productive.  Think about Reb Zecharia ben Avkilus!

After the disaster of the Meraglim, a group of contrite men decided that they would take their lives into their hands and march into Eretz Yisrael- the Ma'apilim.  They were all killed.  The sin of the ma’apilim was misapplied bitachon. They believed that if they bravely put themselves into danger, if they did like Nachshon ben Aminadav at the Yam Suf, Hashem would step in in recognition of their faith in Him. (The Netziv there says that they hoped their bravery and trust would elicit Hashem's help; and if it didn't, it was better to die ahl kiddush Hashem in the attempt than to live through the forty years of the Midbar.) They, and the Meraglim, made the mistake of applying middos tovos without constant appraisal of whether the middos were serving Hashem’s will.

You can’t let a midda tova run away with you; you need to constantly reassess whether the middah is being used correctly.  This is what Rava (Sotah 5a) means when he says, regarding humility,  בשמתא דאית ביה ובשמתא דלית ביה.  Excommunicated in whom it is, excommunicated in whom not.

How, you wonder, can a person be liable for well-intentioned mistakes? Beyond the issue of punishing intellectually sincere non-believers, here the question is more serious: here, the sins stemmed from anivus and bitachon; shouldn't they have been rewarded for good faith? Even if they didn't deserve reward, did they deserve such serious punishment for what must have been well-motivated errors? And similarly, why did Hashem punish the generation of the Midbar for what Hashem said was a sin of "Lo he'eminu." If you don't believe, you don't believe. Belief is, after all, an inevitable outgrowth of experience: you trust those who earn your trust, and nobody else. If you don't trust someone, whose fault is it? If Klal Yisrael didn't believe, whose fault was it?

The answer seems to be that much of what we consider well-reasoned decisions are post-facto rationalizations of base motivations that we are unwilling to explicitly consider. These true motives, which embarrass us because they are hedonistic, or solipsistic, or infantile, are hidden in the closet, and we self-servingly create rationalizations that not only hide the dark truth, but even make our decisions appear, superficially, honorable and self-sacrificing. The thing is, you can lie to your friends, and you can lie to yourself, but you can't get away with it when you're dealing with the Bochen Levavos.

Just as Chazal say we can love Hashem "bi'shnei yetzirecha," that we can use the Yetzer Hara- Ga'ava, Azus, Kin'ah, Nekama- in the service of Hashem, it turns out that we can rebel against Hashem with our Yetzer Hatov- Anivus, Bitachon, and Yir'ah.


Mei'inyan le'inyan be'oso inyan:
The Tefillah of Moshe on the sin of the Meraglim: the Gemora in Shabbos 89a. “Reb Yehoshua ben Levi: when Moshe came up to Hashem, he found Him tying crowns on the letters. Hashem told him, “Don’t they say “Shalom” where you come from? Moshe answered, “Is it right for a slave to greet his Master?” Hashem said, “You should help Me.” Moshe said, “Ve’atah, yigdal nah Koach Hashem....” What does “ve’atah yigdal no Ko’ach Hashem” mean? And what was it that Moshe realized when Hashem told him to say Shalom?

Rav Freidlander in his Sifsei Chaim on Mo’adim, vol 1 page 276 or something, brings the Maharal in the Ohr Hagolah, and explains the dialogue. 'Crowns on letters' means perfection of the Torah, the absolute power and inherent sufficiency of the Torah and the Middos of Hashem. Hashem asked Moshe, don’t you say hello where you come from? That is, don’t you say Shalom, which is a brachah that Hashem’s power be increased in your world of Gashmius? Moshe answered, what good is my brachah on the Middos of Hashem? Hashem answered, (just as we have in Brochos 6a with Yishmaeil ben Elisha in the Kodesh Kadashim– barcheini be'ni– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPDski6IBfM ), that this is the secret of tefillah. The middos are a reality. But, just as was the case with the rain that gave life to Gan Eden, to actuate them, to bring them to fruition in our world, they need to be unlocked, and Hashem wants mankind to hold that key. The key is tefillah. As I have said from the Alshich on the Middos, the 13 Middos are infinitely potent; but in order for the middos to be given effectiveness, man has to become a proper conduit for the power of the middos, and this is only through tefillah AND through BECOMING the middos. A water pipe can carry water, a gas pipe carries gas, a copper wire carries electricity. A person who is ra’ui to carry the middos of Hashem can invoke them through his tefillah.

So: this parsha teaches us about the sin of humility, the sin of faith, and the power of Tefillah. How on earth can a mortal man know that he is fooling himself through his ostensible application of middos tovos and pursuit of good? There is only one answer. What distinguished Yehosuha and Kalev? They were not greater than the others. Why didn't they fall into the trap that destroyed the other meraglim? What distinguished them was tefilla. The other meraglim were the greatest of the great; they were paragons of Mussar and self-sacrifice and middos tovos, and after careful meditation and thought, they made their fateful decisions. But-- Yehoshua and Kalev had one advantage- and that made the difference between life and death. The difference was tefilla. Moshe prayed for Yeshoshua, and Kalev went to Chevron to lie prostrate on the kevarim of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. No matter how great one is, no matter what he has achieved in life, it is only through tefilla for siyata dishmaya can we hope to accurately discern when our middos tovos are being used letov or ch'v the opposite. Pick up that Tehilllim and pay attention to what you are saying in davening, or you might, Ch'V, follow the path of the meraglim.

~

Shlach, Bamidbar 15:37. Tzitzis– Equal to All Other Mitzvos

Let’s start with something Reb Moshe Feinstein said. First, I will say what he writes in his Darash Moshe, and the then I will say it the way I heard it from him.

From the Darash:
Tzitzis is a uniquely important mitzvah. So why isn't it mandatory?
Rashi brings that Reb Moshe Hadarshan says that Tzitzis is shkulah keneged kol hamitzvos. If so, if tzitzis is such an important mitzvah, that it equals all the other mitzvos, and in that it is a constant reminder of all the mitzvos of the Torah, why is it not obligatory at all times? It is so easy to avoid this mitzvah by not wearing four kanfos, or by rounding them off, or by wearing garments made of synthetic fiber. Why shouldn’t we be chayav to wear daled kanfos so that we should have the mitzvah of tzitzis at all times?
Because only one who seeks instruction will be sensitive to its lesson.
Answer: the fact is that many people look at tzitzis and remember nothing. The reason for this is that a person is apt to misinterpret the things that he knows, people tend to re-interpret what they know to comport with their desires and yeitzer hora, as demonstrated by all the old and current sects that claim loyalty to the Torah but turn it upside down. For them, Torah becomes a sahm hamoves (Yoma 72b) because they are lack the humility to seek to instruction. They think they know enough to be able to interpret according to their understanding and perspective, but they don’t realize that wisdom does not automatically follow knowledge. Only a person who who seeks to be instructed will look at these strings and see the tcheiles and the gematrios and the mitzvah itself and be reminded to keep the taryag mitzvos.

The way I heard it from Reb Moshe (with a slant toward ahavah instead of humility):
Because only one who does it with loving devotion, not as an imposition, will be sensitive to its lesson.
Why shouldn’t it be chiyuvis to wear a daled kanfos in order to be mekayeim this mitzvah? Also, why is the word "ve’amarta" used, since it is a lashon rafah, a softer form of speech, not "dabeir" which is a stronger form? The answer is that tzitzis is only mazkir the mitzvos when it is done mei’ahava. When a person does a mitzvoh that he is chayav to do, it does not express ahavah. Only a person who can avoid the mitzvoh, but seeks out the opportunity to have the mitzvoh, is doing it mei’ahavah. (See below, update dated June 2015)

This seems to contradict the rule that fulfilling a mandatory mitzvah is greater than fulfilling a voluntary mitvah.
The problem with this pshat is that it seems to contradict the rule of "gadol ham’tzuvah v’oseh," that one who does a mitzvah because he is obligated is greater than one who does a mitzvah by choice. How can he say that making it into a kiyumis makes the reward greater, when the rule is that the schar for a chiyuvis is greater? Although R’ Yosef (Kiddushin 31, BK 38, 87) has a havah amina that there is a greater mailah in eino metzuvah v’oseh, the final decision of the Gemara is that metzuvah is greater.

A side discussion as to whether a Mitvah Kiyumis is called a Eino Metzuvah Ve'oseh.
I told this to Harav Moshe Faskowitz, Rosh Yeshiva of Madreigas Ha’adam and Rav of Torah center of Queens, and he said that even assuming that Tzitzis is a Mitzvah Kiyumis, Mitzvos Kiyumis are included in ‘mafkidna v’avidno," a kiyumis is called metzuvah ve’oseh. I said that this would not be like Tosfos’ pshat based on a yeitzer hora not to do it when commanded to do it. He said that even a kiyumis there is a yeitzer hora to not do it, because it is being done because Hashem said one should do it, and it’s called ‘mifkidno’ and ‘m’tzuveh’ even if it is not mandatory. He said that the real eino m’tzuvah is a woman in a zman grama, and a blind man if you hold they are pattur. And maybe a kattan.

(I had Harav Yakov Drillman at my house, and mentioned this question to him. He said that there is a question among the achronim whether a mitzvah kiyumis is docheh a lahv; the Shagas Aryeh, for example, holds that a kiyumis is not docheh. Obviously, then, Tzitzis is not called a kiyumis, because Tzitzis is the source of Asei Docheh Lo Sa'aseh. In any case, though, he said, Tzitzis is not a good example of kiyumis, because as soon as you have the beged on it certainly becomes a chiyuvis. It is only a kiyumis in the broadest sense, that you don't have to wear a beged in the first place. See Reb Akiva Eiger in Shulchan Aruch OC 11 on Magen Avraham 13, where he asks, why is Tzitzis docheh Shatnez, since you can avoid putting on the beged and not have the conflict. He answers based on the Mordechai that the chiyuv begins only after you have the garment on-- it is not assur to put on a four cornered garment without tzitzis, only that after you have it on, you are obligated to put in the tzitzis. So if Asei were not dochel Lo Sa'aseh, so Tzitzis was not docheh shatnez, you would be still be allowed to put on the garment, and then not put in the Shatnez tzitzis, just as the Mordechai says that you may wear a non-tztizissed garment on Shabbos-- since you cannot put the knots in on Shabbos, you can put on the beged, and then, when the obligation to put in tzitzis arises, you can ignore the mitzvah because of the issur of kosheir. His point is that tztizis is called a chiyuvis, not a kiyumis, in the context of efsher lekayeim shneihem.

But all this does not diminish the question, though. I don't care if Tzitzis is a kiyumis or not, or whether a kiyumis is called metzuvah or eino metzuvah. The fact remains that one can easily avoid the obligation to ever wear Tzitzis.)

Here is the "require some thought" part.
Open-ended Mitzvos are engineered to attract only those who do them with love.
Reb Moshe has another vort in the Darash. Near the beginning of Trumoh he says a remarkable vort. He says that in any mitzvah which is "ein lahem shiur," a mitzvah which has a minimum mandatory requirement but has no maximum limitation, a person who does beyond the mandatory minimum without nedivus leiv is only rewarded as a "eino m’tzuvah ve’oseh." Only if he does it with ahavah and simchah and n’divus haleiv is he rewarded as a ‘m’tzuvah v’oseh.’ This is true by all mitzvos that are "ein lohem shiur", including limud hatorah.

For those that do them with love, they are called mandatory-- the mandate of love.
Reb Moshe’s vort in Trumoh explains his vort here and addresses the argument about whether a kiyumis is called ‘m’tzuvoh’ or not. R Moshe is saying not like me and not like Harav Faskowitz. He says that by any mitzvah that has a mandatory component but also has a ‘ein lohem shiur’ component, when a person does the ein lahem shiur component, (which I think is a perfect model for every ‘eino m’tzuveh,’) then if he does it with nedivus, he gets the schar of a metzuveh, and if he does it without nedivus haleiv, then he only gets the schar of a eino metzuveh.

Tzitzis is a classic example of a Mitzvah that begins as a voluntary mitzvah but becomes a mandatory mitzvah.
So, in the case of tzitzis, which a person can avoid doing forever, if he chooses to be m’chayeiv himself, then his motivation matters very much. If he does it mei’ahavah, then he is rewarded as a m’tzuveh. If not, he is rewarded as an eino m’tzuveh. So Harav Faskowitz is right, to a degree. A kiyumis is included in the rubric of ‘mifkidnah’ or ‘m’tzuveh.’ But if he does it with ahavah, with ‘nediv leiv,’ then he is the person that Hashem wanted to be doing the mitzvah, and he is rewarded as a m’tzuveh. If he does it out of habit or to for his ego or for show, then he is not the person Hashem wanted to be doing the mitzvah, and he is rewarded only as an eino m’tzuveh.

We can even say that any ‘ein lahem shiur’ mitzvoh which is directed at nedivei leiv is intended to be done only when your heart makes you do it. This is what R Moshe means in Trumah. For the nedivei leiv, it was a chiyuv. For everyone else, it was a ‘eino m’tzuveh.’ Hashem is not mandating it unless your heart is driving you to do it. When that is the case, then Hashem is mandating that you do it. If so, tzitzis is a perfect model for this kind of mitzvoh, as follows:

We see from R’ Yosef (Kiddushin 31, BK 38, 87) that there is a advantage in eino metzuvah, although the maskonoh is that metzuvah is greater. The superiority of eino metzuvah is that he does it mei’ahavah, as R’ Moshe says. The superiority of metzuveh is that he is overcoming his yetzer horah to do what Hashem commands. Tzitzis has both advantages! You don’t have to wear a beged daled kanfos, but once you put on the daled kanfos, you are chayav to put in tzitzis. So you have the advantage of eino metzuveh and the advantage of metzuveh. So tzitzis is like the Trumas Hamishkan: for the nedivei leiv, there was no chiyuv. But for a person who was a n’div leiv, it was chiyuvis.

In short: Tzitzis is a unique Mitzvah, that comprises all the Mitzvos of the Torah. One would think that such a mitzvah would be mandatory, while in fact Tzitzis is a mitzvah one could legitimately avoid his entire life. The reason this is so is because the Mitzvah of Tzitzis contains the advantage of both an obligatory mitzvah and a voluntary mitzvah; one may avoid wearing a four-cornered garment. But when one chooses, because he seeks the opportunity to do the mitzvah, to wear such a garment, as soon as he puts on the garment he becomes obligated to put in tzitzis. Thus, Tzitzis falls under the rubric of both Metzuveh and Eino Metzuveh, and it carries the reward of both types of Mitzvos as well. It is only for such a person who seeks out the opportunity to become obligated in the mitzvah, for a person who is driven by his devotion to Hashem’s will even when he is under no obligation, that Tzitzis equals all the mitzvos of the Torah.

UPDATE JUNE 2015/SIVAN '75
Reb Moshe in Kol Rom I page 136 says

מצינו לשון ויאמר אע"ג שנשנה כאן דיני תורה והי' צ"ל דברים קשים ובלשון "וידבר." ונראה משום שמצות ציצית אינה חיוב כשאר מצוות אלא רק אם לובש בגד של ארבע כנפות צריך להטיל בהם ציצית.  וא"כ כשמקיים מצוה זו, אע"ג שאינומוכרח, ומביא עצמו לידי חיוב, מראה שעושה המצוה מאהבה וזה מדרגה הכי גדולה-- ורק ע"י זה יבא ל"וזכרתם את כל מצות ה'"

A side discussion about whether a Mitzvah Kiyumis is called Metzuveh Ve'oseh.
Regarding the issue of whether a Mitzvah Kiyumis is called Metzuveh or Eino Metzuveh:
Rabbi Drillman pointed out the Gemara in Bava Kama 38a. The Gemara says "Amad Vayteir Goyim," Hashem saw that the nations did not fulfil the seven mitzvos and He freed them from their obligation to fulfill them. The Gemara asks, does this mean they benefitted from their negligence? The Gemara answers that as a punishment for their indifference to the seven mitzvos, Hashem changed their status from Metzuva ve'oseh to Eino Metzuveh ve'oseh, which gets less reward. The Gemara asks, but Rav Meir said that anyone who fulfills a Mitzvah, even a non-Jew who does Mitzvos, is rewarded as if he were a Kohen Gadol! The Gemara answers that they do get a reward, but not as a Metzuveh, only like an eino metzuveh. Rashi there says a remarkable thing: he says that even though "va'yateir," they are called eino metzuveh, but if they transgress these mitzvos, they are punished. Rashi in Avodah Zarah says the same thing: the Gemara there says that there is an issur of lifnei iveir for a Jew to enable a Gentile to transgress one of the seven mitzvos. Rashi asks, but the Gemara in Bava Kama says "vayateir!" Rashi answers that even after vayateir, they are punished for transgression. So what do we see from this Rashi? Obviously, there remains a mitzvah kiyumis for the Gentiles to fulfil the seven mitzvos. The Gemara says there is a schar of a kiyumis. And even so, the Gemara calls it Eino Metzuveh. So we see that Mitzvos Kiyumis-- even where transgression results in punishment!-- are called Eino Metzuveh.

Shlach: Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#2)

This is very, very succinct. You can use one part of it, adjust it to your needs, and have a perfectly useful Drasha.

The specific connection with this week's parsha is the fact that the din of Tzitzis is here, but it can be used any time. With a little effort on your part, it can be developed into an excellent Dvar Torah for a Sheva Brachot. Or Vort for a Sheva Brochos. As I've said before, the traffic on this site is pretty light, so if you use it without attribution, you probably can get away with it. Who would you attribute it to, anyway? Barzilai? That's just a pseudonym I took out of Tanach for reasons that are none of your business. Just don't use it before tonight, June 3 '07, because that's when it is going to debut in Lakewood.

First of all, we must remember that even after Hashem told the Jewish people how wonderful the land of Israel is, they insisted on checking it out themselves. Similarly, as soon as the chassan heard about how marvelous the kallah is, and what a yichus she has, and how brilliant and kind she is, it was clear that this was a great opportunity. Still, there was only one thing he had to verify for himself-- "Hashemeinah hee im Razah." (For the humorless among you, I need to identify that as a joke.)

Second, and more seriously: Building a Bayis Ne'eman requires three elements: A foundation, walls, and a roof.

The foundation is the history the couple brings to the marriage: their mesora from their families, their mesora from their teachers, and their achievements in Middos and Chessed.

The walls are the contribution of the Kallah. Under the Chupah, the Kallah walks around the Chassan seven times, as we did with the Aravah on Sukkos around the Mizbei'ach, to symbolize that it is the Akeres Habayis that creates the circumstances of kedushah that separate the home life from the influences of the secular world. As the Gemora (Yevamos 62b) says, "Hasharui be'lo ishah, sharui... be'lo Chomah." One who is without a wife, lacks a wall. The wife creates the walls that define and surround the Jewish home.
The Yerushalmi says that the hakafos of the mizbei'ach are a remembrance of Yericho. This is difficult - do we want the Earth to swallow up the Mizbei'ach? My wife answered that this is a misunderstanding of what happened at Yericho. The hakafos and tru'os were not destructive. They created an environment of Kedusha and Tahara. The walls of Yericho, walls that were built for tum'ah and issur, could not co-exist with the environment of kedusha. Of course, in the case of the Mizbei'ach, the kedusha enhanced the Mizbei'ach.
So, too, the Kallah weaves walls of kedusha around the chassan, and when they build a house, it is she that establishes what madreiga of kedusha the house will embody. As the Gemara in Yevamos 62נ darshans from נקבה תסובב גבר.  

 יגאמר רבי תנחום אמר רבי חנילאי: כל אדם שאין לו אשה — שרוי בלא שמחה, בלא ברכה, בלא טובה. בלא שמחה, דכתיב: ״ושמחת אתה וביתך״. בלא ברכה, דכתיב: ״להניח ברכה אל ביתך״. בלא טובה, דכתיב: ״לא טוב היות האדם לבדו״. ידבמערבא אמרי: בלא תורה, בלא חומה. בלא תורה, דכתיב: ״האם אין עזרתי בי ותושיה נדחה ממני״. בלא חומה, דכתיב: ״נקבה תסובב גבר״.

The roof is the contribution of the Chassan. In Megilas Rus (3:9), Boaz was asked "Ufarasta kenafecha ahl amasecha,"  ופרשת כנפיך על-אמתך-  spread the corner of your garment over your maidservant. Rashi says  וּפְָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ. כְּנַף בִּגְדְּךָ לְכַסּוֹתִי בְטַלִּיתְךָ וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן נִשּׂוּאִין.  The husband brings the Kallah to the chuppah that he creates, and that chuppah is the roof of the bayis ne'eman. What does the roof signify? The Gemora in Menachos says that Tzitzis, which are discussed at the end of this week's parsha, are a segula for two things: for Tznius and for a kosher Parnassah. It is when a person gets married that these two things acquire the greatest importance, when he becomes responsible for the wellfare of his wife and family. It is with the middah of Tznius, and the siyata dishmaya to ensure that the home is sustained with only koshereh parnassah, that the husband creates a roof of the bayis ne'eman.

It is with these three elements that a Bayis Ne'eman is created. With the foundation of experience and history and influence and family that the Chassan and Kallah bring with themselves; with the walls of kedusha that exclude the outside world and create within them an environment of kedusha; and the roof of tznius and ehrlichkeit that is symbolized in the Chuppah, the Tallis Gadol that the Chassan wears on his body and with which he provides shelter and safety for his Bayis Ne'eman.

A more effective way to arrange the vort is this:

Minhag among Eastern Europeans to not wear Tallis Gadol till married.

Maharil says because parsha of marriage is next to Parsha of Tzitzis, also we find in Megillas Rus (see Rashi on 3:9) the expression for marriage being uforasto kenofecha ahl amasecha.

But what’s the real underlying reason?

We find two segulos associated with wearing tzitzis; Tznius and Ehrlichkeit in Parnassah (Menachos 43 and 44).

Tznius is a way of life, and not at all limited to physical modesty. Modesty means that you don't show off your money, your holiness, or your shittos. Ehrlichkeit in parnassah means that you want every element that contributes to your lifestyle to be kosher in all ways.

The most important time to ask for siyata dishmaya in these two elements is when one gets married.

The Tallis, the Chupah, that represents these two elements, is only the ceiling.

You can't just float a roof on nothing. There have to be walls that hold it up. In fact, to build a Bayis Ne’emon you need three things: Foundation, Walls, and Roof.

Roof– Tallis. Husband’s. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE GOOD CHARACTER OF THE CHASSAN.)

Walls– kedushoh created by the Akkeres Habyis, as it says, hashorui belo isho shorui belo chomoh. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE KALLAH, and her good sense of knowing what to allow and what to exclude from a good Jewish home, about what to encourage and what to discourage, about inculcating in herself and in others everything the Mesilas Yeshorim, or her favorite sefer, discusses.)

Foundation– parents, chinuch, middos. (INSERT NICE THINGS ABOUT THE FAMILIES AND YESHIVOS AND RABBEIM AND RABBONIM that guided the Chassan and Kallah to this point.)