Mishpatim, Shemos 22:23-24. Toras Chesed תורת חסד

Bava Basra 10b: R Yosef lay ill, and, falling unconscious, hovered close to death. When he recovered, they asked him "What did you see? You glimpsed the World to Come...what is it like?" He answered, "עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה," I saw a world turned upside-down! I saw the great cast low, and the lowly raised up.

Rabbeinu Chananel (brought in Tosfos there) had a kabbala from the time of the Geonim that related exactly what it was that Reb Yosef saw. Reb Yosef saw Shmuel sitting as a talmid in front of R Yehuda, who was his student in life. Tosfos says the reason for this reversal was the the event brought in Shabbos 51a, where a woman "tza’akah," cried for attention to her plight in front of Shmuel, and he ignored her. R Yehuda asked him, "Rebbi, how do understand the passuk in Mishlei אטם אזנו מזעקת דל גם הוא יקרא ולא יענה?" (He who blocks his ears from the cry of the poor, he, too, will cry out and not be answered.) Shmuel answered that the authority there was a local beis din, and, as the Mahrsha explains, he felt that under the circumstances, his limud hatorah was not nidcheh, since there were others who should and would take care of her.

This is, of course, a tremendous mussar haskeil– there is no excuse to ignore the suffering of those who cry to you. Even if you can't do anything for them, even if they would be best served by going elsewhere, you have to show them sympathy, to be Nosei Be'Ohl im Chaveiro, to carry their burden with them. Shmuel was diminished by becoming subservient to his talmid, R Yehuda, who reproved him for ignoring the woman.

But there is a far greater chiddush in Tosfos.

The tremendous chiddush in the Tosfos is that the schar for being nosei b’ohl im chaveiro is not that Rav Yehuda had a more beautiful table in Gan Eden, or that his chupah was more glorious, or that his perfumed rivers smelled better. The result of his behavior-- and I wouldn't even characterize it as a reward, just the natural result of his middos-- was that he was Rosh Yeshiva, and Shmuel listened to his shiurim. We see that even though in this world Shmuel was the rebbi, in the Olam Ha’Emes, Rav Yehuda’s Torah was more chashuv. His Torah itself became more chashuv. Apparently, in the Olam Ha’Emes the pnimius of Torah becomes more important than the level of scholarship, to the extent that his shiurim were better. We see from here that the Torah needs v’ahavta, as Hillel said to the Geir. Torah is m’chayeiv achrayus, and the more אחריות for נעלבים, the more chashuv the Torah becomes. Sensitivity to the needs and pain of others shows a level of Toras Emes that has a pnimius, Torah the way an adam gadol needs to learn it.

So, there are things besides gadlus batorah that make Torah more chashuv. Here is another example. Once, Rav Chiya and Reb Chanina were arguing about a halacha (Ksuvos 103b.) "א"ל ר' חנינא לר' חייא בהדי דידי מינצת דאם חס ושלום נשתכחה תורה מישראל מהדרנא ליה מפלפולי א"ל ר' חייא אנא עבדי דלא משתכחה תורה מישראל." Rav Chanina said, "With me you argue? If the Torah were forgotten, I could reconstruct it with logic alone!" And Reb Chiya answered, "With me you argue? I saw to it that the Torah will never be forgotten," because I developed a system of schools to teach Torah to orphaned children.

What kind of answer is that? Reb Chanina said that Reb Chiya should defer to his opinion in Torah because he was the greatest ba’al machshova and lamden; and Reb Chiya answers that Reb Chanina should accept his pshat because he is a tremendous ba'al chesed and a marvelous melameid?! Well good for you, Reb Chiya. We'll honor you at the banquet. We'll come to you for brachos.  But that doesn't make you a bigger lamden!

The answer is inescapable. Le’asukei shmatsa aliba de’hilchesa, to properly understand the truth of the Torah, you need siyata dishmaya. So since Reb Chiya and Reb Chanina both knew kol hatorah kullah, the determinant would not be lomdus or yedi'as Hatorah, but instead Gadlus in Torah— both chavivus of the Torah to the one who is learning it and the chavivus of the one who is learning it to the Torah. And that is what Reb Chiya’s answer was. This is an aspect of gadlus batorah that goes beyond yedios and lomdus.

(Chaim B. pointed out the Netziv in last week's parsha, in Yisro 19:2, who, addressing the Kashe on Reb Chiya, says that it was his ameilus that tipped the balance.  In defense of my assertion that it was his Chesed I have the Tosfos from Rabbeinu Chananel and the fact that the Ameilus of Rav Chiya was not in learning per se, it was in providing a learning environment for the children- which is hard to characterize as ameilus in Torah.

update 2022: I wonder if he might be right. Maybe the Ameilus that brings siyata dishmaya in Torah is even ameilus in harbotzas Torah, or in hachzokas Torah. Who knows?)

In the Bnei Yisaschar we find a remarkable corollary to this concept.  The Bnei Yesaschar (מאמר ראש חודש מאמר ד) says that the י"ג מדות שהתורה נדרשת בהן reflect the י"ג מדות של רחמים.  I am told that Rav Wolbe also discusses this.  Usually, it's hard for me to focus my mind on this type of limud, but I saw that Rav Bergman in his Shaarei Orah II brings three applications of this idea, and you can't deny that they are on target.  They are:

1.  The first midda of Rachamim (see Rosh in first perek of Rosh Hashanna) is Keil.  When Moshe Rabbeinu davened for Miriam with קל נא רפא נא לה, Hashem told him ואביה ירק ירק בפניה וגו.  The Gemara in BK says ק"ו לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום.  So you see that the midda of Keil is associated with the din of Kal Vachomer.  (Bnei Yissaschar)

2.  The relation of Keil/Rachamim to Kal Vachomer is the reason that  אין עונשין מן הדין. (from Reb Yosef Engel in his Beis Ha'Otzer I siman 56:16.)

3.  The thirteenth midda is Nakei/Lo Yenakei.  The corresponding Midda is Shnei kesuvim haba'im ke'echad.  That's why the Gemara in Yoma says דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אי אפשר לומר נקה שכבר נאמר לא ינקה ואי אפשר לומר לא ינקה שכבר נאמר נקה הא כיצד מנקה הוא לשבין ואינו מנקה לשאינן שבין.  (Bnei Yisaschar)

This idea is also congruent with and even implicit in the Nefesh HaChaim in many places.

So we see a wonderful thing.  When the Gemara in Yevamos uses the passuk in Mishlei דרכיה דרכי נעם to inform how we darshen pesukim, it's not an outlier.  Rachamim and Darkei No'am are the essence of the Torah.  Is it any surprise that Chesed brings to סיעתא דשמיא for אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא?

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.

~