Chicago Chesed Fund

https://www.chicagochesedfund.org/

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Vidui for Bloggers

This morning, LW, esq., said that in vidui, according to the rules of dikduk, the fei in דיברנו דופי should have a dagesh. I think he may be right. Although what I say on the blog is usually an honest expression of my thoughts, so I can say that what I write here is not duplicitous, I recognize that there may have been some posts and comments for which I need to say vidui for דברנו דופּי with the dagesh in the pei.

To all of you, Yasher kochachem for the pilpul chaveirim, and Kesiva ve'chasima tova to you and yours.
~~~~~~

On the topic of making fools of ourselves, here's a poem recently printed in the New Yorker. It seems like light verse until the last paragraph, which, I think, might be a mussar dehrhehr.

Reckoning

by Richard Wilbur

August 31, 2009


At my age, one begins

To chalk up all his sins,

Hoping to wipe the slate

Before it is too late.


Therefore I call to mind

All memories of the kind

That make me wince and sweat

And tremble with regret.


What do these prove to be?

In every one, I see

Shocked faces that, alas,

Now know me for an ass.


Fatuities that I

Have uttered, drunk or dry,

Return now in a rush

And make my old cheek blush.


But how can I repent

From mere embarrassment?

Damn-foolishness can’t well

Entitle me to Hell.


Well, I shall put the blame

On the pride that’s in my shame.

Of that I must be shriven

If I’m to be forgiven.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

What if the Shofar Isn't Cooperating?

The Magen Avraham 585 sk 11 brings from the Maharil that one time, someone tried to blow shofar, and it didn't work, so he turned the shofar around and said וִיהִי נֹעַם (Tehillim 90) into the wide end, and when he tried again, it worked perfectly. I think this idea might be applicable to many of our endeavors: instead of exhausting yourself blowing harder and harder, turn it around, in other words, think about what you are trying to accomplish, read וִיהִי נֹעַם into it-- the passuk Moshe Rabbeinu said to invite Hashra'as Hashechina into the just-built Mishkan (Rashi, Shemos 39:43) -- in other words, imbue the work with a tachlis of avodas Hashem, and maybe it'll work when you try it again.

Rosh Hashanna and the Creation of the World

The Gemara in Rosh Hashanna (8a and mainly 11b) brings a machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua whether the world was created in Nissan or Tishrei.

Parenthetically, it is worth knowing that, as Reb Meir Simcha towards the beginning of Breishis points out, they argue on all the essential three as categorized in the Sefer Yetzira-- Olam, Shanna, and Nefesh, because they argue whether the world was created from the ends inward (R'Y) or from the middle outward (R'E), and whether a child is generated from the ends toward the middle (R'Y) or from the heart outward (R'E), and here in the sugya of Shanna, whether time began in Tishrei or Nissan, even though Nissan is "Hachodesh Hazeh lachem Rosh Chadashim. This is just an unrefined fact; I don't know what it signifies about Shammai (the rebbi of R'E) and Hillel (the rebbi of R'Y).

Back to our topic. The Gemara says that as far as the dates in Chumash, we pasken like Rebbi Eliezer, but regarding Tekufos, the calculation of which is based on the actual creation, we pasken like Rebbi Yehoshua, that the world was created in Nissan. Why, then, does the dating system in the Torah count from Tishrei? Tosfos says that the creation really was in Nissan like Rebbi Yehoshua, and the Torah's dating system gives assigns primacy to the Yom Hadin over the chronological fact of creation. The Ran says that the briyah was really in Tishrei like Rebbi Eliezer, but we count for tekufos like Rebbi Yehoshua because of the reality of the solar year's effect on crops.

Tosfos on 27a asks, though, how is it that in his Piyutim, Reb Elazar Hakallir states contradictory positions regarding the factual moment of creation? The Gemara (27a) says that the words "Zeh Hayom techillas ma'asecha" comport only with Rebbi Eliezer, but Reb Elazar Hakallir's piyutim in tefillas Tal say like Rebbi Eliezer and in tefillas Geshem like Rebbi Yehoshua.

Rabbeinu Tam in Tosfos answers that Eilu Ve'eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim. The intention to create occurred in Tishrei, like Rebbi Eliezer, and the actual briyah took place in Nissan, like Rebbi Yehoshua, and so it is correct to say that the briyah was in either one of the months.

The Ran on 16a asks, why is Mankind judged on Rosh Hashanna? It doesn't seem to have any particular significance or relevance to human development. And if you want to answer that if, as Rebbi Eliezer holds, the world was created in Tishrei, it makes sense that the first day of Tishrei should be Rosh Hashanna, but according to that reasoning, then the Rosh Hashanna for everything in the universe should be that day, and, as the first Mishna in Rosh Hashanna says, that is not the case. So, he asks, what is it about the first day of Tishrei that has specific significance for Mankind? He answers with a Pesikta that Rebbi Eliezer, who says the world was created in Tishrei, really holds it was created on the 25th of Ellul, and Man was created in Tishrei, on Rosh Hashanna. Since Adam sinned and was forgiven on that very day, it was set to be the eternal day for the judgment and forgiveness of Mankind.

The Ran further asks, what is the significance of Rosh Hashanna according to Rebbi Yehoshua (Nissan)? He answers that Hashem began to forgive the sin of the Eigel on Rosh Hashanna and fully forgave it on Yom Kippur, when Moshe was given the second Luchos and brought them to Klal Yisrael. Since during these days we faced a terrible gzeira and were forgiven, they were forever established as the days of Judgment and Forgiveness.

All the above is generally known. I recently saw a Chasam Sofer (not in the new prints: in the old print, it's in a drasha almost at the end of Nitzavim, and it has a star, which means it was brought to the printers by a talmid that heard it from him) that has a very interesting approach to this sugya that brings everything together.

The Chasam Sofer says that really , the briyah was in Tishrei, like Rebbi Eliezer, as the Ran says. The reason we count astronomical calculations from Rebbi Yehoshua's Nissan is this: The Ramban in Breishis says that the universe was "Tohu va'Vohu" until it was justified by the giving of the Torah to Klal Yisrael. Tohu va'Vohu means that the world was insubstantial, it was lacking an inherent reality. Only with the beginning of Matan Torah, when we were given the mitzva of "Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem," was the creation of the world confirmed and solidified.

So, he says, even though the briyah was in Tishrei, it was only ratified in Nissan, and this is why we count the tekufos from Nissan.

But, he says, we still have a problem. If you look at the actual creation, that was the twenty fifth of Ellul, as the Ran brought from the Pesikta. If you look at the confirmation of the briyah, that was Nissan. So the first day of Tishrei is neither the beginning nor the confirmation. What, then, distinguishes Rosh Hashanna?

He answers that yes, certainly the Torah gives the world reality, it is the Kiyum Ha'Olam. But if not for the gift of Teshuva, the world could not have existed in any state at all for even one day, as the Ran says regarding Adam Harishon. So in a sense, Teshuva is as essential to the existence of the world as Torah is. And so it is correct to say that there were two creations of the real world: The first day of Tishrei, which ushered in Teshuva, and the first day of Nissan, which saw the beginning of Kabalas Hatorah. There are, then, two Rosh Hashannas, two days when the world was created; neither is the day of Breishis Bara Elokim. They are the Rosh Hashanna of Teshuva and the Rosh Hashanna of Torah. Those are the only two realities of our world.

A Conversation During Shalosh Seudos.

As of June 12, 2009, analog television broadcast ended in the United States and was replaced with digital mode broadcast. If you had an analog television and didn't attach a digital-to-analog converter, you would turn on the television and all you would see would be a boiling jumble of white dots and all you would hear would be static. Even though broadcasts of fine television programs filled the air, and even though you had a high quality television, you would see and hear nothing but garbled nonsense.

Our neighborhood has been lucky to host a new Kollel. The impetus to bring in the Kollel (even while established mosdos are suffering for lack of donations) was the fact that in the past three years, not one Orthodox family had settled in this neighborhood, while other neighborhoods have been growing. While some new families had moved in, they have all been Arab, or Assyrian, or Oriental. I'm sure they are all fine people, but the Orthodox Jewish presence in our neighborhood was definitely in a downward spiral. Several wealthy individuals decided that they would fund the new Kollel for three years. Hopefully, by the end of the three years, the Kollel will be self-supporting. A great deal of money and planning went into the effort: Fifteen houses were purchased, jobs were found for the Kollel wives, and a very nice hall was rented and furnished for a beis medrash.

Even within the few weeks since the opening of the Kollel, the influx of these yungeleit has had a discernible impact; simply seeing these new young families has invigorated the kehilla, and the presence of young men whose entire day is dedicated to limud hatorah, and not to more mundane pursuits, has inspired many of us baalei batim. Many people have been drawn to the Kollel for davenning, because they daven exactly as they did in the Brisker Kollel in Yerushalayim-- not a baalebatishe minyan that caters to bnei Torah, but an unabashed yeshiva minyan. (In fact, I suspect that they daven longer when Baalei Batim are there in order to scare them off, but I, of course, have no way to test the hypothesis.)  The Rosh Kollel was the sho'el umeishiv in the Brisker Kollel for many years, so he obviousy is among the great young talmidei chachamim of our time. Inquiries about house purchases from people moving to the city have begun to focus on this neighborhood, and it appears that the Kollel is a davar be'ito mah tov. Even though the Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel of the older mosdos in the city were very vexed with the founding of the new Kollel, as it will draw away both sorely needed money and focus, ahl korchom ya'anu amein, since the founders of the Kollel are also their supporters.

Another advantage: there is a nearby shul that has been having trouble dealing with the rightward-trend of the past few years, and there has been a considerable amount of friction in the shul between the more modern and the more yeshiva-oriented elements ("Who needs all these black hatters? They're a bunch of freeloaders!) With the founding of the kollel, the bnei torah will most likely spend more and more time at the kollel minyan, and the shul will remain with the more modern people, and everyone will be happy. Im hayemin ve'asme'ila and so forth.

And here is the story that motivates this post. Yesterday, I was sitting at Shalosh Seudos, and a man said, almost verbatim: "They brought in fifteen Kollel families to the neighborhood, and not one of them ever lived in a house before. You think they're going to take care of their houses? You think any of them is going to mow his lawn? It's going to drive down the price of houses in the neighborhood!"

The most elementary level of being a member of civilized society is the inclination toward compromise instead of conflict, to seek accommodation instead of confrontation, to be open-minded enough to appreciate that not everyone is exactly like you are, and to not pre-judge others on the basis of superficial differences. But from where I was sitting at Shalosh Seudos yesterday, it seemed that we haven't risen to that first step yet. To witness the rejuvenation of a neighborhood, to see the influx of young men and women dedicated to Jewish scholarship, and to focus your tunnel vision exclusively on the fact that 'THESE PEOPLE' ARE NOT GOING TO MOW THEIR LAWNS, DAMMIT! seems to me to be akin to having that great widescreen analog LCD after the switch has been made to digital. The signal is there, the receiver is powered up, and nebach, nebach, all you can see is static.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Nitzavim, Devarim 29:28. Communal Obligation of Mitzvos

Arvus, or more correctly Areivus, means that all Jews have an obligation to see to it that their fellow Jews live Torah lives. Areivus is often translated as meaning the same as Areiv, which is a loan guarantor. In other words, each of us is obligated to fulfill our duty to Hashem, and as guarantors, we also are responsible for our neighbors' duty.

Mishulchan Gavo’ah brings from Reb Baruch Ber (with some changes): we find that if c'v Klal Yisrael is punished for aveiros, because of the din of arvus the tzadikim can be punished. He brings that tzadikim and tashba”r suffer for the resha’im of the generation. Additionally, we find that when pur’anus chas veshalom occurs, it starts from the tzadikim. Reb Baruch Ber asks, the din of arvus as found by a guarantor on a loan is that ein nifra’im min ha’areiv until you make the claim from the actual debtor and he can’t pay the debt. You certainly cannot go to the areiv before going to the primary debtor! He answers that there are two types of arvus. The halacha mentioned is by an areiv stam. But an areiv kablan is a co-signer, not merely a guarantor, and he is equally chayov, he is a primary debtor even though he didn’t borrow the money.  (Technically, there are four kinds of arvus: stam, ahl me'nas she'ipara, kablan, and shlof dotz or nasa ve'nasan be'yad, or according to Rabbeinu Tam toward the end of BB around 174b, five.  However, the distinctions among the last three have no relevance here, since the last group are direct obligations on the areiv, while the first group is primarily on the borrower.  What he means is that there are two categories of arvus.)

He explains that the lomdus of the difference is that an areiv stam accepts responsibility for the result of the debtor’s behavior, that is, if the debtor’s behavior results in default, the areiv must pay. But an areiv kablon accepts the original obligation of the debtor. The latter is also true in the din of arvus of Klal Yisrael. The din of arvus is not just that we are liable for the result of, and therefore punished for, the behavior of others; instead, it is that our chiyuv mitzvos includes seeing to it that others do their mitzvos.

In both monetary Arvus and Mitzva Arvus, you suffer the consequences of the other person's failure to do his duty. But there is a difference: by a monetary debt, if you pay the deadbeat's outstanding loan, you're off the hook. But by mitzvos, it’s not enough for you to do the mitzvah. You can't even do the mitzva twice, once for yourself and once for him. You have to see to it that the other person does it.

I believe that according to this idea of Reb Baruch Ber, the din arvus is not a side-halacha that obligates us to bring Jews to the Torah. It is an additional dimension of every mitzva we are chayav to fulfil. As an areiv kablan, the chiyuv of others to hear the shofar is your chiyuv of Teki'as Shofar. That means that even if you have heard teki'as shofar with the greatest hiddur, if someone has not heard teki'as shofar, and you could have helped him, you were not mekayeim this aspect of the mitzva of tekias shofar.

(By the way, I think this pshat is implicit in what the Rishonim say that you can be motzi a person even on the bracha of a mitzva, even if you have already done the mitzva yourself. They ask, but how can you say "ve'tzivanu to do this mitzva"? You are no longer chayav to do the mitzva! I believe it's a Yerushalmi, but I know it's a Ritva, a Ran and a She'iltos, that the din of Arvus means that if the other person has not been mekayeim the mitzva, then the chiyuv to do this Mitzva still remains upon you. And the nusach habracha is not "vetzivanu to see to it that others do mitzvos", the nusach of the bracha is "vetzivanu to do this mitzva."
The Ritva is in Hilchos Brachos 5:2:
כל הברכות שהם חובה על האדם וחבירו שהוא גדול חייב באותה ברכה כמוהו מוציאו ידי חובתו אע״פ שכבר הוציא עצמו והטעם לפי שכל ישראל ערבין זה לזה וכשחבירו חייב הרי הוא כאילו הוא עצמו חייב ולפיכך יחיד מוציא לחבירו בברכות של ק״ש אע״פ שאין חובה
The Ran is in Rosh HaShanna 29a.

The She'iltos is 54 DH Bram:
ברם צריך אילו מאן דקדיש ונפיק ידי חובתיה מהו לאפוקי לאחרים ידי חובתיהון מי אמרינן כיון דהא איפטר ליה הוה ליה כקטן ואסיר ולא מפיק או דילמא דחיובא הוא מי איכא דבעי קדושי ומיזל לעלם וכל חד וחד מישראל מיחייב בערבותא דחבריה וכמאן דלא איפטר דמי ומפיק אחרים )

Notes:
1. For a similar discussion, see Birkas Shmuel, Kiddushin #27, the chkira he brings from his son in law, R' Reuven Grozovsky, although they're talking about chinuch of limud hatorah and we're talking about mitzvos in general. Others have confused the two sugyos, and assumed that what is true by one is true by the other, but that alleged correlation is purely speculative.
2. See comments, below, from Harav Dr. Eli, Tosfos Sotah 37b, as follows:
See Sotah 37b and Tosfot there D.H. Amar, that counts the number of Britot to be48 x 613 x 603550 (or the last number squared). That is, each one of us took upon itself one obligation to look after Yankel's Shofar and another for Yankel's Mekhashefa Lo Tehaye.

He is referring to the Gemara there
אמר רבי לדברי רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עכו שאמר משום רבי שמעון אין לך כל מצוה ומצוה שבתורה שלא נכרתו עליה ארבעים ושמנה בריתות של שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים נמצא לכל אחד ואחד מישראל שש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמש מאות וחמשים
and Tosfos there
מר רב משרשיא ערבא וערבא דערבא - כמדומה דהכי בעי למימר דלר"ש בן יהודה קבל עליו כל אחד מישראל לתרי"ג מצות קצ"ח ריבוא ריבואות וח' אלפים ריבואות ותי"ג ריבואות ושבע אלפים ומאתים בריתות לשש מאות אלף ושלשת אלפים וחמשים וחמש מאות בשביל ערבותן אם יעברו עליהן ולרבי אליבא דרבי שמעון ששים ריבוא פעמים ושלשת אלפים ותקנ"ה פעמים חשבון זה בריתות קיבלו עליהן: 

Nitzavim/Vayeilech: Updated Posts

Every level of Teshuva is precious
http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/09/parshas-netzavim-and-mitzvah-of-teshuva.html

Buying a Clean Conscience

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/09/nitzavim-devarim-2918-vehisbareich.html

Din Ve'cheshbon

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/09/din-vcheshbon.html

The enemies of Teshuva: Doubters and Dawdlers; or, Perplexity and Procrastination

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2007/09/nitzavim-devarim-2917-pen-yeish-bochem.html

The balance between Hashgacha and Bechira

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2007/09/vayeileich-devorim-312-end-of-moshe.html

Exposure to Kedusha, Exposure to Tumah
http://havolim.blogspot.com/2006/09/havolim_12.html

The Mozart Effect and Torah

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/09/vayeilech-devarim-3112-mitzvah-of.html

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Ki Savo, Teshuva, and Elul. Inherent and Adherent Kedusha.

Note: I don't know why I wrote this in such an odd tone, but the thoughts are good anyway.  Also, there are three or four places where I should have said כביכול.  So כביכול, כביכול, כביכול.


Reb Yomtov Lippman Heller, the Tosfos Yomtov, had (through his daughter) a great great grandson who learned at the feet of Reb Meshulem Igra, and who was a great and creative Talmid Chacham. His name was Aryeh Leib Hacohen Heller. Reb Aryeh Leib wrote a sefer you might recognize, even though these days the sefer is out of style. It is called the Ketzos Hachoshen, and many say that it forever changed the model of how Gemara is learned. Because of the great respect and love the Torah world had for that sefer, its author is never called Reb Aryeh Leib, he is called the Ketzois. (Or the Xois.)  He also wrote a sefer called Shev Shmaitsa, which expanded the Divrei Torah he said at his Sheva Brachos. In both his introductions to the Ketzos and to the Shev Shmaitsa, he says many wonderful things. For Elul, I would like to be mefarseim and think about one particular thing that he says in his introduction to the Shev Shmaitsa. I don't know if it has any shaychus to Ki Savo.

Toward the beginning of the Hakdama, (if you've gotten to the part where he says that iluyim tend to say svaros that are not glatt, you've gone too far,) he says that many people have asked, "Why is it that Adam Harishon's teshuva was not fully accepted? He did teshuva, so why was he not reinstated to his status of before the Chet?" Why were the gzeiros of expulsion from Gan Eden and death not reversed? Why was he not restored to that divine splendor that misled some malachim into thinking he was God himself, but instead remained condemned to that woeful and harsh existence that is the human condition?

The Ketzos answers that the superhuman greatness of Adam's existence before the Chet was possible only for a Yetzir Kapav of the Ribono shel Olam, a creation formed directly by Hashem's hand. Adam's teshuva was a superlative achievement, and it saved Adam from untold suffering in Olam Hazeh and Olam Haba. We can even say that Adam, with his teshuva, had recreated himself, as the Rambam says about every ba'al teshuva. But this new creation was the doing of man, not Hashem. Adam had recreated himself, and that which Man creates cannot live forever, cannot exist in Gan Eden, and cannot shine with the splendor of Hashem. At first, Adam was Hashem's creation. With his teshuva, Adam created himself.

With this, he explains the words
הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ ה אֵלֶיךָ וְנָשׁוּבָה חַדֵּשׁ יָמֵינוּ כְּקֶדֶם
"Hashiveinu Hashem ei'lecha ve'nashuva, chadesh yameinu ke'kedem." If Hashem pushes us to teshuva, rather than our teshuva being the product of our own effort, then we will be, once again, like Adam before the Chet, because in that case, we will have been re-created by Hashem.


The Ketzos'es words are wonderful for many reasons. First, because what he says is exactly the kind of lomdus you would expect from the Ketzos. Second, because the idea that the renewal of teshuva is a true re-creation of the person to the extent that the original identity and characteristics no longer necessarily pertain, is very strong. Third, the idea that man is capable of creating himself is somehow very moving. In Adam's case, this came with a cost. In our cases, it is only beneficial.

But, it's a Ketzos, so it raises more questions than it answers.
1. Everyone, even a tzadik gamur, even if you haven't sinned and done teshuva, we are all constantly making choices about whether to sin or not to sin. Even if we choose the right thing, it is those choices, which we ourselves make, it is our Bechira, that maintains our spirituality, that keeps us spiritually alive. Why is this not also our own ma'aseh yadayim?
2. Isn't it true that "אלמלא הקב"ה עוזרו אין יכול לו?" If not for Hashem's help, we could not withstand the Yetzer Hara (B'B 75a). If so, it is not really "our" teshuva. It is Hashem's again.
3. Along the same lines: It seems to me that doing God-like work, the work of creating a man, is impossible if not by virtue of the God-given ability to rise above nature and to be God-like. If so, it doesn't seem right that the result would be a diminution of our similarity to Hashem. In other words: it's true that the object of the creation was created by a man, but the man who was doing the creating has become more, not less, God-like by doing so.
4. And most importantly: if the Ketzos is right, what's pshat in
מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדים צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדים
"makom she'ba'alei teshuva omdim sham, tzadikim einam omdim sham?" And don't tell me the glib answers, because in Sanhedrin 99 it's clear that this statement is an assessment of rank.

Before discussing these questions, I want to point out an interesting thing. In Ki Sisah, Shemos 34:29, the passuk says Karan ohr ponov, that when Moshe came down with the second luchos, his face shone with a powerful light of kedusha. Rabbeinu Bachya asks, why did this happen only after the Luchos Sheniyos? Why did this not happen when Moshe Rabbeinu came down with the first luchos?

The Beis Halevi in his drashos, and the Mabit in his introduction to his Kiryas Sefer, say the same answer (my taitch; best to see inside; also, please note that neither of them address Rabbeinu Bachya's question, but what they say answers the question anyway). The first Luchos were crafted by Hashem and included the entire Torah Sheba'al Peh, and once a person read them, he would never forget them. After those luchos were broken, Klal Yisrael did teshuva for the sin of the Egel, and their teshuva was accepted, and the Torah was given to them once again. Moshe Rabbeinu was told to craft new Luchos, but Hashem did not write the Torah Sheba'al Peh on them, and now it required hard work to learn and to remember the Torah. Moshe Rabbeinu, upon receiving the first luchos and knowing the Torah, was like Tashmishei Kedusha, an object that serves the Torah. But when Torah Sheba'al Peh existed nowhere but in his mind, and it came to reside there through his hard work, he became Kedusha Atzma, inherent kedusha in himself. Before, the kedusha was adherent. Afterwards, the kedusha was inherent.

The Torah itself didn't change. But where before it was Hashem's Torah, and we were the beneficiaries of that gift, afterward it became our Torah. Even after all the siyata dishmaya that is necessary to learn, understand, and retain the Torah, it is we, by our hard work and mesiras nefesh, who recreate ourselves, who do the ibbud and kesiva li'shma, to incorporate and reflect the Torah.

I think the same is true of Adam Harishon after his teshuva. Yes, by falling, he was irreparably diminished. Just as was the case with the Torah after the Luchos Sheniyos, whatever he would achieve from that point on was not a gift, it had to be worked for and guarded. But as a result of his work- his teshuva and his efforts to guard his teshuva- his accomplishments were his. My father zatzal used to say, how could it be that Adam, the yetzir kapav of the Ribono shel Olam, could have sinned? The answer is that he was lacking one thing: Chinuch. He was what he was as a gift from Hashem, and gifts are easily lost. Only that which you earn is truly yours. In a sense, he was diminished, but he was also far greater than before.

So, let's go back to the four questions we had on the Ketzos.
1. Everyone, even a tzadik gamur, even if you haven't sinned and done teshuva, we are constantly making choices about whether to sin or not to sin. Even if we choose the right thing, it is those choices, which we ourselves make, it is our Bechira, that maintains our spirituality, that keeps us spiritually alive. Why is this not also our own ma'aseh yadayim?
Answer: there's a difference between maintaining and recreating. Every day, with our bechira to do good and not do bad, we maintain Hashem's briyah, and it is still Hashem's briyah. With Teshuva, we are recreating something that was destroyed. There's a difference between a Shomeir and an Uman. There's no hava amina that a shomer that saves the pikadon from being destroyed is koneh the pikadon. But Uman koneh bishvach keli, because he is making something that was not there before.

2. Isn't it true that "ilmalei Hashem ozro. lo yachol lo?" If not for Hashem's help, we could not withstand the Yetzer Hara. If so, it is not really "our" teshuva. It is Hashem's again.
Answer: When it comes to Bechira, it is one of the fundamental rules of the briyah that Hashem does not mix into our decisions involving yiras shamayim. So our teshuva, even if it could not happen without Hashem's help, has a din of zeh eino yachol ve'zeh eino 'yachol' (kaviyachol). In such a case, both are considered to have done it.

3. Along the same lines: It seems to me that doing God-like work, the work of creating a man, is impossible if not by virtue of the innate ability to rise above nature and to be God-like. If so, it doesn't seem right that the result would be a diminution of our similarity to Hashem. In other words: it's true that the object of the creation was created by a man, but the man who was doing the creating has become more, not less, God-like by doing so.
Answer: There's a difference between the Gavra and the Cheftza. Of course, a baal teshuva, the gavra, has done something that elevates him to the kisei hakavod. But the cheftza, the body, will forever be different.

4. And most importantly: if the Ketzos is right, what's pshat in
מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדים צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדים
"makom she'ba'alei teshuva omdim sham, tzadikim einam omdim sham?" And don't tell me the glib answers, because in Sanhedrin 99 it's clear that this statement is an assessment of rank.
Answer: Again, that's the difference between the Gavra and the Cheftza. The Cheftza of our existence in Olam Hazeh is never the same, the same way the Torah of the Luchos Shniyos was not the same as it was in the Luchos Rishonos. By doing teshuva, the person gets a kinyan on his ruchnius and elevates himself to a madreiga that even a tzadik gamur never can reach.

Bekitzur: the luchos sheniyos were missing some of the unique Atzilus of the luchos rishonos, and after his teshuva, Adam Harishon was never the same as he had been before his chet. But only with the luchos sheniyos did Moshe have the Karnei Ohr, and the same was true for Adam Harishon and the same is true for every Baal Teshuva. In the final tally, the gifts you are given don't count for much at all. All that matters is what you make of yourself.



Here is the language of the Ketzos regarding Adam HaRishon.
דבר זה נתקשו בו רבים מדוע לא רצה ד' בתשובת אדם הראשון ולא השיב חרב המות אל נדנה ונ"ל במ"ש באות ג' בשם כתבי האר"י דבחטא האדם הרוח האלהי ישוב אל האלהים וע"י התשובה חוזר אליו וזה כוונת מאמרם ז"ל בעל תשובה כקטן שנולד דמי ועליו נאמר ועם נברא יהלל יה לפי"ז קודם חטא אדם הראשון היה הרכבתו מאתו יתברך והיה יציר כפיו של הקב"ה שנתן לו חלקו וראוי היה שלא יכלה ולהתקיים באיש אמנם לאחר החטא כשנסתלק חלק האלהי ואחר כך כשחזר בתשובה והחזיר החלק האלהי והרי הוא כאלו עשה את עצמו והיה בבחינת ועם נברא ומעשי אדם לא יוכלו להתקיים באיש רק במין ומאז עלה מות בחלונינו ובזה יובן הא דאיתא במדרש השיבנו ה' אליך ונשובה חדש ימינו כקדם כימי אדם הראשון והיינו שאנו רוצים שיהיה מקודם אתערותא דלעילא ויהיה התשובה ע"י הקב"ה ואח"כ ונשובה ואז נהיה יציר כפיו של הקב"ה ונחיה ולא נמות וזהו כימי אדם הראשון קודם חטאו אשר רק בשמרו לעשות מצות ד' יחזיק בקרבו החלק האלהי לעד ויהיה תמיד בבחינת באר וזהו כוונת מאמרם ז"ל וצדיק באמונתו יחיה היינו בבטחונו שאינו בוטח ברוב חילו כי הכסף איננה עצמות כי אם בד' נכון לבו ובאמונתו יחיה והוא הנקרא חיות שנובע מעצמו 

Here is where he says that illuyim aren't as glatt as lesser baalei kishron that have to work on themselves.
מיהר"ם אלמושנינו בביאורו לספר קהלת י א זבובי מות יבאיש יביע שמן רוקח יקר מחכמה ז ומכבוד סכלות מעט ע"ש שכתב דהישרים בשכלם אינם חריפים כל כך דהחריפות אינו אלא אגב שבשתא ולפי שאלו שאין שכלם ישר ויש להם מעכב בשכלם כאשר יגבר השכל עולה השכל בחריפות גדול כאשר אנו רואין בתבערת אש כאשר יוצק עליו מעט מים אז יגבר ויתלהב האש ביתר שאת ויתר עז ממוקדה מקדם בלעדי מעט המים כן הדבר הזה אם יש לשכל קצת מנגד והוא הסכלות מעט ואז יתגבר עליו השכל ויהיה מחודד יותר ויותר ע"ש ובזה נראה לפרש