Pekudei. The Most Important Ingredient in Bringing the Shechina

Brief outline:   
מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו
The Rambam applies the rule of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו in three places: in one, he says "mitzvah," and in the other two, "chiyuv."
Use the Tosfos Ri'd to say that some mitzvos have an aspect of  מצוה שבגופו, although technically they are not מצוה שבגופו. 
These are the mitzvos where, more than mitzvos in general that are mekadesh us, the תוצאה is the תועלת of being mashreh the Shechina on us as individuals. 
The Rambam holds that in the case of these hybrid mitzvos, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו generates chiyuv, not just mitzvah.
A general overview of the rules of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.

Pekudei ends the series of Parshios that describe the instructions for, the funding of, and the realization of the construction of the Mishkan.  The Mitzva to build the Mishkan is synonymous with the Mitzva to build a Beis Hamikdash.  This mitzva applies to us today and forever; when we will finally have a Beis Hamikdash, this mitzvah will be to maintain it.

The Rambam frames the mitzva thus:

והכל חייבין לבנות ולסעד בעצמן ובממונם אנשים ונשים כמקדש המדבר.

All are obligated to build and to assist, with their person and with their money, men and women, just as was true for the Mishkan of the Desert.

Note that the Rambam says בעצמן, with their person.  Apparently, the Rambam is teaching us that the mitzva of building the mikdash cannot be entirely delegated: one must do it at least something personally and physically.  

Where did the Rambam get this?  There is no Chazal that says this explicitly.  So the Rambam must be based either on some diyuk, an analytical derivation specific to Binyan Beis Hamikdash, or on some general rule.  The most likely explanation is that the Rambam is based on the general rule

מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו

A Mitzvah is better done by the person rather than his agent.  Mitzva bo yoser mibishlucho.

The problem is that this is a preference, not an obligation, and if this is what the Rambam means, he shouldn't have said chayav/obligated, he should have said Mitzva, preferable.

The Rambam does use this same expression in another application. 30 Shabbos 6:

אע"פ שהיה אדם חשוב ביותר ואין דרכו ליקח דברים מן השוק ולא להתעסק במלאכות שבבית חייב לעשות דברים שהן לצורך השבת בגופו שזה הוא כבודו. חכמים הראשונים מהם מי שהיה מפצל העצים לבשל בהן. ומהן מי שהיה מבשל או מולח בשר או גודל פתילות או מדליק נרות. ומהן מי שהיה יוצא וקונה דברים שהן לצורך השבת ממאכל ומשקה אף על פי שאין דרכו בכך. וכל המרבה בדבר זה הרי זה משובח: 

Even a dignified person who does not publicly shop or do housework is obligated to physically make preparations for Shabbos for this is his honor.  (examples follow-great Talmidei Chachamim that split kindling, one that cooked or salted meat, or made wicks, or went to the store and bought food and drink for Shabbos.)  And doing ever more is ever more praiseworthy.

We know exactly from where the Rambam got this halacha: Shabbos119a and Kiddushin 41a, almost verbatim.  The Gemara in Kiddushin brings the stories about preparing for Shabbos to illustrate the rule of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, a rule that appears only there in Kiddushin, and which is explicitly applied only to two cases- Kiddushin/betrothal and preparation for Shabbos.

So its clear that the Rambam does use the word Chayav when he is referring to מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  This is puzzling, because it is clear in the Gemara in Kiddushin that מצוה means preference, not obligation.  The Mishna says one can be mekadesh with a shliach, and the Gemara says that although betroth a woman via a representative, it is preferable to do it yourself because of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  Then, alternatively, the Gemara says that there might be an actual issur in sending a shliach, because one must see a woman before betrothal.  The Gemara says that the difference between the two explanations is that the second approach is one of Chiyuv/issur, and the first is one of mitzvah.   So the Rambam is puzzling.

The Mishna Berura (Biur Halacha in 250 D"H Yishtadel) notes that when the Mechaber quotes the Rambam, he uses the word Yishtadel (he should endeavor) instead of Chayav (he is obligated.)  The Mishna Berura says that it is possible that the Rambam himself didn't really mean Chayav, he just meant that it's very important, because if it weren't, these great Chachamim wouldn't leave their learning to do these things when they would be done by others anyway.  But he ends with a Tzarich Iyun, because we know that when the Rambam says Chayav, he probably means chayav. 

(The Aruch Hashulchan is even more interesting.  He says (250:3) that  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is a hiddur, and you can be yotzei this hiddur by having your spouse do it, because Ishto K'Gufo!  I'm not sure whether this is because of a high regard for the concept of Ishto K'gufo, or because of a low estimation of MBYM.)

But now that we've pointed out the same anomaly in the Rambam in Beis Habechira, it's hard to believe that he meant Chayav as "very important."  This is particularly interesting, because in the primary application, that one should be mekadesh personally, the Rambam does not say Chayav!  The Rambam in 3 Ishus 19 says

מצוה שיקדש אדם את אשתו בעצמו יותר מעל ידי שלוחו. וכן מצוה לאשה שתקדש עצמה בידה יותר מעל ידי שלוחה.

 It is a Mitzva to be mekadesh personally rather than through a shliach.

What happened to Chayav?  Of course, the answer is that  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is just mitzvah, not chayav.

So it has become harder to accept the Mishna Berura's suggestion.  If the Rambam uses מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו only three times, and two of those times he says chayav and once he says mitzvah, it's most likely that when he said chayav he meant chayav and when he said mitzva he meant mitzva.  So, what does the Rambam have in mind?  Why would מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו sometimes mean Mitzva and sometimes mean Chayav?

The answer:
The Ktzos in 382 brings the Tosfos Ri'd that says there are some mitzvos that you can delegate and some that you can't.  The ones that involve your body- מצוה שבגופו- cannot be delegated; wearing tefillin, sitting in the Sukkah, and so forth.  Other mitzvos are not called מצוה שבגופו, bodily mitzvos, such as Kiddushin or designating Teruma, and are effective via shliach.

As we've seen, even among those mitzvos that can be done via shliach, the general rule of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו applies, and tells us that it is better to do them yourself.  But I propose that there is a third category; mitzvos that although technically are not מצוה שבגופו/bodily mitzvos, do have a צד, an aspect of bodily mitzvos. 

These are the mitzvos whose purpose is the תוצאה, the effect, on the individual or the group who does the mitzva.  The effect of these mitzvos is to be mashreh the Shechina on Klal Yisrael individually and as a people.

בתוכו לא נאמר אלא בתוכם- בתוך לבו של כל אחד ואחד 

תרומה כ'ה ח' , של"ה שכ'ה ב'  ושכ'ו ובשער האותיות אות ל' , ואלשיך שם, and see מהר'ל there.

So by Binyan Habayis, the Hashra'as Hashechina is explicit in this passuk.   But how do I know that Shemiras Shabbos is mashreh the Shechina just like the Beis Hamikdash?  Because of the Gemara in Shabbos 118b.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחי אלמלי משמרין ישראל שתי שבתות כהלכתן מיד נגאלים שנא' (ישעיהו נו) כה אמר ה' לסריסים אשר ישמרו את שבתותי וכתיב בתריה  וַהֲבִיאוֹתִים אֶל הַר קָדְשִׁי וְשִׂמַּחְתִּים בְּבֵית תְּפִלָּתִי עוֹלֹתֵיהֶם וְזִבְחֵיהֶם לְרָצוֹן עַל מִזְבְּחִי  

Reb Yochanan in the name of Reb Shimon bar Yochai:  If only Klal Yisrael would properly observe two Shabbasos they would immediately be redeemed, as it says "So says Hashem to the childless who observe my Shabbasos," and afterwards it says "and I will bring them to My holy mountain and make them glad in My house of prayer, (where) their offerings and sacrifices on my altar will please Me...."

We see that Shemiras Shabbos and the Beis Hamikdash are intimately connected, and that both bring Hashra'as Hashechina.

If you don't like the tzushtell, you can look at it from the perspective that Shabbos brings a Neshama Yeseirah.  In any case, the point is that Shabbos has an immediate and personal effect on the person who is Shomer Shabbos.

Both the Mikdash and Shabbos brings Hashra'as Hashechina to individuals.  To accomplish this, it's not enough to have it done on your behalf.  You have to do it yourself, physically; to some extent it is a מצוה שבגופו.  In these cases, the meaning of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is that it is a chiyuv, not just a mitzvah.  By Binyan Mikdash and Shabbos, the mitzvos bring Hashra'as Hashechina.  By Kiddushin, the kiddushin might lead to Hashra'as Hashechina if the couple creates a house of shalom and kedusha (Sotah 17a), it is certainly a precursor, but it is not the proximate cause; the Kiddushin is too early in the process to say that it is Mashreh Shechina.  So Kiddushin is really not different than other mitzvos.  Where the mitzva does contribute to Hashra'as Hashechina, then there is a general hiddur mitzvah to do it yourself, but there is not a chiyuv.


So look at it this way:   When you're building the Beis Hamikdash, and when you prepare something special for Shabbos, do not make the mistake of thinking that the cheftzah shel mitzvah, the mitzvah commodity, is the object you're working on, the kli shareis, or the cholent.  You are the Cheftza shel Mitzvah.  And if it's you, it's no different than Tefillin (Tosfos Ri'd in Ha'ish Mekadeish), and you can't mail it in.

I was reminded about this recently when I remembered a man that lived in my neighborhood.  He was a dignified man, a man who achieved great financial success, and who was very involved in community education and chesed organizations.  Every once in a while, I would find him polishing the brass rails of the Bima in Shul.  This man could have flown in a Romanian to do it every week, but he wanted to do it himself.  Yehoshua was zocheh to lead Klal Yisrael (Bamidbar Rabba 21:14) because he insisted on setting out the benches in the yeshiva himself.  In Kelm, there was an annual lottery to determine who would have the honor of emptying the trash can that stood in the Beis Medrash.  Let's all remember that chavivus mitzva means that every once in a while you roll up your sleeves and do it yourself.


General discussion of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו (hereinafter MBYM):

Does MBYM apply to all mitzvos?  

• Mechaber OC 260:2 and Magen Avraham SK 1- Yes.  Shaarei Teshuva OC 250 in name of Tosfos Shabbos- Yes, even to prepare the Seuda for a Bris or a wedding.  Yoreh Deah 305:10, Reb Akiva Eiger and the Gaon both say that lechatchila all mitzvos should be done by you and not a Shliach.  (By the way, a close relative of mine is married to Reb Reuven Feinstein's daughter, and when I was visiting the Yeshiva of Staten Island, I surprised Reb Reuven and his Rebbitzen as they were setting the tables for a grandchild's bris.  I asked why they were doing it, when there were literally hundreds of others that would be thrilled to take over from them, and Reb Reuven told me "מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו". ) 

• The Tshuvos Or Zarua (Siman 11), however, says that in all mitzvos where the purpose is "to bring about a condition," it doesn't matter at all who does the act.  The examples he gives are Milah on a son, teaching your son Torah, building a Sukkah, having someone else put tefillin on you, and having someone else putting a tallis on you.  (I have no idea how the Or Zarua learns the Gemara in Kiddushin.  Preparing Shabbos meals and doing Kiddushin are perfect examples of "bringing about a condition," and despite that, the Gemara applies the rule of MBYM.)  The Chochmas Shlomo in OC 260 also holds that MBYM only applies to Kiddushin and Shabbos, and argues with the Magen Avraham, and says that the Minhag to bake matza yourself is based on something completely different.

Does MBYM mean you have to do the whole thing yourself, or only start the mitzva yourself?

• The Pri Megadim on the Magen Avraham 432 SK 5 that says that מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו applies to Bedikas Chametz says that if you start by yourself, you can delegate the rest of the house, and it's not a problem.  What matters is that you started by yourself.  This is really self evident, inasmuch as the Gemara in Kiddushin and Shabbos don't say that you have to make the whole Shabbos yourself.  It just says that you should do one of the initial steps of preparation- singeing the skin, salting the fish, etc.

If you did use a Shliach, can you fix things later?

• The Bendiner Illui, in his Gilyonei Hashas in Kiddushin 41, brings that there is a minhag that if you're mekadeish with a shliach, then when the woman shows up, to be mekadeish her yourself.  Some say it's a meaningless minhag, but he explains it's like Hekdesh Illui miderabanan where your aris was mafrish teruma.  I would shtell tzu the mitzva to be makdish the bechor even though it's kadosh mei'rechem (Erchin 28b-29a) where it's clearer.

Does it apply to Hechsher mitzva?

• Magen Avraham in 453 says that because of  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו some people go to see the grinding of their Matza, even though it's only a hechsher.  
• The Netziv in Sheiltos 169 says that for a general hechsher, there's no din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  But if the Hechsher is mentioned in the Torah, then there is a din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו.  Examples- building the sukkah, the Shimur of Matza, and making Tzitzis. 
• Pnei Yeshoshua in Brachos 18 says clearly that there's no din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו on Hechsher mitzva, like digging a grave. 
• But a careful reading of the Ran in Kiddushin 41 and the Yam shel Shlomo there shows that they hold that MBYM does apply to Hechsher Mitzvah.

Is there any difference between  מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו and the din of זה קלי ואנוהו, that is, הידור מצוה?  

• Maybe the din of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is based on הידור.
• Maybe not.  Maybe it's just a svara, as Rashi there indicates, about greater schar.
• If it is, then maybe it should be talui in the machlokes Rashi and Tosfos in the beginning of Lulav Hagazul in Sukka 29b, whether the psul gamur of yaveish is based on the general din of hiddur (Rashi), that every mitzvah that is totally lacking hiddur is 100% passul,  or on a specific requirement of hiddur by esrog and therefore by lulav (Tosfos), because ve'anveihu can't possibly result in a psul gamur.  This might also yield an explanation of the Rambam, if delegating some mitzvos results in an absolute lack of hiddur.

What is more important, מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו or הידור מצוה?

• The Chayei Adam in 68 talks about whether better to write a Sefer Torah or Mezuza or Tefillin by yourself kosher but poorly, or hire an expert Sofer who will write with Hiddur.  He paskens that מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is more important than הידור מצוה, which is obviously not the opinion of the Aruch Hashulchan in 250:3 that I mentioned above.

******************************************

Vayakhel, Shemos 35:22. Rosh Chodesh, the Women's Holiday; and, Getting Things Done

The passuk says that the people donated wholeheartedly toward the Mishkan to the extent that Moshe Rabbeinu eventually had to tell them to stop bringing things.
וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים עַל הַנָּשִׁים כֹּל נְדִיב לֵב הֵבִיאוּ חָח וָנֶזֶם וְטַבַּעַת וְכוּמָז כָּל כְּלִי זָהָב וְכָל אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֵנִיף תְּנוּפַת זָהָב 
The men came with the women; every generous hearted person brought bracelets and earrings and rings and buckles, all kinds of golden objects, and every man who (donated a donation) of gold...

The Daas Zekeinim there explains that the women refused to donate their jewelry for the creation of the Eigel.  What they did give, they gave under duress.  Now, when the call went out for donations for the Mikdash, the men wondered if the women would be willing to give anything.  As it turned out, the women dragged their husbands with them and thronged Moshe Rabbeinu, insisting that he take their golden jewelry (as the Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Rabbeinu Bachay also say).  Whereas they had to be coerced to give for the Eigel, for the Mishkan they were more enthusiastic than the men.


The Daas Z'keinim continues and says that if they had been unwilling to give their jewelry in both cases, it wouldn't prove anything.  Maybe they simply loved their jewelry and wouldn't give it away for any reason.  But their enthusiasm about giving to the mikdash conclusively proved that they were motivated by a spiritual refinement which led to an abhorrence of the Golden Calf and an enthusiastic nedivus for the Mishkan.  In commemoration of this spiritual greatness, they were given as an eternal holiday the day the Mishkan was erected, Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  Along with that Rosh Chodesh, they were given every Rosh Chodesh of the year as well.  The primary celebration, however, the Mother of the Yom Tov, is Rosh Chodesh Nissan.  (Much of this is not in the printed Daas Z'keinim.  It's an interpretive reading based on my expertise in his style of writing.)


There are many references to this odd yomtov.  The most famous is the Yerushalmi in Pesachim 4:1 and Taanis 6:1 that says that for such women who have a minhag to not work on Rosh Chodesh, it is a valid minhag.  This Yerushalmi is cited by the Rashba in Teshuvos 306 and the Rosh in Megilla 3:4 and the Mordechai in Shabbos 2:278.  Rashi also mentions it there in Megilla on 22b, and Tosfos brings the idea from the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer Perek 45.


The Yerushalmi does not explain the source of the minhag, but the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer does, referring to the events of the Eigel.  The part about their rushing more excitedly than the men to give away their jewelry to build the Mishkan does not appear in most editions of the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer.


Since women are mentioned several times as having spun wool and linen for the Mishkan, in many places the minhag eventually became limited to not spinning thread Rosh Chodesh.  Since nobody spins thread anymore, observing this Rosh Chodesh holiday has become rare, outside of Deformed Judaism.  Still, it is brought in OC 417, starting with the Tur.


From the Yerushalmi, it would seem that this is a din that needs a minhag.  In other words, a woman cannot choose to do this, it only has legitimacy if it is a minhag in her family from back in ancient times.  As the Yerushalmi says, if they do it, it is a legitimate minhag, but only If they have the minhag

But in fact, Rav Ovadia Yosef says that the minhag still exists and should be respected.  Women who choose to do this minhag should avoid heavy or tiring work.  They can turn on a laundry machine, but they should arrange heavier jobs for a different day.  This is based on a Pri Chadash, who says anyone can take this minhag upon themselves- פרי חדש' סי' תיז.  A woman can wake up one Rosh Chodesh and tell her husband, "Guess who's cooking today, honey!  I decided that I hold like the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer and the Pri Chadash!"  Which, of course, means they'll be eating out once a month.

UPDATE:  My mother shetichyeh told me that she remembers clearly that the women of the Talmud Torah community in Kelm did not sew on Rosh Chodesh.  

There is also an interesting Or Zaruah, who presents a novel interpretation of the last words of the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer. 
תדע לך שכל חודש וחודש חאשח מתקדשת וטובלת וחוזרת לבעלה והיא חביבה עליו כיום החופה כשם שהלבנה מתחדשת בכל ראש חודש והכל מתאוין לראותח כך האשה כשהיא מתחדשת בכל חודש בעלה מתאוה עליה וחביבה עליו כאשה חדשה
 אור זרוע הלכות ראש חודש תנד

The Shaagas Aryeh, in his Turei Even on Megilla there, doesn't like any of this.  He says that the Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer is, in his words, דברי אגדה בעלמא.  This means that he thinks it's a nice story, but that is was intended to be non-halachic, an aggadic statement that has no halachic weight.  So he proposes an entirely different explanation.  He says that when the Beis Hamikdas was standing, not doing melacha on Rosh Chodesh was universal, because on the day that any person brings a korban, he may not do melacha (Tosfos, Ran and Rosh in Pesachim 50a, based on a Yerushalmi there, but see Rambam 6 Klei Hamikdash 10 that it's only derabanan).  Since on Rosh Chodesh the Korban Musaf was brought on our behalf, we cannot do melacha.  He brings a Yerushalmi that says that the only reason the Korban Tamid doesn't prohibit all the Jews from working every single day of the week is because of the passuk Ve'asafta deganecha, which allows melacha.  He says that a remnant of this old minhag is the fact that there are four aliyos on Rosh Chodesh, which we don't allow on weekdays because of bittul melacha.  This was instituted back when nobody worked on Rosh Chodesh, and stayed on the books even after the Churban Habayis.



So now: a question.  

How can the Shaagas Aryeh just blow away a Yerushalmi and a Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer?  "Just agadeta:"?  It seems to be a little too dismissive, even by Shaagas Aryeh standards. 


And this is how we come to the Kodshim part of this discussion.


The next part is succinct, but I think it's clear enough. 

• Machtzis Hashekel provided the money from which community Korbanos were purchased.
• Women aren't chayav in Machtzis Hashekel. 
• The Korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh is a community Korban that is commemorated in Tefillas Musaf.
• Reb Akiva Eiger (Tshuvos 9 and OC 106) says that because women are not participants in the Korban Mussaf, they are not chayav to daven musaf.  Unlike Shacharis and Mincha, Tefillas Musaf focuses exclusively on the Korban Musaf, and should only be said by a person who is chayav to participate in the Korban Mussaf.  (This is also the opinion of the Tzlach in Brachos 26a, the beginning of the fourth perek, but for a different reason- because the davening of musaf is a zman grama and is not rachami, see Brachos 20b.)
• Additionally, some achronim (like the Steipler in Zvachim #3) say that all the Korbanos Tzibbur are zman grama and so women are doubly pattur from Korbanos Tzibbur.   
• According to the Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos) that the purpose of the chiyuv of building the Mishkan/Mikdash is to make it possible to do the Avodah, and if you say that their  ptur from machtzis hashekel means they're unconnected to the primary avodah, the Avodas Korbanos Tzibur, why are women chayav to participate in the building of the mishkan (Rambam 1 Beis Habechira 12 and Minchas Chinuch 95:18)?  If Mishkan= avodah, and women are pattur from avodah, then they should be pattur from Mishkan!  Does it make sense that they should be pattur from the mitzvah and be chayav in the 'machshir'?

Answer- 

• The question arises only because of a failure to understand an enormous and fundamental conceptual difference of Avodas Hashem between women and men.  The whole life story of women is that their greatest zechus is in supporting and enabling types of Avodas Hashem and mitzvos that they themselves are not chayav to do, like limud hatorah (hani nashi b'mai zachyan in Brachos 17a and Tshuvos Rashbash 324).  This concept is emphasized in what they did in donating their jewelry to the mishkan.  
• So for men, the Yomtov aspect of Rosh Chodesh stems from the Korban Musaf, as I said above from the Shaagas Aryeh, based on the first Tosfos in Makom She'nahagu, that the day that your special korban is brought is a Yomtov for you.  For women, it can't stem from there, because they're pattur from the Mussaf.  So their din Yomtov stems not from the Korban, but from their love for the mitzva of building the Mishkan, from their enthusiasm for seeing to it that a mitzvah gets done even when they themselves were not chayav to do the mitzvah.  
• So for men, with the Churban Habayis and bittul of the korban, no more issur melacha.  For the women, the yomtov was given without tna'im.  
• Or, it is the men's nature of supporting the eigel that caused the churban.  As far as women are concerned, we would still have the Beis Hamikdash, so the ptur melacha that stems from the Korban Musaf still applies.

***************************  

N.B.

The Rogotchover in this week's parsha on this passuk does note that women ought to be pattur from binyan because of zman grama.  He also brings from Avos d"Reb Nosson that even children brought nedavos.  He explains that the 'chiyuv' to build the mikdash is not like other chiyuvim.  It is a chiyuv to see to it that they will have a place to bring korbanos, and it's that "machshir" aspect that obligates them.  So he uses the Rambam to answer the question, not to ask it.  I assumed that since they're pattur from avodas tzibur, then they should be pattur from binyan.  He says that since they will be chayav to bring personal korbanos, they have a chiyuv to see to it that a Mikdash is available for that purpose.  

I think the Rogotchover is really just saying that zman grama is not an absolute ptur, and it depends on what the taam hamitzva is, as we see in Mezuza in Kiddushin 34a, and Tefilla in Brachos 20b.

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.

Titzaveh, Shemos 29:14. Rare Korbanos. And, The Joyful Month of Adar, משנכנס אדר מרבים בשמחה.

The first part of this post is about Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha, once Adar has begun, we increase our joy.  The second part of this post is focused Kodshim.  For the ninety nine percent of us that haven't learned kodshim seriously yet, I hope you enjoy the beginning, but I encourage you to get a chavrusa and buckle down.  Don't leave this world without having touched a very big part of the Torah!

Rashi in Taanis 29 says that we try to be more joyful in Adar because it is the month of the great miracles that saved our nation, Purim in Adar, which then leads into Nissan and Pesach.

The Sfas Emes there offers a different explanation which directly relates Av to Adar.  He says that in the month of Av we diminish our simcha because of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash.  Adar, he says, is the converse of that event, because in Adar we joyfully used to give the Machatzis Hashekel, the annual half-shekel donation which was used to buy communal offerings and appurtenant utensils, and to pay for the maintenance of the Beis Hamikdash.

Reb Reuven Feinstein points out that the Gaon distinguishes Simcha from Sasson.  The Gaon says that Sasson is the celebration of a joyful experience or achievement.  Simcha celebrates a new opportunity to do wonderful things.  שמחים בצאתם וששים בבואם.  A chassan and kallah have both Sasson and Simcha, Sasson for what they've gotten, and Simcha for the opportunity to achieve more happiness and to do new and special mitzvos in the future.  Simcha is enthusiasm, Simcha is excitement.  Of course, we are forever grateful that Hashem saved us from our enemies.  But when we say Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha, it doesn't mean just that we are happy about what happened in the past.  Simcha means we take the time to realize that this month gives us special opportunities to grow, to achieve, to contribute to the Geula and the Binyan Beis Hamikdash and the return of the Shechina to Klal Yisrael.  Charles DeGaulle, of a famously sober mien, was asked by a reporter whether he was happy.  He answered "What do you take me for, an idiot?"  He had a point.  Simcha that is satisfaction with what is is a dead end.  Simcha that is enthusiasm for what you can do is the beginning of a journey to greatness.  Marbim BeSimcha is not just commemoration; it is a celebration of an opportunity.  See to it that you really have something to celebrate: take advantage of the opportunity!  Be mechazek others, bring happiness to your friends and neighbors, raise the level of your community-  including the people who are not exactly like you.  Surprise someone whom you barely know with a nice Shalach Manos- not a trivial apple and grape juice.  Give a pastrami sandwich.  B'dieved, pizza will also do.  And don't forget the beer (the mature palate prefers IPA).

(It's been noted that the idea of Marbim does not necessarily apply to the first Adar in a leap year.  Indeed, the Yaavetz holds like that.  Others hold it does apply.  Since safek derabanan lekula, you don't have to be machmir to be marbeh simcha in Adar Rishon.  But you can be marbeh besimcha if you want to, and you won't be nikra hediot.)


AND NOW, KODSHIM.

There is a category of Korbanos called "The Nisrafim."  Unlike most korbanos, which are burned in the Beis Hamikdash, this category comprises Korbanos that, when correctly brought, are burned outside of Yerushalayim.  The only members of this group are:

פר העלם דבר של ציבור

פר ושעיר (העלם דבר של) עבודה זרה

(פר (העלם דבר של) כהן המשיח (ולא כהן  גדול מרובה בגדים

פר כהן גדול ושעיר של יום הכיפורים

All these korbanos are burned outside of Yerushalayim, outside Machaneh Yisrael.  (Yes, Para Aduma is also burned outside of Yerushalayim.   Parah Aduma is irrelevant to this discussion.  It is sui generis.)  These korbanos share one more element.  By most korbanos, the blood is applied to the exterior Mizbeiach, and absolutely not in the Heichal/Ohel Moed.  For these korbanos, however, the blood is applied in various places within the Heichal.

So we find two rare avodos in this group, which we will call A and B.  'A' is the avoda in the Heichal, and 'B' is burning outside the Machaneh.  

When we find association of two atypical characteristics, there are four possibilities:

A → B.
B → A.
Unknown C → both A and B.
Unknown C → A and Unknown D → B.

Evidence for the first linkage, that A causes B, is to be found in the case of a standard Chatas whose blood was inappropriately brought into the Heichal for the purpose of Kapara.  Such a Chatas is not eaten.  Instead, it must be completely burned, as are the Nisrafim listed above.  We see that A, bringing the blood into the Heichal, even where this is erroneous, results in B, the application of the rule of Nisrafim.  It is possible that this converts the exterior Chatas into an interior Chatas, at least to some extent.  Indeed, the Aruch Hashulchan in Kodshim 122  speculatives that bringing it into the Heichal elevates the kedusha of the blood and renders it unfit/overqualified for the lower-kedusha external Mizbeiach.

In fact, the Sfas Emes (Zevachim 82) says a remarkable thing.  Although we hold, like Rebbi Eliezer, that External Chatas blood brought into the Heichal with intent to do the blood avodah there is enough to render it unfit, Rebbi Shimon holds that only actually using the blood in the Heichal renders it unfit.  The Sfas Emes says that there is a world of difference between Rebbi Eliezer's "Unfit" and Rebbi Shimon's "Unfit."  Rebbi Eliezer holds that the korban becomes useless and deconsecrated.  Rebbi Shimon, he says, holds that using the blood in the Heichal generates a kapara for the owner of the korban, although we have to burn the meat outside of Yerushalayim.  The former understands the result to be a derogation, a deconsecration, of the korban.  The latter understands it to be a conversion from one form of Chatas to another, such that the korban is then burned, but the owner gains the intended benefit of the korban.

What does all this have to do with Parshas Titzaveh????

This parsha describes the Miluim, the inauguration of the Mishkan, which included the investiture of the Kohanim.  This involved certain Korbanos.  One of these Korbanos was a Par, a bull, as a Chatas.  The service of this korban was the same as that of any other Chatas, namely, that lines of blood were placed on the corners of the top of the Mizbei'ach, but there was one aspect of this korban that is unique.  It is the one and only exterior Chatas that is burned outside the Machaneh.  In other words, it is the only Chatas whose blood is not placed on the interior mizbei'ach that must be burned outside the Machaneh, and not in the Azara.  Rashi notes this fact in  Shemos 29:14.

וְאֶת בְּשַׂר הַפָּר וְאֶת עֹרוֹ וְאֶת פִּרְשׁוֹ תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה חַטָּאת הוּא, and Rashi says  תשרף באש: לא מצינו חטאת 

 חיצונה נשרפת אלא זו

Reading just this Rashi will leave you with the wrong impression, because there actually was one other such exception- the calf Chatas brought by Aharon on the eighth day of the Miluim.  There Rashi says the same as he says here, that the only exterior chatas's that are burned outside the encampment are that calf and our parsha's bull.  The two are essentially the same, in that they were both investiture Chata'os, one for Kohanim in general, and one for Aharon alone.  (Yes, the korban Chatas that invested the Leviim in Be'haaloscha was also burned.  But I believe it was burned like an Olah, on the Mizbei'ach.) Now this is a classic case of a Gzeiras Hakasuv, a halacha that clearly will defeat any attempt to understand it.  Nonetheless, it does seem to contradict our assumption that burning the internal  chataos is tied to the avoda being done in the Heichal.  Here, the avoda is not done in the Heichal, and it was burned anyway.  But this morning, when I was saying the shiur, I mentioned the Rashi, and someone pointed out that it might be incorrect to say that the unique aspect of this korban is that it is burned outside the machaneh even though the blood avoda in in the Azara.  The chidush might be that although it is a par of the kohen gadol, like that of Yom Kippur, and therefore needs to be burned outside, nonetheless the blood is put on the exterior mizbeiach. To review: We assumed that bringing inside for avoda results in burning outside the Machaneh.  A leads to B.  It is possible, though, that an unknown external factor, C, results in both A and B.  This was shown to be unlikely from the case of an exterior Chatas whose blood was brought into the Heichal for Avodah, so that an undesired A occurs, and the result is B.  Clearly, then, we cannot say that A and B are the results of some outside X.  It seems clear that A results in B.  But if so, how are we to understand the Chatas of Miluim?  There is no A, and still there is a B.  So we might say either that yes, A does cause B, but some other factor can also cause B, or that A and only A causes B, but here, by the miluim, what seems to be non-A has the same effect as A.  So the question is rephrased.  Why, by the Miluim, is an outside Avoda essentially the same as an inside Avoda? And the answer to this comes partially from Ramban, but mostly from the Netziv. The Ramban says that these Miluim Korbanos were really forms of Kapara for Avoda Zara, and so are included in the standard category of Se'ir Avoda Zara.  The Netziv argues and says that they must be Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, a similar idea.  But why was the blood on the outside Mizbei'ach? The answer is, as the Netziv says in Shemos 40:9 DH Vehaya Kodesh, that there were No Avodos Pnim until the eighth day of the Miluim, because until then, only the outside Mizbei'ach had been annointed and only it had kedusha- and that kedusha happened to be Kedushas Bama.  According to him, there was no concept of Avodas Pnim until then, or, alternatively, Chutz had the same din as Pnim, because ein pnim mimenu.  Now if Chutz could serve as Pnim, this all makes sense.  Yes, the Miluim had the din of Par He'elam Davar, or Se'ir Avoda Zara.  Therefore, their avodas hadam resulted in Sreifa outside the Machaneh.  The fact that this was done on the outside mizbei'ach didn't matter.  The definition of A is either that the Torah requires an avoda called Zerikas Pnim, and this type of Zerika was done, or that in fact the zerikas dam was done in the Heichal.  Here, the avodas hadam of these korbanos was A.  So even though it was done on the outside mizbei'ach, it had a din of Zerikas Pnim.  Other chata'os done on this mizbei'ach had a din of Zerikas Chutz.  But for these unusual korbanos, what was done was a kiyum of a requirement for a Zerikas Pnim, and so it is called A.  And A results in B. And if that's not marbim be'simcha, I don't know what is. (please note that I am not interested in discussing why these korbanos are burned outside the machaneh.  I am not qualified to discuss that, and I am not at all interested in listening to people who think they are.) I tried to use the Gemara in Rosh Hashanna 26a, that Shofar, which comes l'zikaron, is like pnim, but as attractive as it sounded, it turned out to be a dead end.

Teruma: A Year That Is Just Getting Adar and Adar

(please note: the title and the post contain a little pun that only makes sense if you read  this in English, and not if you translate it, and only if you read Hebrew with indifference to mi'le'el and mi'le'ra.)


Here is a poignant vignette from the Saskatchewan Leader-Post.  It brought me a smile, just in time for Adar.

A "Black Widow" suicide bomber planned a terrorist attack in central Moscow on New Year's Eve but was killed when an unexpected text message set off her bomb too early, according to Russian security sources.

The unnamed woman, who is thought to be part of the same group that struck Moscow's Domodedovo airport on Monday, intended to detonate a suicide belt near Red Square on New Year's Eve in an attack that could have killed hundreds.

Security sources believe a message from her mobile phone operator wishing her a happy new year received just hours before the planned attack triggered her suicide belt, killing her at a safe house.

Islamist terrorists in Russia often use mobile phones as detonators. The bomber's handler, who is usually watching their charge, sends the bomber a text message in order to set off his or her explosive belt at the moment when it is thought they can inflict maximum casualties.

The Mishkan brings Hashra'as Hashechina, and this requires simcha  Learning Torah also brings Hashra'as Hashechina, and also requires simcha.  Which requires more simcha?  Hashem decreed that Nadav and Avihu had to die for what they did at Har Sinai, and that their death would inaugurate some new connection between Hashem and mankind.  Instead of this happening at Mattan Torah, it was delayed until the Mishkan was built.  Rashi explains that Hashem did not want to interfere with the joy of Mattan Torah.  So you see that Simcha is more essential to the Hashra'a that comes with Torah than that comes with the Mishkan.

In what month did Klal Yisrael finally and without any ambivalence accept the Torah?  In Adar.  Kimu Ve'Kiblu.  Is Adar the month of Kabalas Hatorah because of the simcha, or is the simcha inherent in the month the reason it is the time of the final Kabalas Hatorah?  The answer is, Yes.  The two factors work together.  The Gemara (Pesachim 68b, Rebbi Eliezer) says that on most holidays, one may choose to draw close to Hashem through ascetic contemplation, but there are two and only two holidays (besides Shabbos) that require joyous physical involvement in the day, and those are Purim and Shavuos.  The two days of Kabalas Hatorah!

This year is getting Adar and Adar.  The weather is odd, the news is odd, the Middle East is turning upside down and inside out, Australia is beginning to remind us of Atlantis, the United States is just waiting for the Mastodons to show up, everything is just odder than ever and getting odder every day.  All we need now is for Meretz to declare that they are changing the party charter to focus exclusively on the advancement of Breslev Chasidus.  If that's too much to hope for, maybe Ariel Sharon (אריאל בן דבורה לרפואה שלימה) will wake up and, well rested, return with new vigor to his Prime Ministership.

And here is another candidate for Oddness Supreme:  The New York Times, the bastion of enlightened secular patronizing snootiness, the mother of anti-religious social engineering, the haven for self-hating Jews, published the following on January 11 of 2011, and I was amazed at the deference and respect it showed, considering the source:

Q.

After two years of endless nagging, my kosher boyfriend has finally decided to come over to dark side and, at least for one night, temporarily abandon his dietary restraint. Can you recommend a moderately priced place that serves such good pork and shellfish dishes, he’ll convert permanently?

A.

Great food can change minds and alter people’s lives for the better, it’s true. But so can faith, for those who have it. Helping you use food to convince someone to abandon his religious principles cannot end well for me. (Nor for him, if his mother finds out.) The laws of kashrut are clear: No pork. No shellfish.
And so I cannot possibly recommend to you a visit to Momofuku Ssam Bar, where the two banned proteins often combine into Korean-inflected Continental deliciousness, and where a fellow might be introduced to the pleasures of cured hog’s jowl, served with honeycrisp apple kimchi and a Lebanese yogurt cut with maple syrup.
Nor could I nod to the Spanish-style Casa Mono, where you can find a delicious chilled lobster with ham (a combination the great Calvin Trillin would call a double-trayf special). For you there can be no suckling pig at the Italian gem Maialino or pig’s trotter at the British pub the Breslin or barbecued oysters at Tribeca’s American bistro Forgione or clams in black bean sauce at Chinatown’s terrific Oriental Garden.
That said, if you want to skate close to the edge, where the ice is thin and crackly, Chinese is probably your best bet. As my great hero Arthur Schwartz, formerly the restaurant critic for The Daily News of New York, put it in his most recent book, “Jewish Home Cooking,” “the Chinese cut their food into small pieces before it is cooked, disguising the nonkosher foods. This last aspect seems silly, but it is a serious point. My late cousin Daniel, who kept kosher, along with many other otherwise observant people I have known, happily ate roast pork fried rice and egg foo yung. ‘What I can’t see won’t hurt me,’ was Danny’s attitude.”
But proceed with caution. The Torah calls Jews a holy people and prescribes for them a holy diet. If they choose to abandon it, so be it. But you ever argue with a rabbi? I’m not meshuga. Take this boy to the Prime Grill for a kosher steak and tell him you love him.

Sam Sifton is the restaurant critic of The Times.

Yes, this is a year so odd that odd is starting to look normal.  But it is also a year that gives us two months of Mishenichnas Adar Marbim BeSimcha.  Let us use that double dose of Simcha to enhance our limud hatorah and learn with diligence and joy and love, and this will bring the Geula to Klal Yisrael quickly and finally.

Here are illustrations for the upcoming months and their mazal, in keeping with the spirit of

this post.

Mishpatim, Shemos 22:6. The Oath of the Custodian

The Torah here teaches the duties of shomrim (custodians, bailees, people with whom a pikadon- a bailment of any property- is entrusted.)   They are the Shomer Chinam (Gratuitous Bailee,) the Shomer Sachar (Bailee for Hire,) the  Shoeil (Borrower,) and the Socher (Renter.)  

כִּי יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ אִם יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנָיִם. אִם לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹקים  אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ. עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה 

The Likutei Shichos (1962) here brings and expands upon the Tzemach Tzedek. The Ribono shel Olam entrusted each and every Jew with a precious and beautiful thing: his neshama.  He is given the pikadon of a perfect neshama and obliged to keep it in perfect condition, even to elevate it to a higher level of kedusha.  He accepts this stewardship with an oath, a shevuah— שמשביעין אותו תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע (Niddah 30b) be righteous, do not be wicked!  


If the soul is damaged, this is because its steward was negligent.  He was poshei’ah, — “al kol dvar pesha.”   How does such a thing happen?  “Al shor al chamor al seh ve’al salmo,” for the cattle, for the sheep, for the garment;  all these things lead to “al kol aveida,” to losing the holiness of the G-dly soul, because “asher yomar ki hu zeh”, he mistakenly thought that the ‘ki’ was ‘zeh.' he thought the means were the ultimate purpose, he thought that the appearance was the reality.  He explains that ‘zeh’ can only refer to the Ribono Shel Olam, (Mi Hu Zeh, Zeh Eili Ve'anveihu) because nothing else has any real being.  
‘Shor,’ the ox, refers to the destructive instinct, the evil impulse that exults in destruction, that drives a man to destroy himself and others; 
'Chamor,' the donkey, refers to ‘chamra afilu bitekufas Tamuz kerira lei,’ a donkey is cold even in the time of intense heat, which means that even in a time of clear hashgacha pratis, self evident divine providence, he remains cold and unmoved; 
‘Salma,' the garment, is the trait of rebelliousness, as it says “ubeged bogdim bagadu (which shows that the word 'beged' is a homonym for both 'garment' and 'rebellion'); This is the resistance to  the concept that we are servants of Hashem and should accept the direction of Gedolei Torah.
‘Seh,’ the sheep, is “seh pezura Yisrael,” sheepishness.  This is when the Jews adopt the character of the nations in which they are mixed, and forget their unique mesora.  

What is the best strategy for a person who sees that he is being poshei’a in the pikadon, that he is failing in his stewardship of his soul?  He should go to the gadol hador, to Elohim, to beis din, and learn to do teshuva.  His teshuva is “yeshaleim shnayim lerei’eihu."  A chozeir betshuva has to do twice as much as others do, as it says in the Iggeres Hateshuva “ragil likros daf echad yikra shnei dafim;" if he used to study one page, now he must study two.  If he does this, then these nefesh habehamis qualities will turn to avodas Hashem: when he does so, all these powers that drove him away from Hashem will change to methods of greater service to Hashem.  Rav tevu’os bekoach shor; Yisachar chamor garem; Rei’ach salmosa’yich ke'rei’ach levanon (Shir Hashirim 4:11), and instead of seh pezurah, mashceini achareicha, and he will serve Hashem with both yetzarim.

My father zatzal often quoted the Gemara there in Nidda later on that daf, and when I told this to him, he expanded on it and added it to this vort.  Tehillim 24:

מִי יַעֲלֶה בְהַר ה' וּמִי יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ. נְקִי כַפַּיִם וּבַר לֵבָב אֲשֶׁר לֹא נָשָׂא לַשָּׁוְא נַפְשִׁי וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּע לְמִרְמָה

מִי יַעֲלֶה בְהַר ה who will go up on the mountain of Hashem?   נְקִי כַפַּיִם— even one unjust penny stains the hands, and only a person with clean hands can go up.  וּבַר לֵבָב— this is about what the person thought about doing to other people.  Only a person with a pure heart, a person whose desire was to help others, not to take advantage of them.  לֹא נָשָׂא לַשָּׁוְא נַפְשִׁי— who is saying this?  If it is the person talking about his own nefesh, which fits into “nafshi,” then it should say “asher lo nasasi,” not “lo nasa.”  It is the Ribbono Shel Olam, who says eidus that the person didn’t use the neshama for nothing.  It is called nafshi because “mahn denafach migarmei nofach,” the neshama comes from Hashem.  What did the person use it for?  To eat kugel?  Every animal eats straw, and since people are smarter, they eat better straw!asher lo noso lashov nafshi velo nishba lemirma.  The Ribbono shel Olam gives each person a neshama for a purpose.  The purpose is to use it to accomplish good in the world, to become an adam gadol, to be mizakeh the rabbim.  Hashem has to be able to testify that this person לֹא נָשָׂא לַשָּׁוְא נַפְשִׁי, he did not carry around the holy neshama ‘lashav’, for nothing, that he accomplished his tafkid in the world.  And, as the Gemara in Niddah says, he did not make a Shevuas Shav, a false oath, when he promised to be a Tzadik.

NG added something nice to his discussion.  He mentioned that according to the Shem Mishmuel in Beshalach, we can explain the passuk in 22:14, אם בעליו עמו לא ישלם, if the owner is with him, he shall not pay (see Bava Metzia 94).  According to the Shem Mishmuel, this means that even if a person has failed in his duties to his neshama, even if he has sinned, if he achieves Dveikus with the Ribono shel Olam, he will be absolved.  If he comes to a dveikus of בעליו עמו, his slate is wiped clean, לא ישלם.