Don't Copy Me

The Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah (140:5) brings the law that one is not allowed to make vessels that look like the one's of the mikdash.  The Shach understands if one makes a menorah without גביעים וכפתורים one violates this prohibition only by a menorah of non- gold metal for only then it is כשר as discussed in the last post.  Rebbe Akiva Eger brings the Tevuos Shor holds that even a menorah made of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is prohibited.  Why should it be prohibited if its not kosher for the menoras mikdash?
There are two ways to understand this prohibition of mimicking vessels of the mikdash.  The simple read of the Gemorah in Avodah Zarah (43a-b) is that its the same prohibition as making images of angelic creators which the prohibition at the end of Mishpatim, לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם.  However, the Rambam cites the prohibition in Beis Habechirah (8:10) in the context of מורה מקדש.  From here the Minchas Chinuch (39:1) proves that the Rambam holds its not the aforementioned issur of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, rather imitating the kelim of the mikdash is a lack of יראת מקדש.  This is explicit in the Chinuch (254) as well.
Based upon the last post where we established that the menorah of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is kosher for lighting, just not kosher to fulfill the din of making a menorah, says the Masseh Yad we can understand the machlokes baed upon the previous two ways of understanding the issur of mimiking the kelim of the mikdash,.  If its a violation of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, that applies here as well for it is kosher for lighting.  However, if its a violation of מורה מקדש is is inapplicable for it is not classified as an object of the mikdash.

Lighting The Lantern

The Rambam Beis Habechirah (3:3-4) says נִמְצְאוּ כָּל הַגְּבִיעִים שְׁנַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים. וְהַפְּרָחִים תִּשְׁעָה. וְהַכַּפְתּוֹרִים אַחַד עָשָׂר. וְכֻלָּן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ חָסֵר אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים מְעַכֵּב אֶת כֻּלָּן: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁעֲשָׂאוּהָ זָהָב. אֲבָל שְׁאָר מִינֵי מַתָּכוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ גְּבִיעִים כַּפְתּוֹרִים וּפְרָחִים.  His source is from Menachos (28a.)  The Achronim ask why is a gold menorah without the adornments פסול, why is it worse than a menorah made out of other metals?  The Gemorah (ibid) says that the menorah must have 7 branches for it says כפתוריהם וקנותם ממנה יהיו, the word יהיו tells us that it must be the way the possuk says (Gemorah and Rashi.)  The Masseh Yad cites the Briskor Rav asks why do we need a local din over here, it should be מעכב because of the din said by all כלי מקדש that they have to be maid according to the prescribed measurements as the possuk says הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל כֹּ֖ל מַלְאֲכ֥וֹת הַתַּבְנִֽית and the Gemorah in Chullin (83b) and Eruvin (104a) is clear that we learn from here the measurements are exact?  [The assumption of the question is subject to debate is the din of הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל is מעכב and if it applies להלכה, but we will grant the assertion.]  [Also, I didn't find this question in the Briskor Rav, I did see it in the Rinas Yitzchak in the name of Rav Dovid Solevtchik who spells out he's asking according to Rac Chayim that holds הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל is מעכב.]  The Rav (or Rav Dovid) answers that the rule of הַכֹּ֥ל בִּכְתָ֛ב מִיַּ֥ד י״י֖ עָלַ֣י הִשְׂכִּ֑יל says that vessel isn't considered part of the mikdash; in case in point the menorah won't be kosher to be the menorah of the mikdash.  However, the vessel still has the status of a kli sharash and therefore one would be able to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting the menorah with it.

Similarly, says the Masseh Yad, regarding the menorah without the גביעים וכפתורים.  A non-gold menorah isn't kosher for the mitzvah of having a menorah as part of the mishkan. It is a valid keli that one may use to fulfill the mitzvah of lighting, but it isn't part of the mikdash. Therefore, we can say yes, a menorah without גביעים וכפתורים is no worse than a menorah of other metals. However, that only makes it kosher for lighting. The halacha that says its מעכב is in reference to being kosher as the menorah of the mikdash; that it is not. (The idea is already mentioned in מכתבי תורה from the Rogatchover #79.)

Face The Middle

Rashi in the beginning of Behaloscha says יאירו שבעת הנרות – שעל ששת הקנים, שלשה מזרחיים (ה)פונים למול האמצע הפתילות שבהן, וכן שלשה מערביים ראשי הפתילות למול האמצעי. ולמה? כדי שלא יאמרו לאורה הוא צריך.  Rashi is saying that the din of אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is said on the wicks, not on the menorah itself.  This means that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת isn't a din in the form and making of the מנורה, rather its a din in the lighting of the menorah (Briskor Rav.)  Rashi in this week's parsha (25:37) on the possuk וְעָשִׂ֥יתָ אֶת־נֵרֹתֶ֖יהָ שִׁבְעָ֑ה וְהֶֽעֱלָה֙ אֶת־נֵ֣רֹתֶ֔יהָ וְהֵאִ֖יר עַל־עֵ֥בֶר פָּנֶֽיהָ says והעלה את נרותיה והאיר אל עבר פניה – עשה פי ששת הנרות שבראשי הקנים היוצאין מצידיה מסובין כלפי האמצעי, כדי שיהו הנרות כשתדליקם מאירים על עבר פניה – מוסב אורם אל צד פני הקנה האמצעי שהוא גוף המנורה.  This Rashi sounds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din that the nerot themselves should be facing the middle.  At face value it would seem that this Rashi contradicts the Rashi in Behaloshca is it a din in the wicks or a din in the nerot? It would seem that Rashi holds there are two dinim in this din.  One is a din in the lighting of the menorah, that is Behalosacha, and another is a din in the form of the menorah itself and that is parshas Terumah (see Bear Miriyam.)  [It is noteworthy that the Daas Zekanim does have a different way of learning the pessukim, as he sees in Terumah פי׳ והאירה המנורה אל השלחן שכנגד פניה של מנורה כדכתיב בפרשת ותכל וישם המנורה באהל מועד נכח השלחן מכלל דלהאיר על השלחן היתה המנורה וכן כתיב בפרשת בהעלותך אל מול פני המנורה דהיינו שלחן יאירו שבעת הנרות.]

The Rambam (Beis Habechirah 3:8) says שֵׁשֶׁת הַנֵּרוֹת הַקְּבוּעִים בְּשֵׁשֶׁת הַקָּנִים הַיּוֹצְאִים מִן הַמְּנוֹרָה כֻּלָּן פְּנֵיהֶם לַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁעַל קְנֵי הַמְּנוֹרָה וְזֶה הַנֵּר הָאֶמְצָעִי פָּנָיו כְּנֶגֶד קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נֵר מַעֲרָבִי:  The Rambam is saying like Rashi in Terumah and note that the Rambam isn't writing in Laws of temmidim U'mussofim, rather in the Laws of Beis Habechirah.  One would infer from this that the Rambam holds that the din of  אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת is a din in the fashioning of the menorah.  The Briskor Rav finds this to be impossible for the possuk says דַּבֵּר֙ אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֔ן וְאָמַרְתָּ֖ אֵלָ֑יו בְּהַעֲלֹֽתְךָ֙ אֶת־הַנֵּרֹ֔ת אֶל־מוּל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הַמְּנוֹרָ֔ה יָאִ֖ירוּ שִׁבְעַ֥ת הַנֵּרֽוֹת, there is a command to Aharon.  If its a din in fashioning the menorah, what does it have to do with Aharon, he's the lighter, not the craftsman making the menorah?  We see it must be a din in lighting the menorah.  Therefore, he says that yes, the Rambam holds its a din that's applied to the nerot themselves, but that's merely the application, however, the yesod hadin is in the lighting of the menorah.  Hence, he concludes the nerot must only be tilting toward the middle when the menorah is lit, however,during the time its not lit, the menorah will still be a menorah even if the nerot aren't facing toward the middle.

However, in light of the Rashi in Terumah we do have a source for the simple reading of the Rambam that the din of the nerot facing the middle is a din in the fashioning of the menorah; the pssuk in Terumah.  The Rambam may derive from here the din that the menorah must have the nerot fashioned facing the middle.  Then we get to Behaloscha, when we encounter that its a din in lighting the menorah, Rashi holds it tells us something else, the wicks themselves must face inward.  The Rambam on the other hand, held it tells us that the din of facing the menorah is also a din in lighting the menorah (see Torah Or on Briskor Rav.)  What difference does it make that its also a din in lighting the menorah?  The difference will be if they aren't using the menorah of gold, rather of other metals, where it doesn't have the dinim that exist in forming the menorah (see Rambam ibid Law 4,) there still will be an obligation that when the menorah is lit, the nerot will have to be facing the middle.

The Kaiser

From the sefer מרא דארעא דישראל about Rav Yosef Chayim Zonnenfeld pg. 199-200.

See the Gemorah Megillah (6a-b) and the Yaavetz there.  It's also brought in many seforim that there is a קבלה from the גר"א that the גרמניים are עמלק.

Chavrusa Power

From מגד גבעות עולם volume 2 pg. 8.

                                        A similar idea in the Sukkos Dovid and he adds

Rashi in Berashis (3:24) says את הכרובים - מלאכי חבלה. In our parsha he explains כרבים - דמות פרצוף תינוק להם. Even מלאכי חבלה can become sweet children if they are learning torah properly with a chavrusa.

Women And Amalek

An individual in the beis midrah shared with me a text he received which was a picture of the following idea in the sefer דרושי וחידושי הרמבא"ד on Yisro.  It would seem the author was starting early on Adar jokes or got in a big fight with his wife that week or possibly both.

Mesasek BiShabbos

The Gemorah in Keritot (19b) brings that Rebbe Eliezer has a derash of אשר חטא בה פרט למתעסק.  Rebbe Yehoshua understands that derash tells us that one must know what sin they are bringing the korban for.  On the next page, the Gemorah brings a statement from Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel that מתעסק בשבת פטור מאי טעמא מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה.  Rashi explains that this reasoning of מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה is only needed for the opinion of Rebbe Yehoshua but according to Rebbe Eliezer, the exemption is the general din of אשר חטא בה.
Tosfos in Sanhedrin (62b) understands that both dinim are necessary.  One approach in Tosfos is that we need the din of מלאכת מחשבת to tell us even when the person gets benefit from the מסעסק action, which doesn't fit under the exemption of אשר חטא בה as the first half of Shmuel's statement says המתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה.  [There are two ways to understand this answer of Tosfos.  Either he means I need מלאכת מחשבת for a case where this is physical pleasure, or all מלאכת שבת is considered שכן נהנה for there is a positive, constructive act. (See Maharam and Achiezer volume 3 #27.)
The second answer of Tosfos is that there are two cases of מתעסק.  One scenario is where for ex. one inteded to cut cut grain that he thought was detached from the ground ,but it actually is attached.  the person's intent to cut this grain was fulfilled and the exemption from חטאת is only from אשר חטא בה.  The case of the exemption of מלאכת מחשבת is where one intended to cut one grain and ended up cutting another one. (Seemingly that case should also have the exemption of אשר חטא בה, but its also exempt because of a lack of מלאכת מחשבת.) [There are various variant texts in Keritut (19b) and according to some Rishonim this is explicit in the Gemorah.]
The Gemorah in Keritot says that says according to Rebbe Shimon that holds מקלקל בחבורה is obligated, מתעסק by חבורה is obligated as well.  Tosfos in Shabbos (75a) explains the comparison is both have the same exemption; מלאכת מחשבת and we say from מקלקל that there is no such exemption regarding חבורה.  Ask the Achronim, according to Tosfos there should be another exemption of בה as well?
Some Achronim understand that the Rambam holds that אשר חטא בה functions as a גילוי מילתא that מתעסק is not considered a מלאכת מחשבת and is exempt from a חטאת.  In other words, its only an exemption regarding Shabbot, but everywhere else מתעסק is obligated.  (See Perush Hamishna in Keritut, Ch. 2 law 7 and Ch. 7 law 11 of Sheggagot.)  According to this, שכן נהנה is לאו דוקא but in reality מתעסק is always exempt except for regarding Shabbos. [The Meiri in Shabbos and Pesachim sounds like this as well.]

Shabbos, Shekalim And Six

The parsha opens up with the parsha of the עבד עבריה that works for six years and goes free in the seventh.  Many holy books connect this to our  life cycle of the six days of work and the seventh day, שבת is the day of spiritual freedom.  This is true on a personal, physiological and spiritual level where everyone's focus on Shabbos is different from that of the week.  However, this is true for the interaction of the world's relationship with G-d as well.  In Torah Or Yisro (69:4) the Alter Rebbe points out that through the beginning of בראשית the name of אלוקים is used.  It is only after the creation of שבת that the name הויה is used.  During the six days of the week the world operates under the צמצום and העלמה of the name אלוקים.  It is only come Shabbos that the "cover comes off" and the world is indirect connection with the name הויה.  The world is "freed" from the bondage of the limitations of the שם of אלוקים.  In fact, our freedom on Shabbos is merely only an outgrowth of the general freedom of the world.  

There are 6 sides in the cube, it is the farthest טבע can extend.  שבת is the middle core, the פנימיות of it, as the Maharal and Sfas Emes explain.  One can becomes ensnared within the confines of this world, s/he can contaminate 6 days of the week but שבת, the core, will remain pure and is the doorway to release an individual from the bondages of the evil inclination.

The Yerushalmi Shekalim (9b) says: זה יתנו כל העובר על הפקודים ר' יהודה ור' נחמיה חד אמר לפי שחטאו במחצית היום יתנו מחצית השקל וחרנה אמר לפי שחטאו בשש שעות ביום יתנו מחצית השקל דעבד שיתא גרמסין [It is half like half of the day, 6 hours for it was at that point that they thought Moshe was late and started making the Egel.  Or since the sin started at 6 hours into the day we give half a שקל which equals 6 גרמסין (a coin that existed in Moshe's time.)]   The Shem M'Shmuel says the emphasis on the six represents that it is our external powers, the effect on the 6 directions that became tainted by the Egel.  However, it was a philosophical error as the Rishonim explain, and at the core we remained pure.  The fix to the darkness that spread on account of the Egel is to use this power of six for the good and that is represented by the giving of the shekalim.

Freed By The Eye And Tooth

The Rambam in mitzvah #235 says: היא שצונו בדין עבד כנעני. והוא שנעבוד בו לעולם ושאין לו חירות אלא בשן ועין והוא הדין לשאר איברים שאינן חוזרין כמו שבא הפירוש המקובל.  The Ramban says לפי דעתי ששתים מצות הן, שנצטוינו שנעבוד בכנעני לעולם ולא נשחרר אותו בחנם, ונצטוינו עוד שאם נפיל את שנו או עינו יהיה בן חורין ומותר בבת ישראל, וכמו שהנישואין והגירושין שתי מצות כן אלו בשוה, ... אבל הענין הזה הוא דין מן הדינין שנצטוינו לשלם לעבד כנעני שחרור גופו בדמי עינו ושנו ומעת עמדו עם בעליו בב"ד ישחררו אותו בתשלומי הנזק ומ"מ מצוה בפני עצמה תמנה בכל הדינין שמנה הרב וכגון מצות הגירושין.  What we see is that the Rambam views the halacha that the slave goes free if his limb is knocked out as a law in how to deal with slaves. It is a law in הלכות עבדים, he doesn't go free except for these scenarios.  The Ramban however views it as a law in הלכות חובל ומזיק, the form of payment for the slave is that he goes free.
One example where this plays out is regarding an eved when there are no דיינים סמוכין.  The Rif brings the whole discussion about which limbs cause the slave to go free in Kiddushin 24-25.  Why, the יציאה of the eved by limbs knocked out is a קנס (as we see in Bava Kama 74,) and we don't have דיינים סמוכין to judge  קנסות?  The Ran brings the Ramban explains the reason is because since its a קנס and one can be תופס, then automatically the eved is considered תפוס in himself and he will be free.  The Kesef Mishna (Avadim 5:17) understands in the the Rambam that the תפיסה of the eved works only because of a Rabbinic enactment.  Why is it only Rabbinic?  because the Rambam holds the יציאה of the eved isn't a payment that he can claim and grab for himself.  It is an obligation on the owner to free him.  Hence, technically the eved has no rights to "grab himself", and it is only Rabbinic that it works.  The Ramban goes לשיטתו that it is a form of payment, hence תפיסה works מעיקר הדין. (Mishnas Yaavetz Yoreh Deah siman 32.)

The Pnei Menachem brings from students of the Besht that the יציאה of the slave via the tooth or eye being knocked out is allegorical for our service of Hashem as well.  The main way to curb one's evil inclination is by watching one's eyes from looking at the wrong things and by watching the tooth that is to eat properly and only speak proper things.

Two Parts To Bikkurim

The possuk (23:19) says רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית י״י֣ אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ׃.  Rashi says ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן. (That is earlier in the parsha it referred to שביעית.)  The Maharal asks בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן ״ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי״ (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:  (See also Mizrachi that brings that some take out this from Rashi.) Well assuming we have the Rashi as is, the Or  Hachayim in Ki Savo (26:12) writes the opposite, that שביעית doesn't have an obligation of ביכורים.  The Minchas Chinuch (91:2) wonders how he disagrees with Rashi without any source. 

The Binyan Av volume 5 #60 says its no contradiction.  There are two aspects to the obligation of ביכורים.  In Ki Savo we learn about bikkurim with the obligation of reading the parsha which is about thanking Hashem for all He has given to you.  That obligation is linked specifically to the land.  It is an obligation of the land that requires you to bring bikkurim.  However, at the end of every time the Torah speaks about the holidays, the same possuk crops up, רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית י״י֣ אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ.  We understand that bikkurim is linked to Shavuot so its mentioned there, but why is basar bechalav thrown in? The Targum Yonason on the possuk in this week's parsha says לית אתון רשאין לא למבשלא ולא למיכול בשר וחלב מערבין כחדא דלא יתקף רוגזי ואיבשיל עיבוריכון דגנא וקשא תריהון כחדא.  Similarly, in Ki Sesa (the difference in crop destruction is noted by the ביאור יונתן,) לית אתון רשאין למבשלא ולא למיכול בשר וחלב תריהון מערבין כחדא דלא יתקוף רוגזי בכון וארשין פירי אילניכון עם בוסרא בליבלוביהון וטרפיהון כחדא.  For some reason eating  basar bechalav will lead to the crops being destroyed so there won't be any bikkurim.  Here, the focus is on the growth of the crops of the field. Just as the we offer water on Sukkot, wheat on Shavuot and barley on Pesach to ensure beracha in the growth of our crops, so too we offer bikkurim to ensure a beracha in our crops.  This is an obligation on the individual, not on the land.

The Or Hachayim is talking about the obligation of the land, for that שביעית is exempt; there is no owner, there is no reading of the parsha.  However, the secondary obligation to just bring bikkurim as an obligation on the individual, that Rashi says applies by שביעית as well.   

Slave Marriage

The Gemorah in Ketubot (47b) brings an opinion that learns the obligations that a husband has to his wife from the possuk of  שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע.  The Pnei Yehoshua and Minchas Chinich (46:9) ask that the these obligations are only after נישאוין but יעוד only accomplishes אירוסין?
The Rambam Melachim (4:4) says אֲבָל הַהֶדְיוֹט אָסוּר בְּפִילֶגֶשׁ אֶלָּא בְּאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בִּלְבַד אַחַר יִעוּד.  [The Gra Even Haezer siman 26 uses this Rambam to answer the questions of Ramban on Rambam that prohibits a פילגש to a non-king from many stories in Tanach that we find that people had פילגשים?  Answers the Gra that the Rambam understood all those cases are talking about the scenario of אמה עבריה.]  Why does the Rambam view יעוד as a פילגש?  The marriage of יעוד is not your classic run-of-the-mill קידושין.  It is an another form of the service of the אמה עבריה.  Through יעוד the owner or his son obtain the rights to exercise their ownership over the אישות of the אמה as well. [Just as a king has rights to take a פילגש for he has rights to take whatever he wants; he can exercise marshal law to seize even the אישות rights of a woman.  Similarly, the owner of the maidservant has rights even to her אישות.  See ראש לראובני סי' כג.]  That is why even there are the marital obligations immediately for he has complete ownership over her אישות via his purchase of her as a maidservant.  However, such a similar level of ownership in a regular marriage is only after נישאוין and it is only then when the marital obligations begin.  (See Maseas Moshe Kiddushim #42 cf.  Rav Aharon Kotler in Mishnas Aharon Kiddushin #1 and אוסף חידושי תורה #20 that explains a little differently.) 

Boundaries For Yourself

The possuk (19:12-13) says וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ֤ אֶת־הָעָם֙ סָבִ֣יב לֵאמֹ֔ר הִשָּׁמְר֥וּ לָכֶ֛ם עֲל֥וֹת בָּהָ֖ר וּנְגֹ֣עַ בְּקָצֵ֑הוּ כׇּל־הַנֹּגֵ֥עַ בָּהָ֖ר מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ לֹא־תִגַּ֨ע בּ֜וֹ יָ֗ד כִּֽי־סָק֤וֹל יִסָּקֵל֙ אוֹ־יָרֹ֣ה יִיָּרֶ֔ה אִם־בְּהֵמָ֥ה אִם־אִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יִחְיֶ֑ה בִּמְשֹׁךְ֙ הַיֹּבֵ֔ל הֵ֖מָּה יַעֲל֥וּ בָהָֽר.  A few pessukim later (21-24) it says וַיֹּ֤אמֶר י״י֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה רֵ֖ד הָעֵ֣ד בָּעָ֑ם פֶּן־יֶהֶרְס֤וּ אֶל־י״י֙ לִרְא֔וֹת וְנָפַ֥ל מִמֶּ֖נּוּ רָֽב וְגַ֧ם הַכֹּהֲנִ֛ים הַנִּגָּשִׁ֥ים אֶל־י״י֖ יִתְקַדָּ֑שׁוּ פֶּן־יִפְרֹ֥ץ בָּהֶ֖ם י״יֽ׃ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־י״י֔ לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל הָעָ֔ם לַעֲלֹ֖ת אֶל־הַ֣ר סִינָ֑י כִּֽי־אַתָּ֞ה הַעֵדֹ֤תָה בָּ֙נוּ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר הַגְבֵּ֥ל אֶת־הָהָ֖ר וְקִדַּשְׁתּֽוֹ׃ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֵלָ֤יו י״י֙ לֶךְ־רֵ֔ד וְעָלִ֥יתָ אַתָּ֖ה וְאַהֲרֹ֣ן עִמָּ֑ךְ וְהַכֹּהֲנִ֣ים וְהָעָ֗ם אַל־יֶֽהֶרְס֛וּ לַעֲלֹ֥ת אֶל־י״י֖ פֶּן־יִפְרׇץ־בָּֽם׃.  Why is the warning repeated (see Rashi?) Furthermore, why the second time around is there an additional warning for the kohanim? And the Gemorah Sanhedrin (daf 15a,41a) learns from כִּֽי־סָק֤וֹל יִסָּקֵל֙ אוֹ־יָרֹ֣ה יִיָּרֶ֔ה the rules of סקילה, clearly going on the mountain is a capitol punishment administered by man, yet in the second time around it says פֶּן־יִפְרֹ֥ץ בָּהֶ֖ם י״י, a punishment meted out by G-d, which one is it?  The first time it says a warning on animals as well, but the second time animals aren't mentioned, why?

We see that there were two separate warnings not to approach the mountain.  The first time was during the three days of הגבלה.  This was not to breach the sanctity of the mountain.  A violation of this is punishable by death through ב"ד.  The second warning was during the time Moshe went up to the mountain.  This wasn't a warning to violate the kedusha of the mountain, rather it was a warning for everyone to retain there respective places that they were designated to.  As the meforshim say there were different levels of closeness to the mountain.  This warning was not to violate one's place of designation.  A violation of one's personal boundaries isn't subject to death by ב"ד, rather death by G-d.  This may be the intent of the Or Hachayim (possuk 22) explaining why the kohanim are mentioned here: או ירצה על פי דבריהם ז״ל (מכילתא) כי הגביל ההר עד כאן משה עד כאן גבול אהרן עד כאן גבול הכהנים, כפי זה אומרו הנגשים אל ה׳ פירוש שגבולם בהר נגשים מה שאין כן ישראל, יתקדשו, פי׳ יעמדו בקדושתם ולא יוסיפו לעלות עוד פן וגו׳.  That's why the first time animals are included for they also can't go up the mountain, however they aren't included in the commandment of a personal boundary. (Based upon חבצלת השרון, see די באר that also explains they are two dinim, but with a different approach.)

Why is the giving of the Torah introduced by a commandment of boundaries?  This is the intro. to Torah.  The many vast laws and restrictions aren't methodologies of torture but an exercise in self control.  As Rav Shirkin recounts:

Moses's Sons - Where Are You?

A few weeks ago, before parshas Shemos, my friend, Y.B. sent out a email which I will share here.

Mazel Tov! Moshe Rabeinu has his first son with Tzipporah. Everyone gathers around by the Bris, silently waiting to hear what he is going to call his firstborn son. Moshe announces: His name shall be Gershom because I have been a stranger in a strange land.

This scene seems a little uncomfortable. First, Moshe is saying he's a stranger in a strange land in Midyan: This is the place where he got married and now lives, why does he still feel like a stranger? Second, even if he still feels like a stranger in Midyan, he seemed to have felt like a stranger in Egypt, so what's the significance of being a stranger now that he shifted over to Midyan? And third, even if Midyan is not his most desired place to live, why is Moshe focusing on the negative of feeling like a stranger? Why not focus on the positive of being saved from the sword of Paraoh? Moshe calls his second son – Eliezer – because Hashem saved him from the sword of Paraoh (18:4), but the Torah doesn’t even mention Eliezer’s birth and Moshe only gave this name to his second son. Why is the Torah so discreet about Eliezer’s birth and why didn’t Moshe primarily focus on the positive of being saved from Egypt when naming his firstborn son?

There's an amazing Malbim which can help us answer our questions. The Malbim writes, “Although he lived in Midyan and married a woman there and although he ran from Egypt because of the slander of a fellow Jew, even with all this he never lost his love for his people. He had his eyes and heart set on Egypt, every day, to return there and save them” (2:22).

This means that every day that Moshe was in Midyan, no matter how comfortable he got, he still felt like a stranger because his heart was really in Egypt – to save his fellow Jews. This could be why the Torah explicitly mentions Gershom’s birth and not Eliezer’s, and why Moshe named his firstborn Gershom, focusing on the seemingly negative. Moshe’s primary focus was on the fact that he was a stranger and his longing to return to Egypt to save his fellow Jews. The fact that he was saved by the sword of Paraoh was secondary and a means to be a savior for his people.

This is an important idea to think about. Even if we feel like we are comfortable where we are and with what we have, we must realize that there are Jews around the world or even in our communities who are suffering, and we must long to help them. Yes, we should celebrate the good things we have in life, but our priority and focus should ideally be on the salvation of other Jews who are suffering.

May we learn from our leaders to place our focus on others before ourselves. As they say, עכ"ל.

I just want to add (maybe in a different direction,) that the names Moshe gave seem to be backward?  First he should be thankful for being saved from Pharoh and afterward mention his living in other lands?  It may be that one must first put their focus on the present; where they are and one can only appreciate the past after that.  It is the present and going forward that allows one to have the proper perspective on past events to see where they led to.

The Shver

Yisro's name appears in almost every possuk of the first aliyah.  Most of the time it adds that he is the father-in-law of Moshe with the exception of possuk 9 and 10. Why does the Torah have to keep on stressing every time that he is the father-in-law of Moshe and why in possuk 9 and 10, וַיִּ֣חַדְּ יִתְר֔וֹ עַ֚ל כׇּל־הַטּוֹבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה י״י֖ לְיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר הִצִּיל֖וֹ מִיַּ֥ד מִצְרָֽיִם וַיֹּ֘אמֶר֮ יִתְרוֹ֒ בָּר֣וּךְ י״י֔ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִצִּ֥יל אֶתְכֶ֛ם מִיַּ֥ד מִצְרַ֖יִם וּמִיַּ֣ד פַּרְעֹ֑ה does it omit that he is the father -in-law?
Update: In this week's Divrei Shiach they print from the טעמא דקרא that answers this question: צ"ב בכל הפרשה פעם קורא אותו יתרו ופעם חותן משה ופעם יתרו חותן משה. ואפשר לומר דבמקום שקורא אותו יתרו הוא מצד עצמו ובמקום שקורא חותן משה הוא מצד שהוא חותן משה ובמקום שקורא שניהם הוא מצד שניהם ובזה מדויק כל הפרשה דבתחלה וישמע יתרו חותן משה הוא ששמע ב' דברים את אשר עשה למשה ולישראל ומצד מה ששמע לישראל ע"ז אמר וישמע יתרו היינו שמחמת זה נתעורר לתשובה ולבא ומצד מה ששמע מה שנעשה למשה קוראו חותן משה דבשביל שהוא חותן משה העירו לבו לבא וכן ויקח יתרו חותן משה את צפורה וגו' היינו דמצד שהוא יתרו מחמת עצמו בא וגם מחמת שהוא חותן משה רצה להביא לו את אשתו ובניו וכן בסמוך ויבא יתרו חותן משה וגו', אבל ויחד יתרו וגו' ויאמר יתרו וגו' הוא מצד עצמו ולא מחמת שהוא חותן משה שזה אין שייך למשה, ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים וגו' היינו שהביא תודה גם על מה שעשה לישראל וגם למשה, וירא חותן משה וגו' ויאמר חותן משה אליו וגו' זה רק משום שהי'  חותן משה חס על חתנו שלא יתיגע ביותר ולכן כתיב רק חותן משה וכל הפרשה מדויק.

Break Your Am Haeretz

Last year this blog pointed out that we find that some times the word ידע can mean to break as in Shoftim (8:16) וַיֹּ֣דַע בָּהֶ֔ם אֵ֖ת אַנְשֵׁ֥י סֻכּֽוֹת and the Targum and Rashi say it means ותבר בהון.  The possuk (recited in Hoshanos) and in the davening for those that pray Sephard/ Adut Hamizrach on a daily basis says  למען דעת כל עמי הארץ כי ה' הוא האלקים אין עוד (Kings I:60:8.)  In light of the previous meaning of the word the Rebbe Rashab explains as the way to break the עם הארץ is by combining 'ה with אלקים.  The עם הארץ is the part of us that is disconnected from Hashem.  It views the world as under אלקים (the numerical value of הטבע.)  When that is connected to 'ה, the name above nature, then the power of the עם הארץ is broken.

Can't Teach A Drunkard

The possuk (14:21) says  וַיִּֽירְא֥וּ הָעָ֖ם אֶת־י״י֑ וַיַּֽאֲמִ֙ינוּ֙ בַּֽי״י֔ וּבְמֹשֶׁ֖ה עַבְדּֽוֹ.  The order seems backward, first you beleive and then you fear?  How can you fear something before you believe in it?  The Aley Shor brings from Rav Yeruchem that you can't teach אמונה to a שיכור.  Someone who doesn't fear Hashem, one has no concept at all of what it means that there is a G-d, has no capability to have אמונה.  Obviously, then אמונה isn't merely the belief in a supreme being, but is something more.

Aresto's Letter To Alexander

From the sefer שלשלת הקבלה, also cited in סדר הדורות.

We Are Close To God

The simple interpetation of the posuuk at the beginning of the parsha ולא נחם אלקים דֶּ֚רֶךְ אֶ֣רֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים כִּ֥י קָר֖וֹב ה֑וּא כִּ֣י | אָמַ֣ר אלקים פֶּן־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה: at face value seems to be a negative view of Klal Yisroel.  At that stage they had just gotten out of Egypt and any thing could easily scare the back.   The Daas Zekanim however, takes the opposite approach.  He says כי קרוב – כלומר העם קרוב של הקב״ה שנאמר לבני ישראל עם קרובו. ולכך לא הנהיגם כמנהגו של עולם.  In place of highlighting our faults, the possuk singles out that even in our lowly state, Hashem was still close to us and hence he led us in our own route.

Sing Again

On the words אז ישיר משה, Rashi in his second interpretation says the reason why ישיר is in future tense is אבל מדרשו: אמרו רבותינו: מכאן רמז לתחיית המתים מן התורה.  According to this derash it means that when the dead will be revived, then אז ישיר will be sung again.  Why, it is long gone and done?
Dovid Hamelech in Tehillim (30) says ה' אלקי שִׁוַּ֥עְתִּי אֵ֝לֶ֗יךָ וַתִּרְפָּאֵֽנִי.  What does Dovid Hamelech being healed from his sickness have to do with building the Beis Hamikdash?  The Even Haezel in his intro. to Kodshim 2 explains that the nature of a person is that if s/he gets sick then all they are thinking about is getting better.  If they are cured, then they give thanks for that.  In they are successful later in life and gain wealth and fame, they have a separate gratitude to Hashem but the thoughts of their days in their sickness are long gone and they no longer are feeling appreciation for surviving.  However, Dovid Hamelech wasn't that way.  He didn't merely sing the praises of Hashem for bringing him from the previous stage to his current stage, but he saw the entire picture.  He gained a deeper appreciation for Hashem helping him out in his times of great need when he can now, later on see a fuller picture and how this led to preparing the Beis Hamikdash.  At this point Dovid Hamelech thanks Hashem again; not a repetition of the old thanks, but as a new message for now he has a deeper appreciation of where being saved when he was sick led too.
This is why אז ישיר will be repeated in the future.  Of course, משה and Klal Yisroel were very happy to survive the Yam Suf.  However, the full effect of this momentous event can only be appreciated in תחיית המתים when the full subsequent string of events and how it was necessary for the final tikkun of the world will be realized.  At that point a new אז ישיר is necessary for they will have a deeper appreciation of the miracle of Krias Yam Suf (based upon וענפיה ענפי ארז.)

Seventy Years Of Growth

Someone sent be an email to write something on 10 שבט.  Which is a big surprise seeing as no one reads this blog, but maybe he does, so I will attempt to fulfill the request.  The Gemorah in Taanis (23a) brings the question of Choni Hamagael: אמר ר' יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מצטער על מקרא זה (תהלים קכו, א) שיר המעלות בשוב ה' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים אמר מי איכא דניים שבעין שנין בחלמא.  The Gemorah continues, יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי. יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי.  What is the message of this story and what was bothering Choni so much?  Everyone understands the possuk means a mushal of a dream, not that we are actually asleep, so what was Choni missing?

What was bothering Choni was how can we be in golus, disconnected from Hashem for so long and still be able to come back?  70 is 7 x 10.  7 is the completion of טבע or the 7 middot of a person.  10 is the ultimate perfection.  Being in golus for 70 years represents that our complete entity, all of out middot are completely disconnected from God.  In the lingo some people like the מוחין are asleep.  Choni wondered how could we recover from this?  He then saw the planting of the carob tree.  The lesson was that just as the seed of the tree gets crushed and hidden under the ground, yet years later it is able to sprout into a full, fruit bearing tree.  Even as the seed appears to vanish under the ground, that process is merely to elevate it into a greater state.  So too the golus; we may become completely crushed and seem to be concealed from Hashem but that leads to the greater good.  The seed of Klal Yisroel was planted into golus.  We may appear to be crushed and beaten but ultimately when it appears we have reached the end of the line, 70, complete disconnection, the seed will emerge as a tree, bearing fruit.  The message of the donkeys is that even after 70 years past, the חמור, חומריות of the individual is still standing next to its master, the נשמה and just waiting for it to take control and ride upon its back.  Even after all the years of the גלות פנימי of a person’s נשמה, it is able to emerge and take control.  How is that possible?  Because a seed was planted.  When we reach 70 years, when we are falling into the depths of complete disconnect with G-d, then the seed we contain deep within us comes forth and produces a tree.  The power contained in the seed is only able to be brought forth through all the crushing and affliction it has gone through and it is the golus that leads to the producing of the tree.  (See also Likutay Moharan #60:9.)

The Water Reflects Your Face

After surviving the Yam Suf, the people complain because all the water in front of them is bitter.  The simple interpretation of the story is that the water was undrinkable   However, the Shemos Rabbah (50:3)  says "כי מרים הם". אמר רבי לוי: הדור היה מר במעשיו.  The bitterness wan't the water, but the people themselves.  The midrash seems to be bothered by the extra word הם and understands that it is a description of the people themselves.  The idea the midrash is conveying is that sometimes all you can see is a reflection of yourself.  The problem wasn't with the water in front of their eyes, the problem was with the people themselves and the water merely mirrored what was in front of it. Some times all people can see in front of them is bitterness, however, its not what lays in front of them, its what lays inside of them that is the problem.  It is by rolling with the punches instead of complaining that leads to success.  This seems to be the lesson the Maggid in מגיד דבריו ליעקב wishes to teach us: וזהו ויבואו מרתה שנפלו לדבר רע ולא יוכלו לשתות כי מרים הם. פירוש העם לא היו טובים דאם היו כדאי אדרבה היה באה להם משם טובה יתירה. דכל דין יש בתוכו חסד ואם היו שוברין את הדין היה בא להם טוב. וזהו ויסעו ממרה ויבואו אלימה דאותיות אלימה הוא אותיות אלהים רק הצירוף הוא הוא כך אלימה נקרא דבר שהחסד שבו אינו מושג וזהו אלי הוא החסד שאינו מושג ואלי לשון אל י' החסד הנמשך מהחכמה היה וזהו פירש הבה לנו עזרת מצר שתהא העזרה באה מכח הצרה.

The Purifying Waters Of Torah

The Gemorah in Babba Kammah (82a) says: דתניא (שמות טו, כב) וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים דורשי רשומות אמרו אין מים אלא תורה שנאמר (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים כיון שהלכו שלשת ימים בלא תורה נלאו עמדו נביאים שביניהם ותיקנו להם שיהו קורין בשבת ומפסיקין באחד בשבת וקורין בשני ומפסיקין שלישי ורביעי וקורין בחמישי ומפסיקין ערב שבת כדי שלא ילינו ג' ימים בלא תורה.  The Maharsha explains where the Gemorah sees in the possuk this derash: דרשינן ליה משום דמה ענין שם שם לו חק וגו' ויאמר אם שמוע וגו' לענין שהלכו ג' ימים ולא מצאו מים וע"כ דרשו שהלכו ג' ימים בלא תורה ונתחזק להם ביטול התורה והיו נלאין לשתות מי התורה כי היו מרים להם כנאמר אם תעזבני יום וכו' עד שהורה להם ה' עץ וגו' שהתורה היא עץ חיים למחזיקים בה והחזקה הוא בכל דבר בג' פעמים וע"כ בהפך זה קאמר שלא יתחזק להן חזקת לינה ג' ימים בלא תורה ובזה ימתקו להן מי התורה.  This is codified by the Rambam in Ch. 12 of the Laws of Prayer: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לִישְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ קוֹרִין בַּתּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים בְּשַׁבָּת וּבְשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי בְּשַׁחֲרִית כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא שְׁמִיעַת תּוֹרָה.  The Rambam adds one word to the Gemorah, שְׁמִיעַת.  What does this additional word tell us?  Rav Solevetchik explains the Rambam means to highlight that its not the understanding of Torah that Moshe initiated; it is merely just to hear words of Torah itself.  What is the point of merely hearing words of Torah without understanding?

The possuk at the end of Bo says וְהָיָה֩ לְךָ֨ לְא֜וֹת עַל־יָדְךָ֗ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן֙ בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֔יךָ לְמַ֗עַן תִּהְיֶ֛ה תּוֹרַ֥ת י״י֖ בְּפִ֑יךָ.  There is a היקש between Torah and tefillin.  In the last post, we saw from Rav Solevetchik that besides the mitzvah of wearing tefillin, it is also a קיום in the person.  The tefillin have an affect on the person as well.  He extends the same thing to the words of Torah as well.  There is the mitzvah of understanding Torah but then there is another aspect to Torah.  That is the spiritual purification that washes over a person when in contact with Torah.  That was the point of the תקנה of Moshe.  The nation had gone through the makkos, krias Yam Suf etc. but all of that was an external experience.  It comes and goes.  That's why a minute later Klal Yisroel were complaining about the state of affairs.  In order to have a lasting affect on the person himself, to quench the spiritual thirst, there must be words of Torah.  The point of the תקנה isn't to learn Torah, but the effect the words of Torah will have on the individual and that is highlighted by it merely being a תקנה to hear words of Torah.

To take this a step further, we can add that not only does Torah purify the person, but it purifies the world as well.  The Gemorah in Shabbos (119b) says אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה אין העולם מתקיים אלא בשביל הבל תינוקות של בית רבן.  The children don't understand what they are learning, there isn't even a fulfillment of Talmud Torah, they are merely memorizing texts, so how does their learning keep the world running?  We see that is the power of the words of Torah that keeps the world running.  Irrespective of the mitzvah, the words of Torah itself have a affect on the world.  We see the same idea from this Gemorah as well.  There was no mitzvah of Talmud Torah yet; it was pre-mattan Torah.  Yet, the words of Torah are what satiated Klal Yisroel.  That is the idea of the midrash that the Maharsha cites that its the עץ החיים, the Torah that sweetened the water.  The מתיקות התורה transformed the water from מר to מתוק.  This may be the understanding of Rav Chayim that the חפצא of the words  of Torah require a beracha,  In order to merely read the words of Torah, to tap into such a spiritual energy source, requires a beracha.

Rav Solevetchik goes on to contrast this תקנה with the later details of עזרה added to the krias hatorah.  He explains that the two תקנות are fundamentally different.  Moshe's תקנה is to hear words of Torah.  Ezra's תקנה is to learn, understand Torah.  (As they say in Jewish, עיי"ש.)  He connects this with their time frames in history as well.  The times of Moshe is the generation of ביאה ראשונה, this כיבוש  was done with the ארון going in front of them.  It is the חפצא of the Torah, the Sefer Torah in the ארון that brings kedusha to the land.  Rav Solevetchik views the kedusha of the land as an extension of the kedusha of the mikdash and therefore it must be done with Torah.  That is the generation of the תקנת משה, to tap into the power of the words of Torah.  In the times of עזרה there was no ארון so how did they extend the kedusha of the מקדש?  He explains that its the תורה שבעל פה as represented by the body of Klal Yisroel that brings the kedusha to the land.   That is the time of תקנת עזרה, to learn and understand Torah.  (Again for more details, עיי"ש.) 

I would like to add that these two types of learning Torah are connected to the two types of relationship one has with God.  The possuk says זה קלי ואנוהו אלקי אָבִ֖י וַאֲרֹמְמֶֽנְהוּ.  The Shla (beginning of י' מאמרות,) explains that these are two types of relationships we have with Hashem.  There is the קלי, how one understands God and His service based upon one's understanding.  Then the relationship is ואנוהו, אני והוא, one has a strong connection to Hashem.  However, if that leads to doubts or is unsuccessful, the fallback is אלקי אָבִ֖י, the emunah that we have built into us from the Avos.  With that approach וַאֲרֹמְמֶֽנְהוּ, Hashem is above me, the connection isn't established well in my heart.
 
The Tanya delineates two basic approaches to understand the possuk כי קרוב אליך הדבר מאד.  The first approach is by learning and contemplating about Hashem.  The second approach, as this blog mentioned last week is that we merely have to awaken within ourselves the natural connection to Hashem that we have from our forefathers.  These are the two relationships described in קלי ואלקי אבי.  The connection to Hashem sown into our DNA is akin to the kedusha of the words of Torah itself.  This connection is beyond human logic, it is the כיבוש of our נפש הבהמית through the Aron.  The second approach is to do a כיבוש on our נפש הבהמית through our understand and learning about Hashem and His Torah.  That is akin to the כיבוש of יהושע through the תורה שבעל פה.  As with the כיבוש of the ארץ, it is only the כיבוש of תורה שבעל פה that exists forever, it can't be removed.  So too, as the Shla says, this is the connection with Hashem that resinates deeper in the heart of a person.   

Two Facets Of Tefillin

The Rambam in Laws of Tefillin (4:25) says קְדֻשַּׁת תְּפִלִּין קְדֻשָּׁתָן גְּדוֹלָה הִיא. שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַתְּפִלִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם וְעַל זְרוֹעוֹ הוּא עָנָו וִירֵא שָׁמַיִם וְאֵינוֹ נִמְשָׁךְ בִּשְׂחוֹק וּבְשִׂיחָה בְּטֵלָה וְאֵינוֹ מְהַרְהֵר מַחֲשָׁבוֹת רָעוֹת אֶלָּא מְפַנֶּה לִבּוֹ בְּדִבְרֵי הָאֱמֶת וְהַצֶּדֶק. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ אָדָם לְהִשְׁתַּדֵּל לִהְיוֹתָן עָלָיו כָּל הַיּוֹם שֶׁמִּצְוָתָן כָּךְ הִיא. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַב תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבֵּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ שֶׁכָּל יָמָיו לֹא רָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָלַךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בְּלֹא תּוֹרָה אוֹ בְּלֹא צִיצִית אוֹ בְּלֹא תְּפִלִּין:  The Rambam seems to be giving a reason why one should wear tefillin all day long.  Why is any explanation necessary; that is the mitzvah?  There are mitzvot that one does in one action like taking a lulav, blowing shofar etc. but then there are mitzvot that are constant like the mitzvah of loving and fearing G-d.  The mitzvah of tefillin is in the second category; it applies all day, so why does the Rambam need to add a reason that tefillin on a person leads to יראת שמים?  Rav Solovetchik explains that there are two aspects to the mitzvah of tefillin.  There is the fulfillment of placing tefillin of one's body.  There is a second fulfillment to the mitzvah and that is the person becomes sanctified by the tefillin being on him.  The idea of this second aspect is understood from the possuk in Ki Savo (28:10)  וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך and the Gemorah Menachos (35b) explains תניא ר"א הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש.  The tefillin affect a change in the person that is recognizable even to outsiders that there are תפילין שבראש, in the person.  These two fulfillment's are reflected in the two berachos that one says on the tefillin according to Rabbenu Tam.  The first beracha, להניח is on the fulfillment of placing tefillin on one's arm.  The second beracha, כל מצות תפילין which goes on the head tefillin is another beracha for the additional fulfillment of adorning the individual with tefillin.
With this idea, he explains the aforementioned Rambam.  The Rambam held had tefillin been a mitzvah just to put tefillin on one's body then the mitzvah would be just to to the action once a day.  It is the second aspect of the mitzvah, the fulfillment in the person that makes it a mitzvah to be adorned all day long.  That is the explanation of the reason the Rambam gives for it being a all day mitzvah.  The Rambam is describing the affect tefillin has on the individual and that's what transforms the mitzvah into a all day mitzvah (שעורים לזכר אבא מרי volume 1 pg. 180-181 בענין קריה"ת בשבת שני וחמישי.)