arei miklat and the protection of Torah

Three of the six arei miklat were located in Eiver haYarden.  Rashi (35:14) asks: given that the majority of Bn"Y lived in Eretz Yisrael, wouldn't it make sense for a majority of the arei miklat to be located there?  Why should fully half of the arei milkat be located in Eiver haYarden when far less than half the population was located there? 

 Rashi answers that even though Eiver haYarden contained a minority of the population, it contained a greater number of murderers than elsewhere:

 

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן תִּשְׁעָה שְׁבָטִים וְכָאן אֵינָן אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם וָחֵצִי, הִשְׁוָה מִנְיַן עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט שֶׁלָּהֶם, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְגִלְעָד נְפִישֵׁי רוֹצְחִים, דִּכְתִיב (הושע ו') גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם

 

Ramban questions how this makes sense.  Arei miklat are meant only for those who kill  b'shogeg, not for actual murder.  If there were more criminal murderers in Eiver haYarden, why would that necessitate more arei miklat?

 

He answers that although they were killing with intent, the criminals tried to pass themselves off as mere shogegim and ran to the arei miklat for refuge.  היו שופכי דמים במרמה ומראין עצמן כשוגגין והוצרך להרבות להם ערי מקלט לקלוט את כולן שלא נודע מי המזיד.  Therefore, a greater number of cities were needed.

 

Maharal does not like this answer.  If Ramban is right, adding arei miklat only incentivizes the criminals because now they have a place to turn for refuge to escape.  Were there fewer or even no arei miklat, the murder  rate would drop, as the criminals, having no place to run, would think twice before acting.  It's like providing benefits to illegal aliens.  The more you give, the more illegals will enter the country because you are incentivizing the bad behavior.   

 

To explain Rashi, let's backtrack for a moment and define what shogeg means.  It does not mean "accident."  That would be ones, and a person does not go to miklat for an accident.  I don't know if we have a single word in English that captures just what shogeg is.  Unintentional or inadvertent is part of it.  It is a situation where a person is at least partially at fault, whether due to negligence, not taking proper precaution, or directly through their action, but it does not rise to the same degree of fault as a deliberate, willful act.  This is why a person must bring a korban chatas for certain shogeg violations, e.g. a person ate what he thought was kosher meat and it turned out to be cheilev.  The Rishonim explain that had the person been more careful, he would have realized the meat is cheilev and not eaten it.  The violation was not deliberate, but it was borne out of carelessness and inattention that a persons bears responsibility for and deserves some punishment for.  The same is true for cases of dea  by shogeg.  In those cases, the punishment is banishment to one of the arei miklat. 

 

Maharal says a yesod: a culture of wrongdoing will breed wrongdoing.  Because גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם, there was a culture of criminal activity, a culture of murder, human life was cheapened.  Even if one is not a crim inal and would not r"l dream of committing murder, a person immersed in that culture inevitably will become careless and callous when it comes even to matters of human life.  That is precisely the climate in which shogeg can thrive.  That's why more arei miklat were needed.

2) The gemara (Makos 10a) darshes from pesukim later in Devarim that just as the arei miklat are koleit, so too are divrei Torah koltim:

 

א"ר יוחנן הרב שגלה מגלין ישיבתו עמו איני והא א"ר יוחנן מנין לדברי תורה שהן קולטין שנאמר את בצר במדבר וגו' [וכתיב בתריה] וזאת התורה לא קשיא הא בעידנא דעסיק בה הא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה ואי בעית אימא מאי קולטין ממלאך המות כי הא דרב חסדא הוה יתיב וגריס בבי רב ולא הוה קא יכול שליחא [דמלאכא דמותא] למיקרב לגביה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק ויתיב אארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתיק ויכיל ליה

 

The gemara illustrates the point with a story about the malach ha'maves' inability to touch Rav Chisda so long as he was learning.

 

R' Akiva Eiger in the gilyos sends you to a gemara in Shabbos 30b about David haMelech, who was told he would die on Shabbos but was also immune from the malach ha'maves so long as he was learning:

 

כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה

 

RAK"E give you the mareh makom because he is prodding you to ask a question.  Why does the gemara in makkos need to illustrate the point with a story about an amora Rav Chisda when it could illustrate the same point from this story with David that happened much earlier?

 

Maharasha in makkos comments: וה"נ ה"מ לאתויי מהך עובדא דפ' ב"מ דוד כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא כו' ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא  You're right.  The gemara could have just as well quoted the story about David haMelech, but it arbitrarily chose the episode with Rav Chisda. 

 

Maharasha does not see any distinction between the stories, but R' Eliyahu Baruch from the Mir  suggested that there is a  distinction, one that is also suggested by R' Bakst, and which Rav Shach was so impressed with that he was kicking himself for not thinking of it. 

 

The Midrash tells us that Adam haRishon was shown the entire history of humankind.  In that vision, he saw the soul of David haMelech, who was destined to come down to the world for just a few hours and then die as a baby.  Adam was so moved by the lost potential of David not having the opportunity to leave any mark on the world that he donated 70 years of his life to David.  This is why Adam lived only 930 years instead of an even 1000 (my wife makes fun of me because I like round numbers, but here's a Midrash that takes my side.  It should be 1000 -- what's with 930?).

 

When Hashem told David that his time was up on that Shabbos, it was not because David had done anything wrong, certainly nothing that would make him deserving of death.  David was on borrowed, undeserved time from day 1 of his life.  It just so happened that those 70 years that he had been given as a gift were up on that Shabbos. 

 

The same is obviously not true of Rav Chisda, who lived a normal life and whose death came about based on his own merits/demerits in shamayim.

 

This is why the gemara uses the story of Rav Chisda, and not David, as its proof.  The gemara is establishing that just like the ir miklat affords refuge and protection for someone who has done wrong, so too Torah.  That lesson cannot be learned from David, who died only because his 70 year gift was up, not because of any wrongdoing.  That lesson can only be learned when speaking about a "normal" person. 

 

R' Elya Baruch proves his sevara from a beautiful diyuk in Rashi, who comments on the gemara in Shabbos:

 

הוה יתיב וגריס - שלא יקרב מלאך המות אליו שהתורה מגינה ממות כדאמרינן בסוטה (דף כא.)

 

The gemara in Sotah writes that the protection of Torah exceeds that of mitzvos:

 

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִצְוָה, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא, בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — אַגּוֹנֵי מַגְּנָא, אַצּוֹלֵי לָא מַצְּלָא. תּוֹרָה, בֵּין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בָּהּ וּבֵין בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בָּהּ — מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא

 

But why would Rashi send you to that gemara and not to the sugya in Makkos where the gemara spells out clearly, based on what happened to Rav Chisda, that Torah protects even from the malach ha'maves?  Isn't that sugya a perfect fit to what the gemara in Shabbos is talking about?

 

It must be that there is a distinction between the sugyos.  The protection the gemara in Makkos is speaking about is a different type of protection than the one in the sugya in Shabbos.

 

There is another distinction that is meduyak in the gemara.  When speaking about Rav Chisda, the gemara states that the malach ha'maves distracted him for a moment so he stopped learning, and was then able to take him on the spot, he dropped dead right by his shtender.  The gemara in Shabbos writes that the malach ha'maves drew David haMelech *away* from his shtender and into the garden and then was able to take him.  Apparently the protection afforded David enveloped and sanctified even the spot in which he was learning, so it was only after he moved away from that area, away from his shtender, that the malach ha'maves had power.

 

We are approaching chodesh Av.  "Al mah avdah ha'aretz?"  Chazal tell us that the churban happened because Bn"Y did not recite birchas haTorah.  The Ran explains that there was a deficiency in their learning lishma.  Torah is our shield and protection.  Of course we need hishtadlus in all the normal ways, but above and beyond that, we need to envelop ourselves in the great power מַגְּנָא וּמַצְּלָא of Torah.

hate and love that eclipse all else; reward is only when you go the extra mile

Kozbi bas Tzur was a Midianite princess.  Rashi writes that We see the degree of hatred Midian had for Bn"Y from the fact they were willing to sacrifice even their nobility to the goal of causing Bn"Y to be chotei.  R' Shtienman in his Ayeles haShachar points out that the people of Midian were maaminim. They accepted that Hashem would be angered at Bn"Y's actions and take care of them. If Midyan believed in Hashem and knew he would be angered by arayos, then doesn't it follow that Hashem would also be angry at them for hatching such a plan? 

We see that a person can be so bent on bringing someone else down that they lose sight of the fact that in doing so their own actions are a far cry from causing nachas ruach to Hashem.  Apply as you will to current events. 

 

We have almost the flipside of this attitude in the parsha.  Pinchas gets a huge reward for curbing Hashem's anger against Bn"Y and bringing a mageifa to a halt.  פִּֽינְחָ֨ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי:  The Agra d'Kallah is medayek that 2 times the pasuk mentions ּ בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל, but in the middle it doesn't mention their name, it just says בְּתוֹכָ֑ם.  The pasuk could just as well have ended  וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אותם, or could just as well have said in the beginning הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מעליהם.  Why  does it repeat the name of Bn"Y unnecessarily 2x and then leave it out?  He answers that the pasuk uses the full name בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל when speaking about Bn"Y being saved in order to emphasize that in essence, Bn"Y is pure and does not deserve punishment.  That's their identity.  When it comes to the middle of the pasuk where it speaks about בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י for what they did wrong, the pasuk switches to a pronoun, to a kinuy, because when it comes to doing wrong, that's not us, that's not our identity or who we are.  Then he adds an additional point:

 

עוד תתבונן בפסוק אהבת הבורא ית' לישראל, הגם שפנחס קינא קנאת הש"י, לא עשה הש"י מזה עיקר, רק להיות שנמשך עבור קנאתו הצלת ישראל, זה הוחשב לו לעיקר הזכות, וזה יורה באומרו השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו וכו' ולא כליתי וכו' לכן אמור וכו' (במדבר כה יב), כי זה הוא העיקר אשר מצא חן בעיני, וחש הבורא ית' על כבוד בניו יותר מכבודו

 

The ַקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is not the reason for the reward of Pinchas.  The reason for the reward is הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל and וְלֹֽא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל.  The קַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י is just the means to that end. 

Hashem kavyachol turns a blind eye to his own kavod and instead places the emphasis on Bn"Y being saved, because His love of Bn"Y kavyachol outweighs all else.   

Midian is all about hatred blinding a person to their lack of kavod shamayim.  Pinchas' reward speak about Hashem's love outweighing even kavod Shamayim.  Opposite attitudes.

 

2) Pinchas saved Klal Yisrael and got this great reward.  Tremendous!  But didn't Moshe do that for 40 years?  Didn't Aharon in parshas Korach bring a stop to a mageifa by offering ketores?  Where is the applause for them, where is the special reward of a bris? 

 

I saw a beautiful answer.  Moshe and Aharon were the leaders of Klal Yisrael.  As leaders, they are supposed to stand up for their constituents, for the people.  That's their job.  You don't get extra rewards for doing your job.  Pinchas wasn't even a kohen (according to some shitos) yet.  He had no responsibility to stand up for anyone.  For him to step forward and take the bull by the horns, risking his life along the way, is above and beyond the call of duty.  That's why he gets reward.

korban musaf on shabbos and lechem mishneh

Around 2-3 weeks ago someone asked me whether a double portion of mon fell before Yom Tov and I pointed them to Tos in Beitzah 2b the end of d"h v'haya:

תימה דכאן משמע שהמן לא היה יורד בי"ט כדפי' רש"י הששי הראוי להכנה וזהו בחול והא אמר ויברך ויקדש ברכו במן וקדשו במן שבשבת לא היה יורד מן אבל בי"ט היה יורד וי"ל דמדרשים חלוקין כדאיתא במדרש (מכילתא פ' בשלח) שבת לא יהיה (שמות טז) לרבות יום הכפורים לא יהיה בו לרבות י"ט שלא היה יורד בהן מן ועי"ל דאפי' היה יורד בי"ט מ"מ בי"ט שחל להיות בע"ש לא היה יורד מדכתיב קרא בו ביום הששי ולא כתיב ששי משמע הששי המיוחד שהוא ראוי להכנה ולא בששי שהוא יו"ט 

The problem is that there are 2 halachos that we learn from the mon: 1) the requirement to have lechem mishneh to commemorate the double portion of mon; 2) we eat seudah shlishis on shabbos because there were 2 portions of mon left to eat on that day.  If a double portion of mon fell for Y"T like shabbos, and therefore we require lechem mishneh on Y"T, then shouldn't we also have to eat seudah shlishis on Y"T?  

Be that as it may, the reason I bring this topic up is because of the Daas Zekeinim/Hadar Zekeinim's explanation based on Midrash of why there are 2 sheep offered for the korban musaf on Shabbos:

כל מעשים של שבת כפולים. שירו כפול מזמור שיר ליום השבת. תענוגו כפול וקראת לשבת עונג ולקדוש ה׳ מכובד. עונשו כפול מחלליה מות יומת. לחמו כפול לחם משנה. קרבנותיו כפולים שני כבשים. וזהו שאנחנו אומרים ותצונו ה׳ אלהינו להקריב בה קרבן מוסף שבת כראוי לו.

The Ohr haChaim similarly comments:

טעם שמוסף שבת הוא מועט מכל מוספי ראש חודש ומוספי יום טוב והמועדים, הוא סוד לחם משנה

If you know what he means by "sod lechem mishneh," I guess keep it a secret.

The Abarbanel is having none of this:

ואמנם למה היה מוסף השבת שני כבשים כתמידין כתבו מאחרוני המפרשים שמפני שבשבת דבורו כפול זכור ושמור לכן היה קרבנו שני כבשי׳ כנגד שני הדבורים שנאמרו עליו ואינו נכון. כי הנה זכור ושמור בדבור אחד נאמרו

His explanation is that the 2 sheep correspond to the 2 reasons for shabbos, 1) zecher l'maaseh braishis; 2) zecher l'yetzi'as Mitzrayim, or they correspond to 1) the act of creation; 2) Hashem's hashgacha in maintaining creation.

In the sefer V'Darashta v'Chakarta (telita'ah, question #5 on the parsha), R' Grossman asks: if bringing 2 sheep corresponds to the doubling of the portion of mon, to the "sod lechem mishneh" as the Ohr haChaim puts it, then since a double portion also fell for Y"T shouldn't Y"T have the same korban as Shabbos?  

B'mechilas k'vodo, I don't understand the question.  Putting aside that whether the double potion fell for Y"T is a machlokes I still don't get it.  Maybe ain hachi nami, if there was no other reason for the musafim on Y"T, they would be the same as those of Shabbos.  But there are other reasons!  Because a double portion of mon fell for Y"T doesn't preclude our offering more korbanos to celebrate and recognize other aspects of Y"T that do not apply on shabbos.  Why should the "sod lechem mishneh" be dominant and push off the very good reasons (whatever they are -- see the various meforshim) we might have for offering an increased number of korbanos on Y"T?

To answer his questioh he suggests that there is a difference between the way the mon fell before shabbos vs the way it fell before Y"T.  Before shabbos the people would gather one portion of mon which would then miraculously double in size and they would find that they had twice as much as they had gathered.  Before Y"T, they would gather a double portion, i.e. twice as much as on a normal day.

It's like l'mashal 2 people who beis din paskens have to pay $200.  One has to pay $200 because they stole $100 and now have to pay keifel = $200.  The other has to pay $200 because they took a loan and owe $200.  That $200 is all keren, not keifel.  Shabbos is keifel, is one portion turned into two.  Y"T is a double portion k'peshuto, meaning the people gathered twice as much as they did on an ordinary day.

Unfortunately he does not quote any proofs to this assertion in this piece, but references what he wrote elsewhere in a piece that I have been unable to location online.  

24x7 protection -- kri'as shema and parshas balak

Rav Shlomo Fisher (Derashos Beis Yishei) points out an interesting remez in the names Balak ben Tzipor and Bilam ben Be'or.  The name Tzipor hints to the morning, like the Aramaic word tzafra.  The name Be'or has the same letters as the word erev, evening.  Bilam's power was limited to the night.  לינו פּה הלילה he tells the messengers who come to ellicit his help.  Balak, on the other hand, took charge in the morning. וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וַיִּקַּ֤ח בָּלָק֙ אֶת־בִּלְעָ֔ם וַיַּֽעֲלֵ֖הוּ בָּמ֣וֹת בָּ֑עַל וַיַּ֥רְא מִשָּׁ֖ם קְצֵ֥ה הָעָֽם: (22:41).  The Ohr haChaim, whose yahrzeit is this upcoming week, asks why the pasuk specifies the time in which this event happened.  He quotes a Zohar that the sorcery of Balak involved birds, and this is why he was called Tzipor.  Therefore, he was up early in the morning when the birds start chirping (OC gives a few other explanations).  Whether the birds were the sibah of his power or just a siman for the start of the day, either way, we see this link between Balak and the morning.  This is why Bilam and Balak wanted to pair up.  Each one was the missing that half of the day that the other one needed. 

Klal Yisrael fortunately has the antidote to their power.  הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א לֹ֤א יִשְׁכַּב֙ עַד־יֹ֣אכַל טֶ֔רֶף וְדַם־חֲלָלִ֖ים יִשְׁתֶּֽה (24:24).  Rashi comments: הֶן־עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וגו'. כְּשֶׁהֵן עוֹמְדִין מִשְּׁנָתָם שַׁחֲרִית, הֵן מִתְגַּבְּרִין כְּלָבִיא וְכַאֲרִי לַחֲטֹף אֶת הַמִּצְוֹת — לִלְבֹּשׁ טַלִּית, לִקְרֹא אֶת שְׁמַע וּלְהָנִיחַ תְּפִלִּין:  We start the morning enveloping ourselves in mitzvos, but we don't stop there.  לֹא יִשְׁכַּב. בַּלַּיְלָה עַל מִטָּתוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל וּמְחַבֵּל כָּל מַזִּיק הַבָּא לְטָרְפוֹ, כֵּיצַד? קוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ וּמַפְקִיד רוּחוֹ בְּיַד הַמָּקוֹם  We end the day by connecting ourselves with Hashem as well.  Whether it is morning or night, there is not a time that we are separated from Hashem.

 

The gemara in Brachos (12) says that Chazal thought about requiring us to read parshas Balak every day like kri'as shema: אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ בֶּן זוּטַרְתִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: בִּקְּשׁוּ לִקְבּוֹעַ פָּרָשַׁת בָּלָק בִּקְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא קְבָעוּהָ — מִשּׁוּם טוֹרַח צִבּוּר.  Our parsha, which shows that special connection to Hashem day and night would be paired with shema read day and night.  The gemara explains:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ הַאי קְרָא: ״כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ״.  

Rashi writes:

כרע שכב – דדמי לבשכבך ובקומך שהקדוש ב"ה שומרנו בשכבנו ובקומנו לשכב שלוים ושקטים כארי וכלביא:  

Maharasha, however, quotes a different girsa from the Tanchuma:

ושוב מצאתי בתנחומא דמייתי קרא דלעיל מיניה הן עם כלביא יקום וגו' לא ישכב עד יאכל טרף וגו' והוא נכון טפי בדרש זה לענין ק"ש של שחרית וערבית.  

As we see from Rashi in our parsha, that pasuk speaks about our alacrity in reading shema.  The pasuk our girsa quotes is speaking not about our actions, but rather about Hashem's watchfulness over us.  What does that have to do with our obligation to recite shema?

 

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik Balak 3:3) quotes a question from the Besh"T: Why does our pasuk start by referring to a לָבִ֣יא, a female lion, הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם, and only afterwards וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א, but in the other pasuk the order is reversed, first we are called an אֲרִי, a male, stronger lion, ָּכָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, and only afterwards ּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ?

 

R' Tzadok explains that הֶן־עָם֙ כְּלָבִ֣יא יָק֔וּם וְכַֽאֲרִ֖י יִתְנַשָּׂ֑א is the normal order of things.  You start slowly and build to a crescendo.  The pasuk of כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי וּכְלָבִיא מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ is talking about Klal Yisrael c"v on the decline.  When we fall, all is not lost.  כָּרַע שָׁכַב כַּאֲרִי, we will rise again like a lion. Even if we fall even further and are no longer like the mighty אֲרִי,  we are still כְלָבִיא, and can bounce back.  And even if we fall further still, all is never lost. מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  R' Tzadok quotes from the Zohar: דכל אורחין דתיובתא פתיחין מיני' והיינו דמי גימ' נ' שערי בינה והוא תשובה וכמו שנאמר ולבבו יבין ושב.  We can never lose our access to the gate of teshuvah.  We say in Tehillim אִם־עֲוֺנ֥וֹת תִּשְׁמׇר ק־הּ ה׳ מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד.  Even if Hashem counts all our sins against us, מִ֣י יַעֲמֹֽד, there is still the 50th gate of teshuvah which allows our return. 

 

Bilam wanted to use this against us.  Eat, drink, be merry, because no matter what you do, it won't count against you.  That's obviously not the take away lesson.  The takeaway lesson is that when it comes time to read shema, to do mitzvos, and a person thinks, "What's the point?  I'm a nothing; there is no way for me to fix all the wrong I have done; there is no way my avodah has any value," the answer is מִי יְקִימֶנּוּ.  Don't give up.  No matter how far you have fallen, ther door is always open for your return and there is value to your mitzvos. That, explains R' Tzadok, is why the gemara in Brachos quoted davka this pasuk:

 

ופן יפול לב האדם היודע נגעי לבבו כמה קלקל ובאיזו פנים יקבל עול תורה ועול מצות ע"ז רצו לקבוע פ' בלק בק"ש שיהיה להתחזקות שלא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח ויתברר לבסוף ועמך כולם צדיקים

The three weeks are almost upon us.  We remember the churban of the past, but we also think about 10/7 and all that followed.  History constantly tries to do away with us, but we rise again every time.  לא יפול בדעתו כמו שהאמת הוא כן שלא ידח ממנו נדח