opening doors

 1) One of the local business in the neighborhood that sells appetizing has the following sign on their door (apologies for the poor quality):

 

The business wants people to place orders for their break fast food ahead of time, and chastises people not to wait until the last minute to do so.  You know Y"K is coming, you know what you want to order and place the same order every year, so why wait -- call ahead of time!

 

When I walked past and saw that sign, I thought to myself that Hashem must have meant this to be put up as a message for aseret y'mei teshuvah. 

 

We all know Y"K is coming.  We do this every year.  We all know what we need to do to clear our slate.  Why wait for the last minute -- for erev Y"K, or for kol nidrei, or for the avodah of mussaf, or for neila, and for those who are real stragglers, for "Hashem hu ha'Elokim" and that last shofar blast?  Take care of things now!

 

Fortunately, Hashem will not slam the door in your face no matter when you decide to contact him, but more on that a few paragraphs from now.

 

2) In haYom Yom for 3 Tishrei the Rebbe quotes from R' Zusha of Anapoli that teshuvah can be broken down to 5 components, with each letter of the word teshuvah corresponding to a pasuk that reflects that component:

 

ת ־ תמים תהי׳ עם ה׳ אלקיך

שׁ ־ שׁויתי ה׳ לנגדי תמיד

ו ־ ואהבת לרעך כּמוךּ

ב ־ בּכל דרכך דעהו

ה ־ הצנע לכת עם אלקיך

 

R' Leibele Eiger quotes a different pasuk for that last letter.  He understood  that the letter  ה is, as Rashi explains in our parsha, as ה״י לשון תימה.  For that letter hei he quotes a pasuk from our parsha: 

 

ה לה׳ תגמלו זאת עם נבל ולא חכם

 

When a person realizes that he has frittered away his time, wasting the potential that Hashem gave him, he is filled with remorse.  He can then come to the next ה, which is at the conclusion of that pasuk, and is also a question:

 

הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ

 

Hashem is our father, who provides everything for us.  How can we not want to return to Him and do what is right?  That thought takes you back to the beginning of the process, to ת ־ תמים תהי׳ עם ה׳ אלקיך.

The process is circular, drawing a person constantantly closer to Hashem.

 

3) Coming back to signs on doors and not being turned away: On leil Yom Kippur after we say the pasuk ויאמר ה׳ סלחתי כדברך, and next comes the recitation of the bracha of she'hechiyanu.  The Lev Simcha explained that the bracha is not just on the kedushas ha'yom of Y"K.  The Rambam describes a person who does teshuvah (7:6) אמש היה זה שנאוי לפני המקום משוקץ ומרוחק ותועבה. והיום הוא אהוב ונחמד קרוב וידיד.   A baal teshuvah is like a new person.  The old self is gone, and this is the new me.  When Hashem says סלחתי כדברך and accepts our teshuvah, we then say she'hechiyanu on ourselves, on our new identity.  

 

I want to suggest a different answer, also based on Gerrer torah.  We say Hashem is פּותח שׁער לדופקי בּתשׁובה.  Knock on the door, and He will let you in.  Sefas Emes asks: the Midrash tells us (Devarim Rabbah 2:12)

 

רבי חנינא בר פפא שאל לרבי שמואל בר נחמן מהו דכתיב ואני תפלתי לך ה' עת רצון אמר לו שערי תפלה פעמים פתוחים פעמים נעולים אבל שערי תשובה לעולם פתוחים

 

The door for teshuvah is always open, so why do you need to knock?

 

What's the big deal of Hashem opening the door when it's never closed anyway?

 

There are people who want to do teshuvah, but they can't even find the door.  They don't even know how to begin, where to find ruchniyus, where to find themselves.  The door is open, but they keep banging on the walls, the floor, the ceiling, trying different things, looking in different places.

 

Hashem tells such people, "Don't worry -- you can knock on the wall, you can knock on the floor, you can even knock on the ceiling.  Even if that's not the door, even if you're knocking in the wrong place -- for you, I'll make a door.  I'll be ּפּותח שׁער even if that is not the שׁער and show you a way back."

 

The Yerushalmi tells the following story about Menashe:

 

כָּתוּב וַיְדַבֵּר יְי אֶל מְנַשֶּׁה וְאֶל עַמּוֹ וְלֹא הִקְשִׁיבוּ. וַיָּבֵא עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת שָׂרֵי הַצָּבָא אֲשֶׁר לְמֶלֶךְ וַיִּלְכְּדוּ אֶת מְנַשֶּׁה בַּחֹחִים. מָהוּ בַחֹחִים. בְּכֵירוֹ מָנִיקִיָּא. אַמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. מוּלָא שֶׁלִּנְחוֹשֶׂת עָשׂוּ לוֹ וְנָתְנוּ אוֹתוֹ בְּתוֹכָהּ וְהָיוּ מַסִּיקִין תַּחְתָּיו. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁצָּרָתוֹ צָרָה לֹא הִנִּיחַ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּירָהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא הוֹעִיל לוֹ כְּלוּם אָמַר. זָכוּר אֲנִי שֶׁהָיָה אָבִי מַקְרֶא אוֹתִי אֶת הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בַּצַּר לְךָ וּמְצָאוּךָ כֹּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹלוֹ. כִּי אֵל רַחוּם יְי אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא יַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא יַשְׁחִיתֶךָ וְלֹא יִשְׁכַּח אֶת בְּרִית אֲבוֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם. הֲרֵי אֲנִי קוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ. אִם עוֹנֶה אוֹתִי מוּטָּב וְאִם לָאו הָא כָל אַפְּיָא שָׁוִין. וְהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מְסַתְּמִין אֶת הַחַלּוֹנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא תַעֲלֶה תְפִילָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּמְנַשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. וְהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אוֹמְרִים לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם. אָדָם שֶׁעָבַד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהֶעֱמִיד צֶלֶם בַּהֵיכָל אַתָּה מְקַבְּלוֹ בִתְשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לָהֶן. אִם אֵינִי מְקַבְּלוֹ בִתְשׁוּבָה הֲרֵי אֲנִי נוֹעֵל אֶת הַדֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי כָל בַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה. מָה עָשָׂה לוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. חָתַר לוֹ חֲתִירָה מִתַּחַת כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד שֶׁלּוֹ וְשָׁמַע תְּחִינָּתוֹ. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִינָּתוֹ וַיְשִׁיבֵיה

 

The angels did not want to accept Menashe's teshuvah.  Maharal (San 102) explains that based on what is just, Menashe did not have a leg to stand on.  However, Hashem doesn't just operate within the lines of justice and the law on the books.  There is pure chessed as well.  Even if every door is closed, even if you have a case where a person has sinned so much that they don't even deserve the door of teshuvah to be open, Hashem says knock anyway.  Knock and I'll make you a door leading right to my kisei ha'hakavod.

(Right at the beginning of Rabeinu Yonah's Shaarei Teshuvah he gives a mashal.  A king locked some prisoners away in a jail.  They managed to tunnel their way out and escape (Shawshank Redemption), with the exception of one prisoner who chose to remain behind.  That one prisoner was singled out for punishment afterwards.  "Why would you not seize the opportunity to escape from prison?!" demanded the king.  The nimshal is our opportunity to do teshuvah and escape the jail of our sins.  If we fail to take advantage, it only adds to our guilt.  My wife always points out that the mashal of a tunnel matches this story of the tunnel Hashem himself made for Menashe.)

 

סלחתי כדברך.  I said a pshat 2 weeks ago in the name of R' Simcha haKohen Kook, but I want to suggest a different pshat.  Most people use the main door.  Some people enter some other way. Your friend may have found a different door; you may have been brought up or learned in yeshiva about some other door.  However, when all is said and done, if none of that works for you, if you can't find or enter any of those doors, then Hashem says, "You use your door.  כדברך -- wherever you want or need the door to be, I'll make sure there is one there."

 

The she'hechiyanu that we say on the night of Y"K is a she'hechiyanu on those new doors, the doors that Hashem has created and opened for each of us. 

 

May each of us find our שׁער, and may Hashem always open all the doors ands gates for us that we need opened, and may this she'hechiyanu of Y"K be followed this year by a she'hechiyanu on bi'as ha'goel.

ain ma'avirin al ha'mitzvos - Avnei Nezer's chiddush in when to build your sukkah

The against (Meg 6b) writes that when there is a double Adar, according to R' Eliezer bar Yosi the megillah is read in the first Adar because of the principle of  דְּאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.  When you have one continuous block of time and can do the mitzvah earlier or later within that same block, there is a din of zerizus to do it earlier, but that's not a game breaker.  In his case, it's not a contiguous block of time.  There are days in between 14 Adar I and 14 Adar II when the megillah cannot be read.  Therefore, we come on to the principle of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. 

Based on this gemara the Avnei Nezer (OC 459)  has a chiddush din that when there is a shabbos in between Y"K and Sukkos, a person must build his sukkah before shabbos.  You cannot build the sukkah on shabbos, so we treat the days before shabbos and days after as two separate time periods and apply the rule of אֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת.

Is that really true?  The gemara (MK 9a) writes that Shlomo haMelech made a celebration for chanukas Beis haMikdash before Sukkot so as to avoid the problem of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה.  That year they did not fast on Y"K because of this party for chanukas ha'Bays. The gemara asks: maybe Shlomo just happened to complete the job before Sukkos and that's why he made the celebration then?  How do we know it's because of the issue of מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה?  Answers the gemara: if מְעָרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְּשִׂמְחָה was not an issue Shlomo would have left a small part unfinished and timed the completion for Sukkos rather than schedule the celebration on Y"K.  (This topic comes up with regards to whether one dan delay a siyum until the 9 days.)

 

According to the Avnei Nezer, if in theory the Mikdash could have been completed either before Y"K or after Y"K, and obviously it could not be built on Y"K itself, wouldn't delaying the completion until after Y"K be a problem of ְאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת, just like delaying building the sukkah? 

 

See more here.  The more more fundamental argument against the Avnei Nezer is that not reading megillah in the intervening days between Adar I and Adar II is a din in megillah; not building sukkah on shabbos is not a din in sukkah, it's just an extraneous problem of melacha on shabbos that gets in the way.

an experience that makes an impression

Rashi writes that the gathering of  וַיַּקְהֵל מֹשֶׁה אֶת⁠ כׇּל⁠ עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל took place למחרת יום הכפורים, כשירד מן ההר.  When that gathering finished, the Torah reports וַיֵּ֥צְא֛וּ כׇּל־עֲדַ֥ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה.  It should go without saying that when Moshe was done speaking everyone went home.  Why mention it?  (See this post where we discussed this.)

R' Avraham Shapira quotes Chasam Sofer that the point the Torah is trying to make is that in this case it wasn't just stam you went home, business as usual, like you come home from the grocery store or a day of work. In this case it was clear on the faces and in the behavior of the people that they had come מִלִּפְנֵ֥י מֹשֶֽׁה, they had just experienced something important, something that made an impression. 

So too when we come to למחרת יום הכפורים, the experience of Y"K should leave it mark, and there should be an impression left even as we depart from the kedushas ha'yom. 

tefilas neilah - kaparah of the tzibur

Rambam writes in hil teshuvah 1:4 that teshuvah alone is not enough to be mechapeir on chilul Hashem:

 במה דברים אמורים בשלא חילל את השם בשעה שעבר אבל המחלל את השם אע"פ שעשה תשובה והגיע יום הכפורים והוא עומד בתשובתו ובאו עליו יסורין אינו מתכפר לו כפרה גמורה עד שימות. 

Yet earlier in halacha 1:2 Rambam indicates that the שעיר המשתלח brings kaparah for everything, even the cheit of chilul Hashem.

שעיר המשתלח לפי שהוא כפרה על כל ישראל כהן גדול מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל שנאמר והתודה עליו את כל עונות בני ישראל. שעיר המשתלח מכפר על כל עבירות שבתורה הקלות והחמורות. בין שעבר בזדון בין שעבר בשגגה. בין שהודע לו בין שלא הודע לו הכל מתכפר בשעיר המשתלח. והוא שעשה תשובה

R' Avraham Shapira explained that the difference is that שעיר המשתלח is a kaparah for the community as a whole, as the Rambam writes, מתודה עליו על לשון כל ישראל.  Although an individual's personal teshuvah is not enough to forgive chilul Hashem, it can be forgiven as part of the kaparah extended to the community.

Similarly, Meshech Chochma at the end of parshas VaYelech writes that tefilas neilah also has that exceptional power to afford kaparah even for chilul Hashem:

והנה כל ימי תשובה שמלך יושב על כסא וצבא השמים עומדים עליו יכול להועיל רק על עבירות שאין בהם חלול השם שוקלין זכויות כנגד עבירות, אבל על חה״ש ע״ז אמרו אם יכופר לכם העון עד תמותון ב״י, כי אין יוהכ״פ מכפר (סוף יומא), ורק בעת החתימה שהשי״ת דן יחידי אז הוא שעת הכושר שהשי״ת יסלח מרוב טובו אחרי גודל הבכי והחרטה, כי אם הוא ימחול על חלול כבודו מי יאמר אליו, לכן בנעילה סדרו הפסוקים למה תמותו, השיבו וחיו כי לא תחפץ במות כו׳ וכיו״ב, כי הכל על עון חלול השי״ת   

This is because, explained R' Avraham, tefilas neilah, like the שעיר המשתלח, is the time of kaparah for the tzibur, not just for each of us as individuals.

This is the climax of the avodah of Y"K -- joining as a tzibur, receiving kaparah as a tzibur.  

What we cannot achieve as individuals, we can achieve as a klal.  

bracha on besamim on Y"K which falls on motzei shabbos; bracha on ner when a woman recites havdalah

There is a machlokes ha'poskim whether the bracha on besamim is said in havdalah when Y"K falls on Shabbos. The SA writes (624:3) writes that the bracha is omitted, as the purpose of besamim is to help us recover from the loss of our neshoma yesira, but on Y"K there is no neshama yseira since we can't eat or drink.  The Mordechai disagrees.  Taz quotes Maharashal who argues that there is no downside to being choshesh for the Mordechai and adding the bracha, as the bracha is a birchas ha'nehenin.  If you smell the spices and enjoy the fragrance, it's not a bracha levatala.  This is how the Mishna Berura paskens l'maaseh:

אבל רבים מהאחרונים חולקין ע"ז וסוברין דכשחל בשבת יש לברך על הבשמים ואין כאן חשש ברכה לבטלה כיון שנהנה. ומ"מ אין להורות לצבור כן ולמחות בידם במקום שנהגו בבהכ"נ שלא לברך על הבשמים רק לעצמו בביתו יכול לברך [פמ"ג].

Aside from the issue of bracha levatala, Taz raises a different concern.  If one is not obligated to say it, wouldn't adding the bracha on besamim constitute a hefsek between the bracha on the kos and the bracha of havdalah?  He draws an interesting analogy to tekiyas shofas to get out of this problem:

וויש לכאורה לדחות זה שכ' מאחר שנהנה כו' דמ"מ יש כאן הפסק בין ברכת בורא פרי הגפן לברכת המבדיל בבשמים אם אין הכרח להם מ"מ נראה דעדיף טפי לצאת ידי כל הדיעות מלחוש להפסק וראיה מדברי ת"ה סימן קמ"ב לענין קשר"ק שתוקעין בסדרים דבזה נפיק ידי כל הקולות דהיינו או קר"ק או קש"ק ולא חיישינן להפסיק אם קש"ק עיקר הוה התרועה הפסק ואם קר"ק עיקר הוה השברים הפסק דכיון דעכ"פ כבר יצא י"ח לא חיישינן להפסק  אע"ג דעיקר התקיעות הם על סדר הברכות הכי נמי  כיון דיוצא ממ"נ לא חיישינן להפסק:

I think the simplest solution to be yotzei both deyos here is that of the Chayei Adam (klal 145.  My son pointed out to me that R' Ovadya says the same in Chazon Ovadya.):

והרוצה לעשות מן המובחר לצאת דעת האומרים לברך גם על הבשמים כשחל בשבת נ"ל דלאחר שסיים ברכת המבדיל בין קדש לחול אז יברך על הבשמים ולא באמצע הבדלה

This Taz has ramifications not just when Y"K falls on Shabbos, but for other havdalah issues as well.  The Biur Halacha at the end of OC 296 is medayek from the MG"A that women are exempt from the birchas ha'ner when reciting havdalah on motzei Shabbos.  Had you asked me, I would have said based on this Taz that if they have no chiyuv recite the birchas ha'ner, they should not be allowed to recite the bracha, as it would constitute a hefsek.  This is in fact how R' Tukashinski paskens in his luach.  

The sefer Halichos Beisa (end of ch 15) disagrees.  He suggests that even according to the Biur Halacha, women may recite the bracha if they desire to do so.  The difference between this case and that of the Taz is that when it comes to a regular motzei Shabbos, the fact that women lack a chovas ha'gavra (odd to use that term here : ) to say the bracha does not change the fact that it is part of the takanah of what constitutes the normal seder of havdalah.  On Y"K which falls on Shabbos, however, since according to the SA since there is no neshoma yseira, the bracha of besamim is not part of the "cheftza" of the takanah of havdalah for that day.  

As proof to this argument he cites the PM"G that an aveil is exempt from reciting the bracha on besamim since he is too upset to have the enjoyment of a neshama yseira; however, the PM"G implies that if the aveil may recite the bracha if he chooses to do so.  Here too, the aveil may lack a chovas hagavra because of his circumstance, but the takana of havdalah on motzei Shabbos includes the bracha, and therefore there is no issur to say it.

Important to note that this issue is only with respect to a regular motzei Shabbos. The Halichos Beisa suggests that when Y"K falls on Shabbos even according to the M"B women are obligated in the birchas ha'ner, as the purpose of the ner on motzei Y"K is part of havdalah -- to distinguish between the ner that we were not allowed to use for 24 hours and ner that we now can use -- as opposed to on a regular motzei Shabbos where it is a shevach for the creation of candlelight.

Four lessons from Yonah

1) Lesson #1 posted back in 2009 here.

2) The passengers aboard the ship with Yonah being tossed in the storm cannot understand the cause of the calamity that has befallen them.  Sailors are not known to be the most righteous folks, and one can safely assume that the other passengers were ovdei avodah zarah, but it is Yonah alone who raises his hand and takes full responsibility for the unfolding disaster.  

The Brisker Rav explained that society around us may be wicked and debased, but it's not our job to point the finger at their wrongdoings as the cause of evil in the world.  It's our job to look at ourselves, our own failures.  Relative to what the rest of the world does our wrongs may be trivial, but we have a Torah to learn from and therefore the bar for us in higher.

3) Why did Yonah tell the sailors to cast him into the sea?  He could have quelled the storm by tellimg them to turn around and bring him back to Eretz Yisrael so he could deliver the prophecy he was charged with?  

R' Chaim Kanievsky in Taama d'Kra (based on a Chazal) writes that Yonah knew that if he would deliver that prophecy and Ninveh would do teshuvah, it would look bad for Klal Yisrael.  Therefore, he preferred to be tossed into the sea, to be moseir nefesh rather than go back. Great leaders are those who are willing to give up everything for the sake of the people.

4) When the storm hits, the navi  tells us וַיִּֽירְא֣וּ הַמַּלָּחִ֗ים (1:5) that the *sailors* were afraid.  Yonah then tells them that he is a Jew fleeing G-d and it is because of G-d's anger that they are in danger.  The navi then tells us again of their fear, but this time it says וַיִּֽירְא֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ יִרְאָ֣ה גְדוֹלָ֔ה, the *people* were afraid.

Malbi"m explains:

מ״ש תחלה וייראו המלחים היתה יראת הסכנה. אבל יראה זו היתה יראת ה׳ שהיא גדולה למעלתה לפי גדולת העצם שהתיראו ממנו

At first, the fear felt by the unsophisticated sailors was simply a fear of the storm.  That type of fear is the same fear even an animal has when it detects a threat.  However, after Yonah spoke with them, the sailors then understood this storm has a cause, that G-d is behind what is taking place.  Their fear them became a fear felt by אֲנָשִׁים֙, people, i.e. thinkers, not just the gross reactive fear of an animal facing danger.

Life has many challengers, some of which are frightening to deal with.  That fear can be elevated to yiras shamayim, to appreciate that there is a cause, that there is purpose to everything.

מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך

Read k'peshuto, you have to at least admire the brazenness of the statement מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך.  We know how bad we are; G-d, You of course know how bad we are, but do us a favor and turn your eyes away and pretend not to notice.  Are sins like Schrodinger's cat, i.e. so long as they are not נגד עינך and noticed, they cease to exist?

There are a lot of ways to get rid of sin.  First and foremost, there is onesh and yisurim.  If you know that when you do wrong you get a smack for it, you are not going to keep doing wrong.  However, there are better ways to go about curing the penchant for wrongdoing.  Says the Sefas Emes, when a person is really close to G-d, it becomes impossible to sin.  Think of your relationship to your wife, to your child, to your parents.  Surely you don't intentionally act in a way to harm them, not because of the negative consequences of having to sleep on the couch or your child hiding in their room, but simply because these are people you are close to and therefore do not want to hurt.  In that same vein, when you are close to someone, it becomes easier to forgive as well.

When we say מחה פּשׁענו מנגד עינך the letter מ in מנגד is the מ indicating a sibah, a cause.  We are asking G-d to forgive not through yisurim, not by punishment, not by demanding other forms of kaparah, but simply because we are נגד עינך, we are close, and when you are close, you don't want to cause harm, you don't want to linger on faults.  That should be the motivation behind and the vehicle for our kaparah.

GR"A on repeating insertions of zachreinu l'chaim etc during chazaras ha'shatz

I think in every shul or yeshiva I have ever davened in on the Yamim Noraim or aseres ymei teshuvah, when the shat"z got to the spot where you insert zachreinu l'chaim, mi kamocha, ksov l'chaim tovim, etc., the shat"z would pause and everyone would say those lines out loud together, and then the shat"z would say it and continue.

The GR"A in Maaseh Rav #204 writes that this is incorrect.  According to GR"A, the shat"z should daven straight through with no pause and no interruption by the tzibur.  Like most everything else in Maaseh Rav, there is no explanation as to why the GR"A held this way, but some of the meforshim link it to the GR"A's opposition to the tzibur saying "baruch HU u'baruch Shmo" during chazaras ha'shat"z (Maaseh Rav #43) and suggest that the GR"A treats chazaras ha'shatz as if the shat"z is being motzi the tzibur in the brachos of shmoneh esrei, so no interruptions are allowed.  

I'm not sure that works, because 1) the GR"A does allow piyutim to be inserted, 2) and even if you treat chazaras ha'shatz like something you have to yotzei in, the insertions of zachreinu etc. are part of the shmoneh esrei recited by the shat"z, unlike baruch Hu ub"S.  Even if the tzibur is being yotzei, why can't the they say a section of the bracha themselves instead of relying on shomeh k'oneh?  (I believe whether you can reply on shomeh k'oneh for only part of a bracha is a debate in Achronim, but it would be a chiddush to say the GR"A is taking a stand on that issue here.)  

There is a third minhag that is interesting.  Some are noheig to only recite the last two insertions, the ksov l'chaim tovim etc. out loud during chazaras hashat"z.  The logic here is that the insertions build upon each other.  First we ask zachreinu l'chaim, then we build on that and ask not just l'chaim, but ksov l'chaim tovim.  Once you ask for that in your shmoneh esrei, to go back during chazaras ha'shatz and just ask zachreinu l'chaim again without tovim is a step down, a step backwards.  That we don't want to do.  

you have to ask for it

There is a din of piyus on erev Y"K, that someone who did wrong has to go and ask mechila from the person they harmed.  The gemara (Yoma 87a) has an additional chiddush.  The gemara relates that when R' Zeira knew someone had wronged him, he would make sure to present himself to that person to afford them the opportunity to ask mechila.  There was a butcher who insulted Rav and never came to ask mechila, so on erev Y"K Rav went to the butcher himself so that the butcher could ask mechila of him. Even though Rav and R' Zeira were  the aggrieved party, they were the ones who went to seek out the chotei rather than wait for the chotei to come to them.  

What's the source for this halacha?  Why should the aggrieved party have to do anything?

R' Yitzchak Blazer answers that the source is midosov shel haKB"H.  Dirshu Hashem b'himatz'o -- Hashem comes close to us during the 10 days of teshuvah to make it easier for us to repent.  The King is in the field, as the Baal haTanya teaches; he has made himself readily accessible.  Mah hu, af atah.  Instead of waiting for the party who has wronged you to step forward, you can take the first step and come to them to afford them the opportunity to ask for forgiveness.

It's a beautiful vort, but R' Wahrman asks a simple question:  Since Rav and R' Zeira were going to forgive the other party anyway, why play this game of trying to get them to ask for mechila?  Why not just forgive them!?   

We see from here, writes Rav Wahrman, that piyus is not just a means to get the other person to forgive.  Rav and R' Zeira would have forgiven anyway.  But that's not enough.  In order to achieve kaparah the chotei does not just needed forgiveness, but he/she needs to go through the process of asking for reconciliation and wanting that forgiveness.  It is the sometimes painful and embarrassing experience of making amends which is what leads to true reconciliation -- not just saying, "I'm mochel you." 

Let's say that Reuvain and Shimon have a longstanding feud going on, like the Hatfields and the McCoys.  Let's be real -- an simple apology on erev Y"K is not going to wipe everything wrapped up in that feud away.  So what is this halacha of piyus?  What are we trying to accomplish?  The answer, I think, is like R' Wahrman suggests: piyus is an expression of the desire to be forgiven.  That's the first step, the hardest step.  From there, mitzvah gorreres mitzvah and the rest will follow in time.    

It's an avodah to forgive people, but it's also an avodah to recognize one's mistakes and to want to be forgiven, to ask to be forgiven. 

The goal of all this is to being people together, esp as we approach Y"K.  Radomsker in Tiferes Shlomo notes that when the Torah talks about the avodah of Y"K, even though it's a mitzvah l'doros, the parsha does not talk about the avodah being done by "a kohen," or "the kohen gadol", but rather it refers again and again to avodah being done by Aharon haKohen specifically.  (It could be that there is a difference between the avodah as done by Aharon and the avodah l'doros - see how GR"A and Netziv following in his footsteps learn the peshut shel mikra.)  Perhaps the idea here is that it's not a din in the position of K"G which qualifies one for the job on Y"K, but its embodying the traits of Aharon, of being "oheiv shalom v'rodef shalom..." which qualifies one for the job.

Gmar chasima tovah

to live as a baal teshuvah or die as a baal teshuvah?

1) Rambam, first halacha in perek 7 of Hil Teshuvah:

הואיל ורשות כל אדם נתונה לו כמו שבארנו ישתדל אדם לעשות תשובה ולהתודות בפיו מחטאיו ולנעור כפיו מחטאיו כדי שימות והוא בעל תשובה ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא

Had you asked me I would have said that a person should do teshuvah to rid himself of aveiros so that he can live a righteous, fulfilled life.  But that's not what the Rambam says.  He puts the focus on death -- כדי שימות והוא בעל תשובה.  Rambam could have eliminated that phrase entirely and simply said to do teshuvah  ויזכה לחיי העולם הבא.  Why the particular stress on dying as a baal teshuvah?

2) R' Ovadya Yosef holds that if a person or tzibur cannot say slichos in the morning, they can be said before mincha.  He was asked why in that case the slichos should be said first -- tadir v'she'aino tadir tadir kodem, so mincha should be recited first.

Whatever the answer is, the question should not apply only to mincha.  Unless you are saying slichos b'ashmores ha'boker (as the Rambam says to), then when you come to shul for shacharis at 6:30 or 7:00 or whenever, you have a tadir chiyuv of shacharis that should take precedence over slichos.

(The Shaagas Aryeh already is mechadesh that you only apply the rule of tadir when comparing apples to apples, i.e. two mitzvos d'oraysa or two mitzvos derabbanan, but when you are comparing something like a minhag with a real chiyuv, then the rule does not apply and, counterintuitively, the minhag can come first.  Whether this Shg"A is correct is a debate and a discussion for a different post.)

Becha chosmin -- Yom Kippur is the chag of chessed

Neila is the time of the chasimas ha'din.  "Chasmeinu l'chaim...". Rashi in parshas Lech Lecha comments that the brachos given to Avraham, "v'e'escha l'goy gadol va'avarechicha..." etc refer to the fact that we mention the Avos in our shmoneh esrei -- Elokei Avraham, Elokei Yitzchak, v'Elokei Yaakov.  Rashi continues, "yachol yehiyu **chosmin** b'kulan?  Talmud lomar 'v'heyei bracha' -- becha chosmin."  We end the bracha "magen Avraham" -- the chasima is only with Avraham's name.  The Tiferes Shlomo quotes the Tikunei Zohar that Rosh haShana, "vaHashem pakad es Sarah...," is the holiday of Yitchak; the Tur (417) writes that Sukkos is the holiday of Yaakov, "ulmikneihu asah sukkos." Yom Kippur, says the Tif Shlomo, is the holiday of Avraham Avinu, and particularly neila, the chasima, is in his merit -- becha chosmin.  Avraham personified the midah of chessed, and it is only through chasdei Hashem that we are given a chasima ltovah.

How do we earn chasdei Hashem?  By emulating Avraham and doing chessed ourselves.

On erev Y"K there is a halacha of ritzuy.  True, the shulchan aruch says this means that we should ask each other for forgiveness, but, as the Sefas Emes explains, that's not exactly all that ritzuy means.  Tikabeil brachamim ub'**ratzon** tifilaseinu.  Y'yehu na amareinu **l'ratzon**. We want Hashem to want to listen to us and want to accept our tefilos.  How do we earn that?  By doing ritzuy ourselves, which means that we should not just forgive, not  just to tolerate, but that we should have "ratzon" for our friends -- we should want good for them.

Wishing you all a gmar chasima tovah, that our tefilos should be accepted bratzon, that we be zocheh to chasdei Hashem, and that we be zocheh to see the good in others and accept each other b'ratzon as well.  

Oseh ha'shalom

Although there seems to be an old established minhag to change the ending of the last bracha of shmoneh esrei from ha'mevarech es amo yisrael ba'shalom to oseh ha'shalom during the aseres ymei teshuvah, many (I would say most) shuls these days opt to keep the standard ending rather than tamper with the nusach of the chasimas habracha.  I've noticed most of these same shuls have no problem on Yom Tov changing the chasimas habracha of retzey from ha'machazir Shechinaso l'Tzion to she'odcha levadcha b'yirah naavod.

Tartei d'sasrei, or can you come up with a difference?

Ramban the philosopher/mystic vs Ramban the halachist

R' Aharon Lichtenstein zt"l was asked who he would rush to meet first when he got to the olam ha'emes.  Who among the pantheon of Rishonim does he admire most?   You would think someone steeped in Brisker lomdus like R' Aharon would of course answer "the Rambam," but guess again -- it was Ramban who most fascinated R' Aharon (see the article I linked to).  Parshanut, philosophy, mysticism, halacha -- Ramban touches on it all.  I want to look at one issue related to our parsha that brings that multi-faceted outlook into sharper focus.

A Jew must sacrifice his life rather than violate any one of the three cardinal sins of avodah zarah, arayos, or murder.  However, when it comes to other prohibitions, the Torah tells us "v'chay bahem."  It's not clear whether that is simply a matir, a license to avoid the sacrifice of mesirus nefesh, or whether it is a commandment, an order to preserve one's life even at the cost of violating other prohibitions.  Tos (Avodah Zara 27b) would presumably take the former position, as they hold that a person can choose, if they so desire, to give up their life for any commandment.  The Rambam, on the other hand, holds that one is not allowed to give up one's life unless obligated by halacha to do so, and so presumably he would take the latter position.

The Avnei Nezer (Choshen Mishpat 193) has a fascinating teshuvah in which he discusses whether a person  suffering a life threatening illness who is told by doctors that he/she must eat on Yom Kippur is permitted to forgo medical advice and fast anyway.  Rather than approach the issue from the perspective of the different viewpoints of Rambam/Tos above, he instead cites at length the Ramban on Parshas Bechukosai who argues that consulting doctors is only for those who are not on the ideal level of bitachon, for those who do not understand that everything is in G-d's hands alone and that illness can be cured by teshuvah.  "Mah cheilek b'rofim b'beis osim ratzon Hashem!"  Who needs doctors when you have G-d?  Most of us are not on that level, so the Torah allows us to live b'derech ha'teva and get medical help for our problems.  However, for a person who truly places his trust in Hashem, whatever the doctor says is irrelevant.

R' Ovadya Yosef (Yechaveh Da'at 1:61) discusses this same issue and interestingly, he also cites a Ramban: Ramban in the Milchamos in Sanhedrin (74) writes that not only is it not a midas chassidus for a seriously ill person to fast on Yom Kippur contrary to medical advice, but to the contrary -- a person who does not eat when there is danger in not doing so is liable for taking his own life!  (Just for the record, at the end of the section on Moadim in the Shem m'Shmuel there is a letter from the author, the Avnei Nezer's son, to someone in the hospital over Y"K in which he warns the person that they must eat if instructed to do so by doctors.  Did he backtrack from his father's position?) 

What would Ramban the halakhist writing the Milchamos say to Ramban the philosopher/mystic's argument in his peirush al haTorah?   Why is it not a midas chasidus to fast if a person trusts fully in G-d?  Will the "real" Ramban please step forward and make his views clear?

Obviously both Rambans are the "real" Ramban.  Somehow Ramban the philosopher/mystic saw no contradiction between what he wrote in his peirush al haTorah and what he wrote in the Milchamos.  If we only had one or the other, it would be easy for us.  But the greatness of Ramban is that he gives us both -- an abundance of riches!  -- and leaves it to us to puzzle out how to fit the pieces together.  I'll leave it to you to do that : )

teshuvah = achdus

I haven't had time to write much lately, but wanted to say gmar chasima tovah to all and thank everyone who takes the time to read, comment, email.  Our biggest tefilah on Yom Kippur should be that Hashem should give all of us strength to continue learning Torah and growing in avodah. 

"Va'yar Moshe es ha'am ki par'ua hu..." (Shmos 25:32)   Rambam explains that as a result of cheit ha'eigel the people were torn apart -- some thought making an eigel was a good idea; others thought just the opposite; everyone was going in a different direction. 

The tikun of cheit ha'eigel -- the achievement of forgiveness -- occurred on Yom Kippur.  On that day the shattering of Am Yisrael into splinter groups was repaired.  We became one people again and regained that lost unity and common direction.

"Shuva Yisrael ad Hashem Elokecha" -- lashon yachid, in the singular, not Elokeichem, the plural.  The path to teshuvah starts with our becoming one united people.

(Another possible pshat is that teshuvah is not accomplished by thinking about what the Klal can/should do -- it starts with each individual asking what he/she can do about his/her own behavior.  As the Brisker Rav points out, when Yonah was sitting on a boat filled with people who were actual avodah zarah and a storm arose, he stood up and said, "Throw me into the sea -- it's my fault."  He didn't point the finger at anyone but himself.)
Sefas Emes explains that this is why there is a special mitzvah of ritzuy on erev Yom Kippur.  Ritzuy is not appeasement or saying, "I'm sorry."  Ritzuy, says Sefas Emes, is from the word ratzon.  We have to want to be with all our fellow Jews, we have to want good things for them.  (I'm only half joking if I say that this idea is probably a more difficult mitzvah than all 5 inuyim combined.)

Wishing all a year of shalom and achdus and kaparah and geulah.

chatzi shiur and a fishy Midrash

First a quick halachic point and then an amazing Chasam Sofer on a Midrash:

1) The 618:8 the Biur Halacha sneaks in a chiddush. Let’s say a person is c"v so sick on Y”K that he is allowed to eat even a full shiur, meaning a k’koseves within a k’dei achilas pras. He sits down with a full plate of food and starts to eat, and feels a little better. Now, says the M”B, he has to be careful. If he becomes well enough that he can space his eating out and get away with eating only a chatzi shiur, and he then continues and eats a full shiur, he would be chayav kareis. 

In other words: if a person ate a chatzi shiur b’heter (he is still sick and allowed that) and a chatzi shiur b’issur (the amount in excess of the chatzi shiur that he had no right to eat), he is chayav kareis.

Why should that be true? Why not say that since the person ate only a chatzi shiur b’issur, there should be no kareis?

Shu”T Binyan Shlomo 41 raises this as a safeik. It’s an interesting chiddush that there are a few ways to explain, so you can ponder it over the next two days : )

2) The Midrash (Braishis 11:4, quoted in Tos Kesubos 5a and by the Tur in Hil Y”K) tells the story of a tailor who erev Y”K went to the fish market to buy a nice fish to eat (who says the seudah ha’mafsekes has to be chicken?) l’kavod yom tov. At the same time, one of the servants of the local nobleman also came shopping for fish for his master. Unfortunately, there was only one fish left. A bidding war ensued, until finally the servant gave up and balked at paying an inflated price for a single fish. He returned to his master empty handed.  The master was angry and demanded to know who this was who was willing to spend such a fortune to get that fish. Forced to appear before the nobleman and explain himself, the tailor related that the day of Yom Kippur was coming and all our sins are forgiven; therefore, it was only appropriate for him to do his best to honor the day with that fish.  The tailor was allowed to go home in peace.  When he cut open the fish, he found in it a precious stone as a reward from Hashem.

What difference does it make if it was a tailor, a baker, or a candlestick maker who this story happened to? And what’s the big deal about having a fish? Couldn’t the tailor have had something else to eat?

Explains the Chasam Sofer (p. 70 in the Derashos): You look around Klal Yisrael and there are communities torn apart; there are families torn apart; there are people torn apart. We need “tailors” to sew the pieces together and make us whole.  That's who the Midrash is speaking about.

A fish never closes its eyes.  It is the symbol of Hashem's "eina pikcha" looking down and watching out for us.  The way to merit that is by creating peace and harmony, by looking at each other favorably, lovingly, in a caring way.  If we do that, Hashem in turn will look down at us in the same manner.  The fish the "tailor" was after for Yom Kippur was that "eina pikcha" of Hashem's loving gaze, brought about by the love between Jews.  

The gemara (Sanhedrin 98) writes that before Mashiach comes there will be a time when a sick person will need a little fish to be cured and none will be found.  There will come a time when the "eina pikcha" of Hashem is needed so desperately to make us better, but because of the way we look at each other, that fish is going to be really hard to find. 

“Eyn Hashem el yrei’av.”  The pshat is that the pasuk is speaking about how Hashem looks at us, but the Chasam Sofer explains it as follows: We, the yirei Hashem (at least I hope we are), should be blessed with the "eyn Hashem," with G-d's eyes, kavyachol.  We should see only the good in others.  We should see their needs and troubles so that we can help.  We should look beyond superficial nonsense that creates differences and see what really matters.

That's the way a "tailor" sees things.  If we learn to see things that way we too will merit a wonderful "fish" for our Yom Kippur.

Gmar chasima tovah!

wives are not angels

1. The Rama (O.C. 610:4) writes that the minhag is to wear white on Y"K to appear like an angel, which is also why we wear a kittil.  Additionally, the kittil is a reminder of shrouds, which reminds a person of death and causes a person to have humility and be contrite.

The MG"A comments on this Rama that the Midrash indicates that angels are male (my wife commented that an angel can't reproduce, so gender doesn't have much meaning up there.  I assume the terms male/female in this context are meant in the sense of mashpia vs. mekabeil, or chomer vs tzurah, though I found that the Anaf Yosef on the Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 31:5 asks this question and gives a different answer), and therefore women need not wear white.  However, they may wear a kittil to remind them of death.  Women, according to the MG"A, are not angels.

The M"B quotes the Mateh Ephraim who holds exactly the opposite.  Women should also wear white, but the custom is for women to not wear a kittil.  Interestingly, though, in O.C. 619:5 when the S.A. quotes the din of standing for all of davening, which is based on the idea of trying to be like an angel (they stand around on their one foot all day), the M.B. in the Sha'ar haTziyun writes that this does not apply to women.  The source is the previous din in O.C. 610, which seems true only if you hold like the MG"A.  To make matters more confusing, the reason the Tur gives for our saying "Baruch Shem K'vod Malchuso..." out loud is because Moshe heard the angels reciting this phrase, and on Yom Kippur we want to be like angels.  As far as I know, women also recite the phrase out loud as well.

2. Erev Y"K I was trying to find my kittil when my daughter reminded me that at the seder I had not worn a kittil since I am unfortunately in aveilus this year for my father.  Lichorah, the same logic should apply to Y"K as well.  She is absolutely right.  The Taz understands that the Rama is giving two reasons for wearing a kittil: 1) to be angelic; 2) to remind one of the yom ha'misah.  On Pesach as well, like reason #1 here, there are many positive uplifting reasons to wear a kittil, many of which are summarized in this post by R' Eliezer Eisenberg, who already has a full treatment of this topic to which I can add very little.  If the reason for wearing a kittil is a reminder of death, then there is no reason an aveil cannot wear one (though the MG"A in Hil Pesach writes that an aveil need not wear one since he has death on his mind without it); if the reason is to have some more positive experience of Yom Tov or of simcha, than the aveil is excluded because he is not supposed to be having positive uplifting experiences during aveilus. The Aruch haShulchan and R' Moshe both opine that an aveil should not wear a kittil on Y"K.  What I found interesting in that in Hil Pesach, the M"B (472 s"k 13) first writes that an aveil should not wear the kittil, but if he does, one need not object because the Taz says it is permitted.  In Hil Y"K (610 s"k 17) the M"B first quotes (giving this view primacy) the Taz's view that an aveil may wear a kittil and then quotes that there are minhagim not to.  Why give the Taz primacy here but put it on the back burner in Hil Pesach? 

3. The poskim have problems with the line in Ne'ilah, "Hayom yifneh, hashemesh yavo..."  If it is already after shekiya (which it was where I was davening when the shat"z got to this line, and I think that is probably true of many of not most places), then the day has in fact passed and the sun is down already, so the future tense seems wrong.  I saw that R' Chaim Kanievkey said to chang the nusach to past tense (i.e. "hayom panah, hashemesh ba'ah...") though the Aruch haShulchan opines that one need not do so.  In any case, it seems strange to me that in the previous line we say, "Psach lanu sha'ar... ki panah yom," here using the past tense.  Is it "panah yom" or "yifneh yom?"  I don't know how you can have it both ways.

4. Nu, on to preparing for Sukkos.  The Shem m'Shmuel writes that the reason we do na'anuim by waving the lulav away from and then to the heart is because while on Y"K we got our mind in order and now understand mentally what we need to do with out lives, we need to bring the lesson into our hearts, and that's what Sukkos is for.

you get what you ask for

This pasuk of “anochi haster astir” is tremendously difficult because it comes on the heels of Bnei Yisrael admitting that “ki ain Elokai b’kirbi metza’uni hara’os ha’eileh,” a seeming admission of guilt and wrongdoing.  Why does Hashem respond to that with greater hester panim even than before?  We’ve discussed this question before, but I want to mention an approach of the Abarbanel that I think rings especially true in our times.  It could be al pi peshuto the simplest answer is that the expression “ain Elokai b’kirbi” is actually referring to the avodah zarah idols.  Elokai should be with a lower-case e and read as chol.  The people are not confessing, but are actually ascribing what goes wrong to their avodah zarah abandoning them.  The difficulty is that idolatry is not usually referred to as "ELokai" (though my wife pointed out that when Lavan accuses Ya'akov of stealing his terafim, that is the word he uses).  Abarbanel suggests that the previous pesukim reveal that Bnei Yisrael were guilty of two sins: 1) worshipping avodah zarah; 2) not serving G-d properly.  These are not exactly two sides of the same coin.  When Bnei Yisrael confess, "Ain Elokai b'kirbi," they are taking responsibility for sin #2 -- they are acknowledging that they need to do better in their avodas Hashem.  What they fail to admit, and fail to acknowledge, is sin #1 -- that they are also guilty of idolatry.  What they fail to admit and fail to acknowledge is that you can't have more avodas Hashem without giving up the lifestyle of avodah zarah.  You can't be poseiach al shtei ha'se'ifim or have a shutfus.  It's either/or.  This is hard to swallow.  No one is an oveid avodah zarah, but the same idea can express itself more subtly.  We all want to strive for more in avodas Hashem, but we don't want to sacrifice our enjoyments or face our shortcomings either.  We prefer to ignore the negative within and instead just focus on doing more good in some way or other and think that absolves us.  As R' Yisrael Salanter put it, it's easier to learn shas than to correct one midah.  "Ain Elokai b'kirbi" so I have to take on another seder, write a bigger check to charity, daven a little slower, etc. -- all wonderful things, but if the same person ignores the avodah zarah/midah ra'ah that remains within and does nothing to correct it, he is doing half a job that is as good as no job.  Again, a very hard lesson to swallow.

So I don't want to enter Yom Kippur on a negative note, so on to something a little more positive, something I find a little scary.  Commenting on the phrase, “Anochi haster astir panei mei’hem,” (31:18) GR”A asks why the Torah uses the double-language of “haster astir.” He answers that the Torah is telling is that it is the very fact that Hashem is hiding himself, the “astir panay mei’hem,” which is what is being concealed with “hester.”  We think of all kinds of reasons to explain what happens to ourselves, to our families, to those living in Eretz Yisrael – the economy is bad, anti-semitism, politics, etc.  We invent a reason for everything.  The only reason we don’t consider is the real reason: Hashem has removed his hashgacha because we are not doing what he wants.  The real reason remains hidden; we have a mental block that prevents us from thinking about it.  This part of the GR”A, the pshat in the pasuk, I think is pretty well known, but my impression is that the rest of the GR”A’s comment, what I call the scary part, is less well known.  The GR"A continues and asks why it is that Hashem conceals from us the fact that he is concealed and he answers that if we knew what was going on, if we knew we were being punished with hester panim, then we would daven for Hashem to reveal himself, and He would inevitably respond.  The only way we can be punished by the removal of hashgacha is if we don’t daven to prevent it. 

It’s up to us – all we have to do is daven for Hashem to remove this block of hester panim and whatever gezeiros are lined up against us will be removed. 

On Yom Kippur night one of the first things we say after kol nidrei is the pasuk, “VaYomer Hashem salachti k’devarecha.”  This pasuk is Hashem’s response to Moshe’s tefilah to forgive Bnei Yisrael for the cheit ha’meraglim.  Of all the pesukim and tefilos we could possibly use to “lead off” our Yom Kippur, why is this the one that is chosen?  In one of R’ Ya’akov Shapira’s sichot he makes reference to a Sefas Emes in the likutim for Parshas Shelach that may answer this question.  The Rishonim point out that Moshe invokes some, but not all of the 13 midos in that tefilah for forgiveness.  There are various explanations as to why Moshe omitted some of the midos, e.g. Ramban explains that Moshe could not invoke the midah of “emes” because the meraglim were guilty of saying sheker about Eretz Yisrael.  Whatever the explanations, bottom line is that Moshe pulled his punches.  Hashem’s responded: “Salachti k’devarecha” -- exactly what you asked for, "k'devarecha," that’s what you will get.  Half of a request means half forgiveness, but the slate is not going to be wiped clean.  True, Moshe had all kinds of good reasons for not invoking all 13 midos, but af al pi kein…  Maybe the lesson is that when you daven, all the reasons and analysis of what you should say and how you should say it don’t matter.  When you are in pain and in need, you scream out – you don’t make cheshbonos.  That’s what tefilah has to be. 

So we learn from the GR”A that the removal of hester panim is completely in our hands if only we ask for it.  And we learn from the Sefas Emes that tefilah is not a time to pull punches -– it’s the time to swing for the fences and ask Hashem for anything and everything.  That's what we want to remind ourselves of as we enter the most auspicious day of the year.