We don't know too much about the Kotzker Rebbe, but the little bit of a sense that we do have for him from the vertlach that have been transmitted through the generations is that he was a person who couldn't tolerate superficiality and externality. Wherever he saw, or those, or even traces of superficiality and externality, he exposed them, rejected them, and relentlessly demanded of himself and others authenticity and inwardness. Typical is his vort, typical of that avodah, of that relentless pursuit of emes, of authenticity, and without any tolerance for hollow superficiality and externality, is his vort on this week's sedra, on וירא העם וינעו ויעמדו מרחק. The Kotzker says they shook with grosser shalhovos and vaya'amdu merachok, and they were very, very distant from the Ribbono Shel Olam. Whatever the makor for shokeling is, kol atzmosai somarna, for some feel that it helps be m'orer kavannah, but the shokeling without the neshomah, without the kavannah, is like a guf beli neshomah. That's what the Kotzker, again very characteristically and prototypically, was commenting on in his vort on vaya'ar ha'am vayanu'u. Without deluding ourselves into thinking that we could ever answer his exacting standards and the relentless demands that he made of himself and others, it is important to try to make sure that, again using the terms representatively, metaphorically as it were, to make sure that in our lives we don't substitute the shokeling for the kavannah, that we don't substitute the chitzoniyus for the pnimiyus, that we don't lose authenticity and in its place have recourse to superficiality and externality. The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos in Shoresh Revi'i, the shoresh which is that אין ראוי למנות הציוויים הכלליים התורה כולה, the 613 are distinct mitzvos, but the exhortations or even the commands to be m'kayem all mitzvos, those are not supposed to be included in the minyan taryag. In that context, talking about Kedoshim Tiyu, the Rambam says that in essence, what the gaps that the Ramban says Kedoshim Tiyu close, for the Rambam are basically closed by the mitzvah of veholachta bidrachav. He doesn't have those gaps. So the Rambam understands that Kedoshim Tiyu is basically a ציווי לקיים כל התורה. And then he quotes, amru ואנשי קדש תהיו לי, Isi ben Yehuda omer k'shehakkadosh baruch hu mechadesh mitzvah l'Yisrael הוא מוסיף להם קדושה. And then another drashas Chazal, v'lashon sifrei, והייתם קדושים זו קדושת מצות. Mitzvos, Torah, mitzvos are synonymous with kedusha or, more importantly, are the only sources of kedusha. Something which isn't the mitzvah, and in this context we're not talking about whether it's a mitzvah that meets the formal requirements of being included in the minyan taryag. There are many mitzvos which are mitzvos in the sense of being obligatory, in the sense of being commanded, but don't match the formal technical requirements of minyan taryag. The Rambam doesn't have a mitzvah in the minyan taryag to believe in Torah min hashamayim. So not limiting mitzvah in that sense, but yes, limiting mitzvah in the sense of it's something that's commanded. Mitzvos are the source, Torah and mitzvos are the sole exclusive sources of kedusha. On the pasuk in Sefer Devarim, את ה' אלהיך תירא אתו תעבד ובו תדבק ובשמו תשבע,
so Rashi says it's cumulative. את ה' אלהיך תירא, a person has yiras shamayim, oso taavod, a person's oved Hashem, uvo sidbak as dveikus, and then and only then uvishmo tishaveia. So it's cumulative. So it's not just sort of four distinct phrases: את ה' אלהיך תירא, nu perakim, oso taavod, nu perakim; no, it's cumulative. Pashtus is that the same way it's cumulative l'gavei the uvishmo tishaveia, both in terms of pshat in the pasuk as well as just what svara dictates, it's cumulative in terms of the uvo sidbak also. The uvo sidbak results from, is an outgrowth of uvo sidbak again in the sense that we talk about when we talk about dveikus bashem, not the drashas Chazal of l'hiddavek b'talmidei chachamim. את ה' אלהיך תירא אתו תעבד ובו תדבק. Dveikus is attained through yiras shamayim, through avodas Hashem. That's how a person attains dveikus, the same as the Rambam's drashas here l'gavei kedusha: והייתם קדושים זו קדושת מצות. That's what the Rav zikhrono livrakha used to say, that wherever you find kedusha, you find extra mitzvos. The halacha knows of kedushas kehuna. So kedushas kehuna is reflected in the fact and consists of the fact that ריבו להם הכתוב מצות יתירות, that the kohanim have mitzvos that are meyuchados to them that Yisraelim don't have. Hechsher mitzvah is something very important, is not something to be dismissed, is not something to be belittled. Hechsher mitzvah in this context, how a person derives inspiration. How a person gets Hisorerus for Torah and Mitzvos is not something to be dismissed Chas v'shalom, not something to be belittled or denigrated. But Me'idach gisa, the Hechsher Mitzvah shouldn't be confused with the Gufeh Mitzvah. Tell the story that Reb Velvel was, he used to, I think he used to go, if I'm not mistaken, I think he used to go for a daily walk for reasons of health in Yerushalayim where he lived. So someone once met him on the walk and said to him, I guess he spoke to him in the third person: Is the Rav being Mekayem Sobu Tziyon V'hakifuha? And Reb Velvel is reported to have answered: שטייט נישט אין ספר המצוות. Again, the story shouldn't be taken literally in the sense that again there are many Mitzvos which are Mitzvos in the sense that we use the word but don't fit the technical criteria of Taryag Mitzvos. But in the, but the story is intended to be taken literally, I think the comment was intended to be taken literally in terms of Mitzvah in its broader sense. There's no such Mitzvah. A person can't innovate some new spiritual, intrinsically, allegedly intrinsically meaningful instrument. Hechsher Mitzvah has its place and it's very important. How a person draws inspiration, where a person draws inspiration is all important and is all legitimate. But it's very, very important not to blur the line between what's a Hechsher Mitzvah and what's והייתם קדושים זו קדושת מצוות and what's inherently and intrinsically a Mitzvah and what's inherently and intrinsically Avodas Hashem and the source of Kedusha. In a very, very insightful letter, my brother Hashem Yikom Damo identifies two mistakes that a person can make in thinking about Dveikus. One mistake is to imagine that what isn't Dveikus is Dveikus. But the other one is to think that there isn't Dveikus at times when in fact the Dveikus is present. If a person is learning Behasmada, he's Davening Bekavana, he's being Medakdek Bemitzvos, he shouldn't think that because he doesn't have a certain feeling that he's not Doveik b'Hashem. What that person is missing is not Dveikus, but is the sensitivity to feel the Dveikus. Errors that a person needs to be mindful of. One way to identify the first error, thinking that an experience is dveikus when it isn't. If it's not on the heels of את ה' אלוקיך תירא ואותו תעבוד, if it's just some sort of quick-fix shortcut, so how can that be emese dveikus? Dovid HaMelech uses the - maybe he's actually talking about the Beis HaMikdash so it's not imagery but maybe something else and it is a metaphor: מי יעלה בהר ה'. It's an ascent. It takes time to climb. There's no analogue to ski lifts in ruchniyus. So the hechsher mitzvah, the sources of inspiration are important and they have their place and we should recognize and appreciate them as such and we should recognize and appreciate for what they are the gufe mitzvah, the actual sources of kedusha and dveikus.