Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 196

Mon, 17 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 5. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: Hineni (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Akiva Blum)
• 8. Trying to understand the rationale for Pas Yisroel when eating an Oreo (Avroham Yakov)
• 9. Re: ha-sameach be-chelko (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Selichos (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Re: Shehecheyanu for shmitta (Michael Poppers)

 



	It certainly seems to be against the philosophy of RYBS who
stressed that
	religion is not the opiate of the masses. Rather Judaism
involves a constant struggle.
	
	I return to the question of how to interpret ha-sameach
be-chelko
	
	shana tova
	
	-- 
	Eli Turkel  
	=========================
	I always understood it as the usual dialectic - constant
struggle yet realization that  (after the fact) we strive to be happy
with where we are(were) - along the lines of R'YBS explanation of
choshed bkshairim/kapdeihu vchashdeihu
	GCT
	Joel Rich 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/8b222a15/attachment-0001.htm 

On 9/17/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a question about what the phrase ha-sameach be-chelko means?
> Simple pshat would indicate that one does not strive to be better/richer
> but is happy with where he is
>

I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. Simple pshat is that one
can be rich by being happy where one is, period. One may also strive to have
more, with the intention of being happy there too. The mistake to avoid is
to say "I could be happy if I only had $x", since if I fall into that
mentality, when I have $x I will say "I could be happy if I only had $y". (I
was going to add "IMHO" to the last sentence until I remembered that Shlomo
Hamelech said the same thing in Kohelet 5:9 "hao'ehev kesef lo yisba`
kesef")

I believe that the same goes for the spiritual interpretation. As you say,
one should always work on getting better, but this doesn't contradict being
happy at whatever level one has reached.

On the linguistic level, I suppose what I am saying here is that  "sameach
bechelko" doesn't mean "happy with, one's chelek" in the sense of not
wanting to improve one's position or to have an easier time finding tuition
fees, but "happy, with one's chelek", and I think this fits better the
Mishna's proof text from Tehillim "Yegia` kapeicha ki tochel, ashreicha
vetov lakh".

Ketiva vehhatima tova!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/572d6342/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, September 17, 2007 4:57 am, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I have a question about what the phrase ha-sameach be-chelko means?
: Simple pshat would indicate that one does not strive to be
: better/richer but is happy with where he is

Who is wealthy?
One who is happy with their pekalach, rather than wondering "Why can't
I have an easy life like so-and-so?"

It's one who is happy with their challenges, their tafqid, their path
to sheleimus and deveiqus.

Not contentment with what one has, but with one's lot in life. And
that includes what I personally am set on the path to strive for. Be
it my ta'avah for enough wealth to stop working and do AishDas
full-time, my need to be able to deal with more situations without
blowing my top, or even coming to terms with the lessons of empathy
and of the fragility and value of life and the berakhos in it that
came with the loss of a daughter.

I therefore disagree with the conclusion:
: It seems to be the opposite of teshuva which says that one should
: never be happy with ones status and always work on getting better.
: It certainly seems to be against the philosophy of RYBS who stressed
: that ... Judaism involves a constant struggle.

No, my cheileq is the teshuvah, the dialectic tension, not my current
status and holdings.

BTW, I had a long bit on this on MmD (pp 1-3) based on R' Saadia Gaon
at <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/vaeschanan.pdf>. It's all
about simcha, R' Aqiva's laughter, Hallel, who are the yesharim
(uleyishrei leiv, simchah; layesharim navah sehillah), aveilus,
Eikhah, etc...

(While there, I recommend revisiting RYF's (CC-ed) words on pp 3-4
while it's still 10YT.)

This also reminds me of a thought I often use from the Kotzker. (Eg
"9/11 - 5 Years Later; or, How to Effect Permanent Change", notes of a
talk I gave over dinner at a Shabbaton at the Yavneh Minyan
<http://tinyurl.com/26npbr>). An excerpt:

The Kotzker Rebbe once asked his students: There are two people on a
ladder, one on the fourth rung, and another on the 10th, which one is
higher?

The book where I saw this thought doesn't record his students'
answers. I assume some recognized it as a trick question, and answered
that it was the one on the fourth, some answered the 10th figuring the
rebbe was leading them somewhere, and others were silent. But the
rebbe's answer was succinct, "It depends who is climbing the ladder,
and who is going down."

Once I told the story, the idea is familiar. The idea of spirituality
is not where you are, as that is largely a function of forces beyond
your control (your upbringing, your genetics, etc?) Rather, it's the
direction you're heading in, and how rapidly you're getting there. To
apply a notion from Kierkegaard, it's not about being a good Jew, it?s
about the process of becoming one.

What does this say about teshuvah? We think of teshuvah as getting
from point A to point B. But if holiness is measured by our engagement
in the process, should this be our goal of where to be by Yom Kippur?
I would suggest that teshuvah is not akin to motion, but to
acceleration. The aim is that by the end of Yom Kippur, we are more
engaged in change; our foot is on the accelerator, we gathered tools
to implement change and have started using them.
-- ad kan leshoni --

Similarly, my cheileq isn't point A or point B, but my calling to
travel that line.

Khasivah veChasimah Tovah, vesheTir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

"Chelko" here is the same pshat as chelkeinu in "shelo sam chelkeiunu kahem."

YGB

> On 9/17/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a question about what the phrase ha-sameach be-chelko means?
> Simple pshat would indicate that one does not strive to be better/richer
> but is happy with where he is
>

RRW wrote:
> As we know, the first night MIGHT be a valid exception
> in that pizmon - even for yekkes - starts "Bemotzo'ei Menuchei" -
> suggesting ?A Saturday Night start. ?[nevertheless as noted - Yekkes do it
> before dawn even on the first Sunday...]

Yes, it says bemotzaei menuchah, but it also mentions: "retzeh 'atiratam 
be'amedam baleilot". Clearly this stuff was composed for early mornings.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On 9/16/07, RallisW@aol.com <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:
>
>  What is the origin of Hineni? Shouldn't be said before all tefillos of
> both Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kippur, within halachic guidelines?
>
> Is it said by Sephardim as well as Ashkenazim?
>
> How come it contains more Shaimos HaShem than any other tefilloh yet ends
> with"Boruch atoh shomaiya tefilloh"?
>

Great Question:

First Yekkes Shluchei Tzibbur say this silently.
It is said before every TEfillah on YK by the Shatz, preceding:

   1. Kol Nidre @ Arvis
   2. Baruch She'amar @ shacharis
   3. Before kaddish @
      1. Mussaf
      2. Mihncha
      3. Ne'ilah

On Rosh haShana it is said - AFAIK - only for Shacharis and Mussaf as above.

I am fuzzy on this , but I seem recall that it was some 19th century East
Europen Hazzan who made this a public prayer with a fancy/inspiring Nusach.

OTOH, there are MANY bakashos said by the Shatz, e.g. Ochila lo'Keil that
ARE siad outloud even by Germans.  Lich'or they should all be said silently
as private petitons of hte ShaTz to better fulfill his task

On a different thread when did the Acronym ShaTZ become a separate word?


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/b1aa78a8/attachment.htm 

   >In the teacher case, we are not generally considered to be dealing with
   >pikuach nefesh.  It is just that it is possible that in the course of
   >hitting a talmid, the teacher might come to kill him.  One has to
   >consider such a possibility reasonably remote - and that this is
   >precisely why the teacher is indeed patur from going into galus.  It is
   >not just that he is doing something mutar (although he may well have
   >ended up violating pen yosif), but that the consequences (ie death) are
   >not reasonably forseeable or particularly expected, and, of course,
   >completely unintended.  However, taking away the talmid's property would
   >seem, as per the definition of gezela, to be straight out stealing.  And
   >the teacher by doing so would seem to be intending to do the issur of
   >stealing (in a way that he never intended to kill).  So you need to ask
   >the question, one what basis can one override the issur of gezel?  This
   >is standard halachic analysis - gezela is a lo ta'aseh, what overrules a
   >lo ta'aseh?  Pikuach nefesh is clearly one such case.  Arguably a
   >mitzvas aseh might do so - but the mitzvah of chinnuch is derabanan, so
   >it is hard to see how you can override a lo ta'aseh on the basis of a
   >d'rabbanan.  
   >

Lo yosif pen yosif is a lo taaseh even hitting alone without any damage. What would then be, according to your analasis, the heter to hit the student.




   > Perhaps we can differentiate 
   >> between where the rodeif is a killer, thus since he has 
   >> forfeited his life, his property is undoubtedly worth less, 
   >> and our case where the pupil has forfeited his right to a 
   >> beating. Perhaps his property is more valuable to him. For a 
   >> proof, see pesachim 25a: Rebbi Eliezer says why does the 
   >> Torah say.. uvchol meodecha.. if there is someone whose money 
   >> is more precious to him than his body..
   >
> [as an aside if you apply this reference in
   >pesachim 25a in the way you appear to want to, then should you not also
   >say that all of the punishments of the Torah that relate to the body
   >should perhaps be switched in the case of somebody who values his money
   >more than his body, and similarly perhaps all of the fines in the Torah
   >should be switched in relation to somebody who values his body more than
   >his money?].  

Shelo yehei gufo choviv mimomono is a svara. The ptur is based on the svara. Where the svara doesn't apply, the heter/ptur falls apart. All the punishments in the Torah are not svaras. They are gzerot hamakom.
   >
   >And I confess that the fundamental point that Rav Henkin appears to be
   >making seems very valid to me - if we do not have a source specifically
   >allowing for a kal v'chomer, on what basis can we intuit it?  Because
   >gezel seems light in our eyes (that is what we are really saying by
   >means of the kal v'chomer, isn't it)? 

I am sugesting that in this case, the kal vechomer may not work because gzeila is not kal than chavala - here. But maybe it is.
However, in general we have already shown that WRT the same person we can sum up gufo and momono which is more choviv.

> Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
   >the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push aside the issur
   >of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so as to fulfil his
   >mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a very short time?
   >Why is this different?

Because it remains the property of the talmid. I don't why the rav couldn't use it on the second day.

GCT

Akiva

Shana tova all!

The main point of Pas Yisroel is because of chasunos.  Obviously, if I cook
my cholent and other food in for example Mrs. O’Leary’s house, I will become
quite friendly with them.

But when eating an Oreo, or any other commercial type of product, what is
the rationale that it should be Pas Yisroel?

Thank you,

Avroham

_________________________________________________________________
Test your celebrity IQ.  Play Red Carpet Reveal and earn great prizes! 
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_hotmailtextlink2

On 9/17/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a question about what the phrase ha-sameach be-chelko means?
> Simple pshat would indicate that one does not strive to be better/richer
> but is happy with where he is
>
> 1. modern (western) society prizes "progress". Our civilization has
> progressed materially because of people who wanted to change things and
> were
> not happy with the status quo. For example in the stock market a company
> that makes a billion dollars every year is not desirable. A company is
> supposed
> to continuously increase revenues through new innovations. We view
> "eastern"
> religions as the sleepy type with yoga where people are happy but they
> live
> like they lived 2000 years ago.
>
> 2. In spiritual matters ha-sameach be-chelko seems even less appropriate.
> It seems to be the opposite of teshuva which says that one should never be
> happy
> with ones status and always work on getting better.
>
> It certainly seems to be against the philosophy of RYBS who stressed that
> religion is not the opiate of the masses. Rather Judaism involves a
> constant struggle.
>
> I return to the question of how to interpret ha-sameach be-chelko
>
> shana tova
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
> _


A non-Jewish Philospher once stated:
Longing for what you do NOT have
Expresses lack of appreciation for that which you DO have!

This parallels yesh lo maneh rotzeh masayim, etc.

The trick here is to appreciate and be grateful for everything you have and
to still strive for more w/o feeling regret over "What is"

Health mashal:
A person is involved - heaven Forbid  - in a serious car accident. He comes
out alive but he is baned-up badly and has broken bones, contusions,
bruises, etc.

He benches Gomel for his very Life that has been spared
Yett he still davens for a REFUAH SHLEIMA in order to be restored to total
health.

If he remains complacent he will be a grateful cripple
If he becomes completely  unappreciative and dissatsified, he may grow into
a bitter - albeit healed, survivor.
The trick is to Thank HKBH for what He has already done for him and yet to
still ask for more.

Life can be a balancing act...


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/cbd72f40/attachment.html 

In Avodah Digest V23#191, RES replied:
> Personally, I have difficulty with the idea that "times of mercy" or of
the opposite exist. (I don't know what RMP's position is.) <
In a nutshell, my POV is that not only certain days (e.g. Yom haKippurim)
and months (e.g. Nisan) but also certain times of the day have a certain
character.  While most of those "traits" (including, for example, the
nature of times of a day based on t'filos of the Avos) seem to be based on
Torah/mesorah characterizations and/or historical accounts, we know who the
real History Maker is and can consider that the "traits" existed at least
in potential before they were revealed to us based on what occurred or was
transmitted and that their revelation is important and should be considered
in our avodas haBorei.

G'mar chasimah tovah and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/5165963a/attachment.htm 

In Avodah Digest V23#192, RMarBl wrote:
> RSZA is quoted in Hlaichos Shlomo that when Rosh Hashana is starting the
shmitta year a person should have kavana when he says shehecheyanu in
kiddush for shmitta as well. Shmitta is a mitzva that comes periodically
and therefore falls under the rubric of shehecheyanu. We should have in
mind the miztvos that we will do during shmitta when we
make the beracha. It would seem that this only applies only to people
living in Israel where shmitta is applicable. <
and in the subsequent digest, wrote in response to RDI:
> It is not b'feirush (see Halichos Shlomo Moadim Rosh Hashana - Purim
chapter 1 sif 16 devar halacha 22 footnote 65). He writes that the beracha
is because we are zoche to be mekayem many mitzvos related to shemitta, we
have the shabbas haaretz, kedushas peiros, etc. People in
chutz laaretz are not mekayem these mitzvos, don't eat peiros with kedushas
sheviis, etc.  and therefore I thought that the beracha would not apply to
them <
What about shmittas k'safim -- isn't it a "mitzvah related to shemitta"?
Thanks.

G'mar chasimah tovah and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070917/136a4667/attachment.html 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 196
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."