[Avodah] kol yisrael yesh..... (beis/lamed)

[Poppers, Michael]

In Avodah V28n188, R'Micha replied:
> Is a day of the omer a unit, and the omer period as a whole a collection; or is the omer the unit, and the day a part? We say "the United States is..." but in the antebellum South they said "... the Confederate States are..." A state would be counted "be-US" but "le-CS".
>
> I don't see how this reasoning would apply beyond countables. If you can't point to units, how can you ask whether one has a collection of units or parts of a whole? <
I'm aiming for a holistic explanation.  "BaOmer": we're in the midst of it; "laOmer": we're looking at the period as a whole.

> The Ritva (on Berakhos 64a) explains that "lekh beshalom" implies that the shalom is limited to the halikhah, not the destination. <
Right, because the halichah is seemingly in the midst of shalom rather than looking at Shalom as an entity to reach.

> About areivim, this is what I wrote last May:
>> Areivim zeh *ba*zeh means that all Jews are mixed up one within the other.
>> The Ohr haChaim invokes it to explain why cheit ha'eigel would impact 
>> the quality of MRAH's nevu'ah.
>>
>> Areivim zeh *la*zeh is a blander statement of mutual hischayvus, without 
>> any metaphysical basis posited for it.
[emphasis _and_ correction of your original quote mine --MP]
Similarly, when we're in the midst of one another, we're truly together; when we're on the outside looking at each other, we're not (at least, relatively speaking).

> Last, as for le'olam habah:
>
> Are we saying they have a cheileq of olam haba? According to the Ran and the Iqarim, the "only" difference between gehenom and gan eden is the state of the soul when it enters olam haba. One will burn in shame, the other will enjoy the ziv hashechinah. If genehom is also part of olam haba, what kind of promise is "yeish lahem cheileq be'olam haba"?
>
> So I think the mishnah means "yeish lahem cheileq [in the sechar of being Yisrael, applicable] toward olam haba." And thus their gehenom is limited. (Until you read further in pereq Cheileq and see the cheileq only applies to Jews who didn't forfeit their title "Yisrael".)
>
> But if one referred to the sekhar explicitly it would be "cheileq besechar", not "lesechar". <
I don't think you need to go farther than our t'filah b'chal-yom: "Atah hu ba'olam hazeh, v'Atah hu la'olam haba."  I see it as saying, "You, H', are [with us] now, in the olam we can discern, and You will be [with us] in the future, in the olam which we're looking forwards to."

All the best (including wishes to all for a shanah tovah umsuqah) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA