On 9/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Micha Berger</b> <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
R Simon Montagu <<a href="mailto:simon.montagu@gmail.com">simon.montagu@gmail.com</a>> replied to RETurkel's orignal<br>question on Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:25:41 +0200:<br>: On the linguistic level, I suppose what I am saying here is that "sameach
<br>: bechelko" doesn't mean "happy with, one's chelek" in the sense of not<br>: wanting to improve one's position or to have an easier time finding tuition<br>: fees, but "happy, with one's chelek", and I think this fits better the
<br>: Mishna's proof text from Tehillim "Yegia` kapeicha ki tochel, ashreicha<br>: vetov lakh".<br><br>But "be-" means "with" in the sense of "via" or "through the aegis of".
<br>Not "together with". <br><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">And I think the proof text is exactly my thesis -- simchah with one's
<br>particular version of the task of continual growth.<br></blockquote></div><br>I expressed myself unclearly. I don't understand the "be" in "bechelko" as "together with". IMHO the sense is more of perceiving something in a particular way, as in "hibit be-", "shama` be-", "chafetz be-" etc.
<br><br>Having said that, I don't agree that "be-" can't mean "together with": "vayetze Edom likrato be`am kaved" could be either "together with" or "by means of"; "be-makli `avarti et hayarden" might just be "by means of", but in context Ya`akov's point seems to be his lack of possessions at the time (Rashi gives the latter as peshat and the former as 'midrash aggada') ; and I think "bi-nechasim rabim shuvu el aholeichem uve-mikne rav me'od be-chesef uve-zahav" can only be "together with".
<br><br>And having said *that*, I much prefer your interpretation to my own! I wonder if one's chelek le`olam haba is also something dynamic, not static? I remember several ma'amarei chazal that make the contrast between `olam hazeh as dynamic and `olam haba as static, but maybe it's a question of perspective, and `olam haba has its own dynamic.
<br><br>Chatima tova!<br>