Post-Yom Kippur Chizuk

Yom Kippur Is Over: Now What?

Yehuda Segal

י”א תשרי ה’תשע”ח 01/10/17

As the Chasam Sofer said: We don’t achieve; we act. Sometimes we are not held culpable, due to extenuating circumstances, or “Oness”. But there is no “Oness” for failing to purely desire. To wish and want is always within our power, and the results are up to Hashem.

Let’s admit the truth. Some of the resolutions we made are closer to wishes than plans…

The Baal Shem Tov told a parable of a Torah Scholar and an ignoramus who both passed away together.

They were both neighbors. The Lamdan would wake up early every morning, and hurry to Shul, where he would sit until about Chatzos calmly studying and praying. His simpleton neighbor would arise at the same early hour for work, only arriving at Shul for a hurried Shachris, at the same time his neighbor was leaving.

The learner, satisfied and pleased with his achievements; his fellow man sighing in pain at the life circumstances compelling him to pray in such a poor fashion, and full of yearning for the day he could pray in peace.

Nothing changed until they died. Both had sins and merits. But when these were measured up, the learner was harmed by his pride and the simpleton benefited by his sighs.

There is a similar story told of the Chazon Ish of blessed memory.

An Avreich came to him complaining of his frustrating routine. Every morning he wakes up with hopes and plans to study diligently, to make progress, to not interrupt his studies, to fill his daily quota in Tanach, Mishna, Gemara, and more, and not waste time. As the day goes by, his determination is weakened, and by its end, he cries bitterly at his lack of success in achieving his goal. “What will be the end?” he asked. “What can the rabbi advise me?”

The Chazon Ish answered:

Continue hoping and planning. Continue failing to implement your plans. And continue getting upset…

As the Chasam Sofer said: We don’t achieve; we act. Sometimes we are not held culpable, due to extenuating circumstances, or “Oness”. But there is no “Oness” for failing to purely desire. To wish and want is always within our power; the results are up to Hashem.

Let us not cease our good intentions, our seemingly useless efforts. As Chazal say: If one prays and isn’t answered, he should pray once more. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is all-capable. Perhaps he will yet have pity on us. And even if not, at least we won’t fall from the level we’re on, at least we will do what we can do.

 

May it be G-d’s will we succeed!

With Heaven’s help, Yehuda Segal

YSMehadrinews@Gmail.com

Hamodia Forgot to Censor This: Don’t Listen to Galus Rabbis!

Quoting a recent interview by Yoel Berman (author of “Living in the Land”) with frum olim during the first few weeks following the outbreak of the Simchas Torah war (Hamodia Sukkos 5785, “Persevering in the Land: A Raw Report, in the Words of Bnei Torah” page 52):

I reached out to quite a few Anglos who live here in Eretz Yisrael to get their input for this article. Different people brought up various issues and subjects, but there was one question I asked that almost everyone I reached out to had what to say about — why they would rather be here now more than anywhere else. Not if, but why!

“I know what it’s like to be in the U.S. during an Israeli crisis. Worry, worry, worry, and all you hear is bad news,” says Reva Rubenstein, who made aliyah to the Yerushalayim suburb of Agan HaAyalot this past summer. “Here, I am making challos for soldiers, baking for the displaced families in the south, going to say Tehillim with my beautiful neighbors, and feeling so close to Hashem. While the shiurim given in the U.S. are focusing on how terrible the times are, here the Rabbanim are stressing achdus, emunah, and bitachon. Baruch Hashem that we are zocheh to be here.”

Exactly!

Here are 2 select pages from the article (to replenish the Emuna stolen by Chutz La’aretz rabbis):

Download (PDF, 1.03MB)

Mainstream Economists Are Charlatans – Look Who They Admire!

The Birth of “Irrational Exuberance”

But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values . . .? — Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, “The Challenge of Central Banking in a Democratic Society,” December 5, 1996

John Law, the early eighteenth-century Scottish gambler and financier, thought the best way to revive an ailing economy was to remove the “great scarcity of money,” as he wrote in a 1705 monetary tract. A decade after its publication, he took his ideas to the Continent and sold them to Philippe d’Orleans, the regent in charge of France’s finances, who needed a scheme more sophisticated than his failed program of coin clipping and confiscation to save the nation from bankruptcy.

In 1716, Philippe set Law up as head of the Banque Générale, the country’s central bank, giving it and him monopoly control of the note issue. Having won the nation’s trust with declarations of allegiance to sound money principles—he had promised his banknotes would be “payable on sight” in unadulterated gold coin—Law proceeded to apply another element of his theory. Because a scarcity of money, he believed, was the root of France’s economic problems, and since banknotes backed purely by precious metals would be in short supply, he began issuing notes “backed” by the nation’s vast landholdings. Exactly how one would redeem banknotes for acreage he neglected to explain.

Very importantly, Law and Philippe also created a trading company called the Compaignie des Indes, a vaporous entity said to have monopoly trading rights in France’s Louisiana territory. Initially, shares in the company could only be purchased with government bonds still on the market, which had fallen to about one-fifth their value. To the public, the trading company and its investment strategy became known as the Mississippi System.

Philippe was very pleased with the results. People from all ranks were buying shares of the Compaignie des Indes. Share prices began to soar. People were trading and speculating with Law’s paper money, and France’s economy was coming alive. Philippe decided John Law was correct that a shortage of money was an economic evil. He was so pleased with the change in the economy he brought the government closer to the action. He renamed Law’s bank the Banque Royale and, by late 1719, it had cranked out enough new bills to inflate the money supply by a factor of sixteen, no doubt to avert the evil of a monetary shortage.

Will and Ariel Durant describe the madness Law had ignited:

The narrow, dirty Rue Quincampoix, where the System had its offices, was for two years the Wall Street of Paris. Buyers and sellers of all classes, duchesses and prostitutes, Parisians, provincials, foreigners, gathered there in numbers, and excitement mounted day by day. Some were trampled to death in the crush, or were run down by the carriages of the aristocracy. . . fortunes were made in a day. A banker made 100 million livres, a hotel waiter thirty million. Now for the first time men heard the word millionaire.

In his Memoirs of Louis XIV and His Court and of the Regency, Saint-Simon tells us,

Everybody was mad upon Mississippi Stock. Immense fortunes were made, almost in a breath; Law, besieged in his house by eager applicants, saw people force open his door, enter by the windows from the garden, drop into his cabinet down the chimney!

As historian Charles Mackay noted, “many persons in the humbler walks of life, who had risen poor in the morning, went to bed in affluence.” Law’s coachman made enough money to buy a coach of his own, who then found Law a new driver. All one had to do was buy, hold, and sell to make a killing.

Law himself became the richest man in the world, owning, among other things, the central bank, the Louisiana Territory, a collection of French chateaux, and original works of masters such as Holbein, Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rubens. But Law was not simply a money printer gone nuts:

He anticipated Turgot by abolishing duties on the movement of food and goods within France. He organized the building or repair of roads, bridges, and canals. He brought in skilled artisans from abroad to establish new industries . . . He revived and multiplied the merchant marine by expanding trade with Asia, Africa, and America; French ships engaged in foreign trade numbered sixteen in March, 1719, three hundred in June, 1720 . . . He persuaded French nobles to finance the production of coffee and tobacco in Louisiana, and himself financed the development of the Arkansas River area. In 1718 New Orleans was founded, and took the Regent’s family name.

He was so popular his carriage required a large military escort to protect him from admirers. As many of those admirers were women, some found ways to meet with Law despite the obstacles.

Continue reading…

From Mises.org, here.