לגעת באושר - הרהורים לחג הסוכות עם הרב אהרן לוי

hello everybody.

when the time came to
deal with happiness,

asked the philosopher to explain to his
student, why a person can never be happy.

in the human nature,
explained the philosopher,

if he has 50 he
wants a 100

therefore he'll never be happy.

isn't it , friends, reminding
you of the sages,

but agree with me, philosopher
is more known.

the student insisted not to accept
what the philosopher said,

your honour assumes,
said the student

that a human wants always more, and
therefore he'll never have what he wants.

but that's an assumption,

what will happen your honour if
we assume that it's not true?

so to say, if we assume that a person wants
50 and he has 50 and he doesn't want another50,

will we then also say that
he's not happy?

even if we assume, tald him the
philosopher, even then he woun't be happy.

but why? asks the student, he
has 50, he doesn't want 100

why isn't he happy?

simple, answered him
the philosopher.

you state that he's happy becouse he has
50 and he dosn't want more, right?

right!

from here, continues
the philosopher,

it can be concluded that he's happy
only becouse he has 50.

and from here it can be concluded that
if he wants to stay happy,

he has to watch over the 50
that make him happy,

but when you watch - you worry and when
you worry - there's no time to be happy.

understand?

let's assume that you're
right, says the student,

but what will happen if we assume
that he wants 50,

and he has 50 and he watches them and
he doesn't have spare time to be happy,

but if he dies with the 50, won't we be able
to determine retroactively that he died happy?

really no, laughed the
philosopher.

if we assume that a person wants
50 and no more,

and also he watches over
them all his life,

and also if he dies together with
them, he doesn't die happy,

why?

becouse this we know,

but he's already dead
and dead aren't happy.

therefore it's possible to determine that he wasn't
happy not in his life and not in his death.

so friends, even if the philosopher is annoying, it's
very hard to cope with his statement.

and today, today it's not only
connected to philosophy,

today it's already established
by research.

in a generation of abundance like
ours, it's clear to almost everyone

that the thouhgt "if i have.
...then i'll be happy"

is an illusion.

and though that it's hard for us to accept it,
those who tried this way tetify

that it's painfully accurate.

if we still hold this thought,

maybe it's worthwhile to listen to the impossible
conditions, the method of "when i have" infolds,

the Saba from Novardok
counts them,

and he writes:

"that he has as much as he wants and he
doesn't need to worry about anything,

and he has a good apartment and all the
material needs and cash for a needy time

and the trade runs well, and all his
possetions are under excellent guard

and he has no enemies who
want to avenge him,

and there's peace in the world and he's healthy and
honoured by his surroundings and his oppinion is accepted

and there's nobody to lower his worth and he's
not under any mans' rule and everything he does he succeeds."

did you understand
friends? no chance.

if we build on happiness dependent
on external factors,

all these factors, have to be
present by us.

not partially, all!

becouse if one of them is lacking, we right
away come back to the worry of the man with 50.

and the worry, as well known, doesn't
enable people to be happy.

so what should be done?
you ask.

the truth, not much.
simply building a suka.

how is it connected?

so, did you ever ask yourself,

why do we build the suka when we build it in the time
of harvest of fruit from the granary and from vinery?

why in the days when we count the money we
get out to a suka of a hundred shekel?

why at the holiday of the most
"none" there is, we're ordered to rejoyce?

why?

to teach us the secret of happiness.

the exit from the home to a temporary dwelling
place, specially while counting the stock

it is intended to remind us
the secret of joy.

joy is a result of perfection.

perfection is impossible by whom that his
happiness depends on external factors.

it's not that the problem is by us, the problem
is in the system! it's simply impossible.

if the happiness depends on
the granary and vinery,

we have to worry till the harvest is
gathered - there should be a harvest.

and after it's gathered - it should
be safe and not get lost.

so when will we be happy?

in the command of getting out to the suka, the tora
teaches us that if we trully want to get to joy and happiness,

we have to change the disk, we have
to understand the secret of joy.

to understand that instead of the happiness being
dependent of external factors that don't depend on us,

that it should be dependent
on factors inside of us.

and nobody can take it from us.

that instead of investing in the 50 left behind, to
invest in only what's left with us forever.

may be it's the reason why Simhat
Tora is in the end of Sukot.

why?

becouse it's not a big wisdom to say,
how we don't get to happiness,

the wisdom is also to
suggest an alternative.

life that is based on an eternal tora, is built
on what's inside of us, not on what's outside.

such life, doesn't end when
the body is burried,

but, this the philosopher
didn't know.

why not?

becouse when the greek were busy assuming
assumptions, the jews were busy building suka.

happy holloday!