Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 081

Thursday, January 22 2004

• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: Gam Zu LaTovah and Bchirah
• Re: Mi she'asa nisim
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Re: Ramban/Shechinah
• Ramban/Shechinah
• Shimon and Dinah
• Moshe Rabbeinu and R' Akiva (Menachos 49)
• The ta'am of stam yeinam
• Admin: Yet another membership agreement rule
• Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: Middos of the Avos according to the Netziv
• Re: 10 Tevet
• Re: Wording in Avos
• Tearing Keriah in diff situations
• microwaves
• A tale of dishes

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 10:44:33AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: In other places (see Ibn Ezra Breishis 3,1), RSG tends to go for an
: explanation of a real physical event that was physically perceived rather
: than with "the windows of the soul".

This touches on an inyan we raised a while back WRT the Rambam's position
that Avraham's welcoming guests in parashas Vayeira was a nevu'ah. (Which
I still think is part of the same machloqes Rambam veRamban.)

What does it mean to see something benevu'ah? It is necessarily a mar'eh
balayla, a chalom bestowed upon the navi to reveal a message? Or, is
it a chazon of a real event -- but since the event can't be percieved
sensorially it gets wrapped in visual metaphor by the navi's mind?

I think the Rambam (particularly, as he understood by the Abarbanel) holds
the latter. He doesn't deny that mal'achim exist -- either as sichliim nivdalim
(Moreh) or tzurah beli chomer (Yad), if the two are different. Yes, since man
can't see taurah without chomer, the event could not have been literally
seen. AIUI, the mal'achim were there at Avraham's tent, even according
to the Rambam.

In our context, this is how the Rambam can discuss something seen in
a nevu'ah as being a nivrah.

...
: The reality of sephiros would same as reality of keilim which are
: both filters/ screen to divine light and may be have a true independent
: existence. That relates to the quantum leaps that occur somewhere along
: the process of hishtalshelus...

How is this different than Platonic emanation where there is a similar
qualitative leap at each hypostasis?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:28:49AM -0500, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
: True, Remember, there is a machlokes haTannaim in Brachos 7a or 7b
: whether Moshe Rabbeinu was given an answer to the issue of theodicy. See
: the footnotes in Kol Dodi Dofek for an analysis of this machlokes.

In his email vort for parashas Shemos, R' Jonathan Sacks explains why R'
Shemuel bar Nachmeini credits Moshe Rabbeinu's refusal to look at the
shechinah/Shechinah in the seneh as being the source of the zechus by
which Moshe was able "litemunas H' yabit" (Bamidbar 12).

Mima nafshach: Either such a sight is a good thing, and Moshe should have
looked at the seneh. Or it wasn't, and the later vision was no reward!

He takes the approach that Moshe's seeing HQBH's "Back" was a vision of
theodicy. Which at least we get a glimpse of in retrospect.

However, during galus Mitzrayim, Moshe Rabeinu didn't want a vision of
theodicy. He didn't want an explanation for the suffering he witnessed
everyday. Moshe didn't want to be calmed.Rather, at that time the
appropriate reaction was to stay angry, to avoid explanation. To fight
for justice, even to the extent that Avraham fought for any tzadiqim
within Sedom va'Amorah.

However, when it came to the cheit haeigel, the necessary response was
very different.

See <http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/shemot5764.pdf>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 08:19:58AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: 1.Mi she'asa nisim la'avosenu
: 2. vega'al osam me'avdus lecherus
: Hu yig'al osanu bekarov.
: Why do we mention nissim if we're not asking for them?...

Isn't a, if not the, point of zechiras yetzi'as Mitzrayim to use the nissim
as a way to be aware of hashgachah? (Kelalis, minis, whatever.)

If so, then we're mentioning an incontravertible example of intervention
by Hashem in history as part of our request for further intervention.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

[Micha:]
> I think the Rambam (particularly, as he understood by the Abarbanel)
> holds the latter. He doesn't deny that mal'achim exist -- either as
> sichliim nivdalim (Moreh) or tzurah beli chomer (Yad), if the two are
> different. Yes, since man can't see taurah without chomer, the event
> could not have been literally seen. AIUI, the mal'achim were there at
> Avraham's tent, even according to the Rambam.

How can you attribute location to something without substance (see H.
Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 where the Rambam denies that this is possible)?

David Riceman

R David Riceman wrote:
> How can you attribute location to something without substance (see H.
> Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 where the Rambam denies that this is possible)?

1:11 speaks about HQBH. Golem and tzurah are first introduced in 2:3, so
the Rambam can't discuss the properties of one without the other until
then. Perhaps we sould instead explore 2:5, where the Rambam explains
that mal'achim can't be literally lema'alah or lematah from each other,
since they have no golem. Rather, the terms refer to being prior or
later in the chain of existance, the "lematah" existing by power of the
"lema'alah". A pretty clearly neo-Platonic reference: the Rambam is saying
that "higher" Mala'achim are closer to the Source of emanation, are more
real, and mediate between Him and the existance of the lower mal'achim.

But getting back from this tangent... That means that the tzurah of a
mal'ach is not a spacial one of volume. (Note to the philosophical newbie
following along: "tzurah" is not limited to attributes of shape, volume,
color, etc...) The Rambam clearly states that mal'achim can interact
with particular locales. See Moreh . So, if not mal'achim themselves,
a navi's chazon might be of the point of interaction.

However, I was thinking of Moreh 1:49, where he writes, "The bird in
its flight is sometimes visible, sometimes withdrawn from our sight;
one moment near to us, and in the next far off: and these are exactly
the circumstances which we must associate with the idea of angels,
as will be explained below."

And in 2:6, "We have already stated that the forms in which angels
appear form part of the prophetic vision. Some prophets see angels in
the form of man... others perceive an angel as a fearful and terrible
being.... Consider how clearly they say [in Bereishis Rabba] that the term
'angel' signifies nothing but a certain action, and that every appearance
of an angel is part of a prophetic vision, depending on the capacity of
the person that perceives it."

AIUI, the Rambam is describing such nevu'os as visions caused by being
aware of the higher ontologies that are causing the actions on earth. The
mal'ach being "seen" is really there or at least really interacting with
that point, really causing the action.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

>[Micha:]
>> I think the Rambam (particularly, as he understood by the Abarbanel)
>> holds the latter. He doesn't deny that mal'achim exist -- either as
>> sichliim nivdalim (Moreh) or tzurah beli chomer (Yad), if the two are
>> different. Yes, since man can't see taurah without chomer, the event
>> could not have been literally seen. AIUI, the mal'achim were there at
>> Avraham's tent, even according to the Rambam.

>How can you attribute location to something without substance (see H.
>Yesodei HaTorah 1:11 where the Rambam denies that this is possible)?

Why can the meeting, though not occurring in space per se, occur in time?

YGB 

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> 1:11 speaks about HQBH.

"Because God has no body he cannot have any accidents pertaining to a body
like ... location". This seems to be a general rule about things without
body specified to God, rather than a specific observation about God.

> The Rambam clearly states that mal'achim can interact with particular
> locales.
> See Moreh .

Where?

> So, if not mal'achim themselves, a navi's chazon might be of the
> point of interaction.

I don't know what this sentence means.

> AIUI, the Rambam is describing such nevu'os as visions caused by being aware
> of the higher ontologies that are causing the actions on earth. The mal'ach
> being "seen" is really there or at least really interacting with that point,
> really causing the action.

The first sentence is true, but the second is false (at least the
implication that the "point" is special). The only malachim which interact
with people are of type ishim, see YHT 2:7. I think it plausible to accept
the commonly accepted identity of this type of angel with the Active
Intellect. The Rambam says clearly (II:18, first paragraph) that the
intermittent action of the Active Intellect is due, not to changes in it
itself, but to changes in the capacity of matter to receive its action.
In our case, that means the prophet's receptivity to prophecy is what
enables him to see the angel, and not the location, except insofar as
the location affects his receptivity.

David Riceman

At 10:44 AM 1/13/2004, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>ML:I agree tha there are some places where RSG seems to lean to this 
>explanation but in the most explicit places he speaks of an actual 
>physical created being that can be per ceived by eyes or ears. I am not 
>sure that he saw physical and spiritual perceptions as distinct///
>In other places (see Ibn Ezra Breishis 3,1), RSG tends to
>go for an explanation of a real physical event that was physically 
>perceived rather than with "the windows of the soul".

I agree wholeheartedly with you - this breakdown of barriers between 
physical and spiritual perceptions is something I very much believe to be 
true; certainly in the sense of prophecy a la ra'asa shifcha al ha'yam. 
Moreover, this was my argument in the pitched debate held here concerning 
the Rambam's defitnition of the experience of a malach, and my firm 
contention at the time that it is not at all like a metaphor.

...
>RYGB:To the extent that sefiros might be considered realities, I can only 
>understand that if we assume that the malachim associated with sefiros ...
>or the individuals associated with them .... are those
>realities. Otherwise, I do not as of now understand how>the concepts
> can be "real."

>ML: The reality of sephiros would same as reality of keilim which are both 
>filters/ screen to divine light and may be have a true independent 
>existence. That relates to the quantum leaps that occur somewhere along 
>the process of hishtalshelus...

I am not contending that there were not those who understood the mashal as 
the reality. I just cannot understand that perspective.

>Tsror Hachaim also refers to Malchus, with tiferes and bina illuminating 
>from inside it. The idea seems to be that tsadikim cause a deeper zivug of 
>zeir anpin and malchus through their actions. See Pardes Shaar 23, Ch. 23\

>RYGB:This does not seem to be what the Ramban and R' Bechayei are saying 
>in Vayechi.

>My contention is that the Ramban ( I have to check R. Bchayi) is exactly 
>refering to this concept of Tsros Hachaim when he uses the apellation 
>Tsror Hachaim. Ths point is that stam tsadikkim cause a more superficial 
>zivug with their mitsvos but greater tsadikkim cause a much more profound 
>zivug in one step connecting malchus with tiferes and bina within it to 
>the zeir anpin resulting in a 4 part structure. That is called merkava 
>leshchina (shechina is a code word for malchus).

But that is not at all the issue of the Ramban! His issue is the levush of 
tzaddikim after their petirah.

YGB 

> ...
>: The reality of sephiros would same as reality of keilim which are
>: both filters/ screen to divine light and may be have a true independent
>: existence. That relates to the quantum leaps that occur somewhere along
>: the process of hishtalshelus...

> How is this different than Platonic emanation where there is a similar
> qualitative leap at each hypostasis?

The issue is very complex and I do not know if I understand it correctly
either. However, the two opinions of M. Rakanti and R. Dovid are
brought and extensively discussed, including problems, in Shaaar4 of
the Pardes. The first is that they are keilim and the 2nd that they are
identical with the elokut of the ein sof, as fire is idnetical with the
flame. Both approached have difficulties form philosophical and hashkafic
perspectives that the Pardes disscusses.

The Ramchal appears to ahve a different view - that sefiros are sccreens
or barriers to the Light of Ein Sof. In this way they are not truly
independent realites but also not identical with the Ain Sof.

It seems to me from a very limited knowledge base about this that
contemporary writers adopt some aspects of all of these 3 explanations
and bridge the very real line between them by the use of moshol and
appeals to out limitede ability to understand.

See, f.e. the chapter on sefiros in Yadid Nefesh by Y Bar-Lev.

M. Levin

An adam gadol wrote me the following, in the course of persuing my sefer on 
Shoftim:
>I finally understood why it had to be Shimon who took responsibility for 
>Dina. (See your footnotes!)

That's on p. 14, referring to Reb Tzadok's famous insight on why Chazal 
chose as a generic name Yosef ben Shimon, that Yosef's middah is the tikkun 
for Shimon's potential pitfall. According to the Chazal (whatever it 
alludes to, let us take one facet of it) that Leah was me'uberes with Yosef 
and she was mevakesh rachamim that the ubbar should be for Rachel and 
instead was granted Dinah, it is pashut that Dinah was his emes'er zivug - 
and tikkun. The name "Dinah" in and of itself is an allusion to that tikkun 
- the power to hear ("Shimon" - "shemi'ah") is very great, but it must be 
channeled by "din."

YGB

In the course of a series of shiurim on the Hebrew alphabet last week it
struck me, like the shittah (which Y-mi Megillah 3:9 seems to endorse)
that the Torah was given in ancient Hebrew script ("ksav ra'atz"), s'iz
doch poshut why Moshe Rabbeinu didn't understand R' Akiva's shiur: R'
Akiva was doresh tagin, which were not given to Moshe! But niskarera
da'ato when R' Akiva said that the ultimate source is Moshe me'Sinai -
while the tagin was a new revelation, its validation was Sinai through
Moshe.

YGB

On Areivim, we were discussing how to explain stam yeinam to non-Jews. Along
the line, RAMiller wrote:
> I never get into the idea of how Stam Yaynon is an anti-intermarriage
> measure. Not because I want to avoid discussing my objection to
> intermarriage, but because I don't understand why it would apply only to
> wine and not to other liquors. I have heard that some hold Stam Yaynom to be
> a gezera around Yayin Nesech, and that view is easier for me to understand.

Or yayin mevushal.

It makes sense to me as a heker, a "blech". Not something that would
make intermarriage impossible -- which even a total ban against social
drinking would not accomplish. Rather, that there is a reminder every
time one socializes.

One might suggest a similar rationale for the more meiqil positions
WRT the height of mechitzos. They need not entirely block the view,
even as a heker they deminish kalus rosh.

-mi

Don't worry, this one isn't going to change the list content or your
ability to post at all.

The rule reads:
    People post to Areivim knowing that access is limited. Repeating
    an Areivim post is therefore inappropriate unless you first ask
    the author.

    Also, many of the posts on Avodah and Areivim do not represent the
    views of AishDas. Therefore, when referring to a post in a manner
    that mentions AishDas, including a URL to the Avodah archives,
    kindly ask the list management at <avodah-owner@aishdas.org> or
    <areivim-owner@aishdas.org> (in the case of Areivim, in addition to
    the author).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Rabindranath Tagore

I appreciate R. Carl's sending my query about the Netziv's interpretation
of the Middos of the Avos to his brother-in-law, and I appreciate
the reply.

My question, shortened, was:
"The Netziv has a unique explanation of the individual strengths of the
Avos. He understands Avraham Avinu to exemplify Torah-learning ... ;
Yitzchok Avinu to exemplify avodah ...; and Yaakov Avinu to exemplify the
pursuit of chesed... This approach varies significantly from the [most
common] formulation ... : Avraham epitomizes chesed, Yitzchok epitomizes
yirah or gevurah, and Yaakov epitomizes emes or Torah.... In particular,
the Netziv seems to understand Avraham and Yaakov as representing the
opposite of the middos they are usually cited to represent."

The reply, excerpted, was:
"It is not at all clear that 'Chesed' is the opposite of 'Torah' as the
writer asserts. In particular, if you look at the approach taken by the
Netziv in discussing the pesukim relating to Matan Torah ... then the
convergence of Torah and Chesed in Avraham fits very well. I similarly
do not see the contradiction between 'Shalom' and 'Emet' when we look
at Yaakov. While Yaakov sought to make peace, there was no deception
involved. Yaakov did not try to hide anything. On the contrary, he
was quite straightforward with Lavan in detailing how Lavan mistreated
him -- yet at the same time, he was ready to make peace and [sort of]
start afresh. . . So, I do not see any real contradiction here ...
rather it seems to me simply a different emphasis...."

The points are well taken, and perhaps I phrased my question poorly.
My intent was not that Chesed and Torah are opposites. My intent was that
the middah of chesed, usually associated with Avraham, is assigned by the
Netziv to Yaakov; and the middah of Torah, usually assigned to Yaakov,
is assigned by the Netziv to Avraham.

In other words, the Netziv's associations of Avraham and Yaakov with the
middos of Torah and chesed, respectively, are the opposite of the way the
"classical" formulation has them. While the convergences described in the
reply above may be true, they do not seem to me to provide sufficient
basis on which to merge the Netziv's overall thematic scheme with the
"classical" one. It is hard to say that this is what he intended.

That is what leads me to ask: What, indeed, is the provenance of the
"classical" formulation? And why did the Netziv not at least acknowledge
it, if only to explain why he departs from it, or in any case (i.e., even
if the reconciliation suggested above could work) why he substantially
recasts it.

Yitzchok Brandriss

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:11:11PM -0500, IBrandriss@aol.com wrote:
: I am also looking for the earliest sources of these other formulations,
: in both kabbalistic and non-kabbalistic literature. (I have heard people
: quote the pasuk at the end of Micha, "Titein emes l'Yaakov, chesed
: l'Avraham..." in this vein. Based on the simple pshat of the pasuk,
: it does not seem on its face to be particularly compelling.) Do any of
: the early sources cite it? Is it possible that my assumption about the
: commonly-accepted status of these forumlations is wrong?

First, I'm not sure why you find the quote from Mikhah unconvincing. (With
a name like that, how could you not be convinced? <g>) It assumes that
midah keneged midah requires rewarding Ya'aqov Avinu with Emes, and
Avraham aa"h with Chessed.

I can't help musch with finding an *earliest* source. The best I
could do is advise you to explore the source being discussed on the
"Ramban/Shechinah" thread and see who first identifies the avos with
the sefiros.

However, here are two sources:

Derekh haChaim 1:2 -- The Maharal describes the avos in terms of the 3
amudim: Torah - Ya'aqov, Avodah - Yitzchaq, Gemillus Chasadim - Avraham.

Peirush al Kama Agados (if you own "The Juggler and the King", it's the
appendix) -- The Gra identifies Nara"n with the avos.

The two are remarkably similar.

RZWeiss's reply (via RCSherer) seems to me to reduce to saying that
because the amudim of torah and chessed support the same platform,
there really isn't a tripod with three distinct legs. Lo zachisi lehavin.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:17:08PM -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
: To supplement my wife's learned comments re: LXX: Much later, Chazal
: commissioned a Greek targum, prepared by Aquilas, a Greek convert...
: Thus their objections were to the content of LXX, not to its Greek
: language.

(All assuming the translation of 8 Teves was the LXX.)

The content is lauded as being the product of ru'ach haqodesh, so
that the translators avoided potential misinterpretation with the same
circumlocutions. And the translators are called chachamim who were taken
captive. It would seem that the content is fine, produced by people who
know what proper content is.

While I agree that you've disproven that the problem is with Greek,
I think it's still about the purpose of forcing them to produce the
LXX, not the content.

: The situation is analagous to our own rather negative attitude to the
: King James Bible, whose magnificence and influence are unsurpassed,
: as compared with the more humble Koren Jerusalem Bible.

The KJV is un-Jewish in both intent AND content.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie

In a message dated 1/19/2004 11:29:29 AM EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
>>>  Yes, this is how the L. Rebbe Teitched it many times.

>> Is this synonomous with Margela bpumei?

> Yes, as Batrnura in avos Mishna 2 says explicitly. See also Menachos 96a

1) Thanks for quoting the Mokor Rishon the Bartinura, (note even Omeir
without the preceding Haya is the same in Avos, (in other places it
gets involved with the issue if it means Machlokes as brought in Klolei
haShas)), and see Sdei Chemed Kllolim Mareches haHei end of # 108 WRT
whether Haya Omer means that he later changed his mind, he brings this
Bartinura and other examples in Shas.

2) Menachos 96a is of a different nature see Tiferes Yisroel on the
Mishna 11:2

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a recent Areivim thread, R' Carl Sherer mentioned that he <<< was
once sitting in Rav Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin's office when someone came
to ask him about changing clothes and bathing during the nine days. His
response was to ask the questioner whether he would ask the same question
about shiva, and to comment that no one ever asks about shiva.... >>>

I've heard similar things from others, but is it a fair comparison? IIRC,
shiva is a vadai d'rabanan, and the nine days (even shavua shechal bo)
is a strong minhag, right?

Akiva Miller

The gemara in shabbat says that cooking in the sun on shabbat is
permissible (toldot hachamah are rabbinically prohibited). Straight
forward pshat would indicate that anything not using fire is not
considered cooking on shabbat.

RMF (based on a Rashi in Shabbat) says (what to me is a big chiddush) that
the reason is because cooking with the sun is unusual. Hence, anything
that is common like a microwave oven is biblically prohibited on Shabbat.

According to this when microwaves forst were invented they were permitted
for use (at least biblically) and only when they became popular were they
biblically prohibited. Furthermore, if solar cookers came into fashion
perhaps cooking with solar panels would be biblically prohibited (eg
"dud shemesh" in Israel).

Does anyone know if other poskim disagree with this psak?

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 1/22/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

[This was originally an Areivim post. However, the conclusion
makes it worth discussion here. -mi]

Yes, once again I am going to belabor the point of dishes and jewish
spirituality. I hope you will have patience with the following tale:

As most of you know already, my husband's family is a large family b"h.
So, when Pesach and Rosh HaShanna come around it is not unusual to have
40 to 60 people at the table (besides guests).

I have heard from various sources that the chinese character for "crisis"
is made up of two other characters: the one for "danger" and the one for
"opportunity". In every crisis a person can react to the danger of the
situation -- or they can utilize the crisis as an opportunity.

Well, for my family, the holidays were too often a time of crisis better
associated with danger. Dishes. China dishes, glassware for wine and
juice and silverware -- all for 40 to 60 people for at least 3 courses.
Try to imagine the mountain of dishes! And no -- paper plates (or nylon
tableclothes/plastic over the cloth white tableclothes) just wouldn't
do. (And I'm not even bothering to mention the pots, pans and serving
dishes <g>).

Doing the dishes became a time when all the petty arguments and hidden
hurt feelings would suddenly come to light: Why should I do the dishes
-- I spent 2 days preparing the meal (says SIL a); Another would say --
I'm pregnant in my 7th month -- you really think I can stand for hours
and do the dishes?! And so on and so forth counting who did how many
dishes for what course and what meal overshadowed the joy of the occasion.

We tried a variety of solutions over the years (sorry, men doing
dishes just didn't work out <g>): we brought in maid service, but this
caused other problems. When we finally had a dishwasher with a Shabbat
clock things were better -- but still there were more dishes than the
dishwasher could handle, and we still had to do them. As I noted -- paper
was verbotten. We even went together to a hotel to celebrate together,
taking a private hall for everyone. But, it wasn't like being home.

On Chanukka a nephew of mine got married. The Kalla's side had many
wonderful women, from Switzerland, Belgium, France and Jerusalem.
They were Chareidi/Morrocan. These wonderful women filled the Shabbat
Chatan (after the wedding KeMinhag Yehudei Sepharad) with Torah:
lectures were given by women for the women of the family on Chanuka,
on the importance of Nishmat Kol Chai (there is a custom nowadays
to say it at the kotel at midnight) and we also discussed the idea of
housework being a part of a woman's spiritual journey, the idea (I heard
from Chabad women) that housework parallels the work in Beit HaMikdash,
with the wife fulfilling the parallel role of the kohen; how cleaning
is keeping the mitzva of NOY and how such ideas impact on our life.

The following Monday we had Sheva Berachot at my MIL. We expected 60
people and 100 showed up. My MIL cooked the meal, planning to use the
china, glassware and silverware -- but she hired a maid service to take
care of the dishes, cleanup and help with the serving.

I walked in at 9:30 at night, just after the 1st course. It was chaos.
The kitchen sinks were filled to overflowing, my MIL was in a panic and
my youngest SIL was about to run out of the house -- the maid service
had failed to show up.

I made some calls trying to find alternative help. Nothing was available
at the time. We were all dressed up in our Shabbat clothing in honor
of the event. It was indeed a moment of crises. The danger was clear:
spending the evening chained to the kitchen sink instead of sitting down
to dinner with wonderful women from whom I could hear additional Torah
conversation. But this time, I found myself facing an opportunity,
I put on an apron and did the dishes. The only way to describe it
was a spiritual adventure. I felt like smiling despite the herculean
task facing me (the 2nd course was about to be served and there weren't
sufficient dishes b/c of the unexpected guests). Dishes have never gotten
done so fast and so smoothly. 2nd course dishes started arriving in the
kitchen and I continued until the sinks were empty and the counters were
clean. Then I went to sit down with the family.

But it didn't end there. After dinner, I went into the kitchen to continue
with the dishes and I noticed that there was a different atmosphere
than usual. No recriminations, no discussions on who should do what,
just women (and some men) getting up to help clear, stack and assist and
then the Kalla's grandmother said: I also want part in the mitzva! And
she took a broom and starting sweeping the floor. Everyone was smiling.

After the guests left, we stayed, my MIL, one SIL and our two youngest
daughters . They too were affected by the special atmosphere that
pervaded the cleanup -- and argued about doing more of the sweeping
and floor washing! We finished around 2:30 am. The house was clean,
the dishes all put away, the pots and pans were drying on the counters
-- and we were all smiling, filled with a feeling of satisfaction and
spiritual accomplishment.

As Rav Kook said:
    All the work that is done should be done out of love
    Then it ceases to be difficult or boring or shaming.
    Even a glass or a plate can be washed with spiritual concentration
    (Deveikut) till they shine,
    As you try to achieve completeness (Sheleimut).

Shoshana L. Boublil

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]