Chabad - Atzmut in a body/R' Oliver & R' Berger I

Rabbi Oliver wrote to: "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?": [this is an excerpt from Rabbi Oliver's comment translating and explaining the Rebbe's statement regarding Atzmut in a body]

“Ve’al derech maamar haZohar, ‘man p’nei ho’adon do Rashbi, oder vi be’eIs ha’shlichus iZ afilu malach nikra b’shem Havayeh, oder vi Moshe Rabeinu hot gezogt venosati eisev.”

“This is similar to the statement of the Zohar,(1) ‘Whose is the face of the Master [G-d]? This is the Rashbi.’(2) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] at the time he performs his mission, an angel is called by the name of Havayeh [one of the Names of Hashem].(3) Or [this can be explained along the lines of the idea that] Moshe Rabeinu said, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass.’” [Devarim 11:15] (4)

(1) Zohar 2:38a.

(2) I saw baalei nigleh [Talmudic experts] questioning this [statement from Zohar], and with a tremendous noise [claiming that it contradicts the doctrine that Hashem doesn’t have a form], how is it possible, etc., etc. [and thereby seeking to dismiss the words of the Zohar].” However [this is not only a matter of Kabbolo, for], we find [a statement] similar to this also in the revealed dimension of Torah [i.e., a Talmudic source], in Yerushalmi, Bikkurim, 3:3, “‘And G-d in His holy chamber’—this refers to Rebbi Yitzchok, the son of Rebbi Lezer in the house of study of Keisrin.”

(3) Tanya, Igeres HaKodesh end sec. 25. [One should not be surprised if a spark from a ray of the Shechinah is called [in the Baal Shem Tov’s Tzavaat HaRivash] by the name Shechinah, for we find that even an angel, which was created [and not a spark of the Shechinah], is called by Hashem’s Name in the parsha of Vayeira [“And he [Avraham] said [in reference to the angels who visited him], ‘L-rd, do not pass by your servant” Bereishis 18:3], according to the commentary of the Ramban [ibid.: “He [Avraham] called them by the Name of their Master [G-d], because he recognized that they are supernal angels, as they are called Elokim and Eilim [names of Hashem], and therefore he prostrated to the ground before them.] And as it is written [ibid. 16:13], ‘And she [Hogor] called the name of Hashem, Who spoke with her [where the verse says explicitly in ibid. 16:7 that it was an angel speaking to her],’ and there are many similar examples.]

(4) See Likkutei Torah, Vayikra 50a. [There the Alter Rebbe writes: With this we will understand that which appears surprising at first glance concerning the meaning of [the section] “And it will be if you will surely listen,” [Devarim 11:13] which Moshe said. How did he say, ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass’ [ibid. 11:15] as reward for observing the Mitzvos] as if he is the one giving, G-d forbid, as the commentators ask. For since in Mishneh Torah [Devarim] Moshe is like one speaking for himself [as opposed to repeating the words dictated to him by Hashem]—analyze the Ramban in his preface to his commentary on the Torah—if so it should have been written ‘And Hashem will give the grass.’ Rather, the explanation is that the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid. The reason for this is along the lines of what was explained earlier that through the Giving of the Torah the [Jewish people] attained the level of marriage [with Hashem], which is the inclusion and complete bittul [nullification] to Atzmus Ohr Ein Sof [the Essence of Hashem’s infinite light], until their souls literally flew out from them. In a similar manner, was the constant state of Moshe Rabeinu, as he said, ‘Go [Moshe] and tell them, return to your tents, and you stand here with Me.’ [Devarim 5:30] For he took up no space, and he was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all. Therefore he was able to say ‘I will give,’ because the word of Hashem was speaking in him from within his throat.]

======================
Rabbi Micha Berger comment to "Chabad - Faith or Text Based Hashkofa?":

R' Oliver,

Thank you for going to substance.

You do not bring proof that RMMS was speaking of connectedness rather than identity. Rather, you cite his proofs that the chiddush is not as big of a chiddush as it seems; that it has priority. In none of the quote does your rebbe define Atzmus. Was he saying that the Zohar said that seeing Rashbi was a way of seeing godliness, or that the Zohar said that seeing him was actually seeing God?

I disagree that the Rebbe explicitly and clearly explains himself as meaning one and not the other. Frankly, I believe that given Lubavitch's form of tzimtzum shelo kepeshuto, the ideas are identical. Once there is chibur to the Borei, the illusion of yeish (yeish meiAyin as seen from "down here") is gone. I'll explain.

Where your quoted material does address explaining what those sources say is where the footnote points to your Alter Rebbe. Far from explicit, it's cited in a footnote without quotation. And in terms of clear -- it says both!

On the one hand, "the Shechinah is speaking from the throat of Moshe, and the spirit of Hashem [within him] was what spoke [the words] ‘I [Moshe] will give the grass,’ not that he himself was the giver, G-d forbid."

On the other hand, the text concludes "and he [ie Moshe -micha] was not an independent entity [from Hashem] at all."

It leaves us wanting. MRA"H is both not the Borei, and not a nivra distinct from the Borei. Moshe isn't the Giver of grass, however Moshe is so mevateil himself as to be a puppet that the Giver can speak through.

Now here's where things get messy, and I'll explain what I intimated above. "Ein od milvado". Or, "cheileq E-loak mima'al". Nu, so the rebbe IS G-d -- in the same way you, I, and perhaps even the keyboard I'm typing on are also G-d. And yet the rebbe is a puppet whose actions are G-d's, unlike you or I who have bechirah, or the keyboard which isn't a memutza mechabeir, hiding its godliness.

And thus, the Alter Rebbe isn't contradicting himself. By proving a rebbe is a memutza hamechabeir, one proves he is "cheileq E-loak mima'al' mammash" (as RMMS quotes the Tanya with emphasis) in a more immediate way than the rest of us.

This is my aforementioned "jump" in the argument. No one explicitly points out why by proving chibur, one proves true unity, identity, "Atzmus uMahus", not "merely" a vehicle for the Shechinah ("merely in quotes because being the merkavah is only a small thing by comparison).

What RMMS himself does write is

Last, Rabbi Oliver writes: "How amazing (to put it nicely) that you call a whole group of Jews by such a harsh, serious halachic name because you read a text, when at the same time you openly admit that you have no idea whether it's actually understood by members of the movement the way you as an outsider understand it!"

Check again what I wrote. I was careful to repeatedly say that I am trying to give a dispassionate assessment of a single idea, not of any people. (Never mind labeling them; even if I knew someone believed kefirah, that's insufficient to brand him a kofeir.)

PS: I have Al haTzaddikim and the sichah open in front of me when I write to this discussion.