Monday, August 4, 2008

Chabad - Tzimtzum - literal or figurative?

The battle between the Gra and the Baal haTanya regarding whether tzimtzum was literal or figurative - still lives on. It is discussed extensively in the writings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe See also the website The following is just an excerpt in the name of the Gra

ובספרו של וולנסקי מודפס קטע אפילו יותר חריף בשם הגר"א:

רדו לעמק יהושפט לעומקא דדינא לבער הקוצים מכרם בית ה' צבאות כל בני ישראל להדפם ולרודפם ברדיפות מלאות הזעם להחרימם ולעקור שרשם בנפשם ומאדם, לעקור אותם ולשרש אתהם כדין עבודה זרה. צא תאמר להם. הכנס אל תאמר להם, המה הקהל מורידין ולא מעלין לדכאם ולמוגגם כמוץ לפני מים ולהתאמץ להפרידם איש מאחיו לבלי יתחברו ויתקשרו יחד חבר בוגדים ומנגדים נגד דת תוה"ק ובכל מקום שהם מצויים לשלחם מן המחנה כדין צרוע וזב

ואני על משמרתי אעמודה כמאז כן עתה... ועל כל מי אשר בשם ישראל יכונה ואשר נגע יראת ה' בלבבו מוטל עליו להדפם ולרודפם בכל מיני רדיפות ולהכניעם עד שיד ישראל מגעת כי עוונם טמון בחבם וכי קשים המה לישראל כספחת

אמוני בני ישראל החרדים לשמוע בקול דברו. תצא אש קנאתם ומצאו קוצים כסוחים נתנו לאכלה, יכלו אותם מכרם ה' צבאות העם בחר לנחלה לו, אם ללצים יליצו יריצו גולגלותם. מכנים עצמם בשם חסידים, חסד היא. לא יחמול עליהם איש ולא יחנם, ולתת עדת חנף גלמוד, והשומע להם ימתח על העמוד. לבשו קנאת ה' ויצא רשף לרגליכם, מפיהם לפידים יהיו בלהט החרב נוקמת נקם ברית ותורה נוקמת, והנשארים יראו וישמחו, כי שמחה לצדיק עשות משפט ולפועלי אוון מחיתה, ה' יחישנה בעיתה. נאום עורך שוע בצר נפשו, כי רע עליו המעשה, המקנא קנאתו ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו, אלי' במוהר"ר שלמה זלמן זלה"ה
.

17 comments :

  1. see the sicha of shabbos Nasso 5743

    page 1600 in Sefer Hasichos 5743.

    The Rebbe's explanation leaves no room for doubt, really.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not sure what the relevance of the quote is to the question of tzimtzum.

    In any event, the idea that, on a very fundamental level, the tzimtzum is not actually real is a commonplace in chassidic sources. In fact, it is also the position taken by Rav Chaim Volozhiner in Nefesh Hachaim (see Shaar 3 at length). However, the Nefesh Hachaim emphasizes that it is forbidden for us to contemplate this idea or utilize it in our thinking.

    Rav Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu 4:324) maintained that the Gaon also actually held this position (not surprisingly, given the position of his primary talmid, R' Chaim Volozhiner).

    The truth is that there are many difficult and (therefore) dangerous ideas in kaballah. Even commonplace concepts, such as that the neshama is a "cheilek eloka m'ma'al" is problematic. (Isn't Hashem "echad"? Can He have "chalakim"?)

    The traditional position of mekubalim was always to keep these concepts hidden except for those elite few who through moral and intellectual training were able to deal with them correctly.

    The founders of Chassidus obviously believed that the more widespread dissemination of these ideas served a positive function that outweighed the harm that they would cause. (Probably the idea of Hashem's absolute immanence, and the kabalistic emphasis of the cosmic impact of every human action, no matter how mundane, were seen as ways to reinvigorate the waning religious involvement of the general Jewish population.) I suspect that they were correct in this assessment, the benefits outweighed the harm. But, unfortunately, as in any such calculation, the benefits did not eliminate the harm!

    Today, in some of these groups, such as the current perversion of Chabad, we are seeing some of the ill-effects of these concepts. (BTW, I don't believe that these concepts are the root cause of these breaks from true Judaism, but they do function as a convenient theological justification for these breaches.)

    There have been such kabalisticly "justified" breaches before, as we all well know. The Sabbatean cult caused severe harm to the Jewish people which continues to affect us to this very day. (Historians (Gershon Scholem and others) have linked the rise of the various non-Orthodox movements to the remnants of the hidden Sabbatean families in the Jewish communities of Europe.)

    The rise of the Christian sect was also heavily associeted with mystical, possibly kabalistic, concepts.

    The Chassidic movement has always had within it the possibilty of mystical extremism. They have, by and large, avoided that pitfall, thanks largely to their committment to genuinely great leaders and their desire to remain part of the general frum Jewish community.

    Chabad of today has lost both of these protective elements and is now veering widly out of control.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >Even commonplace concepts, such as that the neshama is a "cheilek eloka m'ma'al" is problematic. (Isn't Hashem "echad"? Can He have "chalakim"?)

    Genius, see Magen Avraham and Taz Orach Chaim 224.

    ReplyDelete
  4. i fail to be amused by pseudoscholars who have no knowledge about which they speak and the range of questions are sophomoric but sound good to the uninitiated. taking something out of context and crticizing it is the worst form of loshon hora and is the equivalent of avoda zoreh because you the ignorant one has placed himself as judge and jury of things you obviously don't understand. i ask you - how many months have you given to understand this topic and its' sources and if you tell me 2 hours you are a shoteh roshe vegas ruach!

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is something called TzimTzum HaDevarim. Certain concepts are always misrepresented by the words chosen to describe them. Such things can only be explained to someone who is at the level that really he already understands it by himself. One of these concepts is the TzimTzum of Creation. So, whether you say that Tzimtzum is literal, or that it is figurative, both words misrepresent the truth. In Chassidut, the unavoidable misrepresentation led to false understanding by the Rebbes themselves, who then misrepresented things further.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here ( http://www.afn.org/~afn19926/dvar.htm ) is an English translation of the Rebbe's famous letter on this matter.

    Here
    ( http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/attachment.php3?attachmentid=1018&d=1146678506 ) is a very interesting (and profound) discussion regarding the view that Tzimtzum is to be understood literally, and the Alter Rebbe's words in Shaar HaYichud V'HaEmunah, Ch. 7.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous said...
    "see Magen Avraham and Taz Orach Chaim 224."

    Neither of which is relevant.
    There is no question that the concept of "cheilek eloka m'maal" is a valid Torah concept. Nevertheless, it does raise valid questions, none of which are addressed by the sources you have cited.

    I am, of course, aware that one can provide various answers to these questions, but virtually all will end with reducing the literal meaning of the phrase.

    In the end we cannot simultaneously accept the absolute unity of Hashem (as described by the Rambam, that He absolutely cannot be divided at all) and a literal interpretation of this commonplace haskafic concept without resorting to a degree of acosmism (i.e. denying that we actually exist as distinct entities) that opens a whole new range of extraordinarily difficult problems (which brings us full circle to the understanding of tzimtzum).

    (Just a quick example: A "part" of an absolutely simple, indivisible whole is, by definition, identical to the whole. (This idea, btw, is found in Chasidic sources.) So, if my soul is "part" of Hashem, and Hashem is, as described by the Rambam and others, "absolutely simple and indivisible" then my soul is identical with Hashem. See where this gets confusing?)

    While such an understanding may be possible for the truly great Torah giants, most of us are left with the simpler understanding of this concept as a poetic expression of the deep connection that exists between each neshama and Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "pseudoscholars who have no knowledge about which they speak"

    "worst form of loshon hora and is the equivalent of avoda zoreh because you the ignorant one has placed himself as judge and jury of things you obviously don't understand."

    You forgot "Sinas Chinam" and "blatantly and unabashedly attacking Chabad". Or "self hating Jews" and "anti Semites".

    Sometimes I think that Chabadniks buy a "cut and paste" menu of standard insults that they can click on whenever someone disagrees with them.

    Instead of insulting Rabbi Eidensohn, Mashpiaonline, who I am assuming is a Rabbi or Rebbetzin of influence why don't you educate us.

    As lawyers are wont to say:
    "If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts. If the law is on your side, bang on the law. If neither the facts nor the law is on your side, bang on the table."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous said...
    "see Magen Avraham and Taz Orach Chaim 224."


    Neither of which is relevant.
    There is no question that the concept of "cheilek eloka m'maal" is a valid Torah concept. Nevertheless, it does raise valid questions, none of which are addressed by the sources you have cited.


    The point wasn't to provide a explanation for the valid questions. It was to point out that your conception of the 'dangers' of Kabbala is archaic.

    It is strange and troubling to find people who presumably have not learned hundreds of Sifrei Kabbala, who presumably cannot name even the basic Munachim (terms) used by Sifrei Kabbala, who presumably couldn't delineate the innovations of Kabbala vis-a-vis classic Jewish Chakira, who presumably aren't familiar with - or are totally unaware of - the extensive and voluminous debates and conclusions reached regarding the study of Kabbala and its philosophies ---

    yet they consider themselves prime candidates to analyze the value of Kabbala, and they wish to impose their unlearned and usually ignorant views on the masses, some calling for 'Gedolim' to back them up with 'bans' and threats.

    The MA and Taz in question were called upon to indicate that the status of those 'concepts hidden except for those elite few' expired hundreds of years ago.

    Of course the belief that every deed creates 'good' or 'bad' 'angels', or that "Hashem" 'gave' the 'Torah' 'at' Har Sinai, or that every letter of the Alef-Beis has 'special' 'spiritual' 'powers' etc. can also be classified as "difficult and dangerous", but is there anyone (aside from a few MO nuts) who is genuinely concerned that those teachings may be harmful?

    The Mekubalim (v'ha'Ari b'rosham) and the Gedolei HaChassidim declared long ago that 'mutar u'mitzva l'galos zos ha'chochma', and the Mishna B'rura (ibid) citing the fact that Yisroel are 'chelek mimenu' 'udveikim bo' without reservations is a prime example.

    Please don't attempt to return us to the 'dark ages'!

    ReplyDelete
  10. >So, whether you say that Tzimtzum is literal, or that it is figurative, both words misrepresent the truth. In Chassidut, the unavoidable misrepresentation led to false understanding by the Rebbes themselves, who then misrepresented things further.

    So perhaps Rav Lerman, seeing as that you have an admirable grasp of the subject, would you be willing to sum up the debate among R. Yosef Irgas, R. Yaakov Emdin, R. Yonasan Eibechutz, R. Imanuel Chai Riki etc. on the topic of the nature of the Tzimtzum? I believe that this would shed light on this obscure topic, and it would benefit the many readers of this blog who are uninitiated.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not sure why I am bothering to respond to this but...

    Anonymous said...

    ...your conception of the 'dangers' of Kabbala is archaic.


    Some have said that the Torah itself is archaic. A position held by the bulk of the great mekubalim in history clearly had a reason. It is true, as you point out, that the mekubalim of the last roughly five centuries have begun to open the doors to kabalistic knowledge. It can hardly be said that the reason they have done so is because we are more intelligent, more insightful, or more religiously committed than those earlier generations.

    Clearly, for some reason, they have decided that it is now necessary to reveal these concepts (to some degree) despite the problems that may come with such knowledge.

    In any event, at no point did I say that the decision to popularize kabala was wrong. I have simply said that it is not without ill-effects. That is, unfortunately, just the way the world works.

    It is strange and troubling to find people who presumably have not learned hundreds of Sifrei Kabbala, who presumably cannot name even the basic Munachim (terms) used by Sifrei Kabbala, who presumably couldn't delineate the innovations of Kabbala vis-a-vis classic Jewish Chakira, who presumably aren't familiar with - or are totally unaware of - the extensive and voluminous debates and conclusions reached regarding the study of Kabbala and its philosophies ---

    You presume a great deal.

    yet they consider themselves prime candidates to analyze the value of Kabbala, and they wish to impose their unlearned and usually ignorant views on the masses,

    Well, being that the concern here is precisely how these concepts can be misunderstood and misused by the masses, you may be proving my point.

    Even if you were correct to describe my understanding of these concepts as ignorant, would that not point at the very real possibility that other ignorant people could also misunderstand these concepts in harmful ways?

    Please bear in mind that this has already happened many times! Shabsai Tzvi and current Chabad being obvious examples.

    some calling for 'Gedolim' to back them up with 'bans' and threats.

    When has this happened in the past century?

    The MA and Taz in question were called upon to indicate that the status of those 'concepts hidden except for those elite few' expired hundreds of years ago.

    That is not the issue that the cited MA or Taz are addressing. They are simply making reference to a standard, well-known Torah concept. My point was that even such standard well-known concepts raise serious difficulties. Let alone the extremely difficult and esoteric concepts found in advanced kabala.

    Of course the belief that every deed creates 'good' or 'bad' 'angels', or that "Hashem" 'gave' the 'Torah' 'at' Har Sinai, or that every letter of the Alef-Beis has 'special' 'spiritual' 'powers' etc. can also be classified as "difficult and dangerous", but is there anyone (aside from a few MO nuts) who is genuinely concerned that those teachings may be harmful?

    I'd be inclined to agree, but those aren't the concepts we were discussing.

    Please don't attempt to return us to the 'dark ages'!

    The age of Chazal and the hidden mystical societies that kept the Zohar are the "dark ages"?

    Again, as I have said numerous times, I have not suggested "turning back the clock" (which wouldn't be possible even were it desirable). I have simply pointed out the hazards involved in the current situation. To deny that these hazards exist is to say that R' Shimon b Yochai and his disciples were wrong not to disseminate the teachings of the Zohar to all Jews rather than keeping them hidden for centuries. Was it simple elitism?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excuse me, LazerA, who won't answer the question about his or her kabbalistic knowledge, exactly which kabbalistic concepts do you claim "Chabad" has "misunderstood"?

    ReplyDelete
  13. LazerA,

    Without entering into long-winded scrutinizing of the historical factor, the salient distinction here is:

    Those who are learned enough to study Acharonim and to lomdeve and to think independently, are certainly capable of understanding any concept in Chakira, Kabbala and Chassidus, if learned with adequate thought and proper humility.

    Those who aren't, should be - and thankfully generally are - content to humbly be mekabel what they are tought, reagardless of their level of understanding and comprehension.

    Nobody worries what ramifications the belief that Hashem is constantly 'watching' us might possibly have [someone might not understand and will become a Kofer etc. etc.], because it's right there at the beggining of Shulchan Aruch, and it's second nature to all frum Jews.

    Similarly, it's misleading to consider concepts which have long become the nichsei tzon barzel of Judaism, dangerous. Becuase, ka'amur, any balanced Jew should be able to 'cope' with whatever he learns. [As for the case of Lubavitch, it is my belief that the overwhelming majority (all those who are clinically normal) have not strayed whatsoever from tenable Jewish beliefs and customs]. In all cases otherwise, halacha b'yadeinu that shoteh ein lo takana. v'chi b'shuftani askinan?!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
    "Excuse me, LazerA, who won't answer the question about his or her kabbalistic knowledge, exactly which kabbalistic concepts do you claim "Chabad" has "misunderstood"?"

    At no point was I ever asked about my kabalistic knowledge, nor would I have bothered answering such questions. This discussion is not about me, nor, quite frankly is it relevant what my personal knowledge level might be. None of my statements have depended on substantive kabalistic knowledge.

    In this entire discussion, I have focused on two points:
    A) That the concept of figurative tzintzum that is well-established in Chasidic thought (incl. Chabad) is also accepted by non-Chasidid sources, such as the Nefesh Hachaim, and, in fact, may be the opinion of the Vilna Gaon as well, as per R' Dessler. (R' Dessler was a brilliant talmid chacham with VERY substantive knowledge of kabalalistic sources. His opinion cannot be simply shrugged off as ignorant.)

    B) That the dangers associated with kabalistic knowledge are real and have not disappeared simply because the gedolim have determined that that knowledge should be revealed.

    Neither point is one requiring great kabalistic knowledge on my part.

    As for Chabad, my criticism is restricted to "current Chabad". Clearly, the Baal HaTanya, the Tzemach Tzedek, and other Chabad rebbes were Torah giants and masters of kabalistic knowledge of the highest caliber.

    Current Chabad, however, is rife with amateur "mekubalim", many with minimal Torah knowledge. I am personally aware of a number of ridiculous teachings emanating from classes taught by Chabad teachers based upon superficial readings and understandings of kabalistic ideas presented in the Tanya. There is no benefit in detailing these, as the specific errors are not representative of the movement. They do, however, indicate an openess within Chabad to kabalistic study and teaching by individuals that are clearly not qualified.

    As for the movement as a whole, the biggest single issue is that many Lubavitchers have become very confused by kabalisitic concepts that identify a tzadik with Hashem. (Such ideas are also found in non-kabalistic sources.) This has led many Lubavitchers to identify their late rebbe with Hashem Himself, in varying degrees of literalness. This problem is widely recognized throughout the Torah world, but Lubavitchers continue to deny that the problem even exists.

    ReplyDelete
  15. lazera, You are making a valid point. I agree that there are some individuals who speak about topics without knowing enough about them, and I personally go to great lengths to study a topic in Chassidus in-depth before teaching about it.

    However, most chassidim I know "know when they don't know," and if they know that the topic is too advanced for them, they'll stick to simpler ideas that they know that they can grasp. The problem is much less with Chassidus Chabad, as so much of it is so self-explanatory. So when you're teaching from a text, such as the Chasidic Heritage Series, you keep reading and things become more and more clear. It's the ones who speak about topics without a solid basis in the text, or a broad knowledge, and invent their own explanations, who do a disservice to the Rebbeim of Chabad. But must shiurim in Chassidus are text based, so I don't think that this is as big as a problem as you are making out.

    However, in your claim that Chassidim interpret the sicha about revelation of Hashem in the Tzadik in the way that it is twisted to mean by certain outside elements, I totally do not agree. This is simply not the reality--chassidim do not think this, and it is also not what is written in the sicha, ch"v.

    ReplyDelete
  16. this comment is filled with errors.
    the nefesh hachayim does not agree with the Alter Rebbe.he does agree that tzimtzum cannot be in G-D kipshuto. the alter rebbe says that the tzimtzum is in ohr=light not kipshuto. the Gra held tzimtzum kipshuto in G-D.Rav dessler wanted to say that they all agree however, in a letter in the tzaddiks-1930's the rebbe clearly identifies 4 streams of thought with the Graand the Alter rebbe completely opposite. the Leshem says clearly that the gra's position is tzimtzum kipshuto within G-D.the author of this comment lazera is totally ignorant of these issues.he spent one session reading about this and he is an expert! similarly his silly comment on Chelek E-loka . it happens to be first a possuk in Iyov and a zohar that the neshoma is a chelek E-loka mimaal..so ask on the novy and on the Zohar. secondly the gemoreh says many times on certain sins eyn lo chelek b'E-lokay yisroe-l! the word chelek is used in regards to olom habo even though other terms are used-ben olom habo or mezuman leolom habo. chelek is a level-the lowest level but a level nonetheless. in halacha if someone says plony should get a chelek of my estate it is halachically assumed to mean A QUARTER=1/4TH!
    hence chelek refers to 1/4th of the shem Hava--- which is the 4th letter which is the source of the neshama please see iggeres hateshuva in Tanya chapter 5 on
    this is the lower hey of G-D's Holy Name!
    furthermore Chelek is meant to say that it is a similar mehus-that the nefesh E-lokis is of the same sort of essence-relatively as G-Dliness in contrast with the souls of umos haolom and even the angels.
    this commentator is ignorant and he is going to criticize tanya or the Rebbeim?! get a grip as to who you really are and stick to simple gemores and kitzur shulchan aruch my friend.this is the level of scholarship of the critics who are taught to mindlessly hate chabad even while we were taught to love all Jews even this level of ignorant soiney-do teshuveh my friend- learn tanya chelek alef especially chapter 32

    ReplyDelete
  17. Given the tone of Anon.'s comment (and the fact that this discussion has already continued on other posts) I really shouldn't respond to Anon., but I will briefly reply to the few items of content in his comment. I would mention that he has clearly missed the main points of everything I have said, and is reading things into my statements that simply are not there.

    Anonymous said...
    the nefesh hachayim does not agree with the Alter Rebbe.he does agree that tzimtzum cannot be in G-D kipshuto. the alter rebbe says that the tzimtzum is in ohr=light not kipshuto.

    My point, as was made clearly, was only that, like the sifrei Chassidim, the Nefesh Hachaim holds that the tzimtzum is not literal. This is true. It is also the critical matter of debate. Other technicalities are not relevant.

    the Gra held tzimtzum kipshuto in G-D.Rav dessler wanted to say that they all agree however, in a letter in the tzaddiks-1930's the rebbe clearly identifies 4 streams of thought with the Graand the Alter rebbe completely opposite.

    So? Clearly Rav Dessler and the LLR disagreed. That doesn't prove R' Dessler wrong.

    the Leshem says clearly that the gra's position is tzimtzum kipshuto within G-D.

    If your statement regarding the Leshem is correct (I am aware that the Leshem understood Tzimtzum literally, but I am not aware of his assessment of the Gra) then this is clearly a significant factor. The Leshem was one of the greatest mekubalim of modern times.

    At the same time, I find it difficult to accept that Rav Chaim Volozhiner would have taken a different position than his rebbe on such a matter.

    Moreover, see the sources from the Gra cited by R' Dessler in Michtav M'Eliyahu V:485-486 which seem to clearly indicate that the Gra did not hold that tzimtzum is applied to Hashem Himself.

    similarly his silly comment on Chelek E-loka . it happens to be first a possuk in Iyov and a zohar that the neshoma is a chelek E-loka mimaal..so ask on the novy and on the Zohar.

    Nu? Again, I never denied that it's a legitimate concept. I just said it's a difficult one. Moreover, I simply used it as an example of a well-known, simple sounding concept that is actually very difficult to truly understand. There are many such difficult pesukim in Tanach and innumerous difficult Zohars. I fail to grasp your point.

    Moreover, re:Tanach, we have a standard traditional approach of understanding pesukim that speak of Hashem to be speaking in a figurative manner. However, in Kabalistic sources (particularly the Tanya), this posuk is clearly taken in a literal manner, which is when the difficulties arise.

    The rest of your discourse of interpretations of the term "chelek" are irrelevant. My entire point is that people can get confused by concepts expressed in kaballa. Going into long, complex (and very unclear) discourses on the correct interpretation of the concept doesn't eliminate the nature of the problem. On the contrary, it pretty much proves my point.

    this commentator is ignorant and he is going to criticize tanya or the Rebbeim?!

    Here you are inserting words into my mouth. At no point in this discussion did I criticize the Tanya or any other Torah leader.

    If you are going to respond again with more accusations and demands that I do teshuva, I will simply have to ignore all further comments.

    In fact, being that this is a moderated forum, I am a bit surprised that such comments were allowed through. One of the reasons I have participated in these discussions is that the level of discourse is fairly high. Ad hominem comments such as Anon.'s will drive away such participation.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.