5

According to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Vilna Gaon holds that the tzimtzum is to be understood literally, that God literally withdrew Himself from the creation.

How can this be understood given that the universe's existence depends on God's existence. How can something whose existence depends on something else continue to exist when that source withdraws from it?

for an overview of tzimtzum and its implications see here

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • I think the whole point is Tzimtzum isn't going to make sense. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 06:52
  • it makes sense according to the other views, namely, that God did not withdraw literally, since He is the source of their existence. – ray Nov 11 '13 at 07:00
  • Only if you're cool with the fact that you just typed out that comment on God. And you ate God for dinner. And you flushed some God down the toilet earlier. Which is weird. So...I stand by my comment. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 07:12
  • 5
    if it didnt make sense they wouldnt have debated it. your argument is emotional not logical - and inappropriate terms. – ray Nov 11 '13 at 10:27
  • The Wikipedia article on Tzimtzum claims that the Gaon didn't understand tzimtzum literally; he understand that tzimtzum refers to a contraction of God's Will and not God Himself. – Ephraim Nov 11 '13 at 11:49
  • ok, but the LR seems to say otherwise – ray Nov 11 '13 at 12:20
  • @ray What was inappropriate about the terms? – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 14:34
  • @DoubleAA, Tzimtzum not literally doesn't mean any of that, although apparently the Vilna Gaon thought (incorrectly) that the Chassidic take on it did. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 18:02
  • I think I linked (on another Tzimtzum question) to a Sicha of the Rebbe where he said that Tzimtzum Shelo Kipshuto makes no sense!! – ertert3terte Nov 11 '13 at 18:24
  • @ShmuelBrin, I promise you I didn't see your comment before editing my answer. But it is linked now. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 19:39

1 Answers1

1

This debate didn't start with the Gaon, but is earlier. You can see the history here. Hopefully this paragraph from there will make it clear enough.

If the tzimtzum narrative is taken at face value (tzimtzum ki'pshuto) then the created reality is analogous to Leonardo’s sandwich; G‑d created the world and very much cares about worldly events and human actions, but G‑d’s essential self is in no way embodied or invested in such goings on. In the analogy, Leonardo was very hungry, and he really liked cream cheese; peanut butter and jelly really would not have gone down well at all. But none of these facts are in any way relevant to — or expressions of — Leonardo’s essential genius. In the analog, the utter transcendence of the divine self remains entirely absent from the created realm even as divine supervision is exercised therein.

As long as someone doesn't come along and try to claim that he means G-d gets hungry, ר"ל.

See also here.

Community
  • 1
Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • if God withdrew completely then how can He affect the world? – ray Nov 11 '13 at 20:14
  • @ray, through what happens post Tzimtzum. Either way, transcendence has no interaction with the world, although it does have effects (some things in the world are different because it is there than they would be otherwise). – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 20:25
  • I see in your link that Yoser Levav argues against non-literal tzimtzum because "it is disgraceful for Hashem to be found in a dirty place". Interesting. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 20:51
  • @DoubleAA, see the link to the Sicha of the Lubavitcher Rebbe at Shmuel Brin's answer that I linked to, where he elaborates on what the real intention of a disgusting place is. – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 21:04
  • @Yishai It seems he says that the ultimate disgusting place is a Beit AZ. I don't know what you mean by "real intention". It is clear he thinks different things are disgusting to different extents. – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 21:29
  • @DoubleAA, well, I meant to point out that the real problem is a place that Halacha says to destroy. Just expanding on the point since you found it interesting, and others might as well if they follow the comments (whereas the link in the answer was a bit cryptic for a third party to notice it applied to your comment). – Yishai Nov 11 '13 at 21:33