7

There's a popular understanding that the Gra asked R Chaim of Volozhin to write a sefer based on his teachings that would deal with many points that the sefer Tanya dealt with and this is the Nefesh HaChaim.

  1. Is there a source to this story?
  2. If not, is it a given that what R Chaim writes in his book is what the Gra himself held to be true?
Y     e     z
  • 58,536
  • 3
  • 109
  • 249
Gavriel
  • 9,648
  • 1
  • 21
  • 64
  • 4
    I have heard that it is closer to Tanya with regards to the concept of tzimtzum then the Gra's understanding of tzimtzmum – termsofservice May 18 '14 at 16:35
  • 1
    see this answer: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/718/2699 – Bochur613 May 18 '14 at 17:17
  • 1
    Rav Menachem Kasher in Torah Sheleimah, appendices to Parshas Shemos, considers R' Chaim's understanding of מלא כל הארץ כבודו to be congruent to that of the Baal HaTanya, unlike the strong opposing opinion of the Gra. – Murex May 23 '14 at 20:25
  • In the prefece to one of the prints of the Nefesh HaChaim on Hebrewbooks.org, this story is brought. Not sure that is much of a source, but it is there. They say the Gra never read the Tanya (he closed it after the first line because the standard version of the Gemara does not have the word Tanya), so I'm a bit skeptical that he asked his student to write a sefer refuting it. – Yishai Jun 18 '14 at 03:26
  • Very interesting. Do you know which nefesh hachayim I can find this at on hebrewbooks? – Gavriel Jun 19 '14 at 10:57
  • 1
    http://seforim.blogspot.com/2016/02/bridging-kabbalistic-gap-nefesh.html http://seforim.blogspot.com/2016/06/rabbi-chaim-volozhins-motivation-to.html – Double AA Jul 07 '16 at 01:29
  • 1
    @Bochur613 I wouldn't recommend that answer. – Double AA Jul 07 '16 at 01:29
  • 1
    @Yishai They say the Gra... closed it after the first line because the standard version of the Gemara does not have the word Tanya. This seems apocryphal, especially in light of the fact that the Vilna Gaon himself sometimes introduces tannaitic statements in Bei'ur HaGr"a by adding the word tanya. – Fred Jul 07 '16 at 01:56
  • @Fred, although the specific point may be, the general idea that he refused to read it seems reasonable. Regarding the specific statement, in the standard Talmud print, it is ומה היא השבועה שמשביעין אותו תהי צדיק ואל תהי רשע, and would appear to be Ammoraitic, commenting on the immediately preceding statement. It isn't hard to imagine an alternative text that would fit in (the question asked, answered with a Tanya), but as quoted (and the Tanya uncharacteristically points specifically to the Talmud in Nidda, as opposed to other sources that would indicate a Tannaitic origin.) – Yishai Jul 07 '16 at 14:16
  • @Yishai Interesting. That section of the gemara begins with "תא שמע", so I just assumed it was most likely a tannaitic statement from somewhere. If it isn't, that would actually sort of justify the reason why the Vilna Gaon purportedly didn't continue reading. – Fred Jul 08 '16 at 01:59
  • @Yishai That sounds like a post hoc rationalization to wish away the Gra's actual opposition to the contents of the sefer. – N.T. Apr 21 '22 at 22:39
  • @N.T. Do you know of any documentation that the Gra read the Tanya and raised specific objections to it's contents? – Yishai Apr 24 '22 at 03:57

1 Answers1

-3

The Toras ha'Gra is on a different plane than the ideas expressed in the writings of Reb Chaim Volozhin so it is probably not possible to make this comparison.

pcoz
  • 2,020
  • 8
  • 12