21

What is the famous argument between the Vilna Gaon and the Ba'al HaTanya in understanding the Sod HaTzimtzum? And what are some ma'areh mekomos in their works where this Machlokes is seen?

mevaqesh
  • 35,599
  • 2
  • 98
  • 176
Reb Chaim HaQoton
  • 5,993
  • 27
  • 41
  • 2
    An important work which discusses this is Alan Nadler's "The faith of the Mithnagdim". And the critiques of this work are also quite fascinating. In the end, it seems there is a big dispute about whether there was any significant theological difference between the two groups at all. So your question already takes sides in some sense. – Curiouser Jul 12 '11 at 00:45
  • related http://torahmusings.com/2013/01/is-chabad-heresy/ – Double AA May 08 '13 at 06:08
  • 1
    See also the recent sefer by R. Tzvi Einfeld, Toras ha-Gra u-mishnas ha-chassidim who discusses this question at length – wfb May 09 '13 at 02:04
  • http://rabbisedley.blogspot.co.il/2011/07/differing-views-on-tzimtzum.html – ray Nov 12 '13 at 05:55
  • A long and detailed essay that discusses the argument of whether Tzimtzum is K'Pshuto (hundreds of years before Chassidus started), and how that argument was the root of the argument between the Mitnagdim and Chassidim: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm – Menachem Jul 08 '14 at 04:23
  • http://seforim.blogspot.com/2016/02/bridging-kabbalistic-gap-nefesh.html – Double AA Feb 07 '16 at 00:04
  • 1
    http://seforim.blogspot.com/2016/06/rabbi-chaim-volozhins-motivation-to.html @Menachem these are reviews of a work which dispels the notion that it was the root fight of anything, despite what Chabad believes. Chabad likes to present this sugya very cut-and-dry (bc the most recent Rebbe, who they assume must have been 100% accurate, once wrote such a piece), but it's a lot more complicated in everyone else's eyes. – Double AA Jun 29 '16 at 17:38

4 Answers4

12

There is a letter by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l (original Hebrew text available online at chabadlibrary.org; an English translation is at chabad.org) in which he discusses this. (He also provides a list of places in Chabad Chassidic writings that talk about tzimtzum.) To summarize:

The two key variables here are:

(a) whether tzimtzum means "contraction" (i.e., something was there before and is not there now), or "concealment" (i.e., it's still there now as it was before).

(b) Whether tzimtzum affects G-d's own Self, or only the Divine energy ("light") that emanates from Him.

These two variables, then, yield four basic possible ways of understanding tzimtzum: as (1) the absence of G-d Himself from a certain space, or (2) of His light, or (3) the concealment of G-d's presence in a certain space, or (4) of His light.

The Vilna Gaon's view is that the approach #1 is the correct one: there are places in our physical world in which G-d is simply not present. The Baal Hatanya's view is the diametric opposite, #4: there is no place void of G-d's presence or of His light, but there are indeed places where it's not evident.

The Rebbe also notes that Nefesh HaChayim (by R' Chaim of Volozhin, one of the Vilna Gaon's star disciples) takes a middle ground, position #3.

Community
  • 1
Alex
  • 90,513
  • 2
  • 162
  • 379
  • 2
    I think this topic is a little bit to extensive to be dealt with in this type of forum. – SimchasTorah Apr 09 '10 at 17:21
  • 4
    Alex, the Lubavitcher Rebbe is the one who asserts that it is well known that the misnagdim at the time of the Gra held of approach one. This is simply not true. The language of the proclamations he is refering to was designed for a common populace who was generally not familiar with the language of Kabbalah. A proof from there as to what the belief of Kabbalists was regarding tzimtzum at that time is tenuous at best. – Yahu Apr 12 '10 at 18:38
  • 2
    It's not just the proclamations, though. The Rebbe also references a letter by R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi (available online at http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=31632&st=&pgnum=105), written during the Vilna Gaon's lifetime (to the chassidim in Vilna), in which he writes flatly that the Gaon "considers it absolute heresy to say that He, may He be blessed, is literally found within the most lowly and debased things." In short, then, this too indicates that the Gra's position is closest to #1 or some minor variant thereof, but surely not #3 (Nefesh Hachayim) or #4 (Tanya). – Alex Apr 13 '10 at 01:46
  • #2 sounds most likely. – Yahu Apr 13 '10 at 20:37
  • 4
    Alex, how can he bring a proof what the GRA held from a letter of the Ba'al Tanya?! – Yahu Apr 14 '10 at 05:30
  • 3
    Because we may assume the Baal Hatanya, who was prepared to debate the Gra on the subject (as mentioned in this letter), would first have "done his homework" to understand what he'd be arguing against. – Alex Apr 14 '10 at 19:05
  • Also, think of it: why would it have been in the Baal HaTanya's interest to maximize the difference between their opinions? On the contrary, if there would have been a way to harmonize the two of them, we would expect him to have said so in this letter (i.e., "look, there's no reason for us to be fighting each other - we both basically hold the same way.") – Alex Apr 14 '10 at 19:23
  • 4
    Good reasoning. One problem: Those with a tradition from the GRA disagree with the Baal HaTanya regarding the GRA's position. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum for the Leshem's explanation. – Yahu Apr 19 '10 at 03:59
  • And ignore the citation needed, it is there in the Leshem, in the previous citation. – Yahu Apr 19 '10 at 04:01
  • 1
    But surely R' Chaim Volozhiner also had a tradition from the Gra? If anything, his ought to carry greater weight, since he was the Gra's direct student, while the Leshem was a generation later. And in Nefesh Hachaim he states quite clearly that from Hashem's point of view the worlds don't really exist - the very position that the Leshem decries as "destroying the truth of the entire Torah"! In the Rebbe's letter he reconciles this by stating that in this regard R' Chaim in fact disagreed with the Gra; and according to the Leshem's understanding, that must certainly be the case. – Alex Apr 19 '10 at 15:40
  • 3
    Without disparaging the Rebbe's scholarship or intentions, it would still be interesting to see how this disagreement compares to a presentation of it from the other perspective. – Double AA May 08 '13 at 06:14
  • G-d of course can withdraw "himself" and "his light" entirely, I just don't think "he" has yet, since it isn't yet completely Shabbos – Moda May 08 '13 at 06:00
  • Rabbi Paltiel elaborates on this letter about 48 Minutes into this shiur: http://theyeshiva.net/Video/View/477/The-Alter-Rebbes-Revolution-in-Tzimtzum-Part-4 . It lasts for about 5 minutes and he gives historical background to the letter, as well as mentions a source that goes through the sources for the different opinions – Menachem Jun 21 '13 at 23:01
  • 1
    What is God's light? – Double AA Nov 11 '13 at 07:56
  • 1
    Making it bout self vs Light is itself a Tanya-based phrasing of the issue. The Gra would have said that tzimtzum is the actual contraction of Retzon haBorei -- the Creator's Will rather than Or Ein Sof -- the Infinite Light. How the two differ is a different story, but we should use the Gra's terms rather than force the assumption that they don't. – Micha Berger Jun 29 '16 at 16:46
  • I don't understand why he wrote the Nefesh Hachaim held like #3. He specifically writes about the makom tenufos etc which was pointed out by R' Shneerson as the basis of opinion #1. – user6591 Aug 17 '20 at 00:34
  • @Simchas Torah which gets to the Nefesh Hachaim's point. That nobody ever discussed it openly, but unfortunately unlearned people started discussing it and it was causing major issues. That is why he decided to discuss it, to at least dispel the ignorant mistakes. – user6591 Aug 17 '20 at 00:36
  • Decide for yourself (if you have a grasp of the kaballah): See Aderet Eliyahu to Isaiah 6:3; Supplementary notes in Be’ur ha-Gra to Sifra di-Tzeni’uta, Sod ha-Tzimtzum, p. 75 [38a in Hebrew pagination]. – Rabbi Kaii Dec 07 '22 at 09:24
9

The argument went much earlier.

There were students of the Arizal who held that Tzimtzum is literal.

For example, Yosher Levav (the author of the Mishnas Chassidim) wrote that it is based on both logic (that it is disgraceful for Hashem to be found in a dirty place) and because it is also what the Arizal taught him.

The Alter Rebbe (Baal Hatanya) disproves in Tanya (In Shaar Hayichud Vehaemuna) and says "It is possible to understand the error of certain scholars in their own eyes (May G‑d forgive them!)" which shows that they made a grave mistake in understanding Hashem's unity and are in need of atonement.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe said a Sicha in Nasso 5743 where he said that there were two legitimate ways of understanding tzimtzum (and says that the simple way to learn tzimtzum is like the Mishnas Chassidim!). Yet, once the law was decided (by both the Alter Rebbe and R' Chaim of Volozhin) that tzimtzum in not literal, nobody has the authority to argue on that decision.

ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
  • 3
    How does the concept of psak apply to metaphysical reality? Did God retroactively go back and do His tzimtzum in the way we ultimately 'ruled'? – Double AA May 08 '13 at 06:16
  • "that it is disgraceful for Hashem to be found in a dirty place" - what is the logic in this? just because something is disgraceful doesn't mean its impossible – ray Nov 11 '13 at 19:53
  • @ray See the Sicha. The Rebbe points out that there is a level lower than a dirty place - a house of idolatry. And how could there be a command to destroy idolatry (its essence, not just its form) when Hashem is found there in the same level as in the Holy of Holies (which the Rebbe says makes no sense on its own - how can one say that Hashem is in an idol the same way as in the Holy of Holies!) – ertert3terte Nov 11 '13 at 20:39
  • @ray The arguments here are not just about logical possibility, but also about what is reasonable to someone with a brain. – Double AA Nov 14 '13 at 00:27
  • @ShmuelBrin the Yosher Levav was born over 100 years after the Arizal had aliyas neshamah. – jj2 Feb 22 '16 at 15:58
  • the source in your last paragraph does not say - once the law was decided nobody has the authority to argue. Do you have a source for that? – Jon Jan 26 '22 at 16:27
  • Certainly the Leshem seemed to disagree with your conclusion. He lived after all 3 parties, clearly learned like the Gra and attacks the Nefesh haChaim for his view of reality... – gt6989b Aug 29 '22 at 18:34
4

This Mahlokes ultimately seems to stem from an earlier Mahlokes between Rabeinu Yosef Gikatelia (Shaarei Orah) and the Rashash (the Kabbalist). The SO holds that Keser of Atzilus (Keser Elyon) is the Ein Sof Himself and the Rashash holds that Keser of Atzilus is the Ohr of the Ein Sof.

If the K.E. is the Ohr E.S. then He Maintains His presence, but is Mitzamtzeim His Ohr. Those who say it is the E.S. Himself hold that He does withdraw Himself.

If you have no clue what I am referring to then this answer and the question that was asked is not for you.

Yahu
  • 16,076
  • 1
  • 30
  • 66
  • 4
    "If you have no clue what I am referring to then this answer is not for you." -- I like that! Though it raises the question whether a website like this is the right medium for this. – Shalom Apr 19 '10 at 13:56
  • 1
    Shalom, I agree that the way Kabbalah is being "peddled on the streets" is a disgrace and that most of what such people will write or say on the subject is inaccurate. In the same spirit as Ramban, I just wrote some hints to the underlying issues that only the initiated will grasp. – Yahu Apr 19 '10 at 17:16
  • 2
    See the guiding principle here: http://lo.yodeya.com/2010/01/guidelines-jargon.html . I think that Yahu's coda is more or less consistent with this. The intent of the jargon policy is to be accessible to newbies, but not preclude discussion of more complex topics. It would be impossible to discuss this topic at all succinctly without jargon, and I doubt that anyone not already familiar with the concept of tzimtzum (for example) would be interested in this question. – Isaac Moses Apr 19 '10 at 17:20
  • 3
    Replace "not preclude" in my previous comment with "not stilt unbearably." For example, if someone wanted to pose or answer a complex kasha on a Ketzos here, and they tried to link or explain all terms that a newbie wouldn't know, they'd spend all day linking. Further, while it might be a stretch of the policy, I think that it's OK for the case of Kabala in particular to use "someone well-versed in the topic" in place of "someone interested in the topic." I don't think this needs to be formalized into the policy; if anyone disagrees, please let me know. – Isaac Moses Apr 19 '10 at 17:42
  • 1
    I think that this machloket is also in philosophy between the Or Hashem (& partially Rambam) and the Rabbi Avraham Ibn Daoud & Ralbag. the central subject is the paradox of the bechira. – kouty Mar 23 '16 at 01:10
  • @kouty I think you have a very good point! – Yahu Aug 26 '16 at 22:42
2

I hope I'm understanding and presenting this correctly; someone please correct me if I'm getting this wrong.

I heard a talk from Rabbi Yaacov Haber about this. If I understand correctly, he contrasted the Tanya with a similar work by Ramchal known as "Adir BaMarom" or "Adir BiMromim." It's well-known that the Vilna Gaon thought highly of Ramchal.

"Tzimtzum" deals with the philosophical quandary that God is infinite, but He interacts with the physical world, which is finite. One side of the coin is that God "makes room" for anything else to exist, or else it wouldn't. The other side of the coin is that He allows some manifestation of Himself in the world as we know it. The question becomes, how real is that manifestation? Tanya believes in "tzimtzum gamur", absolute manifestation. Ramchal and the Vilna Gaon reject that.

If I recall correctly, Ramchal would say something to the effect of "every soul is Godly", but Tanya says "every soul is a piece of God" -- the danger here is the next step becoming "but some are more God than others." In light of the mess of Shabtai Zvi's messianic claims that were still in recent memory, the Vilna Gaon found this too dangerous.

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • 7
    "Tzimtzum gamur" would mean "total withdrawal," which is the opposite of what the Baal Hatanya believes in. The Lubavitcher Rebbe zt"l (whose letter I refer to in my answer) calls it "tzimtzum shelo kipshuto, verak ba'or." – Alex Apr 09 '10 at 19:52
  • 2
    @shalom, Alex is correct. The Baal HaTanya follows "tztimtzum aino k'pshuto". The Gra follows "tzimtzum k'pshuto". – HodofHod Dec 26 '11 at 02:48
  • 1
    After rereading your answer, I see that your error stems from a mistranslation of the word "tzimtzum". Whereas you translate it as "manifestation", it actually means "withdrawal". Other than that you've got the gist. The Baal HaTanya believes that the "tzimtzum" or "withdrawal" that is discussed in kabbalah, is only metaphorical ("aino k'pshuto"). – HodofHod Dec 26 '11 at 02:57
  • Your answer misses the boat, which is how literal to take the concept of tzimtzum. @HodofHod is really presenting the machlokes – robev Jun 21 '17 at 03:15
  • You also didn't cite any sources for each side"s opinion, which is what @Reb-Chaim-HaQoton wanted – robev Aug 03 '17 at 13:20
  • I would love a source for the Ramchal rejecting it, if you have one. Also, the argument doesn't compute. If everyone has a literal piece of God inside, how can there be, forgive me for even saying it, more "God" or less "God"? That argument would work only if it's not literally a piece of God, just some "level of Godliness"! Even if you don't follow that, you have to admit the superiority argument at least applies equally to both? – Rabbi Kaii Dec 07 '22 at 15:58