tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35481891.post6311155368722522578..comments2022-05-15T11:52:41.828+03:00Comments on rabbisedley: Differing Views on Tzimtzumrabbi sedleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15276453426346276243noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35481891.post-63013475403764358622013-11-14T10:08:28.628+02:002013-11-14T10:08:28.628+02:00thank you for the shiur. at the beginning of the a...thank you for the shiur. at the beginning of the audio, you mention a previous shiur with the different views of the rishonim. do you have an mp3 of that one also?Professor Trekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11158951528186884880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35481891.post-2158279825175231952011-08-03T19:09:08.838+03:002011-08-03T19:09:08.838+03:00I am not a fan of the Lub Rebbe's formulation ...I am not a fan of the Lub Rebbe's formulation (quoted in our host's Reshimu article) because he forces both sides of the machloqes into his own terminology. This focus on Ein Sof vs Or Ein Sof is from the Tanya, and placing it at the center of the Gra's position on tzimtzum will perforce distort it.<br /><br />That said, the LR's general point is that we can distinguish along two axis -- the verb and the noun. At this level of vagueness, I think we have a wide enough umbrella for discussion, and I believe a tool for understanding the Gra's shitah.<br /><br />Second, as I wrote in a comment to the previous post, I do not believe that the Gra could possibly have understood tzimtzum as speaking in terms of Hashem's Essence. It would violate the very first words of the first of the Gaon's Asarah Kelalim.<br /><br /><i>A major rule in the Torah is that everything the Qabbalists and all of the Torah in its entirety speak about is G-d in His Will (blessed be it) and His Providence and His Actions, and they did not speak about His Essence at all, ch"v.</i><br /><br />(Aside: note the association between Qabbalah and G-d's actions, as per my comment on the previous post.)<br /><br />So, the Gra can only be saying that tzimtzum is not about Divine Essence. When the Gra asserts that the verb literally applies, not "just" a metaphor or a description of how things look to us, his noun isn't the Ein Sof.<br /><br />It would also be suspicious that two of the Gra's student would take a different position on something as central to their worldview -- and to the Gra's anti-chassidic writings -- without even spending space justifying this shift. But in any case, both students left the Gra's position and end up in the same place? Improbable.<br /><br />R' Chaim Volozhiner's definition of tzimtzum could also be about the literal removal of something other than Hashem's Essence, which then occludes that essence.<br /><br />So, whereas I would see the Gra's position as being one of literal tzimtzum of something other than the Ein Sof, RCV doesn't so much leave that but note that by consequence, there is a non-literal tzimtzum of His Essence.<br /><br />Note also that R' Tzadoq, when he takes exception with those who say literal tzimtzum of the Ein Sof, does not mention the arch misnaged. Also suggesting he didn't see the Gra as sharing this position.micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.com