Q&A: On Kabbalah and Other Approaches
On Kabbalah and Other Approaches
Question
Hello, you wrote to me (in response to my private email inquiry) as follows: “I see in it (in the wisdom of Kabbalah) some good and interesting intuitions, but not a source of authority… There is quite a bit of vague talk there based on concepts that are not well defined, and they cover up nonsense.” Could you give me an example of that?
Answer
First and foremost is the discussion about tzimtzum, whether it is to be understood literally or not. That is complete nonsense.
Even the distinction between “encompassing” and “filling” (the Infinite Light and the line) speaks of two functions or manifestations of the Holy One, blessed be He, but the distinction between them is not sharp, and in my view it is doubtful how far this is talking about something beyond mere psychology (religious experience). People experience God this way or that way, but in practice I do not see a difference between “encompassing” and “filling.”
Discussion on Answer
And regarding “encompassing” and “filling”:
According to the above, the “encompassing” is the uncontracted “infinity,” and it is not grasped, but “contracted infinity” is grasped by us, and it can be identified throughout all of creation. That is: He fills all worlds.
Indeed.
With God’s help, 21 Kislev 5777
The tension between “encompassing” and “filling,” between the infinity of the Creator who is exalted beyond all thought, and His connection to His creatures and His giving life to them all, is a foundation of the life of faith, as Rabbi Judah Halevi sang: “Lord, where shall I find You? Your place is exalted and hidden. And where shall I not find You? Your glory fills the world.”
On the one hand stands Michael, the great prince, offering before God the souls of the righteous, teaching that even the greatest of the great among created beings are utterly nullified before the Creator;
And on the other hand stands King David, revealing the kingship of God in the world, and leading it with kindness and justice, for even the maidservants of His servants are important in His eyes, and from them and with them the praise of the Omnipresent rises.
Best regards, S. Z. Levinger
Regarding “filling” and “encompassing”: according to the author of the Tanya, “encompassing” is the aspect of the Creator’s infinity, and “filling” is the aspect of His connection to His creatures (see sources in Chabadpedia, entry “The Light that Fills All Worlds” and entry “The Light that Encompasses All Worlds”), while according to Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin (Nefesh HaChaim, Gate 3, chapter 4), it is the opposite: “filling” expresses the Creator’s unfathomable infinity, and “encompassing” His revelation to His creatures.
Shatzal, here you have shown us that we are dealing with experiences, not claims. The Holy One, blessed be He, is infinite and He also connects to the world and to His creatures. So “encompassing” is a name for one aspect and “filling” a name for another. But you still have not solved the question of what it is. And what is the definition of each of them beyond our experience, which perceives Him as infinite or as connected? Bottom line: this is psychology and experiences, not claims. And the dispute you cited only sharpens my point.
There is no dispute here. The Holy One, blessed be He, is “Infinite,” blessed be He, “for no thought can grasp Him at all,” and He gives life to all creatures and watches over them; He “fills all worlds” and “encompasses all worlds”; and in the place of His greatness, there you find His humility, as explained in Megillah 31a: “Every place where you find the greatness of the Holy One, blessed be He, there you find His humility… as it is written: Thus says the High and Exalted One, who dwells forever and whose name is holy: I dwell on high and in holiness, and also with the crushed and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the crushed.”…
We were not obligated to define “what He is” concerning One who is beyond all thought, but we were obligated to strive to recognize some of His actions and ways of conducting the world, as His written Torah has taught us, and as our eyes see and our intellect requires from seeing the wonders of His creation and governance, so that we may have love and awe of Him and so that we may cleave to His ways.
Best regards, S. Z. Levinger
The duality in the Creator’s modes of revelation brings about a duality in how the human being, created in the image of God, sees himself. On the one hand, a person sees himself as a tiny particle, an insignificant crumb compared to the infinite. On the other hand, a person must see himself as a ray of light sent by the Creator to illuminate His world, and to fulfill his mission with strength but also with humility.
Best regards, S. Z. Levinger
We all know everything that He does. The terms “encompassing” and “filling” are indeed an attempt to know Him. And therefore I claim that they add nothing at all to our knowledge of Him. Mere words.
And the questions of rays of light and crumbs and the like are also just descriptions of experiences, not meaningful claims.
“We all know everything that He does” – if only we all knew and internalized even a tiny fraction of the deeds of God, and may it be fulfilled in us: “The earth shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”
Best regards, S. Z. Levinger
First of all, I thank you for the time and energy you devote to answering questions.
I understand that the issue of tzimtzum depends on how one defines the wisdom of Kabbalah:
Someone who understands that it describes “spiritual and higher worlds” “of which we have no grasp whatsoever,” and that everything is “by way of metaphor,” and “we receive it as tradition,” and only “take great care, for there is no materiality whatsoever in the higher realms, not even as much as a mustard seed,” in short, someone who does not understand any reality other than a material one, and believes that “above” there is a “spiritual” reality, must say that tzimtzum is not to be understood literally (like all the other things described in this wisdom), for the whole structure is built on that.
But someone who understands that we are dealing here with worlds of thought can understand that a certain concept does not exist in our intellect except through the absence of another concept.
And as for our case: the reality familiar to us is bounded. And boundedness requires that the concept of “infinity” be literally contracted, meaning that it not appear to us, because otherwise there would be no room in our minds to grasp a reality of created beings whose very essence is boundedness.
Am I covering up nonsense here (unconsciously)?