Q&A: The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the World
The Holy One, Blessed be He, and the World
Question
In a letter by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, he distinguishes between the third approach of Nefesh HaChaim, according to which tzimtzum is metaphorical, but the metaphor applies only to the luminary and not to the light, and the fourth approach of Chabad, according to which tzimtzum is metaphorical, but the metaphor applies both to the light and to the luminary.
Question: if tzimtzum is metaphorical, what is Rabbi Chaim’s motivation for saying that this applies only to the light? What is the difference? Approaches 1, 2, and 4 are understandable and clear in their purpose, but what does Rabbi Chaim’s third approach gain over the fourth approach?
Thank you very much!
Answer
I brought his letter in my book No Man Has Power over the Spirit. In my view, most of these discussions are nothing more than word games.
Discussion on Answer
The dispute is whether tzimtzum is literal or not. And there too, the Hasidic thesis that tzimtzum is not literal is nonsense. But light and luminary and all the rest of that stuff—those, in my view, are just empty words.
Does the Rabbi mean that the discussions between 3 and 4 are nonsense, or in general?
Because I seem to remember that the Rabbi once said that this dispute is the main cause of most of the disputes between Hasidim and Lithuanians?