trilogy
In honor of Rabbi Shalom
I am studying your second book in the trilogy on Jewish thought, in the second conversation about Tzimtzum, where the Rabbi brings up that if Tzimtzum is not as simple as it seems, there are two options: A. Pantheism B. Idealism And then the Rabbi proposes an idea (supposedly yours) that there is a divine spark in each of us, but we are existential and a divine part exists separately. Therefore, the middle idea is neither pantheism nor idealism. And the Rabbi makes it difficult there that no one, neither the Hasidim nor the opponents, discusses the philosophical problems that the Tzimtzum method of not being as simple as it seems to cause. And I am greatly puzzled. The Rabbi should look at the Book of Tanya and there it is explained what the Rabbi says: there is a divine part and there is corporeality, only that all corporeality depends on the divine part and they are two separate things??????
thanks
I am not well-versed in this literature, and as far as I remember I was talking about academic and Torah articles that deal with the issue and not the primary sources. In any case, without familiarity I am sure that it does not solve any problem. As usual.
Look at the book Thirteen Rose Leaves by Rabbi Steinsaltz, page 59, which explains the Hadiya this way, and it is also explained in the Tanya for the Hadiya. I simply don't remember where.
The rabbi wrote that the gerah from Volzin believed this way, and the rabbi wondered why the Mahabad Rebbe didn't make the philosophical problem harder for him, and it's really funny, because the rabbi also studied the Tanya. This part of the book is clearly biased, until I found an objective rabbi. You know how hard it is to find people like that in general.
Do you mean that Rabbi Steinsaltz also wrote unclear words that say nothing about this issue? Or are you claiming that if in the Tanya he wrote a few unclear words about it, then the Rebbe can be content with having studied the Tanya and writing whatever comes to his mind, even if these are baseless things that completely ignore the difficulties?
How did I not think of all this? I am biased as I am!
If you insist, I will quote the words of Rabbi Steinsaltz and Zel. The world is in God and draws life from Him, but in itself it always remains at a different level, different from the real thing, while the soul of man within it is a divine revelation and more than that it is a part of God. I think these are the words of the Rabbi himself and also that the Rabbi should ask the Hasidim (Chayuta Deutsch's husband seems to me to be a student of Rabbi Shager) and they will tell the Rabbi that this is explicit nonsense. In short, I admit that there are vague descriptions, but not here, and it is very strange to write an article about something that the Rabbi did not study seriously. You know, maybe she would still be convinced.
Well? You see here that he claims that the reduction is literally the same according to Chabad. So what is the argument with Reh of Volozhin about? Revelation that is revealed. Wordplay in a nutshell. You don't need to read everything that is said there, because a priori analysis brings you straight to the conclusion.
If you intended to reinforce my position that you don't need to read all these wordplays and that conceptual analysis is enough, you succeeded. What a shame.
A. A nefk”m for the Kiddushi of a Woman
B. Even if there is no nefk”m between the Grach of Volzin and Chabad, they are still one, as explained in the Hadiya. It is a pity that the Rabbi writes that according to the Rebbe of Chabad, the whole world is a simile, so what is the difference between the Rebbe and Spinoza (see your book, page 121_122) which is a real distortion, and in my opinion, since the Rabbi holds the banner of objectivity, this conversation should be arranged in a revised and truthful manner, and I am not driving the Rabbi crazy by teasing him, because I really enjoy the book, but I enjoy the truth more.
Thank you
P.S. I will probably ask many more questions about the book. I hope that the Rabbi will take them as seriously as I take the book seriously.
The Rabbi asked about the dispute. I don't think this is what the dispute is about, and as the Rabbi said, "What is the issue?" there is in fact nothing, and from this it is proven that they disagreed on other matters.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
