Q&A: Contraction and Dimensions
Contraction and Dimensions
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I finished the lecture series on contraction, and I have several questions:
1. I didn’t understand how the proposal involving dimensions solves the issue. How can we even understand and talk about higher dimensions?
2. Doesn’t this simply reduce the question to whether He contracted Himself in our dimensions? Meaning, in our three dimensions there is still a problem, as opposed to the other dimensions that we don’t have, and therefore there is no collision between the existences. (Wow, I guess I really didn’t understand how dimensions work…)
3. How do the light and the luminary fit into the whole picture?
4. What does “raising sparks” mean in this picture? Revealing deeper dimensions? How can one reach dimensions that were not present within us to begin with?
I’d be happy if you could explain; sorry for not understanding.
Answer
Hello,
1-2. The claim is that He indeed does not exist in our three-dimensional universe, but that is not a contraction of Him. A three-dimensional volume takes nothing away from a space of higher dimension (just as a line takes nothing away from a surface, or a surface from a volume). What is the problem with talking about higher dimensions? The fact that you cannot imagine something does not prevent you from understanding that it exists, and perhaps even understanding more things about it. Imagination is not understanding.
3. They don’t fit in. Neither the light nor the luminary can fill all of reality, because otherwise nothing else could exist besides them. Talking about contraction in the luminary but not in the light does not help, unless you say that the infinity of the luminary does not interfere with the existence of objects and of the world. But then I do not know what that infinity is, or what has been gained by it.
4. It would be best to ask whoever speaks about raising sparks what he means. Here this is not a question of contradiction (I do not see any principled obstacle to speaking about raising sparks; as far as I understand, it does not lead to contradictions), but of meaning (what exactly is intended). Therefore this question is not important for our purposes.
Discussion on Answer
Why not? I didn’t understand the question. The degree of holiness of a place or object is apparently the degree of directness of the divine manifestation in it/through it.
I meant whether there is something completely mundane, with no holiness.
I didn’t understand the question. Are you talking about a mundane act, or an object that is mundane? In my opinion, both exist. A stone is a mundane object, and eating Bazooka gum is a mundane act.
I meant the attitude toward them. You spoke a lot in the lecture about the implications of the discussion of contraction. So I want to understand where the mundane fits into your outlook. Does it have value? What is the nature of the relationship between it and the holy? And one more thing—what about the other side?
If the questions are annoying or not relevant, then there’s no need. Thank you very much for this wonderful site.
The attitude toward mundane acts is divided into several categories: there are optional acts (such as those I mentioned here), toward which there is no special attitude. And there are optional acts that are not included in Jewish law but are not entirely mundane (like morality and the like). Toward those, the attitude is that there is an obligation to do them, even though it is not a halakhic obligation.
I don’t know what their relationship to the holy is. I don’t understand the question. The same goes for the other side.
Thank you very much! What about holy and mundane? Is there such a thing as the mundane?