I didn’t understand…
Did I present it incorrectly, or do you think it’s baseless?

You described it rather mildly. The Hasidic basis is a conception of tzimtzum as not literal, and that is absolute absurdity. Just nonsense.

Honorable Rabbi, with all due respect, how do you know that this is “just” nonsense? You’re dismissive of enormously great Torah scholars and spiritual figures… and it’s not so clear how or why. Are you necessarily assuming that what is not understandable to a person like you, and especially to someone on your spiritual level, is necessarily incorrect? Do you necessarily hold that everything in the hidden dimensions of existence can necessarily be understood through rational conception? After all, a human being—and certainly the average person, even if very intelligent—may be very limited.

What I rejected here are baseless notions. This is a rejection on the basis of a difficulty, not on the basis of lack of understanding. I don’t know where you get your high regard for those people, but even if you’re right, that is no reason to accept baseless things from them.
A person is certainly limited, and that is exactly why I do not accept what any person says merely because he said it.
In short, a judge has only what his eyes can see.
(By the way, I too am an extraordinary man of spirit, and I don’t understand how, from your inferior level, you dismiss my words. A person is limited and cannot understand everything. How does that argument sound to you?)

With God’s help, 12 Tishrei 5783

What is so surprising about the concept of “tzimtzum not in its literal sense”? After all, so much ink has been spilled by philosophers over the question of whether the world exists or not. Recently a new book came out discussing the subject, to which the owner of this site devoted an entire column. So what is so strange if the Hasidim held the philosophical view according to which the world’s existence is epistemic and not ontic? 🙂

Best regards, Epistemus Gornitzius, Man of Ontus

It seems to me that the main point of saying that the world is nullified before God is this: “If I am only for myself, what am I?” A person and the world have no value or meaning except insofar as they represent and realize the will of their Maker, and a person has no power or ability whatsoever without the help of his Creator.

Without my being the emissary of my Creator—“If I am only for myself, what am I?” But when I am the ambassador of the King of kings—“If I am here, everything is here.”

Line 2:
… so what is so strange if the Hasidim held…

[And perhaps this is built into the essence of Hasidism according to Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, that the distinctiveness of the pious person is that he does not see only the personal issue of “discharging one’s obligation,” but rather places his Creator at the center, with a constant aspiration “to bring pleasure to his Maker.”]

Best regards, A.G.A.A.

1) “Tzimtzum not literally,” in the sense that everything is divinity, is certainly incorrect. Or in the language of the local rabbinic authority: one makes himself false within.
2) “Tzimtzum literally,” in the sense that the Infinite diminished itself for the sake of creation, is also out of the question. We do not ascribe any deficiency to the Creator. (Unless, of course, you feel like heresy.)
3) When one studies carefully the Ari’s words on pages 11–12 in Etz Chaim (careful study, like Rabbi Yitzhak Campanton and the Maharsha in the Talmud) and tries to create a coherent picture of the concepts that the rabbi of blessed holy memory presented (through Rabbi Chaim Vital in his name), one is forced to distinguish between the Infinite and the Infinite Light. Only in this way are the difficulties in both branches resolved nicely.
4) The tzimtzum of which the Ari speaks is in the Infinite Light that is upon ungraspable divinity (let us call it the Infinite): “He then contracted Himself, the Infinite, at the central point within Him, in the very middle of His light.”
5) The difference between the Alter Rebbe and the Kabbalists who preceded him concerns in what manner that tzimtzum took place, and there and only there does the question of “not literal” arise. The main practical difference is actually in the psychological aspect: according to Chabad, it leads to a consciousness of self-nullification. I can’t elaborate here.
6) Most important is to read the Ari carefully in the original. Pay close attention to the wording and create a continuous reading. Once one has that, one can speak about the various interpretations. And let the chooser choose.

That is exactly how the Leshem explains the dispute, and in fact according to his view there is no dispute. In my view as well, since one side is nonsense, it follows necessarily that they do not really mean that (the principle of charity). But the Lubavitcher Rebbe insists that they do.

With God’s help, Sabbath eve, the radiance of His splendor, go forth to you, 5783

To Yehoshua—greetings,

Now that we have arrived at the point that the tzimtzum is in the light of the Holy One, blessed be He, it can be said that the two aspects—tzimtzum literally or not—parallel the two aspects of light in physics. Does light divide into particles, or does it appear in waves? And so too the discussion regarding the world and man: is he an independent particle, or a projection of the light of the Omnipresent, blessed be He? As I mentioned above, the pious person of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto sees his existence as focused on doing the will of his Maker, like a ray of light sent forth by the Master of all.

Best regards, Hillel Feiner-Gluskinos