Q&A: Tzimtzum Not in Its Literal Sense
Tzimtzum Not in Its Literal Sense
Question
The Rabbi proves that the Ari certainly erred in understanding tzimtzum, because if the Holy One, blessed be He, contracted Himself, then He is not present everywhere, so He is absent there, and one cannot say that there is no place devoid of Him, etc.
I don’t know if I’ll manage to explain this clearly in writing, but perhaps the idea can be explained through dimensions. Just as one can understand that a two-dimensional figure—for example, a triangle on paper—if we turn the triangle into a three-dimensional object, then the two-dimensional figure is both in it and not in it: in truth it is there, yet it occupies no space in the three-dimensional realm. I hope the explanation is clear.
Accordingly, in explaining tzimtzum as well, it may be that there are many more dimensions than the ones we know of [and people have already spoken about this], and it may be that even if there is tzimtzum, that is only in a certain dimension, while He is present there in another dimension. I hope my question is understood, and I would be very glad to hear the Rabbi’s response.
At this opportunity I would also like to thank the Rabbi for his wonderful lessons, and for the sweet and unique posts on the Atzur forum; they have helped me a great deal in life.
Your student, Abraham
Answer
Hello Abraham.
As far as I recall, I never said or wrote that the Ari was mistaken. He introduced the idea of tzimtzum, and there are two interpretations of it: literal or non-literal. What I said is that the second interpretation is mistaken.
You may perhaps have seen your suggestion from me once and forgotten. In any case, I have written and said it quite a number of times (for example, in the second book of the trilogy and elsewhere). As far as I recall, its source is Rabbi Shem Tov Gefen, who indeed does not formulate it in kabbalistic language, but discusses the question of transcendence and immanence (surrounding and filling). But that is essentially the same idea.
But this explanation fits better with the view that tzimtzum is literal, because the view that it is non-literal in many cases starts from the premise that everything is divinity (pantheism). Be that as it may, I have no problem with this explanation, and if that is the meaning of non-literal tzimtzum, then everything is fine.
It is very possible that I heard it and forgot.
Thank you very much for the quick response.