Q&A: Contraction
Contraction
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I saw in the Rabbi’s book, regarding contraction, that some people find it difficult to accept the idea that God is present in filthy alleyways.
The matter is a bit puzzling: what exactly bothers Him about being there?
The smell? What does “present” even mean here—does it mean that He is there in some physical garb?
And it is beneath His dignity to clothe Himself in the garb of filthy alleyways,
but to clothe Himself in my body is comfortable for Him?
The whole story sounds strange.
In any case,
I want to formulate the question of contraction this way.
I saw that people quote the medieval authorities as saying that one of the impossibilities is that God cannot commit suicide.
In that formulation, the difficulty with creation is indeed great, because creation is a form of partial suicide.
“What difference is there to me between killing it all and killing half of it?”
Is that formulation correct?
Substantively, is it really so obvious that God cannot commit suicide?
Regarding the answer about contraction, the Rabbi wrote to me that the words of Rabbi Shem Tov Gפן do not resolve the issue of human free choice.
And about human free choice one must say that there is no contraction involved, because on the contrary, it completes God.
Conclusion: the only answer to contraction is that the creation of the world is itself completion, not contraction.
I have a bit of a feeling that the question about contraction is a sharply philosophical question, while the answer that God is completed by means of the world is a flexible answer.
For example, if someone says that because I am big I cannot enter through a low door,
and then they explain that I can, because I need to get into the house
in order to eat—then on the contrary: I need to enter a low place in order to eat.
It seems to me I didn’t write this very clearly.
I would be very grateful if the Rabbi would address my remarks.
Answer
Filthy, not crazy. The term is from Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin in Nefesh HaChaim. It is not a matter of something there bothering Him; rather, evil is not connected to divinity, and there is no divinity within it.
As for His committing suicide, search here on the site for “Puss in Boots.”
I did not write that Rabbi Shem Tov Gפן’s words do not resolve free choice, but that free choice does not need resolving. But it does not need resolving because God is not complete and needs us to complete Him. Therefore, whichever way you look at it, He is contracted.
Discussion on Answer
I searched for “Puss in Boots”—does the Rabbi mean the column on knowledge and free choice?
In any case, I understand that one cannot say of God that He can also commit suicide and then afterward come back to life, etc.
I am asking whether God really must be something that cannot commit suicide—is that a contradiction in itself?
Is that really so obvious?
After all, regarding the stone that He cannot lift, maybe He really can create such a stone, and then afterward He really cannot lift it?
A. Hazi, wait a moment after you get an answer. “Filthy alleyways” is a metaphor for places of matter, evil, and the profane. It has nothing to do with the halakhic expression.
B. You are repeating the same mistake. I already explained.
With the stone, that is certainly possible. Though it is more likely that there simply is no such stone. But suicide contradicts His being a necessary existent.
Rabbi, I saw what you wrote regarding the words of Rabbi Shem Tov Gפן. You wrote that you did not say they were incorrect regarding human free choice, but rather that there is no need for them.
But I, the small one, ask: are they correct to state his words also with respect to God’s contraction in the creation of man as a chooser?
Because granted, regarding the creation of the world as matter, it somehow feels understandable; however, regarding the creation of man,
it is not clear to me to say that there is no contraction because it is a different dimension. Does the Rabbi agree with what I am saying?
Regarding filthy alleyways:
In the quote from the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s letter, he brings that the opponents argued that the Jewish law that forbids thinking words of Torah in filthy alleyways contradicts the idea of contraction not being literal. It seems he understood filthy alleyways literally.
And likewise in Nefesh HaChaim he brought proof from the prohibition against thinking words of Torah in filthy alleyways.
In any case, when I wrote at first “crazy alleyways,” it was just a typing mistake.
Regarding God’s suicide, which I hope will not happen in our times,
it is true that this contradicts His being a necessary existent—I do not know what those words mean.
But I am asking: in our understanding of Him as creator,
and as an object that was not created, is it still possible that He exists by His own decision to exist?
Fine, we’ve already gone over this a thousand times. I’m done.
Nothing in that letter hints at physical filth. As far as I remember, in Nefesh HaChaim it is brought as an illustration.
I did not understand. Obviously there is no contradiction between His being creator and His ability to commit suicide.
Good morning,
Thank you very much for the answer.
A.
Filthy alleyways—the evil there is of the type of disgust, not moral evil.
B.
The words of Rabbi Shem Tov Gפן seemingly do not fit with the idea of human free choice, because it does not feel like different dimensions. The material world and God feel like different dimensions, but the essence of the human being as chooser is really of the very same aspect as God.
As I recall, Rabbi Kook and other commentators explain the image of God as the power of choice.