Q&A: The Necessity of Tzimtzum
The Necessity of Tzimtzum
Question
Do you think tzimtzum is really necessary?
That is, regarding the idea that if one takes tzimtzum not literally but as a metaphor, I understood that this is just a joke, because the difficulty for which tzimtzum was invented is real and not metaphorical.
But I’m asking about the whole line of reasoning itself: how can there be a physical world within the Infinite? And the answer is that there is tzimtzum.
Do you accept both the question and the answer, or is it simply that you have no idea how He created, and that’s it—you have no idea how finite beings can exist within the Infinite, and you have no idea whether there was tzimtzum, like all the simple faithful of the Jewish people, just as we have no idea how He exists eternally and how He created something from nothing?
Or perhaps it’s not comparable, as you said once, that lack of understanding we can tolerate, but a logical contradiction we cannot contain. And then the question is whether the creation of finite beings within the Infinite is a logical contradiction or just a lack of understanding,
like the dispute between Plato and Maimonides: they both agreed that the Creator cannot bring about logical contradictions, but Plato held that creation ex nihilo is a logical contradiction, and therefore invented primordial matter as eternal alongside Him, whereas Maimonides held that creation ex nihilo is not a logical contradiction?
Answer
If you assume that He is infinite, then it is necessary. And if He is not, then in any case there is tzimtzum from the outset.
Discussion on Answer
Correct.
Thank you,
just a quote to reinforce what I heard you say—that if tzimtzum is only a metaphor, it says nothing.
Shadal:
"If you take it literally, the author of Shomer Emunim already explained that you will come to outright heresy; and if you interpret it the way they interpreted it, as a metaphor, then either it indicates nothing, or it indicates something false and impossible."
By the way, I have it in a new edition if you’re interested.
You wrote above:
If you assume that He is infinite, then it is necessary. And if He is not—then in any case there is tzimtzum from the outset.
A — Is there anyone who holds that He is not infinite? Who is that?
B — On the other hand, I don’t recall any philosopher or kabbalist before the Ari mentioning the idea of tzimtzum, yet they thought He was infinite. So was no one troubled by this issue?
This is how Anani answered me:
Hello, righteous one,
do you agree with him?
God is not infinite in terms of place or in the field of epistemology (overall meaning9)
and therefore it has no connection to tzimtzum—He is not a body, so He does not need to contract Himself to make room for the world (that is indeed the view of all the philosophers)
Hello, righteous one
Maybe just close this loop for me:
That is,
A — Is there any philosopher who claimed that He is not infinite?
B — Regarding the philosophers who do hold that He is infinite, what did they say about the difficulty that led the Ari to introduce tzimtzum? Why didn’t they mention tzimtzum? Or are there any among them who did mention it? Or in any case, what other solutions did they offer?
Thank you,
and happy Purim.
I have no idea, and it doesn’t really interest me. They understood that the Holy One, blessed be He, created something outside of Himself and saw no need to point out this simple fact. Infinity can be defined in several ways.
Just to clarify,
you mean that it is necessary because otherwise it would be a logical contradiction,
and one cannot simply say: well, just as we do not understand how He exists eternally, so too we do not understand this, and that’s all.
Because, as stated, this is not just a lack of understanding but a logical contradiction?