Lessons In Chabad Hasidic Philosophy (in light of recent misunderstandings)

[Lubab]

I did hear from somebody, who I think is a misnaged because
a)I read on the sichosinenglish site that (from what I understand) misnagdim take tzimtzum more literally, and it seems he did.
b)speaking to some chabad rabbis, they all disagreed with this guy

He made a very clear argument.. Kabbalistic of course.

He said that there are many worlds. And G-d is everywhere, but in this world we do not see him, because G-d constricted himself, (not contracted). So all objects around us are like his garments. And that is why we do not pray to them. To pray to an object would be like addressing somebody's ear or coat instead of him. 
So how can we know how to worship him.. Only from the instructions he gave us. His mitzvot, are his will for us to do on earth.


The chabad guy said G-d did not constrict himself. He constricted his light / his presence.

I have never delved further. I just heard a lecture from the misnaged guy and asked a chabad guy about what I had heard.

 

Yes. That's the basic debate. Whether G-d actually removed Himself from this world or He just removed the REVELATION of Himself i.e. He's here, we just don't see Him.

In my view it's impossible to say that G-d actually removed His presence from this world and still be G-d. Saying this would impose several limitations and imperfections on G-d's abilities.

Neither view that I stated claims that he removed himself.

Well if He didn't remove Himself that means He's still here. We many not all understand this, but I believe this is the truth.

[q_q_]

Either way, this kabbalistic concept of G-d is everywhere , seems to go against RAMBAM`s mishneh torah hilchot yesodei hatorah. Where the RAMBAM makes statements such as that the words like left right up down do not apply to G-d.

Of course, if G-d is everywhere, then G-d has a form that fills it, he occupies space, he is left right up and down.

There is a concept of G-d`s presence being everywhere, or G-d can be found everywhere, and I think kabbalists and non kabbalists might accept that one. It is a step away from saying G-d is everywhere.

[q_q_]

Note- that contradiction between G-d being everywhere, compared with RAMBAM, was pointed out to me by the mesora site, an anti chabad site. I had put to him the arguments of Gutman/Gil Locks. On his book and website he pushes a very literal G-d is everywhere concept. His book has a foreward from the lubavitcher rebbe saying it will bring many jews back to yiddishkeit. Gurman Locks does have a few quotes to support it, from tenach..

I cannot vouch for the translations here

Jer 23:24
"Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."

Deut 4:39
some translate as "... G-d; in the heaven above and upon the earth below there is nothing else" <-- some interpret as g-d is all and all is g-d.
Others translate as "there is no other" at the end of that verse.

And this one, less so..
Milo Chol Haaretz Kevodoh (from kedusha in the amida)
"The whole earth is full of his glory".
A traditional and I think only (according to any school of thought), interpretation of The whole earth is filled with G-d's glory, is the following-

Everywhere we look we see G-d's handywork, it is testimony to his wisdom.
Not that he can take up space.

[judeanoncapta]

I did hear from somebody, who I think is a misnaged because
a)I read on the sichosinenglish site that (from what I understand) misnagdim take tzimtzum more literally, and it seems he did.
b)speaking to some chabad rabbis, they all disagreed with this guy

He made a very clear argument.. Kabbalistic of course.

He said that there are many worlds. And G-d is everywhere, but in this world we do not see him, because G-d constricted himself, (not contracted). So all objects around us are like his garments. And that is why we do not pray to them. To pray to an object would be like addressing somebody's ear or coat instead of him. 
So how can we know how to worship him.. Only from the instructions he gave us. His mitzvot, are his will for us to do on earth.


The chabad guy said G-d did not constrict himself. He constricted his light / his presence.

I have never delved further. I just heard a lecture from the misnaged guy and asked a chabad guy about what I had heard.

 

Yes. That's the basic debate. Whether G-d actually removed Himself from this world or He just removed the REVELATION of Himself i.e. He's here, we just don't see Him.

In my view it's impossible to say that G-d actually removed His presence from this world and still be G-d. Saying this would impose several limitations and imperfections on G-d's abilities.

That's because it is a paradox.

True, How could the infinite being actually not exist somewhere, namely this physical world?

That WOULD put a restriction on him. But so would saying that he does exist within this physical world because that would put Billions or Trillions of limits on him, because now you're saying he exists within every atom, every cell, every stone, every leaf, every stone, every chair, every person.

So either way imposes limits on God's abilities, that's why you're not supposed to be MeChakker past the tzimtzum, you just end up trapped in endless paradoxes.

[Lubab]

I did hear from somebody, who I think is a misnaged because
a)I read on the sichosinenglish site that (from what I understand) misnagdim take tzimtzum more literally, and it seems he did.
b)speaking to some chabad rabbis, they all disagreed with this guy

He made a very clear argument.. Kabbalistic of course.

He said that there are many worlds. And G-d is everywhere, but in this world we do not see him, because G-d constricted himself, (not contracted). So all objects around us are like his garments. And that is why we do not pray to them. To pray to an object would be like addressing somebody's ear or coat instead of him. 
So how can we know how to worship him.. Only from the instructions he gave us. His mitzvot, are his will for us to do on earth.


The chabad guy said G-d did not constrict himself. He constricted his light / his presence.

I have never delved further. I just heard a lecture from the misnaged guy and asked a chabad guy about what I had heard.

 

Yes. That's the basic debate. Whether G-d actually removed Himself from this world or He just removed the REVELATION of Himself i.e. He's here, we just don't see Him.

In my view it's impossible to say that G-d actually removed His presence from this world and still be G-d. Saying this would impose several limitations and imperfections on G-d's abilities.

That's because it is a paradox.

True, How could the infinite being actually not exist somewhere, namely this physical world?

That WOULD put a restriction on him. But so would saying that he does exist within this physical world because that would put Billions or Trillions of limits on him, because now you're saying he exists within every atom, every cell, every stone, every leaf, every stone, every chair, every person.

So either way imposes limits on G-d's abilities, that's why you're not supposed to be MeChakker past the tzimtzum, you just end up trapped in endless paradoxes.

You know. I am perfectly happy to leave it at what you just said above.
I do think there are answers to this paradox given in hasidic philsophy and I've tried to give a few analogies that might open the window of understanding, but I would not try to force it on anyone.

[Lubab]

I just thought I would add something I learned this past Shabbos that is relevant to this thread.

R' Chaim Viloschen (one of the main students of the Vilna Gaon) wrote a book called Nefesh HaChaim.

In that book he says that the tzimtzim (contraction of G-d from the world) is NOT to be taken literally (essentially agreeing with the position of the Alter Rebbe and not that of the Gra).

Although I have never heard any serious Rabbinic authority even argue in our recent history that the tzimtzum is to be taken literally this debate still seems to persist for reasons unbeknownst to me.

 

[shipper!]

why cant both opinions be accepted?

[q_q_]

I have heard it from somebody - not a rabbi - that explained it beautifully, but as literal .
I would bet that he heard it from a rabbi. Whose rabbi was considered by many to be some "authority".

Misnagdim don't talk kabbalah from every website.  So you may not hear the literal reading much.

Whereas Lubavitch, maybe Breslov, and maybe all Chassidic groups, are more open to teaching kabbalah.  And lubavitch are on the web.

The guy that explained it, said that Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's book "inner space" explains it.. 
Perhaps that explains it literally.

The vilna gaon wrote about it literally. If you want authority, that is a huge authority.   Just not your authority.  And even if you are right about this 1 student, people don't dismiss him because of 1 student, o. The VG said what he said..   There are these 2 positions..  And at the time, I think the vilna gaon actually wrote his kabbalistic thing to challenge the chassidic version.  So the VG would have been aware of the non-literal interpretation during his time.  And was most likely responding to it.


The fact is.. The issue was never about tzimtzum. It was about the chabad kabbalistic idea  of G-d clothed in a body(which you say is metaphorical, like the statement in the tenach that we are made in the image of G-d).   Some people - rightly or wrongly - don't want it discussed here, because they say it is heresy(as do most orthodox jews, including most chassidim and many/most in chabad).   There are alot of people who are ignoramouses of judaism, who don't know a chassid from a misnaged, a neturei karta from a satmar..  And they certainly don't know about this chabad controversy, and that you are on the conversial end.   And So it some decided, perhaps rightly - that it would be better not to discuss this rebbe G-d thing here.
That is really the issue.

Nobody need to be rejecting a particular understanding of tzimtzum between the Vilna Gaon, and (authors of) The Tanya.