Picture of the author
Picture of the author
War bannerWar banner

The Alter Rebbe's Revolution in Tzimtzum -- Part 5

The Analogy for the Non-Literal Tzimtzum: How the Mind Stores Away Information

48 min

Class Summary:

The Analogy for the Non-Literal Tzimtzum: How the Mind Stores Away Information

Please leave your comment below!

  • L

    Lazer -11 years ago

    Clarification on צמצום שלא כפשוטו
    Thank you once again for a great in depth and well explained class. Very refreshing to listen to and process the learning!

     

    A few questions:

     

    1. If, as explained the idea of צמצום is, extracting the אור (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) that came after the רצון entirely from its “space”, which is the “space” that came as well from that same רצון. And the purpose for totally evacuating the אור from that space is to allow the context of the תלמיד to come into conscious existence, and then that original אור that has been taken away can now return to that "space", but as it returns to that space it is now within a new תלמיד context. Then, why wouldn’t the אור that now returns "push away" that new context that filled the empty “space” upon the אור (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) return, bringing the space back to the way it was before the light was totally evacuated? I’m guessing that the explained would perhaps have to do with getting a thorough and exact understating of how the “Kav” works.

     

    2. Is the difference of opinion between the אלטער רבי and the גר"א only on the level of G-dlniss אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע that comes after or from the רצון? In other words, does the גר"א agree with the אלטער רבי when talking about the higher level(s) of אור above the רצון, as well as the idea of the concept of המאור הוא בהתגלות

     

    3. If צמצום שלא כפשוטו means that this level of G-dliness (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) is still in that “space” just not in a way of גילו, what benefit would there be to the “space” that had the צמצום with having a level of G-dlines within it, that’s in a state of non revelation? I’m guessing it must be accomplishing something by being in that space. Perhaps its accomplishing whatever it is, in a hidden way, subconsciously and in a non direct way, as would be the case perhaps with the teacher level of intellect that still remains and is subconsciously working within the teachers mind even while not consciously thinking about it, as explained in the משל. If this is true, what would that benefit be to the “space” by having this light (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) within it?

     

    (I still need to re-listen class 4 of this maamar to be able to articulate the questions I had on that class when listening the first time, I’m trying to keep up.)

     

    Thank you for your time!

    Reply to this comment.Flag this comment.

    • A

      Anonymous -11 years ago

      Re: Clarification on צמצום שלא כפשוטו
      Your questions are repeated first and my answers follow in sequence.

      1. If, as explained the idea of צמצום is, extracting the אור (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) that came after the רצון entirely from its “space”, which is the “space” that came as well from that same רצון. And the purpose for totally evacuating the אורfrom that space is to allow the context of the תלמיד to come into conscious existence,

      Note: Talmid in the Nimshal means the idea of worlds.

      Worlds has many ideas and interpretations, but one of the most basic ideas of ‘worlds’ is that it is the meeting of Ohr and Keli (on one level or another). For this to be possible, Ohr and Keli must exist first as two separate entities.

      Before the Tzimtzum Ohr and Keli were one (Keli operated as the ‘Koach HaGiluy within the Ohr, and even allowed for giluy ‘minei ubei’ but no more), and they separated during the Tzimtzum Harishon.

      In fact the primary reason why the Tzimtzum Harishon needs to be Siluk and not miut is to allow for this separation (Ayin Beis chapter 18).

      The biggest change is the emergence of the Koach Ha’Gvul (the Reshimu) after the Tzimtzum. This is the source of Keilim. It was one with the Ohr before the Tzimtzum and now it has been separated and revealed in ‘Makom HaChalal first.

      When the Ohr returns two things are different: 1) The Ohr must go into the keli; 2) the Ohr has been changed from (the Tziyur of an) Iggul to be a Kav.

      Then the Ohr and Keli reunite as a world, which means where the Ohr does not Bittul the Keli altogether and they exist as two that have become one.

      and then that original אור that has been taken away can now return to that "space", but as it returns to that space it is now within a new תלמידcontext. Then, why wouldn’t the אור that now returns "push away" that new context that filled the empty “space” upon the אור (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) return, bringing the space back to the way it was before the light was totally evacuated? I’m guessing that the explained would perhaps have to do with getting a thorough and exact understating of how the “Kav” works.

      Answer: There are two answers that were both include in the note above:

      1) The Reshimu is now strong and does not allow for the Ohr to Bittul it and 2) the Ohr after the Tzimtzum is changed (as it was Bo’kea the darkness of the Tzimtzum (See Samach Vov (new) page 344 ff., Ayin beis vol. 1, page 553 ff.) to a Kav that does not return the Metzius to the pre-Tzimtzum state (where Iggul predominated).



       2. Is the difference of opinion between the אלטער רבי and the גר"א only on the level of Godliness אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע that comes after or from the רצון? In other words, does the גר"א agree with the אלטער רבי when talking about the higher level(s) of אור above the רצון, as well as the idea of the concept of המאור הוא בהתגלות



       Answer: The Alter and the Gr”A couldn’t disagree more. See the Rebbe’s letter on the subject (Igros Kodesh vol. 1 page 19 ff.

      The Alter Rebbe holds that in Ma’or there is no Tzimtzum at all (Adraba it is more revealed now than ever (Torah Ohr VaYera)) and the Gr”A holds that Ma’or is also Tzimtzum Kipshuto.

      Accordingly he must hold Tzimtzum Kipshuto on all levels of ein Sof Lifnei HaTzimtzum (because his reasoning is that ‘Aino yachol Lihyos B’Makom Ha’Ashpa’).

      To the Alter Rebbe:

      1) HaMaor Hu BiHisgalus,

      2) Etzem Ohr Ein Sof- lo Naga Bo HaTzimtzum,

      3) Makor HaSovev- Naga Bo HaTzimtzum,

      4) Makor Mimalei- Tzimtzum.

      3. If צמצום שלא כפשוטו means that this level of G-dliness (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) is still in that “space” just not in a way ofגילו, what benefit would there be to the “space” that had the צמצום with having a level of Godliness within it, that’s in a state of non revelation?

      I’m guessing it must be accomplishing something by being in that space. Perhaps it’s accomplishing whatever it is, in a hidden way, subconsciously and in a non direct way, as would be the case perhaps with the teacher level of intellect that still remains and is subconsciously working within the teachers mind even while not consciously thinking about it, as explained in the משל.

      If this is true, what would that benefit be to the “space” by having this light (אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע) within it?



      Answer: It is a state of partial revelation, like a Kav as opposed to an Iggul (as it was before the Tzimtzum).

      The Iggul is ‘Naga Bo HaTzimtzum’ meaning that it is hidden (as opposed to revealed) in the Makom HaChalal.

       

      Reply to this comment.Flag this comment.

      • L

        Lazer -11 years ago

        Re: Clarification on צמצום שלא כפשוטו
        Thank you very much for your explanations and the mareh mikomos. I truly appreciate you taking to time to read my questions and answer them!

         

        I don’t understand your explanation to the third question.

         

        As I understand it, we are talking about how the צמצוםeffected the אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע and we are saying that this אור is still here it just can’t be experienced and felt due to the צמצום. We aren’t talking about the Kav yet? In other words, it would seem that even after the אור of kav is comes into the מקום החלל, there is still the אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע present within the מקום החלל just it cant be felt or experienced. They are two different אורות within the מקום החלל operating within in different forms after the צמצום. Is that correct? If yes, then the words kav and Iggul should not apply to the אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע at all? Iggul would describe the effect the צמצום had in the אוא"ס מקור לסוכ"ע and Kav would describe the אור after it returns, but both wouldn’t describe the אור which is אוא"ס מקור לממכ"ע?

        Reply to this comment.Flag this comment.

        • A

          Anonymous -11 years ago

          Re: Clarification on צמצום שלא כפשוטו
          Your question is quite fine, I am answering you without fully researching this, and I really am not qualified to answer such an Aideler question. This is how I understand it, but this for real mvinim to explore and resolve.

          Two thoughts on the subject:

          First of all, you understand it correctly, however you must bear in mind that there are two perspectives and therefore there are different uses for the same words.

          Perspective one: ours.

          In our perspective, the M’kor of Mimalei has the two ideas you outlined: the Kav is the product of the Tzimtzum in our perspective (that the Tzimtzum and the creation is real),

          The M’kor of Sovev is Noga Bo HaTzimtzum to us, that means it is connected to our ability to perceive in a way of Helem (hidden) that can be revealed through Avoda (even in Giluyim). In other words, Helem is the beginning of giluy and it can ultimately be revealed.

          Only the Etzem of ein sof is ‘Helem Bi’Etzem’ and cannot be revealed (b’derech Giluyim at all).

          Accordingly, we would call the Kav Tzimtzum (mamosh), the M’kor of Sovev Noga Bo HaTzimtzum, and the Etzem of ein Sof ‘lo Noga bo HaTzimtzum klal.

          Perspective two: that the Tzimtzum is Shelo Kipshuto (it never really happened).

          From this point of view there is very little obvious difference between the M’kor of Mimalei#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title= and the M’kor of Sovev#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=.

          Atzmus of Ein Sof is very different even form this perspective#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=.

          From this perspective there simply is no Kav, and

          Accordingly the term ‘Iggul” applies equally to both the M’kor od Mimalei as well as the M’kor of Sovev.

          Atzmus of Ein Sof is higher than Iggul.

          My second thought: how these terms are used may be part of an argument in kabbalah where certain Ma’amarim and others did.

          How the term Iggul is used may create problems when you compare one Ma‘amar to another because they may use (and mean) the word Iggul in quite different ways.

          And as I started, this needs more analysis than I can give it, so if you find contradictions to what I wrote show them to me.









          #_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title= The ten hidden S’firos (HaGnuzos).


          #_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title= S’firos Ein Ketz. Understand that until the Tzimtzum actually occurs (and in the heavenly perspective even when it does) there is no evident difference between these two levels of Ohr ein Sof.


          #_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title= Even though everything is really ‘kalul BiAtzmuso’.



          Reply to this comment.Flag this comment.

Yossi Paltiel

  • May 22, 2013
  • |
  • 13 Sivan 5773
  • |
  • 740 views

Dedicated by THE CHANIN FUND
In the loving memory of the grandmother of
"THE CHANIN FUND" Chaya Leah Bas R' Shmuel Chanin HY”D

Classes in this Series

Please help us continue our work
Sign up to receive latest content by Rabbi YY

Join our WhatsApp Community

Join our WhatsApp Community

Ways to get content by Rabbi YY Jacobson
Connect now
Picture of the authorPicture of the author