[Avodah] on tzimtzum

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:21:39PM -0800, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: http://orot.com/book-review-nefesh-hatzimtzum-by-avinoam-fraenkel/

I find myself in basic agreement with RBN on this.

As we discussed in the past, REED tried a different resolution of the
machloqes about tzimtzum, a different single agreed-upon position that
differing presentations either kept them from noticing or and/changed
the implications on day-to-day life.

(To REED, this is of a piece with his belief that the 20th cent Jew
should be pursuing an exlective mix of Torah positions, using whatever
works for him. REED had a vested interest in putting this chiluq, and
the resulting infighting, to rest.)

Word eventually reached the LR, who wrote
http://chabadlibrary.org/books/default.aspx?furl=/admur/ig/1/11
or in translation (R' Eli Tauger)
http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/letters/default_cdo/aid/92968

Not that my opinion matters much in comparison to their knowledge of
the subject, but my own take is similar to the LR's:

The Besht believed that tzimtzum was the figurative constriction of the
Essence of G-d.

The Lub Rebbe speaks of Ein Sof vs Or Ein Sof, but the Gra doesn't
actually discuss "Or", he discusses the Glory and Will. This is why
I said my understanding is "*similar* to the LR's"; I think the LR,
by casting the Gra's position into the Tanya's framework, isn't quite
describing the Gra as he seems to me from his 10 Kelalim. A wording that
chose ease of comparison over precision.

Now on to my own idyncratic understanding of RCV, the NhC decribes
two steps: the literal tzimtzum of Kevod Hashem (3:5 et al) led to
the illusion of the constriction of His Essence (3:2-3). A synthesis
position that is thus both and neither. And corresponding to each kind
of tzimtzum he has a different kind of lishmah (4:3), as the tafqid
becomes bridging both.

But regardless of the details, none of the actual baalei pelugta thought
that they were in basic agreement, nor anyone REED approached to sign
his peace treaty.

Nefesh haTzimtzum basing itself on an understanding of tzimtzum that
is at odds with how everyone from the Leshem to the LR understood NhC
implies to me a negligable likelihood that it's on target.

My second problem with the work is that I feel it loses sight of the
work's basically Litvisher nature. It's not a book of theology, it's a
text about our job in this world. Which is why I think that sha'ar 3's
discussion of tzimtzum is really about the difference between how to
approach mitzvos maasios (sha'ar 1) and tefillah (sha'ar 2) and talmud
Torah (sha'ar 4).

But again, walking back my own opinion of the details, notice that three
of the she'arim as well as the chapters focus on what people do. The
book can only be focused on tzimtzum in terms of what that implies about
how we are to bridge that gap. It simply doesn't match the textual real
estate to see the book as being about sefiros, tzimtzum, the Aibishter.

That said, I skimmed NhZ (SOY sefarim sale, last night) and it's
beautiful, providing background and context without which much of NhC
is a closed book. I would just be quite critical in what of R Avinoam
Fraenkel's own constructions I accept as RCV's original intent.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha at aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l