immanent transcendence: chassidim, mitnagdim and the debate about tzimtzum

7/27/2019 Immanent Transcendence: Chassidim, Mitnagdim and the Debate About Tzimtzum

1/19

8/23/13 Immanent Transcendence - Chassidim, Mitnagdim and the debate about tzimtzum

www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm

A Chassid in Prayer

What began as a

scholarly

disagreement... became

the nucleus ofcontention between the

Chassidim and their

Mitnagdic opponents in

the second half of the

next century.

Printed from chabad.org

Chassidim, Mitnagdim and the debate about tzimtzum

By Eli Rubin | Augus t 21, 2013 2:06 AM

Introduction: Seeds of Conflict

The tzimtzum narrative is one of the central teachings of

Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (Arizal), for whom the Lurianic school of

Kabbalah is named. Tzimtzum, we have already discovered

does not describe an event that unfolded in time and space,

but is rather a statement about the very fabric of reality; about

the nature ofGds relationship with the created realm.

Put simply, the tzimtzum narrative asserts that the divine selfutterly transcends the role of creator. The process through

which Gd chooses to be manifest as creator, projecting our

universe into being, actually represents a concealment of

Gds infinitely transcendent nature. Arizals account seems to

imply that creation is the assertion of an imminent

manifestation of divinity which expresses absolutely nothing of

Gds essential self.

Such abstract theosophical doctrines are anything but simple,

and it is hardly surprising that the precise import of this assertion soon became an issue of debate.

What began as a scholarly disagreement amongst various Mediterranean kabbalists in the late-1600s

became the nucleus of contention in an often explosive

confrontation between the Chassidim and their Mitnagdic

opponents in the second half of the next century.

The more literal reading of the tzimtzum narrative implies that

the divine essence does not only transcend, but is completely

absentfrom the creative process and the created realm. This

face value reading is referred to as tzimtzum ki'pshuto. But the

narrative could also be interpreted to mean that the divine

essence, in all its transcendence, remains fully present, and is

only concealedby the creative process. This non literal

approach is referred to as tzimtzum aino ki'pshuto. For the Chassidim, tzimtzum aino ki'pshuto cast the

Immanent Transcendence
http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2298270/jewish/Creation-Impossible.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/17425/jewish/Eli-Rubin.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2298270/jewish/Creation-Impossible.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/17425/jewish/Eli-Rubin.htm


2/19


www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm 2

Detail: The Capture of Cadiz 1596

Shaar Ha-shamayim,originally written in

Spanish as Puerta del

Cielo... synthesized

Arizals teachings with

neo-platonic rationalism.

very nature and purpose of earthly existence in an entirely new light. But for their detractors, this brave

new vision was dangerously seditious and even heretical.

* * *

A Mediterranean Affair

The first to articulate the non-literal interpretation was Rabbi

Avraham Cohen de Herrera (or Airira, spelled or

in Hebrew). Born in 1570 to a family of Spanish anusim, de

Herrera travelled widely throughout Europe and represented

the business and diplomatic interests of the Moroccan Sultan.

When the Spanish port of Cadiz was captured in 1596 by a

joint force of English and Dutch troops, de Herrera was

detained along with the city's mayor and other hostages

against a ransom of 120,000 ducats. He spent five years in

the Tower of London before the Moroccan Sultan arranged

his release, and according to some accounts, it was from this

point on that de Herrera began to live openly as a Jew.1

It was in another historic port city, Ragusa (today Dubrovnik,

on the Adriatic sea coast of Croatia), that Rabbi Avraham de

Herrera met Rabbi Yisrael Sarug ( or in Hebrew).

Although it is unclear whether or not the latter was a direct disciple of Arizal, he devoted his entire life to

the study of Arizals writings and was largely responsible for the dissemination of his teachings

throughout Europe. The writings of Rabbi Yisrael Sarug and his many students are often considered as

a distinct branch of Lurianic kabbalah, referred to as the Sarugian school ( ), and distinguished

by a philosophical bent.

Shaar Ha-shamayimoriginally written in Spanish as Puerta del Cielois a classic work of Sarugian

kabbalah, in which Rabbi Avraham de Herrera synthesized

Arizals teachings with neo-platonic rationalism.

Accordingly, Rabbi Avraham considered Gd the ultimate non

contingent being whose potency sustains all the contingencies

of created reality. Divine non contingency does not only mean

that Gds being is not dependent on any other being, but also

that it is not bound by any conditions at all. Rabbi Avraham

further reasoned that it is this non contingent quality that leads to the concept oftzimtzumthe


3/19



The unmitigated

completeness of the

divine self entails that itsimultaneously

transcends and

embraces all

conceivable realities.

removedness of the divine self from the narrow role of creatoras a non-contingent Gd necessarily

transcends every category.

By this very line of reasoning, however, Rabbi Avraham also concluded that this removal cannot be an

actual absence, but must rather be a concealment. The very non contingent quality which entails the

transcendence oftzimtzum, he argued, also entails that Gds being must be extended throughout all

categories of being. Just as Gd cannot be defined byany category, so G

d is not restricted from any

category.

Heres the crux of the argument in his own words:

The more complete the cause, the more it will transcend its effects and the more it will

extend itself to them. Therefore, the blessed infinite one will on the one hand be

transcendent without limit, transcending all its effectsi.e. the creations, each of which, and

all of which together, are finiteand on the other hand will extend itself to all of them. For

not only is it their cause... it also passes through all of them, and fills them all, and it is all

that they are... Each one of them, and all of them, are nothing aside from what they receive

from it.2

In short, the unmitigated completeness of the divine self entails that it simultaneously transcends and

embraces all conceivable realities.

The idea that transcendence and immanence are two sides of

the same coin has a long history in kabbalistic literature. TheZohar asserts that the infinite manifestation of divinity extends

upwards without end, and downwards without measure;3

transcends all worlds and fill all worlds.4 But it was Rabbi

Avraham Cohen de Herrera who first married this duality to

Arizals concept oftzimtzum.

* * *

Despite these precedents, and despite the logical coherence of Rabbi Avrahams argument, not

everyone was convinced that the tzimtzum narrative should be understood in such abstract terms.

Foremost amongst the dissenters was Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi ( ), better known by the

title of his most important work, Mishnat Chassidim.

Born in Ferrara, Italy, in 1688, Rabbi Immanuel first became acquainted with kabbalah in that country,

but resolved to travel to Safed, in the Holy Land, to immerse himself in its study. Two years after his

arrival in 1718, an epidemic forced him to return to Europe. After an entanglement with pirates, he briefly


4/19



One who cares for the

honor of Gd... must

think of this tzimtzum in

a literal sense, rather

than reduce Gds honor.

The title page of Yosher Levov

took up a rabbinical post in Florence, before moving to Livorno. There he engaged in commerce and

study, and began to work on several volumes dealing with both talmudic and kabbalistic topics.5

In Yosher LevovRabbi Immanuel turned his attention to

tzimtzum, and asserted his preference for a literal reading of

Arizals narrative. Accordingly, he is of the opinion that Gds

essential self is literally removed from the realm in which thecreated beings exist. One who cares for the honor of Gd,

he argues, must think of this tzimtzum in a literal sense,

rather than reduce Gds honor by thinking that the divine self

is present even in lowly physical things, which are

dishonorable and even despicable.6

This argument is acknowledged by Rabbi Immanuel to be

more emotional, or intuitive, than rational. Initially, he doesattempt to defend some of the philosophical objections to his

position, but ultimately concludes that such hidden things are

not understood by us with our natural philosophical

capacities. I accept this view, he admitted, not based on

philosophical enquiry into the nature of Gds being, but

because it is more reconcilable to my heart that it be taken

literally.7 Rabbi Immanuel is simply unwilling to accept the

idea that the transcendent essentiality of Gds self is immanently present even within the crudest of

physical things.

Rabbi Yosef Irgas ( ) was the Rabbi of Livorno at the time, and no doubt was familiar with Rabbi

Immanuel Ricchis position first hand.8 His work Shomer Emunim was composed as a dialogue in which a

kabbalist helps a talmudist to discern the conceptual depth so often concealed by the metaphoric

obscurities of kabbalistic literature. In a discussion of

tzimtzum,9 the kabbalistnamed Yehoyada, offers a plethora

of philosophical and textual proofs, conclusively demonstrating

that Arizal never intended the tzimtzum narrative to be taken

at all literally. As in so many other instances, he was simply

borrowing the vivid language of the here and now to describe

realities that actually bear no similarities to anything the

human mind can visualize. Not very surprisingly, Yehoyadas talmudic interlocutorShalsiel, is

convinced, and holds this up as an example of the fundamental mistakes that can be made by those

who read the books of the kabbalists at face value, without deep thought and philosophical enquiry.10


5/19



Tomato Rounds

Although Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi failed to address the philosophical objections to his literal reading of

the tzimtzum narrative, he did address some of the textual problems with more conviction. One example,

which would come to the fore in subsequent incarnations of the debate, was the Zoharic statement that

there is no place empty of Gd.11 Being that Rabbi Immanuel opined that the created realm actually is

empty of the divine self, he was forced to interpret this to mean that no place is empty of Gds

providence (hashgacha in Hebrew). Accordingly, the divine essence is literally absent from the createdrealm, but various degrees of divine knowledge and supervision are yet extended throughout all

existence.12

* * *

Between Absence and Concealment

To help draw the conceptual magnitude of this debate closer to our perception, lets imagine the

following (entirely fictitious) scenario:

Leonardo da Vinci, the paradigmatic renaissance polymath, is in the midst of painting his all-time

masterpiece. In one great work he intends to express a vision of all the vast complexity of his inner mind.

The mysterious intersections of science, music, mathematics, art and philosophy will all be laid bare on a

single canvas. In this painting, Leonardo seeks to communicate the very essence of his being, and he is

entirely engrossed in this all-consuming task.

He has been at it since four oclock in the morning, and now it

is nearly five in the afternoon. Not having eaten the entire

day, Leonardo begins to wane. Feeling tired and dizzy, he

suddenly realizes that he is ravenously hungry. Tearing

himself away from his very lifework, Leonardo spreads two

slices of bread with cream cheese, and deftly slices a tomato

into perfect rounds to make himself a sandwich. With a last

flourish of the knife he divides the sandwich into two perfect

halves; he grabs one half in his left hand immediately returns

to his paintingwhich in truth he never left. Even as he

shmeared the bread thickly with cheese, there was nothing in

Leonardos world other than the unfinished portrayal of his

deepest self.

After several more hours of intense activity, the masterpiece is

complete; Leonardo collapses exhausted into bed and falls

asleep. After a while, a child wanders into the studio, and


6/19



Leonardo is entirely

absent from the

sandwich, but all the

vast breadth and

creative depth of his

persona is vested in the

painting.

If the tzimtzum narrative

is taken at face value...

the divine self remains

entirely absent from thecreated realm even as

divine supervision is

exercised therein.

gazes uncomprehendingly at the exhausted old man on the bed, the finished painting on the easel, and

on a stool beside itthe remaining half of Leonardos cream cheese and tomato sandwich.

Both the painting and the sandwich are the work of Leonardo da Vinci, but neither of them convey

anything of Leonardos genius to our child observer. All the

child can surmise is that the old man is either a sandwich

maker who paints, or a painter who makes sandwiches.

As far as the child is concerned, the sandwich and the painting

are equally inadequate expressions of Leonardos

transcendent genius. Yet the difference between these two

objects is momentous. Although they were both made by

Leonardo da Vinci, the sandwich is just a sandwich, while the

painting embodies something of Leonardos very self. Leonardo is entirely absent from the sandwich,

but all the vast breadth and creative depth of his persona is vested in the painting. It is only that thechild is not equipped to see it.

* * *

With this analogy in mind, let us return to the distinction between tzimtzum ki'pshuto, and tzimtzum aino

ki'pshuto.

If the tzimtzum narrative is taken at face value (tzimtzum ki'pshuto,) then the created reality is analogous

to Leonardos sandwich; Gd created the world and very much cares about worldly events and human

actions, but Gds essential self is in no way embodied or invested in such goings on. In the analogy,

Leonardo was very hungry, and he really liked cream cheese; peanut butter and jelly really would not

have gone down well at all. But none of these facts are in any way relevant toor expressions of

Leonardos essential genius. In the analog, the utter

transcendence of the divine self remains entirely absent from

the created realm even as divine supervision is exercised

therein.

If, on the other hand, we interpret the tzimtzum narrative to

mean that the essential assertion of the divine self is actually

concealed withinrather than absent fromthe creative

process (tzimtzum aino ki'pshuto), then created reality is

better compared to Leonardos masterpiece. The painting isnt just something that Leonardo happens to

have made, it is an external embodiment of all his vast genius, even if the observer cant see it. In the

analogue the utter transcendence of the divine self is immanently present within all of created reality in


7/19



The title page of on ear ly edition of Tzava'at Hariviash

an even more intimate sense, even if that presence isnt discernable to the human eye.

* * *

Chassidim and Mitnagdim

Transported across Europe, and inserted into a deeply complex context of social and religious upheaval,

the potent depth of this distinction became the seminal bone of contention in a controversy that tore

entire communities asunder.

In the early 1790s a slim volume, compiled by an unknown

author, was published in Zolkva ( , today called

Zhovkva), a small city in western Ukraine, bearing the title

Tzava'at Ha-rivash.13 All of the teachings included in this text

had already been published in earlier works, but this was the

first such book whose title page bore so authoritative an

appellation; Rivash is an acronym for Rabbi Yisrael Baal

Shemthe founder of the Chassidic movement, who had

passed away in 1760and the appearance ofTzava'at Ha-

rivash helped inspire a new assault against the spiritual heirs

of its namesake. In the ensuing controversy, the debate

regarding the tzimtzum narrative was placed front and

center.

In a letter addressed to Paul I, Emperor of Russia, a certain

Avigdor ben Chaim later testified that it was he who

convinced Rabbi Eliyahu, the famed Vilna Gaon, that the

books of the Chassidim contained so many foolish and

subversive views... and things that depart from the good

way, that according to our law they must be burned in public.14 They brought this to fruition in Vilna, and

commanded the public burning of the books of this cult in front of the synagogue.15 Another letter,

penned by representatives of the Vilna congregation, confirms that the pietist [Rabbi Eliyahu] purged

the [Chassidic] cult from the holy congregation of Vilna so far as he was able, and also burned Tzava'at

Ha-rivash in the presence of a large gathering...16

The Vilna Gaon often figures in anti-Chassidic literature as the movements most authoritative detractor;

but there are few first hand sources in which he himself chronicled his objections. Accusations that the

Chassidim are ignorant, subversive, unruly and immoral are also common; but rarely are more specific

and substantive objections raised. An exception to both these rules is a public letter penned by the


8/19



Holiness is not to be

measured in terms of

personal achievement,

but by degrees of

Gd not only causes the

existence of all created

things but also passes

through all of them, fills

them all, and is all that

they are.

Gaon in 1797 in which he supplemented the usual diatribe with

a theological critique that does indeed drive to the core of the

Baal Shem Tovs teachings.17

In the words of Rabbi Avraham Cohen de Herrera (cited

above), Gd not only causes the existence of all created things

but also passes through all of them, fills them all, and is allthat they are. Taking this notion to its logical conclusion, the Baal Shem Tov taught that even the most

mundane things and actions carry the absolute significance of the divine self. This does not mean that

all realities should be unconditionally embraced; on the contrary, such realities normally concealthe

spark of divinity that lies at their core. But when we engage a given object or situation in the service of

Gd, the external concealment is stripped away and its true nature is drawn to the fore.

Accordingly, Tzava'at Ha-rivash interprets the verse in all your ways know Gd,18 as an instruction to

utilize even the most mundane activities to make divine transcendence immanently manifest.19

A coupleof pages later, this major principle is reiterated: In everything that exists in the world there are holy

sparks, there is nothing empty of the sparks, even wood and stones, and even all the actions that a

person executes...20

This last passage likely formed the basis of the Gaons accusation that the Chassidim proclaim of every

stick and every stone these are your gods, Israel!, a phrase which is borrowed from the biblical

episode of the golden calf,21 effectively equating Chassidism with the worst example of public idolatry.

These evil evildoers, the Gaon proclaimed, have fabricated from their hearts a new law and a newTorah, their students who followed them have drunk it, and the name of heaven has been profaned by

their hand.22

* * *

A Seminal Schism

For the Gaon and his fellow mitnagdim, this wasnt a mere theological quibble, but a frontal attack on the

Chassidic worldview.

The notion that Gd is literally absent from the created realm (tzimtzum ki'pshuto) entails that the

relationship between Gd and man is marked by a hierarchical chasm that can only be bridged by

quantitative degree. From this perspective, Gd is qualitatively

removed from the created realm; but by studying more Torah

and accruing more mitzvot a heightened degree of worthiness

can be achieved. The Chassidic concept of divine immanence

(tzimtzum aino ki'pshuto) completely collapses that hierarchy.


9/19



transparency to

ubiquitous divinity.

Detail: map show ing spread of Chassidism in the

area

From this perspective, Gds transcendent self is immanently

concealed within all of created reality; via the path of Torah

and mitzvot man can reveal the infinite quality of that intimacy

even in the most mundane aspects of life. If used correctly, a single moment can be infused with eternal

value.

From the Chassidic point of view, neither the learned scholar nor the reclusive pietest can claim amonopoly on holiness. Mans purpose, the Baal Shem Tov taught, is not to try and escape the clutches

of earthly endeavor, achieving some more transcendent station. On the contrary, such mundane

occupations as plying a trade, working the land, or eating, are to be transformed into vehicles for the

revelation of divine immanence. Holiness is not to be measured in terms of personal achievement, but by

degrees of transparency to ubiquitous divinity.

This brings us to another important axiom of the Baal Shem Tovs teachings. The hallmarks of holiness

are transparency, selflessness and humility; the measure of unholiness is egotism, self-obsession andarrogance. In the words of the Talmud, of the haughty one Gd says, he and I are unable to dwell

together in the world.23 Selfishness most effectively obscures the immanent presence of the divine self.

These ideas are powerful and empowering, and with the

passing years they gained increasing momentum. The

establishment of Chassidic centers by such figures as Rabbi

Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and Rabbi Aaron of Karlin in the

mid 1760s marked the spread of Chassidism from Poland toWhite-Russia and the borders of Lithuania. Both were

disciples of Rabbi DovBerthe Maggid of Mezritch, who had

become the most prominent exponent of Chassidic teaching

following the Baal Shem Tovs passing, and it was through

them and their contemporaries that Chassidism became

widespread as a popular movement. Other disciples of the

Maggid who hailed from that general region included Rabbi

Avraham of Kalisk, who had previously been a student of the

Vilna Gaon,24 and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi.25

* * *

Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk was a gifted scholar, a man of deep and powerful sentiment, and a charismatic

leader. Upon returning from Mezritch he established a following amongst young men of similar ability and

temperament. These young men were captivated by the radical notion of divine immanence, and they


10/19



To the followers of Rabbi

Avraham of Kalisk, even

the slightest hint ofegotism was anathema,

and they had little

patience for scholars

who took pride in their

abilities and

achievements.

Taking the notion of

divine immanence to its

furthest degree, the Baal

Shem Tov taught that a

spark of divinity evenlies buried within a sinful

act.

strove to cultivate an ever deeper sense of humility and selflessness, combined with joy in the presence

of Gd. Their prayers were marked by deep fervor and rapturous joy, and in their most ecstatic moments

they would turn somersaults in a head-over-heals gesture of utter self-effacement. Their sole intention

was to breathe new life into Jewish practice and learning by

promoting an increased sense of divine omnipresence. Their

sincere dedication, however, was soon overcome by an

excess of zeal.26

To the followers of Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk, even the slightest

hint of egotism was anathema, and they had little patience for

scholars who took pride in their abilities and achievements.

They reserved particular contempt for the rabbinic preachers

who made their living by railing against the sins of the general

Jewish populace, attempting to reduce their audiences to tears

with threats of eternal punishment. In the eyes of these idealistic young scholars, the simple Jewswho

observed what little they knew of the commandments conscientiously and selflesslywere to be praised,

encouraged and empowered. Conversely, the rabbinic leaders who so condescendingly condoned their

censure deserved to be toppled from their self-righteous pedestals.

These were subversive sentiments, and while the Chassidim had no intention of undermining rabbinic

authority, they did want to bring about a collective change of attitude. Such an effort could only succeed

unopposed if it was conducted with due care and finesse. Unfortunately, however, such delicacy seems

to have been the one thing that some of Rabbi Avrahams followers lacked. Carried away by the emotive

power of their convictions, they would sometimes exhibit their uninhibited rapture and self-effacement by

dancing wildly in the streets. Organized opposition to the Chassidic movement began as a direct

response to their open display of contempt for certain rabbinic

leaders.27

* * *

Taking the notion of divine immanence to its furthest degree,

the Baal Shem Tov taught that a spark of divinity even lies

buried within a sinful act. Never did he suggest that sin should

be encouraged or even condoned, but he did affirm that sin

created a unique opportunity to return (teshuvah) and develop a more intimate relationship with Gd.

The very passage in Tzava'at Ha-rivash which the Gaon attacked for proclaiming that a divine spark

resides even in wood and stones continues to assert that even in a sin that man commits there are

sparks... and what are the sparks in a sin? Teshuvah!28


11/19



Jacob Frank

Nothing warrants a sinful act; indeed such an act drags a spark of the divine self into exile.29 But once

committed, a sinful act must be harnessed to inspire a process of regret and return, culminating in an

even deeper degree of subjugation to the divine will then could previously have been attained. Such a

process ofteshuvah reveals the divine spark that is buried even within sin, elevating it and redeeming

them from exile.30 These ideas were drawn directly from the teachings of Arizal,31 but for the Vilna Gaon

even his authority was not enough.32

The rise of Chassidism in Eastern Europe coincided with the

spread of antinomian cults under the leadership of Jacob

Frank, who claimed to be the reincarnation of the false

messiah Shabbetai Tzvi. Like Tzvi, Frank and his followers

justified their open rejection of the Talmud and halacha

along with their engagement in adultery and other profane

activitiesby perverting the Lurianic doctrine that fallen

sparks of divinity reside even in the lowest realms. In 1759

Frank and many of his followers had converted to Christianity.

The Chassidim did not reject the Talmud, nor did they

downplay the central importance of halacha. But their

embrace of such a radical notion of divine immanence led the

Chassidic movement to be misrepresented and

misunderstood as a new incarnation of the Sabbatean heresy.

Nothing could have been further from the truth; the entire purpose of Chassidism was to promote and

perpetuate the service of Gd through Torah study and mitzvah observance. But given the context of

social and religious upheaval, the potent depth of this doctrine, combined with the indelicate

exhibitionism of the Kalisk Chassidim, was enough to raise the ire of the rabbinic leadership in

Lithuania.33

In the spring of 1772, the foremost communities of Lithuaniaincluding Brisk, Shklov and Brodywere

led by Rabbi Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon, in a spate of public denouncements and excommunications

directed at the new Chassidic cult, sometimes referred to as the Karliners. Much of the relevant

documentation was collected and published that same year near the town of Brody.34 Copies were

disseminated far and wide and were quickly snapped up, literally adding fuel to the fires of controversy.

In an anti-Chassidic letter dating from the spring of 1773 it is claimed that the pamphlet, titled Zemir

Aritzim (which means Slasher of Tyrants), was publicly burned by Chassidim in the town of Grodno. 35

* * *

Providence and its Ramifications


12/19



The notion of hashgacha

is invoked in the context

of tzimtzum to justify a

literal understanding of

divine transcendence

that utterly removes thedivine self from the

created realm.

In the wake of these events Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk was taken to task by Rabbi DovBerthe Maggid of

Mezritch, who rebuked him for the undisciplined behavior of his disciples.36 But the utter refusal of the

Vilna Gaon to enter into any kind of dialogue with the Chassidic leadership cannot be put down to

irreverent antics alone; ultimately his deep suspicion had more to do with belief than behavior.

As we have already noted, in taking the tzimtzum narrative to mean that Gds self was literally absent

from the created realm, Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi was forced to interpret various statements implyingdivine omnipresence as referring to the omnipresence ofdivine providence (hashgacha). Accordingly,

the notion ofhashgacha is invoked in the context oftzimtzum

to justify a literal understanding of divine transcendence that

utterly removes the divine self from the created realm. It is

noteworthy that in several instances, quite isolated from his

polemic against the Chassidim, the Vilna Gaon too avoided

interpreting such statements as references to the immanent

presence of G-d.37 In a more direct discussion of the nature of

tzimtzum he interprets it as a statement regarding the utter

infinitude and inconceivability of the divine self. But here too,

the Gaon is careful to describe the line (kav) of divinity that is extended into the created realm as "an

extremely limited superintendence."38 While he did not read the tzimtzum narrative as an event that

literally unfolded in time and space, he clearly did understand it to mean that Gds transcendent self

was literally removed from the limited domain of creation (tzimtzum ki'pshuto).39

The Gaons position as spelled out in the 1779 letter cited above seems unequivocal; the belief that

divine transcendence is immanently present in the most mundaneand even profanerealities of the

physical realm, renders even the most inoffensive and scholarly chassid a complete heretic.

With the passing years it increasingly fell upon Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (who lived first in Vitebsk

and later in Liozneh, and only moved to Liadi in the early 1800s) to lead the Chassidim of White Russia

and Lithuania, and bear the brunt of the Mitnagdic attacks. Rabbi DovBerthe Maggid of Mezritch, had

passed away not long after the controversy started in earnest, and in Rabbi Menachem Mendel of

Vitebsk and Rabbi Avraham of Kalisk had emigrated to the Holy Land in 1777.40

Rabbi Schneur Zalman was one of the youngest of the Maggids disciples, but stood out among them for

his unique ability to channel profound aspects of faith and feeling through the r igid faculties of the

rational mind. It was on this basis that he founded the Chabad school of Chassidic thought and

practice.41 True sentiment, he taught, must be informed by sense and sensibility. Rabbi Schneur Zalman

was also an exceptional Talmudic scholar; the Maggid had charged him to compose a new code of

Jewish law, seamlessly arbitrating between the different authorities, and combining clear rulings with


13/19



Rabbi Schneur Zalman of LiadiLet him explain his

reservations against usregarding this belief...

and I will follow after

him... The two letters will

be sent to all the wise

men of Israel... and by

the majority we shall

rule.

concise explanations.42

From the very beginning Rabbi Schneur Zalman sought to

resolve the controversy through reasoned dialogue. In the

winter of 1772 he had accompanied Rabbi Menachem Mendel

of Vitebsk to Vilna, but the Gaon had steadfastly refused to

see them, going so far as to leave the city until theydeparted.43 In 1787 a second wave of intensified persecution

was directed against Rabbi Schneur Zalman personally, and

again he beseeched his detractors to allow him the

opportunity to defend himself before recognized authorities

who might arbitrate between them without bias. Not

surprisingly his

request was

ignored, and

persecution of

Chassidim

throughout the

region continued

unchecked.44

When the third wave

of anti-Chassidic

agitation began in the early to mid 1790s, Rabbi Schneur Zalman repeated his earlier exhortation that

his followers not respond in kind.45 In a letter dating from 1797, he explicitly referred to the burning of

Tzava'at Ha-rivash and cited the question of divine immanence as the Gaons most fundamental critique

of the Baal Shem Tovs teachings.46 Rabbi Schneur Zalman then proposed a new resolution to the

debate: let him clearly explain all his reservations against us regarding this belief... and he himself will

append to it his signature, and I will follow after him... to respond to all his reservations, likewise written

and signed in my own handwriting, and the two letters will be published together and sent to all the wise

men of Israel who are near and far, so that they may offer their opinion in this matter... and by the

majority we shall rule, and so there will be peace upon Israel, amen.47

* * *

Rabbi Schneur Zalmans proposal never came to fruition, but in the same year his magnum opus,

Tanya, was published. Although this work had already been circulated widely in manuscript copies, one

significant section was omitted from the first published edition, apparently to avoid further confrontation


14/19



Manuscr ipt show ing opening lines of Shaar Ha-

yichud Ve-ha-emunah

It is logically incoherent

to claim that the divine

self is removed from the

created realm, but yet

has knowledge and

jurisdiction over all

created beings.

with the Mitnagdim:

In the second part ofTanya, titled Shaar Ha-yichud Ve-ha-

emunah (lit. The Gate of Unity and Faith), Rabbi Schneur

Zalman directly addressed the Gaons assertion that Gds

self is not present within the world, and nothing more than

divine superintendence (hashgacha) is exercised therein. Thisdiscussion exists in several manuscript editions but first

appeared in print in the authoritative Vilna edition ofTanya,

published in 1900.48

If the two positions maintained by the Gaon are correctly

understood, Rabbi Schneur Zalman argued, they are revealed

to be mutually exclusive; it is logically incoherent to claim that

the divine self is removed from the created realm, but yet hasknowledge and jurisdiction over all created beings.49

In order to articulate his point, Rabbi Schneur Zalman invoked Maimonides, who explained that it would

be wrong to conceive of divine knowledge in the same way we experience human knowledge. The

human experience of knowledge is comprised of three utterly distinct components; 1) the subjective self

that perceives (the knower); 2) the object that is perceived (the known); and 3) what the subject

perceives of the object (the knowledge). But the essential unity of the divine self does not allow for

multiple components of divine knowledge. We must concludetherefore, that all divine knowledge is actually self-knowledge,

He is the Knower, He is the Subject of Knowledge, and He is

the Knowledge itself. All is one.50

If divine knowledge is self-knowledge, reasons Rabbi Schneur

Zalman, divine superintendence of the created realm entails

that the divine self is actually extended throughout that realm.

This conclusion echoes the statement of Rabbi Avraham

Cohen de Herrera (cited above) that Gd is not only the external cause of all created things but also

passes through all of them, fills them all, and is all that they are. In other words, the notion of divine

providence is actually incompatible with the claim that the divine self is literally absent from creation.

The Maimonidean understanding of divine knowledge, explains Rabbi Schneur Zalman, reveals that

those who thought themselves clever and interpreted the Arizals tzimtzum narrative literally did not

speak with understanding. Since they themselves believe that Gd knows all the created beings in this


15/19



Although the issue of

divine immanence was

laid to rest, a separate

distinction regarding the

import of tzimtzum yet

remained outstanding.

All divine knowledge is

actually self-knowledge,He is the Knower, He is

the Subject of

Knowledge, and He is

the Knowledge itself. All

is one.

lower world and exercises providence over them, and he knows all by knowing his self, they too must

admit that the Gds transcendent self is immanently present throughout all existence, for his essence

and being and his knowledge are all one. The literalist claimthat the divine self is removed from the

created realm and that divine superintendence is yet asserted therein is demonstrated to be logically

untenable. The tzimtzum narrative must therefore be

interpreted in terms of concealment rather than absence.

The very principle put forth by Rabbi Immanuel Ricchi, and

later by the Vilna Gaon, to buttress their rejection of the non-

literal interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative, was used by

Rabbi Schneur Zalman to reverse that rejection and uphold

the non-literal interpretation.

The success of Rabbi Schneur Zalmans argument is best demonstrated by an examination of how

Arizals narrative was understood by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin, the Vilna Gaons foremost disciple. In hisfamous work of Jewish thought and ethics, Nefesh Hachaim, Rabbi Chaim wrote explicitly that Tzimtzum

does not mean departure and removal but hiddenness and concealment. Rather than describing the

line (kav) of divinity which is extended into the created realm as an extremely limited stewardship, as

did the Gaon, Rabbi Chaim describes it as a limited revelation... that arrives by way of ordered degree

and many concealments [even] to the very lowest forces. The Arizals intention, he explained, was not

that Gd was literally removed from the created realm, but that Gds unified self, the divine essence

that fills all worlds, is withdrawn (metzumtzam) and concealed from our grasp.51

The interpretation advocated by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin upholds the very position that his master and

predecessor, the Vilna Gaon, had censured the Chassidim as

heretics for asserting. Namely, that the divine self is imminently

present even in the lowest of created realms, and that

tzimtzum implies concealment rather than absence.52 Of

course, Rabbi Chaim did not adopt the Chassidic worldview

and way of life in its entirety, and many differences yet

remained between Chassidim and mitnagdim. But robbed of its

ideological basis, the struggle against the Chassidic

movement lost much of its potency and power.

Although the issue of divine immanence was laid to rest, a separate distinction regarding the import of

tzimtzum yet remained outstanding. Did the tzimtzum conceal the very essence of the divine self ( atzmut

ain sof), or only the manifestation of that essence (ohr ain sof)? If you pay close attention to the words

of Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin (cited above) it appears that he understood tzimtzum as a concealment of


16/19



the divine essence itself. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, however, taught that the essence itself is

categorically beyond concealment.53 Due to its esoteric subtlety, this distinction was never cause for

conflict, but it is by no means insignificant. This is an issue that penetrates to the very core of divine

being, and uncovers the quintessential intimacy that lies at the epicenter of otherness.

With Gds help, the question of how far the concealment oftzimtzum extended, along with its attendant

consequences, will be addressed in a future article.

FOOTNOTES

1. For details of Rabbi Avrahams life and works see Mordechai Margolis, R. Avraham Herrera in Encyclopedia of

Great Men of Israel Vol. 1, (Moss ad Harav Kook 1946), pages 17-18, and Gershom Scholem,Avraham Cohen

Herrera, Author of "The Gate Of Heaven," His Life, Works and Influence, (Mosad Bialik, 1978).

2. Shaar Ha-shamayim, Section 5, end of Chapter 12.

3. Variations of this appear in Tekunai Zohar, Tikun 57 and Zohar Chadash, Yitro 34c, et al .

4. Zohar, Pinchat 225a.

5. See Mordechai Margolis, R. Immanuel Ricchiin Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel Vol. 4, pages 1200-1203.

6. Yosher Levov, Bayit 1, Cheder 1, Chapter 12.

7. Ibid, Chapter 13.

8. For biographical details see Mordechai Margolis, Yosed Irgas in Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel.

9. Shomer Emunim, Vikuach Sheni, 34-46.

10. Ibid, 46.

11. Tekunei Zohar57, 91b.

12. Yosher Levov, Ibid. Chapter 13.

13. The precise date of its first appearance is unknown, see Rabbi J. Immanual Schochet, Introduction to the English

edition ofTzava'at Harivash (Kehot Publication Society 1998).

14. This was not the first time Avigdor had acted in concert with the Vilna Gaon agains t the perceived inequities of the

Chassidim. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, a prominent hasidic leader, had served as the chief rabbi of Pinsk

and its environs s ince 1776. In 1784 the Vilna Gaon appended his s ignature to a letter address ing the community

council of Pinsk exhorting them to take action agains t Rabbi Levi Yitzchak, who strengthens the hands of sinners ...

the cult of suspects, the Chassidim. In the wake of this letter, the directive to take from him the staff of rule... and

utterly expel him was brought to fruition. The next occupant of the Pinsk chief rabbinate was Avigdor ben Chaim.Furthermore, the very letter to the Tzar here cited led directly to the second imprisonment of the chabad Chassidic

leader Rabbi Schnuer Zalman of Liadi.

15. Chassidim UMitnagdim Vol. 1, page 252.

16. Ibid. 182.

17. Ibid. 187-190.

18. Proverbs 3:6.

19. Tzava'at Ha-rivash, #94. Viewable in Hebrew here, and in English here.
http://chabadlibrarybooks.com/pdfpager.aspx?req=15624&st=&pgnum=122http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef19a2306809http://www.chabad.org/16374#v6http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef18a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef17a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef16a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef15a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef14a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef13a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef12a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef11a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef10a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef9a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef8a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef7a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef6a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef5a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef4a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef3a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef2a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef1a2306809


17/19



20. Ibid, #141.

21. Exodus 34:4.

22. Chassidim UMitnagdim Vol. 1, pages 188-9.

23. Tractate Sotah, folio 5b.

24. See Shmuel Yosef Fuenn, Keneset Yisrael (Warsaw 1887), page 59.

25. For more details regarding the spread of Chassidism during the lifetime of the Maggid, see Rabbi JacobImmanuel Schochet, The Great Maggid: The Life and Teachings of Rab bi Dov Ber of Mezritch (Kehot Publication

Society, 1990).

26. See Hatamim, Iss ue 2, pages 48 [142] and 62 [156].

27. Ibid, page 63. See also other sources cited in Chassidim UMitnagdim Vol. 1, pages 29-30.

28. Tzava'at Ha-rivash, #141.

29. See Tanya, Lekkutei Amarim , Chapter 24 and Igeret Hakodesh, Chapter 25.

30. Ib id. Tzava'at Ha-rivash, Ibid.

31. See for instance Rabbi Chaim Vital,Shmoneh Shearim, Shaar Gimmul, Shabbat, regarding keriand yakar.

32. Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken, #52 (New edition, Kehot Publication Society 2012), page 185-6.

33. There is ample evidence of the association of Chassidim with Frankists and Sabbateans in the Mitnagdic

literature. For a detailed account see Eliyahu Stern, The Genius: Eliyahu of Vilna and the Making of Modern

Judaism (Yale University Press , 2013), pages 98-102.

34. See Chassidim UMitnagdim, pages 27-69.

35. See Chassidim UMitnagdim, pages 70-74.

36. Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken #89 (New edition, Kehot Publication Society 2012), 344-5.

37. SeeAderet Eliyahu to Isaiah 6:3.

38. See Supplementary Notes in Biur Ha-gra to Safra De-tzniuta, Sod Ha-tzimtzum page 75 [38a in Hebrew

pagination].

39. In The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rab binic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (The John Hopkins University Press

1997), Chapter One, Allan Nadler tries to downplay the distinction between the Gaons [GRAs] unders tanding of

tzimtzum and that of the Chassidim. According to Nadler nowhere in the GRAs writings or those of his dis ciples is

a strictly literal understanding of tzimtzum or a strictly transcendent cosmology elucidated. (Page 16.) The first part

of this statement would be true if literal meant spatial and temporal, and indeed no chass id ever accused the

Gaon of such a corporeal understanding of the concept. But the second part of this statement is misleading. On

the very next page Nadler quotes extens ively from Biur Ha-gra to Safra De-tzniuta (cited in the previous footnote),but stops s hort of citing the passages where the Gaon states that the line (kav) of divinity extended into the created

realm is but limited superintendence; i.e. hashgacha, knowledge and s tewardship from beyond the created

realm, rather than the immanent presence of the divine self therein. This om iss ion implies that Nadler was not

sufficiently familiar with the earlier incarnations of this dispute (described above), in which it is clear that the notion

of hashgacha is invoked in the context of tzimtzum to justify a literal understanding of divine transcendence that

utterly removes the divine self from the creative process and the created realm. Nadlers argument is even more

difficult to uphold in the light of the Gaons attack on the Chassidic notion of imm anence (cited above and by

Nadler on page 11); surely, if the Gaon himself held a sim ilar view it is unlikely he would have equated the

Chassidic belief with idol worship.

40. See Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken (New edition, Kehot Publication Society 2012), Introduction, page 41.
http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef40a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef39a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef38a2306809http://www.chabad.org/15937#v3http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef37a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef36a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef35a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef34a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef33a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef32a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef31a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef30a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef29a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef28a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef27a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef26a2306809http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fchabadlibrarybooks.com%2F15757&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFDBKFZMgZynp2wCCjhAd9Qd8tjUwhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef25a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef24a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef23a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef22a2306809http://www.chabad.org/9895#v4http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef21a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef20a2306809


18/19



41. See Making Chass idism Access ible: How Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi Successfully Preserved and Perpetuated

the Teachings of The Baal Shem Tov, and sources cited there.

42. See Systematization, Explanation and Arb itration: Rabb i Schneur Zalman of Liadi s Unique Legislative Style and

sources cited there.

43. See Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken #52, page 182: the Gaon twice locked the door before us, and when the

leaders of the city spoke to him , [saying] master, their famed leader has come to debate your scholarly self, and

since you will surely defeat him, with this there will be peace upon Israel, he pushed them off with rejections.

When they began to urge him very much, he turned and departed, traveling away from the city, and remaining there

until the day we departed from the city. For a Mithnagdic source verifying this account see Zemir Aritzim, Ktav 6,published in Chassidim U-Mithnagdim, Vol. 1, page 64. Although he did not s ucceed in meeting the Gaon, Rabbi

Menachem Mendels teachings and style of prayer did attract a small following among the local populace, resulting

in the es tablishment of a Chas sidic minyen in Vilna i tself. See Letter of the Mitnagid R. Dovid of Makuv, published

in Chassidim U-Mithnagdim, Vol. 2, page 236.

44. See Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken (New edition, Kehot Publication Society 2012), Introduction, page 50-52.

45. Ibid. #14, pages 49-50. #54, pages 194-7. Et al.

46. The Gaons letter on the subject had been published just a few months earlier.

47. Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken, #52 (New edition, Kehot Publication Society 2012), page 184-5.

48. See Yehushua Mundshine, Bibliography of Liqqutei Amarim Tanya (Kehot Publication Society 1981), page 15.

49. The relevant discussion appears in Shaar Ha-yichud Ve-ha-emunah, Chapter Seven, pages 165-6 [83a-b in the

Hebrew pagination].

50. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei Ha-torah 2:10.

51. Nefesh Hachaim, Section 3, Chapter 7.

52. See Rabbi Menachem M. schneerson, Igrot Kodesh Vol. 1 (Kehot Publication Society 1987), pages 19-21,

viewable in English translation here. Vol. 3 pages 134-5.

53. Torah Ohr, 14b. See sources cited in previous note.

Related Content:

More Articles On: Kabbalah & Chassidism (1966), R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi (Alter Rebbe) (136), R. Elijah,

the Gaon of Vilna (6), Tzimtzum (115), Kav & Reshimu (3)

BY ELI RUBIN

The content on this page is copy righted by t he author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by

Chabad.org. If y ou enjoy ed this article, we encourage you to distribute it f urther, prov ided that y ou comply with

the copyright policy .
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=7076http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=3332http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=2009http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=100http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword.asp?kid=208http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef53a2306809http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/92968/jewish/An-analysis-of-different-approaches-regarding-tzimtzum-the-process-of-Divine-self-limitation.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef52a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef51a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef50a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef49a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef48a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef47a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef46a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef45a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef44a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef43a2306809http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2087395/jewish/Systematization-Explanation-and-Arbitration-Rabbi-Schneur-Zalman-of-Liadis-Unique-Legislative-Style.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef42a2306809http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/1950603/jewish/Making-Chasidism-Accessible.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/1950603/jewish/Making-Chasidism-Accessible.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/2306809/jewish/Immanent-Transcendence.htm#footnoteRef41a2306809


19/19


Chabad.org is a division of the Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center

In everlasting memory of our founder, Rabbi Yosef Y. Kazen

1993-2013 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center
http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=36226http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=36226http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?AID=782349http://www.chabad.org/global/about/article_cdo/aid/36226/jewish/About-Chabad-Lubavitch.htmhttp://www.chabad.org/

immanent transcendence: chassidim, mitnagdim and the debate about tzimtzum

Documents