Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

Go Back   Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk > Lubavitch > Chassidus

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 04-03-2012, 04:10 PM   #1
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Iggulim of Arich/A"K are Makif till Below Asiya...

In sefer hamamorim tof reish lamed ches, there's a maamor from the Rebbe Maharash which comes from a hanocho written by the Rebbe Rashab.

There, Rebbe Rashab brings in a parenthesis that is says in Torah Ohr that the iggulim of arich are makif all the way down till below asiya and that it says in Torahs Chaim that the iggulim of a"k are makif till below asiya. The Rebbe Rashab writes that the Torah Ohr is perhaps a typo.

In the ho'oros though, the moitzi l'oir turned everything around. The found sources backing the pshat of the Torah Ohr and they wrote - contrary to what the Rebbe Rashab wrote in the hanoncho - that the typo is really in Torahs Chaim.

In the lastest print of Toras Chaim (87d), they even changed the words "odom kadmon" to "arich anpin" basing it on this. What's interesting to note though, is that there's just as much basis for the pshat in Torahs Chaim as there is in Torah Ohr.

Aside for what it says in Shaar Hakedusha chelek gimmel shaar alef, it also says like the Toras Chaim in Samech Vov pg 501. Ayin beis pg 2 and pg 501, amongst other places.

Do any of the m'aynim have any thoughts on this?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 12:36 PM   #2
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Both the Iggulim of A"K and the Iggulim of Arich are Makif till below Asiya, as that is a primary concept of Iggulim, that the Elyon is Makif the Tachton. However, I have generally seen that when discussing Iggulim reference is to A"K (she'raglav mistayem b'sof asiya vchu), not Arich, and don't know why if the Rebbe Rashab says that the Torah Ohr is perhaps a typo, the motzi l'oir would argue. Didn't look these up though...

Last edited by Tuesday; 04-04-2012 at 01:24 PM. Reason: typo
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 01:12 PM   #3
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
What would have hurt to bring a page number?
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 01:31 PM   #4
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
What would have hurt to bring a page number?
Page for the Rebbe Maharash tof reish lamed ches? p. 478.. see the parenthesis..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 02:31 PM   #5
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
There are many variations of this all throughout Kabboloh and Chassidus...

There's the idea that the igulim of arich go all the way down till malchus d'asiya. This idea's mentioned in Ranat (the page number slips my mind at the moment - but I can look it up if anyone is interested). Then it mentions the same thing at the end of Ayin Beis (as well as the beginning that I already made note of in my last post) - vol 3 pg 1391. This idea's found in the Mikdash Melech on Zohar vol 1 pg. 123a.

Then there's the idea that the igulim of arich go down till the bottom of asiya. That's mentioned in Torah Ohr (lech lecho) 11d, mamorei admur hazoken tof kuf samech hey vol 1 pg. 499, the A"R's hanochois - pg 7 (which by the way, is a hanocho of the Torah Ohr mentioned above), the A"R's ksuvim vol 1 pg 14, Toras Chaim (lech lecho) 87d (- in the first printing), the M"R's bamidbor vol 2 pg 430, the M"R's dvorim vol 2 pg 495, the T"T's Ohr Hatorah - shir hashirim (vol 2) pg 692, amongst other places. In the M"R's bamidbor vol 2 pg 430 he brings this idea in the name of the Eitz Chaim.

Then there's the idea of the igulim of A"K going down till the bottom of asiya. This idea's mentioned in tof reish lamed ches (that I mentioned in my earlier post) pg 478 in the parenthesis (this was changed in the more recent prints as I mentioned already), samech vov pg 501, and later in ayin beis on pg 110 amongst other places. This idea comes from Chaim vital in Shaar Hakedusha vol 3 shaar 1.

My point in my initial post was that all of these ideas are founded, and that each one is just as founded as the next. Hence, my question on the oirech of that maamar...

Tuesday - your point about "raglav mistaymin vchul...", that's talking about yoisher. I've seen the Eitz Chaim used as a support for the idea that the iggulim of A"K go down to the bottom of asiya, but that's clearly a mistake, and that is self evident to anyone who's opened the Eitz Chaim and followed that idea throughtout Chassidus. IOW, the Rebbeim didn't use that concept the way that you're using it.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 04:00 PM   #6
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
The answer to the original question is simple: It is apparant that the Rashab was not writing his own pshat, rather bringing what he heard from someone else.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 04:27 PM   #7
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Why do you just make statements... "I don't like.." "It's clearly a mistake, self evident etc.." "The Rebbeim didn't use that concept the way you are using it.." Do you have something to say or do you just dismiss things because you feel like it without backing them up..

I can do that too.. go and relearn the sugya on A"K, Iggulim/Vyosher of A"K, Inyan Hakav shebo b'bchi ohr pnimi v'chozer umis'agel and so on... and then you will see not to be so dismissive by throwing around your statements..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 05:37 PM   #8
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Torah613: True. Though I did point out here that both ideas are so strongly supported. I don't think that just because the R"R mentioned something that he heard from someone else makes this any different however. What boggles my mind is how one individual can make corrections in sifrei chassidus based on a half baked idea.

Tuesday: Tachlis - the concept that you're quoting, have you actually looked it up in Eitz Chaim and seen the context? I'm not sure why you're getting so hostile and heated up about this. Could you have erred perhaps? I'd love to engage in conversation with you but you sound very angry, to say the least.

Look up the Eitz Chaim you quoted. If you have any further questions I'd be glad to help with some sources from the Rebbeim and provide context.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 07:09 PM   #9
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
Tuesday: Tachlis - the concept that you're quoting, have you actually looked it up in Eitz Chaim and seen the context? I'm not sure why you're getting so hostile and heated up about this. Could you have erred perhaps? I'd love to engage in conversation with you but you sound very angry, to say the least.
1. Etz Chaim that I quoted?? I didn't quote Etz Chaim in this thread.. ?

2. Me angry? Not at all.. I simply find it difficult to have a conversation with you as you ask questions but don't seem to want answers, and seem to think that you already know all of Chassidus (and can therefore dogmatically toss out the things that you can't fit with what you may have learned - while disregarding basics in Chassidus). I.e. you are so caught up in diyukim that you miss the actual concepts.

For the record, in this particular thread I wasn't actually arguing with you, but actually agreeing with your statement that - What boggles my mind is how one individual can make corrections in sifrei chassidus based on a half baked idea.

(The quote that I threw in the parenthesis has been brought in Chassidus in reference to Iggulim - and if you understood the concepts themselves of Igulim/Yosher in A"K and how the kav is choser umisagel, you wouldn't be dismissive).

But whatever you say...
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 08:46 PM   #10
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
Torah613: True. Though I did point out here that both ideas are so strongly supported. I don't think that just because the R"R mentioned something that he heard from someone else makes this any different however. What boggles my mind is how one individual can make corrections in sifrei chassidus based on a half baked idea.
Perhaps. My point, however, is simple - that no one wrote anything "contrary to the Rashab". Any other questions - may or may not be valid. I did not get into that.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 10:00 PM   #11
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
1. Etz Chaim that I quoted?? I didn't quote Etz Chaim in this thread.. ?
You don't know it (as I figured - you didn't actually look it up) but what you quoted is actually from Eitz Chaim. Have a look in shaar 1 onof 2 and onward; shaar 2 onof 2; shaar 3 perek 2. And if you want a humbling experience, also have a look in tof reish nun zayin pg 237 and onward.

Quote:
The quote that I threw in the parenthesis has been brought in Chassidus in reference to Iggulim...
For instance, where?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-04-2012, 10:16 PM   #12
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
The quote, by the way, as it's mentioned in Chassidus, usually reads something along the lines as: "raglei a"k dyoisher mistayem b'sof asyiah". It doesn't say the word "yoisher" in Eitz Chaim. That's how Chassidus opteitches this though...

What's wrong with the fact that I don't like your source? Even though the Rebbeim have brought the idea of the makifim of A"K going all the way down to asiya, I've never seen them use that Eitz Chaim the way that you're using it. I'd be overjoyed if you could enlighten me.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2012, 01:22 PM   #13
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
The quote, by the way, as it's mentioned in Chassidus, usually reads something along the lines as: "raglei a"k dyoisher mistayem b'sof asyiah". It doesn't say the word "yoisher" in Eitz Chaim. That's how Chassidus opteitches this though...
Really... When talking about Yosher dA"K specifically then it is mentioned.. Other times it is used in relation to Iggulim DA"K... As is common with practically every concept in Chassidus... (Just like your rotzon/kesser/chochmah thread... It is not mutually exclusive but used to describe both in Chassidus depending on the context..)

Quote:
What's wrong with the fact that I don't like your source? Even though the Rebbeim have brought the idea of the makifim of A"K going all the way down to asiya, I've never seen them use that Eitz Chaim the way that you're using it. I'd be overjoyed if you could enlighten me.
Nu nu.. you have never seen it.. one day you will come across it in your plethora of sources.. In answer to your original question, why don't you just ask the Moitzi L'Oir.. since none of us here can answer for him..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2012, 01:27 PM   #14
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
You don't know it (as I figured - you didn't actually look it up) but what you quoted is actually from Eitz Chaim. Have a look in shaar 1 onof 2 and onward; shaar 2 onof 2; shaar 3 perek 2. And if you want a humbling experience, also have a look in tof reish nun zayin pg 237 and onward.
Very humbling by the expansive brilliance of the light of the Rebbe Rashab's depth and detail, and further expanding on the very point I am trying to make or direction I am trying to point... albeit unsuccessfully.. B"H at least I am in good company..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-05-2012, 01:59 PM   #15
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
Other times it is used in relation to Iggulim DA"K...
Such as?
Quote:
Nu nu.. you have never seen it..
Have you?
Quote:
Very humbling by the expansive brilliance of the light of the Rebbe Rashab's depth and detail, and further expanding on the very point I am trying to make or direction I am trying to point...
Being what?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-09-2012, 12:43 PM   #16
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/show...6&postcount=13
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-09-2012, 01:48 PM   #17
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
שאלתי מעם העורך אודות ההערה, וענה לי - שבפשטות, מהמשמע כאן, מובן שא' מהם (התו"א או התו"ח) ט"ס הוא, אלא שמפני הטעמים, לא היא ברור איזה מהם. שמהמובא בכ"מ, יותר משמע שהנכון הוא ע"ד האמור בתו"א. וביותר מזה - כציין בההערה שם (ואין הספר תחת ידי כעת לראות בו להוציא מקורו) - מובא במ"א בשם התו"א ש"עיגולי א"א מקיפין עד תחתית העשי'". א"כ קשה לומר שדברי התו"א נפלו בטעות לתוך הדפוס מאחר שהצ"צ (במקומו) מציין אליו. ומפני כ"ז ראה העורך שכן צריך להיות, ותלה שהט"ד הוא בתו"ח. ועוד נראה להעיר, שהתיקון בתו"ח הוא ע"ד המובא במהדורא אחרת - ולא מן הסתם שינה מהדרך. כו
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-09-2012, 03:23 PM   #18
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smirnoff View Post
שאלתי מעם העורך אודות ההערה, וענה לי - שבפשטות, מהמשמע כאן, מובן שא' מהם (התו"א או התו"ח) ט"ס הוא, אלא שמפני הטעמים, לא היא ברור איזה מהם. שמהמובא בכ"מ, יותר משמע שהנכון הוא ע"ד האמור בתו"א. וביותר מזה - כציין בההערה שם (ואין הספר תחת ידי כעת לראות בו להוציא מקורו) - מובא במ"א בשם התו"א ש"עיגולי א"א מקיפין עד תחתית העשי'". א"כ קשה לומר שדברי התו"א נפלו בטעות לתוך הדפוס מאחר שהצ"צ (במקומו) מציין אליו. ומפני כ"ז ראה העורך שכן צריך להיות, ותלה שהט"ד הוא בתו"ח. ועוד נראה להעיר, שהתיקון בתו"ח הוא ע"ד המובא במהדורא אחרת - ולא מן הסתם שינה מהדרך. כו
Much of that is understood just from the ho'oro it'self. In any event, I was addressing the fact that at the very least this could use the words "ulay tzorich l'heyois" instead of writing it to be factual. Perhaps a "tzorich iyun" would also be more suitable.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tohu veTikkun and Iggulim veYosher lamed Chassidus 19 04-30-2012 06:13 PM
Ohr Makif Mesama Einei haChitzonim Yankel Nosson The Rebbe’s Talks & Writings 3 07-20-2004 10:42 AM
till it's too late.... shmush Sensitive Topics 32 08-04-2003 02:53 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001 - 2016 ChabadTalk.com