Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Unread 04-19-2012, 04:22 PM   #1
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
The Rebbe's Ho'oros on Ranat

In the Rebbe's ho'oros on Ranat (on pg. 77) the Rebbe talks about 2 shitos on t'hiru ilo'oh.

The first shito he brings is that t'hiru ilo'oh is pretzimtzum (like in Shaar Hayichud, Imrei Bino, Toras Chaim, Samech Vov, etc... (see there for pg. #s).

The second shito he brings is from Torah Ohr (in the name of Chaim Vital) that t'hiru ilo'oh is in A"K.

The Rebbe writes "tzorich iyun" that several places in Chassidus explain not according to kabolas Chaim Vital.

My question is this: It seems to me that the Rebbe's question is really much greater than a question on t'hiru ilo'oh, but also a question on all pre-tzimtzum discussion. In the hundreds (if not thousands) of pages that Chassidus talks about the pre-tzimtzum, doesn't this all stem from an idea that comes not from Chaim Vital?

I'm not making a statement. Just asking a question. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 08:07 PM   #2
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
http://chabadtalk.com/forum/showthre...3?t=518&page=7
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 08:28 PM   #3
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Are you just linking this thread to another thread that also deals with the same ho'oro, or are you pointing out something specific?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 09:46 PM   #4
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
the continuation a couple of pages later in the thread (pg. 9)... kabbalah from the Maggid...
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 10:32 PM   #5
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
I imagine that you're referring to the scans.

This was mentioned in the other thread in regard to Golomb's ho'oro on the Rebbe's tzorich iyun. When the Rebbe said this he felt that the Rebbe was specifically talking about this ho'oro at that farbrengen. Do you feel that the Rebbe answered his own tzorich iyun?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 11:05 PM   #6
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
The Rebbe said there that the marie m'moimos for the places that we learn from the Eimek Hamelech were all written out in the T"T's maamorim and further expanded on by later Rebbeim. The things that we draw from Eimek Hamelech are really profound!

Out of all the things that we bring from the Eimek Hamelech, aside from the idea of t'hiru ilo'oh being before the tzimtzum there's the idea that all of the oilomois are oimdim b'soich atzmusoi. This idea's brought in Chakira (from the T"T) pg 75a, Ohr Hatorah Nach pg 404, and in Ohr Hatorah Vayikra vol 2 pg 659 in the name of the Eimek Hamelech shaar 15 & 16 - perek 152. Thought I'd share those notes... Really worth checking it up.

That would be the source for the idea that the hishtalshelus with all its details is included within Himself, as explained in many drushim in depth. The Rebbeim termed it in regard to Glif Glifu... and Sheeyair b'atzmoi backoiach (also brought from mikubolim - including RYS), but this is much more direct, and again; very profound.

Last edited by Rabbi_M; 04-22-2012 at 11:53 AM.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 11:52 AM   #7
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by masbir View Post
About Reb Meir Paprush in Zohar Harkia I cited before (p 23-b) . . . he claims that really also RChV held all thoe ideas of RY SARUG, but didnt on purpose dicuss higher than Adam Kadmon.

OTOH, I saw over Shavous, some footnote of someone in the name of Beis Shar(?) (couldnt yet establish who the author is) on a sefer "Chasdei Dovid" (appears in Ashlags edition of the writings of Ari 3rd volume Eitz Chaim p, 209) who claims that RCHV was also against those ideas espoused by RY Sarug, and contradicting wht RCHV held!

I would say that Chasidos takes Reb Meis Paporushs stance that RCHV really held and knew all those ideas but didnt want to espous them publicaly.
Over Shabbos I noticed a couple of things on this topic...

As you suggest in your post, it's clear that from Chassidus' perspective, RCV didn't throw out RYS's ideas. There are some examples of this on the idea of "g'lif glifu b'thiru ilohoh... shier b'atzmoi bakoiach vchu...", for instance. There are places where we quote RCV on this idea (even though these words are not from him, but instead, from RYS in the beginning of Shever Yosef); although.. we'll only do that when discussing those ideas in A"K. So in essence, the way Chassidus looks at it, the core idea of the Sarugian concept isn't separate from the Vitalian school of thought, and only the application of the idea is separate.

See in the M"R's volume on Bereshis pg. 15 and in Toras Chaim Beshalach pg 177 (in the new print) where we quote RCV on the idea of "g'lif glifu b'thiru ilohoh... shier b'atzmoi bakoiach"... Interestingly, in the back of the Toras Chaim - in the maftayach on Kisvei Ari - the editor put a citation for where this idea can be found in Eitz Chaim (Shaar Drushei Igulim V'yoisher - shaar aleph onof beis), the part that talks about Iggulim. Of course this isn't a citation on the quote, but instead on the toichen, as we know from Torah Ohr (the one the Rebbe cited at the end of his ho'oro in heycholtzu ranat), that RCV held that t'hiru ilo'oh was refering to A"K (as cited in the ho'oro as well). In the maamor on Bereishis the M"R says pretty clearly that he's referring to A"K. In the Toras Chaim though, he calls it "malchus d'ein sof" - perhaps alluding to "malchus d'ein sof sh'le'achar hatzimtum" and in other words, (also) a"k. That's apparent from the hemshech of his explanation there (which he brings according to RCV), that he's talking about a more external level, because in the atzmius mamash, one couldn't say that there is a "shiur".

Chassidus will at times cite something from Eitz Chaim with the words """ even though the words that are being quoted aren't directly found in Eitz Chaim. For instance, we've seen this also with other ideas such as the idea that the word was created because of - which is commonly quoted from Shaar HaKlolim (even though it doesn't actually say that there). The Rebbeim explained this though, that when we're quoting Eitz Chaim, we're not actually quoting the wording, and they even proposed a few reasons why we quote the Eitz Chaim. The R"M explained this in lamed tes [off hand, I don't remember where exactly, but I can look this up], and the Rebbe explained this in L"S vol. 24 pg 334.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 12:51 PM   #8
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Another thing I noticed in all of this, is that the editor who worked on the M"R's volume on Bereishis, brings in the ho'oro on pg 538 that the idea of "shiyer b'atzmoi bakoiach" is said b'sheim Eitz Chaim. Looking at the context here in this maamer, the application of the idea seems to be purely Surugian (pretzimtzum) and not Vitalian (a"k).

I don't understand the reason for mentioning the Eitz Chaim in this context...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 04:46 PM   #9
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
See in the M"R's volume on Bereshis pg. 15 and in Toras Chaim Beshalach pg 177 (in the new print) where we quote RCV on the idea of "g'lif glifu b'thiru ilohoh... shier b'atzmoi bakoiach"... Interestingly, in the back of the Toras Chaim - in the maftayach on Kisvei Ari - the editor put a citation for where this idea can be found in Eitz Chaim (Shaar Drushei Igulim V'yoisher - shaar aleph onof beis), the part that talks about Iggulim. Of course this isn't a citation on the quote, but instead on the toichen, as we know from Torah Ohr (the one the Rebbe cited at the end of his ho'oro in heycholtzu ranat), that RCV held that t'hiru ilo'oh was refering to A"K (as cited in the ho'oro as well). In the maamor on Bereishis the M"R says pretty clearly that he's referring to A"K. In the Toras Chaim though, he calls it "malchus d'ein sof" - perhaps alluding to "malchus d'ein sof sh'le'achar hatzimtum" and in other words, (also) a"k. That's apparent from the hemshech of his explanation there (which he brings according to RCV), that he's talking about a more external level, because in the atzmius mamash, one couldn't say that there is a "shiur".

Chassidus will at times cite something from Eitz Chaim with the words """ even though the words that are being quoted aren't directly found in Eitz Chaim. For instance, we've seen this also with other ideas such as the idea that the word was created because of - which is commonly quoted from Shaar HaKlolim (even though it doesn't actually say that there). The Rebbeim explained this though, that when we're quoting Eitz Chaim, we're not actually quoting the wording, and they even proposed a few reasons why we quote the Eitz Chaim. The R"M explained this in lamed tes [off hand, I don't remember where exactly, but I can look this up], and the Rebbe explained this in L"S vol. 24 pg 334.
A very clear support for what I'm saying would be in SH"M tof shin tes pg 38-39 (in the second series of page #s), in the Rebbe's ho'oro. There, where the F"R quotes the Eitz Chaim to say "d'oir ein sof boruch hu shiyer b'atzmoi bakoiach kol mah sh'osid l'hiyois b'poiel... v'haynu d'kol ho'oilomois v'hanivroim hoyu klulim t'chilo b'machsovo hak'dumo" - (a"k), the Rebbe sources this to d'rush igulim v'yoisher, saying that "ulay" this is talking about the "toichen" and not the "loshoin".

Look at the bottom of the page: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....&st=&pgnum=126
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
Tanya, ch. 4 vs. Ranat: Torah -- essence or gilui? FlyingAxe Chassidus 18 07-22-2011 07:28 AM
The Rebbe's Food Yankel Nosson The World of Lubavitch 4 09-09-2006 11:31 PM
The Rebbe's Nigunim Chabad Friend The World of Lubavitch 6 04-05-2006 10:54 PM
Questions on Ranat Rabbi_D Chassidus 5 04-09-2003 10:41 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.


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