Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 04-22-2012, 07:29 PM   #51
Paper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 63
I was proving that according to the Ramak, Kesser, which is not the same Kesser as the Arizal's, can be called Ratzon.
Paper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 09:53 PM   #52
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkizedek View Post
I explained the "plugta" above. Take a look.

As for "tzimtzum harishon" before the Arizal, the whole kuntz of what I was saying before (same post) was that different mekubalim explained different facets of the same things using different language: Like how the term "tzimtzum harishon" is attributed to the Arizal, even though he was just elucidating concepts that had been discussed previously (as R' Chaim Vital points out in his own treatment of the concept, pointing out several mokoros in the Zohar, etc.)
Are you refering to the fact that "tzimtzum b'derech siluk" is attributed to him, or are you referring to the fact that the term "tzimtzum harishon" is attributed to him?

If you're referring to the term "tzimtzum harishon", then I'm not exactly sure what your diyuk is, being that the term "tzimtzum harishon" isn't actually in any of Kisvei HaArizal. In Eitz Chaim (drush igulim v'yoisher onof beis) you'll find words such as "mokoim ponuy" and "cholol reykoni" describing this tzimtzum, but not "tzimtzum harishon". It's Chassidus that calls this "tzimtzum harishoin" - refering to this particular form of tzimtzum (siluk) which is different than all those that follow it (miyut). Re-read Couldntbe's post about the different kinds of tzimtzumim; tzimtzum b'derech siluk and tzimtzum b'derech miyut, as it seems you might be mixing things up.

If you're referring to the fact that "tzimtzum b'derech siluk" is attributed to Arizal (and then you'd go on to say that the previous mikubolim have already discussed this and that the Arizal was just elucidating concepts that were previously discussed), then I'd like to see further support for your statement. Please tell me more about R' Chaim Vitals treatment on the concept where he points out several mekoros from the Zohar.

[So if that's what you're saying, basically, I'm asking you if you can present a source where the early mekubolim have discussed the idea of tzimtzum b'derech siluk (in the most general of all terms - which the Arizal later came and expanded on). As Couldntbe asked already in post #41: "Is the concept of tzimztum bderech siluk discussed before the Arizal? If so where?"]
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 10:23 PM   #53
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper View Post
I was proving that according to the Ramak, Kesser, which is not the same Kesser as the Arizal's, can be called Ratzon.
I'm not sure why we need a proof that according to the Ramak kesser is the idea of rotzoin. He says it straight out. See: Pardes shaar Erchei Hakinuyim - erech "rotzoin", Shiur Koima s'if mem zayin maareches asiya, and Ayin Hab'duloch Tomor alef ch. 6 (as mentioned above in post #18).

As for the topic you addressed, that the Ramak's kesser was the not same as the Arizal's, could you perhaps (in more than one line) demonstrate how you got that idea from the maamer?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-23-2012, 10:37 AM   #54
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Not anywhere in Pardes... but instead, Pelach Harimon shaar 3 perek 1 (from RM"A MiPano) brings in the name of the Ramak (from Sefer Alima), an idea of ein aroich which seems to imply a quantam gap (b'hashkofo rishoino - like the Arizal's way of thinking). The R"R in dibur hamaschil "v'el me t'damyuni" samech hey asks from this Pelach Harimon, that perhaps the Ramak did know of the tzimtzum b'derech siluk! If he did know of the idea of tzimtzum d'derech siluk and he spoke about it in his writings, then what was the Arizal mechadesh?

The R"R goes on at length to show the differences between the Ramak's shita and the Arizal's shita. Mentioned already in this thread by Couldntbe, the Arizal held of a much greater idea of ein aroich (b'riya yesh m'ein), thus having the need for a greater degree of tzimtzum. But the Ramak, even though he held of ein aroich, it it was a lesser form of ein aroich (iloh v'olul - b'merchok mokoim), and therefore even in his shito, he didn't need to come to the idea of siluk lgamri. The idea of tzimtzum b'derech miyut was fine.

There, in the maamar, the R"R explains how siluk was not an idea based in the Ramak's teachings, and indeed one could say that the Ramak didn't know of tzimtzum b'derech siluk. The R"R concludes in this maamer that this Pelach Harimon is not a support for the idea that the Ramak had known of it.

In this maamer though - unlike other places this is brought - the R"R says that the Ramak wasn't aware of the "tzimtzum b'derech siluk" (and not just "tzimtzum"). Again - Couldntbe already addressed this...

See the maamer at length. There are also very helpful shiurim on this maamer from R' Gupin, printed by kehos.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-23-2012, 12:40 PM   #55
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx...&st=&pgnum=330
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-23-2012, 12:58 PM   #56
couldntbe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 154
what is that book?
couldntbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-23-2012, 01:03 PM   #57
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
הרב מלאדי ומפלגת חב"ד ח"ב
Smirnoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-23-2012, 01:26 PM   #58
couldntbe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 154
that I could see. Is it a reliable sefer to quote from?
couldntbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-24-2012, 03:09 PM   #59
Malkizedek
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
Are you refering to the fact that "tzimtzum b'derech siluk" is attributed to him, or are you referring to the fact that the term "tzimtzum harishon" is attributed to him?

If you're referring to the term "tzimtzum harishon", then I'm not exactly sure what your diyuk is, being that the term "tzimtzum harishon" isn't actually in any of Kisvei HaArizal. In Eitz Chaim (drush igulim v'yoisher onof beis) you'll find words such as "mokoim ponuy" and "cholol reykoni" describing this tzimtzum, but not "tzimtzum harishon". It's Chassidus that calls this "tzimtzum harishoin" - refering to this particular form of tzimtzum (siluk) which is different than all those that follow it (miyut). Re-read Couldntbe's post about the different kinds of tzimtzumim; tzimtzum b'derech siluk and tzimtzum b'derech miyut, as it seems you might be mixing things up.
See Otzros Chaim, perek A, which uses the term. The concept of Tzimtzim HaRishon as a qualitative tzimtzum (that is, b'derech siluk) is first expressed as such in Kisvei Arizal. In effect, both terms really refer to the same thing: the qualitative contraction which precedes (rishon) seder hishtalshelus.

But both Otzroz Chaim (right at the beginning), and Eitz Chaim (Heichal A, Shaar A, Anaf Beis and Gimel) quote the Zohar as a proof text throughout the explanation of the Tzimtzum and Makom Panui. IOW, the concepts can be found in the Zohar if you understand how to learn it properly.
Malkizedek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-24-2012, 07:11 PM   #60
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Thank you for your thoroughly researched post!

I'll be"H look up the sources you gave.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-24-2012, 07:15 PM   #61
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by couldntbe View Post
that I could see. Is it a reliable sefer to quote from?
I heard that the R"R said that it's not a reliable sefer. I also heard that there was a write-up about this in one of the Heichal HaBS"Ts (I'm not sure which edition)...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 09-27-2012, 12:26 PM   #62
Smirnoff
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by smirnoff View Post
כאן נעתק ממקצת דברי המערכת דקובץ התמים בהקדמתם לשערי חסידות: ידוע ומפורסם מקדמת דנא כי ביאורים בעניני דא"ח להעמיד על אמיתתם של הענינים רק לכ"ק רבותינו הקדושים וכל זר לא יקרב לזה. להיות כי עניני החסידות ואפילו הביאורים וההסברים שעליהם, יסודתם בהררי קדש בקבלה רבי מפי רבי

בצדק אפוא יתמהו אנ"ש והתמימים שיחיו על דבר חדש שהננו מנהיגים בקובצנו והוא לפרסם בדפוס שאלות וביאורים בעניני דא"ח הכתובים מתלמידי התמימים

ולכן מוצאים אנו להכרח להודיע בזה, כי הענינים והביאורים בדא"ח . . אינם ענינים הנאמרים בהחלט ובאחריות [אלא] . . כתלמידים הלומדים דברי רבם בעיון ובהגיון . . אבל רק בדרך אפשר, ויש לפרש . . הרשות נתונה לכל מעיין היודע פרק בתורת חב"ד לעורר ולהעיר בזה אם לקרב או לרחק
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbi_m View Post
perhaps it's possible to say that this was even checked over by the f"r or the rebbe. That's something that can be verified.
ראה אג"ק לכ"ק אדמו"ר מוהריי"צ נ"ע חט"ו ע' רח-ט, שעריכת קובץ 'התמים' נעשה ע"י כ"ק רבינו עצמו. כו
Smirnoff 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
Some questions on Chochmoh and Kesser noahidelaws Chassidus 10 12-25-2012 10:58 PM
Kesser Echad L'Shneihem Yankel Nosson Discussion on Sichos of 5751-5752 1 12-13-2005 03:34 PM
3 points of Kesser Yankel Nosson Torah 14 07-21-2004 03:28 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.


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