Jewish Forum & Discussions - Chabad Talk  

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

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Unread 04-19-2012, 01:46 PM   #26
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkizedek View Post
Have fun.
Another hit and run?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 02:05 PM   #27
Malkizedek
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
I don't think I hit anybody. You asked a question. Two people have now provided an answer. You don't like the answer, but don't propose an answer of your own. If you are determined to define Plugta as something other than what two posters have now called its plain definition, then that is your right. Have fun.
Malkizedek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 02:18 PM   #28
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkizedek View Post
If you are determined to define Plugta as something other than what two posters have now called its plain definition, then that is your right. Have fun.
The M"R called it a "plugta", you say that it is not. How is it that you even feel that what you're suggesting has any shaychus to it's plain definition (pshat)? Why does it make a difference how many posters suggest otherwise? The plain definition of "plugta" means "a divide" or "machkoikes". Am I reading incorrectly? If you can't explain how your pshat makes sense with all parts of the maamar (even the parts that I'm "hung-up on"), then there's no reason why I'd dogmatically accept what you're saying as "it's simple meaning". I think that's pretty basic.

You won't find me being machriya on this subject with an "answer", as I don't have the authority to do that on my own (see posts from Smirnoff, myself, and Kookoo Kabalist above). I was asking for something from the mekubolim/rebbeim. Yes, I have my own "pshat" (in the inyonim in general) - exactly like yours (which is b'derech efshar at best, and doesn't even begin to answer the surrounding questions. At worst, svorois in a maamar that disregard basic teich, meaning - erroneous and not "efshar"). I prefer to teich a maamar properly than coming with my own interpretation. Nothing about my bringing to attention a "plugta" brought in the M"R's maamer bears any resemblance to a diyuk! The M"R gives this attention in the maamer, and he speaks about this in very direct terms.

To put it frankly: is this limud about sticking to the words of the Rebbeim to understanding their meanings, or is it about learning the "bein hashurois" explanations (and even dodging a word or phrase every so often, whenever it's convenient)?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 04:02 PM   #29
Malkizedek
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
I can't force you to agree with me, obviously. And I didn't come here to argue with you. Your definition of the word plugta, in this context, is incorrect. You're welcome to your own interpretation, correct or otherwise. Like I said above, Have fun.
Malkizedek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 04:46 PM   #30
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
What then would - you suggest - be the correct definition of the word plugta?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 05:13 PM   #31
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkizedek View Post
tzimtzum harishon - just that the term, and therefore the elucidation of the concept - began with the Arizal.
Off topic, but I think the term and concept actually preceded the Arizal and is first mentioned in Meseches Atzilus, but was elucidated by the Arizal and subsequent Arizal Kabbalah.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....5&st=&pgnum=12
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 05:27 PM   #32
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Malkizedek, signing off each post with "have fun" seems like a cop-out to me. It tells me that you're not interested in sticking around to substantiate your way of thinking before telling me that I'm wrong in mine. My ego won't be bruised if you "explain" to me "how" I'm wrong. Honestly, even though many of my posts speak along the lines where Chasidus and Kaboloh border, I don't consider myself a master in either. If you feel that you have something to share, you're welcome to please share; and I would appreciate that. But if you're just about writing "you're wrong", then I'm not sure why you came here to this thread.

And Tuesday, stomping on a question also isn't a way. Ultimately, the purpose here is to learn.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 06:04 PM   #33
Paper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 63
It's also annoying and distracting.
Paper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 06:05 PM   #34
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
I also don't disagree with Tuesday (and I don't maintain that rotzoin isn't in kesser according to the Arizal).
Quote:
The reason I didn't accept what Tuesday wrote was because he attempted to be machriya this on his own, and further, to force his pshat on me.
So you don't disagree, but you also don't agree (because I forced you into something???)? Ok then...

And I wasn't machriya anything on my own.. it is just obvious and yodua that yes there are plugta in terminology, the inevitable outcome of the Arizal's specificity vs. the Ramak's generality.

To simplify, technically speaking:

Ramak: keser = rotzon = General
Arizal: keser >= rotzon = More specific

But as you said "you didn't post for me..." and you are the one who simply answered "your wrong" (and "your right" at the same time?!?!) so who is stomping on what.. from what you quoted from smirnoff and kookoo, all of your learning is b'derech efshar anyways (huh?!) (for a question on a hanocho I may add fwiw), so what difference does it make, no matter how you understand it it's only a "theoretical" postulation for you (?!)... (similar to the confusion you created in the other thread between kesser malchus and keser shem tov by getting stuck on a non-existent diyuk and missing the forest for the tree)..

I personally disagree with this whole shitta of learning.. that's my opinion..
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 07:15 PM   #35
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
So you don't disagree, but you also don't agree (because I forced you into something???)? Ok then...
I agree with the general way the concepts are being addressed, but I disagree with your use of these concepts in this maamer; meaning, to dissolve the words of the M"R.

Quote:
And I wasn't machriya anything on my own.. it is just obvious and yodua that yes there are plugta in terminology, the inevitable outcome of the Arizal's specificity vs. the Ramak's generality.
While you say that you weren't machriya on your own, passing off your explanation as "obvious and yodua", just doesn't do it for substantiation. It's true that the Ramak and the Arizal, in many cases were talking about generality vs. specificity. But from where do you have the authority, that in this context, you can say that on your own? What I'm uneasy about most, is all the while I say this, not only do you feel that this is a pshat (meaning, that you learn that way), but you also feel that this is the correct way for me to learn. Personally I disagree with the "obvious and yodua" approach when we are talking topics that are much greater than our small minds. If you feel that something is yodua though, I don't feel that asking you where you got if from is too large of a request.

Quote:
But as you said "you didn't post for me..." and you are the one who simply answered "your wrong" (and "your right" at the same time?!?!) so who is stomping on what..
I didn't say you're wrong or right. I said that I agree with you on some points and that in others I don't. I certainly don't understand why you'd feel stomped by anything I said. But again, see above in my first comment.

Quote:
from what you quoted from smirnoff and kookoo, all of your learning is b'derech efshar anyways (huh?!)
From what I quoted, everyone's learning is b'derech efshar. Some know it, others don't. It's bittul that everyone must have when learning Chassidus. See the posts from Smirnoff and Kookoo Kabalist.

Quote:
(for a question on a hanocho I may add fwiw)
A question in a hanocho is a question no less.

Quote:
so what difference does it make, no matter how you understand it it's only a "theoretical" postulation for you (?!)...
There's a large difference between learning b'derech efshar and a "theoretical postulation". As chassidim, we have to realize our place. We're not mekubolim and we're not Rebbeim, and learning in a "hechlet" kind of way is just not in our playing field. In the same respect, many thousands of ho'oros were printed from chassidim of our generation (at the Rebbe's request), and there's certainly a point to it. I also need not mention that even people like R' Hillel Paritcher and R' Izik Homler, even thought they penned down many many pages of Chassidus, we, as Chassidim, know (as we were told by the Rebbe), that it's not nearly the same chassidus from the Rebbeim. In that respect, the Chassidus of R' Hillel Paritcher and R' Izik Homler are even shunned (to some degree).

There's nothing wrong with suggesting pshat that's b'derech efshar. Again, I'm going to refer you back to the posts from Smirnoff and KooKoo Kabalist.

Quote:
(similar to the confusion you created in the other thread between kesser malchus and keser shem tov by getting stuck on a non-existent diyuk and missing the forest for the tree)
The other thread deals with the Ramak and the Koheles Yakov al asar (meaning - on the piece that the R"R himself quoted). That's the basis for the explanation I brought. Certainly nothing about a non-existent diyuk.

The threads were also written on erev Pesach, and as I admittedly mentioned there, the ideas were written in very terse roshei prokim - not explaining the fine details getting through each point. If you feel that I may have erred, you're welcome to point out my error and I'd give you a yasher koiach.

Instead of attacking (and again; stomping), you might start by asking me what I meant. I did mention that if anyone has any questions, I'd be glad to address them. But your way of stomping on my threads (as you do again and again), doesn't show me that you have any comprehension (or appreciation) in the ideas being discussed. By gauging how passionately you're going against my threads, I'd presume that you'd have some kind of sound explanation (based within kabboloh or Chassidus) as to why you're so against. Why haven't you offered it?

You're welcome to respond to that thread (or any other thread), and I will respond in return. It's a public discussion. Your stomping around is not appreciated though.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 08:49 PM   #36
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
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
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.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 09:52 PM   #37
Torah613
ChabadTalk.com Elder!
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 11,716
To stick my nose into issues that I have no idea about - in Nigla the word "plugta" does not always mean "argument". It can mean "difference".

Last edited by Torah613; 04-22-2012 at 08:14 AM.
Torah613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 10:07 PM   #38
Malkizedek
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torah613 View Post
To stick my nose into issues that I have no idea about - in Nigla the word "plugta" does not always mean "argument".I t can mean "difference".
This is why I meant. Plugta doesn't mean disagreement in this context. You keep on saying that my explanation is fanciful, and that it doesn't shtim with pshat. You're incorrect. The sign-off "have fun" means that I'm not interested in an argument, and that if you want to take an argumentative tone, I'm not going to respond.
Malkizedek is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 10:08 PM   #39
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
Off topic, but I think the term and concept actually preceded the Arizal and is first mentioned in Meseches Atzilus, but was elucidated by the Arizal and subsequent Arizal Kabbalah.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....5&st=&pgnum=12
What's also interesting is how this correlates with (what's brought in sifrei Chassidus) that the Ramak didn't know about the idea of tzimtzum. If the idea of tzimtzum preceeded the Arizal by that many years, then what exactly did the Arizal know that the Ramak didn't?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-19-2012, 10:18 PM   #40
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Torah613 is right. There are many ways to define the word "plugta".

I began looking into this too, and from what I've found, the gemara in Krisus 7a brings it to mean "argument". In Psochim 46a however, it means "chiluk". See Rashi there.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-21-2012, 11:02 PM   #41
couldntbe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
Off topic, but I think the term and concept actually preceded the Arizal and is first mentioned in Meseches Atzilus, but was elucidated by the Arizal and subsequent Arizal Kabbalah.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager....5&st=&pgnum=12
Although not my field (also I am not following the thread, so excuse me if this was already mentioned), I am not sure what you are quoting from Misseches atzilus.

Of course the idea of tzimtzum was known before the Arizal, tzimtzum is an obvious concept.

The way I understand is that the Arizal explained the idea of tzimzum bderech siluk, while before they understood tzimzum bderech miyut.

Is the concept of tzimztum bderech siluk discussed before the Arizal? If so where?
couldntbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 11:13 AM   #42
Tuesday
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by couldntbe View Post
Although not my field (also I am not following the thread, so excuse me if this was already mentioned), I am not sure what you are quoting from Misseches atzilus.
Simply to further demonstrate that the mekubolim harishonim (including the Ramak in Pardes) mention concepts (even Tzimtzum) in general terms only but didn't explicate the details of those matters like the Arizal.
Tuesday is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 11:59 AM   #43
couldntbe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 154
where do you see that they are referring to the same thing?
couldntbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 12:30 PM   #44
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuesday View Post
Simply to further demonstrate that the mekubolim harishonim (including the Ramak in Pardes) mention concepts (even Tzimtzum) in general terms only but didn't explicate the details of those matters like the Arizal.
I don't think anyone felt that the Arizal was the originator of the entire "tzimtum idea". See for instance that the idea mentioned in the very beginning of Shaar Haklolim (about the tzimtzum hash'cheeno that rested on the Aron) already has its sources in Medroshim. Look at Bereishis Rabbo (4:4), Tanchumo (Vayakhel 7), and in Shir Hashirim Rabbo (1:14[3]). Certainly it was all about their understandings of the concepts. I also don't think the Medrash has ever been considered an actual "source" for the idea of tzimtzum.

But when you say this (above statement), what specifically are you referring to in the Pardes?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 01:00 PM   #45
couldntbe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbi_M View Post
I don't think anyone felt that the Arizal was the originator of the entire "tzimtum idea". See for instance that the idea mentioned in the very beginning of Shaar Haklolim (about the tzimtzum hash'cheeno that rested on the Aron) already has its sources in Medroshim. Look at Bereishis Rabbo (4:4), Tanchumo (Vayakhel 7), and in Shir Hashirim Rabbo (1:14[3]). Certainly it was all about their understandings of the concepts. I also don't think the Medrash has ever been considered an actual "source" for the idea of tzimtzum.
Although no expert on kabbalistic thought, it appears to me that you are mixing apples and oranges. The tzimzum that you are referring to is pertaining to divine revelation, whereas the tzimzum that is being discussed here pertains to creation.

The question is what type of tzimzum was there needed to create the world.

There were non-jewish (Aristotle) philosophers who believed that there was no tzimztum necessary as the world is a kadmon.

There was the general shita that although tzimum was necessary there could be a tzimum bderech miut (also known as ila v'alul).

then there was the shita of the Arizal that believed that no matter how many tzimum bderech ila v'alul and miut there would be we would never get to this world, and there needed to be a tzimtzum bderech siluk.

(the different ways of understanding tzimtzum are drawn from the differences in their perception of the ain aroch of atzmus, and the more ain aroch you perceive the almighty himself to be the greater tzimtzum there needs to be).
couldntbe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 01:24 PM   #46
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Glad you caught on couldntbe! That is exactly my point!

That's why I feel that Tuesday's over simplifying things here, as I'd like to see him present a source where the Pardes brings the idea of tzimtzum in regard to creation of the worlds (and not just in the topic of "divine revelation"). Then it could be discussed what the opinion of the Pardes was or wasn't (in contrast the the Arizal)?

I'd hoped the difference would be clear by my mention of the Medrash.

You raise very good points.

P.S: the Shaar HaKlolim that I mentioned isn't the source for the idea of siluk. The source is in Drush Igullim v'yoisher onof beis. No apples and oranges... Take the Medrash that I mentioned in regard to what I brought from Shaar Haklolim in that light of the fact that it's not b'inyan.
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 01:44 PM   #47
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
IOW, it doesn't concern me if the word "tzimtzum" is found in the Pardes or not. What we're addressing here is "how" he uses it. I'm interested to see how Tuesday can present this sugya in the general (Pardes) and then in the specific (Arizal), as he suggested.

Perhaps, instead of saying that one (the Ramak) speaks in general and that the other (the Arizal) speaks in specific, saying that they're "speaking about 2 different things" would be more accurate.

The Ramak is speaking about i'loh v'olul and the Arizal is speaking about yesh m'ein...
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 05:11 PM   #48
Paper
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 63
The word plugta in this context seems to indicate a dispute.

Maybe the plugta is that the Arizal says that Kesser has Bchina Tachtona Biein Sof (Eitz Chayim Shaar 42 (41?)) which is muvdal from a mhus prati like ratzon and according to the Ramak it doesn't, just a haoroh from Ein Sof (Vayoilech 5666 p. 166, 170).

(But at the same time you see the Rebbe Rashab calling Ratzon Haelyon Kesser according to the Arizal on page 170.)
Paper is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 06:12 PM   #49
Rabbi_M
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paper View Post
Maybe the plugta is that the Arizal says that Kesser has Bchina Tachtona Biein Sof (Eitz Chayim Shaar 42 (41?)) which is muvdal from a mhus prati like ratzon...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the Eitz Chaim that you're citing brings the idea that kesser has 2 parts: There's pnimius hakeser that we call atik (the tachtoina sh'b'matzil - which is muvdol) and chitzoinious hakesser (the elyoina sh'b'ne'etzal) that we call arich. It seems your explanation (that Kesser has Bchina Tachtona Biein Sof which is muvdal from a mhus prati) isn't talking about arich anyway...

Can you maybe explain your point in more words?
Rabbi_M is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-22-2012, 07:23 PM   #50
Malkizedek
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 49
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.)
Malkizedek 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 02:33 AM.


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