Reply To: Cheilek Eloak Mima’al

Duvidf- The Baal Hatanya did not make up the idea of the neshama being a חלק א-לוק ממעל out of nowhere, but he is the only one to use the word ממש in his discussion. The Nefesh Hachaim, for example, uses the word כביכול instead, as you helpfully quoted earlier:
אמנם בחינת הנשמה היא הנשימה עצמה, שפנימיות עצמותה מסתתרת בהעלם, ומקורה ברוך כביכול בתוך נשימת פיו ית”ש, שאין .עצמות מהותה נכנסת כלל בתוך גוף האדם
This suggests that R’ Chaim Volozhiner did not believe the neshama was literally “part of G-d” and only describes it as part of Hashem’s נשימה, just like the Zohar. The question is whether even the Tanya really means that the neshama is a literal part of Hashem.
When I wrote that it is much more dangerous to blur the line between G-d and man than to over-emphasize the gap between us and Hashem, I was referring to mistakes made by those who consider themselves frum Jews, not to non-Jews and idol worshippers. Granted that the idea of חלק א-לוק ממעל inspires many people to seek to emulate Hashem and to do chesed, or to have high “spiritual self-esteem” that encourages them to do mitzvos and dissuades them from doing aveiros, but all those things are also possible without believing in the concept at all. Going to the opposite extreme and believing that we are so far removed from Hashem that we can have no relationship with Him at all is also a serious error, but it doesn’t lead to kefirah. I don’t know if anyone has “gone off the derech” and stopped being mitzvah observant because of getting carried away with the idea of חלק א-לוק ממעל, but plenty of people who observe mitzvos have gone overboard and blurred the line between how we are supposed to treat human beings and how we relate to G-d.
I am going to hope that you don’t mean your last question. If you really do understand the relationship between Hashem and Elokeinu to be equivalent to the relationship between Hashem and the supposed “cheilek” of Him, then my point here is entirely vindicated.