Cheilek Eloak Mima’al

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Cheilek Eloak Mima’al

Tagged: 

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 98 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2002405
    tiawd
    Participant

    It seems to have become a basic belief among many frum Jews that a Jew’s neshama is literally part of Hashem (chas v’shalom). This borders on kefirah. There are at least three proofs that this understanding of cheilek Eloak mima’al is false:
    1) One of the 13 ikkarim of emunah is that Hashem is one. As explained by the Rambam, Chovos Halevavos, and other Rishonim, this does not just mean that there is only one G-d and not more, but that G-d cannot be divided into parts. I am not aware of anyone who disagrees with this. Therefore, the neshama cannot be part of G-d because there is no such thing as a part of G-d.
    2) Our tefillos, as composed by Chazal, say clearly that our neshamos were created. We say א-לקי נשמה שנתת בי טהורה היא. אתה בראתה אתה יצרתה אתה נפחתה בי. Something cannot be both the Creator and created at the same time, so since the neshama was created it is not G-d.
    3) The literal meaning of חלק א-לוק ממעל is not “a part of G-d”. The pasuk in Iyov reads: בְּרִית כָּרַתִּי לְעֵינָי וּמָה אֶתְבּוֹנֵן עַל בְּתוּלָה. וּמֶה חֵלֶק אֱלוֹהַּ מִמָּעַל וְנַחֲלַת שַׁדַּי מִמְּרֹמִים. As all the mefarshim explain, Iyov is saying “I have committed not to look at women, even unmarried ones. If I did, what portion would I receive from Hashem as punishment?” Looking through Tanach, it is clear that the word חלק in the language of the Torah does not mean “a part of something” but a “portion” that is received. In any case, cheilek Eloak mima’al as referring to the neshama is a drash and not peshat in the pasuk, but there is no reason to assume it means “a part of Hashem” and not “something apportioned from Hashem” even according to this interpretation.

    #2002434
    besalel
    Participant

    I don’t think too many non-chabadnicks interpret it as literal as you charge. The concept is kabbalistic in nature and therefore, obviously, not literal. Except for chabad and maybe some other chassidut.

    #2002446
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    What does ה אחד mean?

    I understood it to mean that Hashem is everywhere which I think means that we are in ה and not separate from Him

    #2002456
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Neshama comes from under kisei hakovad with G-dly features and arrives to earth to gain its keep and not get a bread of shame which it did not work for. Part of it is left above and through our prayer we are connecting ourselves to the root. See the Sefer Habris, 2nd Part.

    #2002458
    koltov7
    Participant

    וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֧ וְחָקַרְתָּ֛ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ֖ הֵיטֵ֑ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכ֣וֹן הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתּוֹעֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ׃

    (דברים טו:יג)

    you shall investigate and inquire and interrogate thoroughly. If it is true, the fact is established—that abhorrent thing was perpetrated in your midst

    Historically speaking, all of the accusations towards chabad have resulted in more free advertising. The irony is, litvaks dont even learn kabbalah in general let alone chassidus, and yet without even this basic level of investigation those who criticize simply remain naïve.

    Rav Chaim Malinowitz ZTL (editor of Artscroll shas) actually gives a shiur on the first chapters of Tanya for those who want to educate themselves with an already verified source.

    #2002482
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    The arizal famously writes that it’s *mamash mamash” but how is that understood? My rebbeim told me that it’s referring to godliness, that just as a flame is not diminished, decreased or divided by igniting something else, Hashem kavayachol made a tiny fire of godliness called a neshoma.

    I cant say I have a mekor for this; these ideas are heavily dependent on having a rebbe and a mesorah.

    The fact that chabad and others might use kabalah to go off the derech was predicted by the Gaon and the tzlach as one of their criticisms of chassidus. However, the chofetz chaim famously said that the Gaon’s opposition would, in his time, only be to chabad and (some say) breslov. All other chassidishe groups have become more down to earth.

    #2002484
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Also, it’s false that Litvishe rabbonim don’t know kabalah. The Gaon was a tremendous source of post-arizal kabalah; probably the most prolific, too The zkan rosh yeshivos in America, Rav elya ber vachtfogel, is an open mekubal. As was rav elya weintraub… My rebbe rav Belsky wouldn’t talk about it much, but it was known that he was very into kabalah. The common saying is that the Litvishe show their nigleh and hide their nistar, while chassidim show their nistar and hide their nigleh.

    #2002490
    Duvidf
    Participant

    From the Tanya חלק א פרק ב:

    וְנֶפֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִית בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא חֵלֶק אֱלוֹהַּ מִמַּעַל מַמָּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב1: “וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים”, וְ”אַתָּה נָפַחְתָּ בִּי”2, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר3: מַאן דִּנְפַח מִתּוֹכֵהּ נְפַח, פֵּרוּשׁ, מִתּוֹכִיּוּתוֹ וּמִפְּנִימִיּוּתוֹ, שֶׁתּוֹכִיּוּת וּפְנִימִיּוּת הַחַיּוּת שֶׁבָּאָדָם מוֹצִיא בִּנְפִיחָתוֹ בְּכֹחַ. כָּךְ עַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל נִשְׁמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עָלוּ בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, כְּדִכְתִיב: “בְּנִי בְּכוֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל”4, “בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה’ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם”5. פֵּרוּשׁ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַבֵּן נִמְשָׁךְ מִמֹּחַ הָאָב, כָּךְ כִּבְיָכוֹל נִשְׁמַת כָּל אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל נִמְשְׁכָה מִמַּחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ וְחָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, דְּאִיהוּ חַכִּים וְלָא בְּחָכְמָה יְדִיעָא6, אֶלָּא הוּא וְחָכְמָתוֹ אֶחָד וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ”ם7,
    הגהה: וְהוֹדוּ לוֹ חַכְמֵי הַקַּבָּלָה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפַרְדֵּס מֵהָרַמַ”ק. וְגַם לְפִי קַבָּלַת הָאֲרִ”י זַ”ל יַצִּיבָא מִלְּתָא בְּסוֹד הִתְלַבְּשׁוּת אוֹר אֵין סוֹף בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל יְדֵי צִמְצוּמִים רַבִּים בְּכֵלִים דְּחָכְמָה בִּינָה וָדַעַת דַּאֲצִילוּת; אַךְ לֹא לְמַעְלָה מֵהָאֲצִילוּת. וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, שֶׁאֵין סוֹף בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְרוֹמָם וּמִתְנַשֵּׂא רוֹמְמוֹת אֵין קֵץ לְמַעְלָה מַעְלָה מִמַּהוּת וּבְחִינַת חַבַּ”ד עַד שֶׁמַּהוּת וּבְחִינַת חַבַּ”ד נֶחֱשֶׁבֶת כַּעֲשִׂיָּה גּוּפְנִיִּית אֶצְלוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב8: “כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ”.
    שֶׁהוּא הַמַּדָּע וְהוּא הַיּוֹדֵעַ כו’, וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין בִּיכֹלֶת הָאָדָם לַהֲבִינוֹ עַל בֻּרְיוֹ כו’, כְּדִכְתִיב9: “הַחֵקֶר אֱלוֹהַּ תִּמְצָא”, וּכְתִיב10: “כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם” וגו’.
    וְאַף שֶׁיֵּשׁ רִבְבוֹת מִינֵי חִלּוּקֵי מַדְרֵגוֹת בַּנְּשָׁמוֹת, גָּבוֹהַּ מֵעַל גָּבוֹהַּ לְאֵין קֵץ, כְּמוֹ גֹּדֶל מַעֲלַת נִשְׁמוֹת הָאָבוֹת וּמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ עֲלֵיהֶם הַשָּׁלוֹם עַל נִשְׁמוֹת דּוֹרוֹתֵינוּ אֵלֶּה דְּעִקְּבֵי מְשִׁיחָא, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת עֲקֵבִים מַמָּשׁ לְגַבֵּי הַמֹּחַ וְהָרֹאשׁ. וְכֵן בְּכָל דּוֹר וָדוֹר יֵשׁ רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנִּשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶם הֵם בְּחִינַת רֹאשׁ וּמֹחַ לְגַבֵּי נִשְׁמוֹת הֶהָמוֹן וְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ, וְכֵן נְפָשׁוֹת לְגַבֵּי נְפָשׁוֹת, כִּי כָּל נֶפֶשׁ כְּלוּלָה מִנֶּפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה. מִכָּל מָקוֹם שֹׁרֶשׁ כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה כֻּלָּם, מֵרֹאשׁ כָּל הַמַּדְרֵגוֹת עַד סוֹף כָּל דַּרְגִין הַמְּלֻבָּשׁ בְּגוּף עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְקַל שֶׁבְּקַלִּים, נִמְשָׁךְ מִמֹּחַ הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁהִיא חָכְמָה עִלָּאָה כִּבְיָכוֹל, כִּמְשַׁל הַבֵּן הַנִּמְשָׁךְ מִמֹּחַ הָאָב, שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ צִפָּרְנֵי רַגְלָיו נִתְהַוּוּ מִטִּפָּה זוֹ מַמָּשׁ, עַל יְדֵי שְׁהִיָּתָהּ תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים בְּבֶטֶן הָאֵם, וְיָרְדָה מִמַּדְרֵגָה לְמַדְרֵגָה לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת וּלְהִתְהַוּוֹת מִמֶּנָּה צִפָּרְנַיִם. וְעִם כָּל זֶה עוֹדֶנָּה קְשׁוּרָה וּמְיֻחֶדֶת בְּיִחוּד נִפְלָא וְעָצוּם בְּמַהוּתָהּ וְעַצְמוּתָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁהָיְתָה טִפַּת מֹחַ הָאָב. וְגַם עַכְשָׁיו בַּבֵּן, יְנִיקַת הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם וְחַיּוּתָם נִמְשֶׁכֶת מֵהַמֹּחַ שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָא [נִדָּה שָׁם11]: לֹבֶן שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ גִּידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וְצִפָּרְנַיִם.
    [וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב בְּעֵץ חַיִּים שַׁעַר הַחַשְׁמַל בְּסוֹד לְבוּשִׁים שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּגַן עֵדֶן, שֶׁהָיוּ צִפָּרְנַיִם מִבְּחִינַת מֹחַ תְּבוּנָה].
    וְכָכָה מַמָּשׁ כִּבְיָכוֹל בְּשֹׁרֶשׁ כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁל כְּלָלוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעְלָה, בִּירִידָתוֹ מִמַּדְרֵגָה לְמַדְרֵגָה עַל יְדֵי הִשְׁתַּלְשְׁלוּת הָעוֹלָמוֹת אֲצִילוּת בְּרִיאָה יְצִירָה עֲשִׂיָּה מֵחָכְמָתוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ, כְּדִכְתִיב12: “כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ”, נִתְהַוּוּ מִמֶּנּוּ נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וּפְחוּתֵי הָעֵרֶךְ; וְעִם כָּל זֶה עוֹדֶינָה קְשׁוּרוֹת וּמְיוּחָדוֹת בְּיִחוּד נִפְלָא וְעָצוּם בְּמַהוּתָן וְעַצְמוּתָן הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁהִיא הַמְשָׁכַת חָכְמָה עִלָּאָה, כִּי יְנִיקַת וְחַיּוּת נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הוּא מִנֶּפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיקִים וְהַחֲכָמִים רָאשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּדוֹרָם.
    וּבָזֶה יוּבָן מַאֲמַר רַזַ”ל13 עַל פָּסוּק14 “וּלְדָבְקָה בּוֹ”, שֶׁכָּל הַדָּבֵק בְּתַלְמִיד חָכָם, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ נִדְבַּק בַּשְּׁכִינָה מַמָּשׁ. כִּי עַל יְדֵי דְּבִיקָה בְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, קְשׁוּרוֹת נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וּמְיוּחָדוֹת בְּמַהוּתָן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְשָׁרְשָׁם שֶׁבְּחָכְמָה עִלָּאָה, שֶׁהוּא יִתְבָּרַךְ וְחָכְמָתוֹ אֶחָד וְהוּא הַמַּדָּע כו’. [וְהַפּוֹשְׁעִים וּמוֹרְדִים בְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, יְנִיקַת נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁלָּהֶם מִבְּחִינַת אֲחוֹרַיִם שֶׁל נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וְנִשְׁמַת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים]:
    וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּזֹּהַר15 וּבְזֹהַר חָדָשׁ16 שֶׁהָעִקָּר תָּלוּי שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ דַּוְקָא, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּנֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ כו’, הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין לְךָ נֶפֶשׁ רוּחַ וּנְשָׁמָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ לְבוּשׁ מִנֶּפֶשׁ דְּעַצְמוּת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. וְכָל הַמִּצְווֹת שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה, הַכֹּל עַל יְדֵי אוֹתוֹ הַלְּבוּשׁ כו’, וַאֲפִלּוּ הַשֶּׁפַע שֶׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, הַכֹּל עַל יְדֵי לְבוּשׁ זֶה. וְאִם יְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת עַצְמוֹ, יַמְשִׁיךְ לְבוּשׁ קָדוֹשׁ לְנִשְׁמַת בְּנוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הִיא נְשָׁמָה גְּדוֹלָה, צְרִיכָה לְקִדּוּשׁ אָבִיו כו’. אֲבָל הַנְּשָׁמָה עַצְמָהּ, הִנֵּה לִפְעָמִים נִשְׁמַת אָדָם גָּבוֹהַּ לְאֵין קֵץ בָּא לִהְיוֹת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם נִבְזֶה וְשָׁפֵל כו’, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָאֲרִ”י זַ”ל כָּל זֶה בְּלִקּוּטֵי תּוֹרָה פָּרָשַׁת וַיֵּרָא וּבְטַעֲמֵי מִצְווֹת פָּרָשַׁת בְּרֵאשִית.
    מראי מקומות

    #2002494
    tiawd
    Participant

    I don’t think this belief is limited to Chabad and, although I am not holding in Tanya or Kabbalah, I have seen explanations claiming that the Tanya also did not mean that the neshama is literally part of G-d. It is because it seems that the literal understanding of one sentence in the Tanya taken out of context has spread to many non-Chabad books of “machshava”, who quote it without any qualification, that I am so bothered.

    #2002575
    koltov7
    Participant

    The previous post states “litvaks.. in general”. Really? You think that includes Vilna Gaon, Rav Chaim Volozhin, and The Chofetz Chaim etc. These gedolim all write down kabbalah at least in refererence for the klal to be machhezek themselves within their provided context.

    With this in mind these holy tzaddikim present their views with open available references and followed to printed the sources publicly. They are many instances of litvishe gedolim maintaining good terms with the chabad rebbeim over the years for example (Third rebbe/Rav Chaim Volozhin – Fifth rebbe/The Chofetz Chaim – Seventh rebbe / Rav Moshe Feinstein)

    The basis of the OP is lacking mention of sources kabbalah and/or chassidus, such a critique is obviously baseless. This is a consistent habit of those who have no expereince in such matters. This means the numerous rishonim who write on kabbalah as well.

    So again,

    Rav Chaim Malinowitz ZTL (editor of Artscroll shas) happens to give shiur in the first chapters of Tanya. With a simple google search they can be found. The rav also gives a yud tes kislev shiur that can be found on youtube.

    As far as kefirah, just in Tanya itself there is a chapter titled shaare yichud vhamenuah dedicated to the theme. Please let that be implicit enough, context aside.

    To have disagreements thats fine, but to perpetuate hatred within klal yisroel for leisure is a rotten way to live.

    וְדָרַשְׁתָּ֧ וְחָקַרְתָּ֛ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ֖ הֵיטֵ֑ב וְהִנֵּ֤ה אֱמֶת֙ נָכ֣וֹן הַדָּבָ֔ר נֶעֶשְׂתָ֛ה הַתּוֹעֵבָ֥ה הַזֹּ֖את בְּקִרְבֶּֽךָ׃

    (דברים טו:יג)

    #2002612
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Koltuv, it isn’t hateful to expose deviant beliefs, regardless of who holds them. A great deal of lubavitcher chasidim believe things about tzadikim and especially their rebbe that are undeniably heresy. It really doesn’t matter if that person has a job with a mainstream publisher of Torah literature, though I hope he is not counted among those who attribute Divinity to a rebbe.

    A common trick that MO and chabad utilize to stifle dissent and critique is the charge of sinas chinam, baseless hatred.

    It’s the accusation itself that’s baseless.

    #2002630
    Benephraim
    Participant

    How did you learn פשט in the פסוק that ביום ההוא יהיה…אחד. What about now? Also I don’t think anyone disputes the concept of emanations to explain how יש came from אין. That is where your problem starts. How did the world come to exist ? The Rosh Hayeshiva RAS stressed כבוד אלוקים הסתר. Etc.

    #2002631
    koltov7
    Participant

    Want to add that in addition to kabbalah seforim of the holy rishoinim, the kabbalah seforim of our gaonim are also left out of the general curriculum.

    Therefore,

    To formulate opinions and an outlook towards such concepts as expressed by fellow yidden without any solid background is equivalent to just hearing and believing hearsay = loshon hara as it is called

    @the entire YWN coffee room 😉

    Please google search for these Tanya shiurim by Rav Chaim Malinowitz ZTL (editor of Artscroll Shas), the rav really does give a good start into actually knowing just even something of a background regarding chassidus.

    #2002633
    Lit
    Participant

    Tiawd – Thanks for bringing up this very important topic(thanks also to Reb Eliezer and Avira for backing you up).

    You are correct in what you say.

    In fact, I recently heard a leading Lubavitcher scholar, Simon Jacobson, in a shiur he gave in Tanya on the radio, admit that it was not literal (this was maybe around six weeks ago. You might be able to find it on his website). Of course, less knowledgeable and sophisticated Lubavitchers might take issue with that, but they are not on the level of Jacobson.

    It is unfortunate that some non-Lubavitchers have been infected by this misunderstanding too. Hey, if they already are taking things from Habad, let them at least get them from a scholar like Jacobson, rather than from an ignoramus.

    #2002641
    koltov7
    Participant

    The Shiurim bTanya (available in english) is the best way to get a good start in learning chassidus (can also be purchased used on ebay). There are plenty of shiurim to be utilized on torah anytime, youtube, via google search etc…

    #2002656
    Shimon Nodel
    Participant

    The neshama EMANATES from Hashem. Think about that, and it should clarify things.

    #2002740
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים – מאן דנפח מדיליה נפח it says G-d blew in him a living soul and one who blows, blows from himself. So the soul had to come from Hashem.

    #2002743
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    It says ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים and He (G-d) blew in his nose a living soul, מאן דנפח מדיליה נפח, whoever blows, blows from oneself. So, the soul had to come from Hashem.

    #2002779
    tiawd
    Participant

    I am not coming to bash Chabad in general, although I do think that a Chabadnik who literally believes the neshama is part of G-d is on thin ice. I am more concerned that a literal understanding of the Tanya has trickled down to frum Jews outside of Chabad, which I think is a serious mistake.

    #2002783
    tiawd
    Participant

    I admit that I am not holding in kabbalah, but I don’t think it is fair to say that someone without a solid knowledge of kabbalah has no right to point out that a literal understanding of a kabbalistic statement is kefirah, based on nigleh sources. There is one Judaism – not a religion of nigleh that conflicts with the religion of nistar. Again, I don’t think the Tanya’s statement that the neshama is a חלק א-לוק ממעל is false. I just think it can’t be taken literally.
    The Zohar also says ישראל ואורייתא וקודשא בריך הוא חד. I think it is perfectly legitimate to point out that a literal understanding of that is kefirah (thankfully I have never heard anyone claim it should be understood literally). That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, just that it has a deeper meaning. Same thing here.

    #2002797
    Lit
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer: “It says ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים and He (G-d) blew in his nose a living soul, מאן דנפח מדיליה נפח, whoever blows, blows from oneself. So, the soul had to come from Hashem.”

    Based on the above, some Lubavitchers and others under their sway claim that a neshomo is a literal “piece of G-d” (ch”v). But if you think into it, it doesn’t add up.

    If you blow up a balloon, is part of you in the balloon? No.

    If a Lubavitcher blows up a balloon, is it a Lubavitcher balloon, with a literal piece of a Chabadsker, mamash, inside it?

    Is anyone awake here?

    #2002802
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    This Sefer Habris explains that there are five levels of neshama whidh increases into twenty five levels as sefira’s seven levels.. As the neshamas become greater their potential to elevate in kedusha inreases. A Jew gains a higher level of neshama when he has fought the yetzer hara, overcome and exhausted its potential.

    #2002841
    Lit
    Participant

    Avira: “The zkan rosh yeshivos in America, Rav elya ber vachtfogel, is an open mekubal.”

    R. Wachtfogel is not the zkan Roshei Yeshivos in America. That claim is way off. Off the bat I can think of multiple Roshei Yeshivos older than him.

    שקר גמור

    #2002842
    koltov7
    Participant

    The alter rebbe writes in Tanya iggeret Hateshuvah Chapter 5 (with additional sources provided)

    כִּי הִנֵּה, פְּשַׁט הַכָּתוּב מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב “וַיִּפַּח”, הוּא לְהוֹרוֹת לָנוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעַל דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל כְּשֶׁהָאָדָם נוֹפֵחַ לְאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם,

    אִם יֵשׁ אֵיזֶה דָבָר חוֹצֵץ וּמַפְסִיק בֵּינְתַיִים אֵין הֶבֶל הַנּוֹפֵחַ עוֹלֶה וּמַגִּיעַ כְּלָל לְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם,

    כָּכָה מַמָּשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ וּמַפְסִיק בֵּין גּוּף הָאָדָם לִבְחִינַת הֶבֶל הָעֶלְיוֹן.

    אַךְ בֶּאֱמֶת, אֵין שׁוּם דָּבָר גַּשְׁמִי וְרוּחָנִי חוֹצֵץ לְפָנָיו יִתְבָּרֵךְ,

    כִּי “הֲלֹא אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲנִי מָלֵא”,
    (ירמיהו 23:24) .
    וּ”מְלֹא כָל הָאָרֶץ כְּבוֹדוֹ”,
    (6:3 ישעיהו)
    וְ”לֵית אֲתַר פָּנוּי מִינֵּיהּ”,
    (51 תקוני הזהר)
    “בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת אֵין עוֹד”,
    (4:39 דברים ).

    וְ”אִיהוּ מְמַלֵּא כָּל עָלְמִין וְכוּ'”,
    (זהר ג’ 225)

    אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּישַׁעְיָה: “כִּי אִם עֲווֹנוֹתֵיכֶם הָיוּ מַבְדִּילִים בֵּינֵיכֶם לְבֵין אֱלֹקֵיכֶם”.

    וְהַטַּעַם, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם נֶגֶד רָצוֹן הָעֶלְיוֹן בָּרוּךְ־הוּא הַמְחַיֶּה אֶת הַכֹּל,

    כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב: “כֹּל אֲשֶׁר חָפֵץ ה’ עָשָׂה בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ”

    (135:6 תהילים).

    (וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל, שֶׁהוּא מְקוֹר הַשְׁפָּעַת שֵׁם הַוָיָ’, וְנִרְמָז בְּקוֹצוֹ שֶׁל יוּ”ד).

    #2002844
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    According to the levels of neshama above, a beineni, middle person, is not the same by everyone but relative to one’s level of neshama.

    #2002865
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Lit – that term doesn’t mean age… I don’t think you’re familiar with how’s it’s used.

    #2002869
    Duvidf
    Participant

    tiawd:

    Your reckless claim that an explicit statement of the Baal Hatanya is “Kefira” is the main problem with your post.

    The Tanya specifically adds the word “Mamash”!

    To say someone who says Mamash does not mean it literally is simply absurd, dishonest and False.

    Your first “proof” is actually the biggest proof to the contrary of your claim as the real meaning of אין עוד מלבדו as explained by the sources you quoted is that there is no real existence outside of Hashem.

    Take a look at Sforno Bereishis 32:1 who also alludes to this idea.

    The distance you are trying to create between yourself and Hashem is actually a lot closer to the “border” of Kefira (Christianity) than the idea you are questioning.

    #2002873
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    It says ‘קדשים תהיו כי קדוש אני ה, be holy because I, Hashem is holy. How do we come close to Hashem? Through the holy nashama that is chelek elokai mimaal.

    #2002991
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Duvid… there’s nothing christian about saying that we are not god and that He has not divided himself into parts. Also, it’s the Arizal, bot the Tanya that uses the expression. And it’s “mamash mamash”, not just one mamash.

    According to the way my rebbeim explained it to me, it’s not difficult – there is a piece of literal godliness within us, it is not a part of Hashem himself, but a holy spark from an infinite flame, so to speak.

    Christian theology in its current incarnation among evangelicals is that god manifested as yushke and that everyone who believes in him has yushke and therefore god inside them. This is actually cery, scarily similar to how chabad views the last rebbe.

    When a kabalah sefer says something that goes against the 13 ikkarim, we must say that we are misunderstanding the kabalah, which itself was never intended to be understood by the uninitiated. Many gedolim believe that the time has come to reveal kabalah – but they do not hold that one should let himself be hefker and read every sefer and come to whatever conclusion he wants. There needs to be a mesorah. Chabad broke that mesorah and are very independent in their learning of kabalah.

    The only way you can severely disrupt Torah philosophy is through kabalah; that was the downfall of shabsai tzvi, frankel….lehavdil rabbi kook, all was made possible through reckless use of kabalah (and haskalah, in the latter’s case)

    #2003038
    Duvidf
    Participant

    AviraDeArah:

    There is nothing about the idea stated in the Baal Hatanya that contradicts the 13 Ikkarim.

    Maybe you understand the difference between “godliness” and Hashem himself, I don’t.

    A basic tenet of Christianity is total separation between us and Hashem to the point that an intermediary is necessary, insisting on this kind of separation is dangerously close to that.

    Embassies around the world have the legal status of their home country does that mean that there are now “Two” of the given country?

    Does Shabbos being מעין עולם הבא mean there are two Olam Habas?

    Tiawd’s question is rooted in utter ignorance about the Oneness of Hashem.

    One who learns and understands Shaar Hayichud of Chovos Halevavos can see that there is No contradiction whatsoever bet. the words of the Baal Hatanya and the Oneness of Hashem.

    #2003089
    koltov7
    Participant

    There are numerous gaonim and rishonim who write in kabbalah. When these holy tzaddikim wrote wrote these seforim over a millenia ago, did they also “severly disrupt torah philosophy???

    As of today chai elul 5781, the birthday of the the baal shem tov and the alter rebbe ,

    The derech of the Baal shem tov is going on three hundred years strong of utilizing kabbalah to strenghten yiddishkeit. Remaining naive and desperately trying to prevent chassidus from reaching the hearts of yidden is an actually an attempt to disrupt toras chaim.

    #2003135
    Lit
    Participant

    Duvidf: “Embassies around the world have the legal status of their home country does that mean that there are now “Two” of the given country?

    Does Shabbos being מעין עולם הבא mean there are two Olam Habas?”

    The answer is very simple. In the case of the embassies, they may have a legal status, but are not called a cheilek * mamash * of the country whose offices they house. Are gardens in Israeli embassies abroad chayav in mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz?

    In the case of Shabbos, it is called *מעין* Olam Habo, meaning similar to Olam Habo, not literally Olam Habo.

    #2003149
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- Are you a Lubavitcher chasid? Have you asked a mashpia if those words in the Tanya are meant literally?
    Lit pointed out that R’ Simon Jacobson said in a shiur that those words should not be understood literally.
    I also came across an article on the Hidabroot website by a certain R’ Daniel Blass (I have no idea who he is), who tried to prove from Tanya cheilek Dalet perek Zayin that it shouldn’t be understood literally.
    I am no expert in Kabbalah, but it seems obvious that non-basic statements in Judaism should be judged based on the basics. The ikkarim of emunah are basics and the Tanya is not basic, even if it is a basic text of Chabad. We still need to judge the Tanya based on Chazal, not vice versa.

    #2003156
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- A basic tenet of Christianity is that a human being is also G-d. Anyone in Judaism who also insists on that is moving dangerously close to Christianity. A basic belief of Judaism is that man is man and G-d is G-d. It is much more dangerous to blur the line between G-d and man than to over-emphasize the gap between us and Hashem, even if that is also a mistake.
    Your mashal has no comparison to this discussion. Countries consist of states and cities and can be divided ad infinitum. Hashem cannot be divided.

    #2003176
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    It means a taam of olam habo. A chasid put on his shabbos clothes on a weekday and was surprised that he felt the taam of shabbos.
    It says by Yitzchak vayorech es reach begodov, he felt the taam of gan eden as it belonged to Adam Harishon. So it is no surprise to feel the taam of shabbos on a weekday that his clothing absorbed as shabbos is meein olam habo.

    #2003180
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    There is an implication that Hashem created the human being, Bereishis, bealef tishri, Rosh Hashana. es hashomayim, his soul, ves haaretz and the body.

    #2003182
    RememberThat
    Participant

    I believe it is: Cheilek Elokah (rather) Mima’al

    #2002798
    Lit
    Participant

    It is no surprise that this type of heresy and confusion is emanating from Chabad Lubavitch as they are confused about other similar things as well, related to the distinction and boundaries between G-d, הקדוש ברוך הוא, and man.

    For example, they claim that their Rebbe is Divinity in a body. רחמנא ליצלן, similar to claims of Notzrim re Yushka (JC). They also claim that their deceased Rebbe is Moshiach, despite him having passed away decades ago.

    It is sad that such a group has adopted Xtian beliefs, but even sadder that some regular Jews have accepted them from Lubavitch. Just because someone has a long beard, that doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about.

    #2003267
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    כל ישראל יש להם חלק לעולם הבא some translate that every Jew has a chelek elokah mimaal that brings one to olam habo. Through it he can gain olam habo.

    #2003299
    tiawd
    Participant

    “Elokah” is a very common mistake. The ה with a patach under it is pronounced “ah”, not “ha”, the same way that נח is pronounced Noach and not “Nocha”. This is the basic dikduk rule of פתח גנובה.

    #2003308
    koltov7
    Participant

    Just want to share,

    Mishpacha magazine put out a wonderful hour long interview today with well known chabad-lubavitch speaker Rabbi YY Jacobson. Rabbi YY is great here as usual, enjoy!!!

    #2003345
    Duvidf
    Participant

    Just as Hashem is above Time Matter and Space then so too the Chelek Eloka Mimaal / Godly particle / Godliness or whatever you would like to call it is above time matter and space. That being the case the question this post started with falls away and doesn’t start.

    Hashem’s Oneness as explained in Shaar Hayichud of Chovos Halevovos has more to do with Unique / Unequalled / Unlike any other and means a lot more than just the numerical value of one which is obviously the case but largely irrelevant to something that is above time matter and space.

    The question posed here that the idea of Chelek Eloka Mimaal implies a “splitting” of Hashem is simply an ignorant and foolish attempt to force physical dimensions on something which is not physical.

    This discussion has nothing to do with Lubavitch or Kabbala, this discussion is simply the result of enormous ignorance about what Hashem’s Oneness means.

    Tiawd, Learn Shaar Hayichud before you attack / attempt to cross out explicit words of a great sage like the Baal Hatanya.

    #2003354
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    See Iyov (31,2)

    #2003393
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    It says veosu li mikdash veshochanti besocham, create a holy tabernacle and I will rest among them. It does not say besocho, in it as Hashem is everywhere so He rests in each one of us.

    #2003419
    Lit
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer: “It says veosu li mikdash veshochanti besocham, create a holy tabernacle and I will rest among them. It does not say besocho, in it as Hashem is everywhere so He rests in each one of us.”

    If that would be pshat, there would be no need for a mikdash for us to be told that. The same could be said pre mikdash. אלא מאי that is not pshat. The pshat is that through the mikdash, HKB”h will rest among Bnei Yisroel, since the mikdash is located among us.

    #2003422
    Lit
    Participant

    I believe I found – B”H – the place where I remember Lubavitch scholar Simon Jacobson discussing the issue that started this thread, and, as stated previously, he says that it is * not * to be understood as literally “a piece of G-d”.

    In Episode 13 of his “Tanya Applied with Rabbi Simon Jacobson” (available at YouTube), posted a little over three months ago, at just after 19:45 he states “obviously we are not talking about a piece of G-d”.

    (This is not an endorsement of learning Tanya, or his talks in general, just showing that even a leading Chabad Lubavitch scholar is in accord with what tiawd posted at the beginning of this thread on this point.

    #2003448
    tiawd
    Participant

    Lit- Thank you for the mar’eh makom. Duvidf- In that same video, at about minute 20, R’ Jacobson explains what “mamash” means, and he doesn’t explain it like you understood.

    #2003449
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- I have learned the Chovos Halevavos’ Shaar Hayichud. I have a hard time believing that you did. He discusses the concept of Yichud Hashem at length in Perek 8-9. For example, he writes in Perek Tes:
    וכאשר חקרנו על ענין האחדות האמתית בברואים לא מצאנוה לאחד מהם קיימת אמתית ואם יאמר [על כל אחד מן הסוגים והמינים והאישים והעצמים והמקרים והגרמים העליונים והגופים הרוחניים וכל מנין ומנוי וכל אשר לו תכלה וגבול] אחד ומיחסים אליו ענין האחדות לא יאמר לו אחד אלא על דרך העברה מפני שהוא כולל דברים שנקראו אחד מדרך הדמותם והתחברותם בענין אחד והוא רב מעצמו מפני שמקבל הרבוי והשנוי והחלוק והמחלוקת והחבור והפרידה והתוספת והחסרון והתנועה והמנוחה והדמיון והצורה ושאר המקרים המיוחדים והכוללים לכל אחד מהברואים והאחדות האמתית איננה נמצאת ולא נאמרת באמת על דבר מן היצירות.
    Later in the perek he writes:
    ידענו דעת ברורה כי האחדות אשר אמרנו על כל אחד מהברואים על דרך העברה נאצלת מענין האחד האמת והאחדות האמתית היא הנאמרת על בורא הכל יתעלה והוא האחד האמת ואין אחד אמת זולתו כמו שהקדמנו. וכל חקי האחד האמת אשר זכרנו לא יאותו כי אם לו לבדו וכן כל עניני הרבוי והמקרים והשנוים והתנועות והדמיונים וכל מה שלא יאות לאחד האמת רחוקים ממנו יתברך
    That means that only Hashem is truly One, or like you wrote, Unique / Unequalled / Unlike any other and above time and space. Nothing else created is truly One, because it can be divided into parts. This is true of the Creator, not of anything created, like the neshama.

    #2003450
    tiawd
    Participant

    This is what the Rambam writes in Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah Perek Alef Halacha Zayin:
    אלוה זה אחד הוא ואינו שנים ולא יתר על שנים אלא אחד שאין כיחודו אחד מן האחדים הנמצאים בעולם לא אחד כמין שהוא כולל אחדים הרבה ולא אחד כגוף שהוא נחלק למחלקות ולקצוות אלא יחוד שאין יחוד אחר כמותו בעולם
    So does the Tanya argue on the Rambam, or are some people misunderstanding the Tanya?

    #2003470
    philosopher
    Participant

    I.Reb Eliezer and Shimon Nodel are right. The neshameh emanates from God and since Hashem blew the neshameh into a person it is a part of Him that is in each person.

    It is not only the neshameh, but the entire world is only God. Were God to desist His countantance from the universe it would cease to exist. We only exist because God Himself is granting chiyas, energy to everything in the universe. I myself do not understand this part, as is God Himself granting chiyas to evil? But yes, that is what it is because God is the source of all energy and matter.

    So God is the source of life and therefore we are part of that Source, we are part of God. God is still One, One Being that is the Source of life.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 98 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.