- This topic has 109 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rabbenu Bachaya in Kad Hakemach under Lulav explains that the shedra, spine of the lulav resembles Hashem, kaveyachel, and all leaves lie on it. If we remove the spine, all leaves fall. Emanate, Hashem is the source and everything is derived from Him.
tiawd, we have a CHELEK Elokei, we are not God, we were given are PART OF God when He blew our neshameh into our souls and we are a part of Him as long as we exist because of His being the Source of life at every moment of our existance. So while it seems like a paradox, in reality it is not.
The definition of emanate means to spread out from a single source. So if we emanate from the Source which is Hashem then aren’t we part of Him? And yet, God is One and we are not God. But not only us, all matter, which equals energy, gets it’s energy from One Source, God. So in essence everything is an extension of Him.
In a similar way, children genetically have parts of their parents but they are not their parents, they are seperate individuals. This analogy is different from God and Jews, or all matter, as we have a soul provided by One God as opposed to two parents, and that we must continually rely on God for continued existance unlike parents whom we can become independent of. But the point is that we have parts from others yet not be part of them. With God we are always part of Him as we cannot become independent of Him as we are from our parents.
If you are familiar wth string theory, everything is made up of strings of energy, and because Hashem is the source of all energy, everything has the koach of Him.
Reb Eliezer, thanks for bringing down the Rabbenu Bachaya. That is a great analogy, we cannot exist without God, but we emanate from Him.
The Rambam in the beginning of Hilchas Yesodei Hatorah (1,2-3) says, if we think that
He (G-d) is not found, nothing else will be found. If we think nothing else can be found, still only He will be found, and He will not be eliminated from any of their elimination as all creations require Him for their existence and He does not need one of them for His existence therefore, His truthfulness is not like any of their truthfulness.Hashem is not a composite otherwise not being One and not made up from any element because then that element existed before him and He existed always wheras the element is a creation. Also it consists of atoms and its particles being a composite.
A composite needed to be put together.
A thing cannot make itself as it had to exist before being made and the one who makes something exists before it and therefore, rules over it and whatever has a beginning has a end and a composite is put together, so it has an end.
tiawd:
You seem to have two questions on the statement of the Baal Hatanya:
1. How can something be a “part” of something which cannot be split into parts?
2. In אלוקי נשמה it says the neshomo is a creature, how can something be both a creator and a creature?
Your conclusion ; the Baal Hatanya cannot be understood literally.
My question on your conclusion; how can one say something was not meant to be taken literally when the author specifically writes “Mamash”?
My answer to your questions;
One can ask on the Tanya from the opposite direction;
How can he say that only the neshama is a chelek eloka mimaal when the Passuk of אין עוד מלבדו as explained by the Tanya himself as well as the Nefesh Hachaim and others, says there is no existence outside Hashem and ALL existence is inside Hashem, if so not only the neshama is a chelek eloka mimaal the entire universe and ALL existence is Hashem.Here are the words of the Tanya:
)שער היחוד והאמונה פרק ו(: וז”ש “וַהֲ ׁשֵ בֹתָ אֶ ל לְ בָ בֶ ָך ּכִ י ה’ הּוא הָ אֱֹלהִ ים”, פירוש ששני שמות אלו הםאחד ממש… ואם כן ממילא תדע שבשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד,פירוש שגם הארץ החומרית שנראית יש גמור לעין כל, היא אַ יִן ואפס ממשלגבי הקדוש ברוך הוא… ולכן גם הארץ ומתחת לארץ הן אין ואפס ממשלגבי הקב”ה ואינן נקראות בשם כלל, אפילו בשם ‘עוד’ שהוא לשון טפל…אבל הקב”ה המהוה את הכל מאין ליש, הכל בטל במציאות אצלו כמו אורהשמש בשמש.
Here are the words of the Nefesh Hachaim:
)שער ג, סוף פרק ב-פרק ג(:…אבל אדון כל יתברך שמו, הוא מלא את כל העולמות והנבראים, ואינםחוצצים חלילה נגדו יתברך כלל באמת. ואין עוד מלבדו יתברך ממש שוםדבר כלל בכל העולמות, מהעליון שבעליונים עד התהום התחתון שבתהומותהארץ, עד שתוכל לומר שאין כאן שום נברא ועולם כלל, רק הכל מלא עצמותאחדותו הפשוט יתברך שמו. והוא ענין הכתוב “הֲ לֹוא אֶ ת הַ ּׁשָ מַ יִם וְאֶ ת הָ אָ רֶ ץאֲ נִי מָ לֵ א” )ירמיה כג, כד(, ויותר מפורש במשנה תורה “וְיָדַ עְ ּתָ הַ ּיֹום וַהֲ ׁשֵ בֹתָאֶ ל לְ בָ בֶ ָך ּכִ י ה’ הּוא הָ אֱֹלהִ ים ּבַ ּׁשָ מַ יִם מִ ּמַ עַ ל וְעַ ל הָ אָ רֶ ץ מִ ּתָ חַ ת אֵ ין עֹוד”)דברים ד, לט(, וכן “אַ ּתָ ה הָ רְ אֵ תָ לָ דַ עַ ת ּכִ י ה’ הּוא הָ אֱֹלהִ ים אֵ ין עֹוד מִ לְ בַ ּדֹו”)דברים ד, לה(… והוא ממש כמשמעו, שאין עוד מלבדו יתברך כלל, בשוםבחינה ונקודה פרטית שבכל העולמות, עליונים ותחתונים והבריות כולם,רק עצמות אחדותו הפשוט יתברך שמו לבד… שמצידו יתברך נחשבים כולםכאילו אינם במציאות כלל, גם עתה כקודם הבריאה.
In the words of Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l to the best of my recollection:
“The entire world exists in Hashems mind”.
This being the case, it is not the Neshama being chelek eloka mimaal mamash that is not to be taken literally rather quite the opposite is true, it is the body and the rest of creation NOT being chelek eloka mimaal that is not to be taken literally as the reality is אין עוד מלבדו there is NO other existence other than Hashem.
The same would apply for your second question as well, it is אתה בראתה and אתה יצרת which are “not to be taken literally” as all “creations” as explained by the Tanya and Nefesh Hachaim above are merely a figment of our imagination and a virtual reality created by Hashem (referred to by some as צמצום or הסתר) in order for us to have a realm in which we can fulfill our purpose in the world.
The idea of the Tanya about the Neshama being Chelek Eloka mimaal mamash is likewise that even within our world of צמצום or הסתר where Hashem restricted / constricted / covered himself for us, the Neshama is a part of us that is less restricted / covered etc.
As Hashem is the source of all energy, everything was created from energy as in string theory mentioned above. It has no mamashas, so it is considered ayin in yesh meayin. Einstein says that matter can be converted to energy in e=mc^2, so energy can be converted to matter. Living things have a nefesh habehamis. A medaber from domem, tzomeach, chai and medaber has a neshama. A yid has a higher neshama than a goy.
Tiawd – i agree; that’s a very good way to put it
tiawd –
Correct, in לשון בני אדם or what you call day-to-day level the Neshama is a creation not a creator as it says in אלוקי נשמה. However, the point of the Tanya is that the Neshama is a different kind of creation than all other creations due to the fact that as opposed to all other creations, this creation has a part of the creator in it which means Hashem restricted / covered himself in this creation less than in others.
The explanation / mashal given is מאן דנפח מן דיליה נפח a balloon full of air and an empty bag are both creations of their creator but the balloon has a part of it that is part of the essence of it’s creator / one who blew the air into it as opposed to the empty bag which is totally separate from the one who created it.
Once we all agree that אין עוד מלבדו, “kefira” is hopefully now out of the question, the issue now is how to best describe / understand in לשון בני אדם the uniqueness and specialness of the Neshama as opposed to all other creations that the Tanya is teaching us.
I see no problem with the word “Mamash” being literal in the context of the fundamentals explained above.
I would say a lot of the discussion here on how exactly to describe the idea of the Tanya is what Chazal call משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו.
More important than how to describe the exact “anatomy” of the idea of the Tanya are the repercussions of the idea, such as proper self esteem, proper view of other people, hopefulness, optimism, belief in Teshuva and more that result from this idea as explained by the Tanya throughout his Sefer.
It would be a big pity to miss out on the main point/s the Tanya is trying to help the reader achieve by getting stuck on the exact “anatomy” of the idea which either way you go as we explained, is not even remotely close to kefira.
Whilst you are correct in the pronunciation of the actual “shem”, when you have to avoid saying the shem “Elokah” is correct. Saying “ak” is akin akin to enunciating any “shem” and adding “chhhh” (or anything else) to the end, because you have effectively said the shem already.
tiawd, we pronounce govoah and not govoha so it should be eloah but in order not to pronounce it we say elokah.
tiawd –
I think the Tanya was well aware of ideas we are not allowed to believe and nevertheless wrote what he wrote including the word “Mamash”.
As explained here above, once the principles of אין עוד מלבדו and the true meaning of Hashems unity are clear the Tanya’s idea is very understandable.
If you feel you have more to add than what was described here to explain what חלק אלוק ממעל or the balloon mashal brought in the name of the Zohar means, you are more than welcome to do so.
Most important is to not even come across as undermining this powerful idea or it’s implications that inspire thousands of Jews, even during an attempt to further refine and clarify a more exact definition of the idea.
tiawd –
Not sure how you understood me to be saying “the Tanya said so, so it must be true”.
There are three honest ways to address the words of the Tanya (or anyone else):
1. He means what he says.
2. There is a typo and he never said it.
3. I disagree with him.
To say there is no typo but he he doesn’t mean it literally when he specifically says “Mamash” is dishonest interpretation and distortion of what was written.
If you are coming to say you disagree with the Tanya that is your issue and between you and the Tanya.
Once again this has zero to do with Chasidim vs anyone else, this is about honest interpretation of words written by a Torah Scholar.
Here are the words of the Nefesh Hachaim Shaar 1 Perek 15 regarding the Neshama seemingly also referring to at least part of the Neshama as “אלקות גמור” :
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 ואדה”ר קודם החטא זכה לעצמותה ובסיבת החטא נסתלקה מתוכו ונשארה רק חופפת עליו. לבד משרע”ה שזכה לעצמותה תוך גופו ולכן נקרא איש האלקים כידוע שכל ג’ עולמות בי”ע. מבחי’ הנשמה דלהון ולמעלה הוא אלקות גמור. כמ”ש בע”ח שער הצלם פ”א. ובריש שער ציור. עולמות אבי”ע. בהקדמת הרח”ו ז”ל. ובשער השמות פ”א. וזולתו לא זכה אליה שום אדם. רק בהירות נצוצי אור מתנוצצים ממנה על ראש האדם הזוכה אליה. כל אחד לפי מדרגתו ולפום שיעורא דילי’. וע’ רע”מ נשא קכ”ג ב’ ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים דא איהי דיוקנא דעל ב”נ כו’. ובז”ח רות ס”ד ע”ג ואי זכי כו’ כדין נחתא עלי’ רבו יתיר מלעילא כו’. אתער עלי’ מלעילא אתערו קדישא ושרי’ עלי’ דב”נ וסחרא לי’ מכל סטרין. וההוא אתערו דשריא עלי’ מאתר עלאה הוא ומאי שמי’ נשמה שמיה ע”ש. והיא הנותנת להאדם בינה יתירה להשכיל השכליות הפנימים הגנוזים בתוה”ק. וכמ”ש בס”ת לך לך (ח”א עט, ב) נשמה אתערת לאינש בבינה ובז”ח (רות ס”ד א’) ואתער בי’ בחכמתא עלאה כו’. ועיין בע”ח שער מוחין דקטנות פ”ג ז”ל אמנם לא כל אדם זוכה לזה. ודע כי מי שיש בידו כח במעשיו כו’ אז יהיה לו זכירה נפלאה בתורה ויבין כל רזי התורה כו’ ויתגלו לו רזי התורה כתקונן ע”כ. ועיין להלן הענין בשורשו העליון. ותבין:
This reminds me of a video title i once saw. it was called judiasim is not a proper religion. i thought that this guy is a kofer and he didnt believe in haveye. A week later i looked at the video and its the person explaining that a religion is when believing in Y makes you part Yism and if you dont your not part of yism. if you dont believe in hashem your still a yid. before i watched the video i automatically assumed he is a kofer it turns out he said something completely correct. (please dont turn the first part of this comment into a discussion it was just an example “dont marry the moshel”) Some non lbavitchers see a sentence pulled from the middle of tanya or a maamer or sicha and make stupid and incorrect asumptions without seeing the context of the quote. “you cant just focus on the content of the quote you also need to look at the context.” how many people here who think the baal hatanya is a kofer for writing such things actually know the context of the quote and actually understand what he’s talking about. Anyone who honestly thinks that the baal hatanya is a kofer should go jump in a lake because the fact is that he dedicated his life and was moiser nefesh for yidishkeit. for those that like to say that all lubavitchers are fanatics that think the rebbe is alive, they completly miss the context. i dont believe the rebbe is phisically alive, i know that the rebbes llegacly is still alive. there have been many big rabonim from the 20th century but a lot of their legacys are dead or forgotton. the lubavitchers rebbe legacy is not only alive now, but may i dare to say more alive then before he passed away. tens of thousands of people have become frum because of the lubavitcher rebbes shluchim ( as it says in brochas perek hey mishnah hey shliach shel odam kmoisai). Look at the context of what your trying to bash. btw there are a few wakos in chabad who are in the minority and the reason you know about them and not the majority of chabad is because normal people arent exciting but wakos who have stupid ideas excite you. most lubavitchers are normal. btw its not new that some non lubavitchers hate chabadniks for no readon, my great great grandfather was sent to siberia because a misnagid dobbed him in for teaching chasidus and he almost died there!
There is sefer Nishmas Chaim from Rav Menashe ben Yisroel of Amsterdam.
Look up the sefer Nishmas Chaim on hebrewbooks.org
for all those who are arguing against the baal hatanyah, be careful. be careful with what you say because whatever you think about this topic, its a fact that the baal hatanyah was: 1 a great talmid chochom ( MUCH greater than anyone here who is arguing so would know about this topic aand wrote chelek elokah mimmal mamash for a reason) 2. a tzadik 3. one of the magids foremost talmidim.
so whatever you do, be careful that you do not say something disrespectfull, even bordering on that about this great tzadik
just a warning as it seems as some are getting close to doing thisI think he gives a proof on the resurrection from
מעפר אתה ואל עפר אתה תשוב indicating that we will return to what we were. ה’ ישמר צאתך ובואך leaving first and then returning.I feel like im a little bit of a learned person so mayby i can be of a clarification to the confused. The soul, or neshamah is the self, the “I” that inhabits the body and acts through it.You are not your body.
The neshameh is described as Hashems own breath animating us: “And Hashem breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”
Evry existence requires a soul to sustain it—a “spark of G‑dliness” . A soul is not just the engine of life; it also embodies the why of a thing’s existence, its meaning and purpose. Yechidah connotes the essence of the soul—its unity with its source, the singular essence of Hashem. For the essence of the soul of man is “literally a part of Hashem above a piece of G‑d in us, so to speak. NOT KFERAH!!!The human neshameh is what sets the human being
above and apart from all other creations, even the angels. The angel may be more spiritual, but the human being is more G‑dly.There are four worlds, asiya, yetzira, beruah, atzilus. The human body comes from asiya and the neshama from beriah. The malochim come from beriah. If we go after the body, we are below the malochim but after the neshama above the malachim.
It should be above the malachim from yetzira.
המחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית Hashem renews daily the creation like a balloon that needs to be replenished with air. The neshama is cleansed daily, sins recorded and neshama returned to us. If one does teshuva from love, the recorded purposeful sins will be replaced with good deeds and from fear turned into unintentional sins.
reb eliezer
“There are four worlds, asiya, yetzira, beruah, atzilus. The human body comes from asiya and the neshama from beriah. The malochim come from beriah.”
this depends on the pesron and thge malach not all are from same ones
tiawd:
“this does not just mean that there is only one G-d and not more, but that G-d cannot be divided into parts.”
possible answer, i may very well be wrong, hashem is above ‘parts’ and division. therefore the idea of different neshamos coming from Him wouldntb be a contradiction as there is no division
again that is not based on anything as far as i know and might be wrongI think the neshama has the characteristics of Hashem. It comes from under the kisei hakovad, the holy throne.
tiawd
just like hashem is above time and space, he is above the idea of being devidedand as i said very possibly wrong
I teach a class of elementary school boys, and I was reminded of this thread today when one of my talmidim said that his father told him that there’s a piece of God inside him. “Like a tiny little piece, like 1 out of 10 million gazillion bajilian”, were his words. I don’t know if the father told him that interpretation, or he understood it that way on his own. Either way, the kids could tell that the rebbe suddenly got serious; I explained to them very carefully that Hashem is indivisible, totally One without any way of quantifing him, even if we say he’s a bazillion gazilion times bigger than what we can imagine – if it’s putting Him into numbers, it’s not Oneness.
The neshama has Hashem’s characteristic that it lives on and does not die.
tiawd:
just wondering, have u ever learnt that piece of tanya inside or you are just basing on what u have seen or heard?@tiawd
If you have not, as of yet, found the time to study Tanya in depth, then I would suggest you do so with the help of Reb Yoel Kahn’s shiurim which are available on the internet. Alternatively, you may use one of the many self-help Tanya books that have come out in recent years. Daunting indeed, but once you have learnt it along with the Rebbe’s explanations, many questions that you have had on Chabad philosophy will fade away. It’s a matter of patience and open-mindedness, something which many people lack, unfortunately.Your questions on Chelek Eloka would seem quite valid and strong to the average observer, which is totally understandable considering the immense level of ignorance that most in the Litvish community possess whenever it comes to Chabad thought. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and, instead of responding to you questions head on as I was initially tempted to do, I’ll just let you do the research yourself. After all no one educate you better than yourself at you age; It’s all about the willingness to learn and discover, something which no one else can provide for you.
I wish you luck that you one day realize the fallacy and absurdity of your questions – You won’t regret listening to me, and I won’t regret the resisting the urge to argue with you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.