Cheilek Eloak Mima’al

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Cheilek Eloak Mima’al

Tagged: 

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 106 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2003499
    tiawd
    Participant

    Philosopher- Can you define “emanate”? Saying the neshama, or the entire universe, emanates from G-d is not at all the same thing as saying it is part of Him.
    So too, saying that G-d is constantly granting chiyus to every part of the universe is not the same as saying everything in the universe is actually G-d.
    Yes, if G-d were to remove His presence from the universe it would cease to exist. That applies to every Jew’s neshama, as well as to everything physical, including idols and garbage. But that doesn’t make any of those things into parts of Hashem.

    #2003509
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2003530
    philosopher
    Participant

    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.

    #2003543
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2003545
    philosopher
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, thanks for bringing down the Rabbenu Bachaya. That is a great analogy, we cannot exist without God, but we emanate from Him.

    #2003577
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2003587
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2003607
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    A composite needed to be put together.

    #2003602
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2003813
    tiawd
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer- I am having a hard time figuring out what you hold. The Rambam you quoted says very clearly that Hashem is not a composite being, meaning He cannot be divided into parts.
    Obviously, everything emanates from Hashem, just because He existed first and the universe came into being afterwards, so where did it come from if not from Him? That doesn’t mean that the entire universe is G-d.

    #2003814
    tiawd
    Participant

    Philosopher- Everything you wrote is true, except for your wording, when you claim that we are a “part of G-d”. There is no such thing as a part of G-d, by definition. This was stated by the Chovos Halevavos, Rambam, Sefer HaIkkarim, and others, and I have a hard time believing that the Baal Hatanya argues with all Rishonim on such basic concepts.

    #2003848
    Duvidf
    Participant

    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 ืืœื•ืงื™ ื ืฉืžื” 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 specificallyย writes “Mamash”?

    My answer to your questions;ย 

    One can ask on the Tanya from the opposite direction;ย 
    How can he say that only the neshama is a chelek eloka mimaal when the Passukย of ืื™ืŸย ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• 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 existenceย is Hashem.

    Here are the words of the Tanya:

    ย  )ืฉืขืจ ื”ื™ื—ื•ื“ ื•ื”ืืžื•ื ื” ืคืจืง ื•(:ย  ื•ื–”ืฉ “ื•ึทื”ึฒ ืืฉึต ื‘ึนืชึธ ืึถ ืœ ืœึฐ ื‘ึธ ื‘ึถ ึธืš ึผื›ึด ื™ ื”’ ื”ึผื•ื ื”ึธ ืึฑึนืœื”ึด ื™ื”, ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืฉื ื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืืœื• ื”ืืื—ื“ ืžืžืฉ… ื•ืื ื›ืŸ ืžืžื™ืœื ืชื“ืข ืฉื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืžืžืขืœ ื•ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ืžืชื—ืช ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“,ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉื’ื ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื—ื•ืžืจื™ืช ืฉื ืจืื™ืช ื™ืฉ ื’ืžื•ืจ ืœืขื™ืŸ ื›ืœ, ื”ื™ื ืึท ื™ึดืŸ ื•ืืคืก ืžืžืฉืœื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื… ื•ืœื›ืŸ ื’ื ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืžืชื—ืช ืœืืจืฅ ื”ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื•ืืคืก ืžืžืฉืœื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื‘”ื” ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื ืงืจืื•ืช ื‘ืฉื ื›ืœืœ, ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื ‘ืขื•ื“’ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื˜ืคืœ…ืื‘ืœ ื”ืงื‘”ื” ื”ืžื”ื•ื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœ ืžืื™ืŸ ืœื™ืฉ, ื”ื›ืœ ื‘ื˜ืœ ื‘ืžืฆื™ืื•ืช ืืฆืœื• ื›ืžื• ืื•ืจื”ืฉืžืฉ ื‘ืฉืžืฉ.ย  ย 

    Here are the words of the Nefesh Hachaim:

    ย  )ืฉืขืจ ื’, ืกื•ืฃ ืคืจืง ื‘-ืคืจืง ื’(:…ืื‘ืœ ืื“ื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ืฉืžื•, ื”ื•ื ืžืœื ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœืžื•ืช ื•ื”ื ื‘ืจืื™ื, ื•ืื™ื ืื—ื•ืฆืฆื™ื ื—ืœื™ืœื” ื ื’ื“ื• ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ื›ืœืœ ื‘ืืžืช. ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ืžืžืฉ ืฉื•ืื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืœืœ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœืžื•ืช, ืžื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื‘ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ืขื“ ื”ืชื”ื•ื ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืฉื‘ืชื”ื•ืžื•ืชื”ืืจืฅ, ืขื“ ืฉืชื•ื›ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื•ื ื ื‘ืจื ื•ืขื•ืœื ื›ืœืœ, ืจืง ื”ื›ืœ ืžืœื ืขืฆืžื•ืชืื—ื“ื•ืชื• ื”ืคืฉื•ื˜ ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ืฉืžื•. ื•ื”ื•ื ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ “ื”ึฒ ืœึนื•ื ืึถ ืช ื”ึท ึผืืฉึธ ืžึท ื™ึดื ื•ึฐืึถ ืช ื”ึธ ืึธ ืจึถ ืฅืึฒ ื ึดื™ ืžึธ ืœึต ื” )ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื›ื’, ื›ื“(, ื•ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ื‘ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื” “ื•ึฐื™ึธื“ึท ืขึฐ ึผืชึธ ื”ึท ึผื™ึนื•ื ื•ึทื”ึฒ ืืฉึต ื‘ึนืชึธืึถ ืœ ืœึฐ ื‘ึธ ื‘ึถ ึธืš ึผื›ึด ื™ ื”’ ื”ึผื•ื ื”ึธ ืึฑึนืœื”ึด ื™ื ึผื‘ึท ืึผืฉึธ ืžึท ื™ึดื ืžึด ึผืžึท ืขึท ืœ ื•ึฐืขึท ืœ ื”ึธ ืึธ ืจึถ ืฅ ืžึด ึผืชึธ ื—ึท ืช ืึต ื™ืŸ ืขึนื•ื“”)ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“, ืœื˜(, ื•ื›ืŸ “ืึท ึผืชึธ ื” ื”ึธ ืจึฐ ืึต ืชึธ ืœึธ ื“ึท ืขึท ืช ึผื›ึด ื™ ื”’ ื”ึผื•ื ื”ึธ ืึฑึนืœื”ึด ื™ื ืึต ื™ืŸ ืขึนื•ื“ ืžึด ืœึฐ ื‘ึท ึผื“ึนื•”)ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื“, ืœื”(… ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืžืฉ ื›ืžืฉืžืขื•, ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ื›ืœืœ, ื‘ืฉื•ืื‘ื—ื™ื ื” ื•ื ืงื•ื“ื” ืคืจื˜ื™ืช ืฉื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืœืžื•ืช, ืขืœื™ื•ื ื™ื ื•ืชื—ืชื•ื ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ืจื™ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœื,ืจืง ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืื—ื“ื•ืชื• ื”ืคืฉื•ื˜ ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ืฉืžื• ืœื‘ื“… ืฉืžืฆื™ื“ื• ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ื ื—ืฉื‘ื™ื ื›ื•ืœืื›ืื™ืœื• ืื™ื ื ื‘ืžืฆื™ืื•ืช ื›ืœืœ, ื’ื ืขืชื” ื›ืงื•ื“ื ื”ื‘ืจื™ืื”.

    In the words of Rav Avigdor Miller zt”l to the best of my recollection:

    “The entire world exists in Hashems mind”.ย ย 

    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 ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• there is NO other existence other than Hashem.

    The same would apply for your second question as well, it is ืืชื” ื‘ืจืืชื” and ืืชื” ื™ืฆืจืช 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 Hashemย  (referred to by some as ืฆืžืฆื•ื or ื”ืกืชืจ) in order for us to have a realm in which we can fulfill our purpose in the world.ย 

    The idea of the Tanya about the Neshama being Chelek Eloka mimaal mamash is likewise that even within our world of ืฆืžืฆื•ื or ื”ืกืชืจ where Hashem restricted / constricted / covered himself for us, the Neshama is a part of us that is less restricted / covered etc.

    #2003910
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2004026
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- Once we get into ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• I agree that nothing exists independently of Hashem. I still wouldn’t say that everything is a “part” of Hashem, but that nothing exists outside of Him, like you quoted from the Nefesh Hachaim:
    ืขื“ ืฉืชื•ื›ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื•ื ื ื‘ืจื ื•ืขื•ืœื ื›ืœืœ, ืจืง ื”ื›ืœ ืžืœื ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืื—ื“ื•ืชื• ื”ืคืฉื•ื˜ ื™ืชื‘ืจืš ืฉืžื•.
    But still, on the day-to-day level where we see the world as having an existence and understand that it was created, the neshama is one of the things that was created, not the Creator.

    #2004049
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    Tiawd – i agree; that’s a very good way to put it

    #2004055
    Duvidf
    Participant

    tiawd –

    Correct, in ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื or what you call day-to-day level the Neshama is a creation not a creator as it says in ืืœื•ืงื™ ื ืฉืžื”. 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 restrictedย / covered himself in this creation less than in others.

    The explanation / mashal given is ืžืืŸ ื“ื ืคื— ืžืŸ ื“ื™ืœื™ื”ย ื ืคื— a balloonย 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 ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื•, “kefira” is hopefully now out of the question, the issue now is how to best describe / understand in ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื 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 ืžืฉืžืขื•ืช ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื•.

    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.

    #2004187
    Pekak
    Participant

    @tiawd

    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.

    #2004692
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- The way you are describing the idea of ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ does not sound like kefirah, although it seems that you said two different things:
    1) That Hashem concealed Himself in all of creation and concealed Himself less in the neshama
    2) That the neshama actually has part of the essence of Hashem in it, like the mashal of a balloon that a person blew into and filled with air
    The first concept is not at all objectionable, but the second one still seems problematic.
    The concept of ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ is a powerful one whose implications have inspired thousands of Jews. But I still think that the “anatomy” is important because there are certain ideas we are not allowed to believe and the consequences of holding heretical beliefs are so severe. So even if we don’t understand the “anatomy”, the most important thing for us to know is what ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ doesn’t mean. Then we can try to understand what it does mean.

    #2004659
    tiawd
    Participant

    Pekak- The actual shem Hashem has a mappik hei at the end, which is pronounced. So if you say “Eloak” you haven’t finished saying the shem because you haven’t pronounced the hei yet.

    #2004711
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    tiawd, we pronounce govoah and not govoha so it should be eloah but in order not to pronounce it we say elokah.

    #2004908
    tiawd
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer- Exactly. A lot of people get this wrong but if you are trying to be medakdek you should say gavoah and Eloa-h.

    #2004939
    Duvidf
    Participant

    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 ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ื“ ืžืœื‘ื“ื• 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 ื—ืœืง ืืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ 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.

    #2005005
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- I think we have hit an impenetrable divide between Chasidim and misnagdim. The appeal to the Tanya’s authority is not enough for a misnagged – if what the Tanya wrote contradicts basic principles of Yiddishkeit, then either it can’t be meant literally or it is kefirah. If it can be reconciled with these principles then great, but otherwise it isn’t enough to say “the Tanya said so, so it must be true”.
    For Chasidim it may be enough, but they are always at risk that someone whose authority they accept will say something truly heretical and they will have no tools left to justify why not to accept it.

    #2005216
    Duvidf
    Participant

    tiawd –

    Not sure how you understood me to be saying โ€œthe Tanya said so, so it must be trueโ€.

    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 “ืืœืงื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจ” :

    ืืžื ื ื‘ื—ื™ื ืช ื”ื ืฉืžื”. ื”ื™ื ื”ื ืฉื™ืžื” ืขืฆืžื” ืฉืคื ื™ืžื™ื•ืช ืขืฆืžื•ืชื” ืžืกืชืชืจืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื ื•ืžืงื•ืจื” ื‘ืจื•ืš ื›ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื ืฉื™ืžืช ืคื™ื• ื™ืช”ืฉ. ืฉืื™ืŸ ืขืฆืžื•ืช ืžื”ื•ืชื” ื ื›ื ืกืช ื›ืœืœ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื’ื•ืฃ ื”ืื“ื ื•ืื“ื””ืจ ืงื•ื“ื ื”ื—ื˜ื ื–ื›ื” ืœืขืฆืžื•ืชื” ื•ื‘ืกื™ื‘ืช ื”ื—ื˜ื ื ืกืชืœืงื” ืžืชื•ื›ื• ื•ื ืฉืืจื” ืจืง ื—ื•ืคืคืช ืขืœื™ื•. ืœื‘ื“ ืžืฉืจืข”ื” ืฉื–ื›ื” ืœืขืฆืžื•ืชื” ืชื•ืš ื’ื•ืคื• ื•ืœื›ืŸ ื ืงืจื ืื™ืฉ ื”ืืœืงื™ื ื›ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื›ืœ ื’’ ืขื•ืœืžื•ืช ื‘ื™”ืข. ืžื‘ื—ื™’ ื”ื ืฉืžื” ื“ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื•ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื•ื ืืœืงื•ืช ื’ืžื•ืจ. ื›ืž”ืฉ ื‘ืข”ื— ืฉืขืจ ื”ืฆืœื ืค”ื. ื•ื‘ืจื™ืฉ ืฉืขืจ ืฆื™ื•ืจ. ืขื•ืœืžื•ืช ืื‘ื™”ืข. ื‘ื”ืงื“ืžืช ื”ืจื—”ื• ื–”ืœ. ื•ื‘ืฉืขืจ ื”ืฉืžื•ืช ืค”ื. ื•ื–ื•ืœืชื• ืœื ื–ื›ื” ืืœื™ื” ืฉื•ื ืื“ื. ืจืง ื‘ื”ื™ืจื•ืช ื ืฆื•ืฆื™ ืื•ืจ ืžืชื ื•ืฆืฆื™ื ืžืžื ื” ืขืœ ืจืืฉ ื”ืื“ื ื”ื–ื•ื›ื” ืืœื™ื”. ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ืœืคื™ ืžื“ืจื’ืชื• ื•ืœืคื•ื ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื“ื™ืœื™’. ื•ืข’ ืจืข”ืž ื ืฉื ืงื›”ื’ ื‘’ ื•ื™ืคื— ื‘ืืคื™ื• ื ืฉืžืช ื—ื™ื™ื ื“ื ืื™ื”ื™ ื“ื™ื•ืงื ื ื“ืขืœ ื‘”ื  ื›ื•’. ื•ื‘ื–”ื— ืจื•ืช ืก”ื“ ืข”ื’ ื•ืื™ ื–ื›ื™ ื›ื•’ ื›ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื—ืชื ืขืœื™’ ืจื‘ื• ื™ืชื™ืจ ืžืœืขื™ืœื ื›ื•’. ืืชืขืจ ืขืœื™’ ืžืœืขื™ืœื ืืชืขืจื• ืงื“ื™ืฉื ื•ืฉืจื™’ ืขืœื™’ ื“ื‘”ื  ื•ืกื—ืจื ืœื™’ ืžื›ืœ ืกื˜ืจื™ืŸ. ื•ื”ื”ื•ื ืืชืขืจื• ื“ืฉืจื™ื ืขืœื™’ ืžืืชืจ ืขืœืื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืื™ ืฉืžื™’ ื ืฉืžื” ืฉืžื™ื” ืข”ืฉ. ื•ื”ื™ื ื”ื ื•ืชื ืช ืœื”ืื“ื ื‘ื™ื ื” ื™ืชื™ืจื” ืœื”ืฉื›ื™ืœ ื”ืฉื›ืœื™ื•ืช ื”ืคื ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื’ื ื•ื–ื™ื ื‘ืชื•ื””ืง. ื•ื›ืž”ืฉ ื‘ืก”ืช ืœืš ืœืš (ื—”ื ืขื˜, ื‘) ื ืฉืžื” ืืชืขืจืช ืœืื™ื ืฉ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื” ื•ื‘ื–”ื— (ืจื•ืช ืก”ื“ ื’) ื•ืืชืขืจ ื‘ื™’ ื‘ื—ื›ืžืชื ืขืœืื” ื›ื•’. ื•ืขื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ืข”ื— ืฉืขืจ ืžื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื“ืงื˜ื ื•ืช ืค”ื’ ื–”ืœ ืืžื ื ืœื ื›ืœ ืื“ื ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื–ื”. ื•ื“ืข ื›ื™ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื›ื— ื‘ืžืขืฉื™ื• ื›ื•’ ืื– ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื–ื›ื™ืจื” ื ืคืœืื” ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ืจื–ื™ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•’ ื•ื™ืชื’ืœื• ืœื• ืจื–ื™ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืชืงื•ื ืŸ ืข”ื›. ื•ืขื™ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื”ืขื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ืจืฉื• ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ. ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ:

    #2005336
    Nochum Dokshitz
    Participant

    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!

    #2005381
    tiawd
    Participant

    Duvidf- You wrote “I think the Tanya was well aware of ideas we are not allowed to believe and nevertheless wrote what he wrote including the word โ€œMamashโ€.” I understood that to mean that you want to understand him literally and are dismissing any proofs that the literal meaning of his words is kefirah off hand, because the Tanya knew those ideas and wrote what he wrote anyway. That is the idea I am taking issue with.
    I don’t actually believe the Baal Hatanya was a kofer since I have seen interpretations of his words that don’t understand them literally (such as R’ Jacobson’s explanation previously mentioned).
    Nor do I think that your explanation that the entire universe conceals the presence of Hashem but the neshama is less concealed is kefirah.

    #2005398
    tiawd
    Participant

    Nochum- You seem to be making several points.
    1) If you don’t believe in Hashem you are still a Yid.
    Of course, but if you believe heretical ideas you are a Yid who is nebach a kofer.
    2) The sentence in Tanya which says the neshama is a ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ ืžืžืฉ has to be taken in context.
    I agree, and I am not qualified to discuss the Tanya, but I have seen people who tried to argue, based on the context, that the Tanya never meant the neshama is literally part of Hashem.
    3) The Baal Hatanya was not a kofer.
    Agreed, but the fact that someone was moser nefesh for Yiddishkeit as he understood it does not necessarily prove he wasn’t a kofer. I don’t think he was a kofer because I don’t think anyone has said that since the initial charamim against the Chasidim died down almost 200 years ago.
    4) People who think all Chabadniks are kofrim are wrong.
    I wasn’t trying to bash Chabad as a whole. The last point you made is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and it is a shame to make this thread into yet another one where Chabadniks and misnagdim bash each other. Neither side is going to convince anyone, so that is a huge waste of time.

    #2005777
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    There is sefer Nishmas Chaim from Rav Menashe ben Yisroel of Amsterdam.

    #2005264
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Look up the sefer Nishmas Chaim on hebrewbooks.org

    #2005976
    tiawd
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer- Does R’ Menashe ben Yisrael discuss this particular issue? It looks like he is mainly concerned with trying to prove that the neshama is immortal. When he titles the eight perek of the sefer ื’ื ื‘ื™ื“ ื”ื ื‘ื™ืื™ื ืจืฉื•ื ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ืืžืช ืฉื”ื ืฉืžื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ it seems clear from context that he is using that phrase to mean that the neshama outlives the guf.
    Later in the perek he writes:
    ื›ืืŸ ื”ืคืœื™ื’ ืœื”ื•ืจื•ืช ื”ื”ืฉืืจื•ืช ื”ื ืคืฉื™ื™, ื›ื™ ื›ืŸ ื›ืชื™ื‘ “ื›ื™ ืจื•ื— ืžืœืคื ื™ ื™ืขื˜ื•ืฃ”, ืจ”ืœ ื”ืจื•ื— ืžืœืคื ื™ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ื‘ืข ื”ืืจืฅ ื›ืžื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ, ื•ื”ื ืฉืžื•ืช ืื ื™ ืขืฉื™ืชื™ ื•ืื™ื ื ื ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืžื”ืื‘ื•ืช ืœื‘ื ื™ื ื›ืžื• ื”ื’ื•ืฃ, ื›ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื•ืชืคื™ื ื™ืฉ ื‘ื‘ืจื™ืืช ื”ืื“ื- ื”ืื‘ื•ืช ื ื•ืชื ื™ื ื”ื’ื•ืคื™ื ื•ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ ื”ืŸ ื”ื ื” ื”ื ืคืฉื•ืช
    It seems that he is using the phrase to mean that the neshama comes from Hashem and therefore outlasts the body.

    #2006666
    Melbournian
    Participant

    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 this

    #2006689
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    I think he gives a proof on the resurrection from
    ืžืขืคืจ ืืชื” ื•ืืœ ืขืคืจ ืืชื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ indicating that we will return to what we were. ื”’ ื™ืฉืžืจ ืฆืืชืš ื•ื‘ื•ืืš leaving first and then returning.

    #2006807
    CHOOSID
    Participant

    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: โ€œAnd Hashem breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.โ€

    Evry existence requires a soul to sustain itโ€”a “spark of Gโ€‘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 soulโ€”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 Gโ€‘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 Gโ€‘dly.

    #2007070
    tiawd
    Participant

    CHOOSID- Did you read the original post? There are three main reasons why I think a literal understanding of the concept of ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ is wrong and at least borders on kefirah. You don’t seem to be dealing with any of them.
    I also find it interesting that you wrote: “the essence of the soul of man is โ€œliterally a part of Hashem above a piece of Gโ€‘d in us, so to speak.”
    What do you mean “literally, so to speak”? Is it literal or not?

    #2007072
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    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.

    #2007084
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    It should be above the malachim from yetzira.

    #2007159
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    ื”ืžื—ื“ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ืชืžื™ื“ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช 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.

    #2007310
    Melbournian
    Participant

    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 wrong

    #2007528
    tiawd
    Participant

    Melbournian- I am not sure what you mean for Hashem to be above “parts” and division. If you mean that He is one unity that cannot be divided into parts, that is what the rishonim said, and that makes it impossible to understand the neshama as being literally “part” of Hashem, despite the word “mamash” in the Tanya. If you mean that it is valid to talk about “parts” of Hashem but that somehow doesn’t detract from His unity, then that needs to be reconciled with these clear statements by rishonim that no one seems to argue with.

    #2007563
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    I think the neshama has the characteristics of Hashem. It comes from under the kisei hakovad, the holy throne.

    #2007590
    Melbournian
    Participant

    tiawd
    just like hashem is above time and space, he is above the idea of being devided

    #2007591
    Melbournian
    Participant

    and as i said very possibly wrong

    #2007603
    AviraDeArah
    Participant

    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.

    #2007906
    tiawd
    Participant

    AviraDeArah- Kol hakavod to you for your explanation to the kids.
    Unfortunately, many of us never outgrow our childish understandings of Torah concepts. So many people never stop to think about things from a more mature perspective, so they are left believing all sorts of idiotic, false, or even heretical ideas they heard somewhere. Not everything that has been said by a frum Jew with a beard is true and it is worthwhile to have some sort of critical thinking in order to know what to accept and what not to accept. I don’t mean for people to go around rejecting everything said by gedolim, but if something seems to make no sense, put it aside in your mind until you find a satisfactory explanation instead of insisting that it is absolute truth.

    #2007910
    tiawd
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer- I believe Chazal said befeirush that the neshama comes from under the kisei hakavod. But that would seem to be very different from saying that it is an actual part of Hashem.

    #2007939
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The neshama has Hashem’s characteristic that it lives on and does not die.

    #2008096
    Melbournian
    Participant

    tiawd:
    just wondering, have u ever learnt that piece of tanya inside or you are just basing on what u have seen or heard?

    #2008194
    tiawd
    Participant

    Melbournian- I have never learned the sefer Tanya because I get the impression that the entire sefer is one hemshech and it has to be learned from cover to cover, which is quite daunting. Also, the kabbalistic ideas in the sefer are hard to learn on your own without hearing shiurim to explain them.
    But I read that perek inside before starting this thread.

    #2009100
    Yechi Hamelech
    Participant

    @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.

    #2009164
    tiawd
    Participant

    Yechi- I will also resist the urge to argue with you ๐Ÿ™‚
    There is definitely a lot of ignorance in the Litvish community about Chabad thought, perhaps because Chabad thought is such a huge and self-contained body of thought which is difficult for outsiders to access.
    I think that a lot of the discussions between Chabad chasidim and misnagdim consist of the two sides talking past each other because they don’t speak the same language. It seems likely that many Litvaks’ objections to various Chabad teachings are based on a misunderstanding of what the words mean in the world of Chabad thought. I think that Chabad also has a problem explaining its own beliefs to outsiders in a language they can understand. That may be why no one on this thread has managed to answer my original questions without either appealing to the authority of the Ba’al Hatanya or the vague answer that “Hashem is above all these discussions”. I have no doubt that Chabad chasidim understand the concept of ื—ืœืง ื-ืœื•ืง ืžืžืขืœ on a very deep and meaningful level and that it is a powerful and life-changing idea for them. Still, it seems that they have a difficult time explaining and justifying the concept to outsiders in language that answers their questions.
    I hope to learn through the whole sefer Tanya someday.

Viewing 50 posts - 51 through 100 (of 106 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.