The following thread at the end of page 2 and on page 3 has a discussion on this issue
http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/594108672/m/...631022051#9631022051

But since that discussion wasn't relevant to the thread, it was suggested a new thread is started in the right place.

Here it is.

Some kabbalists, perhaps later ones, (acording to my understanding) say that G-d is everywhere, G-d is all and all is G-d. G-d is everywhere in this world, he occupies/is space and everything in it . In this world, he hasn't made himself obvious. He has constricted his presence, hiding himself, the world is his garment.

I think this G-d is everywhere concept, doesn't jive with the RAMBAM. The RAMBAM sseems to stick to a more traditional view

"Milo kol haaartesz kvodo", "The whole Earth is filled with His glory."

This means that everywhere we look, we see God's handiwork, testimony to His wisdom NOT that He can take up space.


The RAMBAM says that directions left right up down and division like one divides a body into portions or areas. These do not apply to G-d.

Yet the G-d is everywhere concept says that G-d is All. He occupies space. He is space and everything in it. And anything that occupies space, has left right up down and areas/portions/can be divided like a body

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Mitterhoff,

ahh thank you for starting this.
let us forget who said what first that matters little to our matter at hand. though what matters is what you say is true that G-d is not space , G-d is not a tree. these things are not G-d. however none of these places are void of G-d. as it is written "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth says the L-rd" do not let us deprive this text of it's simple meaning. but rather accpet that though Space is not G_d it is not void of G-d pressence. for if it was it could not exist.

but rather if one says that G-d dwell in a placace or a spiritual relm goes against the RamBam for one is given limintation of distance of the Divine pressence by saying G-d is here but not there. no different then saying a King rules from a Palace. for to that king location is limited by degree of above below, behind and before.

for what king can say i fill my whole kingdom? none unless their body is their kingdom.

What do you think "G-d's Glory" is that the difference of terminology should make you think it's a contradiction?

****response to Mack* ***********
Mack: The idea you're presenting, which I understand to be that G-d doesn't occupy space or isn't space. But that his presence is felt everywhere and fills space. That I think conforms to the RAMBAM. But there is a kabbalistic school of thought that really says that these things we see in the world are not G-d - *because* he constricted his presence in this world, thus these things we see are merely his garments. And G-d really does occupy space, he is space and everything in it, G-d is all and all is G-d. It is this kabbalstic school of thought that doesn't jive with the RAMBAM. By the way, people of that school of thought may cite the verse you mentioned

Jer. 23:24, "Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."

These verses may not necessarily be cited as proofs from which they derive the idea, becuase the idea is already defined elsewhere in kabbalistic literature.

I think your interpretation is a fine one. But some kabbalists would interpret it more literally, they already have a kabbalistic idea tzimtzum constriction of G-d's persence that takes it all further.

********* response to R **
R: I don't think there is an interpretation of G-d's glory that contradicts the RAMBAM. Since nobody would cite ""The whole Earth is filled with His glory." as a proof or hint that G-d literally fills the world. Since they would have other verses that support the idea better. Like an interpretation and translation of Deut 4:39 . And an interpretation of Jer. 23:24

Jer 23:24
"Can a man hide himself in hiding places, So I do not see him?” declares the Lord. “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord."

Deut 4:39
some translate as "... G-d; in the heaven above and upon the earth below there is nothing else" <-- some interpret as g-d is all and all is g-d.
Others translate as "there is no other" at the end of that verse.

A traditional and I think only (according to any school of thought), interpretation of The whole earth is filled with G-d's glory, is the following-

Everywhere we look we see G-d's handywork, it is testimony to his wisdom.
Not that he can take up space.

There is no interpretation of that verse that contradicts the RAMBAM.

******response to R and Mack **************

Unfortunately I can't find the chabad article that said clearly that there are 2 schools of thought. one that says G-d is literally in the world(not just his 'presence'), the other that says he isn't.
A source for G-d being in the world and constriction of himself may be a book called "Inner Space" By Rabbi ARyeh Kaplan. I don't have the book though. But it was recommended by a guy that explained the idea very well.

--
The kabbalistic idea of tzim tzum and G-d constricting his presence may have started with the arizal, and also exists in Chassidut. I have a book called "There is one" by Gutman Locks (not a rabbi), - just a chassid with a long beard. BUT His book has a foreward from the lubavitcher rebbe saying "this book will bring many jews back to judaism". It also has a preface written by a Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Ezra Shochet "yeshiva ohr elchonon chabad" Listening to Gutman's audio on his site http://www.thereisone.com it's clear he says G-d is all. I recalll reading in Gutman's autobiography "Coming back to earth" he wrote that some (not all) yeshivas banned his book.
Here is more evidence of a literal G-d is everywhere believe.
note: i'm not saying it's wrong. Just that it contradicts the RAMBAM. Now, I am more than willing to agree that other rabbis, like the RAMBAN and more importantly, the Arizal were greater or far greater kabbalists than he. (and I think the Arizal taught tzim tzum.

I wish I had the link actually a chabad link that says there are 2 schools of thought. And the Lubavitch Rebbes that say you can't choose between 2 masters.

I got into this issue after hearing Gutman Locks , seeing the foreward from the Rabbi Shneerson and the preface from the Rosh of a Yeshiva, and then thinking this was the widely accept and authoritative and only kabbalistic belief on the issue.
Then, I noticed this site http://www.mesora.org/
and in the philosophy section
http://www.mesora.org/_private/philosophy.html
do edit..find..tanya
and you see a list of articles against tanya - declaring it heresy.
He criticised the verse that referred to a part fo G-d.
I emailed the author of the site (Rabbi moshe Ben Chaim) and said that perhaps 'part' is a bad translation, since G-d is All and cannot be separated. So, a better translation is Area. He then showed me the left right up down division , verses in RAMBAM , these prove that tanya differs from the RAMBAM. That rabbi goes according to the RAMBAM on the issue.
I differ with the Rabbi of the site on 2 counts, a)I am not going to choose the RAMBAM over another gerat kabbalist, such as the Arizal. Also, the kabbalistic idea that G-d is All, probably started with the Arizal , so just be attacking lubavitch literatue like that. I do agree with him though, that the RAMBAM doesn't jive with the idea of G-d being literally everywhere, and the belief in tzim tzum G-d constricting his presence. b)I am not yet convinced that anybody that differs with the RAMBAM on this issue is a heretic. Infact, that Chabad site said it's impossible to know who is right - how can we know? note- the article doesn't mention the RAMBAM. Just mentions that there are 2 schools of thought.

I have looked through all chabad articles on kabbalah and for some reason can't find the article. MAybe it wasnt' on the chabad site afterall. sorry about the lack of sources.

m

R' Nehumiah Ben HaKana who live in the first century hinted at Tzimtzum in his sefer. though many do not know this and error in say that that this concept oringated from the Ari.

This concept is not to be taken literally just as we do not take literally that G-d has a mouth in which he breath in to man. those who error and take this literally are the ones who destory the tree of life. and it is for this reason the rabbis forbid the study of such work until one is 40.

I personally disagree with Mesora.com has to say about tanya for these are the same word which was used to refer to The RamBam dealing with his sefer "guide to the preplex" which this rabbi gives so much praise to him. it is without question unlike the Alter Rebbe Shulchan Aruch HaRav that tha tanya is a mystical text and as such one does well not to take things literally nevermind find a teacher who knows the subject matter.

The Alter Rebbe was respect by both camps not only the Chassidim. for he was without question a Talmudic Gaint. did not accpet that concept of G-d having a body or a shape.

"In the light of what has been said above (in chapter 7 above this part of Shaar Hayichud) it is possible to understand the error of some scholars in their own eyes, may G-d forgive them, who erred and misinterpreted in their study of the writing of the Ari, of blessed memory, and understood the doctrine of Tzimtzum, which is mentioned therein literally --That the holy One, Blesed be He, removed Himself and His essence, G-d forbid, from this world and only guides from above, with individual Providence, all the created beings which are in the heavens above and on the earth below. Now, aside from the fact that it is altogether impossible to interpret the doctrine of Tzimtzum literally, for then it is a phenomenon of corporeality, concerning the Holy One, Blessed Be He, who is set apart from them, ... There is no place devoid of Him, not in the upper worlds nor in the lower worlds;"
Tanya Shaar Hayichud chapter 7
the Alter Rebbe goes on in explaining that frankly there is no direct nor space , up or down. though some may error in this and say such thing due to the fact they might take Tzimtzum litterally.

thanks, I wasn't aware that chabad had a non litearl interpretation (Since Rabbi Shneerson wrote a foreward to a book that took G-d being everywhere so literally).

I just foudn an article that supports what you have posted - about a non literal interpretation being standard, this letter by Rabbi Schneerson.

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-1/04.htm

As noted by earlier posters, there is apparently a machlokes between Gdolei Oilam regarding this metaphysical matter. However, I would be suspicious of the Mesora/Ben-Chaim website's take on this inyan, since in other, lengthy pieces he lambasts ALL chassidus with great gusto. He argues that Chassidus is like Reform, ridicules the Chassidic mode of dress... Here's an example: He asks whether a man without a beard could ever be chosen by Chassidim to be their Rebbe. He answers in the negative himself, and then goes on to talk about how chitzoniusdik (super-superficial!) Chassidus is. He praises the Gaon as he should, but then claims (R"L) that the Besht was mamash infantile, unintelligent, and plain ignorant! I wonder: Im ba'arazim naflah shalheves ma yomru ezovei hakir?! The amount of sinas achim meted out on that website is in my view reprehensible: We need more, not less achdus. Please check for yourselves; I have strong Litvish roots (although a Chassid in practice) but I never heard such diatribes as "mesora's" from even my most Misnagdish Yerushalmi relative. The chilul Hashem that results from the many links to this website must be quite remarkable.

yes most of the earlier oppents of the Chassidim are justified if you will in what they say. however we know better due to the fact that history has shown us. the problem the other Goan and others had with the Chassidim was remember not to long before there was a man who arose a great kabbalist by some (though now we know better) and proclaim himself the messiah and then later convert to Islam. and never mind the franks and the list goes on. so when this movement which became reveal through the Holy Baal Shem Tov it was very suppious given some of it teachings. and had i been born in that era i would probley say the same thing as the Vilnia Goan and not even meet with the Alter Rebbe. however we knew that these chassidim are not like those who went astary of earlier generation nor are trying to lead astray thus one should be careful when they quote such old sources without considering the time and what was going on.

as much this has been interesting and different from the norm of my studies. so thank you davidt for sharing your thoughts and questions. since i just finish the first book of the RamBam but i didn't really study any of it and this gave me the chance to study a little of it.

I have more important information that confirms what you say about a literal interpretation of tzim tzum being wrong. and will have more to post.

I just chatted with my favourite rabbi (he happens to be a chabad one).

The conversation went something like this

me: if G-d is everywhere, then does he fill space?

rabbi:
he occupies and fills all space with his presence, which is a reflection of himself.
G-d transcends all space

me: I once read - and I now think this is wrong - that G-d constricted himself and this world is his garment, his constricted self, and this is the kabbalsitic reasdon why he can't be addresed through objects.
I think the literal interpretation is wrong and the true interp has something to do with - as you say - his presence.

rabbi: you're right. what you read is entirely wrong. He constricted his light / his reflection. not himself.

I think this is where the biggest perplexion happens to be. If G-d constricted Himself, then He is not everywhere anymore. If He did not constrict Himself, then the concept of Tzimtzum is wrong. Yet we know that Tzimtzum is a very accurate representation of what happened, as even physics seems to confirm it. We know that everything flows from high level to low level - energy, water, light, etc. The Ohr-ein-sof, or Infinite Light, or what physicists call the Higgs field, had to have an irregularity in order for the world to start evolving. This Light has a source, which is Hashem. However, light without darkness is meaningless. When there was no time, everything was light, energy. Then this light was constricted. G-d did not make Himself smaller in Tzimtzum: infinity minus one is still infinity, and we know from astrophysics - and from the Bahir - that the universee started with a singularity, a "one". Without that singularity, the Higgs field was uniform, and there could not be time or space. Just as, much later, Hashem removed Kain from His presence, so He had removed His presence from a single point, and that created the irregularity, the singularity, the khirik... The Oriental cultures have a similar concept of Yin and Yang, where there is an element of Yin in the field of Yang, and an element of Yang in the field of Yin. One point of G-d's presence was removed from infinity, and one point of infinity was removed from G-d's presence.

Which is why the concept of Tikkun Olam and our participation in it as Hashem's partners becomes of crucial importance.

I don't know if I am making much sense, but it does make good sense to me.

physics and kabbalah are well beyond me. But,I must point out the recent posts are talking about a non literal definition of tzim tzum being standard.
yet you wrote
"If G-d constricted Himself, then He is not everywhere anymore. If He did not constrict Himself, then the concept of Tzimtzum is wrong."

G-d is not everywhere, he does not fill space. He trancends space. His presence fills space.
I don't know much more than that, like, whether his presence is his constricted light.

If G-d was everywhere and literally filled space himself, then you're choosing a minority heavily criticised interpretation of tzim tzum, and i think it would cause a problem with the rambam too as discussed in previous posts.

just a point that might clarify how tzim tzum is not a contradiction to Hashem being everywhere.
Tzim Tzum is something that is only for our benefit i.e., in reality there is no tzim tzum it is only to our perception that tzim tzum exists. for Hashem as he is, Tzim Tzum doesn't change anythign, from Hashems end of it He is still everywhere.
This is very important to remember in order to not limit Hashem C"V.

Davidt,

quote:

physics and kabbalah are well beyond me. But,I must point out the recent posts are talking about a non literal definition of tzim tzum being standard.

The only way to understand the Tzimtzum is through Kabbalah - or through physics. In either case, we have to know in order to understand.

The Tzimtzum did not became a mainstream concept in Jewish thinking until the Arizal. Before that, even in the Rambam's and the Ramban's writings, it was outlined as an extremely esoteric idea best left to the specialists. However, the concept is far from new to the Ari, as in the Bahir it was already introduced. (I am referring to the Aryeh Kaplan's publication of the Bahir).

The search for a non-literal meaning of what was said hundreds or especially thousands of years ago is all too often the last resort when we try to understand what was really meant. But the reason why the Kabbalah experts say not to take it literally is another paradox. Neither time nore space existed until the Tzimtzum / the Big Bang. We cannot possibly know what was prior to it, because there could not be a "prior": which is why Torah opens with letter Bet, whose shape in Hebrew means that there was nothing material prior to it, except for the small dot (tail on the right-hand side of the Bet), which is really part of the letter Bet, part of the material world. This dot is where it all started.

Now just think of all the universe compacted into a dot the size of a mustard seed, as Ramban put it. The heat - energy, Infinite Light - would indeed be infinite. Yet it is an infinitesimal part of the Great Infinity. Why did G-d need it? - because He needed a vessel for all that energy to flow into.

Sorry; for some reason, I could not edit my post this morning.

Anyway, the consequence of the energy contained in the singularity being infinite is that nothing could be formed within that singularity, not even the photons; yet the entropy (measure of chaos in physics) of the universe was huge. Outside of this singularity, there was no time and no space. This is what the Torah means by "tohu va-bohu": empty and chaotic at the same time. Then the expansion started: "me-ein yesh", and when (according to the Ramban, whose view is in amazing agreement with modern physics) the universe was the size of a grapefruit (and still nothing outside), the first photon of light was formed and shot out: "Yehi Ohr".

Now regarding the paradox of Hashem not being everywhere if He contracted - that's really easy, actually. Our universe is part of Hashem (as are other possible universes as well). He generated it out of His spiritual and energetic self (the famous Einstein's E = mc2) by contracting several of His dimensions while expanding the others. I think the Rambam describes that in his Moreh (Guide for the Perplexed).

Alas silly people in our generation confuse RaMBaM with primary sources. This particular reshon many today regard like chabadniks treat "rebbe". Good scholarship opens up the primary sources; bad scholarship worships local commentaries. According to RaMBaM the Geonim were only local how much more so RaMBaM himself! RaMBaM's great codification is not never was and never will be Oral Torah.

with respect,
moshe

B"H
Moshe Kerr,

With all that said, Rambam did what no other Rishon or Geon or Savora or Ammora or Tanna did before him. He made a very excellent compilation of our oral laws and traditions, taken from the writings of the Talmud and works of the Geonim, without which it would have been very difficult for the Tur and the Shulhan Arukh of Maran, as well as for others, to compile their codes of Jewish law.
All previous works were either in Aramaic (the language of the Talmud), or either covered only partial treatises on Jewish law. Rambam's work was far more exhaustive, and in the Hebrew language!

David

Rabbi Nachman says about this whole entire thing that we are arguing about is a big paradox in itself - think about it - lets go with tzimtzum - g-d constricts himself to make the vacated space - but if g-d is not here then we cannot survive but we are here so obviosuly g-d constricted himself - this is the paradox rabbi nachman says that in the times of moshiach we will be abke to understand but not now since our brains are to cracked and dirtied

quote:

lets go with tzimtzum

Start with Infinite dimensions.

Pull back a few dimensions so that we have only 5 dimensions (our 3 plus time and spirit).

It may not be that unresolvable a paradox!