Sources of Chassidus

[lambda]

Which Sifrei Kabbalah are used in Chassidus, particularly the Rebbe Rashab?

[masbir]

As you know perhaps, the basic "mamorim" in those hemsheichim are not new, they are based on mamorim of the previous Rabaiim. (Most time word for word, the additions are in put parenthesis.) Its just the depth of explanation and organization of the concepts which makes these hemshechim so exceptional. Therefore the Rebbe Resahb is defined as the RAMBM of chasidos, as The RMBM was known for his unprecedented ability of organization of the whole Halachic corpus, so the Reshab organized the whole Chasidic corpus.

So, in general most Kabbalah on which the mammorim are based on, exists already in The Tzemach Tzedeks maamorim an up.

[rebayzl]

The Book "Sifriyat Lubavitch" (By Berl Levine) has a partial list of books that the Rashab owned, so there you can see which Kaballah books he used.

We know that RSHB wrote Kitzurim on Pardes by RMK, and he uses the Kehilot Yaakov (by the Melo HoRoim) a lot in other places.

[lambda]

Hmm, let me rephrase:

Which post-Arizal non-Vitalian sources are accepted and used in Lubavitch?

[masbir]

O.K. Now we are talking. You dont mean Reshab specificly, but general Chabad.

As you probably know, there are two lines of "mesorah" coming from ARIZL. One is R.C.V.'s (Reb Chaim Vital) school, which had the tradition that the only true conveyer of ARIs Torah is R.C.V.. The transcriptions of other "chaverim" (members) of the holy circle, are not reflecting the true teaching of ARi.

The second is the RY Sarug tradition. Reb Yiroel Sarug came to Italy and taught many, the teachings he heard from ARI. In his doctrine there are major ideas not broached by R.C.V. (his famous deciple was the great Italian sage RMA Mipanu.)

Now, there are purists (as the CH.Y.D.A. and the Reshash (=Reb Sholem Shrabbi) school) who reject the teachings of RY Sruk as being inauthentic. However, Chasidos does accept the teachings of RY Sarug, and his ideas are incorprated in Chasidos and used as major foundations.

The sefer most identified with R.Y Sarug school is called Emek Hamelech, since he expounds on all of those profound ideas which are unique of RY Sarugs school. There is even a mammor of the Alter Rebbe begins "Lehovin ma shekosiv bemek hamelech". (there are a few reasons why we accepted his ideas despite the supremcy of R.C.V. but no time to explain.)

Another sefer from this school mentinod by Tzemach Tzedek, is Shar Hashomyim from Reb Avraham Ariri (BTW, he is the first who explains the concept of Zimzum shelo kpshuto.)

The Tzemach Tzedek mentions many post Vitalian Kabbalists. First the famous ones, the "Gurei Ari" (Cubs of the lion, reffering to a select group of editors of "Kisvei ARI), Reb Yakov Tzemach (editor of eitz Cheim) Reb Meir Paporish (editor of Otzros Cheim author of Meoroe Or, Nogid Umitzvah), Reb Moshe Zechute RMZ (his works are mainly quoted in sefer Mikdash Melech on Zohar, only lately do they publish it from manuscript), Reb Noson Shapiro Hayrushalmi (Tuv haaretz Matzzas Shmurim.), Reb Yosef Irgas (Shomer Emunim) and last but not least, Reb Amniel Chi Riki author of one of the most authoritative book on the ARI's teaching, Mishnas Chasidim.

There is more, but I have to go.

[lambda]

I know of most of those things. One sefer I don't see mentioned that other chasidim use is Shaarei Gan Eden, though.

[masbir]

He is brought in Chasidos also, See Samech Vov p,194. and more by Tzemach Tzedek. His siddur Kol Yakov is quoted alot in the Rebbes Hagadah.

[Chabad Friend]

I love this thread!

Quick question:

Why were those two years (Samech-Vov and Ayin-Beis) singled out in the original question and answer in this thread. Is there something extra-special about those hemsheichim?

[masbir]

Those two are considered the magnum opus of the Rebbe Rshabs Chasides. The most profound and the most systemized.

[masbir]

<<<other chasidim use is Shaarei Gan Eden, though.>>>

In Zidutchov they didn't use it (Eser Kdushos by R' Y. Berger from a letter of the Zidutchovers son), altough on the shaar of the first Koritz edition it says, that the Besht saw it in Khal Khilas Mezritch and read some of it and embraced it and kissed it.

Also in 5742 I recall the Rebbe saying at a farbrengen, that there is some criticisim on his works, but did not explain.

[lambda]

Those two were singled out (or doubled out) in the original post because the inyanim I saw from peeking in Samech Vav seemed to have some influence from Sarug. I was wondering which channels it came through. Masbir caught on right away. ;)

[Chabad Friend]

I am looking at the most recent Kehos Price list.

Samech-Vov is called "Yom-Tov shel R"H". Why is it known by the name of the first maamor?

Ayin-Beis is three volumes long! Did the Rashab give more or longer maamorim that year?

[masbir]

<<<I am looking at the most recent Kehos Price list>>>

They have a website.

<<<Samech-Vov is called "Yom-Tov shel R"H". Why is it known by the name of the first maamor?

Ayin-Beis is three volumes long! Did the Rashab give more or longer maamorim that year?>>>>

All mamorim are named after the first phrase. All Hemshechim after the first maamers first phrase.

Ayin beis is called after the first maamer, but spanned over the course of almost 3 yrs. The 3rd volume was never said!

[nachmans]

it finished in the begining of 76, so it's 3 1/2 years

[Chabad Friend]

<<<I am looking at the most recent Kehos Price list>>>

>They have a website.

The site is only for English books.

>Ayin beis is called after the first maamer, but spanned over the >course of almost 3 yrs. The 3rd volume was never said!

There is a third volume for sale. Does it consist of blank pages???

[lambda]

<<There is a third volume for sale. Does it consist of blank pages???>>

Only before it's printed. :)

[nachmans]

Originally posted by Chabad Friend
<<<I am looking at the most recent Kehos Price list>>>

>They have a website.

The site is only for English books.

>Ayin beis is called after the first maamer, but spanned over the >course of almost 3 yrs. The 3rd volume was never said!

There is a third volume for sale. Does it consist of blank pages???

are you sure it's only English books?

[CyberLub]

The third volume was written but never said.

[masbir]

Some history on the publishing of Ayin Beis.

In Lamed zayin the Rebbe anounced he would like to publish hemsech ayin beis but is affraid since ayin beis is "Nifloes of Chasidos".

The Rebbe put down 2 conditions:

1)All the Chasidim should participate in its publication with a dollar.

2)No name should be published there, even the Rebbes. The only names printed are the Rebbe Resahb and F.R.

[lambda]

Praytell, why wasn't the third chelek said?

[masbir]

<<<Praytell, why wasn't the third chelek said?>>>>>

Praytell????

I didn't hear anything (or maybe did and forgot). But I am quite sure it has to do with moving from Lub. to Rostov on Yud Zein Chesven 5676, and the last said-Maamer was said on Shabbos parshes Ve'era of that year (which is around the date of 17 of chesven.) The Hemshech was only said in Lub., however, when he traveled he said maamorom not connected to the Hemshech. All published in "Sefer Hamaamorim Tov reish aiyn beis-ayin vov".

[Chabad Friend]

>>>The Hemshech was only said in Lub., when he traveled he said maamorom not connected to the Hemshech. All published in "Sefer Hamaamorim Tov reish aiyn beis-ayin vov".<<<

Ah! I think that answers my next question: The Kehos list has three volumes entitled "B'Shaah Shehikdimu-Te'erav"and then another volume of Sefer HaMaamorim "5672-76." The latter volume is composed of other maamorim not part of the hemshech.

Did the Rashab announce, "Now this maamor is not a continuation of last week's" ?

[lambda]

Originally posted by masbir
<<<Praytell, why wasn't the third chelek said?>>>>>

Praytell????

Praytell loosely means "tell me" in Elizabethian English.

[masbir]

<<<The latter volume is composed of other maamorim not port of the hemshech.>>>

Precisely.

<<<Did the Rashab announce, "Now this maamor is not a continuation of last week's" ?>>>

I don't know. But in general Chasidim are subtle, they read the text and subtext well and don't need verbal instructions.

Besides, I think the simple reason (there are surley more profound ones) why the Hemshech was only said in Lub. is, since the prime audience for those very profound discourses were the Tmimim in Lub., they followed the Hemshech and they daavend with it. Outside Lub. there was no point to continue when the prime listeners are not present.

[Chabad Friend]

re: the Rashab's maamorim, I have never heard any discussion as to how edited they are.

I have heard a lot about the Rebbe's maamorim and the various stages they went through, from being transcribed by Chozrim as a hanacha with a note "Bilti Muga" on each page to when they were edited and checked over by the Rebbe himself.

Did the other Rebbeim's maamorim go through such an editing process, or are they considered bilti muga?

[rebayzl]

From the Miteler Rebbe till the Rayatz, the Rebbes WROTE their own Maamorim.

The Alter Rebbe did not write his maamorim, but some of his studetns did, including his brother Yehudah Leib (who was also paid for it by the AR), His son The Miteler Rebbe and others.

The AR Looked over some of these transcripts, and they are printed in Torah Ohr and Likutei Torah.

Despite the fact that the other Rebbe's wrote their maamorim, the Chasidim used to write their own transcripts, called "Hanochos". Some of them where not written by the Rebbe's themselves, so all we have are the transcripts.

The Moderator can elaborate more, I am sure.

[masbir]

Besides the Alter Rebbe, all the Rebbes until the Rebbe wrote the Maamorim themselves. So their maamorim are naturely edited. The Alter Rebbes Maamorom is a misechta for it self.

[lambda]

<<Besides the Alter Rebbe, all the Rebbes until the Rebbe wrote the Maamorim themselves. So their maamorim are naturely edited. The Alter Rebbes Maamorom is a misechta for it self.>>

It would have been a real feat for the 3rd volume to have been heard by someone and written down. :cool:

Did the Rebbes write the "kitzur" that sometimes appears at the end of things as well?

[masbir]

the 3rd volume is more abstruse thenthe first 2?

[lambda]

<<the 3rd volume is more abstruse thenthe first 2?>>

No, it was never said, so it would be very difficult to HEAR and write down.

[masbir]

The whole hemshech was written before it was said, and like the unsaid part which is not devided into seprate maamorim, the said part also didn't originally have any divisions creating indivudalized maamorim. Only after the Reshab said the maamorim he added the beginings and the ends which connects each said-maamer with the particular parshe of the week. He also added afterwards chapters and the Kitzurim and cross refrences.

The Rebbe never made any Kitzurim (at least I am not aware of any). The F.R. wrote Kitzurim on certain seforim amd maamorim.

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by masbir
The whole hemshech was written before it was said, and like the unsaid part which is not devided into seprate maamorim, the said part also didn't originally have any divisions creating indivudalized maamorim. Only after the Reshab said the maamorim he added the beginings and the ends which connects each said-maamer with the particular parshe of the week. He also added afterwards chapters and the Kitzurim and cross refrences.

The Rebbe never made any Kitzurim (at least I am not aware of any). The F.R. wrote Kitzurim on certain seforim amd maamorim.

2 Comments:

1. The Rashab did not write the Maamorim before saying them.

2. The Rebbe made the kitzurim on Hechaltzu-Ranat

[Chabad Friend]

A few follow-up questions:

Were all the maamorim in "Maamorim Admur HaZakein" that did not make it into Torah Or or Likutei Torah edited by the Alter Rebbe?

Has anyone heard any comment re: why the Rebbe wasn't a "writer" like the other Rebbeim?


>>>In Lamed zayin the Rebbe anounced he would like to publish hemsech ayin beis but is afraid since ayin beis is "Nifloes of Chasidos".<<<<

Why would that be a cause for fear? Please explain.

>>> Condition 2)No name should be published there, even the Rebbes. The only names printed are the Rebbe Rashab and F.R.<<<

Why would anyone else's name be published in the Rashab's sefer to begin with?

I hope he does, as well as anyone else who can.

[masbir]

<<<The Rashab did not write the Maamorim before saying them. >>>

How do you know?

<<<. The Rebbe made the kitzurim on Hechaltzu-Ranat>>>

How do you know?

[Jude]

Is it okay to refer to the Rebbe Rashab (or the Rebbe Maharash) as the Rashab (or Maharash)?

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by Jude
Is it okay to refer to the Rebbe Rashab (or the Rebbe Maharash) as the Rashab (or Maharash)?

That is a very serious question.

I am going to ask R Bistritzky when I sell the chametz.

[masbir]

<<<The Rashab did not write the Maamorim before saying them>>>

I dont know from where you know that. it would be nice to find out how you make such a catagorical statement.

But I didnt answer based on speculation, I based myself on the decription of Bibliographical review on the writing of Ayin beis and its manucript, published in Ayin Beis new edition volume 1 p (hosofos p 4) "the "text" was written...prior to saying of the maamorim"!

[rebayzl]

I think what Kraus writes there only relates to certain parts of Ain beis.

[I think in the BM it mentioned that this piece was written by Kraus].

[masbir]

<<<I think what Kraus writes there only relates toi certain parts of Ain beis.>>>

What parts? Why do you think so? It doesnt seem so from what I read. You have some better info.? Adraabeh lets hear how you are so certain. How do you know Kruas wrote that, it more likely that Yankel Chazan wrote it.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

<<Is it okay to refer to the Rebbe Rashab (or the Rebbe Maharash) as the Rashab (or Maharash)?>>

In general, the way the Frierdiker Rebbe (and the Rebbe) would refer to them was:
Maharash=A'AZMUR
Rashab = A'AMUR

I think it would be "proper" to add Admur if one were to write it Rashab or Maharash.

On the other hand, I don't think it's "wrong" to write (or call) them Rashab or Maharash.

Maharash = Moreinu Horav Shmuel
Rashab = Reb Sholom [Dov]Ber

These are acronyms for their names, not their actual names.

[lambda]

Here's another question:

Is the discussion of the levels before tzimtzum consistent with what appears in the works of the Sarugian school?

I was reading Samech Vav, the maamor that begins on pg. 164, where the Rebbe Rashab discusses the idea that Ein Sof has a techilah... and later he discusses Kadmon, Yachid, etc.

Are these consistent with how other people understand them or are they chidushim of Chabad?

[masbir]

Well, the basic question why we call Ein sof - einsof not ein lo tchilo, indeed comes from one the great deciples of R"Y Sarug -- RM"A mipanu, however, the question appears in his "Pelach Harimon" which is kind of an abridged version of the RM'K's "Pardes" so, I don't if this is actually from Sarug himself.

But the answer there about Ohr men Hamoar, is one of the fundemental innovations of the Alter Rebbe, and differs decidely from RM"A's answer, as the REBBe Reshab himself says in there (in that maamer you are citing from, or the next one. I am qouting from memory) that the concept of Ohr is from the Chiddusim of Rabei'nu.

[Mordechai]

does anyone know why cahbad and the ramchal dont "jive"?

i heard that the maggid be4 he use to say chassidus he use to learn from mesillas yesharim and then say something like "baruch hamavdil be kodesh lechol"( im not sure about the loshon)
could it be because he didnt have a beard?

[lambda]

Originally posted by masbir
Well, the basic question why we call Ein sof - einsof not ein lo tchilo, indeed comes from one the great deciples of R"Y Sarug -- RM"A mipanu, however, the question appears in his "Pelach Harimon" which is kind of an abridged version of the RM'K's "Pardes" so, I don't if this is actually from Sarug himself.

But the answer there about Ohr men Hamoar, is one of the fundemental innovations of the Alter Rebbe, and differs decidely from RM"A's answer, as the REBBe Reshab himself says in there (in that maamer you are citing from, or the next one. I am qouting from memory) that the concept of Ohr is from the Chiddusim of Rabei'nu.

I think it's the same one...

But I was wondering if it was a chiddush or a CHIDDUSH. A new concept or just a new emphasis on something.

I had been told by a non-Lubavitcher that Sarug's ideas are things after tzimtzum and before A"K, but then I saw on inner.org that it is discussing a whole array of things *before* tzimtzum, and one is Olam Hamalbush, which is apparently Kadmon in Chabad works. Isn't Olam Hamalbush from Sarug?

Either one of the following is true:

1) My source was wrong
2) The site is misrepresenting what's in Chabad seforim
3) Chabad works discuss things before tzimtzum not discussed in such a way in other places

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by masbir
<<<I think what Kraus writes there only relates toi certain parts of Ain beis.>>>

What parts? Why do you think so? It doesnt seem so from what I read. You have some better info.? Adraabeh lets hear how you are so certain. How do you know Kruas wrote that, it more likely that Yankel Chazan wrote it.

Kraus is basing it on the Reshima of the Rebbe that is printed in the end of Samech Vov that the Hagohos on the Samech Vov where written after they were said, so from this he deduced that the rest was written before.

But I doubt very much that this means that the entire Hemshech was written before being said.

I have to do more research about this.

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by Mordechai
does anyone know why cahbad and the ramchal dont "jive"?

i heard that the maggid before he used to say chassidus he used to learn from mesillas yesharim and then say something like "baruch hamavdil be kodesh lechol"( im not sure about the loshon)
could it be because he didnt have a beard?

Ramchal was a very controversial figure during his lifetime. So in truth Chasidus just retained the atmosphere that existed at the time of the Bal Shem Tov. Others chose to ignore it and concentrate on the positive side of Mesilat Yesharim etc. As with lots of historical issues, this is unknown to the general religious public.

Additionally, Chasidus operates under the assumption that in order to write books on Kabbalah it is not enough to be smart and brilliant, but there is a need for (1) a certain Kedusha (2) A solid recognized Mentor. [The BESHT had Achyia HaShilony etc.]. The RAMCHAL seems to be a missing both, so that is why his ideas in Peniniyut Hatorah (as opposed to Mussar) are not considered Primary Texts in Chabad.

[Rabbi_D]

Originally posted by masbir
O.K. Now we are talking. You dont mean Reshab specificly, but general Chabad.

As you probably know, there are two lines of "mesorah" coming from ARIZL. One is R.C.V.'s (Reb Chaim Vital) school, which had the tradition that the only true conveyer of ARIs Torah is R.C.V.. The transcriptions of other "chaverim" (members) of the holy circle, are not reflecting the true teaching of ARi.

The second is the RY Sarug tradition. Reb Yiroel Sarug came to Italy and taught many, the teachings he heard from ARI. In his doctrine there are major ideas not broached by R.C.V. (his famous deciple was the great Italian sage RMA Mipanu.)

Now, there are purists (as the CH.Y.D.A. and the Reshash (=Reb Sholem Shrabbi) school) who reject the teachings of RY Sruk as being inauthentic. However, Chasidos does accept the teachings of RY Sarug, and his ideas are incorprated in Chasidos and used as major foundations.

The sefer most identified with R.Y Sarug school is called Emek Hamelech, since he expounds on all of those profound ideas which are unique of RY Sarugs school. There is even a mammor of the Alter Rebbe begins "Lehovin ma shekosiv bemek hamelech". (there are a few reasons why we accepted his ideas despite the supremcy of R.C.V. but no time to explain.)

Another sefer from this school mentinod by Tzemach Tzedek, is Shar Hashomyim from Reb Avraham Ariri (BTW, he is the first who explains the concept of Zimzum shelo kpshuto.)

The Tzemach Tzedek mentions many post Vitalian Kabbalists. First the famous ones, the "Gurei Ari" (Cubs of the lion, reffering to a select group of editors of "Kisvei ARI), Reb Yakov Tzemach (editor of eitz Cheim) Reb Meir Paporish (editor of Otzros Cheim author of Meoroe Or, Nogid Umitzvah), Reb Moshe Zechute RMZ (his works are mainly quoted in sefer Mikdash Melech on Zohar, only lately do they publish it from manuscript), Reb Noson Shapiro Hayrushalmi (Tuv haaretz Matzzas Shmurim.), Reb Yosef Irgas (Shomer Emunim) and last but not least, Reb Amniel Chi Riki author of one of the most authoritative book on the ARI's teaching, Mishnas Chasidim.

There is more, but I have to go.

Not having had the opportunity to learn the above in Yeshiva, I would be indebted if you would furnish references for (any/all of) the above. It is fascinating.

Thanks in advance.

[masbir]

The qouted above from my post, is not clearly delienated when you learn Chasidos in Yeshiva, since in its all woven into the subtext of the ostesnsible texts of Chasidos, and in Yeshiva there is no focus on the "roots" beneath the surface. In other words, you can learn Chasidos your entire life and not be aware that there are different frameworks and different schools of thought which is the underpining of a certain idea and perspective. Mostly, you find out the "shitos" when you learn the Tzemach Tezedeks Chasidos, where he puts every drush of the Alter Rebbe in its proper persepective in the Kabalistic spectrum.

Here are some sources.

About the "purists" see 'Shem Hagdolim' By Chido on "Emek Hamelech".

About the idea of Rshimu only coming from Emek Hamelech, see Lekutei Torah Behar (43-2) "Ub'eitz Chaim ei'no mvo'er inyan harshi'mu, rak besefer Emek Hamelech". About another idea only mentioned in E.H. and not in E.C. see L.T. Shir Hashirim (27-1).

About Emek Hamelech and Shar Harshimum being the Talmidim of RY Sarug, see Ohr Hatorah inunim p 287

About Shar Hashmoim and his view of Zimzum, see the Rebbes Reshimos on Shaar Hy'ichud Vo'he'muneh.

About Chasidus view on RY Sarug see the Rebbes letter in Igros v, 11 p 167.

Any more questions?

[Rabbi_D]

>>Originally posted by masbir<<
"In othe words, you can learn Chasidos your entire life and not be aware that there are different frameworks and differnt schools of thouht which is the underpining of a certain idea and perspectives.
.................................................. ..............................
Any more questions?"
===========================================
Thank you for your excellent post. Most informative.

Question: Seeing that the different frameworks schools of thought are not taught in Chabad Yeshivos, how important do you think it is to study this?

Do you think that it is basic knowledge for a chasid to learn _after_ yeshiva (like learning all of Tanach--even though it was not all taught in Yeshiva)? Or is it cream?

[masbir]

As I said, looking at the sources, was the Tzemach Tzedeks method and style, if you learn his Chasidos - its crucial.

In Yeshivas they learn the Rebbe Rshabs Chasidos which is geared for Bochurim and focused more on conceptual understanding where the Kabbalistic origins are submerged and the logical analysis paramount, but once you are trained in the conceptual dimension you are capable of digging further and learning the Tzemach Tzedeks Chasidos therby gaining a deeper and broader understanding of the Chasidos.

This is my humble opinion, and when I teach Chasidos I attempt to combine perspcetive with conceptualization

[Lubamessimaniac]

1. Re The kitzurim that the Rebbe wrote - he mentions it in Igrois in the early chalokim that he did that work.

2. A strange fact about the Ayin Beis - the Rebbe had the heart attack 11 months later. After 28 Nissan, the Rebbe had a stroke 11 months later. After Purim 5747, during which the Rebbe spoke very strongly in lines similiar to 28 Nissan - and the Rebbetzin passed away 11 months later. Strange...

3. Other people's names are mentioned in the back of the sefer as contributors towards the printing. With Ayin Beis, the Rebbe allowed people to donate no more than $1, but one could donate $1 for every member of the family - but, as was said, no names would be published.

4. In all hemshechim the first paragraph of one maamer connects it to the subject last spoken about in the previous maamer. Usually there are words written like "knal" which allude to the fact that it is a continuation.

5. The Rebbe did not write maamorim or sichos. When the Chassidim asked him to, he replied, "Should I take the time out of my achila ushtiya?!" In reply, the Chassidim instead asked that at least he edit them, because it didn't look right to be quoting the Rebbe at non-Lubavitch shuls (as people would do then) without any authentified source. The Rebbe agreed. (Heard from R. YY Wilschansky, who was one of the writers of Likkutei Sichos.)

6. Many maamorim were only written by people who were there, and the Rebbe was very appreciative of people who found these hanochois and sent them in. The Rebbe asked many well-respected tmimim, including R' Yaakov Landau of Bnei Brak, to write down whatever they remembered so that it could be printed. For more on these types of things, read through Igrois, the early chalokim.

7. The Frierdiker Rebbe wrote the kitzurim of the Rebbe Rashab. The Tzemach Tzedek wrote the Kitzurim on the Alter Rebbe. The Rebbe wrote many of the kitzurim to the Frierdiker Rebbe's maamorim, but the Frierdiker Rebbe himself wrote most. I think that the Kitzurim to the Kuntressim of the Rebbe Rashab were written by the the Frierdiker Rebbe. It should say in the hakdoma - but I don't have them here. Moderators???

8. There is a sicha in which the Frierdiker Rebbe describes of when the Rebbe Rashab though through the ideas of Ayin Beis. He stood in the same place for many hours, and when he woke up, he had no idea what day it was! Someone know the source? I can't remember. But lechoira, the fact that he thought through the ideas would fit in well with him writing it down before, as well as the fact that we have a third chelek which he never said. I once heard that the Frierdiker Rebbe would write the outlines of his maamorim before he said them, and he would do that before farbrengens. I don't remember a source on that tho, and I find it strange, because then lechoira we would have those notes... :confused:

9. Re the Ramchal's beard - apparently, he thought he knew where the 13 tikunei dikna aare, and he trimmed his beard accordingly. There was another Kabbalist who did that - anyone know who? I forgot.

[masbir]

<<There is a sicha in which the Frierdiker Rebbe describes of when the Rebbe Rashab though through the ideas of Ayin Beis. He stood in the same place for many hours, and when he woke up, he had no idea what day it was>>

The rebbe related the story in the shabbosim after purim mem dalet, it was mugeh and published in Lekute sichos 27 275.

[masbir]

<<<Re the Ramchal's beard - apparently, he thought he knew where the 13 tikunei dikna aare, and he trimmed his beard accordingly. There was another Kabbalist who did that - anyone know who? I forgot.>>>

In letters from Ramachal and his era there is a letter from the reknown Italian mkubel reb Yosef Irgos (author of the famous Shomer Emunim) where he doubts the varacity of Ramachals visions from a "magid" since he 1) is not married 2)doesnt have an untrimmed beard 3)doesn't go to mikveh erev shabbos.

In Beeir Eshek (by Reb shabsi beeir disciple of the maaver Yabok who was a disciple of RMA mipanu) has a Tshuva where he writes tthat according Kabbalah there is difference between Eretz Yisroel where you have to grow a beard and Chutz Learetz (all mekublim disagred sharply) I there he writes that RMA mipuny (once of the greatest Mekublim, see my earlier posts) "Umistaper bedikneh" (=he trimmed his beard.)

The Chasam Sofer has a responsa about it, and the Minchos Elazer against the Chasam sofer.

[rebayzl]

it's all there in wiener's book hadrat panim zakan

[rebayzl]

Lub wrote:

<<1. Re The kitzurim that the Rebbe wrote - he mentions it in Igrois in the early chalokim that he did that work. >>

Source please?

[Jude]

<<where he doubts the veracity of Ramachal's visions from a "magid" >>

I recently read a long account about the Ramchal's visions and wondered what the source of the info. was. What is meant by "he doubts the veracity" - does he mean he doubts the reports about it, or did he not believe Ramchal himself, directly? Did the Ramchal himself write anything about these experiences?

[masbir]

All the visions are based on Ramchals letters (lately a new edition published) to his mentors and detractors. He describes with detail graphics how the angel came to him etc.

In his lifetime he was persued by bitter foes (Gedole Yisroel)who accused him of Shabtanion leanings and the magid as coming from sitre achro and who banned him until he promised to desisit from conveying magid revelations.

Reb Yosef Irgiz was already an old famous sage and kaabbalist casting doubt on the integrity of his visions as being holy etc. He wrote the Letters to RaMCHaLS mentor, Reb Yeshi Basson, expressing his puzzelment on RaMCHaLS behaviour.

[Jude]

Is there a bottom line? Was the Ramchal involved at all with Shabsi Tzvi and sitra achra, or was he kulo kadosh?

[masbir]

No, He wasnt involved with Shabsi Tzvi its was just accusation.

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by Jude
Is there a bottom line? Was the Ramchal involved at all with Shabsi Tzvi and sitra achra, or was he kulo kadosh?

No other options? Either Sitra Achara or Kulo Kadosh?! Are you for real?

[lambda]

In fact, the Ramchal wrote a sefer disproving Sabbatean interpretations of Kabbalah.

But, while we're on the subject of Sabbatean accusations, what's the general Lubavitch opinion on R' Emden / R' Eyubshitz?

[masbir]

Rebyzl: <<<That is a very serious question.

I am going to ask R Bistritzky when I sell the chametz.>>

Nu, did you ask?

[masbir]

<<<But, while we're on the subject of Sabbatean accusations, what's the general Lubavitch opinion on Emden / Eyubshitz?>>>

Well, its accepted in the whole Orthodx world that all accusation against Reb Yeshonson were null and void.

He was held in very high esteem by the Mezritcher Maagid and in Chabad. The Alter Rebbe in shilchon Aruch bases himself a lot on his sforim (particulary Kresi Upleisi on Nidah.) A lot of sources exists on this.

[Jude]

<<Nu, did you ask?>>

I pm'd rebayzl a few days ago about that, and he said the R' said it's fine. However, I asked someone (mashpia) who said it's not so pashut because these titles were used well before they became Rebbeim, from when they were children, and so to call them by the same appelation after they became Rebbe ... ?

[masbir]

But its kind of shorthand when you cant repeat all honorifics all the time. In the same way you write on all Rishonim RAN RMBM or (in the Yeshiva world) R'M RSHBA RITVA. nothing disrespectfull.

Although Mahrshab would be better, as in MaHRaSH.

[lambda]

Maybe this should be in a new thread, but the same issue that caused me to ask the original question brings me to this one. My non-Lubavitch Chassidic friend tells me that the concepts that R' Sarug revealed were between tzimtzum harishon and A"K. But when I read Heichaltzu in Ranat, I saw the footnote of the Rebbe there that says that the makom panui and chalal in Emek HaMelekh is before the tzimtzum. Likewise, in the first maamor of 5666 it speaks of the osios hareshimu that are *before* the tzimtzum.

Who first came up with this interpretation of R' Sarug's Kabbalah? Was it someone before the Besht? Was it the Besht or the Maggid? Or is it a Chabad chiddush? Does anyone disagree?

I should probably read the maamor of the Rebbe Rashab that the Rebbe cites, HaOseh Sukaso 5764, on why Chassidus holds this opinion, but I was hoping for some background.

[mendelp]

concerning the ramchal. the misnagdim were into his sfarim as an "antidote" for chassidus. I heard that the alter rebbe said concerning his sforim, nisht hoib zei nisht varf zei.

[masbir]

In general the use of Sarug and its interpretations comes from Mezritch, but before I will attempt in explaining what I think is Chasidos view, I would like to hear more on that Choseds sources on Sarug, I am not aware of any othe Chasidch school dealing with these topics. Did he study Kabbalah directly? Ramchal? I would like to know, in order to check his sources. thanks.

[lambda]

He does study it directly, and he does study Ramchal. The only sefer from that school of thought I've seen him directly reference is Shaarei Gan Eiden. As far as Chassidic works that discuss Kabbalistic inyonim, his Rebbe encouraged the study of Be'er Mayim Chaim, that I know.

He studies Chabad Chassidus, mostly the Alter Rebbe and some of Reb Aron (the Alter Rebbe's student Reb Aron), and a little bit more non-Lubavitch Chabad Chassidus. I don't think he has studied much of the Tzemach Tzedek or the Rebbe Rashab.

[Lubamessimaniac]

Is the R'Aron that you refer to R' Aharon Shtrasheler?

Bichlal the relationship with him is a very interesting one... But the Rebbe was very positive about his Chassidus (see Hamelech Bimsiboi), and a few of his niggunim were incorporated into our reportoire. Did he have a dynasty? What happened to his chassidim - did they get redirected to Lubavitch? Was his derech completely Chabad?

[lambda]

Yes, it is him. I didn't feel like spelling the name of the town so early in the morning, though. :)

I don't know the specifics, but all of the non-Lubavitch Chabad groups eventually sublimated back into Lubavitch. The only ones left over might be the Malakim in Williamsburg, Monsey, and Boro Park, but even they are disappearing, or so I hear. They don't have a Rebbe. There is no Chabad Chassidus that has a living Rebbe today.

[masbir]

In Beir Mayim Chaim there is nothing about Sarug or this sort. In Ramchal there is but nothing explicit, so I would still like to find out what his source about SARUG specificly.

[masbir]

About Shtrashela. His dynasty petered out. His son in law and a sizable group became Vilednik Chasidim (his Grandson wrote the Vilednik Toras, and then went off to America where he left the fold). Others joined mainstream Chabad.

Want to see an intellectual overview on the ideological rivlary between him and the Miteler Rebbe read Naftali Lowentahl book Communicating the infinite. On original sources, read Introduction to Shaarei Avodei of Shatresheler and Kuntros Hispaales by the Miteler Rebbe.

[lambda]

Originally posted by masbir
In Beir Mayim Chaim there is nothing about Sarug or this sort. In Ramchal there is but nothing explicit, so I would still like to find out what his source about SARUG specificly.

As I said, I think he just reads Shaarei Gan Eiden itself, and perhaps Emek HaMelekh?

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by masbir
About Shtrashela. Want to see an intellectual overview on the ideological rivlary between him and the Miteler Rebbe read Naftali Lowentahl book Communicating the infinite. On original sources, read Introduction to Shaarei Avodei of Shatresheler and Kuntros Hispaales by the Miteler Rebbe.

1. It is also all in Louis Jacobs' book on Kuntres Ha'hispaalus.

2. I heard that they had a disagreement in the meaning of
"Eser Sefiroth Ha genuzoth".

[Rabbi_D]

Originally posted by rebayzl


1. It is also all in Louis Jacobs' book on Kuntres Ha'hispaalus.


Alas, as far as I know, Louis Jacob's book is out of print! And here I thought that I was the only heretic that would admit owning a copy.
Could I come over, and borrow your copy? Mine, well, is, errr, currently unavailable for perusal. ;)

[lambda]

Originally posted by Rabbi_D
Could I come over, and borrow your copy? Mine, well, is, errr, currently unavailable for perusal. ;)

I'm going to be down there next weekend. I could mail it, if you wanted me to... :)

[masbir]

If you can, are you able to expound on the despute on Eser Sfiros Hagnuzos? Thanks.

[Chabad Friend]

In Lubavitch yeshivos, at what point is the Hemshech "Yom-Tov shel R"H Samech-Vov" learned?

Is "Te'erav" learnt in Lubavitch yeshivos?

[lambda]

My friend who is in his last year of yeshivah is learning 5666 in the seder.

I think that that 5672 is not part of the seder.

[Chabad Friend]

What does "last year of yeshiva" mean?

(Where I come from, the last year is the year before you leave)

[lambda]

He's about to go out on shlichus.

Also, from what I have heard from others, 5666 is started, and not everyone finishes. Maybe nobody finishes it in the seder?

Perhaps someone more involved in a Tomchei Tmimim yeshivah should make a quick post. I have less experience.

[masbir]

Yes, Lmbada is corrrect. In Lubavitch the 3rd grade in Yeshiva Gedoleh (19) is the year before you go to a yeshiva shlichos. That year Samech vov is often tought, but I recall in my years Reb Yoel was giving Shiurim in Samech vov in 770 post Shlichos (I dont think he ever gave shiurim in Ein Beis).

[rebayzl]

I heard that last year he gave shiurim in ayin beis

[Lubamessimaniac]

Guys typically start Ayin Beis before they get married, and some continue learning it in Kolell.

[lambda]

masbir, I asked him about this, and he said that the authority of the talmidim of the Ari is final. He is basically saying that what you read in Otzros Chaim or Emek HaMelekh is final, and doesn't need any further clarification. He says that if Chabad Chassidus claims that the makom panui of Emek HaMelekh is before the makom panui (and tzimtzum) of R' Chaim Vital's Kabbalah, then that is contrary to any interpretation of Kabbalas Ari.

What's the best way to answer this? I imagine that quoting the Maggid would do well, since he will probably not claim that the Maggid is teaching things contrary to Kabbalas Ari.

[rebayzl]

Who is "him"?

[lambda]

A non-Lubavitcher Chossid mentioned earlier, who studies Kabbalah.

[masbir]

He doesnt accept the Alter Rebbes interpretation on Kabbalah, and he calls himself a chosed? Also how did he decided who is accepted and who is not? Many people claim that the Emek Hamelech himself is not accepted, so what? And the Shaarei Gan Eden is more authortative then the Besht his contemporary? Is the Mishnas Chasidim also a contemporary of the Besht more authortative? Why?

[masbir]

Also can he post claer sources in Emek hamelech?

[lambda]

It's not that he doesn't accept the Alter Rebbe's interpretation. It's more that he just won't let me use it to prove something that he thinks isn't accepted by others. Although, I do not think that Lubavitch is the only Chassidus with such inyonim...

The acceptance of the Shaarei Gan Eiden over other seforim is based on the Besht's implied endorsement of it, not that he was the Ari's talmid. Which is kind of ironic, given the comments about authority from the Ari's talmidim. I believe he has said in the past that Mishnas Chasidim has some problems, too. I think his view of different Kabbalistic sources is that Kabbalas Ari is clearly right, and everything that appears to disagree with it is clearly wrong, i.e. there is no need to clarify different sources.

As far as the quotes from Emek HaMelekh, he simply reads the sefer and where it says makom panui, he equates that to the makom panui of Otzros Chaim, leading to such things as saying that the tehiru ila'ah is the reshimu of the tzimtzum mentioned in Otzros Chaim. This is problematic, since in Torah Ohr 78c (which I showed him) it says that according to the Kabbalah of R' Chaim Vital, the tehiru ila'ah is A"K, and not the reshimu.

[masbir]

Ironic, indeed!

At least In Chabad, Mishnas Chasidim was very accepted (also in Tzanz)

Perhaps he means Mishnas Chasidims view on Zimzum?

But seforin as Emek Hamelech are already interpretations on ARI, only REb Chaim Vitals works (or RY SARUGS) are from ari.

[lambda]

[Continuing your train of thought...]

If Emek HaMelekh is not from the talmid of an Ari, and the inyon of the reshimu is only known from Emek HaMelekh (see Likutei Torah), then to say that the tehiru ila'ah is the reshimu already is already extending past the authority of the Arizal's talmidim.

[masbir]

In Emek Hamelech there is stuff from Sarug, but also his own.

[lambda]

I don't exactly have the sefer to check, but from whom does the inyon of the reshimu originate?

[Chabad Friend]

Back to the Rebbe Rashab for a moment:

I need help with some words in "Samech-Vov":

On page hey, seven lines from the top. The last word on the line starts with a hey, then a yud, then....what is (are) the other letter(s)?.

Same page, middle of the third line: "D'Ishtamud'on" What does that word mean?

Thanks,

[lambda]

The last letter is a vav, so the whole phrase reads poorly translated, "that is, prior to the formation [of the worlds] the abilities [mentioned in the quote from Eitz Chaim] were in concealment and in potential, and not in revelation".

I'm not authority in Aramaic, I've got no Jastrow here, and I don't want to give you a bad meaning of the word, so I'll let someone else answer...

[masbir]

<<D'Ishtamud'on">>= Hashem should be known to others.

[lambda]

Hmm... he wasn't too quick to rely on Emek HaMelekh, given the Chido's specific opposition to it. Also, he says he saw a diagram from R' Meir Poporish that places both the tehiru ilaah and the meruba after tzimtzum harishon.

[lambda]

I guess my questions are getting boring... ;)

But what is the earliest source that explicitly states, plainly, that the tehiru ila'ah is before the tzimtzum? Is there a source in the Alter Rebbe's maamorim? I couldn't find one by perusing through the relevant entries in Likutei Torah and Torah Or, but I don't have that much of his Chassidus here.

[masbir]

Why do you think so, it is very intresting, all the rest is fluff this is the real discussion!

see Lekutei Torah Netzovim 51:2

The idea is mentined in Lekutei Torah Chukas 59:3 in the name of Eishal Avrham (I assume he refers to the commentary on Zohar from the works of Reb Avraham Revigi (Reggio) one the great deciples of RMZ (Reb Moshe Zchuta)

Also I checked in Emek Hamelech and it explicitly says that the Malbush is deep in the EinSof pre Zimzum, and a good reading will confirm from the context that this is indeed what he means. see in the begining end of chapter 2 and chapter 3.

[masbir]

About the difference and similaraties between the udersatnding of Makom ponu in Emek Hamelech and Otzros Chaim and others see in L.T. Hosofos to Vyikro 52:2 there he seems to say that E.H. and O.C. actually agree on this but others disagree. Interesting to note that the note in O.C. is from RMZ who, as I wrote in the previous post, was Reb Avraham Reviggo mentor. (see in that post and you will see the connection)

[lambda]

Thanks. Chukas and Netzovim are pretty explicit about the first part of that Zohar.

[lambda]

<<Now, there are purists (as the CH.Y.D.A. and the Reshash (=Reb Sholem Shrabbi) school) who reject the teachings of RY Sruk as being inauthentic. However, Chasidos does accept the teachings of RY Sarug, and his ideas are incorprated in Chasidos and used as major foundations.

The sefer most identified with R.Y Sarug school is called Emek Hamelech, since he expounds on all of those profound ideas which are unique of RY Sarugs school. There is even a mammor of the Alter Rebbe begins "Lehovin ma shekosiv bemek hamelech". (there are a few reasons why we accepted his ideas despite the supremcy of R.C.V. but no time to explain.)>>

Was the opposition to Emek HaMelekh specifically to Emek HaMelekh or to the "Sarugian" ideas in it? This particular rabbi I talked to said that since the Chido accepted Mikdash Melekh (which quotes from those of R' Sarug's school) the opposition was particularly to Emek HaMelekh. I am a little bit suspect of this. But I don't have any sources to check it.

What are those few reasons why R' Sarug's ideas are accepted?

BTW: You mentioned that Reb Yaakov Tzemach edited Eitz Chaim and that Reb Meir Poporish edited Otzros Chaim. The order I got from this other chosid was different. He had them reversed... and said it was obvious. Reb Meir was Reb Tzemach's student. Why were works edited by Reb Meir popularized more than those edited by Reb Tzemach?

[masbir]

You are certainly right, I mixed them up, your friends order of editorship is the right one.

Your question why R' M. Paparushs is more popular and more central, is not a question, he aquired more manuscripts, and used his predeccesors works to broaden the scope, and combined all editions into one.

[masbir]

Firstly, I am not so sure that the Chido accepted the Mikdash Melech uniquivaclly, it was already noted by others that in his Shem Hagdolim (his Biblographical work) on Mikdash Melech he conspicuosly doesnt mention Reb Sholems name as the author, he only presents it as a compilation of works on Zohar. (although he brings him in his commentary on Zohar hundreds of times, he nevertheless has some criticism on him in his introduction. So, he didn't ccepted him blindly.

But, the Chido not withstanding, it is clear that others were against accepting anytthing from RY Sarug himself. RMP (REB Meir Paprush) in his intro. to "biyur hashirim Leshabos" writes that he see exegesis on the poems (of ARIZAL) attributed to RY SARUK and that exegesis is based on nothing and erroneous versions...and the actual explanation is based on shaky foundations.

And in "Zohar Harkia" (23:4) RMP writes: "and in truth according the Drush of RY Sarug those ideas are grounded in golden sockets... but I dont delve into those discourses, since this is what RCHV commanded...we should not study anything outside his works.

Also in the name of ReShash (Chidos mentor) it said that he didnt study Drush Hmalbush of RY Sarug (quoted by Reb Elyhu Meni)

[lambda]

Thanks again for that answer. Now there's only one question left from my post. Why does Chassidus not only accept, but also base its deepest ideas on, the tradition from R' Sarug?

[lambda]

BTW, I found that there is a very good summary of the Lubavitch view on a number of issues mentioned in this thread: reshimu, tehiru ila'ah, esser sefiros genuzos, malchus d'ein sof, etc. It's in 5666, siman 59, pg. 508.

[lambda]

I noticed something...

<<RMP (REB Meir Paprush) in his intro. to "biyur hashirim Leshabos" writes that he see exegesis on the poems (of ARIZAL) attributed to RY SARUK and that exegesis is based on nothing and erroneous versions...and the actual explanation is based on shaky foundations.>>

R' Meir Poprush edited Etz Chaim. He disagrees with R' Sarug's interpretation there, and apparently according to his collection of diagrams, which I haven't seen, he disagrees with the Lubavitch opinion and Emek HaMelekh (which has material from and is based on ideas from R' Sarug).

<<About the difference and similaraties between the udersatnding of Makom ponu in Emek Hamelech and Otzros Chaim and others see in L.T. Hosofos to Vyikro 52:2 there he seems to say that E.H. and O.C. actually agree on this but others disagree. Interesting to note that the note in O.C. is from RMZ who, as I wrote in the previous post, was Reb Avraham Reviggo mentor. (see in that post and you will see the connection)>>

R' Yaakov Tzemach edited Otzros Chaim. According to the hosofos there, it apparently agrees with Emek HaMelekh. R' Yaakov was the teacher of R' Meir. Is it possible that the latter had a criticism of R' Sarug that the former did not?

[masbir]

The hasofos are from RMZ, not from RY Tzemach.

[lambda]

But the sefer is from R' Yaakov Tzemach, the notes are from RMZ. But if R' Meir Poprush has a diagram that places tehiru ila'ah after the tzimtzum (and before A"K as the Alter Rebbe in that Torah Or places it in R' Chaim Vital's Kabbalah), no notes are going to reconcile that.

I think the sefer is called Ilun HaGadol. Not sure...

[masbir]

About Reb Meir Paprush in Zohar Harkia I cited before (p 23-b) he explains the Zoahr on Galif Galifu be'theru iluu, in the RY Sarugian mode, and clealy explains it as meaning preZimzum, so I dont understand what you reffer to in that chart.

Also, He claims that really also RChV held all thoe ideas of RY SARUG, but didnt on purpose dicuss higher than Adam Kadmon.

OTOH, I saw over Shavous, some footnote of someone in the name of Beis Shar(?) (couldnt yet establish who the author is) on a sefer "Chasdei Dovid" (appears in Ashlags edition of the writings of Ari 3rd volume Eitz Chaim p, 209) who claims that RCHV was also against those ideas espoused by RY Sarug, and contradicting wht RCHV held!

I would say that Chasidos takes Reb Meis Paporushs stance that RCAV really held and knew all those ideas but didnt want to espous them publicaly.

[lambda]

The conflicting opinions I am hearing about R' Meir are confusing me.

[lambda]

To add to the confusion:

He doesn't have Zohar HaRakia, but he says he saw the same thing in Or Zaruah, and it appears to be tzimtzum sheni, not tzimtzum rishon.

I don't recall seeing many (any?) references to tzimtzum sheni in Chassidus, but from the context he used it in seems to be before A"K.

[jjbaker]

On the question of non-Lubavitch Chabad groups, isn't there a small group in Boro Park around R' Shimon Deutsch? Does he have more than a minyan?

As for R' Aharon Staroselye, I have a Chabadnik acquaintance who is looking for the Jacobs books on him. I picked up the biographical one "Seeker of Unity" at the YU Seforim Sale this year; looks like someone found a stack of new old stock somewhere and sold them there. Are R' Aharon's books available in reprints? I wouldn' t expect to see them at Kehos.

What happened to Kopust? Weren't they another Chabad sept?

[lambda]

<<On the question of non-Lubavitch Chabad groups, isn't there a small group in Boro Park around R' Shimon Deutsch? Does he have more than a minyan?>>

He is called the Liozner Rebbe, after the town where the Alter Rebbe was from. I am not sure if he has more than a minyan right now. I haven't heard much of him in recent times. I don't even know if he was trying to establish a new Admurus.

<<Are R' Aharon's books available in reprints? I wouldn' t expect to see them at Kehos.>>

I would try a Boro Park seforim store. I can ask someone there where to get them, if you would like.

<<What happened to Kopust? Weren't they another Chabad sept?>>

Yes, they were Chabad. I heard that the Rogatchover Gaon was a Kopuster chossid. Most of the groups just assimilated into Lubavitch in the time of the Rebbe Rashab and the Rebbe Rayatz, with the exception of the malokim, I think.

[masbir]

<<Are R' Aharon's books available in reprints?>>>

Many stores carry his main works, there is even new nice edition of his two central works (his discourses "Avodas Halevi" were in print a few years ago, bot now not in print anymore)

[masbir]

<<with the exception of the malokim>>.

There were no Malakim Chasdidim in Russia. The Maalkim group was founded by R' Avraham Dov Levin in prewar America and was hostile to Chabad for various reasons.

[jjbaker]

masbir:
>There were no Malakim Chasdidim in Russia. The Maalkim group
>was founded by R' Avraham Dov Levin in prewar America and
>was hostile to Chabad for various reasons.

Hostile to Chabad, or hostile to Lubavitch? Chabad is an ideology, whose main group of adherents today is the Lubavitchers. But as we've seen in this thread, there have been several septs that adhere to Chabad ideology as defined by the Alter Rebbe: Malochim, Kopust, Staroselye, Liozna, etc. Are lehavdil the Shi'i and Sunni not both Muslim, even if they disagree about who the third Caliph was supposed to be?

Just so, there was a split in Chabad practically every other generation:
- after the Alter Rebbe, you got R' Aharon qua disciple vs. Mittler Rebbe qua son;
- after the Tzemach Tzedek, you got R' Yehuda Leib in Kopust qua older son vs. Rebbe Maharash qua best-qualified son;
- after Rebbe Rashab, you got R' Avraham Hamalach qua disciple who slightly moved away vs. Rayyatz the son. According to Avrum Ehrlich, there are still some Malochim in Williamsburgh, who side politically with Satmar over not having dealings with Medinas Yisroel, vs. the accommodationist attitude towards the Medinah taken by the late Rebbe.
- now, you have R' Deutsch, who is trying to set up a rebbeschaft, vs. Lubavitch which is content to wander rebbeless.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D 1) Chabad Lubavitch is NOT "Rebbeless" CHAS VESHOLOM.

2) Chabad Lubavitch is NOT content with the fact that the Rebbe is temporarily concealed, but we will do EVERYTHING in our power to bring his IMMEDIATE revelation!!

[masbir]

Besides Shtraheshle and Kapust, there is no rivarly to speak of, the Malakim where a miniscule group, of very few people, (20 perhaps, I know them all personally) Dietch doesnt even have minyan on Shabos, and is just the same as I would anounce I am a Rebbe one day. A Joke.

[Jude]

Way back when, in posts 61 and 63, R' Yonoson Eibschitz and R' Yaakov Emden were mentioned.
I just read a story in which R' Yonoson appeared to his son in a dream, urging him to do teshuva. When his son ignored the dream, he came yet again and threatened him, and the son promised to do teshuva.
Then he asked his father why it took him twelve years to come to him, it being 12 years since he had died.
R' Yonoson said he was busy with his halachic opponent R' Yaakov Emden. Their case was being tried in the heavenly court.

And what was the psak, asked the son.

They could do nothing to R' Yaakov since his aim was l'sheim shomayim and not at all personal, but his followers all went to gehinom.

(from Gedolei Chassidei Belz)

[jjbaker]

"Gedole Chasidei Belz" - will these "gedolim" put a name to such a story? Exactly what was R' Eibshitz' son supposed to be doing teshuva from? From being one of the Shebselach? Because two of them were active Shebselach, and the other two, while it is not known directly if they were, their sons were. R' Yonason's daughter also married into a known Shabsai-Tzvinik family.

It was quite ironic, if R' Eibshitz wasn't really a Shebsel himself one of the grandsons, R' Gavriel Eibenshitz, an open Frankist, also engaged in "chochmos chitzoniyos" and joined up with the Maskilim.

So it sounds like this story is *defending* Sabbatianism, rather than *opposing* excessive kana'us.

You might want to check out exactly what who was supposed to be doing teshuva for.

It was not for nothing that the Litvish gedolim eased the Yeshiva velt away from the kabbalah of the Gaon and of R' Hayim Volozhin. R' Emden may have gone overboard - Shalom regards him as pathologically obsessed - but in the end his methodology was accepted as the only solution that they could find. Discredit the kabbalah, get it out of the curriculum, and the messianic enthusiasm which fed Sabbatianism for over a century after the false messiah's death would wither on the vine.

Chasidus chose another path, and for most of its history, also managed to avoid the dangerous aspects of messianic enthusiasm. Chabad, even with its messianic enthusiasm, has for 99.999% of its adherents, continued to avoid the problems raised by Shabsai Tzvi, largely because the Rebbe never advocated violating Torah & mitzvos - Chabadniks never adopted S.Tz.'s blasphemous bracha - ba"y em"h matir issurim.

[lambda]

<<"Gedole Chasidei Belz" - will these "gedolim" put a name to such a story?>>

I suggest you remove the quotations to the world gedolim when referring to the holy Admurim of Belz.

<<So it sounds like this story is *defending* Sabbatianism, rather than *opposing* excessive kana'us.>>

The story is saying that what R' Emden did was for the sake of heaven, and what his students did isn't. There are similar things said about Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai. And no one accused either of them of being a shebsel.

<<It was not for nothing that the Litvish gedolim eased the Yeshiva velt away from the kabbalah of the Gaon and of R' Hayim Volozhin.>>

It isn't Kabbalas Arizal, so it should not be studied based on that alone. Kabbalah means somethat is received, either from one's teacher or a maggid. The Vilna Gaon's Kabbalah doesn't really fit this -- and he disagrees with the Arizal, whose Kabbalah definitely DOES fit that definition.

<<R' Emden may have gone overboard - but in the end his methodology was accepted as the only solution that they could find. Discredit the kabbalah,>>

R' Emden did a great job discrediting Kabbalah - he wrote sifrei Kabbalah himself! If that was his goal, he failed miserably. He says that he would not erase a single letter of the holy Zohar.

<<Chabad, even with its messianic enthusiasm, has for 99.999% of its adherents, continued to avoid the problems raised by Shabsai Tzvi, largely because the Rebbe never advocated violating Torah & mitzvos>>

Why would the Rebbe do that? You are wrongly assuming that Chassidus is reformed Shabtaus.

<<Chabadniks never adopted S.Tz.'s blasphemous bracha - ba"y em"h matir issurim.>>

Why would they? The way you phrase that assumes that Chassidus has a natural tendency towards disregarding halachah, ch"v.

[jjbaker]

I'd be happy to remove the quotes, if a name were attached to this peculiar story that admits of many different interpretations. One would think a gadol would not be so ambiguous/ambivalent. If it really is from these anonymous Gedolim, so be it. But it's still anonymous.

I think Scholem sees certain amulets as Sabbatean, given that amulets were written using standard lists of Divine names, and that certain names in one or two of R' Eibshitz' amulets use names that a) were not in the standard lists, and b) when decoded using normal temurot, become Sabbatean claims. He specifically disassociates this idea from standard Kabbalah, whose literature I am sure he knew far better, from far more sources, than anyone on this bbs.

The Vilna Gaon's kabbalah is based on that of the Arizal, as is that of Chasidus, and everyone who came after the Arizal. The whole Sabbatean movement was based on the kabbalah of the Arizal. Anyone who came afterwards, be they Litvish or Chasidish, had to take that into account in formulating a set of ideas - as EVERYONE knew the danger of Sabbateanism.

Stipulated, Chasidus is not reformed Sabbatianism. But Chasidus still had to react to the challenge of Sabbatianism, as did the rest of the Jewish world, when the Sabbatean movement, based on the kabbalah of the Ari, refused to die out as it should have.

R' Emden discredited parts of the Zohar, showing how they were later accretions. That doesn't mean that they aren't holy in and of themselves, any more than the words of the Mittler Rebbe are not holy just because they add to the words written by ADH"Z. But if someone were to attack the Torah, and show how parts of it were later accretions, you would not react so blithely.

You make many assumptions about what I write: I suggest you actually approach what I write as it is. I do not assume that Chabad has any natural tendency towards antinomianism. Nor do I assume that Chassidus is reformed Shabta'ut.

However, if it makes you feel better to attack me as if I were making such outrageous claims, well, it's all of a piece with the attacks on Berger - same methodology of tarring with too broad a brush, to the extent that it becomes clear that the writer is responding to ideas that simply are not there.

Viz. the Dalfin book, and the Rapaport book, both of which approach Berger as if Berger were attacking all of Lubavitch, and in the latter case, associate Berger with lehavdil R' Schach. R' Berger's disappointment with one (possibly misunderstood) aspect of chassidus is nothing like R' Schach's full-bore opposition; yet the critics see them as the same thing. It makes it very hard to take the critics seriously.

[mendelp]

Re. Gershom Shalom. See Ohel Rochel by Chaim liberman the first four articles Keitzad chokrim chassidut b'yisrael.

[lambda]

<<I'd be happy to remove the quotes, if a name were attached to this peculiar story that admits of many different interpretations. One would think a gadol would not be so ambiguous/ambivalent. If it really is from these anonymous Gedolim, so be it. But it's still anonymous.>>

There are only a handful of Belzer Admurim. It's hardly anonymous.

<<He specifically disassociates this idea from standard Kabbalah, whose literature I am sure he knew far better, from far more sources, than anyone on this bbs.>>

I don't think his claims are based on pure terumos.

<<The Vilna Gaon's kabbalah is based on that of the Arizal, as is that of Chasidus, and everyone who came after the Arizal.>>

See masbir's post in the other thread mentioning the famous letter of the Alter Rebbe on the Vilna Gaon's rejection of the origin from Eliyahu HaNavi of all of the Arizal's teachings. This letter is quoted in the beginning of Moshe Idel's book on Chassidus. Also, the Vilna Gaon does have some disagreements with the Arizal in his Kabbalistic writings, I believe.

Many people don't study those works by the Vilna Gaon because of this.

<<The whole Sabbatean movement was based on the kabbalah of the Arizal.>>

So? ******ianity was "based" on the Tanach. Do you hide the Chumash from the children because of this?

There actually exists a form of Shabtaus today that rarely mentions any chiddush of the Arizal, and concentrates almost entirely on the Ramak and the Zohar. I know the leader (he is an am hoaretz), and someone who is a very heavy member.

<<Anyone who came afterwards, be they Litvish or Chasidish, had to take that into account in formulating a set of ideas - as EVERYONE knew the danger of Sabbateanism.>>

Chassidus is what lifted the people back up. This wasn't because Chassidus hid and ignored Kabbalas Arizal - instead it focused on several of its ideas.

<<R' Emden discredited parts of the Zohar, showing how they were later accretions.>>

He doesn't really show anything. He is of the opinion that they are later.

That doesn't mean that they aren't holy in and of themselves, any more than the words of the Mittler Rebbe are not holy just because they add to the words written by ADH"Z.

<<But if someone were to attack the Torah, and show how parts of it were later accretions, you would not react so blithely.>>

It's an ikkor of Judaism that the Torah is completely from G-d. Such a view is complete apikorsus. However, it is not an ikkor that everything in the Zohar was from Rashbi himself.

<<You make many assumptions about what I write: I suggest you actually approach what I write as it is. I do not assume that Chabad has any natural tendency towards antinomianism. Nor do I assume that Chassidus is reformed Shabta'ut.>>

You have a thread where you try to say that Chabad Chassidus has an additional antinomian tension. It's hardly an assumption on my part.

<<However, if it makes you feel better to attack me as if I were making such outrageous claims, well, it's all of a piece with the attacks on Berger>>

Why do you think I am attacking you?

[notalubab]

[]<<Chabad sept?>>

Yes, they were Chabad. I heard that the Rogatchover Gaon was a Kopuster chossid. Most of the groups just assimilated into Lubavitch in the time of the Rebbe Rashab and the Rebbe Rayatz, with the exception of the malokim, I think. [/B][/QUOTE] ........................lammbda, my friend,you seem to be having a bit of a problem, with the facts regarding the ''MALOCHIM'' not malokin! malochim as in angels, based on their following r'avrohom hamalech...............he was a chosid of the RASHAB, but left lubavitch because of a disagreement regarding the rayatz who studied by him. they of course could not be incorporated in chabad in rashabs time, since that was when he left! They have shuls in williamsburg and monsey and learn tanya and daven nusach ar''i, most of them study in satmar, or similar yeshivas,they had a cheider but it no longer exists

[masbir]

notalubab! See my post on the subject.

Lambda knows the meaning of Malakim, he just used the English pronouciation of the word.

He wasnt really a chosid of The Reshab but from Mahrash. Why he called himself Malach is still beyond me.

He had a yeshiva called Nesuvos Oilom but they assimialted in satmar perhpas the Webermen family still continues some of that but are extinct.

[masbir]

The vilna Goans Kabbalah is expressily non ARI as Reb Chaim Volozner hismself said "The method of ARI on Zohar, was in the way of "Charifos" and the method of His Rebbe the Gra was to focus on the peshat of Zohar".

Also any reading of Gra in Kabbalah and his anti Luria opinions on Tfilin Rabenui Taam etc will testify to that.

[lambda]

<<lammbda, my friend,you seem to be having a bit of a problem, with the facts regarding the ''MALOCHIM'' not malokin! malochim as in angels, based on their following r'avrohom hamalech>>

I knew they were supposed to be malochim as in angels, but I used a bit of wordplay with the English meaning. On the previous page there is was a joke based on malochim.

[notalubab]

Originally posted by masbir
notalubab! See my post on the subject.

Lambda knows the meaning of Malakim, he just used the English pronouciation of the word.

He wasnt really a chosid of The Reshab but from Mahrash. Why he called himself Malach is still beyond me.

He had a yeshiva called Nesuvos Oilom but they assimialted in satmar perhpas the Webermen family still continues some of that but are extinct. I was under the impression that he was known as the Malech by his followers not that he called HIMSELF so.. The Rashab held him in great esteem and hired him to tutor his son R' yoisef Yitzchok (the rayatz ztz'l) In fact many people in Williamsburg and Monsey have shayches to the Malochim this has also to do with the very large families of the core group . The reason they are not so active is that they see Chabad as not being disimilar to The late SAtmar Rebbes views.The Rashabs views on Zionism were the same as R'Yoels. iN FACT a shulchan oruch harav has been printed with the Rashabs letters in the back,they are vehemently anti zionist, also, the Rashab did not agree with bochurim endangering their spiritual well being by doing outreach These things in a nutshell are The Satmar Rebbis ztz'ls views, so there was no pressing need for their own mosdos. Anyone who wants to see their shul, it is located at, 205 Hewes ST in Willy. (btw I am stating the basic facts about Rashabs position and not opining if the change in the times necessitated the change in Chabads position vis a vis Zionism or outreach)

[masbir]

But he was against Reshab already so how do they follow Reshab?

The Ryatz was also very antizionist so why dis the abandon him?

How can they assimilate in Satmar when the Satmarer claimed that Chasidsos is over?

[masbir]

<<< was under the impression that he was known as the Malech by his followers not that he called HIMSELF >>>

The question is why his followers did call him so?

[notalubab]

Originally posted by masbir
But he was against Reshab already so how do they follow Reshab?

The Ryatz was also very antizionist so why dis the abandon him?

How can they assimilate in Satmar when the Satmarer claimed that Chasidsos is over? The Malach was not against Rashabs shiteh . And what do u mean by 'why did he leave Rayatz'? he left long before he became rebbe, and he left because of a disagreement with Rayatz. So i'm not sure what you mean

[notalubab]

Originally posted by notalubab
The Malach was not against Rashabs shiteh . And what do u mean by 'why did he leave Rayatz'? he left long before he became rebbe, and he left because of a disagreement with Rayatz. So i'm not sure what you mean R' yoels famous nishtakcho derech habaal shem did not mean chassidus is over(how can parts of the torah be over??)He meant thats some of the Beshts avoideh were for his generation only. (why don't u ever get out and give a peek at what's happening ten minutes away from where u reside?? Satmar shul is located at 152 Rodney ST IN Willy and you should checkout once their chassidus shrank, I think you may change your mind on many things.....)

[masbir]

<<<The Malach was not against Rashabs shiteh . And what do u mean by 'why did he leave Rayatz'? he left long before he became rebbe, and he left because of a disagreement with Rayatz. So i'm not sure what you mean>>>

It is a known fact that Harav Levin Z"L was against the Reshab already and didnt allow his followers to study the Reshabs Chasidos, so when did his followers become Reshabniks?

Also I never heard he was anti zionist? So how did their followers become the biggest antizionist (not doing Kiruv they could have joined Skverr)

If his followers (not him) decided to join the Reshab for his anti Zionist views, why did they shun the Ryatz?

<<<The Rashab held him in great esteem and hired him to tutor his son R' yoisef Yitzchok (the rayatz ztz'l)>>>

I don't know from where you heard that, the reyatz never studied under him (he came to Lubavitch from Ula to study with R' Menachem Monish Mosnsohn son Lieb, in Lubavitch, but not with the Reyatz)

[notalubab]

Originally posted by masbir
<<<The Malach was not against Rashabs shiteh . And what do u mean by 'why did he leave Rayatz'? he left long before he became rebbe, and he left because of a disagreement with Rayatz. So i'm not sure what you mean>>>

It is a known fact that Harav Levin Z"L was against the Reshab already and didnt allow his followers to study the Reshabs Chasidos, so when did his followers become Reshabniks?

Also I never heard he was anti zionist? So how did their followers become the biggest antizionist (not doing Kiruv they could have joined Skverr)

If his followers (not him) decided to join the Reshab for his anti Zionist views, why did they shun the Ryatz?

<<<The Rashab held him in great esteem and hired him to tutor his son R' yoisef Yitzchok (the rayatz ztz'l)>>>

I don't know from where you heard that, the reyatz never studied under him (he came to Lubavitch from Ula to study with R' Menachem Monish Mosnsohn son Lieb, in Lubavitch, but not with the Reyatz) Masbir, what I'VE written regarding the Malach tutoring the Ratatz is well known and the source of the disagreements, I especially steered away from this part of the story , since their is no reason to bring up old machloikessen

[masbir]

<<<Satmar shul is located at 152 Rodney ST IN Willy and you should checkout once their chassidus shrank, I think you may change your mind on many things.....)>>>

Every day on my way to work I actaully daaven in Satmer, so I know very well who and what they are, and whats happening by R Avrahm Litner, and R' Zalma Leib and R' Aron and whats happening on Hewes street and penn street and the Kolel on Division where R' M. Webermn was Rosh Hakolel and the dyonim and else and also whats happening in Kiryas Yoel, all the Kdushe is the Yeshiva and so on - better than you think, I know all the sides with all the characters and also know Vyoel Moshe an Al Haguleh by heart, so I dont need to walk out and see, I know them well, and THERE ARE No Chasdism in Satmer!

[masbir]

<<<Masbir, what I'VE written regarding the Malach tutoring the Ratatz is well known and the source of the disagreements, I especially steered away from this part of the story , since their is no reason to bring up old machloikessen>>>

Don't worry you can say everything, and dont think I dont know all the hearsay and nonsense that they say, I am kin with the Webermans! But He was no tuter for the Reytz period!

Still didnt explain all other aspects discussed!

[notalubab]

Originally posted by masbir
<<<Satmar shul is located at 152 Rodney ST IN Willy and you should checkout once their chassidus shrank, I think you may change your mind on many things.....)>>>

Every day on my way to work I actaully daaven in Satmer, so I know very well who and what they are, and whats happening by R Avrahm Litner, and R' Zalma Leib and R' Aron and whats happening on Hewes street and penn street and the Kolel on Division where R' M. Webermn was Rosh Hakolel and the dyonim and else and also whats happening in Kiryas Yoel, all the Kdushe is the Yeshiva and so on - better than you think, I know all the sides with all the characters and also know Vyoel Moshe an Al Haguleh by heart, so I dont need to walk out and see, I know them well, and THERE ARE No Chasdism in Satmer! Masbir, don't you think that you are making a GRAVE ACCUSATION when you say that in Satmar with its thousands and thousands of followers has no 'CHASIDIM' (or chaSIDISM)?? Please don't be rash! From what I understand the reason for this forum is to discuss various Torah issues without our very personal feelings getting ahead of ourselves. It's difficult to take you seriously in some regards since you clearly have a major vendetta against Satmar chasidim. (btw about The Maloch's issue, I guess there is no reason to argue the point A) Since the facts are well known B)Dredging up these points just fuels Sinah.

[masbir]

Chas Vesholem nothing against anyone, there are many many holy Jews there, very frum and Gomlei Chosdom; but its obvious to me that if their Rebbe himself anounced that Chasidos as a way of life can't be followed, it follows logicaly that he abolished Chasidos as a way of life for his own followers.
I am not into bashing them, but rather defining who they are, according their own ideas!

[lambda]

Back to the original discussion:

It occurred to me that this "disagreement" may be caused by speaking of the reshimu on different levels. Chabad seforim (at least what I have seen, but that is mainly the Rebbe Rashab) almost always speak of it as it is concealed in the Ohr Ein Sof that is before the tzimtzum, and then perhaps discuss how it is revealed after the tzimtzum. Some people are speaking of it as it is in the chalal after the ohr is removed.

[Mordechai]

QUOTED FROM NOTALUB
[B]Masbir, don't you think that you are making a GRAVE ACCUSATION when you say that in Satmar with its thousands and thousands of followers has no 'CHASIDIM' (or chaSIDISM)?? Please don't be rash! From what I understand the reason for this forum is to discuss various Torah issues without our very personal feelings getting ahead of ourselves. It's difficult to take you seriously in some regards since you clearly have a major vendetta against Satmar chasidim.

To try to rephrase what masbir is talking about .chissidim mean people that learn chassidus its not a levush its not shuckaling ,all it is, is a person that learns chassidus and tries to put that chassidus in his everyday life.with that in mind everyone will agree that there are no chasidm in satmar

[Leayis]

mordechai, there is the idea of chagas chassidim. but your right even chagas does learn some chassidus

[vusveisichuber]

which happens to be very hard to even begin to comprehend without at least some yediah in Chasiduss Chabbad. The Gerrer yungerleit in my neighborhood learn Sfas Emes friday night - when they need a biur in an inyan they go to someone who has a strong yedia in Chasidus Chabad. As to chasidim in Satmar - if someone truly follows a derech in avodas Hashem, which was mapped out for him by his rebbe, whose basics are bemesora from Toras Habal Shem Tov, I think you can call him a chosid. What say you?

[Mordechai]

i agree with you that every rebbe was doresh from his chassidim to learn chassidus but we ALL know that if they ever want to understand what there learning,whether it's sfas emes ,lekutei moharan(breslov), or nisivos shalom(slonim) they have to be well versed in chabad chassidus.
also on a side note we know the rebbe himself said many times that in order for mashiach to come the world has to start learning chabad chassidus !!!!!

[lambda]

Originally posted by vusveisichuber
which happens to be very hard to even begin to comprehend without at least some yediah in Chasiduss Chabbad. The Gerrer yungerleit in my neighborhood learn Sfas Emes friday night - when they need a biur in an inyan they go to someone who has a strong yedia in Chasidus Chabad.

What kinds of concepts need explanation for them? Any examples?

[Mordechai]

THERE IS A BEOR HACHASIDUS FROM last year regarding a sfas emes reb yoel explained in belgium ill get the dates and year soon
i'y'h

[Jude]

<<Perhaps nothing stirs the Jewish heart more than the idea that G-d can largely be explained, that our metaphysical ties to Him are real, and that there are tangible things we can do to draw closer and closer to Him our whole lives long. All of this is discussed with great depth and clarity in a masterwork of Jewish thought known as "The Way of G-d".>>

what do you think of this introduction to Derech Hashem? I find the phrase "the idea that G-d can largely be explained" rather disturbing. Any comments?

(I post this here bec. 1) the Ramchal was discussed earlier in this thread and 2) bec. the Ramchal thread in Tmimim Plus is off-limits

[Chabad Friend]

I think that the reason you find it disturbing is because of your advanced idea of what you mean when you say "G-d". When someone who learns and integrates Chabad Chassidus says that name, they think Ein Sof L'Maalah Mikol Hagbalos. There is no explaining that, largely or small-y. When the velt says the name, they think of something lower on the Seder Hishtalshelus.

When the rest of the world discusses G-d, they usually discuss Him as He reaches into Atzilus, which is Elokus, or at most Chabad of Atzilus.

I know they wouldn't phrase it in this way, but this is the whole gist of the Baal HaTanya's resolving of the dispute between the Rambam's expression that Hashem is the Yodeia, Yadua etc...and the Maharal who said that G-d is beyond definition.

I suppose that a Chabad seifer would use the term "G-dliness" or Divinity instead.

[Jude]

actually, I didn't give it that much thought, i.e. which level of Elokus they were referring to. Just the presumptuousness of the idea, that G-d, at any level, can be explained, is what disturbed me. Perhaps what I say next is too harsh, but I think that with an introduction like that to Derech Hashem, it's no wonder that Chabad Chasidim can't help but roll their eyes when those ignorant of Chasidus say anything on these subjects. The lack of sensitivity, the lack of bittul, the utter cluelessness, despite their sometimes brilliance and knowledge, is apparent even to a Chabad teenager.

[pretzel999]

.......a prime example of hubris......

[Jude]

Lubavitchers are reputed to be arrogant. It's because they're so cocksure of themselves, and know they've got the emes, that others perceive this as gaa'va.

and besides - what did you think of that phrase? isn't it the epitome of real arrogance?

[Chabad Friend]

As presupmptuous as you found that line in the introduction, the fact is that no hashkafa claims to explain G-d more than Chabad Chassidus. Oh sure, every time they explain G-d, there's the caveat, "we're not explain Atzmus CH"V ..." but every page of maamor explains G-d, clarifies what we mean when we say G-d. The caveat, "We're only speaking of Briah, or Adam Kadmon, or the Kav, or Malchus of Atzilus" is always there, and with the caveat, man comes to explain G-d as well as he can.

The only thing I could agree with you is the phrase "lack of bittul". But that wasn't the Ramchal's line.

[masbir]

I agree with CF 100%

[Jude]

But that wasn't the Ramchal's line.

but who taught all you mentioned about Chabad Chasidus? it wasn't a "hashkafa" that taught it, but Rebbeim! Even if people aren't willing to agree that the Rebbeim are souls of Atzilus and even beyond that, they will concede that these were tzadikim and scholars way beyond themselves. And the Ramchal himself, scholar, mekubal etc.
that it wasn't the Ramchal's line is my point! A person we can safely assume is nowhere near the caliber of the Ramchal, studies his work and concludes: wow, this is great, and it enables us to explain G-d pretty much, neat!
The line reflects on him and those like him, not the material.

[masbir]

As they say in Yiddish "stam tzugetshepet" and "krichst of glaicha vent". Taking some phrase out of context and seeing some bogeyman.

That is not the problem, in chasidos we have many statements like these. but I know you cant give up. so stick to your observation forever.

[Jude]

as some say, see it my way or you're benighted
no kidding we have statements like that in Chasidus, but who's making them, or did you not read my previous post
don't like the observation or the response to your comments? no need to be insulting, or can't you help it?

[masbir]

I read what you wrote, and it wasnt understandble to me (wow how diplomatic of me)

[lambda]

I found something interesting about Shaarei Gan Eden in Chassidus. The idea of "lemaaleh mikoach eino chosor hapoel" is found there in pisakh beis, derech beis. There is a hemshekh of the Frierdiker Rebbe that begins by saying everything has a shoresh in the ohr ein sof, but I only saw it in shul once, I don't think I own it. It seems to be directly referencing what it says there.

[lambda]

rebayzl asked earlier in the thread if there was a disagreement between Reb Aron of Strashalah and the Mitteler Rebbe in esser sefiros genuzos. The material on esser sefiros genuzos is in Sha'ar Sheni of Sha'arei HaYichud VeHaEmunah, which I didn't get time to learn on Shabbos, but in Sha'ar Rishon Perek Daled it says that he heard directly from the Alter Rebbe that the moshol of the tzur hachalmish (flintstone) from Sefer Elimah (of the Ramak) is only correct in mocha stima'ah. However, the Mitteler Rebbe uses this moshol in Sha'ar HaYichud Perek Yud for the esser sefiros genuzos in the Ohr Ein Sof!

[masbir]

According this view the Tzemach Tzedek also disagrees with his father in law.

הצ"צ עניינים ע' ק"מ:"והנה ענין ע"ס הגנוזות כפי ששמעתי מרבינו ז"ל פעמי' אמר שהוא ענין ע"ס דעתיק או דא"א ופעמי' אמר שזה הוא בחי' עקודים כו' וא"כ מבואר שלא סמך ע"ז לתאר כן באור א"ס, כי באמת הנמשל לא א"ש כ"כ אפילו לפי משל הנ"ל [דאש בצור החלמיש] שבאבן יש רק כח האש ולא אש ממש דמ"מ הרי הוא כח לאש ולא למים".

[chassidus]

Originally posted by lambda
rebayzl asked earlier in the thread if there was a disagreement between Reb Aron of Strashalah and the Mitteler Rebbe in esser sefiros genuzos. The material on esser sefiros genuzos is in Sha'ar Sheni of Sha'arei HaYichud VeHaEmunah, which I didn't get time to learn on Shabbos, but in Sha'ar Rishon Perek Daled it says that he heard directly from the Alter Rebbe that the moshol of the tzur hachalmish (flintstone) from Sefer Elimah (of the Ramak) is only correct in mocha stima'ah. However, the Mitteler Rebbe uses this moshol in Sha'ar HaYichud Perek Yud for the esser sefiros genuzos in the Ohr Ein Sof!
The Mittler Rebbe never mentions the moshol of the tzur hacholomish in Shaar Hayichud, only Reb Hillel does in his pirush.

[chassidus]

Originally posted by masbir
According this view the Tzemach Tzedek also disagrees with his father in law.

הצ"צ עניינים ע' ק"מ:"והנה ענין ע"ס הגנוזות כפי ששמעתי מרבינו ז"ל פעמי' אמר שהוא ענין ע"ס דעתיק או דא"א ופעמי' אמר שזה הוא בחי' עקודים כו' וא"כ מבואר שלא סמך ע"ז לתאר כן באור א"ס, כי באמת הנמשל לא א"ש כ"כ אפילו לפי משל הנ"ל [דאש בצור החלמיש] שבאבן יש רק כח האש ולא אש ממש דמ"מ הרי הוא כח לאש ולא למים".

See previous post. Also, note the difference between esser sfiros hagenuzos and esser sfiros hagenuzos bi'he'elem ha'atzmus mamash. Likewise, the difference between a hiyuli and a hiyuli atzmi.

[chassidus]

Originally posted by Jude
actually, I didn't give it that much thought, i.e. which level of Elokus they were referring to. Just the presumptuousness of the idea, that G-d, at any level, can be explained, is what disturbed me. Perhaps what I say next is too harsh, but I think that with an introduction like that to Derech Hashem, it's no wonder that Chabad Chasidim can't help but roll their eyes when those ignorant of Chasidus say anything on these subjects. The lack of sensitivity, the lack of bittul, the utter cluelessness, despite their sometimes brilliance and knowledge, is apparent even to a Chabad teenager.
But can G-d explain Himself?

Yes He can, and He did. This is the idea of the Shaar Ha'Nun and this is why it has to come as a gift (matan Torah, the fiftieth day of sfira).

[lambda]

Originally posted by chassidus

The Mittler Rebbe never mentions the moshol of the tzur hacholomish in Shaar Hayichud, only Reb Hillel does in his pirush.

Really? Then :lchaim: :lchaim: :lchaim: my bad memory saves us! I was quoting it from memory, because I don't have that sefer. I was pretty sure I was right, too... masbir didn't even catch me...

[lambda]

Even more interestingly, see Gal Enai's site:

"Even more precisely, Chassidut teaches (in the name of the Maggid of Mezritch) that Ein Sof refers to the infinite light generated by the malchut of Echad. The thought and desire of Ana Emloch (as described above) resulted, spontaneously, in a "surge" of infinite energy and light to enact the creative process (just as the heart of a mortal king becomes full of "infinite" energy and light to materialize his will to rule)."

http://www.inner.org/worlds/einsof.htm

What is the source for this (including the attribution to the Maggid)? Masbir mentioned earlier in this thread that, in general, these ideas are from the Maggid. But where is this written? Somewhere in Ohr HaTorah?

[lambda]

Originally posted by masbir
[B]OTOH, I saw over Shavous, some footnote of someone in the name of Beis Shar(?) (couldnt yet establish who the author is)

The sefer is Beis Sha'ar HaKavanos and the author is the Sulam.

[Yankel Nosson]

concerning the ramchal. the misnagdim were into his sfarim as an "antidote" for chassidus. I heard that the alter rebbe said concerning his sforim, nisht hoib zei nisht varf zei.
Could someone translate: "nisht hoib zei nisht varf zei."

[The Eighth King]

I guess my questions are getting boring... ;)

But what is the earliest source that explicitly states, plainly, that the tehiru ila'ah is before the tzimtzum? Is there a source in the Alter Rebbe's maamorim? I couldn't find one by perusing through the relevant entries in Likutei Torah and Torah Or, but I don't have that much of his Chassidus here.

I can't tell you what the earliest source is, but I can tell you that there is a footnote in RaNaT (p. 77) which says roughly:

"In many places in Chassidus it is explained that Tihiru Illaa is before the Tzimtzum, and that the statement "Glif Glifu B'Tihiru Illaa" is a estimation in potentiality before Tzimtzum (of what will be after tzimtzum), and that after Tzimtzum is Tihiru Tataa. See Shaar HaYichud chapter 16 (and other chapters as well, like the first page of chapter 10) Imrei Binah, Chapter 10 of Shaar Kriyas Shma. Toras Chayim, Noach "Vayehi Kol HaAretz" Ch. 23, Samech Vov, "Adam Ki Yihiyeh", Sukkos ATAR, Sukkos TovReishTzadiBeis, and other sources.

It appears that what is written here (in RaNaT) is according to what is written in Torah Ohr at the end of the explanation of "V'Tachas Raglov", that according to the Kabbalah of R' Chaim Vital, Tihiru Illaa is A"K - See Mikdash Melech (not sure of the source here) Zohar Chelek Alef? 15a....?, and Zohar Chamah in the name of the Arizal..

However, if this is the case, Tzarich Iyun on why several places in Chassidus explain differently than the Kabbalah of R' Chaim Vital."
Look up this footnote in RaNaT, and its sources...

[stwill]

Could someone translate: "nisht hoib zei nisht varf zei." Loose translation: Don't pick them up, but don't throw them on the floor either.

[Gevurah]

About Shtrashela. His dynasty petered out. His son in law and a sizable group became Vilednik Chasidim (his Grandson wrote the Vilednik Toras, and then went off to America where he left the fold). Others joined mainstream Chabad.

who is the Sheris Yisrael then? are there Viledniks in NY?

[RebMoshe]

who is the Sheris Yisrael then? are there Viledniks in NY?

Sheris Yisroel is the sefer of the Viledniker. He had no children.

[RavSiach]

Sheris Yisroel is the sefer of the Viledniker. He had no children.

Reb Moshe great to hear you're still alive!

[RavSiach]

The newly printed Sheeris Yisroel has stories of the Chabad Rebbeim and the Viledniker. I highly resommend checking it out. The toiros are very interesting.

[RebMoshe]

Reb Moshe great to hear you're still alive!

Rumors to the contrary were greatly exxagerated. :)

I have been busy. Married off one son, bar mitzvah for another.

[RebMoshe]

The newly printed Sheeris Yisroel has stories of the Chabad Rebbeim and the Viledniker. I highly resommend checking it out. The toiros are very interesting.

The new printing is great. Easy to learn for those of us getting on in years. :) (Get's harder to read the small print.)

[RavSiach]

I suspect there were Lubavitchers involved in that printing.

[RebMoshe]

I suspect there were Lubavitchers involved in that printing.

Don't know. There is a Velidnic shul on Monsey, the Rov of which is a Pupa Chasid. (Or at least his family is very big in Pupa.) He put out the sefer.

[yanqui]

I just picked up new copies of R' Aharon of Starosselye's books Shaarei Hayichud Vehoemuna and Shaarei Haavodah in Boro Park last month. Someone has an interest in reprinting & selling them, whoever they are.
____
yanqui at home

[The Eighth King]

Maybe this should be in a new thread, but the same issue that caused me to ask the original question brings me to this one. My non-Lubavitch Chassidic friend tells me that the concepts that R' Sarug revealed were between tzimtzum harishon and A"K. But when I read Heichaltzu in Ranat, I saw the footnote of the Rebbe there that says that the makom panui and chalal in Emek HaMelekh is before the tzimtzum. Likewise, in the first maamor of 5666 it speaks of the osios hareshimu that are *before* the tzimtzum.

Who first came up with this interpretation of R' Sarug's Kabbalah? Was it someone before the Besht? Was it the Besht or the Maggid? Or is it a Chabad chiddush? Does anyone disagree?It seems that this whole topic kind of petered out without ever coming to any maskonois... In any event, I believe that your friend is clearly wrong. Has he ever seen Shever Yosef from R"Y Sarug? I haven't really gone through it (as it is difficult to read in .pdf and I don't have the sefer itself) but he clearly is talking about pre-tzimtzum harishon there... R' Hillel Paritcher also says as much (about Oilam HaMalbush vchu) in the name of R"Y Sarug there, in perek ז,ח,ט towards the end of both biur aleph and beis of לקוטי ביאורים on שער היחוד etc...ע"ש
I should probably read the maamor of the Rebbe Rashab that the Rebbe cites, HaOseh Sukaso 5764, on why Chassidus holds this opinion, but I was hoping for some background.A maamer from 5764...where can I obtain a copy? :D

On a side note...is the sefer "מעין החכמה" written by the Arizal himself or who...? See the very first ois there about רשימו and טהירו עלאה and טהירו סתם...second ois talking about יו"ד דס"ג...if this is from the Arizal himself then...

[chasidus]

I just picked up new copies of R' Aharon of Starosselye's books Shaarei Hayichud Vehoemuna and Shaarei Haavodah in Boro Park last month. Someone has an interest in reprinting & selling them, whoever they are.
____
yanqui at home

The Rebbe said that he would print it but he is (ke'ilu my own word) scared what the shpitz chabaniks will say (you could see this in hamelch bimisiboi)

[Hiskashrus]

you know the famous story of r' mayer harlig.... (m****helach's chassidus)

and iv'e seen a maamer from 5764 - written by the new chozrim... besides you can hear maamorim every shabbos mevorchim in 770 but i won't go into details - you never know who might get offended

[chasidus]

in truth I am not so clear on the haaro, but you can see the bassi legani of 45 also haoise sekoisa for more bi'ur on it (this is also discussed in Aaron stashelas chassidus in the Avoidas haleivi. it is exponded on in shiurei dach by R' Golumg) but AK"P if you look at the text of the ra'nat and the shar hayichud that was quoted in the beggining of the ha'aroh you see that the rishimu and makum ponuy is after the tzimzum (the Rebbe quotes this in the name of the Emek hamelech...)

[The Eighth King]

Yes...the Mittler Rebbe says befeirush...but the גליף גליפו is where...?

And did you see R' Hillel there, and various other places? (יש להקדים בענין המבואר במקובלים שהרשימו יש בו שני בחי' וכו...)

[The Eighth King]

and טהירו עלאה is where...v'chu? (This was already really answered elsewhere by lambda (I think) who mentioned a section in Ayin-Beis that is moreh that טה"ע refers to the חיצוניות האור both as it is נכלל in the אור before צמצום and as it is me'ir after tzimtzum..(also see מקדש מלך on 15a with the explanation of why טהירו עלאה is davka in loshon aramish which is moreh חיצוניות vchu. וד"ל)

[chasidus]

That is what is not clear in the ha'aroh about the tzimum vechu' before the tzimtzum . Look at the scources that i braught down, they may come in handy.

[The Eighth King]

On a side note...is the sefer "מעין החכמה" written by the Arizal himself or who...?...if this is from the Arizal himself then.....(although on the cover it implies that it is) it doesn't appear to be from the Arizal himself, as it references עמק המלך etc.

[lambda]

I will post more on the ha'aroh about 'tzimtzum vechu' before the tzimtzum' in a few days or maybe a week, but I am almost certain that none of the following seforim are from the Arizal himself:

Tzaddik Yesod Olam
Me'ain Chochmah
Shever Yosef

They are all obviously from R' Yisroel Sarug's school.

[lambda]

It seems that this whole topic kind of petered out without ever coming to any maskonois... In any event, I believe that your friend is clearly wrong. Has he ever seen Shever Yosef from R"Y Sarug? I haven't really gone through it (as it is difficult to read in .pdf and I don't have the sefer itself) but he clearly is talking about pre-tzimtzum harishon there... R' Hillel Paritcher also says as much (about Oilam HaMalbush vchu) in the name of R"Y Sarug there, in perek ז,ח,ט towards the end of both biur aleph and beis of לקוטי ביאורים on שער היחוד etc...ע"ש

Shever Yosef is printed at the back of the edition of Sha'ar HaYichudim by "Hotza'as Yeshivas HaChaim VeHaSholom", although the print isn't that great. Where did you find it in PDF?

I will discuss it in my post on "tzimtzum before tzimtzum harishon" when I write it all up.

[The Eighth King]

Heres the link: http://www.halachabrura.org/library6.htm

Scroll down to מעין החכמה...

[The Eighth King]

I will post more on the ha'aroh about 'tzimtzum vechu' before the tzimtzum' in a few days or maybe a week, but I am almost certain that none of the following seforim are from the Arizal himself:

Tzaddik Yesod Olam
Me'ain Chochmah
Shever Yosef

They are all obviously from R' Yisroel Sarug's school.
מעין החכמה and שבר יוסף yes...but are you sure about צדיק יסוד עולם...which concepts there lead you to such a conclusion...(although its been awhile since I picked it up...I didn't get such an impression...I will look again)? BTW, they have it on that site as well (an old print)...in a print of שער היחודים...scroll down to there.

[lambda]

מעין החכמה and שבר יוסף yes...but are you sure about צדיק יסוד עולם...which concepts there lead you to such a conclusion...(although its been awhile since I picked it up...I didn't get such an impression...I will look again)? BTW, they have it on that site as well...in a print of שער היחודים...scroll down to there.

Yes, it is printed in that same print of Sha'ar HaYichudim. But that version is the old typesetting. I picked up a more nicely typeset version of Tzaddik Yesod Olam from seforimliquidators.com.

The beginning of Tzaddik Yesod Olam is straight out of the Drush HaMalbush / Shever Yosef by R' Yisroel Sarug. There are many other things that give it away, including the more philosophical style, and if you really disagree with my suggestion I can make a list of reasons.

Publishers have a very bad record of getting R' Yisroel Sarug's seforim right. I have an original print of Limudei Atzilus from Berditchev that says it is by R' Chaim Vital.

[The Eighth King]

I don't disagree...just wondering...It appears that you are referring to the concept of שיער בעצמותו כו...I can't believe I forgot about that...however, isn't the basic point there the same basic point as the חקירה הראשונה in ע"ח - שער א' ענף א?

(but interestingly, (correct me if Im wrong) I don't believe there is mention of tzimtzum throughout the whole book...)

[lambda]

I don't disagree...just wondering...It appears that you are referring to the concept of שיער בעצמותו כו...I can't believe I forgot about that...however, isn't the basic point there the same basic point as the חקירה הראשונה in ע"ח - שער א' ענף א?

It is related, but the explanation of "shiar b'atzmoi" is almost identical to what is found in other seforim from R' Yisroel Sarug and his school.

(but interestingly, (correct me if Im wrong) I don't believe there is mention of tzimtzum throughout the whole book...)

I just flipped through it, but here are a few things I found:

- In the commentary on verse 2:15 (and onward), it mentions the malbush and the kav.

- In the commentary on verse 3:1 (and onward), it mentions making a distinction between the "ohr hapnimi" and the "chitzonius" via the koach of the malbush.

- It mentions the kav in the commentary on verse 3:13.

- It uses the word tzimtzum near the beginning of the last paragraph of the sefer, but I don't think it is the right context.

[The Eighth King]

Thanks for the clarification... I always wondered about it... sometimes the source of some of these books is ambiguous...

[lambda]

I have never seen this sefer Tzaddik Yesod Olam quoted anywhere else (unless I forgot). Have you?

[The Eighth King]

not that I recall...

[The Eighth King]

A clear proof that it is not from the Arizal himself is from the fact that on the posuk (1:6) ותקם היא וכלתיה it quotes Etz Chaim...

[lambda]

in truth I am not so clear on the haaro, but you can see the bassi legani of 45 also haoise sekoisa for more bi'ur on it (this is also discussed in Aaron stashelas chassidus in the Avoidas haleivi. it is exponded on in shiurei dach by R' Golumg)

You can find this section of Avodas HaLevi on pg. 65c in the final chelek of Likutim. The Rebbe quotes it in a letter (Igros 2:360 or Likutei Sichos 16:514) but he quotes the wrong page, 73b (not sure whether he means second column or second side, but the statement is on neither), for his statement. The statement he quotes is found on pg. 71b (second column) near the bottom.

In that section he refers to the tzimtzum of Avir Kadmon as being tzimtzum harishon before the tzimtzum mentioned in Etz Chaim (which he calls tzimtzum hasheni), but there are a few (okay, more than a few) things about what he says that aren't all that clear.

This section of Avodas HaLevi has a note added by the printers that it was a rough draft of the second chelek of Sha'arei HaYichud VeHaEmunah, which never appeared in print. It is however referenced (when talking about this same inyon, things that are "above" those which are mentioned in Etz Chaim) in a hagahoh somewhere in the sefer Sha'arei haYichud VeHaEmunah (I think somewhere in the first sha'ar, but I will go through and find the exact place some time).

And with all due respect to R' Golumb, he doesn't even try to find the quote from Limudei Atzilus that R' Aharon is talking about, which means I have to do it later this week. :cheeky:

[chasidus]

in truth I am not so clear on the haaro, but you can see the bassi legani of 45 also haoise sekoisa for more bi'ur on it (this is also discussed in Aaron stashelas chassidus in the Avoidas haleivi. it is exponded on in shiurei dach by R' Golumg) but AK"P if you look at the text of the ra'nat and the shar hayichud that was quoted in the beggining of the ha'aroh you see that the rishimu and makum ponuy is after the tzimzum (the Rebbe quotes this in the name of the Emek hamelech...)
There is one makor that I forgot to mention, there is a whole biur on the pre-tzimzum tzimzum in the Rebbe's Sichos in the sichos right after the maamor of basi legani 45, the Rebbe for I think two weeks explained the whole concept.

[lambda]

There is one makor that I forgot to mention, there is a whole biur on the pre-tzimzum tzimzum in the Rebbe's Sichos in the sichos right after the maamor of basi legani 45, the Rebbe for I think two weeks explained the whole concept.

Are any of them mugah?

[lambda]

There is one makor that I forgot to mention, there is a whole biur on the pre-tzimzum tzimzum in the Rebbe's Sichos in the sichos right after the maamor of basi legani 45, the Rebbe for I think two weeks explained the whole concept.

I checked the bilti mugah sichos. There isn't much new there besides a reference to Likutei Levi Yitzchak that I will have to check.

[chasidus]

I checked the bilti mugah sichos. There isn't much new there besides a reference to Likutei Levi Yitzchak that I will have to check.
look in the sicha of shabbos parshas yisroi starting from sif lamed za'yin. Also the next Shabbos the Rebbe continues to explain the concept.....

[The Eighth King]

And shabbos parshas tetzaveh ois chof and on...

[lambda]

There isn't really much new about this inyon being said in those sichos.

The most interesting source to me was the Avodas HaLevi which says that these two concepts of "tzimtzum before tzimtzum harishon" -- tzimtzum meruba and the 'tzimtzum' to be megaleh the ohr -- are the same thing.

[chasidus]

There isn't really much new about this inyon being said in those sichos.

The most interesting source to me was the Avodas HaLevi which says that these two concepts of "tzimtzum before tzimtzum harishon" -- tzimtzum meruba and the 'tzimtzum' to be megaleh the ohr -- are the same thing.
Fair enough.......but I didnt think that another marah makom would hurt anything.....and I am sure that many could gain from the sicha.... :D

[The Eighth King]

Heres some things related to the prior discussion...about why and how Chassidus bases things on עמק המלך etc...and Im sure there is more to be found on otzar770.com...

[lambda]

Is any of this quoted in the name of the Maggid before the Rebbe?

[Gevurah]

tzimtzum meruba

Lam

translate the adjective and where is this?

[lambda]

where is this?

Avodas HaLevi Likutim (chelek beis on the sha'ar blatt but the third volume in the new prints) pg. 171, at the bottom of the second column if I remember correctly. He says he is getting it from Limudei Atzilus, but I can't check it until next week.

translate the adjective

The adjective means "square". He says that this tzimtzum is "besod ribua". I just used the adjective. My guess is that the usage of "ribua" comes from the malbush, a fact that he alludes to on the third column of pg. 172 (going from memory here so I hope I am right).

By the way, I know you have the Leshem's beiruim on Etz Chaim, which I can't find for sale. Does he mention any of this at the beginning?

[The Eighth King]

Here is what the Leshem says on the top of p. 8b (second column):והנה מה שאמר הרב ז"ל כי נעשה הצמצום ע"י הבינה הנה הוא מרמז על דברי קבלת הר"י סרוג ז"ל שנעשה פרגוד מבפנים להחלל דהצמצום לאור א"ס המקיף שלא יכנוס מבפנים להחלל, ואותו הפרגוד הוא מבחי' בינה שהוא שרש הדינין וע' בכ"ז בדברינו הקדו"ש שער הפונה קדים ע' שם פ"ה ותמצה ותבן, וזהו שאמר בלשונו אשר מבו"ש הנז' הבט נא וראה לומר שהוא מרמז על ענין עמוק, והוא על דברי הר"י סרוג הנז', כי הרח"ו ז"ל לא רצה לדבר בזה מחמת רום גבהו ולא זכינו בדברי הרח"ו ז"ל בזה מאומה אלא רק באותן מילין אחדים אשר מרמז לנו במבו"ש הנ"ז, וכל עומק דברים הללו הוא נתגלה לנו רק ע"י הקדוש ר"י סרוג ז"ל וע"י תלמידו הקדוש רמ"ע מפאנו ז"ל זיע"א, ובארנו אותם תהלית"ש בשער הפונה קדים הנז' כל מה שחנני הקב"ה בזה (He is commenting on the paragraph beginning "ואמנם הבט נא וראה כו" in the first perek of מבו"ש.)

[The Eighth King]

(the makifim of Binah are square kyodua...btw I believe I saw somewhere from the Rebbe RaShaB where he explains the difference between the ribua of the malbush and the nekuda of the reshimu al derech the difference between (the nekuda of) chochmah and (the hispashtus of) binah...will try to find it now.)

[The Eighth King]

See hoisofois of 5654, pg. 339 and 340. (a hanocho..)

[lambda]

Here is what the Leshem says on the top of p. 8b (second column): (He is commenting on the paragraph beginning "ואמנם הבט נא וראה כו" in the first perek of מבו"ש.)

Did you look up what the Leshem says there in Hakdamos VeSha'arim, which he quotes in the quote you gave? I can't check it until next week.

BTW, how and when (how long ago?) did you get that chelek of the Leshem?

[The Eighth King]

Didn't look yet... I too am incapable of looking it up atm... (might be able to tommorow evening.)

It arrived in the mail the tisha-b'av before this past one (or was it two years ago?). Check nehora.com...

[lambda]

Didn't look yet... I too am incapable of looking it up atm... (might be able to tommorow evening.)

It arrived in the mail the tisha-b'av before this past one (or was it two years ago?). Check nehora.com...

Nehora.com only has Sefer HaDea"h and Hakdamos VeSha'arim for sale, not the Biurim on Etz Chaim.

[lambda]

You turned off your PM lambda?

No. The moderators turned it off for me. Turn on your "allow emails" option and I will send you an email with my address, or send me an email via the feature on the board. If you want to remain more anonymous than your email address, get an account at Hashkafah.com and PM me.

[The Eighth King]

He says he is getting it from Limudei Atzilus, but I can't check it until next week.I just opened up a Limudei Atzilus...(never learned it before at all...) The whole beginning is filled with R' Yisroel Sarug style inyonim and dibburim vchu...(malbush, yud d'Sa"G...) This is from R' Chaim Vital? (It says on the cover שנמצא בכתב יד מהרב המקובל האלקי מוהרח"ו)

Heres a quote from the second paragraph:

ודע לך שהנענוע הנולד מהשעשוע זה היה עשרה נענועים כזה י'...כו'...וקודם כל דבר היה הוא יתברך ממלא כל העולמות ר"ל מקום שראוי להבראות בו כל העולמות עשה לו לבוש מאור עצמותו שהיא התורה כנזכר שהיא בנויה מרל"א שערים פנים ורל"א שערים אחור כהדין קמצא דלבושא מניה וביה וסליק עצמו וצמצם עצמו הוא יתברך בתוך לבושו למעלה כביכול ואח"כ צמצם לבושו בזה האופן והלבוש הזה נשערה ע"י שהוא הגליפא כמש"ה וסביביו נשערה מאוד [תהילים נ ג] ונאמר סביבותיו סכתו [תהילים י"ח י"ב] כו

[lambda]

I just opened up a Limudei Atzilus...(never learned it before at all...) The whole beginning is filled with R' Yisroel Sarug style inyonim and dibburim vchu...(malbush, yud d'Sa"G...) This is from R' Chaim Vital?

I mentioned on the last page of this thread that it is written by R' Yisroel Sarug (as R' Aharon HaLevi says) and that attribution is an error by the printers.

[The Eighth King]

ahh...that makes more sense...

Now, pirush haArizal l'Sifra D'Tzniusa is from who? (looks also like Sarug to me...)

[lambda]

Now, pirush haArizal l'Sifra D'Tzniusa is from who? (looks also like Sarug to me...)

I may have to get back to you on that.

[The Eighth King]

It seems to be Sarug(ian) in nature for sure! The hakdomo gives a whole biur on the inyan of the Malbush...(and this seems to be the whole tone of the beginning of the book (at least) etc.)

[lambda]

It seems to be Sarug(ian) in nature for sure! The hakdomo gives a whole biur on the inyan of the Malbush...(and this seems to be the whole tone of the beginning of the book (at least) etc.)

I haven't seen the sefer but I have seen references to it. Is it available online?

[The Eighth King]

I don't know, I have an actual book...

[Gevurah]

8KIng

"See hoisofois of 5654, pg. 339 and 340. (a hanocho..)
Yesterday 02:27 PM
The Eigth King (the makifim of Binah are square kyodua "

I do not see that inyan there?

[The Eighth King]

Firstly, there is a separation between the two statements of my post. The first part of that post was related to the previous post, while the second part of that post was appended as a "btw", and is related to the next post wherein I provided a source (for that portion of the post) from the Rebbe RaSha"B. (I never said that the Rebbe RaShaB brings down this inyon of the makifim of binah.)

Secondly, my comment regarding the makifim of binah being square is related to the inyan of the malbush through the inyon of the מ"ם דלמרבה המשרה, which gets divided into the two nuns of ויהי בנסוע etc k'yodua...and through what it says in מבו"ש regarding the inyon of the tzimtzum from בינה... and as evidenced by the posuk brought down in the Limudei Atzilus סביבותיו סכתו regarding the malbush, v'kyadua regarding the explanations of the whole inyan of the sukka... and as is known (later on in the hishtalshelus) by the inyan of the malbush of the chashmal whose source is from the makifim of binah etc.. v'oid v"dal.

[The Eighth King]

My point in bringing that up is simply that it is worth looking into the inyan of ribua later on in the hishtalshelus (by the makifim of binah) to understand the inyan of the tzimtzum meruba and oilam hamalbush.

[Gevurah]

Limudei Atzilus...where did you gte? bound with or separate?

[lambda]

Limudei Atzilus...where did you gte? bound with or separate?

My copy was the original print from Berditchev rebound with Magen Avrohom from the Radbaz. There are many photostat versions of the original print (I am sure Beigeleisen's could get you one) and there is also an academic reprint from Eretz Yisroel a bit later, but I have never actually seen that myself.

[The Eighth King]

Mine is from Munkatsh and is bound together with my copy of Adam Yashar. (which just goes to show you how publishers mix things up...)

[The Eighth King]

Does anyone have a Meseches Atzilus..? Who is the author of the Ginzei Meroimim commentary there?

[lambda]

Does anyone have a Meseches Atzilus..? Who is the author of the Ginzei Meroimim commentary there?

R' Yitzchak Isaac Chaver.

[The Eighth King]

See Imrei Binah, Shaar HaTzitzis, Ch. 10 and on (read at least until the end of ch. 11). Towards the end of ch. 11 he mentions "וכמ"ש במ"א בענין כי בענן אראה כו' שהוא כמו סמך עגול מכל צד להסתתר בו" for the full explanations of that (which he doesn't give there) see the Mittler Rebbe's Maamorim, Dvorim, Vol. 4, pg. 1227 (להבין שרש ענין חג הסוכות). (And then afterwards, for more explanations on the difference between the מ"ם סתומה and the סמ"ך etc, see Toras Chaim, Noach, pg. 112, ch. 49 and on.)

[Gevurah]

Mittler Rebbe's Maamorim, Dvorim, Vol. 4, pg. 1227...I saw but although the title is sukkah...it did not relate to the halachos of round versus square sukkahs..

will check the other mekoros..thank you...

B's said they could not get "Limudei Atzilus"..confusion?

[lambda]

B's said they could not get "Limudei Atzilus"..confusion?

Maybe, maybe not. If you want to have a lot of fun, try finding the print of Drush HaMalbush from a ksav yad that apparently came out in Samech Alef (and get me a copy too).

[The Eighth King]

Mittler Rebbe's Maamorim, Dvorim, Vol. 4, pg. 1227...I saw but although the title is sukkah...it did not relate to the halachos of round versus square sukkahs..But it does have what to do with the "square" makkifim (מ"ם בריבוע) and the "round" makiffim (סמ"ך בעיגול). And the main reason I brought that down is because the Mittler Rebbe brought it down (in relation to the subject at hand) at the end of ois yud-alef in the Imrei Binah, which I told u to look up first.

will check the other mekoros..thank you...Please do... I warn you however that these (two of the) three sources do not directly discuss the Malbush etc (as much as it is an underlying concept there... except the Imrei Binah which seems to be a bit more direct). I am still trying to find more explicit discussions in Chassidus...

B's said they could not get "Limudei Atzilus"..confusion?If you want I may be able to get you a .pdf later today...well find out.

[Gevurah]

did you?

[Gevurah]

Lam

so where in L Atzilus is Avodas HaLEvi quoting from as you promised to look up before....

[yanqui]

Maseches Atzilus just came out in a new edition with Ilan Hagodol, seen in Eichlers Flatbush.

[Gevurah]

Again where in Limud Atzilus does it talk about the square/circular shape of the tzimtzum?

[The Eighth King]

Maybe by "סוד הצמצום" by the letter מ"ם...(But really I didn't see the R' Aaron so I don't know what he is referencing, and like I said earlier in this thread, never learned Limudei Atzilus...but a quick scan there shows me something about "ריבוע" etc..)..the real question is: What happened to lambda?

[Gevurah]

mayubde.. I saw a little bit further but maybe RA adapted...

As for Lam...if you look thru the threads you can see he does not have a simple life story .. gilgulim maybe... Oros

[poet770]

I have a Samach Vov shiur once a week at my house - it is of course marvelous, but we find it hard to keep tract of the flow, concepts, etc. Is there a good summary in English? With the infrastructure handy, it would be alot easier seeing it filled in as we go.

[Hiskashrus]

there is a nice summary in hebrew...

[MifaalHachassid]

do you mean Nitzutei Da'ach?

www.chasidus.org
the print version will hit stores on Yud Tes Kislev

[The Eighth King]

Lambda: Interesting Maamar in hosofos of מאמרי אדמו"ר האמצעי, ויקרא ב beginning, "להבין מ"ש בס' עמה"מ בענין רל"א שערים פנים ואחור"... based on "להבין מ"ש באוצ"ח" in לקוטי תורה ויקרא הוספות...

[poet770]

But nothing in English?

[Gevurah]

There is a sefer I saw called "Sahre Inyunim b'dach" from Michoel Chanoch Golomb where on p.173 in the middle of chapters on tzimtzum , he deals with all the sources above about square/circle eytc and various non-CVital sources in Chabad. Sorry I cannot scan in.