11 —ארבע השיטות בצמצום ודעת חב"ד

B"H, Wednesday, 19th of Shevat, Paris.

To the honorable Haraha"g vavaha"ch vavac"h iy"a navon u'maskil etc. etc. Mahari Yosef. Shalom u'Vrachah!

Your letter, together with the twenty-eight, arrived on time. Regarding what you write about tzimtzum—that one of your acquaintances says all opinions on this matter ultimately converge—I am quite surprised by such an assumption, especially since you refer to him as a student of the works of the mekubalim (Kabbalists), which is certainly not accurate at all. Even in the first generation after the Arizal, who revealed to us the secret of tzimtzum, there were disagreements among leading scholars about tzimtzum from one extreme to another, as seen in their books; this dispute continued afterward as well.

The debate centers on two main points: whether tzimtzum is literal—meaning removal or concealment—and whether it applies only to the light (or) or also to the luminary (ma'or). There are four possible views: (a) Tzimtzum is literal and also applies to His essence; those who hold this view argue that it is impossible for "the king to be present in a garbage dump," G‑d forbid. (b) Tzimtzum is literal but applies only to the light. (c) Tzimtzum is not literal but applies also to the luminary. (d) Tzimtzum is not literal and applies only to the light.

The opponents in the days of Admor HaZaken held by view (a), as is well known. They interpreted "Leis Asar Panui Minei" (there is no place void of Him) as referring only to His providence and claimed that saying His essence is everywhere contradicts halachic rulings regarding impure places, as publicized in proclamations during the times of the Baal Shem Tov and Admor HaZaken. See Shaar HaYichud VeHaEmunah chapter 7 and Iggeres HaKodesh section 20; I believe a letter from Admor HaZaken on this topic was also printed in Beit Rebbe.

The view of Rav Chaim Volozhiner, author of Nefesh HaChaim—whom you mention—is like view (c). He disagreed with his teacher, the Gra. In general, it seems Rav Chaim Volozhiner saw Chabad books—especially Tanya—and was influenced by them, though I do not have conclusive proof for this.

But for us there is only view (d): tzimtzum is not literal and not in His essence but only in His light—and even then only in its lowest aspect within Seder Hishtalshelus—as explained in Chabad books and writings.

In our times we have merited illumination: The subject of tzimtzum has been explained at length and with many details in printed and manuscript works of Chabad Chassidus. Anyone wishing to understand tzimtzum—even partially—has no other way but to study these sources. To verify this, simply compare what other books say—many seem reluctant to elaborate for various reasons—with what’s explained in Chabad works.

I do not know which books and writings you possess so I cannot cite specific references for you. On tzimtzum see: Torah Or discourse "Patach Eliyahu" (with glosses by Admor HaRashab published separately—in Kopir Batovatsk); Likkutei Torah supplements on Vayikra discourse "LeHavin Ma Shekasuv BeSefer Otzar Chaim," Shaar HaYichud; Sefer HaMitzvos—Mitzvas HaAmanas Elokus and root of prayer mitzvah (starting from chapter 34), discourse on "Zecher Rav Tuvcha." In printed discourses by my father-in-law Admor Shlita: "Al Yipater Adam," p. 89; "Dirshu Hashem," p. 191; "Al Kein Yomru," p. 191; Shavuos p. 198 folio 8; "Tov Li," p. 207. You surely have Hemshech Resamach-Vav where it’s also explained—beginning with "Vayolech Hashem Es Hayam" and "Anochi Hashem." Related also are explanations in Tanya chapters 48–49 further elaborated upon in discourses "Yavi'u Levush Malchus" in Torah Or and Shaarei Orah.

I have cited those likely familiar to you for completeness.

Summary

This letter clarifies that there are four main approaches regarding tzimtzum among Kabbalists, but Chabad follows that tzimtzum is not literal and applies only to G‑d's light—not His essence—encouraging study of Chabad texts for true understanding.