527 —מחלוקת בענין הצמצום ומשמעות שם צבאות

B"H, 27 Elul, 5709.

Shalom u'Vrachah!

...Regarding what you wrote that you heard in the name of the Rogatchover that the dispute about tzimtzum is identical to the dispute regarding whether "Tzevaos" is a holy name (Shevuos 35b)—apparently, the basis for this report is from what is written in Tzafnas Paneach, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah chapter 2 halachah 5. But there he explains that the reason for the dispute about Tzevaos is whether the conduct of the world is only through intermediaries or whether it also grasps, at least somewhat, from the essence itself—and apparently his intent here with the term 'grasps' is more than just ordinary comprehension; rather, it also means drawing down and unification. For it is obvious that an effect comprehends its cause, as written in Rambam there and in chapter 3 halachah 9—but regarding the actual hint that the dispute about tzimtzum relates to this aforementioned dispute, it does not seem so to me, because tzimtzum preceded all names and all worlds, and is not comparable to Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah. As I have already written in my previous letter. However, one could say that the dispute about Tzevaos depends on this: that the Kav (line), which returned and illuminated from Or Ein Sof after the initial contraction, shines only until the end of Atzilus but remains hidden in Beriah-Yetzirah-Asiyah as well. See Torah Or Parshas Bo.

Signing with blessings for a good and sweet year and a kesivah vachasimah tovah to him and all his household, and regards to all the group.

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

Summary

This letter explores nuanced differences between debates on tzimtzum and on whether "Tzevaos" is a holy name. The Rebbe clarifies that while related ideas are discussed by earlier authorities, these disputes are distinct in their context and implications for understanding G‑d's unity.