Joy in receiving letter concerning Chassidus; Various Tzimtzumim and relation to concept of “Hidden G-d”; 36 Hidden Tzaddikim
Sholom uBrocho:
After the very long interval, your letter of December 30, 1960, was quite welcome. There is no need, of course, to apologise for writing to me. In the midst of numerous letters, most of which concern the material aspects of life, problems of Parnosso, health, and the like, a letter relating to a question in Chassidus, or in Torah generally, is a refreshing change.
Now for your questions.
1. You refer to a certain book and an idea expressed in it, asking whether it would correspond to the Chassidic concept of Tzimtzum and to the verse in Isa. (45:15).
The concepts of Tzimtzum and of the "Hidden G-d" (in the said verse) are not identical. It is difficult to discuss such concepts adequately in a letter. However, I will make one point by way of illustration which ought to help clarify the subject. I refer to the dictum of our Sages to the effect that "G-d concentrated (tzimtzum) His Shekhinah between the staves of the Ark." And as usual, in our Torah, a whole concept or doctrine is often expressed by our Sages in a brief dictum. The concept of Tzimtzum is illustrated by the example of mirrors, which may be large or small. The image reflected in the small mirror represents the object in all its details, except in a diminutive form. The naked eye requires aids to see small objects. The "eye" of the intellect likewise requires "aids" to apprehend subtle concepts, namely, the power of cogitation.
In a somewhat analogous way, it can be conceived that the act of Tzimtzum has not essentially changed anything except greatly "contracted", as in the example of the small mirror. It is therefore more difficult to see the G-dliness that is everywhere as it is before Tzimtzum, and consequently an "aid" is necessary, namely Hisbon'nus.
On the other hand, the idea of "Kel mistater" is to be conceived in terms of concealment and by something that is the "opposite" as, for example, in Golus, when evil reigns supreme, the Beth Hamikdosh is in ruins, darkness covers the earth (note the description of this state in the Tanya). There is also the "first Tzimtzum" — basically different from all Tzimtzumim: Its "nature" being — the removal of Or-En-Sof, thus leaving a ללח (void) where the ת ו א י צמ of the worlds is possible. This is a state when there is no reflection at all, and the presence of G-dliness etc., can only be inferred by circumstantial evidence, as it were.
2. Regarding the question of, what you call, the Lamed-vovnicks, in whom the Shekhinah is present, etc., and you wonder if there is any similarity between this concept and — l'havdil elef havdolos — to the claims of Christianity, etc.
Needless to say, there is no similarity whatever between the two. One of the points which brings out the distinction is the idea that in so far as the Lamed-vovnicks are concerned, it is a status which, in principle, is attainable by every Jew, since the Jew posseses a "chelek Eloka mimaal mamash", and as the Baal Shem Tov expressed himself in regard to םצע that he who apprehends a part of the םצע apprehends it all. Potentially, therefore, every Jewish individual has that status of being a part of G-dliness, though in many individuals this power remains in potentia and is completely eclipsed, as in the case of the rosho, or it may be partly actualized but not to the full capacity, or fully realized as in the expression of Rashbi "chad ktiro iskatarna," that is to say, fully bound up with G-dliness; or, as is said of Moshe Rabbenu, who declared "v'nachnu moh", even though he knew he was G-d emissary, the leader of his people, who was instrumental in their deliverance through many miracles, etc.; yet in declaring himself as "nothing" he saw no contradiction, for it was the Divine soul in him that was active in a revealed form, and, as in the simile above, the image in the small mirror contains all the details, nothing hidden, and in Moshe Rabbenu it was realized to the full, so that there was nothing but G-dliness in him. As we have discussed the matter during one of our meetings I believe, I pointed out that the effect of Mattan Torah uMitzvos is that thereby every Jew is completely permeated by G-dliness, though the observer sees a body, which is eating and drinking, putting on Tefillin, etc., but in reality G-dliness permeates every move and action. And, to repeat, this is a status which is within reach of every Jew without exception. This is also contained in the saying of our Sages that every Jew can say, When will my deeds attain to those of my fathers, Abraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov?
I regret that this reply was unavoidably delayed on account of other pressing matters which claimed precedence. It need not discourage you, however, from writing again whenever you feel it can be beneficial for someone or something.
With blessing
