The Tzimztum

In Sefer Eitz Chayim, the Ari’zal speaks of a “contraction” or “tzimtzum” of the Infinite into “Himself” that allows for a “space” for the finite to exist (translation adapted from Rachel Elior, http://www.shma.com/2010/01/tzimtzum-a-kabbalistic-approach-to-creation/):

Know, that before the emanations were emitted and the creatures were created, a supernal light was extended, filling the entire universe. There was no unoccupied place, that is, empty air or space; rather, all was filled by that extended light…. But then, the Infinite contracted Himself into a central point which is truly in the center of the light, and that light was contracted and withdrew to sides around the central point. Then an empty place remained with air and empty space. The Infinite then extended one straight line from the light, and in the empty space It emanated, created, formed, and made all of the worlds in their entireties (Eitz Chayim, Sha’ar 1, Perek 1).

There is an historic dispute about whether the “tzimtzum” is literal or symbolic, and also about whether it describes an event in the “Essence” of G-d or in His “light”.

Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” literally included the Shabbatean heretics like Nathan of Gaza and Nehemiah Chayon, but also “mainstream” figures like R. Immanuel Chai Ricchi and possibly the Vilna Gaon. Some of them posited an unbridgeable expanse between the Creator and His creatures. They believed that G-d actually withdrew from what was to become the world at the beginning of creation and therefore is only transcendent from, not fully immanent in, it. According to this view, the sole Divine presence in this world is to be found in the Torah.

Aside from the problem of the obviously spatial nature of the “tzimtzum” when taken literally – which suggests it is a metaphor since G-d is not a body, as affirmed by the Rambam and others – there is the problem with this view in that it limits the Infinite by excluding Him from some manner of the finite.

Those Mekubalim who interpreted the “tzimtzum” in a non-literal way included R. Abraham Herrera, R. Yosef Ergas, and, of course, Chassidic rebbes from the Besht onward. It is worth noting that the Vilna Gaon’s talmid R. Chayim of Volozhin also took a non-literal view.

The difference between the Chassidic view and that of R. Chayim of Volozhin is summarized by the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l, with the latter holding that the “tzimtzum” affected the “Essence” of G-d as well as His “light”, but the former limiting the “tzimtzum” to the “light” (Ohr Ein Sof) alone (cf. http://www.sichos
inenglish.org/books/letters-rebbe-1/04.htm).

Note that the passage in Eitz Chayim speaks of both a “contraction” of the Infinite “Himself” and of the “light”. The idea that the “tzimtzum” only affects the “light” of the Infinite is somewhat problematic philosophically for it is built on the analogy of rays of light and their solar source, which involves a spatial distance that has to suggest an ontological otherness to prevent the source from being affected, and thus tends to make the “light” a hypostasis, a distinguishable reality alongside of the Infinite. Otherwise, to the extent that His “light” is affected – since there is no spatial separation – He too would be affected. Thus, in addition, it raises the question of this distinguishable – hence finite – “light’s” origin from its Source when finitude itself is supposed to not exist until the “contraction” of the “light”, and introduces a measure of regressus ad infinitum.

While the Lubavitcher Rebbe zts”l maintains that Chabad Chassidut does not accept any “tzimtzum” in G-d “Himself”, it is worth noting that R. Aharon HaLevi – a prime talmid of R. Schneur Zalman, the founder of Chabad – does actually posit a first “tzimtzum” (also called a “beqi’a”) in Infinite “Himself” that actually leads to the emergence of the Ohr (the “light”) of Infinite and then a second “tzimtzum” in the “light” that is detailed in the Eitz Chayim (cf. Avodat HaLevi as cited in G. Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 135). Perhaps, this was R. Aharon’s way of addressing the problematic nature of a “tzimtzum” only in the “light”, as discussed above.

One good way to understand the “tzimtzum” is as the absolutely free act of the Absolutely Infinite – if the act is truly tree, then it is existentially contingent, and that represents its own boundary, its own finitude, which is the very emergence of finitude itself from the Absolutely Infinite that remains free from any self to be changed or altered in any way when He freely acts in any way, and means that the act is not G-d. This way of understanding the “tzimtzum” has the advantage of being non-literal, and also of making G-d “Himself” – not just His “light” - the ground of that activity but without subjecting G-d to any change or modification; hence, avoiding the issue of regressus ad infinitum.