1,672 reputation
211
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years
seen yesterday

Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
By definition, if there is no end, how can it be designated? To designate, you are saying the subject has borders, there is that which is it, and that which is outside of it.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
When you call someone 'Frank' you necessarily have notions of him as: existing, being distinguishable from other entities, being present, etc., etc. None of these predicates are applicable to the En Sof.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
Is the question why can't it have names? We give names to things we some notion of. The Leshem adopts Maimonidean language to talk about this: all you can do is 'li-shlol', to negate from it any description.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
It's not a name, it's a statement: "There is no end." It means there's nothing we can say.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
If we can call God a name, then we are not talking to or talking about the En Sof, which can have no name. And in our religion we do call God names, so in this sense, it is possible to relate 'to God' yet to something 'lower than' the En Sof.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
Maybe this discussion should be posted a separate question? Something like "how could Kabbalists justify talking about manifestations of divinity which are 'lower than' the En Sof?" Or, "How could Kabbalists justify talking about anything other than the En Sof when they talk about God?"
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
I didn't mean to imply that the Leshem rejects the Rambam. I think he has the highest respect for him and thinks his statements are ultimate truth regarding the En Sof. But the Leshem is open to talking about "giluyim" that are "lower than" the En Sof.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
I think you're asking me to defend or apologize for kabbalah in general. It's a worthy discussion but I'm not a worthy person to have it with and it's not the topic of the question that was asked. You linked to a Rambam--Rambam was vehemently opposed to kabbalah (or teachings that had qualities we would call kabblistic nowadays) and the kabbalists were vehemently opposed to his philosophy.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
I think for the Leshem, yes, a name can be divinity itself, a giluy can be divinity itself. This is in a long tradition: he quotes a zohar for example, parshas emor 93b, איהו ושמיה מלה חדא הוא he and his name are one thing.
Nov
17
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
The text I mentioned talks about 'manifestations' and 'names'. It seems wrong to use the term 'thing' to refer to a 'name'. And one being can have multiple names. But I could certainly understand if you think it's wrong to speak of God using any language that has multiplicity in it. But the question was on a kabbalistic topic, and this language is used in kabbalah.
Nov
15
comment understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
I am no expert. I think they correspond to the divine names. The main giluy is the name y.h.v.h, which is the partzuf of z'eir anpin. This giluy clothes itself in the name a.d.n.y, which is the partzuf of malkhut.
Nov
15
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
added 1 characters in body
Nov
15
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
added 2 characters in body
Nov
15
revised When is the correct place to put tefillin on during shacharis?
deleted 10 characters in body
Nov
15
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
added 4 characters in body
Nov
15
revised When is the correct place to put tefillin on during shacharis?
deleted 42 characters in body
Nov
15
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
added 6 characters in body
Nov
15
revised When is the correct place to put tefillin on during shacharis?
deleted 42 characters in body
Nov
15
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
added 164 characters in body
Nov
14
revised understanding tzimtzum k'peshuto
deleted 226 characters in body