Polarizing Influences, Divine Immanence and Reshimu1

By: HILLEL GREIF

Introduction One of the givens of life is that we tend to believe only the input that substantiates or supports 2 long-held intellectual or emotional beliefs and self-evident axioms. Yet, historically there are moments when individuals and groups run against the grain, assuming something like their full height as a species, willing to challenge and supplant an entrenched world-view in the hopes to unfetter themselves from the shackles of a rote unsatisfying existence. One of those watershed moments was the beginning of the spiritual revivalist movement known as Hasidism. It attempted, and in many ways prevailed to inject a new spirit into the body of world Jewry.3 At the time of its nascency, the Hasidic leadership and their followers exhibited a willingness to adhere to a new vision and were willing to pay a tremendous price for bringing their message to light. They exemplified what others might consider the ideal. As Rabbi Dr. Nathan Lopes Cardozo (Dean of The David Cardozo Academy) describes: "Judaism defies definition. While some of us regret this and thus try to straightjacket our religion, I believe that autonomous thought is fundamental to appreciating Judaism properly, and that philosophical non-conformity is not only the right of every Jewish
1

According to Rabbi Yizhak Ginsburg, reshimu is the residual impression of the infinite Divine light that God "withdrew" from Creation through the process of zimzum, the act of producing a vacated space to make room for the creation of apparent independent realities. See also, Ben Zion Bokser, The Jewish Mystical Tradition, (New Jersey, 1993), p. 18, who writes as follows: "Another concept basic to the Kabbalah which was introduced by Rabbi Isaac Luria was zimzum, or "withdrawal." To make room for a finite world which was to emerge in the act of creation, Luria pictured a kind of contraction in the divine realm. Only in a zone from which God had, so to say, withdrawn, could there be the possibility for a finite and imperfect world to exist. But the withdrawal was not total, a reshimu, a residue of divine potency remained in the vacuum formed by God's withdrawal and this divine residue functions as a prodding agent stirring the finite world to relate itself to God. See also, Moshe Idel, Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid, (SUNY Press, 1990), p. 145.
2

This process is known as the confirmation bias, in which individuals favor information that supports their beliefs and ignore evidence to the contrary. For an interesting and detailed exploration of various cognitive biases see the video lecture series, The Art of Critical Decision Making, taught by Professor Michael A. Roberto, D.B.A, Harvard Business School, Bryant University.
3

"The Hasidic movement also arose from this claim for spiritual inspiration that had become dormant...there was the great peril that the nation might spurn altogether every vestige left it from the treasure of living spiritual inspiration." Derekh haTechiya, Rav Kook. Translation by Ben Zion Bokser, The Classics of Western Spirituality Abraham Isaac Kook, (New York, 1978), p. 287.

teacher, but his / her obligation....Judaism must provide an antidote to the poisons of 4 indolence, routine, callousness, and drifting with the current." However, as with all revolutions, the possibility to devolve into the establishment is all too real; Hasidism in some regards is no exception. The originators themselves became entrenched in a battle of definitions, customs, fear of sectarianism that extended to other forms of Hasidism, and adopted a self-identity that was forged in the crucible of conflict. For all but few, the origins of that conflict and ideological fray have faded into the past, but the residual effects, the reshimu, are palpable. The lines have been drawn on both sides, and what has remained in its wake are individuals and communities unwilling to challenge many of the premises that have become the edifice for their lives, circumventing new or clarifying insights and elevating this stance as a holy ideal. Ironically this calcified approach runs contrary to the spirit of early Hasidism and reinforces an atmosphere that is hostile to a fundamental openness organic to the Jewish tradition.5 One example that could highlight the devotion to preconceptions at the cost of intellectual inquiry and the negative lingering side effects is the question surrounding the doctrine of divine immanence. Controversies and Lasting Impressions One of the cornerstones of Hasidic ideology and the source of a prevailing view on divine providence is the concept of divine immanence. This doctrine could be said to have evolved over

Nathan Lopes Cardozo, Thoughts to Ponder 2, (Urim Publications, 2006), Introduction.

There are many primary and secondary sources that support a holistic rather than parochial approach to the traditional Jewish dialectic. One figure whose writings are dominated with a more open, worldly vision is none other than Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook who wrote the following: "All the deficiencies in the world, both the physical and the spiritual, derive from the fact that every individual comprehends only one aspect of existence which appeals to him, and all other aspects which are outside his comprehensions, as far as he is concerned, might as well disappear...As a result of this, controversies grow in the realm of opinions and beliefs, in cultures and social systems...Thoughts repel one another in a spirit of disdain and hostility." Ben Zion Bokser, The Essential Writings of Abraham Isaac Kook, (New Jersey, 1988), p.152. See also, Rav Kook, Orot ha-Emunah p. 67-68. "Thus when the attempt to stupefy the intelligence is presented in the name of faith, of fear of Heaven, or diligence in Torah and fulfilling of mitzvot, it becomes a terrible lie and a filthy impurity." Benjamin Ish-Shalom, Between Rationalism and Mysticism, (Albany, 1993), p. 17. See Avoda Zara, 19a, which concludes that one is required to learn from more than one teacher in order to gain new insights and not be limited by one perspective. See Maharal Be'er haGolah, "Do not reject anything that opposes your views, especially when it is not with the intention to provoke you....curbing the words of an opponent in religious matters is nothing but the enfeebling of religion." See also, Mishna Eduyoth, Chapter 1, Mishna 4 ". "

time culminating in a radical view of divine intimacy in which God is more immanent than transcendent. 6 It also happens to be a central theme surrounding the conflict between two major figures within the Hasidic movement and their opponents; Shneur Zalman of Liadi, founder of the Habad movement, also known at the Bal haTanya, and Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman Kramer, better known as the Vilna Gaon, or the GRA. According to the Bal haTanya, a major source of enmity stemmed from his own understanding of divine immanence and his approach to Isaac Luria's view of zimzum and Kabbalah.7 "[It is] especially regarding matters of faith that the Gaon's critique of the book Lekutei Amoraim, and others like it, is directed; for therein the meaning of the religious maxims "He fills all worlds" and "there is no space void of Him" are explained literally. In his [i.e. the GRA's] opinion, it is total heresy to suggest that God is actually present in any base or lowly earthly things; and according to their own epistle, this was the reason for the burning of the known book [R. Jacob Joseph of Polnoe's Todedoth Jacob Joseph]....It is furthermore known to us with absolute clarity that The GRA does not believe that the total system of Lurianic Kabbalah was inspired by the prophet Elijah. Rather, he accepts that only a very small part is from Elijah and the rest is the product of his own personal wisdom, and there is therefore not obligation to accept it." 8 The question that must be asked is, does the Bal haTanya's proposition stand up to scrutiny? Is it true that the main source of hostility was definitional? Those who have painstakingly attempted to discover the root causes of the vehement opposition have listed a variety of potential reasons. For example, Rabbi Gedalia Aharon Rabinowitz, in Hakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought (Fall 2007, Volume 5), writes: "After being presented with many questions, I delved into (these points of contention) regarding the controversies between the students of the Bal Shemtov and his detractors...The main points are as follows: 1) Hasidim changed the style of prayer (nusach) from Ashkenaz to Nusach
6

See the introduction by Ben Zion Bokser, From the World of the Cabbalah: The Philosophy of Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague, where he presents the evolution of the Bal Shem Tov's radicalization of divine immanence built upon the views of both Moshe Cordovero and Isaac Luria also known as the Arizal. Rebbe Nachman, one of the predominant Hasidic figures confirms this immanentist view of the Bal Shem Tov, in his magnum opus, Lekutei Mohoran I, lessons #33, #49, and #64. See also, Lekutei Amoraim, by Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Chapter 3 part 1, ". ," and Shaar Hayichut vehaemmunah, where he states, "His very essence and being, may He be blessed, which is called Eyn Sof, completely fills the earth in both space and time."
7

For an in depth discussion on the issues related to the doctrine of creation see Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, A Definitive History of the Evolution, Ideas, Leading Figures and Extraordinary Influence of Jewish Mysticism, New York, Penguin Group, p.128 - 144.
8

D.Z. Hilman, Iggeroth Baal ha-Tanya u-Venei Doro (Jerusalem, 1953) quoted by Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mitnagdim (Baltimore, 1999), p. 14.

Arizal, 2) They created individual quorums to pray with and separated from the community, 3) they used specially sharpened knives in the slaughtering process, 4) the Mitnagdim claimed that the Hasidim understood 'the whole world is filled with his glory' and the doctrine of zimzum in an erroneous (figurative) manner, 5) they reviled the study of Torah, 6) they reviled sages and 7) they modified the time for prayer." Rabbi Rabinowitz goes on to list multiple Rabbinic figures such as the Shla haKadosh in Toldot Adam Bet haBehira, and the Lashem (Rav Shlomo Elyashev) in Shevo ve-Ahlemah, and even the main student of the GRA, Rav Hayim of Volozhin in Nefesh haHayim whose verbiage is so closely related to that found in the Tanya, that he concludes that the discourses are more a matter of style than definitional. This further supports his opening statement: "The claim that of the Mitnagdim against the Hasidim in regards to the issue of divine immanence is not clear." 9 The charge of heresy notwithstanding, and to add salt to the proverbial wound, The GRA is labeled as dismissive of Lurianic Kabbalah. This point did not fly under the Radar of his main student, Rabbi Hayim of Volozhin, as elucidated by Norman Lamm (Torah Lishmah, Torah for Torah's Sake, In the Works of Rabbi Hayim of Volozhin and his Contemporaries), p. 20 : "It is this accusation against the Gaon of disloyalty to Lurianic Kabbalah that produced such a sharp and uncharacteristic sense of outrage in R. Hayim some twenty three years later. He is infuriated and unsparing in defense of his teacher against, 'the words of many empty boors in distant districts who have never in their lives seen the light of his Torah and his holiness...who deign to pollute the pure and holy oil of our great Rabbi, may his soul rest in Paradise, when they say that the holy Rabbi in whom the spirit of God dwelt, R. Isaac Luria of blessed memory, was not considered worthy - Heaven forbid!- in [the Gaon's] eyes." There is no doubt that while the other grievances brought to the fore against Hasidism by the Mitnagdim, the issues of doctrine would be the most salient and disconcerting. With the memory of Sabbateanism and the very real post-Sabbateanism elements still fresh in their minds, issues of Heresy were a great concern. While changes in Liturgy and custom may have raised eyebrows within the traditionalist camp, the potential dangers of antinomianism fostered by the pantheistic tendencies latent within such an ideological immanentist model would have made all
9

Professor Alan Nadler, in Faith of the Mithnagdim, devotes an entire chapter on the 'Immanence of God in Mitnagdic Thought' and draws the same conclusion. "These differences between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim on divine immanence do not represent substantially opposing conceptions of God...although Hasidic and Mitnagdic authorities did not disagree on the basic question of God's presence in the world, their dispute reflects two vastly differing religious world-views with broad theological implications." According to Nadler the issue was the concern for the dissemination of esoteric ideas amongst the masses. For further investigation and an alternate view point read Menahem Mendel Kasher, Torah Shleima, p. 249. Also see Bezalel Naor's, The Limit of Intellectual Freedom, The Letters of Rav Kook, for a completely novel perspective on the disagreement between the GRA and RSZ, where he also admits, "In all humility, I accept the distinct possibility that we shall never know the true ideological differences between the two giants in both Halakha and Kabbalah."

other issues pale in comparison. Therefore, the silence on this particular issue of divine immanence from the opposition seems to project a rather clear message; the problem was not definitional. It seems that there is enough evidence to absolve the GRA and his followers of the charge waged against them, or at least, enough to make one pause to consider the veracity of the Bal haTanya's proclamation.10 In a surprising turn of events, according to Bezalel Naor, Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (The spiritual counselor of the famous Ponevezh yeshiva and author of Michtav M' Eliyahu) attempted to ameliorate the tensions between modern day followers of Hasidism and the Mitnagdic camp precisely on the doctrine of immanence. He appealed to the then present day leaders of Habad to reconsider that the "controversy between the GRA and the Bal haTanya concerning zimzum is not definitional; rather, the issue is whether it is proper to employ the belief in one's day-to-day service of God.", with the hopes of engendering congeniality and reducing tensions between the two camps. What ensued is nothing short of bewildering. Naor continues, "Rabbi Dessler sent a letter to the foremost authority on Habad Hasidism, Rabbi Yizhak Matmid....and relayed the message to the 'court' of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Yosef Yizhak Schneerson. The latter asked his son-in-law (and later successor) Rabbi Menahem M. Schneerson to pen a formal reply. In the letter to R. Yizhak Matmid, Rabbi Schneerson maintains the Habad line that the difference between the Gaon and the Bal haTanya is indeed definitional. By the way, the judgment at the beginning of the letter, where it s claimed impossible that R. Dessler (unnamed) is a student of Kabbalah is unduly harsh."; as well as unfounded. (Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism, p. 181). We can only conjecture as to why the door that was opened was summarily shut in such a fashion.11 Perhaps it could be due to the fact that there is a particular theosophy at play vis-a-vis the Rebbe / Hasid relationship. In other words, to entertain the possibility that the Bal haTanya erred in his assessment of the conflict would be highly unpopular and unthinkable within the ranks of Habad; even someone as daring and progressive as the late Rebbe Menahem Mendel Schneerson. The role of the Tzadik in Hasidic thought is clearly pivotal. More than just a teacher, the role of the Tzadik is an infallible intermediary that offers adherents a vicarious transcendent

10

I am reminded of the rule in Bava Metziah 37b, " ," reminiscent of "Qui tacet consentiret."

11

In an attempt to find an answer to the reason behind the Rebbe's response I have initiated a correspondence with Rabbi Chaim Rapoport and asked the following question which I have yet to receive an answer on: "Do you believe that it is possible that the Bal haTanya's assertion should be re-evaluated in light of evidence presented to the contrary and if not why? Second, can you hazard a guess as to why the Rebbe, R. Menahem Mendel Schneerson, reacted in such a fashion when prompted to consider the contents of R. Dessler's letter? Do you think it is possible that according to Habad theosophy that entertaining the fallibility of the previous Rebbe is at work and questioning the veracity of the Bal haTanya's words is simply beyond the pale?

experience.12 This dynamic known as 'hiskashrus' allows for the student / Hasid to merge with the Tzadik and to experience God in a way that would not be possible on their own. Rebbe Menahem Mendel Schneerson taught the following, illustrating his own relationship with his predecessor as well as teaching this fundamental principle: "A person must from time to time think about himself, but the rest of the time it's better to think about the Rebbe, how he is constantly with his mekusharim (those connected to him) and how he leads them through every step....and the main thing is that it should be absolute and obvious that the Rebbe is with you and you can rely on him that everything will be good, because the essence of Eyn Sof (the infinite ontological dimension of God) is the ultimate good and the Rebbe is the intermediary that connects with this essence of God." (Igros Kodesh, vol. 3, p 419 - 420).13 This is not to imply that Rabbi Menahem Mendel Schneerson shirked from every intellectual challenge. Perhaps this isolated event is a remnant of the seminal experience of the initial conflict between Hasidim and Mitnagdim and the glue that binds the Hasidic / Mitnagdic selfidentity.14 However, the ultimate concern is that this story is indicative of a general atmosphere of inquiry and pervades oppositional intellectual discourse setting a precedence amongst his followers to engender a spirit of resistance. Several years ago I was involved in a discussion that was rather long and esoteric. Something emerged from my gut, an intuitive sense that such discussions could be fruitless if not governed by a sense of applying these teachings in a tangible manner and that it should be accompanied by the injunction to coincide with a sense of character refinement, maybe even as a precursor to delving into such realms. The response was swift and somewhat alarming, indicating that the musings over Kabbalistic ideas is an end in and of itself. It was only until recently that I came across the following that embodies the interplay I experienced and solidified my understanding that we were pawns in a drama that had its origins in the founding moments of the spiritual revivalist movement itself. "It is not simply coincidence that it was Hasidim from the school of Pinhas of Korets who first found Nahman's teachings so attractive. The two have much in common, as distinct from the more abstract metaphysical school of Midzyrzec. Heschel ('Aley 'Ayin p. 223ff.) has characterized Pinhas' teaching as one that emphasized the need to struggle for moral
12

See Elijah Judah Schochet, Hasidism and the Rebbe / Tzaddik: The Power and Peril of Charismatic Leadership, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought (Winter 2009, Volume 7). 13 The infallibility and central role of the Rebbe as well as the concept of his being an intermediary is something that I have witnessed first-hand. After the passing of the Rebbe in 1993 I was told by a follower that, "I don't know how to pray to God without a Rebbe" and that "if the Rebbe is not the Messiah then the entire Torah is false."
14

Lest anyone think that I am being overly critical of only one camp, I recently had an experience that elucidates that parochialism and myopia is not a one-way street. While reading the essay by Rabbi Gedalia Aharon Rabinowitz an acquaintance approached me and asked me what I was learning. When I attempted to convey the essence of the article I was stopped and told, "I hope you don't mind...but I don't learn Kabbalah."

improvement before seeking initiation into Kabbalistic mysteries....All of this is contrasted by Heilman and Heschel with the approach of the Maggid, who believed that light itself would dispel the darkness, i.e. that the study of Kabbalah and intense mystical devotion would themselves bring about a change in the personality and the moral conduct of the disciple." (Arthur Green, Tormented Master, Vermont, 1992, ff. 76). Conclusion The indelible mark that has been left behind from historical events, their subsequent challenges, influences by charismatic leaders, as well as the inherent ideological defining doctrines of the Hasidic movement is unequivocal, apparent not only in writing but in the daily interactions of thousands who view themselves to be a part of the spiritual elite. The relationship between the doctrine of divine immanence and divine providence is apparent throughout Hasidic discourse as well as the modern day adherents to this movement. 15 The notion that God is intimately connected with every moment and happening, that nothing is by chance, and that all is governed by His immediate involvement with the world is a direct result of a Beshtian world-view and has been thoroughly adopted as a given. 16 It is ironic that the modern day followers of one of the most important and revolutionary movements within mystical / spiritual history have grown wary of this potent source for human vitality; the willingness to share and see the world in a new light. A proper analysis of the psychological and social dynamics of various groups that define themselves as Hasidic and the source of tension elicited by new ideas is well beyond the scope of this present essay. However, let's conclude with the following story that is well known throughout the Habad Hasidic community.17 It was once reported that the Bal haTanya was asked if the Moshiach (the Messiah) would be a Hasid or a Mitnagid. He responded, 'If he will be a Hasid, maybe not all will follow, but if he is a Mitnagid all will believe in him.' The inclusive nature of this story couldn't be taken seriously in the current atmosphere that exists today. As the battle over the minds of various segments within the religious Jewish spectrum continues, the origins of conflict fade back to the primordial vacant space, and not surprisingly, all that lingers is the broken shards.
15

On the Chabad.org website, Divine Providence is defined as 'the concept that every event in the universe and every experience in a person's life, and their every aspect, is specifically guided and determined by the Divine will.'
16

I was so influence by the popular spread of this idea that I found it shocking when I came to learn that many preeminent Rabbinic figures diverge from this popularized doctrine. For example, Nachmanides commentary to the book of Job, chapter 36, where he explores the dominating force of nature in contrast to the doctrine of divine immanence, as well as Maimonides' views expressed in Moreh Nevuhim.
17

Contained within the 'Moshiach Seuda Handbook', published by Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, associated with Chabad Lubavitch World Headquarters.