Abstract: The suspicion that humankind can never meaningfully apprehend the truth of divine being seems to be affirmed by the tzimtzum narrative. But the Kabbalistic motif of the trace transforms the symbolic void of tzimtzum into a meaningful gesture of emptiness. In his elaboration and crystallization of the transformative significance of the trace, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi explains how withdrawal, concealment and limitation can most eloquently trace the true transcendence of divine omnipotence.
Introduction: A Qualifying Clause
At the core of every discussion about our relationship with G‑d is the niggling suspicion that we are totally out of our depth. Consider the finite capacity of the human mind, and the limited data available to it. Can we really think meaningfully about the infinite, the ineffable and the omnipotent? However profound we think we are, it seems inescapably self-evident that the essence of divine being must lie beyond human grasp.1
At the outset, it seems, this suspicion is affirmed by the tzimtzum narrative. As taught by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria and recorded by Rabbi Chaim Vital, the withdrawal depicted by tzimtzum embodies an unbridgeable chasm, utterly separating the limited realms of emanation and creation from the true transcendence of divine revelation.2
Even more intangible than the infinite revelation of divine presence, it might seem, is the ineffable essence of divine being. In a previous article we explained the Chabad view that the essence of divine being can never be concealed, and is therefore everywhere revealed. It seems inescapably self-evident that the essence of divine being must lie beyond human grasp. But this revelation emerges as the decidedly introverted disclosure of the ineffable. As Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi taught, this is exemplified in the child’s axiomatic apprehension of G‑d, which remains empty of informational content. Children apprehend G‑d’s essential being, but have no understanding or grasp of how G‑d is manifest or of what G‑d is.3
Yet the introduction of a much older Kabbalistic motif into the tzimtzum narrative significantly reverses this paradigm, and excavates a path through which G‑d’s essence can be intellectually grasped and intelligently perceived. Through the development and contextualization of this motif, the suspicion that we must ultimately remain out of our depth is compellingly laid to rest as the tzimtzum narrative is dramatically reread.
Yes, tzimtzum is the withdrawal of divine revelation. Yes, we inhabit a fractured world of limitation and darkness. But the motif of the trace (reshimu or reshimah, which can also be translated as “impression”) enshrines such constriction as the very foundation of divine eloquence. From the new perspective this motif brings, the very chasm that tzimtzum depicts is revealed to be a bridge. It is specifically through the fathomable tangibility of our finite experience that the truth of divine being can be most clearly comprehended.
In the Zohar, in the writings of Kabbalists like Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570) and in the teachings of various chassidic masters, the motif of the trace appears in a range of different contexts,4 and is not necessarily associated with tzimtzum.5 R. Chaim Vital’s original formulation of the tzimtzum narrative does not mention reshimu at all. But subsequent Kabbalists of the Lurianic school, such as Rabbi Moshe Zacuto (1625–1697), introduced this motif into the tzimtzum narrative as a qualifying clause.6
The original tzimtzum narrative incorporates three general phases: the assertion of infinite light (ohr ein sof), its contraction or concealment (tzimtzum) to form a hollow or empty space (chalal, or makom panui), and the narrow revelation drawn forth to emanate forms and create realms (kav). According to R. Moshe’s amendment, the reshimu is an additional phase that precedes the emergence of the kav. The term “hollow,” he cautioned, “is not used with precision, because a trace of the light (reshimu min ha-ohr) remains there.” Even before the influx of the more imminent revelation of divinity, the hollow is only empty of the infinite, but the presence of the trace remains. Reshimu: The essential language that allows finite emanation and creation to express the transcendent essence of divine being.
The association between reshimu and tzimtzum was further developed by the 17th-century Kabbalist Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Bacharach. His influential treatise, Emek ha-Melech, aligns with the somewhat controversial Sarugian school of Lurianic Kabbalah, and includes motifs that do not appear in the writings of R. Chaim Vital.7 The first section of this work elaborates on the divine delight (shi’shu’a) that is traced in the letters (otiyot) of the primordial Torah, and which is the impetus for the creative process heralded by tzimtzum. The emergence of the trace and the letters are further associated with the primordial aspect of restrictive discipline (din), implying that the divine capacity of constraint does not begin with the process of tzimtzum but actually precedes it.8
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi elaborated and further developed these ideas, integrating them into his broader reinterpretation of the tzimtzum narrative.9 In two discourses, dating from 1806 and 1810, he transforms the motif of the trace from a peripheral amendment to the central linchpin, which endows the entire narrative with a new degree of significance and coherence. Extending and recontextualizing the themes articulated in Emek Ha-melech, R. Schnuer Zalman enshrines reshimu as the essential language that allows finite emanation and creation (ohr ha-kav and hishtalshalut ha-olamot) to express the transcendent essence of divine being (atzmut u-mehut ein sof).10
The Tension Before the Trace
An important subtext to R. Schneur Zalman’s 1806 treatment of reshimu is the implicit tension that arises when his interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative is combined with its original import. In its most plain sense, tzimtzum depicts a path of divine descent. In R. Schneur Zalman’s interpretation, however, it also comes to depict a path of divine ascent. To address this tension, R. Schneur Zalman built on the conception of reshimu articulated by R. Moshe Zacuto and R. Naftali Bacharach, developing a conceptual model in which descent and ascent can coherently coincide.
The original import of the tzimtzum narrative is that the entire project of creation represents an unprecedented departure from the infinite transcendence of G‑d. The infinite light, the unbounded revelation of divine presence (ohr ein sof), is understood to preclude the very notion that there could be something other than G‑d. This is not a revelation in the usual sense of the word, one that extends to otherly recipients, but might rather be thought of as an internal self-assertion of the absolute infinitude of divinity. In this context, the suggestion that G‑d should be manifest in the limited role of Creator, mitigating divine infinitude by bringing other beings into existence, is not only counterintuitive but utterly unthinkable. In order for form, finitude and otherness to arise as viable possibilities, and in order for the divine process of creation to emerge, the infinite assertion of divine presence must be completely withdrawn or concealed. An implicit tension arises when R. Schneur Zalman’s interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative is combined with its original import. First and foremost, tzimtzum depicts a divine descent of immense magnitude, from infinite transcendence into the distinct role of Creator.11
Central to R. Schneur Zalman’s rereading of the tzimtzum narrative is the distinction between the light (ohr ein sof), an unbounded assertion of divine presence, and the luminary (etzem ha-ma’or), the very essence of divine being. While the original tzimtzum narrative describes the withdrawal or concealment of the light, the luminary itself goes unmentioned. Accordingly, R. Schneur Zalman adduced, the concealment of the infinite assertion of divine presence does not obscure the ineffable essence of divine being. On the contrary, he asserts, tzimtzum discloses the truly noncontingent potency of divine being, uninhibited by the bounds of revealed presence.12
This does not simply mean that divine being is necessary, but that divine being is not dependent on the normal conditions of existence. Normally, things can only be said to exist if their presence is asserted in some way. A luminous source of light, for example, can be said to exist only if it actually is a source of light. But while tzimtzum curtails the assertion of divine presence (the light), it does not curtail the presence of divine being (the luminary). The presence of divine being, it emerges, is not contingent on anything.
This distinction between the light and the luminary is understood to preserve the original meaning of the tzimtzum narrative, while adding an additional layer of significance. The concealment of the infinite light and the disclosure of the ineffable luminary are two sides of the same coin.13 Yet this combination of meanings creates a fundamental tension: on its original reading, the concealment of the light depicts the divine descent into the role of Creator. But on R. Schneur Zalman’s reading it depicts the ascent into the essential non-contingency of divine being.14
As transcribed by Rabbi Chaim Vital, the tzimtzum narrative states that “the light was . . . drawn aside . . . leaving empty room, a hollow space . . . where emanations and creations could be formed and made.”15 If, on R. Schneur Zalman’s reading, this hollow space is to be equated with the ineffable essence of divine being, it would seem that tzimtzum should not accomplish anything at all. Rather than a step towards the creative process, it represents a retreat from infinite revelation into the inexpressible essence of G‑d.
The tension outlined above reflects the inherent paradox embodied in the introverted disclosure of the essential luminary. As mentioned above, R. Schneur Zalman asserts that tzimtzum reveals the luminary so that even children axiomatically apprehend the essence of G‑d. But he describes this apprehension as empty of informational content. Noting that because “the luminary is revealed even children know that G‑d is present,” he adds that “they have no understanding or grasp of how G‑d is manifest or what G‑d is.” This reinforces the impression that the disclosure of the luminary within the Such is the fullness of divine being that its presence spills over the boundary of absence into the “hollow space” of essential emptiness. realm of otherness and creation is also a retreat into the unknowable essence of divine being.16
Taking this tension one step further, R. Chaim Vital’s description of the space left by tzimtzum as “hollow” and “empty” takes on a dual meaning. In its original sense this description depicted the newfound possibility of otherness, emanation and creation. But on R. Schneur Zalman’s reading it can synonymously be read as a depiction of the contentless disclosure of G‑d’s essence. R. Schneur Zalman’s description of the child’s apprehension of the luminary suggests that while the divine essence may be utterly inescapable, it is also utterly inexpressible. The disclosure of the essence is utterly empty of informational content.
On this reading, the “hollow space” left by the tzimtzum is a true void, the void of ineffable essentiality. The hollow is not empty of divine presence, as understood on the literal interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative espoused by some authorities,17 but it is utterly empty of divine expression.18 The infinite light, the internal self-assertion of the absolute infinitude of divinity, is withdrawn. But the unexpressed being of G‑d, indeed the inexpressible essence of divine being, is still absolutely present. Such is the fullness of divine being that its presence spills over the boundary of absence into the “hollow space” of essential emptiness.19
In its original sense, the “hollow space” created through the withdrawal of the light signifies divine descent and the revolutionary emergence of the possibility of otherness. But on R. Schneur Zalman’s reading, the “hollow space” also signifies divine ascent into the true void of G‑d’s inexpressible essence.20 If the overt significance of the tzimtzum narrative is to be preserved in tandem with this new interpretation, we need to explain why the possibility of otherness is not drowned in the disclosure of the utterly transcendent essence. Why is the possibility of otherness not drowned in the disclosure of the transcendent essence? If finite forms and created beings cannot emerge from divine infinitude, are they not even unlikelier to emerge from the true emptiness of the essential void?
This is the question that arises implicitly from a careful reading of R. Schneur Zalman’s interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative before the motif of reshimu is introduced. R. Moshe Zacuto introduced the motif of reshimu to undermine the assumption that the term “hollow” is used with precision. In the context of R. Schneur Zalman’s approach it undermines the impression that the tzimtzum leaves a true void, utterly empty of divine expression and informational content. Instead we should realize that this void also embodies a tangible trace of revelation.
The Language of Absence
Echoing Emek Ha-melech’s association of the trace with the primordial aspect of constriction, R. Schneur Zalman describes the reshimu as “a limited symbol of something entirely without limit.” It is specifically in the constrictive act of tzimtzum, he explains, in the divine descent into the finite role of creator, that the true infinitude of divine being is traced.21
Recast in the context of R. Schneur Zalman’s broader interpretation of tzimtzum, the motif of the trace modifies the image of an empty hollow. No longer does this chasm represent a retreat into the utter emptiness of the essential void. Instead, the withdrawal of divine revelation is itself recast as an alternative avenue of revelation, as a tangible assertion of presence traced in the language of absence. While R. Moshe Zacuto described the trace as remaining within the hollow, R. Schneur Zalman’s elaboration identifies the trace as the revelatory import embodied by the hollow. Tzimtzum is transformed from an empty gesture into a gesture of emptiness, at once insubstantial and significant. No longer does this chasm represent a retreat into the utter emptiness of the essential void, but an alternative avenue of revelation. The form of the gesture is emptiness, but the gesture carries weighty import.
R. Schneur Zalman illustrates the infinite symbolism of the reshimu by comparing it to “the trace on a blueprint that builders make, delineating a large building with extremely insubstantial and narrow traces.” The blueprint is a scaled representation that accurately depicts a vast building within the narrow confines of a two-dimensional chart. In the theological analogue, the reshimu similarly depicts the omnipotent non-contingence of G‑d’s essence through the scaled veil of limitation and withdrawal.22
There is a long tradition in Jewish thought that the essence of divine being can never be described in positive terms. To do so would be to conflate essential being with assertive expression.23 But the absence enacted through tzimtzum has no positive content, and therefore serves as an eloquent description of divine omnipotence and essentiality. So absolute is G‑d’s omnipotence that it includes the capacity to limit the unlimited assertion of divine presence. Such is the fullness of divine being that only absence is a fitting language for the communication of its presence.24
It is not that nothing can be said about divine being, but that only nothing can say something about divine being. The absent presence of G‑d affirms that divine being is not dependent on the normal conditions of existence, and that divine omnipotence is not dependent on any of the normal conditions of possibility. This explains how tzimtzum is at once an ascent into the divine essence and a descent into the limited role of creator:
Through tzimtzum, R. Schneur Zalman explains, “the infinite revelation of G‑d . . . becomes subsumed within the concealment of the essence,” but is also “drawn within the aspect of limiting capacity, the aspect of the trace that remains in the hollow, because He, blessed be He, is omnipotent and carries the capacity of limitation (ko’ach ha-gevul) too, It is not that nothing can be said about divine being, but that only nothing can say something about divine being. the capacity to limit the revealed assertion that is not limited at all.”25
Tzimtzum and reshimu, the void and the trace, accordingly emerge as two sides of a single coin. Tzimtzum is withdrawal and concealment. Reshimu is the revelatory import of that withdrawal, transcendent infinitude traced in the language of limitation. The very emptiness of the hollow embodies a trace of divine expression, a distinct characterization of the transcendent luminary. It is only through the absent presence traced in the emptiness of the hollow that we catch a glimpse of the true non-contingency of divine being and omnipotence. It is specifically the concealment of tzimtzum that draws the ineffable within finite grasp, articulating the absolute in the language of absence.26
Hebrew words that refer to esoteric concepts often translate badly into English. But reshimu is not one of them. Like its Hebrew analog, the English word trace also has paradoxical intimations. A trace may be a transient and insubstantial residue, but it may also be a concrete indicator, a clue upon which truth can be established. A trace doesn’t always point vaguely to something in the past, a trace can also be a precise outline delineating a clear vision for the future.27
In the context of tzimtzum, too, the trace points in two opposing directions. As the divine capacity of limitation it points both upward and down; to the true omnipotence of G‑d’s essence, and also to the divine capacity to descend into the limited role of Creator.28 In R. Schneur Zalman’s own words, “The root of the line of measurement (kav ha-midah), which measures and limits the revelation [and extends that limited revelation into the creative process] . . . comes and is drawn The secret revealed by the trace is that G‑d’s omnipotence “carries the capacity of limitation too . . . to limit the revealed assertion that is not limited at all.” from that very aspect of the trace that remains in the hollow.”29
In many discussions of tzimtzum R. Schneur Zalman emphasized its original meaning: that there is a complete removal of the infinite assertion of divinity, a complete divide between the transcendent revelation of G‑d’s essence and the immanent emanation of finitude and creation. His distinction between the light and the luminary, between the concealment of divine presence and the unconcealable essence of divine being, appears both to deepen that divide and to undermine it. On the one hand, the essence of divine being is depicted in even more transcendent terms. On the other hand, tzimtzum is described as the disclosure of that transcendence. Not only does this undermine our conception of the hollow as a chasm that separates G‑d’s transcendent essence from the narrow role of creator, it also begs the question: How can finitude and form ever emerge from the utter void of ineffable essentiality?
R. Schneur Zalman’s treatment of reshimu brings these different readings and meanings of the tzimtzum narrative together. The secret revealed by the trace, he asserts, is that G‑d’s omnipotence “carries the capacity of limitation too, the capacity to limit the revealed assertion that is not limited at all.”30 It is precisely the emergence of limitation and the onset of the creative process that most articulately traces the true transcendence of divine omnipotence. It is divine limitation itself that most accurately delimits G‑d’s unbounded essentiality. The qualifying significance of the trace emphasizes that the divide between immanence and transcendence is ultimately an artificial one. The hollow void of tzimtzum is simultaneously the withdrawal of the infinite revelation of divinity and the even more eloquent articulation of the true infinitude of divine being.
The Trace As Text
The above discussion of reshimu follows R. Schneur Zalman’s 1806 discourse, which primarily references Emek ha-Melech’s association of the trace with the primordial aspect of constriction (din or gevul). In a discourse delivered in 1810 he further developed his conception of the trace and further explicated its significance.31 The later discourse, however, more strongly reflects Emek ha-Melech’s association of reshimu with the letters of the primordial Torah in which divine delight is traced.32
R. Schneur Zalman’s discussion of the trace as text extends the significance of reshimu, and of the divine capacity of limitation (ko’ach ha-gevul), in two important ways. Firstly, reshimu emerges not simply as a function of tzimtzum and the creative process, but as the primordial text in which even the most transcendent expressions of divinity are traced. Secondly, the symbolism involved in textuality enables R. Schneur Zalman to more fully illustrate and crystallize the qualification of tzimtzum that reshimu represents.
Central to R. Schneur Zalman’s discussion of the primordial letters is the role of text and language in human consciousness and expression, which is used as a model for their conceptual counterparts in the divine analog. We normally think of language as a tool for the external communication of internal feelings and thoughts. But the truth is that within our own minds too we use a more abstract form of language to makes sense of ourselves, to give shape and expression to our identity. Even our inner thoughts and feelings must be internally articulated, formulated, identified and analyzed.33
The external and internal strata of language are respectively termed “letters of speech” and “letters of thought.” Letters of thought are less tangible than letters of speech, and more transparent to the inner flow of consciousness. But even the loftiest experience of human consciousness must be encoded or depicted in some kind of language or symbolism. Even the most sublime sensation of delight or pleasure must be traced in the transcendent contours, the ethereal “letters," Even the most sublime sensation of delight or pleasure must be traced in the transcendent contours, the ethereal “letters,” which give form and substance to its content. which give form and substance to its content.
The essential point here is that letters are not just used to formulate the spoken and written word, but are also the essential fabric of even the most sublime strata of human consciousness. The same applies in the divine analogue. There can be no revelation without letters. “The aspect of letters,” R. Schneur Zalman asserts, “extends to the apex of all levels.” Even the most infinite assertion of transcendent divinity must be carried by an ethereal trace of text.34
Like the transcendent contours in which human delight is traced, the primordial letters are initially so saturated with divine delight that their finitude and form are utterly intangible. This state of saturation, R. Schneur Zalman explains, “is synonymous with the revelation of infinite light (zehu inyan gilui ohr ein sof), and the phenomenon of tzimtzum is that the light should not shine and be revealed in the letters.”35
Earlier we described tzimtzum and reshimu as two sides of a single coin. But the association of the reshimu with the primordial letters forces us to revise that description. The letters of the trace, which embody the divine capacity of limitation (ko’ach ha-gevul), actually precede tzimtzum and transcend the creative process. It is through the creative process, however, that their essential presence is brought to the fore. The purpose of the letters is to carry revelatory import, but in fulfilling their purpose their finite forms are extinguished in the infinite light that they so eloquently articulate. The medium is utterly submerged in the message. Finitude is veiled in infinitude, and G‑d’s ultimate capacity to limit the unlimited is also obscured.
The effect of tzimtzum is not the creation of letters, but “that the light should not shine and be revealed in the letters.”36 It is only when the revelatory import is utterly withdrawn, only when tzimtzum carves out an expressionless void, that the essential letters come into their own. It is only when the superficial facade of infinitude is withdrawn that we can perceive the unbounded fullness of divine being as it transcends the binaries of the unlimited and the limited, of absence and presence, of ineffability and articulation, even of transcendence and immanence. It is in the collapsing of binaries embodied by the unilluminated letters of the trace that G‑d’s essence is most accurately discerned. It is in the collapsing of binaries embodied by the unilluminated letters of the trace that G‑d’s essence is most accurately discerned. Emptied of blinding revelation, G‑d’s essential capacity to limit the unlimited is disclosed, and the underlying contours of all expression are tangibly exposed.37
By describing the trace as something akin to the most essential fabric of human consciousness, R. Schneur Zalman endows the emptiness of tzimtzum with even greater significance than before. This not a mere gesture towards the true transcendence of divine being, but the unveiled presence of divine essentiality. The finite trace of linguistic expression is G‑d’s innate capacity of limitation, transcending the explicit possibility of otherness that is signified by tzimtzum. Not only is this primordial capacity of limitation not a mitigation of the absoluteness of divine presence, it is actually a more essential embodiment of divine being.38
Reading Between the Lines
Building on this conception of the trace as text, R. Schneur Zalman uses two versions of a single parable to illustrate the theological innovation that reshimu introduces. The reshimu does more than resolve an apparent tension in R. Schneur Zalman’s interpretation of the tzimtzum narrative. It also adds a further layer of qualification to the nature of the concealment that tzimtzum represents. Elsewhere R. Schneur Zalman qualified tzimtzum (a) as concealment rather than removal, and (b) as a concealment of the light, but not of the luminary.39 In the present discussion of reshimu he further asserts that even the concealment of the light is actually a matter of perspective.
At the center of this discourse is the parable of a scholar who has committed a tractate of the Talmud to memory, including “all the content, arguments and conceptions in it.”40 In the first version of this parable the scholar then turns his mind to an entirely different topic, or simply “sits idle.” The knowledge previously imbibed is not forgotten or removed from the scholar’s mind, and therefore can be summoned at will. R. Schneur Zalman uses two versions of a single parable to illustrate the theological innovation that reshimu introduces. For the moment, however, it is not consciously revealed in the scholar’s mind.
This version of the parable illustrates the (by now axiomatic) notion that tzimtzum does not represent a literal removal of the infinite assertion of divine presence, but rather its concealment. At the same time, the specific image of a scholar sitting idle implies that this concealment might embody an utter vacuum of informational content. The scholar’s mind is completely empty of any expression of knowledge, even though that knowledge is fully committed to memory and unconsciously present in its entirety. In the theological analogue this recalls the earlier suggestion that the concealment represented by tzimtzum is absolute, and that the “hollow space” (chalal) indeed embodies a true void, utterly empty of divine expression.41
As we have already noted, it is precisely to undermine this misconception that reshimu is introduced into the tzimtzum narrative. Reshimu transforms the hollow from an empty gesture into a meaningful gesture of emptiness, the fullness of divine being expressed in the language of absence. In the present discourse the conceptual import of reshimu is accordingly illustrated by a modified version of the above parable, in which R. Schneur Zalman distinguishes between immersive analytic study and textual review. Just like in the previous scenario, the scholar has committed to memory an entire tractate of the Talmud, with all its questions and answers, and with all its depth and breadth. The scholar grasps all this knowledge with full clarity, encompassing all the relevant explanations in his mind with complete clarity. But in this version of the parable, the scholar does not sit idle. Instead, there are two ways in which the scholar’s knowledge is exercised; through immersive analysis on the one hand, and through textual review on the other.42
Immersive analysis brings the full scope of the scholar’s knowledge to the fore, especially when expressed verbally. But textual review conceals the full extent of the scholar’s knowledge even as it traces it. The words themselves express only a minimal synopsis, a trace, of the vast body of argument and explanation they represent. Another person listening to this textual review will be left completely in the dark. But for the scholar, even a cursory rereading invokes the full scope of the knowledge encapsulated in his mind. G‑d is like the scholar reviewing the text, and similarly sees the fullness of divine infinitude and omnipotence luminously traced in the dark constraints of the creative process. In each fleeting moment vast quantities of complex data flash before his mind’s eye, illuminating the cryptic concision of the text.
As R. Schneur Zalman puts it:
“All the intellect of this tractate and these laws are revealed and known to him effortlessly, and he encapsulates in one thought what it would take a long while to articulate in speech. . . . Accordingly, even when he is simply reviewing the words of the text alone, all the depth of the intellect that exists in this tractate is revealed and known and encapsulated in his mind and thought. It is not at all in the aspect of concealment and departure from his intellect and thought in the ways that it is utterly concealed from the other who listens to his reading . . .”43
With this parable in mind, R. Schneur Zalman explains, we can better understand how the motif of the trace modifies the tzimtzum narrative. G‑d is not like the scholar who sits idle, so that not even a trace of revelation remains. In entering the creative process, G‑d is like the scholar reviewing the text. Like the cryptic concision of the text, the finitude of creation does not overtly express divine infinitude. But like the scholar who sees all his vast knowledge traced in that concision, G‑d similarly sees the fullness of divine infinitude and omnipotence luminously traced in the dark constraints of the creative process. All of reality is traced as text, but its full import is disclosed only if you can read between the lines.44
Crystallization and Contention
The double parable of the scholar beautifully crystallizes the duality that reshimu represents. As the divine capacity of limitation through which otherness and creation emerge, reshimu extends endlessly downward into the realm of otherness and creation. As the disclosure of the primordial letters in which divine delight is traced, reshimu extends infinitely upwards into the transcendent essence of G‑d. As the text in which all reality is traced it extends to every created thing, at once revealing and concealing, concealing and revealing. Its overt revelation represents a concealment of divine transcendence, but that concealment itself unveils a more essential dimension of divine being.
More specifically, R. Schneur Zalman uses this parable is to crystallize the third in a series of qualifying interpretations of the tzimtzum narrative. The first of these qualifications is his adoption and innovative defense of the nonliteral understanding of tzimtzum: the removal of the infinite assertion of G‑d’s presence is recast as mere concealment. The second of these qualifications hinges on his distinction between the light and the luminary; while the infinite assertion of divine presence (the light) is concealed, the ineffable All of reality is traced as text, but its full import is disclosed only if you can read between the lines. essence of divine being (the luminary) remains openly disclosed.
R. Schneur Zalman’s treatment of reshimu does not only elaborate on these qualifications, but also introduces an entirely new degree of qualification. Previously, the removal of the light was recast as concealment. Now that concealment itself is qualified. Previously, only the luminary, the essence of divine being, was said to be unaffected by tzimtzum. Now the impact on the light, the infinite assertion of divine presence, is also qualified.
As the parable of the scholar illustrates, the concealment of the light is actually a matter of perspective. From the perspective of G‑d, the narrow constraints of withdrawal and absence are not only filled with the ineffable presence of the divine essence, but are even seen as yet deeper forms of revelation and presence. It is not simply that the ineffable essence of divine being (the luminary) stands beyond the categories of concealment and revelation, and is therefore unaffected by tzimtzum. It is rather that the infinite assertion of divine presence (the light) is concealed only from the perspective of “outsiders,” those who do not share G‑d’s perspective of the creation process as an even more revealing form of self-expression.
In the words of R. Schneur Zalman, “Even as there is the aspect of tzimtzum, that the light departs and only the aspect of the trace remains, this is not a concealment at all on the part of light itself. And therefore ‘I, G‑d have not changed.’ . . . This need not even be said of G‑d’s being and essence . . . but in truth, even in the light there is no change . . . even the light shines in the trace as it did prior to the tzimtzum.”45
The motif of the trace emerges not only as the centerpiece, but also as the culmination of R. Schneur Zalman’s radical reinterpretation of the tzimtzum narrative. Reshimu is not simply an afterthought, a mere trace of the infinite light concealed by tzimtzum. Instead, the motif of the trace utterly transforms the symbolism of tzimtzum. What may previously have seemed an empty gesture becomes a meaningful gesture of emptiness. Reshimu reframes divine absence as a deeper expression of divine presence. It is through the prism of reshimu, through the transcendent letters that embody the primordial capacity of constriction, that all the elements of tzimtzum can be coherently reinterpreted. It is specifically in descending into the role of creator, specifically in the emergence of absence and the possibility of otherness, The question of the relationship between reshimu and kav led to serious contention over the degree to which reshimu is impacted by tzimtzum . . . that the omnipotent non-contingence of divine being is traced.
Despite the clarity with which R. Schneur Zalman elucidates his understanding of reshimu, there are some points that remain ambiguous. The question of the relationship between the trace (reshimu), which is left in the hollow, and the narrow “line” (kav) of revelation, which is extended into the hollow, was discussed by R. Schneur Zalman and subsequent Chabad leaders, opening new avenues of investigation and insight. In the fourth and fifth generations of Chabad, these discussions led to serious contention over the degree to which reshimu is impacted by tzimtzum. We have already seen how previous debates concerning tzimtzum marked seminal theological disagreements between the early chassidim and their opponents.46 But this new dispute would drive a wedge between two contemporaneous strands of the Chabad dynastic tradition. Once again, the scholarly debate ran parallel to a social schism. The motif of the letters, so central to the dual parable of the scholar, would become the nexus of this heated dispute.47
Join the Discussion