Abstract: In the human dance between the truths already discovered and those yet to be discovered, to which end of the spectrum should we hew? Should we embrace our certainties or acknowledge their deficiencies? Should we embrace mystery or seek to overcome it? A close reading of R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s discussion of the particular natures of the reshimu and the kav first clarifies then further complicates these ambiguities. But the resolution developed by his grandson and successor, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, the Tzemach Tzedek of Lubavitch, opens the way to a different kind of illumination, striking to the very core of ontic reality.
Between Revelation and Concealment
Ubiquitously sought after, ubiquitously elusive: truth, authenticity—and the questions that probe these concepts—are the eternal preoccupation of thinking human beings. Even in this age of empirical science, of prosaically authoritative brute facts, it is the insatiable quest for truth that ultimately drives scientific discovery and cultural change.
“The truths discovered,” wrote the sociologist Émile Durkheim, “are very few in number beside those that remain to be discovered.” Rather than “the results that have been obtained,” it is the search for the unknown truths—along with “hopes, habits, instincts, needs, and presentiments that are so vague that they cannot be expressed in words”—that “dominates the whole life of the scientist.” Moreover, he argues, “to master the whole meaning of the discovered truths and to understand what is summarized in them” the science must be “still in a free state, that is, before it has been crystallized in the form of propositions. “The truths discovered are very few in number beside those that remain to be discovered” Otherwise one will grasp only the letter of it and not the spirit.”1
Like the person of faith, the scientist is a seeker, forever caught between the illuminating flashes of the already discovered and the challenging abyss of all that remains unknown. Yet the dialectic of the discovered and the undiscovered, of the revealed and the concealed, might be approached by these two personas, by the scientist and by the person of faith, in radically different ways.
It is with this distinction that Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik opens his classic work of religious phenomenology, Halakhic Man:
When theoretical and scientific man peers into the cosmos, he is filled with one exceedingly powerful yearning, which is to search for clarity and understanding, for solutions and resolutions… to disperse the cloud of mystery which hangs darkly over the order of phenomena and events…
The homo religiosus acts differently… he does not desire to transform the secrets embedded in creation into simple equations… On the contrary, homo religiosus is intrigued by the mystery of existence—the mysterium tremendum—and wants to emphasize that mystery… The cognitive act of homo religiosus is one of concealment and hiding.2
In truth, as R. Soloveitchik’s extended discussion makes plain, these two attitudes can never be utterly separated into the scientific and religious domains. Illuminating knowledge and mysterious concealment are deeply enmeshed with one another, symbiotic counterpoints in the ongoing dance of human discovery and inquiry. The distinction between the scientist and the person of faith is instead a question of emphasis and focus.
* * *
The Ontic Root of the Ontological Dialectic
This dialectical interplay of revelation and concealment, according to R. Soloveitchik, is not simply a matter of human subjectivity, the epistemological problem of what we can know about reality. Revelation and concealment are actually the most elemental functions of reality itself. In philosophical terms, this is described as a move from the ontological to the ontic. That is, from the different ways that people engage with existence and theorize about it, to the elemental substance of existence itself. The mind sways (“ontologically”) between knowing reality and being mystified by it, because reality sways (“ontically”) between obligingly showing itself and modestly hiding itself. As R. Soloveitchik succinctly puts it,Revelation and concealment are actually the most elemental functions of reality itself “The ontological dualism is a reflection of the ontic dualism.”3
The ontic dualism described here, R. Soloveitchik later acknowledges, is rooted in the concept of tzimtzum as interpreted in the teachings of Chabad Chassidism specifically:4
The attribute of tzimtzum expresses itself in two ideas: concealment and disclosure. On the one hand, G‑d sustains the cosmos through concealing and hiding His glory… for who can withstand the splendor of His excellence when he comes forth to overawe the earth? … On the other hand, the Almighty gives life to and sustains all existence through the disclosure of his glory… for He is the root and source of reality…5
One recent study of Chabad thought has attempted to distinguish between the notion of tzimtzum as an elemental function of ontic reality, and the notion of tzimtzum as an epistemological sleight of hand—a function of how we perceive reality, rather than of reality itself.6 This bifurcation overlooks the insight articulated by R. Soloveitchik, that the epistemological phenomena of revelation and concealment derive directly from the “ontic dualism,” the “two faces” that are elemental to the very substance of cosmic existence: the one obligingly revealing, the other modestly enigmatic.7 Moreover, R. Soloveitchik is surely right in concluding that Any conceptual axis represents a mere starting point from which to further extend the never-ending quest for more truth“this powerful antinomy… is practically the central axis of Habad doctrine.”8
* * *
As has already been noted, the cognitive attitude of homo religiosus is not simply to accept mystery, but to emphasize it. For thinking humanity more generally, any conceptual axis represents a mere starting point from which to further extend the never-ending quest for more truth. Accordingly, the Chabad masters did not simply accept ontic duality, as described by the tzimtzum narrative, as doctrine. Instead they relentlessly contemplated its meaning, continuously pulling apart its layers to further probe the mysterious interrelationships of revelation, concealment and truth.9
In the Kabbalistic lexicon in which Chabad’s exploration of tzimtzum is framed, the concealment and disclosure referred to by R. Soloveitchik are often indexed by the terms reshimu and kav respectively. In a previous article we noted that the term reshimu doesn’t appear in the original formulations of the tzimtzum narrative. It was introduced by Rabbi Moshe Zacuto (1625–1697) and interpreted by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), to emphasize that withdrawal and concealment (tzimtzum) actually embodies a substantive trace (a reshimu) of revelatory import.10
In using the term reshimu, which means trace, to index the concealing aspect of tzimtzum, the dialectic that tzimtzum embodies is further complicated. The dialectic is such that even the aspect of concealment itself carries revelatory significance. Similarly, the aspect of revelation is described as a kav dak—a narrow line—a limited ray that conceals far more than it reveals.11
This complication means that the two dynamics cannot be segregated into utterly discrete domains. Behind every spark of revelation stands all that has not yet been revealed, all that it fails to disclose. Concealment, conversely, is the constant impetus for further discovery, the eternal herald of further revelation.The terms revelation and concealment—like other simplistic bifurcations—are respectively inadequate The kav emerges as blinkered revelation and the reshimu as revelatory concealment.12
Employing this terminology to scrutinize the tzimtzum narrative insightfully exposes the degree to which the terms revelation and concealment—like other simplistic bifurcations—are respectively inadequate. But this also leads along the path of obfuscation. After all, if the reshimu is revelatory concealment and the kav blinkered revelation, what precisely is the difference between them?
There is a set of deeper questions here, both ontological and ontic in their nature. Though G‑d’s presence is extended into the realm of creation through a combination of concealment and disclosure, the essence of divine being must transcend both these categories. Which of these ontic dimensions more authentically expresses that transcendent core? Which more immediately embodies the singular essence of all ontological and ontic phenomena? Which ontological approach will bring us closer to that singular ontic truth from which everything ultimately derives?
In the human dance between the truths already discovered and those yet to be discovered, to which end of the spectrum should we hew? Should we embrace our certainties or acknowledge their deficiencies? Should we embrace mystery or seek to overcome it? Which of these represent truer, more honest, paths? Are revelation and concealment inextricably intertwined, to the point of utter obfuscation and confusion, or can they be carefully teased apart and coherently combined?
* * *
A Collaborative Hierarchy of Descent
The overlapping conceptions indexed by the terms reshimu and kav force us to take a closer look at the significance of the tzimtzum narrative more generally. Prima facie it is understood as a vivid depiction of G‑d’s descent from a state of utterly unlimited transcendence, described as infinite light (ohr ain sof), into the narrow role of Creator.13 But it also describes the complex interplay of divine concealment and revelation from which created reality emerges, and through which the ontic foundation of everything is refracted. A closer examination of this narrative—following the lead of the Chabad masters—peels the kav and the reshimu apart, allowing us to better understand the distinct significance of each and where they stand in relation to one another.14
In the original tzimtzum narrative the kav—also described as a “limited ray” (he’orah mugbelet) of divine revelation—indexes “the narrow role of Creator” mentioned in the previous paragraph. The kav, in other words, depicts the emergence of a new form of divine revelation, which is refracted through the various forms and discrete functions of the creative process.15 In contrast to the kav, the reshimu does not represent an entirely new mode of limited revelation. In Rabbi Moshe Zacuto’s words it is rather “a trace of the light”—a vestige of the original revelation of G‑d’s infinite transcendence—that somehow “remains” in the “hollow space” following the ostensible removal (tzimtzum or siluk) of G‑d’s infinite revelation.16
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in a discourse delivered in 1806, explains that this conception of the reshimu reframes the very removal or concealment of infinite revelation as a broader articulation of G‑d’s infinite capacity. The restrictive curtailment embodied by tzimtzum discloses that “He, blessed be He, is omnipotent and carries the capacity of limitation (ko’ach ha-gevul) too, the capacity to limit the revealed assertion that is not limited at all.”17 The reshimu emerges as the revelatory significance of tzimtzum, the discovery that the truly omnipotent can even curtail the infinite radiance of divine transcendence. The truly omnipotent can even curtail the infinite radiance of divine transcendenceIn the reshimu the trace of divine self-limitation and of divine omnipotence paradoxically coincide.18
R. Schneur Zalman continues to explain that the emergence of otherness is not dependent only on the removal of the infinite and exclusive revelation of divine presence. Equally important is the corollary unveiling of divine finitude, which provides concretizing form and measure as the creative process unfolds. In other words, it is the disclosure of the reshimu, G‑d’s capacity of self-limitation, that paves the way for the limited revelation of the kav to emerge.19
Accordingly, both the reshimu and the kav play integral roles in the creative process:
Without tzimtzum—which discloses the divine capacity of limitation via the ethereal trace (reshimu) of the void—there can only be infinite revelation: an unmitigated, monolithic and exclusive assertion of divine essentiality. In R. Schneur Zalman’s words, “the kav would shine exactly as it is prior to the tzimtzum [that is, without any restriction],” and “the realm of atzilut”, in which the specific functions of G‑d’s creative role are distinctly defined, “could not exist…”20
Without the kav, on the other hand, the only alternative to infinite revelation would be utter constraint. Even if the primordial void embodies the revelatory gesture indexed as the reshimu, the void remains a void nonetheless.21 It is therefore not enough that “the infinite light… enters the reshimu to constrain all revelation.” The infinite light must also make a bolder and more deliberate appearance, “to shine light that is in the aspect of actual revelatory expression [that is, the kav], for otherwise all would be in the aspect of utter restriction…” The kav’s overt and substantive assertion of divine revelation within the realm of creation transforms the unrealized capacity traced by The revelatory kav effectively obscures the true transcendence, and the equalizing omnipresence, of divine beingthe reshimu into the concrete forms and boundaries of created reality.22
What emerges is a collaborative hierarchy of descent: collaborative in the sense that the revelatory concealment of the reshimu paves the way for the blinkered revelation of the kav; hierarchical in the sense that the reshimu is described as an authentic vestige of the original revelation of G‑d’s infinite transcendence, in contrast to the immanent emanation of the descending kav.
In R. Schneur Zalman’s words: “The root of the line of measurement (kav ha-midah), which measures and limits the revelation… comes and is drawn from that very aspect of the trace that remains in the hollow… The kav comes into restrictive measure due to the aspect of the trace (reshimu) that precedes it,” and consequently “the substance of its light can extend to recipients in correct measure…”23 The reshimu embodies both the residual trace of G‑d’s omnipotent transcendence and the empty ground upon which the creative project unfolds.24 The kav, on the other hand, is at this point understood to belong wholly to the realm of creation. It’s uppermost root is described as originating in “the trace that remains in the hollow.” In actualizing G‑d’s capacity to create distinct and finite realms, the kav effectively obscures the true transcendence, and the equalizing omnipresence, of divine being.25
It is true that the kav is the bearer of substantive illumination, actually revealing the presence of G‑d within the created realm, while the reshimu only discloses concealment. But in squeezing G‑d into the narrow role of Creator, the luminous kav effectively obscures the all-encompassing transcendence of G‑d’s ultimate truth. It is accordingly the dark void of the reshimu that actually represents a more transparent articulation of G‑d’s transcendent omnipotence and infinitude, extending the disclosure of divine capacity beyond the bounds of revelation and into the realm of concealment. This conception, as set forth by R. Schneur Zalman, echoes R. Moshe Zacuto’s original use of the term reshimu, describing “a trace” of the original revelation of G‑d’s infinite transcendence, which yet “remains” in the “hollow space” following its ostensible removal (tzimtzum or siluk).26
* * *
An Ambiguity Emerges
After initially implying that the reshimu precedes and transcends the kav, and that the kav reveals divinity in “restrictive measure,” R. Schneur Zalman introduces a stark qualifier: “Nevertheless, the true root of the kav… comes from the infinite light that precedes the tzimtzum…”27 The kav, in other words, is not simply a narrow revelation of G‑d as Creator, but rather the extension of G‑d’s infinite revelation into the finite realm of otherness and creation.
This directly counters the earlier notion that the kav represents an entirely new form of divine revelation, that the kav embodies an utter departure from the transcendent assertion of G‑d’s ultimate truth. The kav is instead to be understood as an immanent reassertion of that transcendent truth within the created realm. Unlike the reshimu, the kav does not merely gesture at this transcendence, expressing divine omnipotence only in the language of absence. The kav actually draws a direct revelationWhere the reshimu is a mere gesture of divine transcendence, the kav is its explicit assertion of infinite divinity into the realm of concealment, finitude and otherness.28
In addition to introducing an entirely different conception of the kav itself, R. Schneur Zalman’s pronouncement that “the true root of the kav… comes from the infinite light that precedes the tzimtzum” forces us to reconsider the relationship of the kav to the reshimu. Previously we understood the reshimu alone to extend G‑d’s infinite transcendence into the realm of concealment, while the narrow revelation of the kav actually obscures that loftier perception. But now we discover that the kav actually embodies a more direct revelation of G‑d’s infinitude within the realm of concealment and finite creation. Where the reshimu is a mere gesture of divine transcendence, the kav is its explicit assertion. As R. Schneur Zalman continues to explain, the kav can actualize such paradoxical combinations of opposites because its root transcends the divine capacity of limitation embodied by the reshimu. The kav is “literally of the infinite revelation that initially filled all of the void.”29
But our understanding of the reshimu is not simply reframed in relation to the kav. R. Schneur Zalman’s description of the reshimu itself also includes another dimension. “The withdrawal of the light in a limited capacity of limitation (be-bechinat ko’ach gevuli),” is “for the purpose of the creation of the containers (bishvil hit’havut ha-keilim).”30 In a previous article we discussed R. Schneur Zalman’s conception of the reshimu as the primordial text, the containing contours that trace even the most transcendent expressions of divinity.31 Here these contours are further described as containing the infinite revelation of the kav: “Since the kav is measured due to the reshimu that precedes it,the reshimu is both the root from which the kav’s limitation is drawn, and the recipient of the kav’s illumination it’s light can be contained in correct measure, [determining] how much light and how much limiting container…”32
These containers give the revelatory trajectory of the kav finite form and specific shape, so that divinity can be apprehended, assimilated and manifest in the limited confines of the created realm. The Hebrew word keilim is translated here as “containers,” rather than the more common “vessels,” to emphasize that the reshimu contains and limits the revelation of the kav. It can also be translated as “receptacles,” emphasizing that the limiting aspect of the reshimu is the recipient of the revelation embodied by the kav. Here again we are confronted with the inherent duality of the reshimu: It is both the root from which the kav’s limitation is drawn, and the recipient of the kav’s illumination.33
In light of these insights, our hierarchical conception of the relationship between the reshimu and the kav is complicate and confused, but not entirely upended. The original understandings of the transcendent omnipotence of the reshimu, and of the narrow immanence of the kav, are never rejected outright. They are instead preserved, counterbalancing the opposing conceptions even as they are articulated, and confronting the astute reader with an inescapable ambiguity.
* * *
The Tzemach Tzedek’s Reverberating Gloss
This ambiguity is highlighted in far sharper tones in a gloss to another of R. Schneur Zalman’s discourses, penned by his grandson, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn of Lubavitch (1789-1866). Known as “the Tzemach Tzedek” for the title of his published responsa, in 1837 he published Torah Ohr, a compendium of R. Schneur Zalman’s oral teachings, together with some of his own glosses. Alongside Tanya and a second volume of oral discourses titled Likkutei Torah, Torah Ohr is one of the enduring foundations of Chabad’s literary corpus.34 It is not this specific gloss alone that is relevant to the present discussion, but also its reverberations in subsequent generations of Chabad.35
The texts discussed above examine the relationship between the reshimu and the kav primarily within the relatively narrow context of the tzimtzum narrative, and as the root of the creative process. R. Schneur Zalman’s treatment of the topic in Torah Ohr is reserved to a single comment, but it succinctly encapsulates the respective functions of the reshimu and the kav within the broader scheme of the cosmos:
The distinction between the illumination of the kav and the reshimu… is that the illumination of the kav shines in each realm according to its measure, whereas the reshimu is the encompassing aspect of all realms.36
To paraphrase: While the revelation of the kav is adapted and limited in accord with the individual contours of each realm, the reshimu remains transcendent and unchanged even as it encompasses all reality. Previously, we discussed R. Schneur Zalman’s conception of the reshimu as the divine capacity of limitation, and more specifically, as the primordial text in which even the most transcendent expressions of divinity are traced.37 Here it is emphasized that as the foundation of all expression, the limitation embodied by the reshimu As the foundation of all expression, limitation equaly encompasses all realms—from the nadir of the cosmic hierarchy to its apexencompasses all realms—from the nadir of the cosmic hierarchy to its apex—with utter equality.
The equalizing transcendence of the reshimu as the all-encompassing capacity of limitation echoes the by now familiar understanding of the reshimu as a gesture of divine omnipotence, of G‑d’s transcendence of all boundaries. Similarly, the differentiated immanence of the kav, revealed “in each realm according to its measure,” echoes the original conception of the kav as delivering a measured revelation of G‑d in the narrow role of Creator. This passage from Torah Ohr, in other words, clearly casts the reshimu as a more transparent embodiment of G‑d’s all-encompassing and transcendent truth than the kav.
In his cryptic gloss, the Tzemach Tzedek invites us to reexamine this in light of another key text by R. Schneur Zalman, where a reverse perception of the hierarchical relationship between the reshimu and the kav is implied:
Examination is required, for it is explained in many places that the kav is far loftier than the reshimu, and see Igeret Ha-kodesh, Maamar Ihu Ve’chayuhi Chad: “The illumination of the kav [is of the infinite revelation]… and a ray of a ray (he’ora d-he’ora) [is vested in the soul and spirit… of the created realms, and also in all their containers (keilim)]… and a ray of a ray of a ray (he’ora d-he’ora d-he’ora) [is in all the creations… ] etc.”38
Nowhere in the Tzemach Tzedek’s gloss, nor in the source he points to, is there an explicit mention of the reshimu. The reference is instead to a discussion of the relationship between the kav and the keilim (“containers” or “receptacles”), which are in turn understood to embody the divine capacity of limitation, namely the reshimu. Here the kav is explicitly described as a “ray of the infinite revelation” (kav d’ohr ain sof), implying that even as it extends into the created realm it yet embodies the infinite revelation of divine transcendence. But the ever more corporeal planes of being into which the kav descends are understood as increasingly opaque veils that progressively obscure its luminosity. Accordingly, “a ray of a ray,” or “a reflection of a reflection,” of the kav’s light—rather than its full potency—“is vested in the soul and spirit… of the created realms and also in all their containers (keilim).” The containing capacity of divine limitation—identified explicitly as the keilim and The Tzemach Tzedek’s point is to cast these two teachings of R. Schneur Zalman in sharp contrast to one anotherimplicitly as the reshimu—is not described here as the eloquent communicator of divine transcendence, but as a mere receptacle for the faintest glimmer of the kav’s transcendent luminosity.39
The Tzemach Tzedek’s point is to cast these two teachings of R. Schneur Zalman in sharp contrast to one another. The kav is described in Ihu Ve’chayuhi Chad as communicating divine infinitude, but in Torah Ohr as the embodiment of measured pragmatism. The divine capacity of limitation (indexed as the keilim or the reshimu) is described in Torah Ohr as a gesture of divine transcendence, but in Ihu Ve’chayuhi Chad as receiving only a faint glimmer of divine revelation.
* * *
Covert Luminosity, Overt Emanation
The Tzemach Tzedek subsequently returned to this tension, addressing it—and its resolution—in several different discourses.40 In a particularly lucid treatment of the issue he explains that the reshimu and the kav each have a unique advantage that is lacking in the other.41 The distinction that he draws between their respective qualities is predicated on a previously discussed distinction between the different forms of light, or revelation, mentioned in the tzimtzum narrative.42
In our experience, light extends outwards from a luminous source into a space which would otherwise be dark. But the infinite light initially referred to in the tzimtzum narrative is understood as an internal expression, contained within G‑d’s own self, rather than as something extending outwards into the realm of otherness. Consequently, the infinite light that precedes the tzimtzum is not revelatory in the normative sense of the term. On the contrary, tzimtzum embodies the necessary concealment of this exclusive assertion of divinity so that the creation of otherly beings can become a possibility.43
Tzimtzum is principally construed as concealment, but as we have already seen, tzimtzum also discloses the divine capacity of limitation, indexed in the present discussion by the term reshimu. The reshimu accordingly emerges as the divine ground of otherness, but does not itself belong to the realm of otherness. The reshimu does not overtly reveal G‑d in the world, but traces G‑d’s ultimate omnipotence in the cosmic language of transcendent concealment. The reshimu belongs to the internal realm of G‑d’s infinite capacity, not to the external realm of otherness and creation. Our normal conception of light is of extroverted revelation, but the revelatory quality of the reshimu is introverted in its orientationOur normal conception of light is of extroverted revelation, but the revelatory quality of the reshimu is introverted in its orientation.44
More analogous to our normal conception of light is the overt luminosity of the kav. As in our normal experience of light, the kav extends into a space that would otherwise be dark. It is not an internal revelation of G‑d, but an external one. It is not expressed in the esoteric language of concealment, but is openly explicated through the progressive development of the creative process. The reshimu provides the empty ground, filled with the absent trace of omnipotence, upon which the creative project can be built. But it is the kav that actualizes the assertive process of divine emanation and creation, immanently filling the otherly void formed by tzimtzum with the overt revelation of G‑d’s infinite potency and creative capacity.45
Here’s how the Tzemach Tzedek describes the distinction between the reshimu and the kav, and their respective merits:
Herein is the greater advantage of the reshimu. Though it is but a trace, it is nevertheless a trace of the encompassing light (klalut ha-ohr) that [initially] filled the place of the hollow, and it is not merely of the [immanent] kav… Though this light is concealed [through tzimtzum] it is nevertheless esoterically asserted (me’ir be-bekhinat maqif) through this trace (reshimu) that remains… The kav, however, is asserted in revealed form. Herein is its greater advantage over the reshimu, that it draws forth the infinite light in revealed form, not in concealed form.46
To paraphrase: The covert luminosity of the reshimu belongs to the internal realm of transcendent divinity.47 The overt emanation of the kav extends G‑d’s transcendent revelation within the realm of creation.48
* * *
Initially the Tzemach Tzedek cast the different conceptions of the reshimu and the kav in contradiction to one another. But in light of this fundamental distinction between their respectively covert and overt functions, he simply asserts that the difficulty he pointed to in his gloss to Torah Ohr is “well resolved.”49 We, his readers, are left to spell out this resolution to the best of our ability and to integrate it with the portrayal of the reshimu and kav in other It is the covert luminosity of the reshimu, that indeed grasps the internal intimacy of ohr ain softexts by R. Schneur Zalman.50
The divine capacity of limitation (indexed as the reshimu or the keilim) is described in Torah Ohr as transcendently encompassing all realms, but in Ihu Ve’chayuhi Chad as receiving only a faint glimmer of divine revelation. Considering the covert nature of the reshimu’s transcendence, we may well understand that within the created realm the keilim must rely on the kav for any glimmer of overt illumination. The kav is described in Ihu Ve’chayuhi Chad as communicating divine infinitude, but in Torah Ohr as pragmatically illuminating “each realm according to its measure.” Considering the overt and communicative nature of the kav’s revelation, we may well understand that its transcendent emanation must be aligned with the receptive measures of the created realms. Overt revelation can only actually be overtly revelatory if it is expressed in a form that will be adequately received and assimilated by the target audience. If the kav is to reveal the infinite transcendence of G‑d throughout all reality, it must reframe its message at every level of existence.
The distinction between covert luminosity and overt emanation disentangles the confusing interplay of concealment and revelation. Even the revelatory aspect of concealment is understood to remain inherently covert—esoteric by nature. The introverted transcendence gestured to through the reshimu encompasses all realms esoterically, and cannot easily be glimpsed from within the creative process. Likewise, it is the intrinsically overt, exoteric, nature of revelation that causes it to mask such introverted transcendence. The kav is the extroverted revelation of ohr ain sof, which can never fully communicate the internal intimacy of its luminous source. It is the covert luminosity of the reshimu, rather, that indeed grasps the internal intimacy of ohr ain sof.
* * *
Concrete Essentiality
The Tzemach Tzedek’s demarcation of the covert and the overt is insightful not only epistemologically and ontologically (that is, so far as we experience and approach reality), but also ontically (that is, so far as reality itself actually functions). The epistemological introversion of the reshimu functions ontically as a collaborative counterbalance to the otherwise uninhibited diffusion of the kav, allowing for the finite forms of the creative process. Epistemologically, G‑d’s omnipotent capacity of limitation is revealed through the trace (reshimu) of divine withdrawal (tzimtzum). Ontically, that capacity functions as the keilim, the finite contours that contain the infinite expression of G‑d’s creative vitality—the kav.
The reshimu delimits the measured pragmatism of the kav, concretizing its luminosity. The covert transcendence of the former reins in the extroverted emanation of the latter, giving finite form and concrete substance to the unfolding assertion of creativity. Accordingly, the reshimu embodies the substance of the creative process, while the kav embodies its vitality.51
Moreover, though the reshimu indexes the epistemologically introverted dimension of reality, it yet emerges as the more unmediated manifestation of the divine, more authentically representing the ontic essence of all things. While the “greater advantage” of the kav lies in its overt revelation of infinite divinity, its revelation is mediated and externalized via the process of tzimtzum. The kav's overt revelation of infinite divinity... is mediated and externalized via the process of tzimtzumThe keilim, in contrast, are a direct embodiment of G‑d’s internal capacity of self-concealment.52
In its most fundamental sense the tzimtzum narrative portrays the kav as extending within the space that has been cleared of the internal expression of G‑d’s self; that is, within the external realm of otherness and creation. In this sense the very function of the kav is one of mediation and publication; to represent divine infinitude beyond the privacy of G‑d’s essential self. Such a revelation inherently acknowledges the possibility of otherness, breaking with the absolute sense of divine selfhood that yet remains traced in the finite contours of the introverted keilim.53
The Tzemach Tzedek’s insight is that the reshimu encompasses all realms—as R. Schneur Zalman taught—precisely because its assertion is unchangingly esoteric, inherently covert. The very finitude and concealment of the creative process immediately embodies G‑d’s all-encompassing inwardness. Embracing the most ethereal and the most concrete, the reshimu admits no otherness. Tzimtzum itself is the unveiling of this otherwise submerged facet of divine omnipotence; the covert luminosity that—through the keilim—grasps the internal intimacy of ohr ain sof, in everything.54
* * *
The unmediated nature of the reshimu is sharply crystallized in a gloss subsequently penned by the Tzemach Tzedek’s youngest son, Rabbi Shmuel Schneersohn of Lubavitch (1834-1882, known as the Rebbe Maharash).55 So bold was R. Shmuel’s reformulation of this point, that it aroused the fierce criticism of a contemporary Chabad leader, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Schneersohn of Kopust (1830-1900).56 There is much to be said about this dispute, and about how R. Shmuel’s son, Rabbi Shalom DovBer Schneersohn of Lubavitch (1860-1920, known as the Rebbe Rashab), would further develop his father’s position, cementing it Embracing the most ethereal and the most concrete, the reshimu admits no othernesswithin his own foundational, and enduringly influential, corpus of teachings.57
First, however, we must return to the questions of truth and authenticity with which we began this article. Here it is the concealing and concrete dimension of reality that has emerged as the more unmediated embodiment of divine being. It is through covert mystery, rather than through revealed certainty, that the divine core of all reality is more eloquently disclosed. It is through the introverted transcendence of the reshimu, rather than the communicative immanence of the kav, that the singular essence of all ontic phenomena is more immediately experienced.58
This triumph of the concrete echoes statements made elsewhere by R. Schneur Zalman regarding the primacy of the commandments and their specific requirement of ritual practice and the use of physical objects.59 Conceptually, it also points to the conclusion drawn by his son, Rabbi DovBer Schneuri of Lubavitch (1773-1827), that in the supernal “thought” of G‑d “it is possible for the otherly being [of concrete creation] to be the true being [of the divine self].”60 This statement was often referred to by the seventh rebbe of Chabad-Lubavitch, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994).61 But it may well be argued that the latter's reformulation and reinterpretation of R. DovBer’s conclusion is equally indebted to the unique conception of reshimu as it was successively sharpened in the intervening generations. These links, as traced from the first Chabad rebbe to the seventh, will be further explored and examined in subsequent articles.
Start a Discussion