VOLOZHINER, CHAIM, ‘Nephesh HaChaim’.
First edition. ff. (63), 4to. Vinograd, Vilna.
Vilna & Grodno: Partners Mann & Zimmel 1824.

*

Today’s sharing from the Blue House of Via-HYGEIA, is chapters 1 & 2 from the Third Gate: ‘God as the Place of the World’ & ‘The true value and appearance of the World‘, excerpted from the ‘Sefer haChayim‘ (‘The Soul of Life’) by Rabbi Chayyim of Volozhin, in its French 1986 edition by Editions Verdier. French translation, presentation and commentary by professor Benjamin Gross (1929-2015), with a foreword by philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906 – 1995). From page 116 to 122. A Via-HYGEIA English translation from the French edition.

‘The Third Gate develops the metaphysical ideas that frames the whole ‘Nefesh-haHayyim’. It precise the the paradox of divine transcendence and of immanence and is eager to solve this antinomy by the mean of the kabbalistic idea of ‘Tsimtsum’. The aim of this speculation upon ‘God on our side’ and ‘God on His side’ is about defining the relationships between Man and the Absolute, the ability of a religious attitude and the justification of the religious act.

We want to highlight here the precautions the author uses in the wake of this peculiar chapter, which, in his own words, ‘will deal with the foundations of the Jewish faith’. These are, in deed, the delicate problems of theism and pantheism, of idealism and realism, of the intelligibility of the irruption of the Infinite within the finite and their contiguity.’ (Benjamin Gross, opening notes for the Third Gate).

It is meant as a follow up to our last sampler devoted to Simone Weil, in which we find this sentence: ‘We ought to succeed to see beyond the heavens, and through the universe nothing else but divine mediation, and every mediation is God. God is mediation between God and God, between God and Man, between Man and Man, between God and the things, between the things and the things-and even between every soul and it-self. We cannot pass from nothing to nothing without passing through God. God is the unique road. He is the Path.’ (from ‘Intuitions Pre-Chrétiennes‘ (Pre-Christian Intuitions) published by La Colombe, Editions du vieux Colombier, Paris 1951).

“God is the place of the world, but the world is not His place.”
(Bereshit Rabbah 68:9)

**

From the Third Gate,

‘Man, this infinite’.

*

Chapter 1 – God

as the Place of the World

In this last text, God is designated by the term MAQOM. In the ‘Pirqe Avot‘(The ‘Ethics of the Forefathers‘, 2,15-18) as well: ‘When you pray, do not make your prayer a fixed thing, but a supplication for mercy before the Maqom.’ In using, precisely, this term, our masters wanted to entrust us with an important teaching. We ought to examine this question in a more in-depth manner and examine these texts related to this subject, if we are eager to seize their true intention.

Our masters compare the words of the Wise to burning coal. In the embers, we only distinguish a tiny flame; but when we flip them and we stir them up again by blowing on them, the flame ignites and grows until it becomes a blaze, that lights and heat afar. We ought to stay upon some distance and not touch it, because as soon as the flame rises and mobile, we ought to take precautions to avoid being burned.

The words of the Wise were compared to these burning coal, because we have taken in consideration these likeliness. They come as short sentences, but they burst alike the stone under the strike of the hammer. The more we examine them, the more we analyze them, the more their flames light us up with their bright light and we discover deep meditations. ‘Turn them (the burning coal), flip them‘, our masters advise us, ‘because everything is in them‘. We ought, nevertheless, to take some precaution and not initiate some research upon problems that are not worth spending time upon. Hence, the text concludes in this manner: ‘Warm your face with the light of the Wise‘, which means: do not wander too far from their words, because you would not benefit from their light, and do not come too close, because you would risk burning yourself. Place yourself before them, says the conclusion, ‘and be aware of the embers.’

So, our text says: Maqom (Place). Even though the literal meaning is clear, a more thorough examination reveals that our masters have included in the usage of this word, in an allusive manner, important subjects.

They are expressed in this way in this verse: ‘He has reach the place‘ (Genesis, 28-11: ‘And he came to a certain place (בַּמָּקוֹם)…’, referring to Jacob’s vision of the ladder): Rabbi Yona says ‘why do we call the Blessed and Holy: ‘Maqom’?-God is the Place of the World, but the world is not His  Place.’ And about the subject of this verse: ‘Here is a Place near Me‘ (Exodus, 33- 21): Rabbi Yossi ben Halafta says: ‘The text does not say: ‘I am in this Place‘, but ‘A Place near Me–The place does not affect My essence, but I am essential to this Place‘.

We can simply understand that even though the place is the condition and support of all the worlds and of all the beings, God, master of all things, is the true Place, condition and support of all of the worlds and of all the beings. If God would allow for a tiny moment His Might to abandon the base of existence and life of all the worlds, everything would collapse. The Scriptures do state: ‘It is You who gives life to everything’ (Nehemiah, 9-6). This is a fundamental principle of the faith of Israel; Maimonides say also the same at the beginning of his ‘Hilkhot Yessodey haTorah‘.

For this reason, the Zohar designates the Master of Everything, as the soul of all of the souls, in the meaning that the soul keeps the body alive and maintains it. ‘Could a piece of  meat maintain itself without salt for three day and not be spoiled? Therefore, the soul penetrates the body at the very first moment.’ In the same manner, God keeps all of the worlds alive, as testified by many texts of the ‘Tikunei haZohar‘ and the ‘Raya Mehemna‘ (‘The Faithful Shepherd’).  Our masters also did picture the possibility of the existence of the world by the divine Might upon the model of the existence of the body kept alive due to the strength of the soul. As the soul fills and sustain the whole body, God also fills and sustain the totality of the world. This is the first level of the explanation of the formula: ‘God is the Place of the World.’

*

Chapter 2 – The True Value &

Appearance of the World

But, ‘God is the Place of the World‘ has a deeper meaning and poses a significant problem. To designate God as ‘the Place of the World’ totally outreach the notion of the spatiality of a place as support for the thing it shelters. Because the substance of the evolution and maintenance of an object has its proper reality, the place  guaranties only its stability, sparing it to fall or to break. Therefore, the soul provides vitality and maintenance, but it has its own reality, and this very reality is not canceled when the soul leaves the body. But, the becoming of the whole of the worlds depends at any time essentially upon God solely. If hypothetically, He wouldn’t want to continue to provide a future, they would all immediately return to the absolute void. Due to the fact that any being, even the most elaborate, cannot fathom that in fact all of the worlds and everything they contain are but void, and only come to existence at any moment only by God’s will, the Cenacle of the Wise has decided, in order to make all of this more understandable, to designate God with the term Place.

This decision is all the more justified since divine wisdom has given a reality to the world, in such a manner that intelligence must renounce grasping how at every moment its future proceeds from God. Man continues to imagine that the world is an autonomous reality. Our Wise were eager to enlighten us about this subject, by crafting this comparison of the place. An object must occupy a certain space: even though it has an autonomous reality, it would be like non-existing if it stand in a certain place; similarly, even though the world is understood as having an autonomous existence, it is God Who Is its Place. If there would be no place in the divine will for the becoming of the world, it could obviously not survive.

(Here follows a long note by Benjamin Gross: ‘This is how we speak of God by using the comparison of Maqom. The spatiality of the place ensures the maintenance of the object, even though on the level of the value, it is not identical with the object. The spatiality of the place supports multiple and diverse objects, and the diversity of the content does not harm to the unity of the place; it supports them all in an equal manner. In an identical way, God Maintains all of the worlds, even though there is no common measure between them. ‘Even Keter Elyon (the Supreme Crown) is dark when compared with En-Sof.’ (see Tiquney Zohar, Tiqun 70 (135b , ‘The Supreme Crown-though it is the primordial light, a dazzling light, a pure light-is dark before the Cause of all Causes.’). Even though we are able to distinguish diverse changes in the creation, different degrees, even though that at all levels we can find impure forces ‘on the other side‘ and that the whole structure is maintained through divine intervention, God is not at all affected: On His side, He supports them alike the spatiality of the place. No intelligence can comprehend the essence and the form of this mysterious support. These considerations have led our masters to interpret the verse: ‘The place does not affect My essence‘, which means that no thought can grasp how God is under the aspect of the Maqom and not being affected by change. God only, grasping His essence, can understand how He is the Place of all the Worlds, without being affected by anything due to this situation. ‘And it is Him, Who know where she was.‘ (Job, 28:21): the heart does not reveal it to the mouth.) (end of the note).

‘Ten Sefirot suspended by the void. Prevent your mouth to speak, and let your heart meditate. And if your heart is running away, come back towards the Place! This is why it is said: ‘goes’ and ‘comes back‘. (Ezekiel, 1:14). It is significant that the text says: ‘towards the Place‘; which means, if the thought of Man ventures to understand how at any moment the world proceeds from God, it comes back to the Place, so to grasp the value of the intelligible from a comparison with the sensible, perceived as a place, as we have already explained at length.

It is in this line of thought that our masters have endeavored sketching parabolas about the association of God with the worlds; even though there is no common measure between the compared elements, except on this or that particular points-and this very partially:

-‘One must know that He (the En-Sof) is called the Sage of all wisdoms, the Reason behind all reasons, the Generous One of all generosities, the Powerful One of all powers… infinitely and in an unfathomable manner. In all these levels, He is called sometimes Merciful, and other times the Fountain of Justice, and this in all levels, infinitely. Would God be at the mercy of change by being The Merciful and The fountain of Justice? No, because before the worlds was created, He was already named in all levels, due to the creatures that will come to existence in the future. Was it not for these creature, why then would He be called Merciful and the Fountain of Justice? Therefore, it is in relationship with these creature to come, that these denominations have a meaning. Also, all the names are denominations in relationship with His actions.’

-‘It is upon the same model that the soul was created; it is called according to its actions in the different organs of the body, which functions as a microcosm.’

-‘The Master of the universe does not have any known name or place, but His rule’s jurisdiction is expanded everywhere; similarly, the soul does not have any known name, nor known place in the body, but its rule’s jurisdiction expands in the totality of the body, and no organ is deprived from it.’

-‘All of these names and all of these denominations are to be understood in relationship with the totality of the worlds and the beings they contain, so to highlight His rule upon them.’

‘The soul has been compared to God in matters of rule it expands upon all organs of the body, but not because of a substantial likeliness-because it is a creation of God-or that there is no  superior god higher than Him. Moreover, the soul is subject to change, incidents, influences, which is not the case with the Master of all things. Therefore, we cannot talk about a likeliness, but only in the precise point of the rule it expands upon the organs of the body, at the exclusion of all of the other points.’

All of these analogies established by our masters between God and the soul in the body should only be considered in terms of His insertion into the worlds and the authority He exercises over them. And they are only valid upon this point.

‘He is present in every limb; there is no place deprived of His presence, like the soul whose rule expands in the whole body, even into the smallest organ. None is deprived of His Presence.’

This text does say: ‘like the soul whose rule expands…’ Therefore, even in this very precise point, the comparison is not absolute. Even though our masters say: ‘Alike the soul fills the whole body, the Blessed Holy fills the whole universe.’ and the Tiquney Zohar also declare: ‘like the soul whose rule expands in the whole body, even into the smallest organ. None is deprived of His Presence‘, and that another text from the same Tiquney Zohar affirms: ‘ In each organ, there is the divine presence…No place is deprived, like the soul which is found in all the organs of the body.’ The divine Presence in the world is not similar to that of the soul in the body, because the body has a distinct reality from the soul: it expands in the inside of the limbs and provides their sustenance.

Even when the soul leaves the body, the latter does not cease to exist for all that. But, the Master of the universe fills all the worlds and all the beings without them having a distinct reality. ‘There is nothing outside of Him‘. (Deuteronomy, 4:39) -Absolutely nothing, in the totality of the worlds, from the highest realms to the deepest abysses in the belly of the earth. Absolutely speaking, we can say that there is no being nor any world: everything is filled by the essence of the simple unity of God. (see Roqeah: ‘The Creator needs neither place nor foundation, because He precedes all existences; no walls, no accidents isolate Him, because he did not create anything that could oppose Him‘).

*

Source

*

*

Appendix

*

In Memoriam,

Professor Benjamin Gross

(1925-2015)

*

Benjamin Gross

‘An Unfinished World for a Responsible Freedom’
A 2007 Guysen TV Interview

GTV: Professor Benjamin Gross, hello, and thank you for receiving us. We’re here to talk about your latest book, just published by Albin Michel: ‘An Unfinished World for a Responsible Freedom’. In a few words, what is the concept you develop in this book?

BG: I know it’s difficult; yes, the title is quite strange, but it’s understood as follows: ‘Unfinished world’ in my mind doesn’t mean an imperfect world—because that’s obvious, maybe the world is imperfect—but “unfinished” means that creation, by the will of the Creator and from the very beginning, is an unfinished world. That is, a world that hasn’t reached its full potential.

GTV: And why?

BG: To make space for humanity—to perfect it, as it says in Genesis: ‘Asher bara Elokim la’asot‘—God created “to do,” so the world can continue. Therefore, the evolution of the universe is tied to humanity’s role in it and its responsibility. That’s what I wanted to highlight in this book, at a time when humanism in general is threatened, and human beings are threatened at their deepest foundations.

I question what constitutes the irreducible humanity of humans, and how Judaism—which has always responded to historical challenges—might offer answers, not just for the Jewish people, but maybe even more so to help save civilization from the barbarism that threatens it.

GTV: So in your opinion, what do these great threats consist of today? And can Judaism provide satisfactory responses?

BG: Oh, that’s a serious question! It begins with what we’ve called the ‘disenchantment of the universe’. Meaning, freedom—as understood in the West—is a freedom that projects in all directions, giving individuals the possibility, even encouraging them, to push their limits to the extreme. That is, to reach a degree where they exercise their freedom, but without purpose or meaning. Today’s Western society has lost the meaning of meaning. We work but don’t know why; we’re free but don’t know what for. This freedom ends up in social conformity, which I think leads—soon—to the collapse of that society. And we already see signs of it in the West.

Can Judaism respond to that challenge? I think yes. Judaism has always accompanied civilizations—from Egypt to Babylon, to Rome and Greece. It has always been there during civilizational renewal. Judaism presents itself as a chance for re-rooting. It is not merely a religion, but a way of perceiving existence.

Today, especially after Auschwitz—the attempted extermination of the Jewish people—and the rebirth of the State of Israel after Auschwitz, we see a sign of a deep strength that allows the Jewish people to turn every failure into a springboard. This is possible because Judaism—whether religious or secular—is always connected to transcendence, to historical will, to something that happened and cannot be denied. This connection to transcendence, to something beyond, to a norm, shows that it’s possible to live differently than the Western path.

This, I believe, would also allow Islam, for example, to find meaning in the West. Right now, it’s in full confrontation because it doesn’t see how to respond to the call it receives—from its own transcendence.

The values Judaism offers are primarily moral: the consideration of others, avoiding narcissism, and especially imposing self-control on one’s own freedom. That is, a system that allows for freedom with limits, limits that are chosen in the name of that same freedom. I wouldn’t say it’s a solution, but at least a line of reflection. The resurrection of the State of Israel isn’t a chauvinistic nationalism, but a real mission that the Jewish people—and the State of Israel in particular—fulfill for the benefit of humanity, to preserve what is truly human in humans.

GTV: And the fact that, according to some, the State of Israel is drifting from its Jewish identity—how do you see that? Is that a danger?

BG: Yes, I believe that’s certainly a great danger—for Jewish society in general and even more so for Israeli society, the way we’re living it. But I’ve taken an objective viewpoint: regardless of the political ups and downs or the immoral behaviors we’re currently seeing, the existence of Israel has an objective meaning.

This doesn’t mean we should ignore our internal problems. We must fix them—and as quickly as possible—the immoralities currently affecting Israeli society!

GTV: And in your view, will this Jewish character of Israel persist and maybe even take on more importance?

BG: Listen, I’m convinced of two things: either it will happen—and I think it will—or, if it doesn’t, then the state’s survival won’t be guaranteed. Because the Jewish people cannot live without an appeal to transcendence. The rebirth of the State of Israel would then lose all meaning.

I think the people themselves have the necessary strength—not necessarily to return to orthodox religious life—but to reconnect with the deep sources of their own morality. I believe we’ll get there. We’re currently at the bottom of a crisis, but I think we’ll eventually rise again.

GTV: What are the causes, in a few words, of this crisis and this distancing from Jewish identity in Israel?

BG: Well, I think it’s a fairly general trend in Judaism. Even back in Samuel’s time, the people said, ‘Give us a king like all the other nations!’ There’s always been a tendency in the Jewish people to want to be loved by others, to be like others. That kind of provincialism characterizes our society today—the belief that a ‘developed’ society means one like America’s. But in fact, that society has, in many ways, immoral aspects—though it also has many positive things, of course. Still, for us, it presents more negative issues than positive ones.

So this desire to imitate other nations, I believe, comes from ignorance—of not knowing the true values Judaism offers. These are not just moral values but possibilities of renewal and meaning that each generation can and must bring to our message.

That’s what matters. And I feel that we’ll overcome our current failure, which I believe marks the present phase of Israel’s development.

GTV: Final question about your book. You say Judaism must find within itself the resources to respond to the crisis of the West and of humanism. On a concrete level, where should those responses act, and how do you see that?

BG: They must act on the ground—by respecting a norm. And those norms must be imperative. They must not come from individual desire or immediate interests, but rather set a goal and a norm that’s outside the individual. That becomes a call, a kind of strength that doesn’t come from within but from connecting to the other—with a little “o” or a capital “O.” That’s what gives a transcendent emergence to human will.

GTV: And who will succeed in doing that?

BG: I hope we will.

*

Source: 

*

***