tiawd

Duvidf- The Baal Hatanya did not make up the idea of the neshama being a חלק א-לוק ממעל out of nowhere, but he is the only one to use the word ממש in his discussion. The Nefesh Hachaim, for example, uses the word כביכול instead, as you helpfully quoted earlier:
אמנם בחינת הנשמה היא הנשימה עצמה, שפנימיות עצמותה מסתתרת בהעלם, ומקורה ברוך כביכול בתוך נשימת פיו ית”ש, שאין .עצמות מהותה נכנסת כלל בתוך גוף האדם
This suggests that R’ Chaim Volozhiner did not believe the neshama was literally “part of G-d” and only describes it as part of Hashem’s נשימה, just like the Zohar. The question is whether even the Tanya really means that the neshama is a literal part of Hashem.
When I wrote that it is much more dangerous to blur the line between G-d and man than to over-emphasize the gap between us and Hashem, I was referring to mistakes made by those who consider themselves frum Jews, not to non-Jews and idol worshippers. Granted that the idea of חלק א-לוק ממעל inspires many people to seek to emulate Hashem and to do chesed, or to have high “spiritual self-esteem” that encourages them to do mitzvos and dissuades them from doing aveiros, but all those things are also possible without believing in the concept at all. Going to the opposite extreme and believing that we are so far removed from Hashem that we can have no relationship with Him at all is also a serious error, but it doesn’t lead to kefirah. I don’t know if anyone has “gone off the derech” and stopped being mitzvah observant because of getting carried away with the idea of חלק א-לוק ממעל, but plenty of people who observe mitzvos have gone overboard and blurred the line between how we are supposed to treat human beings and how we relate to G-d.
I am going to hope that you don’t mean your last question. If you really do understand the relationship between Hashem and Elokeinu to be equivalent to the relationship between Hashem and the supposed “cheilek” of Him, then my point here is entirely vindicated.

Yechi- I will also resist the urge to argue with you 🙂
There is definitely a lot of ignorance in the Litvish community about Chabad thought, perhaps because Chabad thought is such a huge and self-contained body of thought which is difficult for outsiders to access.
I think that a lot of the discussions between Chabad chasidim and misnagdim consist of the two sides talking past each other because they don’t speak the same language. It seems likely that many Litvaks’ objections to various Chabad teachings are based on a misunderstanding of what the words mean in the world of Chabad thought. I think that Chabad also has a problem explaining its own beliefs to outsiders in a language they can understand. That may be why no one on this thread has managed to answer my original questions without either appealing to the authority of the Ba’al Hatanya or the vague answer that “Hashem is above all these discussions”. I have no doubt that Chabad chasidim understand the concept of חלק א-לוק ממעל on a very deep and meaningful level and that it is a powerful and life-changing idea for them. Still, it seems that they have a difficult time explaining and justifying the concept to outsiders in language that answers their questions.
I hope to learn through the whole sefer Tanya someday.

Reb Eliezer- I believe Chazal said befeirush that the neshama comes from under the kisei hakavod. But that would seem to be very different from saying that it is an actual part of Hashem.

Melbournian- I am not sure what you mean for Hashem to be above “parts” and division. If you mean that He is one unity that cannot be divided into parts, that is what the rishonim said, and that makes it impossible to understand the neshama as being literally “part” of Hashem, despite the word “mamash” in the Tanya. If you mean that it is valid to talk about “parts” of Hashem but that somehow doesn’t detract from His unity, then that needs to be reconciled with these clear statements by rishonim that no one seems to argue with.

Reb Eliezer- Does R’ Menashe ben Yisrael discuss this particular issue? It looks like he is mainly concerned with trying to prove that the neshama is immortal. When he titles the eight perek of the sefer גם ביד הנביאים רשום בכתב אמת שהנשמות הן חלק א-לוק ממעל it seems clear from context that he is using that phrase to mean that the neshama outlives the guf.
Later in the perek he writes:
כאן הפליג להורות ההשארות הנפשיי, כי כן כתיב “כי רוח מלפני יעטוף”, ר”ל הרוח מלפני הוא ואינו מטבע הארץ כמו הגוף, והנשמות אני עשיתי ואינם נמשכים מהאבות לבנים כמו הגוף, כי שלשה שותפים יש בבריאת האדם- האבות נותנים הגופים וחלק א-לוק ממעל הן הנה הנפשות
It seems that he is using the phrase to mean that the neshama comes from Hashem and therefore outlasts the body.

Duvidf- You wrote “I think the Tanya was well aware of ideas we are not allowed to believe and nevertheless wrote what he wrote including the word “Mamash”.” I understood that to mean that you want to understand him literally and are dismissing any proofs that the literal meaning of his words is kefirah off hand, because the Tanya knew those ideas and wrote what he wrote anyway. That is the idea I am taking issue with.
I don’t actually believe the Baal Hatanya was a kofer since I have seen interpretations of his words that don’t understand them literally (such as R’ Jacobson’s explanation previously mentioned).
Nor do I think that your explanation that the entire universe conceals the presence of Hashem but the neshama is less concealed is kefirah.

Reb Eliezer- Exactly. A lot of people get this wrong but if you are trying to be medakdek you should say gavoah and Eloa-h.

Duvidf- The way you are describing the idea of חלק א-לוק ממעל does not sound like kefirah, although it seems that you said two different things:
1) That Hashem concealed Himself in all of creation and concealed Himself less in the neshama
2) That the neshama actually has part of the essence of Hashem in it, like the mashal of a balloon that a person blew into and filled with air
The first concept is not at all objectionable, but the second one still seems problematic.
The concept of חלק א-לוק ממעל is a powerful one whose implications have inspired thousands of Jews. But I still think that the “anatomy” is important because there are certain ideas we are not allowed to believe and the consequences of holding heretical beliefs are so severe. So even if we don’t understand the “anatomy”, the most important thing for us to know is what חלק א-לוק ממעל doesn’t mean. Then we can try to understand what it does mean.

Philosopher- Everything you wrote is true, except for your wording, when you claim that we are a “part of G-d”. There is no such thing as a part of G-d, by definition. This was stated by the Chovos Halevavos, Rambam, Sefer HaIkkarim, and others, and I have a hard time believing that the Baal Hatanya argues with all Rishonim on such basic concepts.

Philosopher- Can you define “emanate”? Saying the neshama, or the entire universe, emanates from G-d is not at all the same thing as saying it is part of Him.
So too, saying that G-d is constantly granting chiyus to every part of the universe is not the same as saying everything in the universe is actually G-d.
Yes, if G-d were to remove His presence from the universe it would cease to exist. That applies to every Jew’s neshama, as well as to everything physical, including idols and garbage. But that doesn’t make any of those things into parts of Hashem.

Duvidf- I have learned the Chovos Halevavos’ Shaar Hayichud. I have a hard time believing that you did. He discusses the concept of Yichud Hashem at length in Perek 8-9. For example, he writes in Perek Tes:
וכאשר חקרנו על ענין האחדות האמתית בברואים לא מצאנוה לאחד מהם קיימת אמתית ואם יאמר [על כל אחד מן הסוגים והמינים והאישים והעצמים והמקרים והגרמים העליונים והגופים הרוחניים וכל מנין ומנוי וכל אשר לו תכלה וגבול] אחד ומיחסים אליו ענין האחדות לא יאמר לו אחד אלא על דרך העברה מפני שהוא כולל דברים שנקראו אחד מדרך הדמותם והתחברותם בענין אחד והוא רב מעצמו מפני שמקבל הרבוי והשנוי והחלוק והמחלוקת והחבור והפרידה והתוספת והחסרון והתנועה והמנוחה והדמיון והצורה ושאר המקרים המיוחדים והכוללים לכל אחד מהברואים והאחדות האמתית איננה נמצאת ולא נאמרת באמת על דבר מן היצירות.
Later in the perek he writes:
ידענו דעת ברורה כי האחדות אשר אמרנו על כל אחד מהברואים על דרך העברה נאצלת מענין האחד האמת והאחדות האמתית היא הנאמרת על בורא הכל יתעלה והוא האחד האמת ואין אחד אמת זולתו כמו שהקדמנו. וכל חקי האחד האמת אשר זכרנו לא יאותו כי אם לו לבדו וכן כל עניני הרבוי והמקרים והשנוים והתנועות והדמיונים וכל מה שלא יאות לאחד האמת רחוקים ממנו יתברך
That means that only Hashem is truly One, or like you wrote, Unique / Unequalled / Unlike any other and above time and space. Nothing else created is truly One, because it can be divided into parts. This is true of the Creator, not of anything created, like the neshama.

“Elokah” is a very common mistake. The ה with a patach under it is pronounced “ah”, not “ha”, the same way that נח is pronounced Noach and not “Nocha”. This is the basic dikduk rule of פתח גנובה.

Duvidf- Are you a Lubavitcher chasid? Have you asked a mashpia if those words in the Tanya are meant literally?
Lit pointed out that R’ Simon Jacobson said in a shiur that those words should not be understood literally.
I also came across an article on the Hidabroot website by a certain R’ Daniel Blass (I have no idea who he is), who tried to prove from Tanya cheilek Dalet perek Zayin that it shouldn’t be understood literally.
I am no expert in Kabbalah, but it seems obvious that non-basic statements in Judaism should be judged based on the basics. The ikkarim of emunah are basics and the Tanya is not basic, even if it is a basic text of Chabad. We still need to judge the Tanya based on Chazal, not vice versa.

I am not coming to bash Chabad in general, although I do think that a Chabadnik who literally believes the neshama is part of G-d is on thin ice. I am more concerned that a literal understanding of the Tanya has trickled down to frum Jews outside of Chabad, which I think is a serious mistake.