Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

Seder tefilot
47b, according to which the multitude of contractions results in a multitude of 
generations in time and space, which in turn constitute the nation for God the king to reign over. The 
multitude of contractions increases God’s glory, as: “In the multitude of people is the king’s honour” 
[Prv 14:28]. 
15
See Hallamish, “Mishnato ha-‘iyunit,” 105–109, where Rashaz’s and Luria’s models of creation are 
compared. See also Schatz Uffenheimer, 
Hasidism as Mysticism
, 270–71. 

---

68 
own.
16
Yet for Rashaz, the breaking of the vessels stands primarily for the transition 
point between the divine unity and worldly multiplicity: 
The Emanator, blessed be He, in His essence is alone and unique [
yahid u-
meyuhad
], in a state of ultimate unity, as is known. It is for this reason that 
the coming into being of the created entities must have taken place by means 
of the breaking of the vessels. For [the created entities] are marked by great 
multiplicity and separation, and they fall into the category of being that exists 
in its own right [
yesh ve-davar bifnei ‘atsmo
], which entirely contradicts the 
truth of His unity, blessed be He, whereby there is nothing but Him. Thus the 
multiplicity of the created entities must have come about because the vessels 
had split into a multiplicity of small parts, and by dint of this splitting, every 
created entity became a thing in its own right.
17
For Rashaz, the Lurianic concept of the breaking of the vessels preconditions the 
creation of non-divine beings whose existence contradicts the unity and uniqueness 
of God. The numerous vessel shards in the divine world above correspond to the 
numerous individual entities in the created worlds below. The use of purely 
theoretical, philosophical notions in this passage is striking, as they stand in contrast 
to the original dynamic, mythical concept of the imperfect vessels shattered by the 
overflowing unlimited divine light.
18
By setting the breaking of the vessels within 
the dynamics of unity-multiplicity, Rashaz effectively demythologizes the Lurianic 
concept and strips it off its negative connotations. Rather than being the dramatic and 
unforeseen result of a flaw in the divine plan of creation, the breaking of the vessels 
constitutes an integral and deliberate stage of this plan, necessary for the coming into 
16
See Fine, 
Physician
, 134–38; Scholem, 
Kabbalah
, 138-9; 
Major Trends
, 266–68. 
17
TO 27c [Appendix 2]. See also Wolfson, 
Open Secret
, 335 n. 95, where he describes the breaking 
of the vessels in Rashaz's teachings as “The metaphoric trope to mark the transition from the aspect of 
boundlessness [
bilti ba’al gevul
] to the aspect of boundary [
gevul
],” and points to the elucidation of 
this approach in the book of Rashaz's student, Aharon of Starosielce, 
Sha’arei ha-yihud veha-emunah
, 
iii, 20b-21a. On the breaking of the vessel in Rashaz’s teachings, see Hallamish, “Mishnato ha-
‘iyunit,” 105-11. 
18
The tendency to reinterpret the breaking of the vessels in non-catastrophic terms is already present 
in some of the texts emanating from the Lurianic school. See Scholem, 
Major Trends
, 268; idem, 
Kabbalah
, 139-40. 

---

69 
being of separate entities, which in turn are God’s way of expressing His own 
fullness. Thus even though the spatio-temporal reality does contradict the divine 
unity, it is neither evil or erroneous, nor destined ultimately to be cast away; rather it 
will be rediscovered as being a part of God’s domain.
It was God’s will to create a world that is ostensibly separated from His 
unity, in order to claim His power over it. In the passage from which the above 
excerpt was quoted, Rashaz refers to this dynamic relationship between God and 
world by the name of God’s kingship over the world, exercised through the lower 
sefirah 
of 
Malkhut
. Elsewhere, however, he is much more explicit in using 
redemptive and messianic terms in relation to the purpose of creation. Thus he 
defines God’s kingship as His “dwelling place in the lower worlds”: 
The reason and sense of the contraction mentioned above is that it occurs 
because it was the will of the Emanator to derive delight [
ta’anug
] from the 
experience of kingship over separate entities [
nifradim
], so as to have a 
dwelling place in the lower worlds [
dirah ba-tahtonim
]. It is because of the 
delight He derives from it in His essence that He undergoes the contraction, 
[namely,] He contracts Himself in order to be king over a nation, as 
mentioned above.
19
The idea of God’s dwelling place in the lower world appears first in
Midrash 
Tanhuma
,
20
where, following the creation of the universe, God desires to establish 
for Himself a dwelling place in the lower worlds. For this reason He creates man and 
commands him to cultivate the Garden of Eden. In Rashaz’s teachings, however, 
God's dwelling place has radically changed its meaning. Although it remains closely 
connected to the task that God had assigned to man (for Rashaz, this becomes the 
task of delighting God), nevertheless it differs from the original midrashicic concept 
in two important respects. Firstly, in Rashaz’s text God’s desire to enjoy his dwelling 
place in the lower worlds clearly precedes and serves as the reason for the creation in 
general, not only for the creation of man. In fact, it was this desire, arising from 
God’s wish to fully express His own unity by ruling over the separate entities whose 
19
Seder tefilot
, 237a [Appendix 3].
20
Midrash Tanhuma
, Naso, 16. 

---

70 
existence would seem to contradict it, that necessitated the contraction of His 
fullness and the creation of separate entities. Secondly, while the Midrash locates 
God's desired dwelling place in the past – first in the Garden of Eden and later on 
Mount Sinai at the giving of the Torah, Rashaz defines it in eschatological terms as 
the ultimate goal of the creative process.
21
An explicit expression of Rashaz's concept of history as the teleological 
process spanned between the creation and the redemption appears in the book of 
Tanya
, in the chapter explaining the meaning of the notion of God’s dwelling place 
in the lower worlds. Rashaz states that the physical world will be transformed into 
God's dwelling place in the messianic future: 
It is well known that the messianic era, and especially the time of the 
resurrection of the dead, is the fulfilment and culmination [
takhlit u-
shelemut
] of the creation of the world, for which purpose it was originally 
created.
22 
God’s dwelling place in the lower worlds is therefore the purpose and fulfilment of a 
process that began with the creation. Even though Rashaz admits in the same chapter 
that God revealed Himself to the Israelites already on Mount Sinai, their experience 
at that time was only “something” of the future revelation, when God will establish 
His dwelling place in the lower worlds.
23
This would take place in the future-to-
come, described somewhat imprecisely as the days of the Messiah and the 
21
See, for example, 
Seder tefilot
, 109b-d, where Rashaz states explicitly that God’s dwelling place in 
the lower worlds is the reason for the contraction [
tsimstum
], as according to the maxim that “last in 
production, first in thought” [
sof ma’aseh be-mahashavah tehilah
], the actual redemption in the end 
of days was part of the initial divine plan of creation (on the source of the maxim, see Wolfson, 
Language, Eros, Being
, 506 n. 207). To this interpretation of this maxim Rashaz adds yet another 
interpretative layer: the establishment of God’s dwelling place depends specifically on the deeds of 
Jews, as the Jews also “originated in the beginning of thought” [
‘alu be-mahashavah tehilah
], and 
“the last in production, that is, the dwelling place in the lower worlds, is achieved through purification 
by means of the fulfilment of the Torah and its commandments [
sof
ma’aseh lihyot dirah ba-tahtonim 
‘al yedei ha-berurim be-kiyum ha-Torah veha-mitsvot
].
22
T1, 36:46a [Appendix 4]. 
23
See ibid. 

---

71 
resurrection of the dead.
24
The messianic days and the resurrection are not just an 
outcome of the internal dynamics of Jewish history; rather they are the ultimate goal 
of cosmic history, for which the universe was created in the first instance.