Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

C
HAPTER 
1 
1. Time of creation and creation of time.
 
1.1 Time as a created entity.
Rashaz expressed his reservations about philosophy on numerous occasions,
1
and yet 
the philosophical discourse has left a clear mark on his teaching. The conceptual 
framework of his temporal discourse was informed first and foremost by the 
Aristotelian concept of time as a “number” or a “measure of movement,”
2
which was 
embraced by the medieval Jewish philosophers.
3
This Aristotelian underpinning is 
particularly conspicuous in the teachings in which Rashaz describes time as “an 
aspect of number and division [
behinat mispar ve-hithalkut
],”
4
a definition of time as 
an aspect of multiplicity which in turn establishes the opposition between 
temporality and God who, “blessed be He, is above time […], for He is the simple 
one [
ehad pashut
] with no division at all, heaven forefend, but rather everything is 
united [in Him].”
5
In Rashaz’s teachings the polarity of God and time follows the dichotomy 
between the simple and the compound, as well as the philosophical assumption that 
the infinite and immeasurable is superior to the finite and measurable: 
The [Hebrew] word 
‘erekh
means “relation” in terms of numerical values, 
where the number one has a certain relation to the number one million, for it 
is one-millionth of it. But as regards that which transcends finitude and 
numeration [
beli gevul u-mispar kelal
], no number can have any relation to it. 
Even the numbers one billion or one trillion do not [relate to infinity in the 
1
See for example T1, 8:13b; HTT, 3:7, 848a. See also 
Seder tefilot
, 133a, where Rashaz values the 
insight of Jewish women and youths into the unity of God more than that of the gentile philosophers. 
For a discussion of the status of philosophy in Rashaz’s teachings, see Stamler, “Sekhel,” 107-191. 
2
Aristotle, 
Physics, 
4, 11, 219b2, 4, 12, 221b8; see also Rudavsky, 
Time Matters
, 14. 
3
Rudavsky, 
Time Matters
, 46-7. 
4
LT 
Ba-midbar
7d. 
5
MAHZ
 ‘Inyanim
, 49 [Appendix 1]. 

---

27 
way in which] the number one relates to the numbers one billion or one 
trillion; rather they truly count as nothing.
6
The above passage from 
Tanya
demonstrates the ontological gap between the infinite 
divine light [
Or Ein Sof
] and the contracted illumination that brings about the lower 
worlds. This gap results from a qualitative rather than a quantitative difference: the 
finite cannot be compared to the infinite, and regardless of its measurements, it is 
always considered “as nothing” when seen from the perspective of infinity. Even 
though in the passage above Rashaz does not speak explicitly of time, time is 
implicit in it, as in other places Rashaz does define time as an aspect of number. In 
fact, for Rashaz, as for some Jewish philosophers
7
and kabbalists
8
before him, time 
is finite and therefore belongs to the realm of creation, while God, precedes the 
creation, but only in the ontological rather than the temporal sense.
9
By defining God as infinity [
Ein Sof
]
10
Rashaz emphasizes the divine 
separateness from the created temporal reality: 
6
T1, 48:67b [Appendix 2]. Referring to this passage from 
Tanya
, Rashaz’s grandson, the third Habad 
leader, Menahem Mendel Schneersohn, the “Tsemah Tsedek” (