By Rabbi Dovid Markel
In discussing the the “tzimtzum” that was necessary in creating the world, the Arizal uses the term “when it arose in his simple will (רצונו הפשוט).[1]” Reb Ahron of Strashela focuses on the logical incongruity of this statement – and explains its intention[2].
Understanding it adds appreciation in the difference between chassidic philosophy, and Aristotle, Plotinus, Stoics, Spinoza et al. In all there philosophies the world is a natural extension of G-d and is necessary as opposed to voluntary.
However, an essential point of faith in chassidic thought ( based partly on the Guide to the Perplexed 2:12-17) is that the world was created ex nihilo by G-d’s will , and G-d – being perfect – is not forced to do anything.
That being the case, G-d must have willed the creation of the world. This leads though to an even greater problem though. For, if G-d is perfect, then he must be must not be subject to change!
Reb Ahron enumerates various problems with will in G-d:
1) All will is indicative of change from before He willed to after.
2) All will is to something outside of one’s self – as there is nothing outside of G-d, how can he desire?
3) All will has something that forces the will – for example hunger forces a desire for food – It is impossible that there was a cause that caused G-d to will.
4) Desire is indicative that there was something lacking – and is expressive of “parts” as G-d is perfect and “akhdut peshuta” a simple unity, it is impossible for him to want.
It is this point that the Arizal wishes to express – according to Reb Ahron – in his use of the language, “simplistic desire,” (רצון הפשוט). It brings out that essentially the concept of “will” is merely allegorical to negate that it was forced – for this too is impossible.
However, what exactly was His “will” and how is impossible for a mortal to understand, for as the verse (Isaiah 55:8) states: “”For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways.”
This though – although clearly not understood – presents an axiomatic difference between various modes of philosophy and the Chabad chassidic concept of G-d.
[1] Etz Chaim, 1:2
[2] Sharei HaYichud VeHaEmuna, 1:4
