Sources: all collections; answered in English in the Scholarly style.

What the Sources Here Actually Cover

The provided sources do not contain any direct statement from the Vilna Gaon (GRA) asserting that Tzimtzum is כפשוטו (literal), nor any direct statement from the Ba'al HaTanya (R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi) asserting that Tzimtzum is לאו כפשוטו (non-literal). The sources cannot confirm or deny those specific attributions.

What the Sources Do Show

Tzimtzum as described in the Kabbalistic literature present here

- [Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section I, .1:1] states the basic concept: "Before the contraction, there was the Infinite, filling all of existence" — the Tzimtzum is a contraction of the Infinite Light to make room for worlds.

- [Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section I, .1:4–5] describes the post-Tzimtzum space as literally "an empty space, air, and a vacant void" — language that sounds literal (כפשוטו), yet [Kalach Pitchei Chokhmah 25:2] clarifies that what became "visible" after Tzimtzum is "emanated light, for it seems like a light that was newly generated" — implying the change is perspectival, not absolute.

The Tanya's implicit לאו כפשוטו position

- [Tanya, Part I, Likkutei Amarim, 38:12] discusses Tzimtzum in the context of vessels (כֵּלִים) formed by contraction of light: "שֶׁﬠַל יְדֵי צִמְצוּם הָאוֹר נִתְהַוּוּ הַכֵּלִים" — "through the contraction of the light the vessels came into being." This treats Tzimtzum functionally/structurally, consistent with a non-literal reading, but the text here does not explicitly state לאו כפשוטו.

- [Likkutei Torah, Ki Teitzei 6:5] states: "להיות ההתפשטות א״א בלי צמצום" — "spreading forth is impossible without Tzimtzum" — and notes that even now "כולא קמיה כלא חשיבי," all is as nothing before Him. This implies Tzimtzum does not represent a real withdrawal of the Divine presence, consistent with לאו כפשוטו, but again without using that phrase explicitly.

On the Question of Origins

The sources here do not address who originated either position. The GRA's view is not represented in any of the provided texts. The earlier Lurianic source [Sefer Etz Chaim 1:2:3] describes the Tzimtzum mechanically ("spark of contraction," "thread of contraction") without adjudicating literal vs. non-literal. The debate between כפשוטו and לאו כפשוטו as a defined controversy — and its historical origins — cannot be confirmed or traced from the sources provided.

References

1. Al Kapot HaMan'ul; Homilies for the Days of Awe, Rejuvenation.77
2. Kalach Pitchei Chokhmah.25:2
3. Kalach Pitchei Chokhmah.25:14
4. The Gate of Unity, .13:20
5. The Gate of Unity, .12:13
6. The Gate of Unity, .11:43
7. The Gate of Unity, .29:51
8. Tanya, Part I; Likkutei Amarim, .38:12
9. Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section X, List of Answers on Topics.133:1
10. Torah Ohr, Yitro.5:7
11. Torah Ohr, Miketz.7:8
12. Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section VI, .13
13. Likkutei Torah, Ki Teitzei.6:5
14. Likkutei Torah, Beshalach.1:7
15. Sefer Etz Chaim, .1:2:3
16. Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section I, .1:5
17. Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section I, .1:4
18. Talmud Eser HaSefirot, Section I, .1:1
19. Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part II.13:2
20. Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part II.10:2
21. Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part II.10:5
22. Chagigah.6b:5
23. Kitzur Ba'al HaTurim on Genesis.4:14:1