Is it true that many respected Chachamim such as Harav Yacov Emden analyzes the Zohar and write about it in his Mitpachat Hasfarim and comes to the conclusion that it is not of Rashbi? And not to mention the opinions of Itzchak De Ako and several others Herliche Rebbeim who were not shlech.

How can we approach the Zohar and consider it kadosh today knowing that many great Chachamim not only had doubts but some very vocal regarding its authorship.

Sincerely would like to know as all my Kabbalistic seforim such as the Tanya and Likutei Mohoran would seem like empty pages of no worth if indeed the Zohar is just a De Leon concoction, not to mention how mentally and spiritually devestating it could be.

Thank You

That the zohar is not written by Rashbi as such does not diminish its authenticity. Modern scholarship considers the Zohar a continuation of mystical themes found in the Talmud. These mystical thoughts were out of the mainstream for a long time which allowed some extraneous material to get in. However for the most part it does represent authentic Jewish thought and some sections may well date to the time of Tanaiim. The author of the Zohar lived in the time of the Rishonim. One of the differences between the Rishonim and those authorities after the 15th century (the achronim), is they still had access to many oral traditions and manuscripts which we no longer have.
To look at it another way, it was necessary to write down the halachic part of the oral law. It was a matter of debate whether to write down the midrash. Mystical themes were not even taught orally. The student just presented his ideas before the Teacher who then told him if he was correct. These traditions therefore were not written down after the time of the Talmud.

Aryeh Shore

This is the first time I have responded to any of the questions or comments posted on this site.

I beleive there are two approaches to continue to accept the teachings of the Zohar even if there are Rabbis who indicate it was not written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.

1. There has never (to my knowledge) been a Practising M'Kubal who indicates that Rabbi Shimon is not the author.

2. It is quite possible that both Rabbi Moses De Leon and Rabbi Shimon have the same Shoresh for their soul and therefore ultimately there is no difference between them as they came into the physical world for the same Tikune.

chanoch

Chanoch,

Who is "Rabbi Moses De Leon" and what was the Tikune for him and Rabbi Shimon?

Dear Sam,

Rabbi Moses De Leon is attributed to having written the Zohar by the Academic Kabbalists like Gershon Sholem.

The Tikune is the drawing of the light of the Zohar. One in potential and one in manifestation to reveal the Light of the Zohar 1000 years after it was revealed by Rabbi Shimon, as written in the Zohar that the "Zohar" would be concealed for 1000 years.

Kol Tuuv
chanoch

R. Moshe de leon was the first to publish the zohar. No one ever heard of it before then. His wife was interviewed in his life time and said he had no manuscripts or any other source to write it. Like every new manuscript is was fiercely opposed in its time. No serious Jewish scholar like R. Emden and R. Solovechik accepted that R. Shimon Bar Yochai was the author.
Now either you are historical or ahistorical. If you believe that ideas develop and have history, you are historical. Many religious groups in Judaism today are ahistorical, e.g. living in Babylonia had no affect on the development of Jewish thought and customs.

Gershom Sholem was the first academic to try a critical analysis of the Zohar. Like many first tries, many of his theories are not accepted today. Actually he was apparently quite stubborn and wouldn't back off even when his students showed him he was wrong on one point or another.


Aryeh Shore

Chanoch, thank you.

Laurence, then who wrote the Zohar? And how come there are opinions that RASHBI did write it?

Dear Aryeh,

I write this with all respect.

There is also an opinion that Histroy is just one of the veils that HaShem uses to conceal our perception of the constant interaction, by HaShem, with in the physical world.

For me, it is possible to see history from the frame of reference of man perceiving his past and also to perceive history as one of HaShem's veils. Does that make me ahistorical? or just confused? or can one be in the physical and spiritual world perspective at the same time?

Sam, The Academic Kabbalist tell us that Moses DeLeon wrote it himself as one answer to who did write the Zohar -- if Rashbi did not.

All practising MeKubalim tell us Rashbi wrote the Zohar

In any event, for myself, I am not aware of any "hard" fact written in the Zohar that is in conflict with any modern historical or scientific "fact". This includes the statement that the Ottoman Empire would rule Jerusalem for 400 years and the middle of the spectrum of the sun is green.

I believe historians mark the beginning of the Moslem Empire ruling Jerusalem as 1517 and the end 1917. A 400 year period!

It was only during the 1970 that the spectrum of light from the sun was re-examined because of improvements in the scientific technology and it was ascertained that the middle of the spectrum falls in the green range.

Remember, both of these statments that appear in the Zohar were written when they were written and published in 1170 CE --- much before either occurance in time.

Shabbat Shalom
chanoch

By historical we mean that some document should have mentioned Rashbi before Mose de Leon. The early mystical texts, the Bahir, the sefer yetzira and the Hachalot literature mention tanaim but not Rashbi.
The early kabbalistic texts were written by people who visit heaven personally. Since this met with fierce oppostion, suddenly Rashbi appears. Assigning a book to a well known personality happens often in Jewish history and in no way diminishes the authenticity of the book.
Moshe de Leon wrote down the prevalling information from the Kabbalistic circles in Spain.
As for the Zohar itself, I will quote Moshe de Modena, a contemporary of the Ramchal. The book is a mixture of magic and neoplatonistic thought which we have already rejected.

This is of no concern to the Kabbalists who are on a different plane. They see history as a continuum from Moshe Rabeinu. They would have no problem seeing someone as the reincarnation of Rashbi or getting direct information from his neshama.

The future historical scheme in the kabballah was adapted by the Arbarbanel so it is acceptable. After the Arbarbanel, Judiasm was dominated by the Kabballah. Only after the major loss of Jews in the 18th century did the Rationalists raise their voices again.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
That the zohar is not written by Rashbi as such does not diminish its authenticity.

So the authorship is discarded, but not the authenticity of the Zohar! How so?

quote:

Modern scholarship considers the Zohar a continuation of mystical themes found in the Talmud. These mystical thoughts were out of the mainstream for a long time which allowed some extraneous material to get in.

What "mystical themes" found in the Talmud resemble in any way the themes of the Zohar such as tsimtsum, zeir anpim, sefirot, duchra & nukva aspects of the deity, and the fact the Zohar forbids to pray to God because "he is too far away" and to address only his ... son (!), etc...?

quote:

However for the most part it does represent authentic Jewish thought and some sections may well date to the time of Tanaiim.

How does "most part of the Zohar represent authentic Jewish thought"?
And how does any section date to the time of the Tanaiim when the Aramaic of the Zohar does not resemble any ancient Aramaic, including that of the Sefer Hayetzira which IS a Midrash Tanayim (source: Rav Saadya Gaon's Perush on Sefer Hayatezira translated and published by Rabbi Yossef Kappach)?

quote:

One of the differences between the Rishonim and those authorities after the 15th century (the achronim), is they still had access to many oral traditions and manuscripts which we no longer have.

Where do you have a testimony that they had oral "traditions" and "manuscripts" which we no longer have? The Torah and Talmud record ALL the books that were known and have been lost. It says nowhere about a book written by SBI or a book called the Zohar.

quote:

Mystical themes were not even taught orally. The student just presented his ideas before the Teacher who then told him if he was correct. These traditions therefore were not written down after the time of the Talmud.
Aryeh Shore

What is the source of your opinion? And what "traditions" that were not written down are you refering to?

You seem to be speaking out of knowledge, so hope you will sustain your arguments and make your points clear me.

quote:

Originally posted by ilanavraham:
Is it true that many respected Chachamim such as Harav Yacov Emden analyzes the Zohar and write about it in his Mitpachat Hasfarim and comes to the conclusion that it is not of Rashbi?
How can we approach the Zohar and consider it kadosh today knowing that many great Chachamim not only had doubts but some very vocal regarding its authorship.

Thank You

It should be pointed out that R' Yaakov Emden quotes the Zohar is his siddur, it seems that he did consider it "kadosh"

That there were mystical traditions such as the Maaseh Bereshit and Masseh Hamerkavah which were lost to us is apparant from Hagigah 14. The permission to write down the oral law dealing with halacha was not all inclusive. There was considerable debate in the Yerushalmi whether it was permitted to write down Aggaddah let alone mysticism.

Modern scholarship of the Zohar is just that: Modern. No one tried to trace the origin of the ideas of the Zohar until the mid 20th century. (Earlier scholars just dismissed it as neoplatonistic gobblydook.) Gershom Shalom came to the conclusion that it was based primarily on non-Jewish sources. Moshe Gafny has written a number of books showing that this is not correct and the that the ideas can be traced to Jewish sources. You will have to read his books for his documentation. I have only read some of his articles.
Besides the Sefer Yetzira we do have a number of books from the 4th to 6th century called the chachalot literature, the most familiar being Sefer HaBahir which is what reach the Ravid and his followers. One can see the development of the Sefer HaBahir in the Zohar. Some feel the Zohar radically changed the intent of the book.
For information on this period of mystical development see Meir Bar Ilan's site. (This is considered to be the best source for this material. Some of the 100 or so articles are translated to English.)

As what mystical tradition were extant at the time of Tanaaim we have the apolyptical books, especially Yonatan, Josephus, and the Dead Sea scrolls. One needs to explore the gnostic literature and the mythridian mysteries as well. To this we can add Plato and Aristotle which our medieval forefathers were convinced converted in their lifetime and their philosophy is really that of Moshe's. (The Zohar quotes the Sefer Adam and the Alphabeta of Ben Sirah directly both of which are available.)
The concepts you mention in from the Zohar are developments of neoplatanism. How exactly they developed is a matter of future academic research. We still do not have a critical edition of the Zohar. It is a huge document and, as I said, research on it has only just started. The debate on whether to allow its mystical concepts, or more strongly its magical concepts, into Judiasm has been fiercely attacked and defended by various Talmedei Chachamim throughout the ages. (In the case of the Rosh, his two sons took completely different approaches.)
Judiasm is what the Jews do. If for the past three centuries, the Jews have accepted parts of the Zohar (not without a lot of resistance), then it is Jewish. I mean the Askenazim actually put a section of the Zohar (including the son of god) in their public prayers (Brich Shme). Personally I prefer to have lived in the 14th century which was the last time the Jews ran their religion a rational basis.
Bottom line: What I meant that the Zohar is authentic is today we believe it represents Jewish sources and is not based on christian mysticism.

Aryeh

Rabbi Globus posted this on the forum titled "mekubalim" and it is worth qouting it again here.

quote:

The Zohar forms the basis for some of the halachot in the Shulchan Aruch, thus cannot be refuted by anyone of the Jewish faith.
The Mishnah Berurah, and other poskim such as Magen Avraham, cite the Arizal--leading Kabbalist--and give halachic weight to his views.
Also the Gra held the Arizal in great respect, as is known, and only differed with him on a limited number of points. Furthermore, the Gra himself wrote a commentary on a central section of the Zohar called Sifra d'Tzniusa.

The area where we must question validity is that of the many hocus-pocus kabbalists of modern-day, who peddle false mystical skills.

I'd like to add that the Beis Yosef, which is the basis of Shulchan Aruch, quotes the Zohar 40 separate times.

After the expulsion from Spain, Judiasm entered a period of mystical influences. The last great rationalist, the Arbabanel even accepted some of its paragrams. The Kabbalists R. Yosef Karo, the GRA, the Ari and finally Chasidut became dominant. The Rabbis who had foughtit for hundred of years virtually disappeared. Even the debacle of Shavtai Tzi only dented its influence. With the mass conversion and assimilation of the Jewish community in Europe, the Rationalists once again an appreciable following.
Bottom line: From the time of the Shulchan Aruch to R. Hirsh, the Kabballah was dominant and prominent figures from that time would not attack its basis. (One famously was afraid to write his opinions and published his criticism posthumously.) However there are a lot of good religious jews out there who prefer not to live in a world dominated by demons, magical spells and wonder working Rabbis.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:
I mean the Askenazim actually put a section of the Zohar (including the son of god) in their public prayers (Brich Shme). Personally I prefer to have lived in the 14th century which was the last time the Jews ran their religion a rational basis.

Aryeh

If you object to the term "son of g-d" you will also have to edit your Tanach. The term is mentioned in Bereshis 6:2 and 4 other places. In Brich Shmei we say that we do not rely on "sons of g-d", probably referring to angels as it means where the Hebrew term is used in Tanach.

quote:

However there are a lot of out there who prefer not to live in a world dominated by demons, magical spells and wonder working Rabbis.

If you want to avoid demons you will have to significantly edit your Talmud. The Bavli discusses them at length in the first perek of Berachos and in the 10th perek of Pesachim among many other places.
Magic is explicitly mentioned in chumash both regarding Pharaoh's magicians and in the Torah's prohibition on magic. The Gemora in Sanhedrin is explicit that we are not discussing modern slight-of-hand tricks, but rather the real thing.
"Wonder working rabbi's is also a Jewish concept if you accept Moshe Rabbeinu and many other stories in Tanach. Also the gemora relates many stories such as Rabbi Meir Baal HaNes.

quote:

Personally I prefer to have lived in the 14th century which was the last time the Jews ran their religion a rational basis...After the expulsion from Spain, Judaism entered a period of mystical influences. The Kabbalists R. Yosef Karo...

I'm sorry to be blunt, but anyone who considers the author of the Shulchan Aruch to be irrational does not qualify as "a good religious Jew".

How to interpret the aggadit material in the Talmud is an extensive topic. Lets just say that they should not be taken at a literal level, e.g. the story of Choni Hamagal is a debate on whether leaving the bet midrash and working (sleep) brings the salvation. As the Rambam says if people want to take the aggadit material at face value, don't bother to disillusion them.
As for the stories in the talmud dealing with Yosef Hashad and various mizikim, my Rav use to say, well up to the time of the Rambam there were demons, after that time there were none.
By rationalist I mean Aristelean as expounded by the Rambam. R. Yosef Karo was a mekubal and therefore a neoplatonist. He spoke with an angel, which may be true, but this is not rational. No value judgement. That great scholars could compartmentalize their halachic writings from their philosophy is well documented, e.g one would not know that the Ravid was a Mekubal unless his son told us. Where he objects to the Rambam's principle that Hashem is has no physical form, he brings that there are some other people who disagree.
We have no dogma and we do not write people out of the Jewish nation because of their ideas other than the few principles like brought in perek chalek like you must accept the ressurection. If everyone put everyone in cherem they disagreed with, we would have had a very short history after Churban Bait.


Aryeh Shore

B"H

I saw this reply on a different forum, and wished to bring it here for our readers:

כך כותב הרה"ג יוסף צוברי זצ"ל על חדירת מנהגי המקובלים לתימן בספרו "ויצבור יוסף בר" (ח"ג עמ' רסז-רסח): החל משנת התנ"ח [1698] לפ"ג ליצירה בערך, שכן צצה וצמחה בעיר תימן צנעא אז קבוצה, שבראשה עמדו מחולליה מקצה, אלה היו מקצת רבנים שהתנהגו בקצת מנהגים בדרכי הקבלה לפי מושגיהם וכפי הבנתם, וגם לא שוו בשיעוריהם... רוב בני חבורה זו התנהגו בכמה מנהגי חסידות יפה בצנע לכת כיחידי סגולה לעצמם, אך אלה מעטים מהם שרצו להנהיג גם את הציבור כמו שהם נוהגים, הם שגרמו למחלוקת, אלה הם שעליהם קובל רבי' מהר"י משרקי זצ"ל בספר "רביד הזהב" ["סי' מג עמ' פח שכתב "עדיין לא נטהרנו מהמחלוקת הקדומה שגרמו המקובלים הראשונים אשר היו בארצנו בענייני התפלה. ורבתה השנאה ונתפרדו הלבבות והיתה מחלוקת עצומה עד שהיינו כשני גויים ונמשך מזה חרבן בתי-כנסיות פעם ושנים, וכמה קלקולים ממשמשים והולכים עד היום רח"ל"] באמרו שהם גרמו למחלוקת עצומה ופירוד לבבות

ראה גם תשובת הרה"ג יחיא בן דוד מזרחי בשו"ת רביד הזהב (תשובה טל) שאסף הרבה פוסקים שסוברים שכל מקום שדברי הזוהר והמקובלים חולקים על התלמוד והפוסקים – הלכה כדברי התלמוד והפוסקים


David

quote:

R. Yosef Karo was a mekubal and therefore a neoplatonist. He spoke with an angel, which may be true, but this is not rational.

Why is this irrational. If we accept that the Bais Yosef would not lie (do you believe that or not?) then if he said he talked with an angel, then the only logical conclusion is that he did. That is quite logical and rational and cannot be refuted.

Just because you personally didn't talk to an angel doesn't make a rational argument that it doesn't exist, just like someone who came from the jungles of Africa couldn't make a logical and rational decision that electricity doesn't exist since he never experiance it. (he probably thinks it's all witchcraft also.)

quote:

Judiasm is what the Jews do.

a non-negligeable number of them eat chametz on Pessach and a majority travel on Shabbat. They are still Jewish, but what they do is not Judaism!

quote:

If for the past three centuries, the Jews have accepted parts of the Zohar (not without a lot of resistance), then it is Jewish.

In other words, by swalling and digesting chametz during Pessach, they have made it Jewish.

quote:

I mean the Askenazim actually put a section of the Zohar (including the son of god) in their public prayers (Brich Shme)

.
In spite of the fact that it is forbidden to change the way Chazal formulated the blessings, because this is the proper way to address our God!

quote:

Personally I prefer to have lived in the 14th century which was the last time the Jews ran their religion a rational basis.

Be sure, it is possible to run our religious affairs on a rational basis today too! And, for having tried it, I can tell you how productive it is to be able to ponder the mysteries and greatness of Hashem with a clear mind - cleared of all the irrational complications which clutter it and prevent this meditation!

quote:

Bottom line: What I meant that the Zohar is authentic is today we believe it represents Jewish sources and is not based on christian mysticism.

If I understand you, you are saying it is authentic because we beleive it is, and if we beleive it is it STOPPED being christian mysticism. It has become Jewish mysticism. This is like saying that once we eat chametz on Pessach, it stops being chametz! What causes you to lose your rationality? Just because we live in the 21st Century (and there are too many crazies disturbing the air we breathe)?

Again by rational I mean Aristelean rational as defined by the Rambam. If you can not prove it or see it, it is not rational. It is opposed to the concept of mystical. This does not imply that mysticism is not an integral part of Judiasm and I can't imagine a religious jew who does not have some mystical connections, for example, I would say most people have some feeling of elevation during singing the zimirot during Suedat Shleshit. It has been observed that the philosophy of the Rambam is also not devoid of mysticism. Just that many great Rabbis over the centuries do not like the dominance of mysticism in neoplatonism. (and in the absence of someone demonstrating they can talk to angels today, I have no idea to what R. Yosef Karo was talking to. In light of modern psychology, I can come up with a few hypotheses.) Again the average Jew couldn't care less. He just does the Mitzvot in the way that fits his personality.
That Judiasm is what the Jews do is in the Talmud. It is a concept called "go outside of the Bet Medresh and see what the people actually do." What I am referring as to why certain minhagim are accepted or not accepted by various communities. In our time, we managed to reach a consensus (every posek follows the principle) that the Shulchan Aruch is the first place for determining the law. We have no consensus on anything after that time, especially after the rise of Chasidut which a large part of Jewish people and was the result of a large number of Jews changing their minhag.
Obviously, when we say that Judiasm is what the Jews do we are not including those who do not consider themselves part of halachic Judiasm, although they may consider themselves Jews.
As for the example given, our definition of Chametz today is far away from that in the Talmud. As for Matzeh, we know for certain that the cardboard Askenazic Jews eat today is nothing like the Matzeh of the Talmud or the Shulchan Aruch.


Ayreh Shore