JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Sefardic Panther on December 01, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
-
I recently had the honor of meeting a Kabbalist gadol from Tzfat. He of course knows that Rashbi wrote the Zohar 2000 years ago. He told me that –
Moshe De Leon’s wife had already sold the original manuscript of the Zohar when the rich man came looking to buy it. She was so ashamed that she said her husband was the real author (the rich man was in fact Hakam Yitzhak of Akko, the biggest proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity)
There are some Spanish words in the Zohar because the Zohar was finally redacted in the Amoraim times when Spain and Spanish was known.
The reference to the crusades was prophecy.
-
I recently had the honor of meeting a Kabbalist gadol from Tzfat. He of course knows that Rashbi wrote the Zohar 2000 years ago. He told me that –
Moshe De Leon’s wife had already sold the original manuscript of the Zohar when the rich man came looking to buy it. She was so ashamed that she said her husband was the real author (the rich man was in fact Hakam Yitzhak of Akko, the biggest proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity)
he may be sure himself, but wrong!
Just because somebody is an expert mystic and saintly person and expert in halacha, doesn't mean that their logic is completely reliable.
He has probably surrounded since his youth, by a community, with gedolim, that agree with this idea anyway.
It's interesting that he believes that de leon's wife said it was written by her husband. I wander if he has any evidence that she did say that and it's not just a rumour? No doubt many kabbalists would say it was just a vicious rumour propagated by opponents of the zohar.
I would bet that he would be happy to believe that it's a rumour, but incase itis true, he has that extra bit to the story to tag on. It's chinese whispers, and anywhere along the line there are big motives for people to juice up the story, or for somebody to have made it up from the start. It's not like the Tenach that was written and accepted by the jewish nation at that time, recording miraculous events that happened to them.
Rav Kudari was supposed to have met moshiach, this was a story that circulated in Rav Kudari's time. I'm sure he was asked about it.
He said moshiach is going around with a star of david that he does magic with, and he met him. And he will come(reveal himself?) after the sharon govt. And Sharon will be the last PM.
Here is an article with some of that
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/89850
in 2005
The magen dovid is a mystical view of moshiach, it clearly got less and less believable as time went on, then Rav Kudari died, and we have Olmert.
Here's another gadol who no doubt people trusted and still trust..
http://lazerbrody.typepad.com/lazer_beams/2005/06/gerrer_rebbe_sh.html
Gerrer Rebbe Shlit"a: "Moshiach this year, or by the end of next year."
that was in 2005
So there are many examples of Gedolim being wrong.
A classic was the rabbis - many gedolim no doubt - that said stay in poland it'll be ok.
I hear stories of rabbis predicting things , like the vilna gaon the zohar and the towers. The Chafetz chaim and the holocaust. The L rebbe and the gulf war. And many more that are stories or rumours told.
History teaches us to be skeptical over messianic claims...
and in recent times we see good reason to be skeptical over mystical claims. Some that just didn't happen (the erevmoshiach site, had lots of kabbalists analysing prophesies of children. The site was taken down! reason they gave was that kabbalists ordered that it be taken down since it revealed too much).
There are some Spanish words in the Zohar because the Zohar was finally redacted in the Amoraim times when Spain and Spanish was known.
The reference to the crusades was prophecy.
the burden of proof should really be in showing that the Zohar is legit..
But , as far as showing it not to be legit - tricky for a mystical work, since it discusses things we can't see.
Whatever the arguments against the zohar are.. You would have to look at them properly. Seriously. The information doesn't really seem to be available on the internet. Though there may be the odd brief article her and there..
Even the Zohar itself is not online. It doesn't really make sense to have a discussion about specific words used in the zohar when we don't even have it in front of us.
Really the whole approach is flawed.. and intellectually lazy.
(one also needs to be fluent in hebrew to study the zohar and arguments anyway, e.g. those of rabbi emden..)
here is a defence article..interesting, it also mentions
http://www.avakesh.com/2007/05/in_honor_of_lag.html
A recent compilation of books defending the authenticity of the Zohar is "Magen V'Tzina", republished recently by Frank in Jerusalem, includes the following works: Magen V'Tzina by R. Isaac Chaver, Kadmus Sefer HaZohar by Radal, and Zohar Harakia by R. Yerucham Lainer.
But.. You would have to look at the arguments -against- properly. first.
Apparently Rabbi Yaakov Emden is partly against, partly for
http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=8545
is work is
Mitpachat Sefarim by R Yaakov Emden
-
<snip>
So, what do you believe? Either way you have stated nothing new in your posting here. You argue against and you argue for... Net effect is that you have said almost nothing...
-
<snip>
So, what do you believe? Either way you have stated nothing new in your posting here. You argue against and you argue for... Net effect is that you have said almost nothing...
It's because you are not logical.
What you missed was that the claim was
"The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi"
And an argument was given. The main one being that a kabbalist said so, so it is.
I gave examples against that argument.
Great rabbis, kabbalists too, predicting things, and being wrong.
I said that to really have a proper discussion one would have to have at least read the Zohar!!! And traditional arguments against e.g. by rabbi yaakov emden , which is in hebrew.. None of this is on the internet.
I have not read the Zohar, neither has He, neither have You. And thus you , and even I, cannot make a strong claim one way or the other.
But I can counter a flimsy argument by somebody that hasn't read it, a claim that it was definitely written by Rashbi because a kabbalist said so.
I think Sefardic panther's claim would be less flimsy if he said the ARIZAL said so!! He was a kabbalist's kabbalist.. and his judgement and mystical claims are revered by most jews. Indeed, most jews do accept the Zohar.
Still though, it's just about trusting great rabbis when even they don't have strong material evidence.
It's not ZERO, to counter or point problems out, in a claim that is made.
A logical person would instinctively understand that.
-
LOL, he went to a kabbalist and he confirmed for him that yes the Zohar was written by Shimon Bar Yochai. Great, that really clears up the matter. </sarcasm>
What did you really expect to happen? Anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. We have already quoted in this forum indirectly what Rav Moshe Feinstein said about it, and we know that Rabbi Yaakov Emden said it was a forgery. If Rabbi Yaakov Emdem was still alive and you could go to him, he would "confirm" for you that it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai. And then you would come to this forum and report it to us that it really was made by Moshe De Leon? LOL.
-
"Moshe De Leon’s wife had already sold the original manuscript of the Zohar when the rich man came looking to buy it. She was so ashamed that she said her husband was the real author "
What does this even mean? Why would she be ashamed for selling the original manuscript? What's so bad about that? Obviously the Hakam/rich man was arriving in order to inquire about it and PURCHASE IT! So what was to be embarrassed about? He obviously found buying/selling it perfectly acceptable since according to this story he wanted to do so himself. Secondly, if she was embarrassed, what is that reason to state that her husband was the author? This somehow relieves her embarrassment for the "evil deed" of selling it.... in front of someone else who he himself wanted to buy it?
Thirdly, if she already sold the "original manuscript," then what did she sell to the Hakam, and what happened to the "real" Zohar? To whom did she sell the original, what happened to it in his/her hands, and where did it end up?
-
There are some Spanish words in the Zohar because the Zohar was finally redacted in the Amoraim times when Spain and Spanish was known.
It was written by Rashbi but only redacted in the times of the Amoraim? Since when is this what kabbalists believe? And even if that was the case, that contradicts what Moshe De Leon claimed and what even you and the kabbalist here claim. That means it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai, if it was REDACTED IN A LATER PERIOD BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
-
<snip>
So, what do you believe? Either way you have stated nothing new in your posting here. You argue against and you argue for... Net effect is that you have said almost nothing...
It's because you are not logical.
What you missed was that the claim was
"The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi"
And an argument was given. The main one being that a kabbalist said so, so it is.
I gave examples against that argument.
Great rabbis, kabbalists too, predicting things, and being wrong.
I said that to really have a proper discussion one would have to have at least read the Zohar!!! And traditional arguments against e.g. by rabbi yaakov emden , which is in hebrew.. None of this is on the internet.
I have not read the Zohar, neither has He, neither have You. And thus you , and even I, cannot make a strong claim one way or the other.
But I can counter a flimsy argument by somebody that hasn't read it, a claim that it was definitely written by Rashbi because a kabbalist said so.
I think Sefardic panther's claim would be less flimsy if he said the ARIZAL said so!! He was a kabbalist's kabbalist.. and his judgement and mystical claims are revered by most jews. Indeed, most jews do accept the Zohar.
Still though, it's just about trusting great rabbis when even they don't have strong material evidence.
It's not ZERO, to counter or point problems out, in a claim that is made.
A logical person would instinctively understand that.
My point to you was that you have not shed any new light on the topic. To provide both pro and con arguments in your posts you did not advance the discussion. You stated several items which we already discussed in a previous thread.
What you may be trying to say, in a convoluted, q_q kind of way, is that nobody here can say with any authority who wrote the Zohar. I am willing to accept that... But it is not very clear in your previous post. This is why I asked what you believe.
You seem to be the one with a problem with logic. Presenting both pro and con arguments doesnt accomplish much but provide you with a platform to bloviate.
-
LOL, he went to a kabbalist and he confirmed for him that yes the Zohar was written by Shimon Bar Yochai. Great, that really clears up the matter. </sarcasm>
What did you really expect to happen? Anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. We have already quoted in this forum indirectly what Rav Moshe Feinstein said about it, and we know that Rabbi Yaakov Emden said it was a forgery. If Rabbi Yaakov Emdem was still alive and you could go to him, he would "confirm" for you that it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai. And then you would come to this forum and report it to us that it really was made by Moshe De Leon? LOL.
When you go to the extreme that you go to,
e.g. you said "anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. "
Even claiming the zohar is a forgery.
it really calls into question the sanity or honesty of many great rabbis.
The Arizal, since he claimed heavenly teachers, and accepted the Zohar.
The Vilna Gaon claimed a heavenly teacher, i'm sure that if the Zohar was a forgery, his heavenly teacher would have told him.
Similarly with the Baal Shem Tov ( an easier target 'cos more of a minority of the O community!)
It doesn't call them into question when they state x, give their reasons and you agree.. But one might worry about the kabbalistic aspects.. Or parts where one doesn't understand their reasons , the VG is known to be quite terse.
If one is that skeptical, then one is calling into question alot more than the Zohar. And if you look at groups that are against the Zohar
Rabbi Kapach/Kafah/Qafah/KAPACH/Qafi (however you spell or pronounce it), the Dor Deah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosef_Qafih
They are maimonidean, they would reject all kabbalah post talmud, including the RAMBAN. Of course, they are odd to just follow one rabbi (or present themselves as if they do "maimonidean")
I really don't think it's that clever or that consistent even, to be that skeptical..
Rav Yosef Kairo claimed to have a heavenly teacher. (that doesn't necessarily affect most of his halachic reasoning).
I have read stories of how he and arizal were very close. No doubt he was very much a mystic, and would have accepted the Zohar..
I think it's valid to make a claim against all kabbalah in general.. even criticising whoever, whatever Gadol. But you are talking about halachic experts here too.
Experts whome you will study in yeshiva..
Rav Yosef Kairo is also studied by Maimonideans too, they are often very knowledgeable, and reject certain decisions if they differ with the RAMBAM or are affected by kabbalah..
The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that.. And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)
-
So you support and you oppose the Zohar. This is a very good position to be in, because either way you will be able to say that you are right... That is extemely 'logical'... <sarc>
-
So you support and you oppose the Zohar. This is a very good position to be in, because either way you will be able to say that you are right... That is extemely 'logical'... <sarc>
We have been through this many times on other subjects.
I won't rehash.
It won't get anybody anywhere. And it won't get you any better understanding.
You kind of agreed some time back not to refer to my posts with your comments, provoking discussion. People can refer back to previous discussions to see why. It's not good for the forum.
-
I am not saying the Zohar is authentic "just because a Kabbalist said so". I had a few reasons for believing that it was’nt authentic (although I did suspect it was partially authentic) so I asked an expert about those reasons and he explained it to me.
The greatest Hakamim (Arizal, Rashash, Ben Ish Hai, Baba Sali, I could go on) accepted the Zohar. Infact many of their teachings, rulings, Kavanot came from the Zohar. Does anyone here think they know better than them? Would they want to dispute the Zohar before a Kosher Beit Din in Yerushalayim?
If I ever meet Moshe De Leon’s wife I’ll ask her why she was embarrassed about selling the Zohar and who did she sell it to. Oh I forgot I don’t have a time machine. In other words how can we possibly know that one?
The school of the Rashbi carried on until the times of the Amoraim. They added some parts, the parts with more modern lingo, to the Zohar. Is the english dictionary filled with elizabethan words? No it has since been revised.
By the way I have read enough of the Zohar to know that it was written in Aramaic not Hebrew.
-
I am not saying the Zohar is authentic "just because a Kabbalist said so".
Actually, you did say that. It was the whole basis of your first post.
That was the entire argument that you presented as evidence that it was
"definitely authentic". Notice the subject "The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi". That was the only argument you gave and tried to give, in that first post.
-
So you support and you oppose the Zohar. This is a very good position to be in, because either way you will be able to say that you are right... That is extemely 'logical'... <sarc>
We have been through this many times on other subjects.
I won't rehash.
It won't get anybody anywhere. And it won't get you any better understanding.
You kind of agreed some time back not to refer to my posts with your comments, provoking discussion. People can refer back to previous discussions to see why. It's not good for the forum.
You surely are a strange one... Are you capable of human conversation or are you just a robot who spews out mysterious and spurious ideas? {rhetorical questions, please don't answer} I had no problem reading Sefardic Panthers post in light of his understanding. You had to make a point to interject a post which doesn't disprove and doesn't support his position... I am really puzzled at what point you try to make. I know you don't care about anyone else besides your own ego so I don't expect you to explain yourself.
I have yet to see a single posting here where you prove how intelligent you think you really are.
muman613
-
LOL, he went to a kabbalist and he confirmed for him that yes the Zohar was written by Shimon Bar Yochai. Great, that really clears up the matter. </sarcasm>
What did you really expect to happen? Anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. We have already quoted in this forum indirectly what Rav Moshe Feinstein said about it, and we know that Rabbi Yaakov Emden said it was a forgery. If Rabbi Yaakov Emdem was still alive and you could go to him, he would "confirm" for you that it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai. And then you would come to this forum and report it to us that it really was made by Moshe De Leon? LOL.
When you go to the extreme that you go to,
e.g. you said "anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. "
Even claiming the zohar is a forgery.
it really calls into question the sanity or honesty of many great rabbis.
Rabbi Yaakov Emden had no problem doing that, nor do the Dor Daim and their gadol, nor do many others. My opinion isn't much needed in this matter. But I am certainly permitted to decide based on the evidence which opinion is more likely, and which is more correct, to my own logic and reasoning. But again, my opinion was never even stated here.
The Arizal, since he claimed heavenly teachers, and accepted the Zohar.
The Vilna Gaon claimed a heavenly teacher, i'm sure that if the Zohar was a forgery, his heavenly teacher would have told him.
Similarly with the Baal Shem Tov ( an easier target 'cos more of a minority of the O community!)
the Arizal - a kabbalist.
The Vilna Gaon - a kabbalist
The Baal Shem Tov - a kabbalist
So that they accepted the Zohar tells us what? You find this surprising?
We need to use our heads here. The blatantly obvious nature of this situation should be somewhat self-explanatory, but I guess I have to explain this further.
" When you go to the extreme that you go to,
e.g. you said "anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. ""
Nothing I said here is extreme in any way! It is simply logical thought that says that anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist" of course accepts that the Zohar was from Rashbi as the kabbalist claim goes. That is the STARTING POINT for a kabbalist. It would be like asking if a religious Jew accepts the Torah. Of course, by virtue of the fact that they are an Orthodox Jew, they do accept it. Otherwise they couldn't really call themself (honestly) an Orthodox Jew. In just the same way, no kabbalist or "famous mekubal" could ever possibly NOT believe in the Zohar's claim to have authorship by Rashbi. It's quite simple. You've blown this up into absurdity. But can you not see how ridiculous it is to go and ask the local kabbalist the origins of the Zohar? If you don't already know the answer he's going to give you, you need serious help!
-
The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that.. And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)
These are YOUR words. Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections. A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned. I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).
A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi. Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?
-
If I ever meet Moshe De Leon’s wife I’ll ask her why she was embarrassed about selling the Zohar and who did she sell it to. Oh I forgot I don’t have a time machine. In other words how can we possibly know that one?
Then why did you present that answer as one that was supposed to be appealing to those with doubts, and why did you present this as definitive proof of the Zohar's origins if you yourself don't even know what the story meant!
By the way I have read enough of the Zohar to know that it was written in Aramaic not Hebrew.
No one here ever said it was written in Hebrew. Try again.
Although I have read that there are serious grammatical problems with the Aramaic that was used. Which again points to the fact that it may have been written by someone not a native speaker (perhaps Moshe de Leon). But on this subject I don't know much.
-
KWRBT,
So I take it you are one who does not consider Zohar to be authentic to the Torah?
So you must also be suspicious of all the great Torah which comes from Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Nachman, whos Chassidic Judaism flourished and many wonderful Torah ideas were inspired. I don't know the absolute truth anymore than you do, but I find it hard to believe that such a vibrant and moving part of Judaism was not authentic.
I have read commentaries on Zohar and am very impressed by what I read. In my understanding the words of the Zohar are powerful and contain many hidden secrets.
Maybe I am not familiar with your particular branch of Judaism but from learning from my Orthodox Rabbi and my Chabad Rabbi there is much Kabbalah already in our prayers and our understanding of Torah.
I am interested in learning what you consider authentic Torah...
muman613
PS: I would not have personally labelled this thread "The Zohar is definately written by Rashbi" because this implies that the statement is 100% true. I try not to make such a blanket statement and it is true that a Kabbalist will usually defend the Zohar from any criticism.
-
KWRBT,
So I take it you are one who does not consider Zohar to be authentic to the Torah?
You assume too much. I currently am not convinced either way and haven't looked into it enough, not in depth...
So you must also be suspicious of all the great Torah which comes from Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Nachman, whos Chassidic Judaism flourished and many wonderful Torah ideas were inspired.
You assume too much here as well. There was a time when the zohar's authenticity was hotly disputed. As far as I know, after a certain amount of time (100-200 years?) it was determined by a few great rabbonim to contain within it authentic kabbalah. (When it first came out, consensus by the great rabbonim was against it!) - this is to my limited understanding what the scenario was. Nonetheless there were still those who disagreed after it was labelled authentic kabbalah, and even among more Litvish authorities, there may be dispute about who authored it. (Moshe De Leon claimed it to be written by Rashbi and found in a cave if I'm not mistaken). There are those who accept it, those who don't, and within those who do, there is a whole range of what authority it should be given vis a vis other sources (ie the tannaic statements, gemara, rishonim, etc).
But I understand that chassidus stems from the kabbalah especially of the zohar and that the chassidic rebbes accept its authenticity. There are others who disagree, and right now their arguments seem more rational to me. If it comes to the point that I'm convinced against the Zohar, that doesn't take away from all the greatness of Rabbi Nachman or anyone else. But it would be my right not to take a kabbalistic approach. Or anyone else for that matter. Me being not a "chassid" in the streimel sense of the term, there is already a great body of knowledge that I don't necessarily hold by from any number of great chassidic rabbis. That doesn't take anything away from them or suggest that I look negatively upon them chas veshalom. In general, non-chassidim don't hold by chassidus. Despite the fact that I'm sure there are many deep and wonderful truths and wisdom in chassidus, it is not a guiding principle or dogma for nonchassidic Orthodoxy.
I have read commentaries on Zohar and am very impressed by what I read. In my understanding the words of the Zohar are powerful and contain many hidden secrets.
That may be, in fact is likely to be true, but that doesn't mean it was written by Shimon Bar Yochai, it doesn't mean everything in it is true, and it certainly doesn't tell us anything about whether it should be valued as a higher authority in halacha than the mishna or gemara... I've heard from people what sounded to me like heretical ideas where they said zohar is below the level of Torah but equal level with tanach and above the Talmud. Is this what kabbalists really believe? And how could they?
Maybe I am not familiar with your particular branch of Judaism
My "branch" is Orthodox Judaism where we are bound to be committed to the truth. I don't follow a particular "branch" or "strain" or sect within Orthodoxy because Judaism is not a popularity contest or an "allegiance" to anything but Hashem. There are good elements in all of these sects and none are perfect. Then again, most of the various "sects" are based on galut Judaism so it is likely and expected that none would be altogether sufficient by themselves.
but from learning from my Orthodox Rabbi and my Chabad Rabbi there is much Kabbalah already in our prayers and our understanding of Torah.
the fact that it exists doesn't make it true by virtue of its existence. It's either mistaken or valid. Of course elements from the Zohar exist. If you accept the whole body then there can be no argument against any of it. If you accept that not all of it is "the gospel" there can be discussion about any given idea as to its authenticity/reliability/validity....
-
Thank you KWRBT, you explained your position very clearly...
-
KWRBT,
The only contemporary Kabbalist Rabbi I read and listen to is Rabbi Bar Tzaddok who wrote a article called:
His website is http://www.koshertorah.com
How the Study of Halakha
Prepares One To Successfully
Study & Practice Kabbalah
There are more people today studying Kabbalah than ever before.
At the same time there is less known about the Kabbalah than ever before.
Is there a relationship between the numbers and the ignorance?
Words of Contemplation
by Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok
Copyright © 1999 by Ariel Bar Tzadok. All rights reserved.
This is a topic well known amongst the practicing Kabbalists throughout the Torah
observant world, yet it is almost completely unknown outside of it. So many people have
jumped on the “Kabbalah bandwagon” recently.
Indeed Kabbalah has now become the religious “fad” of choice for the secular Israeli,
non-religious Jew and even a number of interested Gentiles. All of these different types
of people crave to learn the mysteries and secrets of the Torah. Yet, with all the
exposure that they have to what they have been told is Kabbalah, none of them have
even come close to the real thing.
None of them, and I mean NONE of them, even have a clue as to what real Kabbalah is
and wouldn’t recognize it even if it smacked one of them HARD right in the face.
Of course, there are very important spiritual reasons why this state of affairs is the way it
is. In all due respect, as wise King Solomon said, “there is nothing new under the sun”
(Kohelet 1:9). Even during the days of the First Temple, the number of dabblers in
Kabbalah was staggering. The results then were even worse than they are now.
It was these dangerous dabblings that led to the destruction of the Holy Temple, the
removal of the Divine Presence and the concealing of the holy Ark and Temple vessels
to this very day.
The dangerous dabblings in Kabbalah during the days of the First Temple is clear to
anyone who reads the section of the N’vi’im in the TaNaK (Bible). Then, in Biblical
times, Kabbalah wasn’t called Kabbalah. It had another name, it’s original and correct
name.
During First Temple times, Kabbalah, the study of Jewish metaphysics, was an integral
part of the training of the Biblical prophets. Kabbalah was a part of prophecy.
Our Sages teach that during First Temple times there were possibly over a million
students studying this prophetic-Kabbalistic material.1 Yet out of this vast, vast number
only a few dozen succeeded in becoming true prophets of HaShem.
Unfortunately, the number of false prophets and false prophecies were far more
numerous. It was these false Kabbalistic visions and teachings, coming from false
prophet-teachers that blinded the eyes of the nation and led them away from the true
path of repentance.
When this occurred the wrath of HaShem was sealed upon us. Thus, we see from
history that the study of false Kabbalah lulls its students into a sense of false security.
They begin to think that teshuva (repentance) is not of paramount importance as long as
they are studying Kabbalah.
At the same time this contamination & misalignment of the worlds arouses the wrath of
HaShem against these false teachers and their students. The result is devastating
punishment.
One cannot “play” with spiritual powers and expect not to be harmed by them when one
is not holy enough to interact with them correctly, as defined by Torah.
Let us explore why this is so. Indeed this state of false learning and false spiritual
practices is much worse than if nothing at all was studied or practiced. This requires an
explanation.
Prophecy is the study of how the human soul (and mind) broadens its horizons to
encompass and experience the reality of the Presence of G-d. In order for this lofty goal
to be achieved, many steps must be taken along the way. Each of these steps has to do
with the expansion of mental capacity and intellectual function.
Prophetic training educated its students and taught them how to think and how to clearly
recognize metaphysical reality from metaphysical falsehoods. This manner of training
was accomplished through the study of the physical laws, what we call today Jewish
Law, the Halakha.
It is taught throughout the TaNaK and all later Torah literature that there are two levels in
creation.3 We refer to these two as the physical and the spiritual. The two are integrally
connected. One “fits” over the other like a hand in a glove. The two dimensions interact
togther as body and soul. What occurs in the one affects the other.
The natural order of creation, therefore, is for both the physical and spiritual dimensions
to exist in complete harmony with one another. Yet, just as someone can abuse their
physical bodies and thus cause themselves both physical and spiritual harm, so too do
our physical actions in this world reverberate great help or harm in the spiritual plane.
Now, due to the fall of our father Adam collective mankind no longer has the ability to
consciously interact with the spiritual plane. We are, in essence, cut off from it.
If collective mankind was to remain cut off from its spiritual source and counterpart then
the physical world would no longer be able to survive. Mankind and our physical world
around us would disintegrate at the sub-atomic level. Nothing would be left. The world
would return to Tahu & Bohu as it was before creation.
The Holy One, blessed be He, in His great mercy, however, reestablished the link broken
by Adam. After his expulsion from Eden, Adam was given specific instructions as to how
to regain and maintain the spiritual world-physical world relationship. These instructions
were written down for him in a book that was delivered to him by HaShem’s faithful
messenger, Raziel HaMalakh.
Ten generations of mankind arose and only a small few followed the edicts as laid down
by father Adam. In the seventh generation from Adam, there arose a great and holy
soul, Hanokh Ben Yared. He lived 365 years and “was not” for G-d had taken him (ref.
Gen. 5:24).
Prior to Hanokh’s ascent into heaven, he also received a “book” which gave instructions
on Divine service.
These books of Adam and Hanokh were eventually passed down to Noah and from
Noah to his son Shem, eventually reaching our holy father Avraham. It was Avraham
was decided to speak out to the masses and instruct them in the ancient wisdom and to
restore their paths to HaShem.
Our Sages have taught that Avraham too wrote a book, some 400 chapters long,
explaining to the members of his generation the way of G-d and how to avoid idolatry.
All that we have left of this great work are five short and brief chapters that we today call
the “Sefer Yetzirah.”
This manual of knowledge was passed down to Avraham’s son Yitzhak and from Yitzhak
to Ya’aqob. Ya’aqob passed it onto his 12 sons, who, as we all know, went down into
Egypt.
The story of the exodus is well known to us all, as is the experience of our receiving the
Torah at Mt. Sinai. Yet, we must understand that the giving of the Torah at Sinai was
something G-d had planned from the very beginning of creation. Israel was the reason
for G-d’s originally creating the universe.
The role of Israel is to live the Torah and by doing so establishing the balance between
the physical and spiritual worlds. Adam, Hanokh, Avraham, Yitzhak and Ya’aqob, all
received instructions and guidance that were parts of the Torah, but Moshe Rabbeynu
received the whole package.
The Torah of Moshe would not only align the balance between the spiritual and physical
dimensions, it would enable mankind to cultivate the forces in the universe and to
harvest them, thereby making manifest all the best in creation.
As the Jewish people stood at Mt. Sinai the culmination of creation was at hand. The
entire universe had been waiting for this moment when Israel would receive the Torah
and, thereby, receive all the necessary instructions as to how best to operate creation.
The children of Israel had been prepared to recognize metaphysical reality and how best
to integrate it with the physical, thus completing the links in the chain of creation.
However, a “minor” problem arose. There were those members among the people who
didn’t achieve the spiritual insight to deal with an invisible universe and an abstract G-d.
While Moses was atop of Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah, this minority managed to
convince Aharon the Kohen to create for them a concrete form of abstract reality.
This might not sound like such a bad idea. After all, we all need assistance in perceiving
the invisible and concretizing the abstract. Well, G-d did not agree. Actually, G-d viewed
the sin of the Golden Calf as having nullified His purpose for creation.
Had it not been for the intercession of our teacher Moses, none of us would have ever
lived. Indeed, G-d had planned to scrap the world and start all over again. Moses
pleaded with G-d to give us another chance. So like with Adam before hand, G-d
forgave us and instructed Moses, giving him a book. This book, which we still read to
this day, is our holy Torah. Yet, the Kabbalists have taught us that the Torah we read
today is but a cloak and veil for the real concealed Torah.
The Torah that we read is multi-leveled. The Kabbalists instruct us that the Torah can be
compared to the layers of an onion. We see and interact with its surface. Yet, deep
beneath its surface lie layer upon layer of meanings and secret powers awaiting our
discovery.
The key to discovering the Torah’s latent powers lie within the recesses of the human
mind. As we cultivate and develop our individual human intelligence, we enable
ourselves to penetrate deeper and deeper into the Torah’s true depths.
Yet, alas for us humans, a species of lazy minds. If we would only invest the energy into
the cultivation of our deepest potentials, we would begin to see the wonders that G-d has
waiting for us. Thus, we were commanded to study the Torah by both day and by night.
The first thing that becomes apparent when studying the surface of the Torah is that
there appears to be many loose ends and unexplained things. In order to understand
the simple meaning of the Torah text one must delve deeper into the text in order to
discover its true meaning.
This requires of us effort, an effort of mind and an effort of time. This process of effort
and discovery is what we call “study.” Its purpose is to sharpen the mind, to enable it to
see the relationship between apparently unrelated things. Without this sharpening of
human intellectual abilities, the world will continue to remain a mystery to us and we will
remain as an enigma unto ourselves.
In order to penetrate into the depths of the Torah one must first peel away the surface
layers. This general rule is well understood and accepted. But who is willing to invest
the time and the mental effort to perform this great and heavy task? Only the holy Sages
rise up and accomplish this. They are the Rabbis who study the Torah, live it and
eventually are introduced to its secrets, which are the Kabbalah.
It is for this reason that one can never successfully study Kabbalah without first being an
expert in Halakha (Jewish Law). The Halakha is indeed the surface level of the Torah
referred to above. It is these very same levels that must be toiled over and peeled away
in order to get into the deeper layers. There are no shortcuts.
Let me provide an example. One cannot one day have an I.Q. of 100 and then suddenly
jump to an I.Q. of 150 without going through the grades of 110, 120, 130 and 140. This
is simply the boundaries and limitations of nature. And indeed if one claims to have an
I.Q. of such a lofty number as 150, it would be rather apparent. It is evident by how one
talks, how one thinks and how one acts. In other words, it is not something that can be
faked. Either you have it or you don’t. It is the same thing with studying Torah, either
you have acquired the intellectual skills for deeper penetration or you haven’t. The ability
to study cannot be counterfeited. Either you have the brain for it or you don’t. If you do,
then you have the ability to penetrate into the depths of the Torah. If you don’t, then you
fool yourself if you believe otherwise.
This mistake of self-deception was what was so prevalent during First Temple times.
Many attempted to penetrate the surface layers of the Torah. Some tried extremely hard
and eventually succeeded. Others did not try hard enough. They slackened their efforts
and eventually deceived themselves into believing that they had accomplished
something that they did not. The true masters of Torah, the prophets, saw through these
charlatans and spoke out against them. Yet, human nature is as it is and deception rules
where there is a weak and lazy mind.
Rather than take the necessary steps, many chose to follow the path of the Golden Calf
and substituted surface for substance and delusion for discipline. This is what led to the
destruction of the holy First Temple. This is also why prophecy was removed from the
people at this time. If the prophetic schools had remained open, the scenario would
have quickly repeated itself and the result indeed would have been the destruction of the
world.
Prophecy and metaphysical Judaism, i.e., the Kabbalah were forced into hiding. If the
general public would not respect the holy path, they could not be allowed to walk it.
This can be compared to the use of a firearm. We live in a dangerous world and a
firearm is very useful and necessary. Yet, if one wishes to use it arbitrarily and not
simply for self-defense, then such a one is adding to the problem instead of helping to
solve it. So it is with metaphysical prophetic Torah, i.e. the Kabbalah. Unless one is
willing to learn it and use it correctly, one causes more harm than good. The masters of
the Torah system, therefore, have the obligation to protect the general Jewish public by
denying access to the holy powers to those who are not holy.
If this safeguard is violated, havoc is unleashed, upon mankind and upon the supernal
worlds.
Now, let us delve a little deeper into the secrets of the Kabbalah so as to understand
WHY this is all so.
The original sin of Adam, we remember, was his eating of the fruit from the Etz HaDa’at
Tov V’Ra (Tree of Knowledge, good and evil). By doing so, Adam descended into the
realm of good and evil. Prior to this, Adam existed harmoniously in Eden, the place that
is above evil.
As a result of the fall, Adam (collective mankind) became surrounded by good and evil
on all sides. Yet, this is no cause for alarm, for although evil surrounds us, it is still,
nonetheless, outside of us. We are not required to invite evil into our lives, thus harming
ourselves. There is, however, one minor problem.
When Adam partook of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, he was cast out of Eden
and not permitted to eat of the fruit of the Etz Haim (Tree of Life). This tree and its fruit
would have given Adam the instinctual ability to separate from evil.
In Eden, this was not needed because evil did not exist there. One is not prepared to
exit Eden, however, until one has tasted of the fruit of the Tree of Life. Now, collective
mankind has lost that opportunity. We exited Eden completely unprepared to face the
realities of what existed outside. That is why Adam was given his book from Raziel
HaMalakh.
Upon our descent into the physical realms, which the Torah refers to as “good and evil”
we are no longer equipped with sufficient spiritual knowledge to discern the difference
between good and evil. Thus we end up quite inadvertently inviting evil into our lives, all
the while believing it to be good. We find out only after it is too late and the damage to
ourselves is done.
In the realm of the sefirot, the Tree of Life refers to Hokhma, the sefirah of intuition and
spiritual, internal knowing. Hokhma provides us with an awareness of the invisible
worlds unseen and unable to be seen with the physical eye (or by any other means of
mere data gathering
The Tree of Knowledge refers to Binah; the sefirah of intellect where information is
received and processed from external sources through the five sensory organs. Binah
thus enables us to comprehend and interact with our external environment.
Thus, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge limits our reception of information to the physical
plane, whereas the fruit of the Tree of Life connects one to the spiritual plane. It is this
level of connection that we lost upon our exile from Eden.
Mankind thus has an inherent handicap in his spiritual senses. Torah was given to us as
the means to rectify and overcome this. Yet, we must separate spiritual reality from
religious myth and explain just HOW the Torah operates to accomplish this task of tikkun
(rectification).
Indeed, the Torah is comprised of mitzvot, which are actions that we are to do and
actions that we are not to do. Even the books of Adam and Hanokh contained actions
and rituals of this nature. The mere performance of these mitzvot opens the channels
between the spiritual and physical worlds and enables Divine radiance to flow from
above to below. Thus, the performance of mitzvot provides for us the framework and
boundaries that safeguard us from the penetration of evil.
Nevertheless, we must do more than mere rote actions. These only open the channels
at the most basic of levels. We also must repair our initial blemish, which is the eating of
the fruit of the wrong Tree. As it was our knowledge that was blemished (from the Tree
of Knowledge) so must our knowledge (i.e., intellect) be repaired. Repair of knowledge
is defined as intellectual refinement. In other words, learning to be smart, very smart.
Tikun HaSekhel (rectifying the mind) requires of us humans to learn HOW to use our
minds.
Simple book learning and memorization is not enough for Tikun HaSekhel (rectifying the
mind). We are required to expand our thinking abilities and to comprehend all that we
study. If something comes along that we do not understand, we must make all efforts
possible to “break our skulls” in order to make sense out of the unclear and to make
order out of confusion.
Indeed the great Kabbalistic master, the Ari’zal would spend a great portion of his day
studying Talmud and other Torah legal texts. It is reported of him that he would break
out into a profuse sweat every day attempting to understand apparantly conflicting
Halakhic matters.
He would not stop his analysis of a Halakhic topic until he finally acheived full
comprenhension of the matter from beginning to end. The Ari’zal said that any difficulty
of understanding as well as any and all confusion have their source in the klipot (forces
of evil). Only by one pushing oneself to one’s intellectual limits and thereby discovering
the order in the chaos does one accomplish Tikun HaSekhel (rectifying the mind).
Indeed, in the introduction to his Sefer Etz Haim, Rabbi Haim Vital, the Ari’zal’s prime
disciple demands that any aspiring student of Kabbalah must first study Talmud and
Halakha for at least five years!
When one’s mind has developed the necessary analytical skills to penetrate and resolve
all conflicts and apparent contradictions in the surface teachings of the Torah, only then
is one’s mind prepared to delve deeper beneath the Torah’s surface.
The study of Halakha exposes the human mind to a wide variety of real-life human
situations. Whether the examples come from the Talmud, the Shulkhan Arukh (Code of
Jewish Law) or other Torah sources, not all of them are clear and evident. Many times
Jewish Law is as confusing as is life itself. By one becoming a master of understanding
Jewish Law, one becomes a master of understanding life (i.e. the life we live here in the
physical world). Such a Torah Sage is called a “Hakham” (a wise man). For such a
Sage has mastered the skills of understanding Binah. His knowledge and perceptions of
physical reality are honed. He is now prepared to delve into metaphysical reality.
As mentioned above the physical and spiritual dimensions lie on top of one another,
fitting over each other like a hand in glove. Once a Hakham has learned the mastery of
the Torah in this physical world, he is ready to encounter the Torah’s spiritual
counterpart. The Hakham applies all the lessons that he has learned from surface
Torah, coupled with his now fine tuned intellect and he is ready to grasp the invisible and
to see the unseen.
And how can he see the unseen? Because the Hakham knows the Halakha (ways) of
Torah! He knows its patterns, methods and laws, here in the physical world. All he need
now do is follow the same pattern of Halakha and of logic and the unseen spiritual Torah
will appear before his eyes.
But the secrets of the Torah will not appear before his physical eyes, they will only
appear to his inner eye, the spiritual “eye” that is now trained to perceive and understand
inner, intuitive Hokhma wisdom. Indeed a Sage is rightly called a Hakham (wise man).
For only a Hakham can approach Hokhma.
So, what becomes of one who attempts to delve into the depths of Torah by studying
Kabbalah before they have been properly prepared? Obviously, they become spiritually
lost. There is no other option or alternative.
Unless a person has learned to use his brain for himself, rectifying it through the study of
Torah and the observance of the mitzvot, no spiritual entity from the realm of Holiness
has the ability to make contact with him/her. Simply put, unless one has cultivated a
relationship with the Torah and the mitzvot here in this world, it is an impossible task to
connect with the Torah’s messengers who dwell in the spiritual realms. One simply
doesn’t have the mental faculty necessary to be able to connect with an Angel of
holiness. There can be no congruency of brain frequencies without the necessary
mental preparations and attunements to holiness.
Read the complete article at http://koshertorah.com/PDF/Halakha%20Before%20Kabbalah.pdf (http://koshertorah.com/PDF/Halakha%20Before%20Kabbalah.pdf)
-
The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that.. And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)
These are YOUR words. Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections. A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned. I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).
A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi. Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?
Your words were
""anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. ""
Anybody that fits the description you give there is a fool!!!!
(my representation of your words was they would believe any claim that says it is by him"). That is accurate. But one can ignore my representation.
Regarding your latter point, no I don't fit into the category you describe.. Funnily enough you make a freudian slip there using the word "admit"! (implying that we all know that the zohar was not written by rashbi, the question is whether the kabbalist will admit it or not!). Notice that Sefardic panther gave a secondary reason, so I doubt that he fits into that category either. There is no problem -logically- with asking an orthodox jew why he believes the torah, or asking a kabbalist why he believes the zohar.. e.t.c. or challenging them with the idea that it is false and noting the response and analysing it.
-
No I did not say the Zohar is authentic "just because a Kabbalist said so" this was not my only argument. I originally had some doubts on the Zohar being completely authentic (The Spanish words. The reference to the crusades. And the story about Moshe De Leon’s wife’s confession.) Aside from that I largely thought it was authentic because most Rabbis say so and how else could people 2000 years ago (or even in the middle ages if you like) have known the advanced scientific knowledge in the Zohar (black holes, spherical rotating earth, string theory, quantum physics etc). I asked an expert on the Zohar about those doubts and he provided a perfectly consistant explanation. His explanation is the reason I conclude the Zohar is authentic. I was not expecting him to tell me the Zohar was not authentic that would be contrary to what most other Rabbis believe and contrary to all the strong arguments for the Zohar’s authentcicty.
There is infact a similar explanation of Moshe De Leon’s wife’s confession in Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s Meditation And Kabbalah. This is not just a rumour. The fact that the rich man she lied to turned out to be the biggest proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity should be proof enough. Why exactly did she lie to him and who did she sell the Zohar to is another story.
In q_q_’s first reply “one also needs to be fluent in hebrew to study the zohar”. The Aramaic that was used is infact similar to the Aramaic used in Rashbi’s time. The style of writing in the Zohar is unlike Moshe De Leon’s original books.
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was written by Rashbi!!! Just as there are many so called scholars who attribute the Zohar to Moshe De Leon, there are also many so called scholars who attribute the Torah not to Moshe Rabbeinu but to Ezra (the “documentary hypothesis”). Does anyone here take that one on too? If you reject what the Hakamim say why not order a double bacon cheeseburger while you’re at it?
-
<snip>
In q_q_’s first reply “one also needs to be fluent in hebrew to study the zohar”. The Aramaic that was used is infact similar to the Aramaic used in Rashbi’s time. The style of writing in the Zohar is unlike Moshe De Leon’s original books.
<snip>
this was somewhat of a mistake..you caught it earlier, but if you had quoted me so people know who you are referring to, then it would have reduced confusion.
apparently some parts are in hebrew, most is in aramaic.
-
<snip>
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was written by Rashbi!!!
funny to talk of advising caution when you made that first post of yours.
chachamim can be wrong particularly outside of halacha, e.g. in hashkafa. Kabbalah or not. Staying in israel or not.
Just saying many wise rabbis believe it.. That doesn't make it true and it isn't even good as evidence. Many wise rabbis wanted the jews to stay in poland. They were wrong.
A better reason is that it really makes the Arizal (and others with heavenly teachers) look bad.
He accepted it he believed it, studied it deeply without a doubt, and he claimed to have a heavenly teacher.. I'm sure that his heavenly teacher would have told him if it were not right. There are other rabbis that claimed a heavenly teacher and believed the zohar.
Just as there are many so called scholars who attribute the Zohar to Moshe De Leon, there are also many so called scholars who attribute the Torah not to Moshe Rabbeinu but to Ezra (the “documentary hypothesis”). Does anyone here take that one on too? If you reject what the Hakamim say why not order a double bacon cheeseburger while you’re at it?
The evidence for the Torah Mi Sinai, is much stronger.. As you should know.
And DH is far more than saying the Torah was not given at Sinai. It is a theory about how it developed (happens to be a wild theory).
It doesn't take deep thought to see those 2 significant differences.
-
The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that.. And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)
These are YOUR words. Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections. A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned. I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).
A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi. Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?
Your words were
""anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. ""
Anybody that fits the description you give there is a fool!!!!
No it doesn't. Not necessarily. I'm not sure why you say so. What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief? That's not foolish at all. It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers. Naturally.
-
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was written by Rashbi!!!
In that case,
I would advise caution for anyone who thinks they know better than all the great Hakamim and Rabbis who said the Zohar was NOT written by Rashbi!!!!
And this whole line of reasoning adds to this issue, how? Now that it is turned onto you, do you see how this kind of "scare tactic" is completely baseless and emotionally-driven bullying of those who offer a contrary view?
-
The way you write, it's as if anybody that accepts the Zohar will believe any claim for its truth.. And thus, you are suggesting that the Arizal is a fool.. or Rav Yosef Kairo is a fool. You would be studying Rav Yosef Kairo's Shulchan Aruch.. in yeshiva, since it's a major work. I don't think you are writing under the understanding that when you attack the zohar you are attacking alot more than that.. And the way you put it, was like anybody that accepts that the zohar was written by Rashbi, is a fool. (because as you said, they would believe any claim that says it is by him)
These are YOUR words. Do not ascribe to me your words and your own projections. A person is not a fool for making a mistake if a mistake was made (and I as an honest human being, acknowledge that a mistake was possible to be made by any human, no matter how learned. I also believe it is heresy to think otherwise).
A person would be a fool to expect a kabbalist to admit that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi. Perhaps you and SP fall into this category?
Your words were
""anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise. ""
Anybody that fits the description you give there is a fool!!!!
No it doesn't. Not necessarily. I'm not sure why you say so. What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief? That's not foolish at all. It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers. Naturally.
Natural!!!
Do you think it's logical?
It's fundamentally illogical and inconsistent.
Suppose a person, believes X , and they give a reason R.
The critic may find that by that reasoning(R), a person should believe Y. Here's the issue though. Y contradicts X.
Is the person then correct in accepting X and rejecting Y , holding reason R?
If they honestly believe X, it cannot be for reason R.
-
Vilna Gaon- was first and foremost a Talmudist, then a Kabbalist (He knew both).
-
In q_q_’s first reply “one also needs to be fluent in hebrew to study the zohar”. The Aramaic that was used is infact similar to the Aramaic used in Rashbi’s time. The style of writing in the Zohar is unlike Moshe De Leon’s original books.
Anyone who know any Aramaic at all knows that the Aramaic used in the land of Israel is very different than other dialects, such as Babylonian Aramaic.
The Aramaic that appears in Eretz Yisrael sources like the Talmudh Yerushalmi and Midrash Rabbah, sifre and pesiqtah rabathi are very different than that of the zohar.
The Zohar is a babylonian style aramaic with a few changes to word endings like lon instead of leho in babylonian and other minor examples. These superficial changes are obviously meant to disguise the writers lack of fluency in "Palestinian" Aramaic.
I have studied aramaic for many years and I can tell the difference in Aramaic styles between Babyonian and "Palestinian" Aramaic.
This in and of itself is proof this was not written by a jew in the 2nd century.
-
Although since you have already rationalized the use of spanish words in the Zohar, I'm sure you can find some way out of this.
With all due respect, sir, you are advertising your willingness to beleive absolutely anything.
-
Would they want to dispute the Zohar before a Kosher Beit Din in Yerushalayim?
Yes, I will happily dispute the Zohar in front of the Beth Din of Machon Shilo composed of the Dayanim Rabbi Chaim Wasser, Rabbi Yehoshua Buch and the inimitable Mori W'Rabbi David Bar Hayim.
-
There are some Spanish words in the Zohar because the Zohar was finally redacted in the Amoraim times when Spain and Spanish was known.
It was written by Rashbi but only redacted in the times of the Amoraim? Since when is this what kabbalists believe? And even if that was the case, that contradicts what Moshe De Leon claimed and what even you and the kabbalist here claim. That means it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai, if it was REDACTED IN A LATER PERIOD BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
Is he claiming that Spanish was spoken in Iraq by Jewish Rabbis in the 5th century?
Does he really beleive that?
I am beside myself.
-
The Rabbis who said the Zohar was not written by Rashbi are a minority. Quite a few Taymani Yehudim reject the Zohar but the best of them (Rabbi Shalom Shabazi and Rabbi Shalom Sharabi) accept it. I think the people who reject the Zohar take it too literal and forget that its allagorical. Most Rabbis say it was written by Rashbi and many of their rulings came from the Zohar. The Zohar is so ingrained in Judaism that to reject it would risk rejecting too much else. Even Ramban’s commentaries on the Torah look like they came from the Zohar and they were written before Moshe De Leon revealed it!
As far as I know many words in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Targum by Onkelos are also in the Zohar. Anyway the Zohar has more in common with those Aramaic books than it does with the original books by Moshe De Leon.
The one and only thing I believe is the Torah and what the Hakamim have said. If most of the Hakamim said the Zohar was a forgery by Moshe De Leon then I would believe it was a forgery by Moshe De Leon.
Does Machon Shilo reject all mysticism?
As far as I know there are only a few Spanish words in the Zohar. I doubt that the school of the Rashbi spoke Spanish all the time although they certainly were familiar with foreign languages.
-
The Rabbis who said the Zohar was not written by Rashbi are a minority.
"If we judge truth by how many people beleive it, Every Jew ought to become a Christian or a Muslim" - Rabbi Meir Kahane
Quite a few Taymani Yehudim reject the Zohar but the best of them (Rabbi Shalom Shabazi and Rabbi Shalom Sharabi) accept it.
And what makes you think that Rabbis Shabazi and Sharabi were greater than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh?
And by what basis do you determine that these two Rabbis were the BEST of the Temanim?
What is Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh? Chopped Liver?
I think the people who reject the Zohar take it too literal and forget that its allagorical.
Kabbalists take plenty of it literally and also their idea of separate parts ie sefiroth within G-d himself is a form of Shituf(assigning partners to G-d) at best and idolatry at worst.
Please read this article. http://www.mesora.org/ToharHayihud.pdf
It is worth every word.
Most Rabbis say it was written by Rashbi and many of their rulings came from the Zohar.
This is very true. An absolute tragedy. Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha.
The Zohar is so ingrained in Judaism that to reject it would risk rejecting too much else.
No, rejecting an untrue doctrine does not mean that you will necessarily reject true things as well.
Even Ramban’s commentaries on the Torah look like they came from the Zohar and they were written before Moshe De Leon revealed it!
True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah".
As far as I know many words in the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Targum by Onkelos are also in the Zohar. Anyway the Zohar has more in common with those Aramaic books than it does with the original books by Moshe De Leon.
I haven't read any other books by Moshe De Leon. But I know that the Zohar's aramaic is wildly different from the Talmud Yerushalmi and Targumim. The Aramaic in the Zohar is a different dialect. This is incontravertable fact.
The one and only thing I believe is the Torah and what the Hakamim have said.
I agree with you.
If most of the Hakamim said the Zohar was a forgery by Moshe De Leon then I would believe it was a forgery by Moshe De Leon.
When it first came out, most of the Hakhamim said it was a forgery. The Zohar was directly responsible for the Shabbetai Zvi Heresy. They based everything that they did on the Zohar.
Does Machon Shilo reject all mysticism?
Machon Shilo bases itself on Torah, Logic and Reason.
As far as I know there are only a few Spanish words in the Zohar. I doubt that the school of the Rashbi spoke Spanish all the time although they certainly were familiar with foreign languages.
Why is there no French or German in the Zohar? Only the language spoken in Moshe De Leon's country?
Don't you think that is a little too much of a coincidence?
-
The fact that billions of goyim fallow christianity and islam is irrelevant. I don’t care what goyim think.
Rabbi Shalom Shabazi was one of the best poets ever. His poetry (Diwan) helped the Temanim to survive their most merciless oppression when they were banished to the desert. His Diwan became ingrained in the culture of the Temanim.
Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (the Rashash) was a world famous Mekubal gadol and miracle worker. He is revered by the Shami and all great Kabbalists.
Most Temanim are Shami not Dor Dai. These 2 Rabbis have had a bigger influence on Temani Yehudi culture and Judaism in general than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh. Thats why I say they are the best Temanim.
The Sefiroth are not “partners to G-d” they are channels which enable the one infinite G-d to interact with finite reality. The Kabbalah’s teaching of the Sephiroth was the origin of the base 10 numeric system everyone uses and has infact foreshadowed string theory 2000 years ago! String theory is physicists latest explanation of the universe which proposes that the universe has 10 dimensions. Even Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh accepted the Sefer Yetzirah which discusses the Sefiroth.
“Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha."
Are you saying that Yehudim should reject the rulings of the great Torah giants, Arizal, Hakam Abuhatzera, Ben Ish Hai etc? And that their rulings contradict the Halakha?! How can anyone say this?
"True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah"."
So you admit that the Zohar existed before Moshe De Leon revealed it?
Just like the opposite extreme of people taking the Zohar to literally and rejecting it, Shabbetai Zvi accepted it and took it to literally. Remember the Zohar itself warns people not to take it literally. So Shabbetai Zvi done the opposite of what the Zohar says.
What do you define as “logic” and “reason”? What the greeks said?
In ancient times there was a lot of contact between the Holy Land and Spain. The Phoenicians had trading colonies in Spain and there are actually many Spanish words with Semitic origin!
-
The fact that billions of goyim fallow christianity and islam is irrelevant. I don’t care what goyim think.
My point was that one cannot simply say "the majority of Rabbis think like me", perhaps the minority is correct and the majority is incorrect
Rabbi Shalom Shabazi was one of the best poets ever. His poetry (Diwan) helped the Temanim to survive their most merciless oppression when they were banished to the desert. His Diwan became ingrained in the culture of the Temanim.
Thank you for informing me. I did not know that.
Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (the Rashash) was a world famous Mekubal gadol and miracle worker. He is revered by the Shami and all great Kabbalists.
That I knew.
Most Temanim are Shami not Dor Dai. These 2 Rabbis have had a bigger influence on Temani Yehudi culture and Judaism in general than Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh. Thats why I say they are the best Temanim.
Right. But you're talking about greater influence. So say "most influential"!!!! Saying they are "the best" is a moral judgement on Rabbi Yihya Gafekh that you cannot back up.
The Sefiroth are not “partners to G-d” they are channels which enable the one infinite G-d to interact with finite reality. The Kabbalah’s teaching of the Sephiroth was the origin of the base 10 numeric system everyone uses and has infact foreshadowed string theory 2000 years ago! String theory is physicists latest explanation of the universe which proposes that the universe has 10 dimensions. Even Rabbi Yihyah Gafekh accepted the Sefer Yetzirah which discusses the Sefiroth.
Excuse me, in his writing he condemns the beleif in the sefiroth in a way that I myself found shocking. I will post some of what he wrote in the next post.
“Any Jew faithful to the Torah should cry over this fact and certainly ignore such rulings that contradict the Halakha."
Are you saying that Yehudim should reject the rulings of the great Torah giants, Arizal, Hakam Abuhatzera, Ben Ish Hai etc? And that their rulings contradict the Halakha?! How can anyone say this?
Halakha is only valid when based on the following sources: Sifre, Sifra, Mechilta, Pesikta Rabati, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmudh Yerushalmi and Talmudh Bavli.
The Rambam says this. And he was as great as all of the Torah giants you listed put together.
The idea that Rashbi wrote the Zohar is ludicrous. There isn't the slightest proof that this is so. It contradicts reason and is practically impossible.
But even if he did write the Zohar. He is just ONE Tanna and his opinion is not supreme over all other Tannaim. In fact, in most cases the Halakha is not like Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai in the Talmudh.
"True, and the R''an (Rabbenu Nissim) one of the greatest of the Rishonim criticizes him for relying too much on "This Kabbalah"."
So you admit that the Zohar existed before Moshe De Leon revealed it?
No, he said Kabbalah not Zohar. The Kabbalah definitely existed before the Zohar.
Just like the opposite extreme of people taking the Zohar to literally and rejecting it, Shabbetai Zvi accepted it and took it to literally. Remember the Zohar itself warns people not to take it literally. So Shabbetai Zvi done the opposite of what the Zohar says.
Please remind me where the Zohar says, "Don't take it literally." Cite your source.
What do you define as “logic” and “reason”? What the greeks said?
Logic and reason, meaning things that make sense. Not things that make no sense like Kabbalah. Everything in the Kabbalah cannot be demonstrated to be true. It is all just taken on faith.
In ancient times there was a lot of contact between the Holy Land and Spain. The Phoenicians had trading colonies in Spain and there are actually many Spanish words with Semitic origin!
The Spanish words with Semitic origin come from arabic. The Arabs ruled them for quite a while.
It says in the Zohar that we call Synagogues "Eshnoga". If you can find me one Spanish word in the Talmudh or mishna or sifre or mechilta, then you might have a point. But none exist.
You are grasping at straws, prepared to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to defend a belief that somewhere deep in your mind, you know is not true.
Free your mind, Sefardic Panther and follow in the footsteps of great sefardic rabbis like the Rambam and Rav saadya Gaon and Rabbenu Nissim.
Or, alternatively, you could go get your palm read by a kabbalistic charlatan and stay tuned for a bunch of messianic predictions by Mekubalim that never come true. They are always wrong in all of their arrogant predictions. There is not one word of truth in anything they say. They are liars and frauds giving false hope to credulous people all the while lining their pocketbooks.
"al Tivtehu binidiveem b'ben adam she'ein lo theshua''
If you want examples of incorrect messianic predictions by Kabbalists, tell me. I have a list a mile long.
-
I am one who supports the Zohar, from my understanding of Chassidus.
The entire Torah must be accepted only on faith. We don't know anyone who actually stood at Sinai. We must accept everything based on what we believe and what we experience. There is nothing Proveable about Torah via scientific method {ie. is there evidence that the Sea of Reeds really split? Any evidence of ten plagues?}.
The other question I have is why would anyone write anything like Zohar if it would cause a schism in Judaism? I doubt anyone would even attempt such a forgery. I believe that there were ancient texts which were found and they were compiled in this Zohar. It is possible that there were errors in the publication and those errors are the reason for the misunderstanding.
I find this argument very disheartening. If indeed it is not authentic it is a very bad sign for Judaism as a whole. I truly want to believe that the Zohar is authentic Kabbalah.
PS: The sfierot are not idolatry in the least. In basic Judaism we call Hashem by a number of names. The sfirot are just various names we apply to our relationship with Hashem, they are not divisible forces. Just as I am a man, a husband, an employee, and a son depending on your relationship with me... For example we call Hashem Elokim when he is dealing with us with gevurah, and we call him Ad-nai when we relate to him via Chesed. Hashem is called by these two names in the book of Beresheit.
-
Muman, the arguments for the torah's truth are another issue, I suggest you familiarise yourself with them. Maybe make a separate thread for it. But it's not just something we "take on faith".
By the way, since you mention there is no evidence for the 10 plagues. I should point out there is actually some incredible evidence for the 10 plagues, striking parallels recorded by egyptians, but a question regarding the dating of it. You can start another thread about it if you want about evidence of the torah's truth, but that's a completely different subject, and a large one in itself. This is about the Zohar and Kabbalah.
-
Like it or not Judeanoncapta the Zohar and all the teachings and rulings derived from it as well as similar teachings outside Zohar are an integral part of the Judaic heritage. Kabbalah is the very essence and meaning of Judaism. So many Hakamim much much smarter than me accepted the Zohar. There is not one doubt in my mind about Kabbalah!
“follow in the footsteps of great sefardic rabbis like the Rambam and Rav saadya Gaon”
Yes indeed! And those 2 did not reject Kabbalah! In Moreh Nevuchim Rambam discusses Maseh Bereshith and Maseh Merqavah, older terms for Kabbalah. Rav Saadya Gaon wrote an exquisite translation and commentary of the Sefer Yetzirah another core Kabbalistic text.
You mention Shabbetai Zvi and kabbalistic charlatans. But note there have been plenty of the opposite extreme. Heretic rationalists such as Baruch Spinoza and Solomon Ben Joshua who was big into the Moreh Nevuchim and even called himself “Maimon”.
“Please remind me where the Zohar says, "Don't take it literally”.”
I think it was Tikkunei Zohar or Zohar Parashat Bereshith was the origin of PaRDeS, the 4 levels of understanding Torah – Pshat (literal meaning) Remez (allegorical meaning) Drash (implied meaning) Sod (secret meaning). Rashbi said anyone who takes Torah literally is a fool.
“The Spanish words with Semitic origin come from arabic”
I think the Spanish word “noche” derived from the Hebrew “neshef” predates the Arabs.
Tell me what is there in Kabbalah that “cannot be demonstrated to be true” and “makes no sense”? On the contrary what about the fact that –
The Zohar says the earth is a rotating sphere and people in different places experience day and night at the same time?
The base 10 numeric system which can depict any number and enables complex mathematics originated from the Kabbalistic concept of the 10 Sefiroth?
Kabbalist gadol and proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity Hakam Yitzhak of Akko said that the universe is 15 billion years old? (this is the exact age of the universe most scientists estimate today!)
Kabbalist gadol Ramban said that the universe was initially as small as a mustard seed until it expanded and became tangible? (compare this with the present big bang model all scientists accept).
Rather than reject Kabbalah you should take pride in the fact that at a time when the goyim (who all constantly ridicule us and think they are better than us) thought the world was flat and only a few thousand years old or eternal, your ancient tradition knew the truth which the goy’s science is only now catching up with!
Anyway since when did Judaism become only believing the “things that make sense” and can “be demonstrated to be true”? If we think like that we will become like Richard Dawkins.
-
I will deal with your points about miracles and maths.. I will leave out the spanish!
<snip>
those 2 [saadya and rambam] did not reject Kabbalah! In Moreh Nevuchim Rambam discusses Maseh Bereshith and Maseh Merqavah, older terms for Kabbalah. Rav Saadya Gaon wrote an exquisite translation and commentary of the Sefer Yetzirah another core Kabbalistic text.
I don't think it's very logical to just say follow those 2 for the sake of it, or to follow everybody else for the sake of it. But anyway.
"Those 2" don't mention any kabbalah post talmud.
Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud.
Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.
<snip>
Tell me what is there in Kabbalah that “cannot be demonstrated to be true” and “makes no sense”? On the contrary what about the fact that –
I wouldn't have said what judea said there.. Certainly the written and oral Torah have the stronger foundation of national revelation.
regarding scientific facts.. there was an interesting debate between nadir ahmed and dennis giron about scientific "miracles" in the quran.
Ahmed (the muslim) suggested a procedure to test if they are valid or not.
Giron(atheist) then showed all of Ahmed's claims failed his criteria.
Ahmed said that the sum of them made it true.
Giron failed to reply that 0*0*0=0 (AND=*).
And Giron failed to state that certain errors were copied , and invalidated the muslim religious book completely. (he seemed nervous and -very- respectful! and just making the claim that the scientific miracles were false, not touching on whether the muslim book was true or false!)
Here are some of the criteria Ahmed mentioned. they are relevant here too.
It doesn't count if,
- if it's 50/50
- if it's something that man can see/test for himself..(e.g. a curious person without deep scientific knowledge could observe or test it quite easily)
- if it was already known at the time
I would also add, science is a big field, and it's rather unfair to bring up many many claims that just don't hold up to reason. Fortunately, the jewish claims are not ridiculous at all, and not too numerous.. (in contrast, the muslims pump huge amounts of money into inventing thousands of the most ridiculous stupid so-called miracles to fool people.. but let's not go there, i've mentioned that story in another thread)
And, I would add that non scientists, and non mathematicians, can't readily criticise these things, and usually these facts are just put out there but not in an honest way.. Nobody actually takes these facts to scientists for an answer. They are usually answered by *honest* orthodox jews themselves, that have run into these facts and have the background or knowledge see if they are valid.
The Zohar says the earth is a rotating sphere and people in different places experience day and night at the same time?
Google tells us "Around 350 B.C.E., the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere"
Still, some jewish sources said flat, some round. But there was disagreement amongst the nations at the time anyway. It was a 50/50 really too.
this site mentions that the bavli said flat. The jerusalem talmud may have suggested round. the Zohar and midrash beraishit rabba said round.
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/07/flat-or-round-earth-and-zohar.html
As far as day and night.. Well, I think that if you see the sun moving around the earth, you might think ,Ah, it was day over there, and night here, now the sun is moving over here. So it will be day here and night there.
So it is observable.
Now regarding rotating.
Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating ?
The rotation and orbit are different by the way, but either would be impressive.
People thought that the sun had an orbit around the earth.
It would be good to see te exact quote where you get the rotating aspect from.
By the way.. The RAMBAM said in "the guide" that we don't know, and for calculating the calendar we use the greek hypothesis , science of the time, because the calculations work, so the hypothesis is fine for that purpose.
The base 10 numeric system which can depict any number and enables complex mathematics originated from the Kabbalistic concept of the 10 Sefiroth?
One would be hard placed to say what is special about base 10.
Infact, one can represent all those numbers in any base. And if base 8 or base 16 was used, we could even convert between bases quite easily.
Say we used base 10. We could have words for one 16, 2 16s e.t.c. and digits for all 16 hex digits and it would all seem perfectly natural! Some people do that, just without the words!
Most mathematicians or computer scientists might suggest that we use base 10 because we have 10 fingers. There is no obvious reason why we use it.
A jewish answer I once considered was that Hebrew - the original - Lashon HaKodesh, always had numbers, and it -almost- uses base 10! It's a bit like roman numerals, but the only -consecutive- digits it has are One to Ten. (I know, it skips 0. Base 10 would use 0-9, no letter for ten. And It has other letters like kaf lamed e.t.c. hebrew isn't really base 10, not at all really!)
Kabbalist gadol and proponent of the Zohar’s authenticity Hakam Yitzhak of Akko said that the universe is 15 billion years old? (this is the exact age of the universe most scientists estimate today!)
There was a recent thread I posted in on this subject. A post about the 6000 year issue in the subject..
The ~15 billion figure is 42,000*365.25*1000
He wouldn't have said 42,000 though.
Another source suggests it.
He says, quoting the talmud, that the world goes through 7* 7000 year cycles.
Apparently, he put us in the 2nd cycle.
But if you put us in the 7th.
So we had 6 before it, and those 6 were divine years..
We get 42,000 by doing 6*7000
http://www.jewishmag.com/8MAG/WORLDS/worlds1.htm
this skeptic one (I notice this skeptical article doesn't make sense in describing rabbi aryeh kaplan, and it makes a really silly argument that 365.25 is not the jewish year. A year is a natural thing, a solar-earth thing)
http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2005/01/kaplan-and-ramban.html
It does mean that we should look into it more closely.. What rabbi yitzchak of acco says. And what sources rabbi kaplan uses..
That orthoprax site did a tiny little bit more information.. of a skeptical nature, that I didn't have in the previous thread where I mentioned this.. where I just relied on the jewishmag link.. but the jewishmag link is very very good
And by saying that rabbi yitzchak of acco says 15 billion, hey presto miracle.
That is problematic if science then changes.
You have to realise that that kind of science is not definite, it's done by extrapolation. True, extrapolation based on various methods.. But it's possible that the earth was different pre flood and this influenced many methods.
Don't twist(/liberally interpet) things into unskeptically saying the torah predicts a big bang and an expanding universe and a universe of 15 billion years. Because then when science changes, you'll lead alot of people to secularism..
It is of course important to put Truth first, and not get too excited by the moment.
Kabbalist gadol Ramban said that the universe was initially as small as a mustard seed until it expanded and became tangible? (compare this with the present big bang model all scientists accept).
<snip>
You are quoting things you haven't read.. You should really quote it here.
I haven't read it either.. But you are making the claim.
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
This site says regarding it
http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2005/01/kaplan-and-ramban.html
"
Ramban's view of creation is not the same as is found in modern cosmology. Ramban's idea of creation is that G-d created a "prime matter" without any characteristics - this a Greek idea - from which all other matter of the universe came from. However, he also asserts the initial creation was actually of two prime matters: one of heaven and one of earth.
"
-
<snip>
Please read this article. http://www.mesora.org/ToharHayihud.pdf
It is worth every word.
<snip>
that is a very interesting article/book..
is there a page that linked you to it?(I don't see it linked to on the mesora.org site)
how did you find it?
-
So many Hakamim much much smarter than me accepted the Zohar. There is not one doubt in my mind about Kabbalah!
So many Hakamim much much smarter than me rejected the Zohar. However, there is doubt in my mind regarding the subject. Your statement is rather revealing.
-
Relevant to this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Spanish_language
Forgive me for citing wikipedia as a source, but for general knowledge like this it can be quite useful and generally accurate.
"The standard Spanish language is also called Castilian. In its earliest documented form, and up through approximately the 15th century, the language is customarily called Old Spanish. From approximately the 16th century on, it is called Modern Spanish. Spanish of the 16th and 17th centuries is sometimes called "classical" Spanish, referring to the literary accomplishments of that period. Unlike English and French, it is not customary to speak of a "middle" stage in the development of Spanish. Castilian Spanish originated, after the decline of the Roman Empire, as a continuation of spoken Latin in the Cantabrian Mountains, in northern Spain, in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, according to most authorities; but others claim it came from Franco-Navarrese and Gothic-Castilian dialects in the 11th century AD. "
Of course as a "Romance Language" Spanish certainly developed out of Latin, much like Italian, French, and all the other romance languages did. It seems safe to say that the Spanish language was not in use, not even in existence, in the Tannaic era.
-
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson" which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory. Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory. It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold. ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew. It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English. Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes, based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic. I do not altogether understand this issue though. It could be that he is correct.
-
“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!
“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".
“Don't twist(/liberally interpet) things into unskeptically saying the torah predicts a big bang and an expanding universe and a universe of 15 billion years. Because then when science changes, you'll lead alot of people to secularism”
I am not twisting Torah to match present day science. I am disputing the misconception that Kabbalah is just another ancient superstition. Anyway Yehudim should not be fallowing Torah because it matches science they should be fallowing Torah because it is their eternal covenant with G-d, what ever science says is absolutely irrelavent!!!
Shabat Shalom
-
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson" which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory. Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory. It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold. ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew. It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English. Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes, based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic. I do not altogether understand this issue though. It could be that he is correct.
Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that, but you do still have the ability to go through things logically, so you are not a lost cause like many would be. You didn't respond to that area of the argument so it's not very logical to discuss other things that relate to this.
Anyhow, the issue you quoted is a bit like this.. (walid shoebat mentions this in his book against scientific miracles in the quran). If a book says "there is an object, it has wings". Then somebody looks at it and says "this is a prediction of a UFO, it's a miracle". The fact is, it clearly isn't. People claiming that are READING IT IN.
Now, maybe if you had a time machine, the author could explain further in such detail that it's clear that he did mean a UFO! The point though, is that from what he said, we cannot conclude that he did. (to conclude it would involve other premises or other assumptions)
I would add a few points..
There is a difference between.
"I don't believe A" and "I believe not A"
furthermore,
saying that X does not "describe" Y, does not mean that X "describes" against Y.
also,
If somebody says A implies B, and a critic says A doesn't imply B, that doesn't mean that A implies NOT B.
-
SP is quoting me when he uses these quotes.
SP, try to learn how to quote people in a way that shows who you are quoting. The notation is not hard.
<quote author=jo>
....
</quote>
response
change <> to square brackets.
Anyhow.
“Maaseh Beraishit and Maaseh Merkava are referred to in the Talmud. Sefer Yetzirah is referred to in the talmud.”
Exactly! And Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi are undisputable sources and they don’t reject Kabbalah!
The next thing you say (with my response) is more important. Your thing above is just sillyness.
If you had read what I wrote in context and thought about what I was saying, it might have helped you.
RAMBAM accepted the Kabbalah that was referred to in the talmud.
That doesn't mean he accepted the Zohar. The Zohar wasn't discovered during his lifetime.
You played a silly game and said he was a kabbalist. As if that makes some kind of general point. Don't throw labels around like that.
There is a distinction between kabbalah referred to in the talmud, and kabbalah not referred to in there.
The thread subject is the Zohar.
I don't think you disagree.. You can't. Nobody does.
The point I was making that you responded to had nothing to do with whether the zohar was true or not. Does that confuse you?
“Are you sure that the Zohar says the earth is rotating?”
Zohar Parashat Wayiqra 10a "The earth is a sphere which revolves on its axis".
Even if that is indeed what the Zohar says.. (and according to the site below, it is)
But as I said, -a- criteria to consider is *was it known or believed at the time* (what is known by scientists or for early times, philosophers, since they took the place of the scientists)
I doubt that you ever really investigated this. You just throw these things at people to win them over by nook or crook. (though if you knew it was known, then it would be really crooked.. you probably just don't know because you didn't want to know!)
According to this anti-orthodox site
It was "known" at the time.
I did read somewher that - The idea of Earth's daily rotation on its axis was first brought by Heraclides of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean (in the 4th century B.C.E - I see the idea that the earth spins on its axis is mentioned in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric
if you look for the word axis, you see relevant parts, like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model
". Hicetas and Ecphantus, two Pythagoreans of the 5th century BC, and Heraclides Ponticus in the 4th century BC, believed that the Earth rotated on its axis but remained at the center of the universe. "
If you think about it , then with an earth rotating on its axis. If you imagine a ball rotating as you shine a torch at it, then you could conclude that it is day on one half and night on the other.
(the reality has some more detail, but generally speaking that's right. But it was a known theory at the time)
It's still not bad that it managed to choose a correct theory(earth rotating on its axis). But there are of course other things in the Zohar about 7 lands and different creatures that are not verified by science / have no scientific basis.
If you consider the seemingly factual statements about the world in the zohar, and say some are scientific, then if it's good enough for that, it should also be good enough to say they that some aren't scientific.. You could say that the ones that aren't scientific are metaphorical or spiritual or science is somehow wrong, but with that kind of standard, you can't take too seriously the significance of things that do match, because with many things in there, you would expect some things to match(in this case anyway, of a theory about the earth that was believed by some at the time).
-
Here are 2 criticisms of the claim that the RAMBAN's words go along with the big bang.
Rabbi dovid gottlieb says regarding Gerald Shroeder's book.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/CommentsGenesisBigBang.htm
"P 65. Ramban's first creation is Aristotelian "prime matter" which is pure potentiality without any positive characteristics at all. There is no evidence in physics for such an entity. Also, much of the description of the big bang in the Ramban is the product of the author's expansion and interpolation. In particular, the Ramban does not say or imply that as the prime matter expanded, the universe expanded with it."
Interesting, but scientists today are searching for the "higgs boson" which if I understand correctly is believed to be the first initial conversion of energy into matter that set in motion the expansion of the universe in the big bang theory. Apparently it is one of the keys to the big bang theory. It seems to me that this concept could fit in with the Ramban as far as "prime matter" is concerned, although the issue of translation simply doesn't hold. ("Matter" as a scientific concept we know it as today, is not what Ramban refers to in the Hebrew. It is simply the convenient 'english translation' of his words into concepts we can enunciate in English. Science did not discover/understand "matter" as we know it today until very recently), but I don't see sufficient reason to rule out the interpretation of Ramban that R. Gottlieb excludes, based on Rabbi Gottlieb's logic. I do not altogether understand this issue though. It could be that he is correct.
Well, you seem to me to consider it logical and natural for a person that holds a belief, to make up reasons for that belief. It's a terrible shame that you don't just naturally understand the problem with that,
If you don't see that it is human nature to do so, you are simply delusional. It's hard to believe you are even serious. I never said that that was what I was doing or what I am interested in or support. It's simply a common human behavior that is oft-observed. To assume otherwise is nothing but delusion. I'll reiterate. A person with a belief in a certain thing will find every possible way to justify it in the face of contrary evidence. In general, the person who can open his mind to contrary evidence/opinions and in the face of overwhelming support and rational appeal (in his own mind) of the contrary view, to reneg his starting opinion and adopt the contrary view- This person is a rarity indeed. Most people are not generally open to all opinions or viewpoints. Everyone has prejudices and certain prevailing 'wisdom' that they consider incontravertible fact, in every aspect of life. And this prevailing wisdom a person believes in serves as the foundational starting points for discussion of a given subject.
In today's terms, a "Kabbalist" begins with the prerequisite starting principle that the Zohar is true, authentic kaballah, authentic mesorah, written by Rashbi. Otherwise he could not really call himself a kabbalist. To expect a kabbalist to renounce this starting point and go from kabbalist to non-kabbalist by a matter of convincing, to me is simply not a rational expectation. He already thinks it is mesorah, so he will defend it as such. That jump has been made in anointing oneself as 'kabbalist' (or being anointed as such by followers). (And I imagine often that the arguments are, gadol x,y, or z says its mesorah, therefore it is).
Do you really think that every person who became a kabbalist went through and studied all the opinions against the zohar in depth, all the scholarship related to it, and then logically came to a decision one way or another? They most likely were taught it by someone who was knowledgable and they are aware that most gedolim consider it authentic. That is enough for most people. And you could make an argument that that alone should be enough. But to me this a special case. For one, the historical context it appeared in. The questionable circumstances regarding its early history and Moshe De Leon. And the incredible claims it makes (claiming prior authorship back to ~1200 years before it ever appeared). You have had gedolim make strong arguments against it. Even the scholarly opinions were mostly recycled and refined information from the objections of our own rabbis. The opinions of these rabbis are worth investigation on a very key and very serious hashkafic matter such as this. Despite what the "majority" says.
Only a very rare and unique person would be one who is open to discussion whether or not the arguments are convincing for or against and to choose the stronger side. Someone already deeply invested emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and other meaningful ways into the Zohar will not readily concede a point or consider these discussions even worthwhile or with merit. This type of discussion is not even in the ballpark. For someone with the starting point that it is true, it's your yetzer hara, that's all. Or you just don't trust the rabbis. It's a question that is not legitimate to ask. Although maybe not quite the same level, I would consider it like expecting a rabbi to acknowledge that heresy is a legitimate opinion. It simply isn't. To a person with "conviction" about a certain idea, he will feel similarly about the opinion against his belief (in any sort of area), even if what he believes is some extremely false notion like marxism or what have you.
Here in this very comment, you actually bring proof of my principle. You describe well the case of Muslims who "believe" that the Koran contains miraculous scientific descriptions hundreds of years ahead of its time, and who proceed to make every possible far-fetched, incorrect, misleading, dishonest, bizarre, and laughable twisting of reality to somehow fit nonexistant facts to this "belief." The Muslims simply have a conviction that the Koran is divine, and they will do any trick in the book (including bold-faced lies) to "support" their conviction. And there are a BILLION muslims. You really think I don't think that's a problem? Of course it is. But my eyes are open and I can acknowledge that this most certainly happens and is common human behavior, especially when it comes to 'religious' beliefs/convictions/dogmas! It surprises me that you could overlook the fact that we have seen much of the same in this very thread!
Granted, most people don't intentionally lie like the Muslims do, so they are an extreme case, but they prove the general point. In most cases, it will just be a person's desire to find ways to allow his belief to still be true. So he will find ways to reconcile things that to most rational people will sound incredibly far-fetched, unlikely, or irrational. Because he is unwilling to accept that it possibly could not be true. It has to somehow be true.
Furthermore, you haven't shown what it is about Ramban's idea that contradicts the concept of energy turning to matter in the initial phases of creation. That intial bit of matter (converted from energy) from a volatile gas mixture with high-speed particle collisions is something the scientists are now seeking. Ramban didn't have that kind of science at his disposal. Nonetheless, his concept is an ingenious one. If you have a way to explain how it's wrong, then do so. Saying x does not equal y or some other abstract irrelevant mathematical equation won't help.
I will point out that in halacha, something not observed by the naked eye is considered 'not there.' Ramban saying that the initial matter had pure potentiality and "no positive characteristics" does not necessarily mean it didn't exist or was complete nothingness. In fact, if it was initially energy that got converted to matter at the start of the creation of the world, I'm not sure what you or Rabbi Gottlieb takes issue with if describing energy as 'pure potentiality with no positive characteristics.' Up until quite recently that could be an accurate description of a concept of energy, which itself was not described in any meaningful or close to accurate way with any detail until a few hundred years ago and sooner. I am no way saying Ramban knew modern science or predicted the big bang theory or e=mc squared or anything even close. That would be ridiculous. What I am saying is that his general ideas about the creation of the world could be generally correct conceptually when compared to today's science. I would still hesitate to speculate about how the earth was created, regardless. But that is a sidenote.
In 1021 AD, the Arabian physicist, Alhazen, in the Book of Optics, held light rays to be streams of minute energy particles, stating that "the smallest parts of light" retain "only properties that can be treated by geometry and verified by experiment" and that "they lack all sensible qualities except energy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#cite_note-3
An interesting subject.
-
KahaneBT, you said
"
anyone who believes that the Zohar was written by Rashbi (most certainly including anyone who considers themself a "kabbalist") is going to use any possible claim to support this belief and would never say otherwise.
"
"
What is so foolish about believing in the 'Rasbhi authorship' and then using any arguments that could fit with it to support that belief? That's not foolish at all. It's a conviction and it will be defended by its believers. Naturally.
"
Well, Natural could mean two opposite things here, so forget that word.
I ask you
Is that logical?
Is that deluded?
Note- I am certainly not saying the following about the Arizal in any of the positions I have suggested. But from you have said, what I quoted, it looks like you are saying that the Arizal would have used any possible claim to support his belief in the Zohar.
-
I was actually talking about people today. Especially your local kabbalist who SP apparently went to to "find out" if the Zohar was kosher.
-
<snip>
I am no way saying Ramban knew modern science or predicted the big bang theory or e=mc squared or anything even close. That would be ridiculous.
In theory. Do you think that a legitimate mystic can know things in great detail. Things that he couldn't have known by any natural means. Things that scientists learn hundreds of years later by experimentation.
Do you think there are legitimate mystics?
<snip>
-
It was written by Rashbi but only redacted in the times of the Amoraim? Since when is this what kabbalists believe? And even if that was the case, that contradicts what Moshe De Leon claimed and what even you and the kabbalist here claim. That means it was NOT written by Shimon Bar Yochai, if it was REDACTED IN A LATER PERIOD BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE!
Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher has a long responsa on the issue, if I'm not mistaken. I'll try to find it
-
First an introduction.
During the days of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto, {Ramchal} there was strong opposition from Rabbis in his area, over his kabbalistic writings. My assumption is that they were worried about the rise of another variation of Sabbateanism.
So towards the end of his life, because of the pressures put on him, Rabbi Luzatto decided to write books without reference to Kabbalistic sources, which became very popular in the Jewish world.
One of these books is called Daat Utvunote- Translated into English as the Knowing Heart.
According to Rabbi Triebitz in an audio lecture found at the web site http://hashkafacircle.com/ this book of Rabbi Luzatto seemed to be Mussar or Hashkafa books, however, Rabbi Triebitz claims that those familiar with the Kabbalistic writings of Rabbi Luzatto will see very clearly that this book is a reflection of his Kabbalistic views.
Now one of the arguments made by the defenders of the Zohar is that because it deals with the secrets of Torah it was not made public to large segments of the Torah world until the time of Rabbi Moshe de Leon (in what secularists call the middle ages). But if so, I would at least expect to see a hidden reflection of the Zohar's ideas in the words of the Torah Giants, such as Rabbi Saadia Gaon and Rambam in the centuries that preceded the revelation of the Zohar to the mainstream. Unlike the writings of Rabbi Luzatto where we find such a reflection, we don't really find them in the writings of those Torah Giants.
-
http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/list-ask-the-rav/61-talmudh-tora-education/564-did-r-shimon-bar-yohai-write-the-zohar
Did R. Shimon Bar Yohai Write the Zohar?
Question
Dear Kavod HaRav, Shalom U'Brachot.
What do you think about the Zohar's authenticity? Do you recognize it as the Holy Zohar/ Zohar HaKadosh or do you reject the claim that it comes from the Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai?
Response
1. The Zohar literature, which includes the Zohar, Zohar Hadash, Midrash HaNe'elam, Tiqune Zohar and several other works, was written, almost certainly by different authors, in 13th century Spain. None of it was written during Mishnaic or even Talmudic times. Much has been written on the subject, including the seminal work of the Ya'abess (R. Ya'aqov Emden) z'l, Mittpahath S’pharim (http://hebrewbooks.org/33319), written some 250 years ago, in which he adduces copious and convincing proof that the Zohar was written in Spain during the period of the Rishonim. Certain parties have endeavoured, with no small success, to make this book unavailable; this should tell you something about the book’s power. For those familiar with the works of the Ya’abess this will come as no surprise. A new edition was printed by HaRav Ben-Ssiyon Kohen z’l of Jerusalem about 15 years ago.
2. I will mention just one example of such proof. According to the Zohar (Sh’moth 48b) the T’kheleth dye was produced from the Hilazon (sea snail) that is found in the Kinereth. In the first place this contradicts Hazal who state (TB Shabath 26a) that the Hilazon is to be found along the Mediterranean coast. Secondly, it contradicts what was common knowledge in the ancient Mediterranean basin regarding the source of this and similar dyes, as described in Greek (Aristotle) and Roman (Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 9: 60-65) sources. Thirdly, no such creature does or can exist in the Kinereth or any body of fresh water, a fact mentioned by Pliny. Fourthly, only a Jewish mystic living and dreaming in 13th century Spain could have been so ignorant of what was common knowledge in Eress Yisrael in the days of Hazal.
3. For those whose perception and understanding of Tora is based upon misinformation, this truth is a bitter pill to swallow. To a person who has invested years, perhaps a lifetime, pursuing a phantom, this will come as a great shock. This is only to be expected. If you discuss this matter with such people and sense their inability to deal with the matter rationally, you might consider changing the subject.
4. The teachings of the Zohar range from profound to inane, from insightful and enlightening to misleading and even heretical. It should only be studied by those of superior intellect who have dedicated themselves for many years to the in-depth study of Tora based on the primary sources. The capacity for critical thought and caution are essential. The masses are to discouraged from studying it.
Rabbi David Bar-Hayim
-
"If you want examples of incorrect messianic predictions by Kabbalists, tell me. I have a list a mile long"
Please list them here or send them to me.
-
What Kabbalah I have learned, and that which comes from the Zohar many times, does not contradict the teaching of the Torah, and often it is supported in Mishnah and Talmud. I am not an expert, nor have I studied Zohar, but it is referred to in a lot of Chassidic teachings.
You are entitled to discount the entire corpus of Kabbalah if you like, as it is not essential to live a righteous life. But there is truth in what little Kabbalah I have learned, and I am not quick to discount it.
-
What Kabbalah I have learned, and that which comes from the Zohar many times, does not contradict the teaching of the Torah, and often it is supported in Mishnah and Talmud. I am not an expert, nor have I studied Zohar, but it is referred to in a lot of Chassidic teachings.
You are entitled to discount the entire corpus of Kabbalah if you like, as it is not essential to live a righteous life. But there is truth in what little Kabbalah I have learned, and I am not quick to discount it.
Not everything is wrong or even bad. Its just that the proper teacher can and should bring out the proper and good teachings. I myself learn from all different types of schools of though, some Hassidus as well (Breslov, Chabad (R' Ginsburg) the problems arise when you take everything in and don't question some possible problems with things. Also some people using certain things like "Kabbalah" for their personal use. - Just check today's "Mekubalim" tricking gullible people in following them (Paying $ as well).
I was at your position as well for some time so I understand. Their are (and will be) transition periods with your thoughts and beliefs. Just be careful not to (accidentally) reject the Torah and Halacha because of association to these ideas. (You can disagree and that is fine, but I only predict).