Who wrote the Zohar - Rashbi or Moshe de Leon?

[Sefardic Panther]

Quite a few Teymani Yehudim say that Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar. However parts of this book certainly do have divine origin i.e. the references to black holes (Botsina Deqardinuta - lamp of darkness). If it was a middle ages forgery Moshe de Leon must have had access to genuine teachings. 

[muman613]

Quite a few Teymani Yehudim say that Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar. However parts of this book certainly do have divine origin i.e. the references to black holes (Botsina Deqardinuta - lamp of darkness). If it was a middle ages forgery Moshe de Leon must have had access to genuine teachings. 

Shalom,

According to sources on the internet it is clear that Rabbi Shimeon Bar Yochi (Rashbi) wrote the Zorah. It was not published till 1558.

muman613

http://www.meaningfullife.com/spiritual/mystics/The_Rashbi.php

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/361877/jewish/The-Zohar.htm
The Key to Kabbalah
By Nissan Dovid Dubov
The Zohar

It was in the Tannaic period that the Zohar, the most famous text of Kabbalah, was committed to writing by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (also known as the Rashbi). Rashbi lived in tumultuous times when the Roman government was executing all the great Torah teachers, including his master Rabbi Akiva.

Rashbi himself had to flee Roman persecution and hid in a cave with his son, Rabbi Elazar, for thirteen years. During this time, he received Divine Inspiration (Ruach Hakodesh) and merited the revelation of Elijah the Prophet and composed the sacred Zohar.

Based on the five books of Moses and written in Hebrew Aramaic, the text of the Zohar explores and expounds in a most cryptic way the mystical tradition. Its pre-eminent place in Jewish mysticism does not derive solely from its antiquity or its authorship. Other works of the Kabbalah such as Sefer Yetzirah and Sefer HaBahir are of earlier origin. The Zohar’s importance must rather be attributed to its comprehensiveness.

It became the source for practically all the later authoritative Kabbalistic teachings of the Arizal and others.

The Zohar was concealed for many centuries, and the study of the Kabbalah was restricted to a select few qualified individuals. It became revealed only in the thirteenth century and was published by one of the leading Kabbalists living in Spain, Rabbi Moshe de Leon. Some believed that the Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman c.1194-1270 C.E.), himself a renowned Kabbalist, had sent the Zohar from Israel by ship to his son in Catalonia, but the ship had been diverted and the texts ended up in the hands of Rabbi Moshe de Leon. Others explained that these manuscripts had been hidden in a vault for a thousand years and had been discovered by an Arabian king who sent them to Toledo to be deciphered. Still others maintained that Spanish conquistadors had discovered the manuscripts of the Zohar among many others in an academy in Heidelberg. Whichever theory is true, the text was accepted as authentic by all pre-eminent Jewish scholars.

The mystics ascribe special potency to the study of Zohar.

It effects a nullification of evil decrees, eases the travails of exile, hastens the redemption, and draws forth Divine blessings. In some mystical circles, great merit is attributed to the mere recitation of the sacred texts of the Zohar, even though one does not understand them. However, ideally an effort is to be made to understand and comprehend the texts. The text has been translated into Hebrew and English. In truth, today it still remains a closed text without many introductions, explanations, and elucidations of later masters.

In summary, at this stage of history the major texts of Sefer Yetzirah, the Sefer HaBahir, the Pirkei Heichalot Rabati, and the Zohar contained the basic teachings that had been passed down through the prophets and sages from Moses. And yet, although committing the mystical tradition to writing had saved it from extinction, it was still a closed book to all but one who would be familiar with the intricacies of the esoteric tradition. The outline had been written but the keys to the tradition remained oral and contained within a small circle.

This remained the case until the next great explosion of Kabbalah to take place in the town of Safed, located in northern Israel, in the sixteenth century.

By Nissan Dovid Dubov   More articles...  |   RSS Listing of Newest Articles by this Author

Rabbi Nissan D. Dubov is director of Chabad Lubavitch in Wimbledon, UK.

The content on this page is copyrighted by the author, publisher and/or Chabad.org, and is produced by Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with the copyright policy.

[q_q_]

Quite a few Teymani Yehudim say that Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar. However parts of this book certainly do have divine origin i.e. the references to black holes (Botsina Deqardinuta - lamp of darkness). If it was a middle ages forgery Moshe de Leon must have had access to genuine teachings. 

Taymani are from Yemen. They probably hold fast to the RAMBAM and these RAMBAMists tend to reject all mysticism. They would probably say it's a forgery.

If it says lamps of darkness, that doesn't mean black holes. You are reading things into it.  Like reading dinosaurs into the bible. It really doesn't reference them. Though maybe they fit under some created entity mentioned in the 6/7 days.

Infact, i'm sure that kabbalists had a very different understanding of what lamps of darkness were. An understanding that may be more obvious if you included the full context.  But it may not be a good idea to do that, too mystical!

There are some criticisms of the zohar, speaking of geographical errors that suggest the person that wrote it lived elsewhere. Something along those lines.
There is a shiur on it by rabbi daweedh bar hayyim.   But I can't see it on his machon shilo site, maybe he updated the site..
It would be strong evidence against it being 100% divine.   But I seem to recall it's not one book, but a collection of writings. 

It's certainly an issue under debate.    It is accepted by most great rabbis as completely holy..  And since the great kabbalist, the Arizal, and others too, deem it as holy, it's really generally accepted nowadays as from Shimon Bar Yochai..   Just because so many great kabbalists have held to it..  People wouldn't want to say that the Arizal was wrong! But if you put aside these kind of arguments by authority of those that accept it. 

There is reason to be skeptical.  And no doubt there are many rabbis that may not believe it but wouldn't speak openly about it, because they'd be ostracised.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There are Portuguese (or Spanish) words in the text of the Zohar.   Granted, they are very few, but one of them I know for a fact was "Esnoga" which was the word for synagogue in Portuguese or Spanish in Moshe de Leon's day.   Very few relative to the mass of text, but nonetheless they are there.  There is no way that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai wrote these out-of-place words.   Nonetheless, some of the material in the text is clear to have come from a more ancient (word of mouth) tradition.  It could be that most of it was a reliable transmission of tannaic era teachings while more and more got added over the centuries or maybe very little (such as the out-of-place words) was added along the way.   Either way, it was under review for a long time (after publication by R. De Leon) before major rabbis accepted it as authentic kabbalah.  The kabbalists DID however accept it as authentic.  Some of the greatest rabbis in history argued against the Zohar (Rabbi Yaakov Emden for example), while others were cautious and/or accepting of it, but in different degrees.   All in all, one can take the extreme view such as that of the Ari where it was written by the tanna Rashbi, which gives it tannaic authority (but certainly less than the mishnayot and braisot), or another accepted view that it has the authority of a rishon if it was truly compiled by Moshe de Leon and not previously written.   I was told by someone here that Rav Moshe Feinstein said exactly this opinion - that it is at most the authority of tannaic statements (less than mishna) and at least the authority of a rishon.   The person who told me was informed by a Rav here (he is a genius), and I can't remember it exactly so it's not an exact quote but that was the gist of the opinion of Rav Feinstein.    Granted there are some who reject it altogether like one group within Taymanim (not all Taymanim reject zohar outright), and perhaps people who follow the Yaavetz.   Come to think of it, maybe Rav Feinstein said the most it could have is amoraic authority (given that it is less than mishna, braisa, tosefta), but I'm not sure.   Maybe someone can find this opinion.

  It is accepted by most great rabbis as completely holy.. 

What does this mean "completely holy" ?

In the general sense, all sefarim are holy.



"If it was a middle ages forgery Moshe de Leon must have had access to genuine teachings."

Indeed, the kabbalists who reviewed the text confirmed it to have authentic teachings so it's very possible that Moshe de Leon learned the word-of-mouth kabbalah then in existence (from earlier ages) that was transmitted to his teachers, and he put much of it into writing.



Why he claimed that he found it 'pre-written' (by Rashbi himself) in a cave.... that I don't know.

[Sefardic Panther]

Botsina Deqardinuta or in Hebrew "Menorah HaShuka" literally a "lamp of darkness" a lamp that exudes darkness rather than light. Sounds like a black hole to me, the best description in human language of a black hole.

The Teymani are the oldest Yehudi community in the world. They go back to Shlomo HaMelak. They are some of the best Yehudim in the world and I am inclined to go with what they say, although Hakam Abuhatzera and the Ben Ish Hai were also the best Yehudim.  

  

[q_q_]

There are Portuguese (or Spanish) words in the text of the Zohar.   Granted, they are very few, but one of them I know for a fact was "Esnoga" which was the word for synagogue in Portuguese or Spanish in Moshe de Leon's day.   Very few relative to the mass of text, but nonetheless they are there.  There is no way that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai wrote these out-of-place words.   Nonetheless, some of the material in the text is clear to have come from a more ancient (word of mouth) tradition. 

<snip>

  It is accepted by most great rabbis as completely holy.. 

What does this mean "completely holy" ?

In the general sense, all sefarim are holy.

[/quote]

I could have said authentic.
But if it or parts of it are not authentic then.. Well,

 there is an issue here, and it does relate to holyness.

And this is just my instinctive thinking here,

If this book is claiming to be from a certain person, and it isn't, then you can't take it so seriously.  And if we know that some claims there are complete mistakes. Not just words from another language. But mistakes.
(this is a criticism made by some scholars).
Then you can't consider those parts holy. Except in the weakest sense perhaps, that the person made an effort!, but you're not going to meditate over the truth of something you believe is wrong.
Infact, really it does bring any part of the book into question.
It undermines the holyness of the book.  

And the parts that you believe are wrong. They can't be holy.


I haven't read the zohar, but I suppose though, the book itself doesn't say who wrote it. So it could be that the rabbi and kabbalist, Moses De Leon somehow was incorrect in saying that it was written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.
i.e. The book itself doesn't make a false claim regarding who wrote it.

Its origins are unknown.

But the idea that it is 100% from rabbi shimon bar yochai(perhaps he was basing it on traditions from sinai or heaven) that is what makes it so treasured by kabbalists.  He is very trusted.

And if it isn't from him, then there is a risk that it is from some rebel scholar's imagination, then nobody would consider it holy..

A holy mystical book isn't a work of man's mind.  For example, the RAMCHAL claims to have been taught by an angel. That is why his original mystical work is so valued.   If he hadn't been taught by an angel, or had ruach hakodesh or some heavenly intervention, then it would just be his imagination.. it would be a mockery.   Mystical works are not based on opinions.. The claim is they are really heavenly.  

The Arizal claims to have been taught by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai and other heavenly teachers while he slept.    That is how his work is considered so holy.

a holy mystical work is not like a holy halachic work.   In that a holy halachic work you could say is the rabbi's great intellectual mind and reasoning, and tireless effort.   But a mystical book is creative. It is either heavenly or imaginative fiction.

And really. once you question part of the book, it brings the whole book into question. And really you can't take it too seriously once you have done that in your mind.  Mystical books are really claiming to be new revelations, or revealing parts of the siniatic revelation that were passed down but not publically. That's where their holyness derives.  

To say that the book has ideas that are reflected in other kabbalistic books..and so the author was a scholar. Well, that's nice, so don't throw it out,  but as a mystical work it loses its awe.  And what is a mystical work without its awe. It's not really mystical anymore.

[q_q_]

Botsina Deqardinuta or in Hebrew "Menorah HaShuka" literally a "lamp of darkness" a lamp that exudes darkness rather than light. Sounds like a black hole to me, the best description in human language of a black hole.

the context may show that it's not talking about black holes at all.

The fact is that somebody could come up with the expression lamp of darkness quite easily.

A lamp normally gives off light. So an obvious paradox, is a lamp that gives darkness.   It's something a human could come up with. So it doesn't prove it is from the creator.

Space is black, so either there is no light.. Or, with some imagination, a human could say there are lamps(sources) of darkness, or a source producing darkness. And that's why space is black. They would be wrong of course. 

One would have to see the context of this expression "lamps of darkness". But you are wrong in saying that the expression itself is a reference to black holes!
And something a human could not have come up with.

I'm not even sure that a Menorah is a lamp..  It's often translated as a candelabrum or candelabra.   I know that some translations translate MaOhr as lamp. I suppose MaOhr means light source. In Beraishit(Genesis). The pasuk that G-d created the greater light(MaOhr) to govern the day and the lesser light(MaOhr) to govern the night.   I'm not sure that Menorah just means "light source" though.  Maybe the context of your verse will show it really meant a Menorah, a branched object.  I'm sure you would see it has nothing to do with black holes if you look at the context.

And i've shown how the expression  "lamp of darkness", can be thought of by a man.  As could candelabra of darkness. It's an obvious paradox, men can come up with paradoxes.   

Somebody could write about a zombie , and you could take one sentence that says it is neither alive nor dead.  And say LOOK, the author is writing about quantum theory, this is an older example of Shroedinger's cat.  Well, it isn't!

The Teymani are the oldest Yehudi community in the world. They go back to Shlomo HaMelak. They are some of the best Yehudim in the world and I am inclined to go with what they say, although Hakam Abuhatzera and the Ben Ish Hai were also the best Yehudim.     

I did read that yemenite jews were in some trouble at one point, not being so well educated in talmud, and so the RAMBAM's mishneh torah became their guiding light.

They certainly preserved the hebrew language well though..

So don't look at it like they definitely had all the traditions.

This history shows today. they revere the RAMBAM , he saved their community.

They probably know halacha really well compared to others.. Because the mishneh torah is a great codification of halacha.  But elevate them to the point of saying if they don't have it then it's not authentic!

[muman613]

Shalom,

I dont know if Lamps of Darkness are really Black Holes. It may be a possible explanation but I would have to see the context of the discussion. If you could provide some context to this we could discuss that.

From what I understand, and it is limited at this time, much of Kabbalah involves discussion of the primordial light of creation. The well known concept of TzimTzum, constriction or contraction in order to make a makom for physicality, and the concept of Klippot, containers for the light.

Last night I read some Kabbalistic thought from the Breslov web site which discussed the Sefirot in relation to the force of evil. The link to this discussion is http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/spirituality_and_faith/kabbalah_and_mysticism/the_task_of_evil.aspx?id=10544&language=english. Many discussions involve the concept of light.

I will quote from a dafyomi review @

http://dafyomireview.com/article.php?docid=205

Excerpt from Derech Etz Chaim by Rabby Moshe Chaim Luzatto
  The creator of man, and his guide, made him and established him ready to understand and to comprehend greater comprehension than the ministering angels. And the Sages have already said (Midrash Bereishis Raba 17):"He (G-d) said to them (the angels): 'his wisdom is greater than yours'." And when man desires understanding in G-d's way, G-d will guide him to fathom until the heaven of heavens - things which stand in the loftiest heights of the universe. But, behold, the good is in his hands and he has the power to choose - to become wise and to know, or to remain naked of all wisdom, even though the heart and the intellect are inside his body.

And this you will see, that there are two things which were created with one likeness (both function together) - the intellect of the man and the torah which gives him the intelligence. On the torah it is written "Is not My word like fire? says the L-ORD; and like a hammer that smashes the rock in pieces?" (Yirmiyahu 23:29). He has told us in this that it is the truth of the matter that the torah is literally a light that was given to Yisrael (the Jewish people) to enlighten in it. Because it is not like the wisdom of the nations and the secular knowledge, which are nothing more than knowledge which the intellect reaches after toiling (to understand it). Rather, the torah, behold, it is holy, which has a supernal existence in the loftiest heights, and when a man toils in it below, it is a light which illuminates in his soul to elevate it to the treasures on high, the treasures of the Creator, may His name be blessed. And this is what the wise man said (King Solomon) "And torah is light" (Mishlei 6:23), literally light, and not just wisdom. And not that it is called "light" as a kind of comparison rather it is literally "light". Because this is its existence above (in the higher worlds), and when it enters the soul, the light enters it just like the sun's rays enter inside a house.

Behold with great precision it (the torah) was compared to fire and with precise choice of word. Because when you see an ember which does not flame, and the energy of the flame is inside, hidden and closed, until one blows on it, then the flame spreads out and goes forth, and in that flame is visible many colors, what was not previously visible in the ember, and everything came out from the ember. So too, the torah which is in front of us, because all of its words and letters are like embers, which when you ignite them look the same. One sees only embers which are also almost dim. And he who exerts himself to toil in it, then it will flame from every letter a mighty flame full of many colors, which are the knowledge which are hidden inside that letter. This has already been explained in the Zohar on the Alef-Beit, and the matter is not an analogy, rather it is itself actual and completely literal. Because all the (22) letters that we see in the torah, all of them teach on the 22 lights which exist on high. And these supernal lights, shine on the letters. And from them comes the holiness of the torah, the holiness of the sefer torah, tefilin, and mezuzos, and all the holy writings. And according to the holiness in which they were written, so too will be the resting and shining of these lights on the letters. Therefore the sefer torah which has one invalid letter, becomes entirely invalid because the lights cannot remain in it properly, that it should pull down the holiness to the congregation with the power of the reading of it.

May the light of zion shine forever and ever...

muman613

[Sefardic Panther]

See Zohar Parashat Bereshith 1:15a. This is discussing the creation of the world. The top Sefira Kether is described as “botsina deqardinuta”. Not only does lamp of darkness sound like black hole but Kether is the transition between Ein Sof (the infinite G-d) and finite creation. A black hole is a transition from normal time to imaginery time.

As I said before Moshe DeLeon oviously had access to earlier valid Toranic teaching. There are many other discussions of creation in Torah which refer to black holes. For instance Bereshith 1:2 “Weha'arets hayetah tohu wavohu wehoshech al-peney tehom” (the universe was chaos and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep). The Bahir says that “bohu” is a void in which is substance. Rambam said in Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 that “hoshech” is not simply an absence of light but black fire. Tehom is an abyss, something with no bottem.

You may dispute the reference to black hole in the Zohar itself, but when you corralate it with other references to black holes in other discussions of creation it becomes indisputable.

Shabat Shalom 

[muman613]

Shabbat Shalom Sefardic Panther,

I love Parasha Lech Lecha....

muman613

[q_q_]

<snip>

As I said before Moshe DeLeon oviously had access to earlier valid Toranic teaching. There are many other discussions of creation in Torah which refer to black holes. For instance Bereshith 1:2 “Weha'arets hayetah tohu wavohu wehoshech al-peney tehom” (the universe was chaos and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep). The Bahir says that “bohu” is a void in which is substance. Rambam said in Moreh Nevuchim 2:30 that “hoshech” is not simply an absence of light but black fire. Tehom is an abyss, something with no bottem.

You may dispute the reference to black hole in the Zohar itself, but when you corralate it with other references to black holes in other discussions of creation it becomes indisputable.

Shabat Shalom 

you think the earth was a black hole?

you think the torah says it, and that science says it    ?

i'm intrigued to here of where you think there are other black hole references in tenach?

There is a kabbalistic idea that the heavenly torah is written with black fire upon white fire.  Do you seriously think it's talking about black holes?

You are making the mistake of tying everything up to thinks you relate to. So you choose the closest thing you are familiar with, instead of admitting that it's more likely that this mystical text is not  referring to something you read about in the newspaper last week.  If you go up to an Alien and tell him about a Computer (and thinking you are helping, you use terms he is familiar with), and he says "oh, we have exactly the same thing.. Here".
Chances are he is wrong and it'll be completely different.

 

[Sefardic Panther]

Science does infact say that the earth (and the rest of the matter in the universe) was once compressed into a black hole which then somehow expanded in the big bang.

The only black hole reference in the Tanak I know of is as I mentioned Bereshith 1:2 and the Rabinic commentary I mentioned as well as Midrash Tanhuma which says “The heaven was originally as small as the pupil of the eye, still I caused it to stretch over all the world from one end to the other”. Not only does this sound like the big bang but the “pupil of the eye” is a black hole.

One interesting fact about Ktav Ivri. A black hole rotates and resembles a golden mean spiral in curved space. Such a spiral resembles a different Ktav Ivri letter when viewed from 22 different angles.

Anyway we are getting sidetracked from the main discussion of who wrote the Zohar. One other advanced scientific fact (advanced for the middle ages) in the Zohar is that the earth is a rotating sphere and people in different countries experience day and night at the same time.       

What makes me think the Zohar is not entirely authentic is that it mentions the crusades and there is a story that after Moshe De Leon’s death a rich man offered his wife money for the original manuscript. She then said that her husband himself was the real auther.

[muman613]

<snip>

What makes me think the Zohar is not entirely authentic is that it mentions the crusades and there is a story that after Moshe De Leon’s death a rich man offered his wife money for the original manuscript. She then said that her husband himself was the real auther.

Shalom Sefarfic Panther,

I have looked into some of the issue which you bring up. This is a very difficult thing to question the authenticity of such a central piece of Chassidus but it is required to at least answer the doubts.

I have found a good internet discussion of the points which you reveal here. I think some of your questions are dealt with at this site:

http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm

Here is an interesting quote:

These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his "Ari Nohem" (pp. 49 et seq., Leipsic, 1840). A work exclusively devoted to the criticism of the Zohar was written, under the title "Miṭpaḥat Sefarim," by Jacob Emden, who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Shabbethai Ẓebi movement, endeavored to show that the book on which the pseudo-Messiah based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Mohammedans (ii. 32a); uses the expression "esnoga" (iii. 232b), which is a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue," and explains it in a cabalistic manner as a compound of the Hebrew words  and ; gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were introduced long after the Talmudic period (i. 24b, ii. 116a, iii. 65a).

Moses de Leon Not the Author.

These and other objections of Emden's, which were largely borrowed from the French ecclesiastic Jean Morin ("Exercitationes Biblicæ," pp. 359 et seq., Paris, 1669), were refuted by Moses ben Menahem Kunitz, who, in a work entitled "Ben Yoḥai" (Budapest, 1815), endeavors to show the following characteristics: that the vowel-points were known in Talmudic times; that the rites which Emden claimed to have been ordained by later rabbinical authorities were already known to the Talmud; and that Simeon ben Yoḥai, who before taking refuge in the cave was designated only by the name of Simeon, is credited in the Talmud with many miracles and mystic sayings. Another work in favor of the antiquity of the Zohar was published by David Luria under the title "Ḳadmut ha-Zohar" (Königsberg, 1855 [?]). It is divided into five chapters, in which the author gives proofs that Moses de Leon did not compile the Zohar; that the Geonim in Babylonia cite cabalistic doctrines from a certain "Midrash Yerushalmi," the language of which strongly resembles that of the Zohar; that the work was compiled before the completion of the Talmud; that a great part of it was written in the period of Simeon ben Yoḥai; and, finally, that the Aramaic language was used in Talmudic times as well as in the geonic period. Of these proofs only those showing the inadmissibility of the authorship of Moses de Leon deserve consideration, the others being mere quibbles; for even if it be conceded that the Talmud knew of the vowel-points and that the Aramaic was commonly used, there is no evidence whatever that Simeon ben Yoḥai or his immediate disciples were connected with the Zohar. As to the identification of the Zohar with the so-called "Midrash Yerushalmi," the single fact that most of the passages quoted are not found in the Zohar, as Luria himself admits, is a sufficient proof that the two works can not be identical. However, Luria has quite as much warrant for asserting, on the ground of his proofs, that a great part of the Zohar was written by Simeon ben Yoḥai as have Jellinek, Grätz, Ginsburg, and many others for maintaining that it was wholly composed by Moses de Leon on the ground that in the works of the last-named there are passages which are found verbatim in the Zohar. These scholars seem to shrink from the idea that Moses de Leon should have been guilty of plagiarism, but they are notafraid to charge him with forgery, and that of so clumsy a nature as to arouse at once the suspicions of the reader. For Moses de Leon could not have supposed for a moment that the insertion in the middle of an Aramaic sentence of two verses from Ibn Gabirol's "Keter Malkut" (which, being recited in the synagogues, were known to every Jew) could have escaped detection; nor could he have thought that a quotation from the Cuzari, which was so much read and commented upon at that time, would pass unperceived by his contemporaries.

Not the Work of a Single Author or Period.

Had Moses de Leon, who was a talented writer and an able scholar, wished for mercenary purposes to forge a work in the name of Simeon ben Yoḥai, he would have been more careful in his statements and would certainly have employed the Hebrew language, first, because the tanna would have written in that language, and, second, because a work in Hebrew, being easier to understand, would have gained a far wider circle of readers, and consequently a larger number of purchasers, than would one written in a peculiar Aramaic dialect that was accessible to only a few. Were the pseudepigraphic "Sefer Yeẓirah," "Pirḳe de-Rabbi Eli'ezer," "Sefer Hekalot," "Sefer ha-Bahir," etc., any the less believed to be the works of those to whom they were attributed simply because they were written in plain Hebrew and not in Aramaic? But apart from all these considerations, the contents of the Zohar clearly indicate that the work is the production not of a single author or of a single period, but of many authors, periods, and civilizations; for it combines the most puzzling incongruities and irreconcilable contradictions with lofty ideas and conceptions which would do honor to a genius of modern times, and also mystic teachings of the Talmudic period with those of the Geonim and later Cabala. To determine the country in which the work originated and the time at which its teachings began to develop, it is necessary to ascertain where and when the Jews became intimately acquainted with the Hindu philosophy, which more than any other exercised an influence on the Zohar. As an instance of Hindu teachings in the Zohar may be quoted the following passage:(Zohar, iii. 9b).

"In the book of Hamnuna the Elder we learn through some extended explanations that the earth turns upon itself in the form of a circle; that some are on top, the others below; that all creatures change in aspect, following the manner of each place, but keeping in the same position. But there are some countries on the earth which are lighted while others are in darkness; and there are countries in which there is constantly day or in which at least the night continues only some instants. . . . These secrets were made known to the men of the secret science, but not to the geographers"

So yes, there are questions about the authenticity of the Zohar. At this time I still respect it as a source of wisdom.

muman613

[Sefardic Panther]

Toda muman613

Some very wise Hakamim accept the Zohar and some very wise Hakamim don't.

The Sefer Yetzirah most certainly is authentic 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There is a kabbalistic idea that the heavenly torah is written with black fire upon white fire.  Do you seriously think it's talking about black holes?
 

Actually, that idea is from the midrash (Midrash Tanchuma), and it is quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the Chumash.   (parshat vzot ha'bracha).    It was a comment on the words of the Torah: "aish da'at" which was explicit in the parsha describing Hashem's "fiery law" (or 'law of fire?' The translation I have is 'fiery law'), which he gave to the Jewish people.

[q_q_]

There is a kabbalistic idea that the heavenly torah is written with black fire upon white fire.  Do you seriously think it's talking about black holes?
 

Actually, that idea is from the midrash (Midrash Tanchuma), and it is quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the Chumash.   (Parashat vzot ha'bracha).    It was a comment on the words of the Torah: "aish da'at" which was explicit in the Parasha describing Hashem's "fiery law" (or 'law of fire?' The translation I have is 'fiery law'), which he gave to the Jewish people.

From what you've written, it looks like you are talking about a different or only a similar idea. So I don't want to think about what you are thinking when you write "that idea".

There really is a kabbalistic idea that the torah is written with black fire upon white fire. Apparently in the zohar.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There is a kabbalistic idea that the heavenly torah is written with black fire upon white fire.  Do you seriously think it's talking about black holes?
 

Actually, that idea is from the midrash (Midrash Tanchuma), and it is quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the Chumash.   (Parashat vzot ha'bracha).    It was a comment on the words of the Torah: "aish da'at" which was explicit in the Parasha describing Hashem's "fiery law" (or 'law of fire?' The translation I have is 'fiery law'), which he gave to the Jewish people.

From what you've written, it looks like you are talking about a different or only a similar idea. So I don't want to think about what you are thinking when you write "that idea".

There really is a kabbalistic idea that the torah is written with black fire upon white fire. Apparently in the zohar.

No, I'm not.   It's not from zohar.  It's from Midrash Tanchuma.  Look it up.    The Torah is written in black fire on white fire.   That's what the midrash says, and Rashi cites this midrash in his explanation of the pasuk that includes "aish da'at"    -   If the zohar repeated it, great, but I'm telling you where the idea actually came from.

I'm also not sure what you are implying when you say "I don't want to think about what you are thinking when you write.... "    - what does this mean?   
 "From what I've written" it looks precisely like I am talking about the same idea, and now I've repeated it for you.

[q_q_]

There is a kabbalistic idea that the heavenly torah is written with black fire upon white fire.  Do you seriously think it's talking about black holes?
 

Actually, that idea is from the midrash (Midrash Tanchuma), and it is quoted by Rashi in his commentary on the Chumash.   (Parashat vzot ha'bracha).    It was a comment on the words of the Torah: "aish da'at" which was explicit in the Parasha describing Hashem's "fiery law" (or 'law of fire?' The translation I have is 'fiery law'), which he gave to the Jewish people.

From what you've written, it looks like you are talking about a different or only a similar idea. So I don't want to think about what you are thinking when you write "that idea".

There really is a kabbalistic idea that the torah is written with black fire upon white fire. Apparently in the zohar.

No, I'm not.   It's not from zohar.  It's from Midrash Tanchuma.  Look it up.    The Torah is written in black fire on white fire.   That's what the midrash says, and Rashi cites this midrash in his explanation of the pasuk that includes "aish da'at"    -   If the zohar repeated it, great, but I'm telling you where the idea actually came from.

I'm also not sure what you are implying when you say "I don't want to think about what you are thinking when you write.... "    - what does this mean?   
 "From what I've written" it looks precisely like I am talking about the same idea, and now I've repeated it for you.

the summary you wrote before didn't mention the full idea, just a fiery torah.

You have now written the full idea. Very good.

I was only referring to your summary since I don't have the source in front of me. That is why I said  "From what you've written..."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"That idea" was a response to your comment where you said "there is an idea" which you described as 'black fire on white fire'      I don't think it could have been any clearer.

[q_q_]

"That idea" was a response to your comment where you said "there is an idea" which you described as 'black fire on white fire'      I don't think it could have been any clearer.

It was clear..

All i'm saying was that from the way you initially summarised it, it didn't look like the same idea. You were very good though in stating the source, and where it is commonly found, and so on. You are always clear.   

[muman613]

"That idea" was a response to your comment where you said "there is an idea" which you described as 'black fire on white fire'      I don't think it could have been any clearer.

KWRBT,

You were clear in your message. I certainly understood what your wrote.

muman613