Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
The Zohar Definitely Was Written By Rashbi
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 01, 2008, 04:44:15 PM ---
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)
--- End quote ---
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?
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Sefardic Panther on December 01, 2008, 05:36:44 PM ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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!
--- Quote ---
By the way I have read enough of the Zohar to know that it was written in Aramaic not Hebrew.
--- End quote ---
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.
muman613:
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.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on December 02, 2008, 03:59:07 AM ---KWRBT,
So I take it you are one who does not consider Zohar to be authentic to the Torah?
--- End quote ---
You assume too much. I currently am not convinced either way and haven't looked into it enough, not in depth...
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?
--- Quote ---Maybe I am not familiar with your particular branch of Judaism
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote --- but from learning from my Orthodox Rabbi and my Chabad Rabbi there is much Kabbalah already in our prayers and our understanding of Torah.
--- End quote ---
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....
muman613:
Thank you KWRBT, you explained your position very clearly...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version