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 02, 2008, 09:29:58 AM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 02, 2008, 01:57:22 AM ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
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!!!!
--- End quote ---
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.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Sefardic Panther on December 02, 2008, 11:39:23 AM ---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!!!
--- End quote ---
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?
q_q_:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 02, 2008, 02:46:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on December 02, 2008, 09:29:58 AM ---
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on December 02, 2008, 01:57:22 AM ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
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!!!!
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
Vilna Gaon- was first and foremost a Talmudist, then a Kabbalist (He knew both).
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: Sefardic Panther on December 02, 2008, 11:39:23 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version