Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
What parts of Kabalah are off limits until age 40?
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Gee thanks! If anybody is truly interested (and yes, I know, it takes a certain amount of courage) I'd be happy to post the main points from the book I wrote proving that the Zohar is a forgery. My book does not go into the concepts contained therein or try to dispute them. It simply proves, beyond any doubt, that the books were all written much later than claimed.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: rhayat1 on January 30, 2010, 08:51:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Gee thanks! If anybody is truly interested (and yes, I know, it takes a certain amount of courage) I'd be happy to post the main points from the book I wrote proving that the Zohar is a forgery. My book does not go into the concepts contained therein or try to dispute them. It simply proves, beyond any doubt, that the books were all written much later than claimed.
--- End quote ---
By all means, please share. This has the makings of a fascinating discussion (actually it already is). I will definitely have to look at this thread with what you and Muman have posted in more detail when I have some more time.
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on January 31, 2010, 07:40:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: rhayat1 on January 30, 2010, 08:51:58 PM ---
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Gee thanks! If anybody is truly interested (and yes, I know, it takes a certain amount of courage) I'd be happy to post the main points from the book I wrote proving that the Zohar is a forgery. My book does not go into the concepts contained therein or try to dispute them. It simply proves, beyond any doubt, that the books were all written much later than claimed.
--- End quote ---
By all means, please share. This has the makings of a fascinating discussion (actually it already is). I will definitely have to look at this thread with what you and Muman have posted in more detail when I have some more time.
--- End quote ---
I'll post it as a separate thread within the next couple of days and probably in a few installments.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 27, 2010, 11:05:24 PM ---I have done a bit more research on the Zohar and it is a hotly disputed topic, to say the least.
This page will support rhayat1's assertions that there is questionable information in the Zohar.
http://www.chayas.com/tetsaveh.htm
Despite this, because of tradition and the fact that there is authentic Kabbalah which is also contained in the Zohar, I do not reject it outright.
I listen to many Orthodox Rabbis and the majority of them mention concepts from the Zohar often. I have never learned any Zohar which contradicts the Torah.
I also understand the concept of the Sefirot as not any division of Hashem, but a way of understanding the way he reacts with the Olam... The Torah itself uses various names of Hashem, which we learn to mean that our relationship with him defines the name we use to refer to him {i.e. HE/SHE Hashem/Elokim, Shechina, etc.}
Also it is not honest to argue that anthromorphism in the Zohar proves it is not authentic because we all know that Hashem doesn't have limbs... The Torah itself, in the Parashas we have been reading recently talk about the Right Arm of Hashem, a Mighty Hand of Hashem, etc... We all understand why anthromorphism is used in these cases...
Also, the possibility that the Zohar is not authentic alone doesn't mean that Kabbalah is not authentic because Zohar is just one source of Kabbalah, there are many other good and un-impeachable sources of Kabbalah.
--- End quote ---
Muman what you say sounds reasonable. Personally, I am not certain one way or the other without having seen the proofs, although I do know that very big people held that Moshe De Leon wrote it. And even if it is not really dated to Shimon Bar Yochai, I don't necessarily reject it out of hand (some or all). There are different ways of interpreting it and even then it is only about hashkafa, in which a person is free to take divergent opinions anyway, and in my opinion (as in the opinion of other major authorities past and present) it has no place in a halachic discussion. So if I did reject a certain idea for a given reason that I found compelling (or any person did thus) - ie a contradicting chazal, point of view in Rambam etc etc that I find more correct or suitable - it is perfectly within our rights to reject that given zohar idea which is not binding. I consider zohar to be a hashkafic text, and we do not pasken hashkafa.
Just to elaborate on positions of rabbis I am close with:
My gemara rabbi certainly accepts the zohar's authenticity/tradition - its hashkafa and mystical speculations as speaking accurately about the spiritual world and Judaism. And the revelations of the zohar by the Ari and subsequent authorities (Rashash, Vilna Gaon, Leshem, etc) he also considers weighty opinions and valid points of view. I will have to ask him if he thinks it was written by Shimon Bar Yochai or actually written later, but I am fairly certain that he would say "it doesn't make a difference." He feels the zohar and associated kaballistic works which explain it are true systems of thought with authentic sources in chazal and Judaism. And if he does feel that way, that does not change whether it was written all by Shimon Bar Yochai, or very little preserved from Shimon bar yochai and really written out by M. De leon in the 1200's Spain, or even if De Leon made it up completely.
I know that Rav Bar Hayim's position is emphatically that Moshe DeLeon wrote the Zohar in the 1200-1300's Spain, it certainly cannot be honestly attributed to the tanna Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, and in Rav Bar Hayim's opinion, it is a hashkafic system of looking at the world that no rabbi is beholden to. Neither when paskening a halachic shaila nor in determining his own hashkafa in a given matter based on chazal and the Torah. So Rav Bar Hayim is more strongly rooted in the camp of Rav Yihyehh ZT"L with regard to zohar's authenticity, but at the same time, he is not interested in "combating it" or leading any kind of crusade against it (Which Rav Yihyehh was), he seems to classify it as largely irrelevant to what a Jew needs to do, how to relate to G-d and the world and the Torah, and what a rabbi has to do. He stresses focusing on more pertinent matters (things more pertinent than the divisions of the spiritual worlds into umpteen levels and the collapsing on each other, etc etc), and that hashkafa is open to different ideas within chazal, not pidgeon-holed into one overarching "system" that everyone has to agree to or follow. This position is very different from the vast majority of present-day rabbis, but I find it very reasonable.
rhayat1:
I just wanted to interject something here. We do have one (and ONLY one, as far as I know) "mystical" work of the Jewish tradition that dates from ancient times: Sefer HaYyesirah, attributed to Ribbi Aqiva. In the days of the Tanaim, the masses spoke Aramaic while Hebrew was the language of the scholarly. No book of "secrets" and nothing "esoteric" would have been written in Aramaic in those days. Sefer haYyesirah deals with math and grammar. It deals with the ten "sefiroth", or numerals (from the same root as "mispar"). Because, in Latin languages, the word "sphere" implies a circle some gnostics and their ilk hijacked the word "sefiroth" and attached it to the concept of "spheres" in the astronomical/ astrological sense.
Why would math and grammar be "secrets"? Most people today are not used to thinking in terms of skills being "secrets". But, through most of history, tradesmen kept their skills secret from others so that they could retain their own status in knowing such things. The same used to apply to science and such. You couldn't just go to a library and check out a book. You didn't just get fed this stuff by your teacher in public school. No, you had to be special to be privy to such matters and (more often than not) such knowledge was passed from father to son or from wizened teacher to disciple. What is taken for granted, by grade-school kids, these days was considered privileged knowledge in the old days. So they spoke in code and used Hebrew, rather than the lingua franca, Aramaic or Greek. The oldest commentary on Sefer haYyesirah was written by Sa'adya Gaon and his interpretation is the same as I just set forward above.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version