Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
haMmafteah - that the Zohar is a forgery
rhayat1:
The introduction to haMmafteah (lit. "the key") mostly deals with the tendency, by religious Jews (and people in general) to give too much weight to fame when assessing the validity of a statement. I quote numerous authorities, in chronological order, who state that a statement should be judged on its own merit. Not on who it was who made it. The principal here is that humans were given the faculty of logic so that we may use it. Most of us are smart enough to determine the voracity of a statement if only we take the time to research it fully and be objective about it. Often, we are forced to depend on authorities - because we lack the time, the skills or the motivation to get to the bottom of the matter ourselves. But if an individual does have the time, the skills and the motivation to challenge a belief, held by those more famous than he, by all means let him do so and let his words be taken at their own value. Within this introduction, I also went off on a tangent and showed that some of Hazal believed that the Earth was flat.
The reason that I stress the above concept so much is that the masses only follow the words of those more famous than they, when it comes to the Zohar. Circumstances of history allowed generations of great rabbis to be fooled by the Zohar. The Spanish inquisition was surely instrumental in spreading it and in fostering enough confusion/misery that such a ruse could slip by undetected. Once the Zohar was established as "authentic", few could challenge it - because this would mean that their revered rabbis were wrong.
Not every piece of evidence, presented in haMmafteah, is bullet proof. Some of it is general in nature. Much of it is more specific. Taken as a whole, no reasonable person can continue to accept that the Zohar is of ancient origin. Some pieces of evidence are so powerful that even the rabbis/printers could not ignore them - and they had them removed from printed editions of the Zohar. Their claim was that such tracts were "later additions". As a matter of fact, those who perpetrated the forgeries simply did not do a very good job. "Sloppy" is the word that comes to mind, and they were ignorant on several levels.
haMmafteah was written in Hebrew and, so far, only the introduction was translated into English. The book was never published and I have never actually sought to publish it.
rhayat1:
Here I'll list the table of contents:
1) Argument of Ya'abetz in "Mitpahath Sefarim"
2) General statements and conclusions of Ya'abetz
3) Strong language of Ya'abetz against the creeds of the Zohar
4) Arguments of " 'Ittur Sefarim" their rebuttals
5) Arguments of "Ben Yohai" and their rebuttals
6) About the book "Mitpahath Sefarim"
7) Arguments of the book "Ari Nohem"
8) Arguments of the book "Maghen weSinah" and their rebuttals
9) More arguments of "Maghen weSinah" and their rebuttals
10) Arguments of the book "Zohar haRaqia' " and their rebuttals
11) Arguments of the book "Arze Levanon"
12) Arguments of the book "haWwikuah"
13) A few notes by myself regarding the late origins of vocalization ("niqudh")
14) More arguments of the book "haWwikuah"
15) Argument of the book "Iddereth Eliyahu" and their rebuttals
16) Arguments of the book "Tta'am lashad" and their rebuttals
17) Arguments of the book "Qadmuth sefer haZzohar" and their rebuttals
18) Arguments of the secular scholars
a) Arguments of the book "Mehqarim besifruth haQqabbalah"
b) Arguments of the book "Diqduq haLlashon haAramith shel haZzohar"
c) The words of the the Hebrew Encyclopedia (Gershom Shalom)
19) My arguments
a) Words used in the Zohar that came into use only in the Middle Ages
b) Expressions (used in the Zohar) that the Tanaim would not have used
c) Expressions, used in the Zohar, that were never used, at all, by Hazal
d) Expressions that were rarely ever used by Hazal but are common in the Zohar
e) In the days of the Zohar, Israel is in exile - and the author is amongst them.
f) The Zohar was written after Ribbi Shim'on ben Yohai
g) In the days of the Zohar, Torah sheba'al pe was already written down
h) Statements showing that the authors of the Zohar were not of Hazal, and other difficulties
i) The book Raziel haMmalakh
j) Hints, within the Zohar, that it was written during the sixth millennium
k) General observations and conclusions
l) On "Zohar haHadash"
m) Claims of "Ruah haQqodesh" by the authors of the Zohar
n) "We have not seen... is not proof"?
o) "Later additions" (the claim of)
p) How could the good and great have been so mistaken?
q) On methods of deception
r) Conclusion
rhayat1:
I don't know how that "cool" smiley got in my last post; can't seem to get rid of it. Oh well.
From the arguments of R. Ya'akov Emdin in Mitpahath Sefarim:
1) "and from here they call a synagogue "esnoga" (Part 3 pg. 282:a)" This is what they call a synagogue in Spanish.
2) "...from this aspect is explained the two other nations, that they are close to the monotheism of Israel (Part 1 pg. 13:a)". It seems obvious to me that this is referring to the two nations Edom and Yishma'el, and he says this because they believe in the Torah of Moshe... behold, before you that in the days of the author of the Zohar they already had the faith of Yishmael... in the world (which came into being during the last days of the Savoraim). For before this time the Yishmaelim were complete pagans just like the rest of the world".
3) "...teqi'ata deRav beBavel...(Part 2 pg. 52:a)". Also this is clear testimony that this holy composition, that it is not of Rishbi the Tana.
4) "They came and asked Rav Hamnuna Sabai (Part 2 pg. 124:a)". Shocking, for it would appear, in the book of the Zohar, in several places, that he was with Rishbi in the same generation. And it seems that even Rishbi the Tana didn't live at the time of the Temple. For the Temple was destroyed in the days of Ribaz and Ribbi Eli'ezer and Ribbi Yehuda were disciples of Ribaz and Ribbi Aqiva was their disciple. He was the one who taught Torah sheba'al pe to Rishbi and his students the Tanaim. If so it is far fetched that Rishbi saw the Temple, and at the time that they were bringing sacrifices as is mentioned here. Even as Rav Hamnuna Saba, who is mentioned several times in the Talmud with the disciples of Rav. And at the end of chapter Lulav haGgazul (42:a) a saying was recited in the name of the student of the student of Rav. Also, at the time of the Temple, they hadn't yet started using the title "Rav" at all. And behold Rivav lived in Nessivin, in the nation of Assyria, close to Babylon. He was called by the title "Ribbi Kahana, and in his days occurred this story mentioned here, as we see in the beginning of Pesahim.
Note: Many of Rav 'Emdin's objections are based on the mixing up of people in different generations and places in the Zohar - as if the authors had no knowledge of history or as if they randomly attributed statements to whatever Talmudic name came to mind. The above is just one illustration out of many so I will not bother to cite more unless specifically requested.
muman613:
In order to prevent the smileys:
When posting your message, look below the text entry box and see a button "+ Additional options..."
Click that link and then click the checkbox "Don't use smileys"...
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: muman613 on January 31, 2010, 12:13:19 PM ---In order to prevent the smileys:
When posting your message, look below the text entry box and see a button "+ Additional options..."
Click that link and then click the checkbox "Don't use smileys"...
--- End quote ---
Thanks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version