Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
haMmafteah - that the Zohar is a forgery
Spectator:
--- Quote from: muman613 on February 01, 2010, 12:27:29 AM ---Israel will say to the king of the Arabs, "Take silver and gold and leave the Temple." The king of the Arabs will say, "You have nothing to do with this Temple. However, if you want, choose a sacrifice as you did in the past, and we will also offer a sacrifice, and with the one whose sacrifice is accepted, we will all become one people." The Jewish people will offer theirs, but it will not be accepted because the Satan will lay charges against them before The Holy One, Blessed is He. The descendents of Kedar will offer theirs, and it will be accepted.... At that time, the Arabs will say to Israel, "Come and believe in our faith," but Israel will answer, "We will kill or be killed, but we will not deny our belief!" At that time, swords will be drawn, bows will be strung and arrows will be sent, and many will fall... (Sefer Eliyahu, Pirkei Mashiach, p. 236)
--- End quote ---
Wow, this is really interesting. Is "Kedar" another name for Ishmael?
I also know that there is some Muslim missionary activity in Israel.
Spectator:
--- Quote from: muman613 on February 01, 2010, 12:27:29 AM ---[During the Resurrection of the Dead], many camps will arise in Land of the Galilee, because that is where Mashiach is going to be revealed, since it is part of Joseph's territory. It will be the first place to be destroyed. It will begin there ahead of all other places, and then spread to the nations... (Vayakhel 220a)
When the latest Intifadah began, one of the first places to be destroyed was the Tomb of Joseph. The barbaric destruction of this Jewish holy site caught the world's attention, though the damage could not be reversed.
--- End quote ---
But the Tomb of Joseph is in Schechem, a town in Samaria, not in Galilee.
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: Ariel Shayn on February 01, 2010, 12:13:07 AM ---
--- Quote ---"Esau and Yishma'el...that they are at peace and we are subjugated amongst them in exile (Tiqqunim 9:a and 52:b). The kingdom of Yishmael was not known and had not spread out in the days of the Tanaim and the Amuraim for they were then a lowly kingdom. Small and depressed.
--- End quote ---
A lot of this stuff is simply over my head. This hear seems interesting to me, although I am not totally sure what it says!
Esau = Rome?
Ishmael = Islam?
I don't mean to go off topic, if I am going that way.
--- End quote ---
Yes, that is correct. I think the emphasis here is on the dichotomy, in the known world, between Islam and Christianity - which largely corresponds to the European world versus the Mideastern/Asian world. This state of affairs only existed after the rise of Islam. Taken with the other comments, about the monotheism of those two other religions, the context is crystal clear. The fact the the whole thing is in present tense makes it even more clear.
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: muman613 on February 01, 2010, 12:25:44 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ariel Shayn on February 01, 2010, 12:13:07 AM ---
--- Quote ---"Esau and Yishma'el...that they are at peace and we are subjugated amongst them in exile (Tiqqunim 9:a and 52:b). The kingdom of Yishmael was not known and had not spread out in the days of the Tanaim and the Amuraim for they were then a lowly kingdom. Small and depressed.
--- End quote ---
A lot of this stuff is simply over my head. This hear seems interesting to me, although I am not totally sure what it says!
Esau = Rome?
Ishmael = Islam?
I don't mean to go off topic, if I am going that way.
--- End quote ---
Yes, your understanding of the names Ishmael and Esau are correct... But that is not consequential to what he is saying... His point is that at the supposed time that Zohar was written the current understanding of these names was not developed. Although I don't know if this claim is exactly true. The Torah itself says that Ishmael will be a wild donkey of a man, and his descendants will be a thorn in the side of the Jewish people.
--- End quote ---
It's one of those things that, with some difficulty, a Zohar proponent can wiggle out of. There comes a point, however, when one must ask, "how much wiggling is allowed here?"
rhayat1:
Let's take a look at some of the "answers" provided by defenders of the antiquity of the Zohar. We'll start with 'Ittur Sefarim, which was written specifically to counter the points made in Mittpahath Sefarim by R. Ya'aqov 'Emdin.
Regarding the use of Spanish in the Zohar, he claims that Hazal "were wont to explain verses with words from Arabic, Greek and Persian". Which is all good and well - because those languages actually existed at the time, which is not the case with Spanish. Duh.
Re: quotes from the the days of the savuraim and geonim he writes that these are later additions and "we find additions like these in the Talmud as well. Just as they added to the Talmud, so too did they add to the Zohar." This is exactly the explanation given by R. 'Emdin himself. However, it is difficult to claim extensive "later additions" to a book which is claimed to have been lost in ancient times and then "discovered" much closer to our time. There is not much of a time difference between the older manuscripts of the Zohar (which contain these "later additions") and the supposed discovery of the book itself. I have seen those manuscripts myself on microfilm at the Hebrew University. This explanation is a stretch, to say the least. Furthermore, this is a convenient all-purpose excuse. How many "later additions" can a book bear before we finally conclude that the whole thing is a "later addition"?
Re: mention of kol nidre. "The intention here is not the famous Rav Hai but Rav Hai ben mar Rav Nahshon, as explained in the Rosh (the end of Yoma)." He then goes to great lengths to prove that this is not a bad ritual. But R. 'Emdin's point was a double one and the main part is not that it is a bad ritual but that it is a late one - and this is what is relevant to us. Furthermore, the time difference between one Rav Hai and the other is only about 100 years. So really, what has he gained in all this?
Re: attributing esoteric meanings to the names of the vowel points. He cites proof for their antiquity by quoting "haNniqudh haGgadhol" by Rav Ashe (an ancient sage). But then he goes back and admits that this "Rav Ashe" is not the famous one from the Talmud but a late personality. Then, after spending a lot of space stating the above, writes "...but, in any case, it is explained that Rav Hai Gaon was already using these a lot, and so you'll find there, that this matter is complicated and requires a lot of writing. Here I chose brevity." I don't know what he intended to explain here by showing that the last of the geonim knew about the vowel points. I could do better myself: Rav Sa'adya Gaon, who preceded Rav Hai Gaon, was already using the names of the vowel points. This is no wonder; they were invented in the middle of the geonic era but, as far as I know, Rav Sa'adya Gaon was the first to mention them.
The vast majority of R. 'Emdin's arguments go unanswered by 'Ittur Sefarim. Most of those he does respond to are dismissed as "later additions". Pretty pathetic.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version