Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
haMmafteah - that the Zohar is a forgery
rhayat1:
Yes, I know. This is getting boring - and I wonder how many people are actually following this. So enough of the "Bar Yohai" and let's get to some more interesting stuff.
The book Ari Nohem was written by R. Yehudah Aryeh Modina to show that the Zohar is a forgery. He also opposed the "Kabbalah" in general. Nevertheless, he was not actually against the Zohar. His arguments are general and, as such, easy to follow:
1) Since the Zohar was not known, and not mentioned at all until after the Ramban, and since even the Kabbalists admitted they didn't know who wrote it, we should conclude that it was written after the death of the Ramban.
2) If it was indeed written by Ribbi Shim'on ben Yohai, and we see his greatness and depth in the Zohar, certainly there would be a rule that halakha is according to him - and yet halakha is NOT according to him.
3) There are things in the Zohar that contradict obvious truths in halakha.
4) They barely allowed the oral Torah to be written and this was "nighlah" (publicly known material). How, then, would they allow the secret material to be written even before this?
5) It doesn't make sense the Ribbi Shim'on ben Yohai would write a book that includes so many praises and lofty titles about himself.
6) If it was written in the days of Ribbi Shim'on ben Yohai, they certainly would not have written secrets of the Torah in Aramaic, for it was their habit to write secrets only in the Holy Tongue. Furthermore, Aramaic was then known even by the gentiles, women and children. For it to be written in Aramaic - this is proof that it was written in an era when not everybody knew that language and in order to obscure its dubious origins.
Several books were written against Ari Nohem. The most famous of them, and the main one, was "Maghen weSina" from R. Yis'haq Aizik Haver.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
What sefer is "Ben Yochai" ? That was a response to Rav Yaaqov Emden? If so, who authored that sefer?
rhayat1:
--- Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on February 03, 2010, 01:10:12 PM ---What sefer is "Ben Yochai" ? That was a response to Rav Yaaqov Emden? If so, who authored that sefer?
--- End quote ---
Yes, it's a book written to counter the arguments made by R. Ya'aqov 'Emdin. Unfortunately, I don't have the name of the author. I would appear that only somebody in Israel would be able to find that out and, even then, with some difficulty.
rhayat1:
I'm going to skip a few chapters to my own arguments against the antiquity of the Zohar. These are easy to understand:
1) Attached is a graph showing, with sources, the supposed chronology of Hazal according to the Zohar. It is not difficult to see that there is no rhyme or reason.
2) The very fact that it is written in Aramaic. It is not proper to write the secrets of the Torah in Aramaic, since it is a lowly language, as they said (Sanhedrin 21:b) "and they left, for simple folk, Hebrew script and the Aramaic language".
3) In the writings of Hazal, the word "Kabbalah" means prophets and writings (of scripture). This we find in many places. But in the Zohar the word does not have this meaning even once. In the Zohar itself it appears only once (Kabbalath Moshe miSsinai). The author of the Zohar knew that the new meaning for the word "Kabbalah" was, indeed, new and he associated it with this meaning. This is why he is careful, without even being aware of it, not to use it even when it would be appropriate to use it. He refers to all of scripture as "Torah", something that is very rare in the words of Hazal. But the author of Ra'yah Mememnah, who was apparently not aware of the recent vintage of this new meaning of the word, is not careful about using it at all.
4) Not one of the books of Hazal includes an introduction. We do find, in Mekhilatha Song of Songs, Ruth and Eikha Rabba, that they have a "Pethihatha" - and who knows from what era those "Pethihatha's" came to us. In any case, "Haqdamah" (introduction) we have not seen.
5) This is from the letter of Rav Sarera Gaon (who is called, by the author of "Zohar haRaqia'" "a trustworthy witness") pg. 18 (Levin's edition), "And also they did not recite all of them with one mouth (that is, before Rabenu haQqadosh) and in the same words but they would know their reasoning... and they had no set versions or known Mishna which everybody would recite the same way..." According to the French version of this letter, this state of affairs continued even until the completion of the Talmud.
It is interesting that just about every Mishna that is known to us, from reliable sources, is quoted in the Zohar exactly as it has come down to us today (and he even extracts concepts from their exact language as if it was a known thing in his day). But all the Mishnayoth and Baraitoth that he, himself, invented - they are quoted in Aramaic. This is the general rule, that holds true throughout the Zohar, and it needs explanation.
6) He mentions the aggadoth of Hazal as if they are known and there is no need to repeat them, even when they were not mentioned in a nearby passage. In most cases, this is not the way of Hazal at all - unless it is referring to something that was just mentioned. But never do they depend on the reader to already be familiar with those aggadoth.
7) There is a serious problem in the language of the Zohar; on one hand, he claims to be an ancient Midrash from the Land of Israel. On the other hand he scarcely ever uses the style of Aramaic that was known to be used in the Land of Israel in those ancient times. For example, R. L'azar, R. Ba, Mr instead of Amar. Also the word for "child" that is usually used in the Zohar is "rabya" and we find (Succah 5:b) "Said Rav Abahu, like a rabya - for in Babylon they call a child "rabya". There are places in the Zohar where this is not so, but usually it is so.
8) Since Hazal suffered greatly from persecution by the Romans, we find them disparaging them frequently (many of those parts have been censured, but they can still be found). But the gentiles of the lands of Edom (Europe) and the Ishma'elites had not yet thrown their yoke upon the shoulders of Israel. Therefore we do not find Hazal denigrating them much at all. On the other hand, the authors of the Zohar hardly ever mention the Romans (maybe twice or three times in all the volumes) but they constantly denigrate Edom and Yishma'el - for, in their days, Israel was suffering from those two nations (that is, in Spain where both of them ruled)
Those are my general observations.
wonga66:
A series of articles from Ascent of Safed supporting the antiquity of the Zohar
and its Yochaic origins
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380410/jewish/The-Zohars-Mysterious-Origins.htm
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380748/jewish/Arguments-of-the-Skeptics.htm
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380749/jewish/Responses-to-the-Claims-of-the-Skeptics.htm
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380762/jewish/Other-Claims-and-Responses.htm
http://www.kabbalaonline.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380763/jewish/Other-Claims-and-Responses-Continued.htm
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version