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]

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"...

Thanks!

[GoIsraelGo!]

Rahyat1...Welcome to our Great Forum!

Your english and grammer is perfect ....nice!




                       Shalom - Dox   

[rhayat1]

Rahyat1...Welcome to our Great Forum!

Your english and grammer is perfect ....nice!




                       Shalom - Dox   

Thank you!

Some more from Ribbi Ya'aqov 'Emdin:

"... and this is why they instituted the prayer of kol nidre (Part 3 pg. 255:a)".  This was instituted by some of the later geonim, not the best of them.  For behold, the last of the geonim in time, and the first in quality, no other than Rav Hai Gaon, warned not to say it...

"... as all that is on heaven and Earth, and Yonathan ben 'Uziel translated (Part 3 pg 257:a)".  It is known what our sages said, at the beginning of Meghilla, that Yonathan ben 'Uziel did not translate the Writings.

"... in the last Haggadah of Rabbah bar bar Hanna (Tiqqunim 2:b)".  Who is so blind as to not see this, that it is impossible that this could come from the mouth of Rishbi.  From his soul - I wouldn't know.

"And there is honor of the created (?) (Tiqqunim 5:a)".  This is a quote from the Semag (Sefer Miswoth Gadol, if I'm not mistaken, a much later rabbi).

"Furthermore the Qomes, it was instituted by the grammarians that it is a "tenua' gedhola" (Tiqqunim 7:b)".   Also this statement testifies a clear testimony that this composition is not from the Tana Rishbi.  For it is known that the "masters of diqduq (grammarians above) were very late.  It is not even necessary to say not of the era of the tanaim but even the amuraim and geonim make no mention of them.  But they appeared after the geonim.  In the West (Morocco) arose the first pillar of diqduq, he was R. Yehuda Hayuj of Fez.

"And this is a secret of 'from potential to actuality' (min haKkoah el haPpo'al) (Tiqqunim 40:b)".  This is a contemporary expression of the philosophers amongst us (it came into use only in the Middle Ages).

"explains the names of the vowel points according to mysticism (also in the introduction to this book) and also the names of the Ta'amim (musical notes of the Torah)".  This is tradition going back to Moshe from Sinai... however, they were not called by their names and they were never known this way.  They were not revealed, not to Tanaim and not to Amuraim.  Never were such names used anywhere by those in the Talmud.  Therefore we cannot attribute such hints, of which he spoke, to Rishbi the Tana.

"And 'ilath ha'iloth (many times all over the Zohar)".  This expression is also brought in the introduction to the Zohar.  It is used by the philosophers among us in our day.  We do not find it used by our ancient sages, not in the Mishna, not in the Gemarra and not in the Midrashim (note: it was taken from Arabic in the Middle Ages).

"And your sign is 'Pituhe hotem' (Tiqqunim 135:b)".  This is common on the lips of grammarians, who use it as a sign for the five "large" vowels - we do not find it anywhere else.

"The Speaking Form, the Growing Form, the Intellectual Form (Zohar Hadash 11:b)".  These are secular expressions, not of Hazal.  As for a Tana or Amura, this would be profane in their eyes.

"The Earth stood in its power and its nature (Zohar Hadash Part 1 37:b)".  "Its nature (Tiv'ah) is found among the natural philosophers.  It is not found among Hazal.

"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.

"Masters of the Jerusalem Talmud etc. 'we'al haTte'udah', this is the Jerusalem Talmud (Tiqqunim 9:a.  Zohar Hadash Part 1 49:b)".  This is clear proof that it was compiled after the Talmud.

"A donkey carrying books (Zohar Hadash Part 2 69:b)".  This expression is not found in any book on Earth - except in the book "Hovoth haLlevavoth", in the chapter "Service of G-d" and he was a Spanish author.

"...and this is why the later day righteous lay two pair of tefillin (Tiqqune Zohar Hadash 69:b)".  Behold this is strong proof that Tiqqune Zohar Hadash is a very late composition.

"They counted one who busies himself with gemarra as if he studied all of it (Zohar Hadash Part 2 78:b)".  These are the words of Rabenu Tam in Tosaphoth ('Avodhah Zara 19:b)...

The above is only a sample from this chapter.

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

"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.

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.

[muman613]

"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.

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.

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.

[muman613]

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380312/jewish/The-Final-Battle-with-Ishmael.htm

Here is Chabads explanation of the Exile of Ishmael {the fourth and final exile of the Jewish people}

The Final Battle with Ishmael
By Pinchas Winston

The Midrash speaks of four exiles in advance of Mashiach's arrival and the Final Redemption: Babylonian, Median, Greek, and Roman (Bereishit Rabba 2:4). Yet the Zohar speaks of another aspect of exile at the End of Days:

...The descendents of Ishmael will go up at that time [End of Days] with the nations of the world against Jerusalem... (Zohar 1:119a)

There is a tradition that Ishmael will be the final extension of the Roman Exile. It will be with his descendants that the final generation of Jews before the redemption will have to contend. This is supported by the Midrash:

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)

Furthermore, says the Zohar:

[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.

[Spectator]

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)

Wow, this is really interesting. Is "Kedar" another name for Ishmael?
I also know that there is some Muslim missionary activity in Israel.

[Spectator]

[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.

But the Tomb of Joseph is in Schechem, a town in Samaria, not in Galilee.

[rhayat1]

"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.

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.

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]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[muman613]

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)

Wow, this is really interesting. Is "Kedar" another name for Ishmael?
I also know that there is some Muslim missionary activity in Israel.

Here is some information about this story concerning the descendants of Keder:

http://www.neveh.org/winston/parsha63/toldos.html


...

    WITH THE SWORD: He (Bilaam) came against Israel exchanging his trade (the sword) for their trade (the mouth), for they conquer only through their mouth - through prayer and petition . . . (Rashi, Bamidbar 31:8)

Not only this, but unlike Eisav, who was only born from Yitzchak, Yishmael was fathered by Avraham, the 'Ba'al HaBris' - the one with whom G-d made the eternal covenant, symbolized by Bris Milah, to which Yishmael was also subjected. And, he continues with this act to this very day, a merit, according to theZohar, that gives them temporary relevance to Eretz Yisroel.

Thus, any attack by Yishmael against the Jewish people is more primordial than one by B'nei Edom, for it reaches back to the time of the very covenant that set the Jewish people apart from the rest of the world forever. This never gave B'nei Yishmael the ability to be like the Jewish people, but as we can see today, it has given them the ability to make our lives difficult to the end, as the following quote prophesized:

    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 Keder 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 Moshiach, p. 236)

However, their ability to be spiritual has its limitations, as the Torah testified:

    "He (Yishmael) shall be a wild-donkey of a man: his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell." (Bereishis 16:12)

Ironically, it is with the Arabs that, for the most part, the most important physical commodity resides to this very day: oil. This has led to extreme and often perverse opulence amongst those who have been able to gain control over what has rightly been called, 'Black Gold.' And, this fact is what continues to tie the hands of the Western world from standing up against the whims of the Arab world, even when they are damaging to the world in general. A very ironic fact of history.

Hence, the concept of a chamor. A donkey represents physicality, materialism, and the very word for a completely physical entity is the word 'chomer.' The donkey is a beast of burden that exists for little reason other than to function in this way, and thus symbolize materialism.

...


http://www.shechem.org/machon/schwarz/palestine/period2.html

From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.

In the year 4374* (614) there lived in Medina, in Arabia, Mahomed ibn Abdallah, descended from Keder, son of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13), who had taken possession of Arabia and the neighbouring countries. Mahomed had two secret counsellors, who assisted him in the construction of his new system of doctrines and belief; these were Allman Mam Ali, of Jewish descent, and Turchman, a Christian; hence it resulted that the Koran contains many rules bearing analogy to Jewish ideas, for they were derived from Mam Ali.

* It is not easy to give the precise year of the Chadjra (the flight of Mahomed), since all authorities are not agreed in this respect. In general, the year of the text is assumed. In a Hebrew work, out of which I have drawn largely, the year 4384 (621) is given. The Mahomedans reckon this year 5605 (1845) as the 1261st of the Chadjra. If we now calculate their years in general at 355 days, as they have no leap year, we shall have only about 1226 solar years, which would give us the year 4379 (619 of the Christian Era) as the year of the Chadjra.

Mahomed had an astrologer at his court called Bucheran, who was a very great enemy of the Jews, and urged the prophet constantly to persecute and exterminate them entirely, so that Mahomed at length listened to the proposition, since he had without this already a hatred towards them, because they had not aided him in his campaigns according to his expectation; wherefore the whole Jewish population under his rule, ran great danger of being entirely cut off. Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, perceiving this dreadful predicament, went to Mahomed, and offering him his submission, friendship, and services, endeavoured to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted his proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, a handsome young girl, for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally: The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.

[rhayat1]

There is a common mode of deception which I call the "Big Book Method".  This is where those in power defend their dogma against the occasional challenger by having, at their disposal, a thick book (or several books) which they claim deals with whatever objections the challenger may have.  The vast majority of people have neither the inclination, the time, the knowledge or the mental acuity to actually READ those thick books.  Instead, the challenger will look at the book(s) and be intimidated.  He will say to himself, "those greater than myself have already asked these questions and resolved them".  I was a rebel and I actually READ the books cover to cover and all of them.  Only then did I know for sure that they lacked any real content.  This is why I included sections debunking the books that claimed to have defended the antiquity of the Zohar.  So that, when somebody shoves those books in your face (in a manner of speaking), you can shrug, knowing that it's all deception.

The arguments of the book "Bar Yohai" and their rebuttals:

Re: the Spanish word for synagogue ("This is why the synagogue is called 'esnoga'").  He writes that it is not unusual to find Hazal, in their various texts, using a word only once or twice.  He claims that the word is not actually Spanish but a hybrid Aramaic word meaning "dark house".  He writes that in the Babylonian Talmud, it is called "beth keneseth", in Scripture it is called "beth tefillah" and in Talmud Yerushlami and midrash it is called "be khenishta".  In the Zohar, he says, it is called "esnoga".  But this answer doesn't make sense.  Even in the Zohar, the word appears only twice and then, not actually being used as such, but it comes to explain WHY a synagogue is called "esnoga" - as if this is a famous and well-known thing.  In the words of Hazal, we hardly ever find an expression that has no similar one elsewhere since their words are far more vast than scripture.

Re: the Zohar quoting expressions from books that were composed in the Middle Ages.  He claims that the authors of those books must have simply recorded oral traditions that were passed down from generation to generation and had yet to be committed to writing - except in the Zohar, which had yet to be discovered.  In response to this, I must appeal to any reasonable person.  Which is more likely? a) that these later authors copied from traditions that nobody prior to them had written down - but whose source was in a book that had been buried for almost a thousand years and even generations after their time or b) the author of the Zohar copied from well-known books, which were written around two hundred years before his time but with slight variations?

Re: the Zohar confuses the words of 'Ezra and Nehemia, attributing the words of one man to the other.  He uses a couple of paragraphs showing how Hazal, and early authorities, sometimes interchange the books of 'Ezra and Nehemia.  He, conveniently, makes no distinction between the BOOKS of 'Ezra and Nehemia and the MEN themselves.  The Zohar confuses the men.  Hazal interchanges the BOOKS - which is hardly shocking at all. 

To be continued...

[Ari Ben-Canaan]

Homer memorized both The Iliad and The Odyssey.  There may have even been a line of "Homers" who passed the oral tale from "Homer to Homer".  Could this be true of the Zohar?

[muman613]

Homer memorized both The Iliad and The Odyssey.  There may have even been a line of "Homers" who passed the oral tale from "Homer to Homer".  Could this be true of the Zohar?

This is one explanation... But there are still many questions concerning Zohar authenticity.

[rhayat1]

Ben Yohai continued...

I'm a bit overwhelmed here.  I wrote this book years ago and, now that I read my own words, it's hard to believe I wrote them (yes, I'm impressed with myself).  By the same token, they are VERY difficult to translate into English.  I'm tempted to just scan them in and post them in Hebrew.  In a nutshell, the author of "Ben Yohai" ignores the strong points of Mitpahath Sefarim and picks up on weak, incidental points - which he then distorts.  He puts a lot of energy into building fantastic explanations only to admit, at the end, that they have no substance.  Okay, I'll try...

Regarding the recital of "ezehu meqoman" in prayer services.  He writes "In the days of Ribbi Shim'on ben Yohai, they were accustomed to recite this, and therefore said R. Shim'on (Menahoth 75:b) 'He was always accustomed to say the shete haLlehem and Lehem haPpanim were baked etc.'"  He then spends a lot of ink to show that the name of the chapters were already known.  He writes that the custom of reciting ezehu meqoman was an ancient decree and he cites Yoma (68:b) and Tosaphoth 'Avodhah Zara (19:b).

My answer to all this: "It's astounding to me, what relevance does this mishna (in Menahoth) have to ezehu meqoman?  This mishna deals with shete haLlehem.  Also, in the chapter ezehu meqoman, there is no mention of shete haLlehem.  Also what Ribbi Shim'on said, "they were accustomed to recite", this means "they were accustomed to recite this halakha thus and thus" and not like Ribbi Yehudha - and this is clear from the mishna itself, and this mishna does not deal with prayer nor is it agadah.   That the names of the chapters were already known, I admit to this.  Is this supposed to be a novel idea - to the point where he spends most of his answer on it)?  Also, what relevance does it have to the claims of R. Ya'aqov 'Emdin?  I don't understand his proof from the mishna and the Yerushlami in Yoma, for there they are talking about the parashiyoth of the TORAH - and the chapter ezehu meqoman is mishna.  And if you want to split hairs and say that they were fluent in this parasha of the Torah because it was part of their recital ritual, who mentioned ezehu meqoman?  This that he cites Tosaphoth in 'Avodha Zara "therefore they instituted", he's building castles in the sand.  How can one gather from this that the men of the Great Assembly, or Hazal, instituted it?  Behold, there are many things that the geonim instituted and this is well known.  Also, this "diuq" doesn't even start and this is simple to understand.  And the tosaphoth in Sanhedrin adds nothing for our purposes.  Over there, instead of saying "therefore they instituted", it says "we recite".  In his (the Bar Yohai's) intention to cite many "sources" in order to confound the reader, he actually further weakens his already flimsy arguments - for this Tosaphoth actually strengthens the claims of R. Ya'aqov 'Emdin, that the recital of ezehu meqoman is only a late tradition.  He who studies the books of Germany and France, will discern that they often used the term "they instituted" (tiqnu) for late traditions.  And behold, at the end of his words, he destroys everything that he wrote before by citing Tosaphoth in Qiddushin.  For there it is explicitly written as R. 'Emdin claims and this is what it says, "for this reason he instituted, in the siddur of Rav 'Amram Gaon, that which we are accustomed to recite each day...".  This Tosaphoth helps us understand the Tosaphoth in 'Avodha Zara, that what they meant by "therefore they instituted", the intention was to R. 'Amram Gaon.  He would have been better off hiding from us this last Tosaphoth.  It would appear that he, himself, never even saw it and simply depended on some notes on a margin."

Folks, I don't know how much of the above you understood - but the implications are astounding.  Here we see the author of the Bar Yohai (whose name escapes me these days) using a cheap and crude tactic.  He piles on "sources" to bolster his arguments thinking that this will intimidate the reader into assuming there is merit to his arguments.  Yet, if we actually delve into those "sources" we find the exact opposite of what he was trying to say!  Not only that, but it seems he didn't even go to the trouble of looking up his own sources!

[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]

What sefer is "Ben Yochai" ?   That was a response to Rav Yaaqov Emden?   If so, who authored that sefer?

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