Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Zohar, Log Ba'omer and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai

<< < (2/3) > >>

HEBREWHONOR:
Hello edu :

a little about the claims written on the antiquity of the zohar :

alot of scholars today believe the zohar was written around circa 13th century . but In fact some scholarly works proved very clearly that we have an ancient text . for exemple , a good place to start would be the article by rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher alav hashalom  , called "the zohar" (hazohar) , sinay ,sefer ha yovel , rabbi Kook institute ,jerusalem  . i dont know of english transalation of the article but here is a link for the article in hebrew :

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm


however here is a sum of his arguements for the antiquity of the zohar in general ,copied from wikipedia(and some other intresting points against those who adhere the idea that its a new book ):
"
Arguments for an earlier dating

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher attempts to refute many of Scholem's points. He writes:

    * 1. Many statements in the works of the Rishonim (medieval commentors who preceded De Leon refer to Medrashim of which we are not aware. He writes that these are in fact references to the Zohar. This has also been pointed out by R' David Luria in his work "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar."
    * 2. The Zohar's major opponent Elijah Delmedigo refers to the Zohar as having existed for only 300 years. Even he agrees that it was extant before the time of R' Moses De Leon.
    * 3. He cites a document from R' Yitchok M' Acco who was sent by the Ramban to investigate the Zohar. The document brings witnesses that attest to the existence of the manuscript.
    * 4. It is impossible to accept that R' Moshe De Leon managed to forge a work of the scope of the Zohar (1700 pages) within a period of six years as Scholem claims.
    * 5. A comparison between the Zohar and De Leon's other works show major stylistic differences. Although he made use of his manuscript of the Zohar, many ideas presented in his works contradict or ignore ideas mentioned in the Zohar. (Luria also points this out)
    * 6. Many of the Midrashic works achieved their final redaction in the Geonic period. Some of the anachronistic terminology of the Zohar may date from that time.
    * 7. Out of the thousands of words used in the Zohar Scholem finds two anachronistic terms and nine cases of ungrammatical usage of words. This proves that the majority of the Zohar was written within the accepted time frame and only a small amount was added later (in the Geonic period as mentioned).
    * 8. Some hard to understand terms may be attributed to acronyms or codes. He finds corrolaries to such a practice in other ancient manuscripts.
    * 9. The "borrowings" from medieval commentaries may be explained in a simple manner. It is not unheard of that a note written on the side of a text should on later copying be added into the main part of the text. The Talmud itself has Geonic additions from such a cause. Certainly this would apply to the Zohar to which there did not exist other manuscripts to compare it with.
    * 10. He cites an ancient manuscript that refers to a book Sod Gadol that seems to in fact be the Zohar.[15]

Concerning the Zohars' lack of knowledge of the land of Israel, Scholem bases this on the many references to a city Kaputkia (Cappadocia) which he states was situated in Turkey not in Israel. However, Rabbi Reuvein Margolies (Peninim U' Margolies) states that in an ancient Israeli tombstone there is mentioned a village Kaputkia. In addition, the Zohar states that this village was sitiuated within a day's walk, which would imply that the author of the Zohar had precise knowledge of the geography of Israel.

As to the references in the book to historical events of the post-Talmudic period, it was not deemed surprising that Shimon ben Yochai should have foretold future happenings."

edu:
I am familiar with the some of the proofs of Rabbi Kasher, but the proofs on the other side in my opinion are stronger.
Now I will admit that I did hear that there could be certain elements, such as, the secret names of G-d, which  are indeed very old and were incorporated into the zohar by its redactor.
I think the english audio lectures that I linked to, make this point.

Furthermore, Just asking questions against Gershom Shalom isn't proving the zohar is from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. There are more reputable people like Rabbi Yaacov Emdeen who held the Zohar wasn't from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Deal with his proofs.

HEBREWHONOR:
hello again. in my opinion the evidence (like books much older ,quoting the zohar ,like perush of sefer ha koma found , and ancient letters discussing the book)
of the zohar antiquity , The lenguage use many 'foreign' words with only parallels in ancient idioms of syrian,etc . i see no way this book was written in the times some scholars try to push it, forward to.

"isn't proving the zohar is from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. "

its hard to say that people who supports its antiquity say that the great rabbi shimon bar yochai alav hashalom wrote it , But more that this are his teaching written by his students.

"There are more reputable people like Rabbi Yaacov Emdeen who held the Zohar wasn't from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Deal with his proofs."

rabbi yaacov emdeen alav hashalom ,himself said ,that he believe's the book was Holy and was written in the later era of the Amoraim and the era of geonim,aside some specific parts which might were added later ,like tikunay ha zohar. you need to put his "criticism" in the right context,which is  in the dark shadowy background of the Sabbatean movement ,who was the actual target of his criticism ,since they used "vague"(what i really mean ,is what we call in hebrew "סתום") citations which they did not understood from the book as their sources ,while interperting them as they see fit .

Kahane-Was-Right BT:

--- Quote from: edu on May 23, 2011, 12:57:11 PM ---I am familiar with the some of the proofs of Rabbi Kasher, but the proofs on the other side in my opinion are stronger.
Now I will admit that I did hear that there could be certain elements, such as, the secret names of G-d, which  are indeed very old and were incorporated into the zohar by its redactor.
I think the english audio lectures that I linked to, make this point.

Furthermore, Just asking questions against Gershom Shalom isn't proving the zohar is from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. There are more reputable people like Rabbi Yaacov Emdeen who held the Zohar wasn't from Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Deal with his proofs.

--- End quote ---

Rabbi Bar Hayim once mentioned that someone he knew personally who was a student of Rav Kook testified as a first hand eyewitness account that Rav Kook accepted the notion that it was not written by Shimon Bar Yohai, but much later (in the 13th century).  And Rav Kook was a huge kabbalist.   I don't think it's necessity, and certainly it's not proven, that the zohar was written by Shimon Bar Yohai.

Kahane-Was-Right BT:

--- Quote from: HEBREWHONOR on May 23, 2011, 02:07:16 PM ---,which is  in the dark shadowy background of the Sabbatean movement ,who was the actual target of his criticism ,since they used "vague"(what i really mean ,is what we call in hebrew "סתום") citations which they did not understood from the book as their sources ,while interperting them as they see fit .

--- End quote ---

Actually the shabtai tzvi people took the zohar/kabbalah to its logical conclusions.  That is why very few rabbinic scholars could even recognize there was a problem with the way they interpreted/darshaned etc, and it was only much later that some great rabbis could even discredit their kabbalistic claims and purview (ie their claims within the kabbalah system itself - to a rabbi who does not accept that framework, it would be easy to discredit shabtai tzvians based on the fact that they were distorting the halacha.  But according to the internal kabbalah system and how it evolved, they were taking it to the next step, and rabbis who accepted the kabbala framework couldn't find things wrong with it.   later on it turned out the person was a complete fraud, converted to Islam, etc, so people wised up but it was too late).   The way you are speaking is in Hindsight.  And hindsight is always 20/20.  But at the time it was not as you say.  

In fact it's very interesting and to me illustrative that Rabbi Emden did not just "prove them wrong" within kabbala, since if as you say, they simply distorted the zohar and kabbalah, he could easily do so.  Instead he chose a different route to combat them, namely to discredit some of the foundation of that kabbalah and bring Jews to a more realistic relationship with such texts.   He took shots at its foundation by citing proofs against tannaic authorship in order to establish the proper tier in which such texts and ideas should be placed.   The halachic hierarchy supersedes this kind of hashkafic mysticism, and that was his precise tactic to discredit the sabbateans.   There was no sense to delve into the kabbala itself because 1. their kabbala (actually, Nathan of Gaza's kabbala) was very sophisticated and reasonably evolved what came before them and 2.  It appears to me that Rabbi Emden recognized that what they were doing with the kabbalah, if indeed the kabbalistic system allows them to do such a thing, proves that this entire system is secondary and must always be secondary to halacha because no one can override the oral law and any system that "enables" us to do so is inherently flawed.   Not to say there is nothing in it, there are some deep ideas in the kabalah, and Rabbi Emden obviously did not reject kabbalah, but my point is to put it in its proper perspective, and I think THAT is how we should interpret his "criticisms" of the zohar.   Yes, a deep and wonderful text, but not everything claimed about it is true (he gives examples), and certainly it is not of tannaic authorship, (whereas mishna is!), and there is ample ground to minimize its importance or prominence in Jewish scholarship and practice.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page