Zohar, Log Ba'omer and Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai

[edu]

1.Sefer Yochasin of MHR"A Zechut in the name of R"Y Dmin Acco the student of Ramban brought firsthand testimony that the book of the Zohar was written by means of one of the secret names of G-d {Shaim Hamiforash}and is not the work of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. We are dealing with a witness who saw firsthand!
2.Rabbi Yaacov Emdeen in his book Mitpachat Sofrim brings many proofs to contradict the claim of the antiquity of the Zohar beyond all doubt and so too did he write in his comments to Sefer Yochasin, see there.
    Furthermore I recommend that you listen to the lecture in English of Rabbi Alan Brill of Yeshiva University to understand some of the background behind the Kabbala in general.
http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/712013/Rabbi_Alan_Brill/Introduction_to_the_Kabbalah_01
and perhaps also his second lecture
http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/712417/Rabbi_Alan_Brill/Introduction_to_the_Kabbalah_02
    I bring all this just to strengthen the notion that one should not determine halacha based on the Kabbala when it opposes the masters of the revealed Torah {Nigla}.
    Now for someone that bases his viewpoint "that everything is the Holy One Blessed Be He", upon the words of the Arizal (translator's comment: he is a famous Kabbalist), I wished to bring to attention the following point, that perhaps what is said in the name of the Arizal does not represent his final refined conclusions. Such is implied from an article that dealt with the topic, how by mistake Log Ba'omer was transformed from the day of happiness of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai to the day of his death.
    Recently it became known that a photocopy containing passages from the original handwriting of Rabbi Chaim Vital made it by some way to the National Library of Israel in Givat Ram. Armed by means of the photocopy, Rabbi Kosman came to the Library and after a strenuous examination of the original handwritten text, he succeeded in finding the relevant passage and found the passage that was subject to dispute. Now it was clarified beyond any doubt that the true text is indeed what appears in the book, Shmona Sh'earim. Now it was possible to reconstruct the chain of errors that led to the errant text. A comparison between the various editions and between another early ancient handwritten addition in the Oxford Library teaches us that the scribal error was caused as a result of copying from a handwritten text, with the words: "the reason שמ'0 [  a Hebrew abbreviation] Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai on Lag Ba'Omer is because ..."
The person that copied the text chose to decipher the abbreviation to mean the day  he died and such he wrote down, while according to the truth he should have deciphered the abbreviation  to stand for, for the day of joy of . It turned out that the day of joy of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was transformed by an error to the day of death of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. How did it occur that such a fundamental copying mistake took place? The Chid"a himself already offered a hint to the answer and thus he wrote, "and it is already known that among the texts attributed to the Ari {short for Arizal} there fell confusion"... Behind this vague statement is hidden a concealed or unknown historical event. It turns out that after the Holy Ari died, Rabbi Chaim Vital contacted all his disciples and gathered from them the writings that were in their hands with the reasoning that the fit time had not yet arrived to reveal the secrets. The writings were all gathered under his hand {guard and control}for the duration of 15 years. One of the sages of Tzfat {Safed} by the name of Yehoshua Bin Nun pleaded with him that he would be allowed to look at the manuscripts but Rabbi Chaim Vital rejected his request and said that the time had not yet arrived. When Rabbi Chaim Vital was extremely ill and was taken to Damascus, Rabbi Yehoshua exploited the opportunity and paid Rabbi Chaim Vital's brother 50 gold coins in order to allow him to copy the manuscripts. He brought 100 scribes who worked during a 3 day period and they copied all the manuscripts. In this hasty copy, which was made without the knowledge of Rabbi Chaim Vital, many mistakes and errors were introduced and it is no wonder that also in the detail dealing with Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was written in a short way. A matter which led to the story, as if the day of the death of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai is on Log Ba"Omer.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Interesting points.   Further clarifies things when one considers the obvious question of why we would celebrate someone's yartzeit, which is not something we usually do.

So what is the "day of joy" of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai?  What event does that refer to ?  Does anyone know?

[muman613]

Interesting points.   Further clarifies things when one considers the obvious question of why we would celebrate someone's yartzeit, which is not something we usually do.

So what is the "day of joy" of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai?  What event does that refer to ?  Does anyone know?

I am not sure, but I think what edu posted said that it was his birthday. I have also heard once that it was the day the Zohar was revealed. But for me the importance of Lag B'Omer is always that it was the day that Rabbi Akivas students stopped dying.

http://www.torahtots.com/holidays/lagbomer/lagbomer.htm

According to the Talmud, (Tractate Yevamot 62b), 24,000 students of Rabbi Akiva died in one short period, because "they did not show proper respect to one another!" And all of them died between Pesach and Shavuot as a result of a mysterious G-d-sent plague that raged during the days of the Omer counting. For that reason, it is customary to observe a period of semi-mourning during this time, 16 Nissan - 5 Sivan, most prominently during the whole month of Iyar, (with one exception), when weddings are not held, hair is not cut, and music is not heard. Some do not shave during this entire period.

Some count the mourning period from Pesach to Lag B'Omer. Others go from Rosh Chodesh Iyar to Shavuot. This period is a time to reflect upon our middot and improve our relations with others.

Because on one day only, Lag B'Omer, (the eighteenth of Iyar -- The 33rd day of the Omer) - Rabbi Akiva's pupils did not die. It was made into a festival in the middle of days of mourning that precede and follow it. The ban on weddings and joyful occasions was lifted.

Lag B'Omer is also the Yahrtzeit (anniversary of the death) of the Talmudic Sage and disciple of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon bar (son of) Yochai, author of the Zohar. The Zohar which means "The Shining Light," deals with the mystical teachings of the Torah and is the basis for Kabbala, whose secrets will bring about the coming of Moshiach.
.
.
.
This odd celebration of a Yahrtzeit was a specific request by Bar Yochai of his students. Even though the death of such a great sage is a sad event, there is also joy surrounding the fact that he attained his final reward (as the Zohar explains), and the fact that he revealed many deep secrets of the Torah to his students on his dying day. The Zohar says that on the day Rabbi Shimon died, a great light of endless joy filled the day because of the secret wisdom he revealed to his students. That secret wisdom was recorded in the Zohar. The sun did not set until Rabbi Shimon hd revealed all that he was allowed to. As soon as he was done, the sun set and he died. The fire which surrounded the house, preventing any but Rabbi Shimon's closest students from approaching, serves as a basis for the custom of lighting bonfires on Lag B'Omer.

[muman613]

I just learned that Lag B'Omer also celebrates the victory over the Roman Empire...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/144366

Samaria Celebrates Diplomatic Victory over Roman Empire
Iyar 18, 5771, 22 May 11 08:28
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(Israelnationalnews.com) A huge Saturday night Lag B’Omer bonfire in the heart of Samaria (Shomron) recalls Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai’s diplomatic victory over the Roman Empire, said Shomron Regional Council head, Gershon Mesika.

Rabbi Shimon, the 2nd century mystic and sage, who died on Lag Ba'Omer,  is known by the acronym, Rashbi.

The Talmud relates that the Rashbi said of the Romans, "Everything they built, they built for themselves: They built market places in order to place prostitutes there; bathhouses, in order to refresh themselves; bridges, in order to collect taxes." Rashbi was forced into hiding in a cave for 12 years after the Roman Empire heard of his statement and issued a death warrant against him.

Mesika said, “Lag B’Omer, the holiday for the Rashbi, is the celebration that shows our pride. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai stood against the Roman Empire and won. The fact that hundreds of Jews are celebrating Lag B’Omer here, when almost no one even remembers the Roman Empire, is the victory of Rashbi and of the People of Israel.

"Today, we stand and will continue to stand strongly for the Torah and building of our land in the face of all challenges."

Hundreds of residents and friends from Samaria (the Shomron) celebrated Lag B’Omer at the giant bonfire at Kfar Tapuach, co-sponsored by Chabad, the local community and the regional council.

The bonfire was lit opposite the heart of Samaria and the Shechem Valley by Kfar Tapuach officials, community Rabbi Shimon Rosenzweig and Mesika.

“The special relationship of thousands of years that  all sectors of the People of Israel have with Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai [Rashbi] is a connection that shows love of the Creator, "said Rabbi Rosenzweig. Traditionally, the songs sung at the Lag B'Omer fires that light up the Israeli skies on Lag B'Omer night, express the joy of the Jews at being G-d's Chosen People.

Drawing an analogy with Kfar Tapuach, which literally means the “Apple Village,” he continued, “The teachings of Rashbi and the holy Zohar [kabbalistic commentary on the Pentateuch attributed to Rashbi] show that the secrets of the Torah are like an apple, which has contradictory sour and sweet flavors. The secrets of the Torah resolve apparent contradictions and show how the world is based on them.”

Soldiers from the Shaked Battalion and the Givati Division, who are posted in the area, were hosted with a large barbecue.

[edu]

I believe Log Ba'omer was a day of joy for Rabbi Shimon, because he was one of the students of Rabbi Akiva and he must have noticed that the plague against Rabbi Akiva's students stopped on that day.
Although if someone has a better explanation why this was his day of joy I'm open to it.

[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]

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.

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]

,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 .

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.

[muman613]

Kabbalah is always secondary to Talmud and Torah. As was said before, Halacha should be derived from Talmud and Torah and not from the Kabbalah.

Everything in our tradition has many ways to be understood. There is the concept that there are at least 70 ways to interpret every pasuk, and even every word. I do believe that there are concepts which are encoded in the text which is one reason some words are spelled with extra or missing letters, and some letters are smaller and some larger.

One of the wonderful things about Judaism, in my opinion, is that a man can never learn it all... There is always more to learn, and more spiritual paths to follow in our growth, and our development of our middot/character traits.

[edu]

 Kahane-Was-Right BT made the following point

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.

I would just like to add the problem is not just with Sabbateans it is also a real problem even today where certain people are using Kabbala to justify Heresy
see for example http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2006/01/rebbegod-blog-faq.html where Kabbalistic ideas are being used to justify turning Rabbi Schneerson into a new version of the Christian Jeersus

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane-Was-Right BT made the following pointI would just like to add the problem is not just with Sabbateans it is also a real problem even today where certain people are using Kabbala to justify Heresy
see for example http://rebbegod.blogspot.com/2006/01/rebbegod-blog-faq.html where Kabbalistic ideas are being used to justify turning Rabbi Schneerson into a new version of the Christian Jeersus

Indeed I certainly don't deny that that is a real problem today.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kabbalah is always secondary to Talmud and Torah. As was said before, Halacha should be derived from Talmud and Torah and not from the Kabbalah.

Muman, on this I would agree with you completely 100%.  However it should be noted that this was a point of major controversy and difference of opinion over the ages whereby certain great halakhic authorities did indeed feel that kabbalah should play a role/have a say in the halachic decision making - no less than the great Rabbi Yosef Caro author of the shulchan aruch at times incorporated the opinions within the zohar to his psak halacha (as one major example, this helps to explain why sephardim do not wear tefillin on hol hamoed - the zohar says not to and he paskened according to that for that issue).  So there are multiple approaches to the halacha / kabbalah balance and these vary within the different groups of orthodox Jews and their poskim.   However I feel strongly that zohar need not be involved in halachic decisions which should be drawn from talmud.

[HEBREWHONOR]

Kahane-Was-Right BT  - sorry for the delay i actually didn't saw your reply untill now.

"But at the time it was not as you say.  "
We are speaking about the post-Sabbatai Zevi era , where rabbi's like rabbi yaacov emdeen alav hashalom and others tried to prevent any other sabbatean movement from emerging , though .  

as for the claim itself that the sabbatean movement "took the zohar/kabbalah to its logical conclusions" as you put, I'm not sure that this was the case, in fact nathan of gaza went so far with his commentary it reached levels of absurdity never seen or heard before. But either way , again , we speak about the post-sabbatean era. in which rabbi's fought against the possibility of it happening again.

"and there is ample ground to minimize its importance or prominence in Jewish scholarship and practice."

Again, You cannot use rabbi emdeen position against rabbi emdeen's own position . he considered the book holy , and antique .not from the time of mishna , but most of it from the era of the Amoraim and the geonim that's a fact. what i mean to say is , Your goal wasn't his goal.

" 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 ... "

he himself btw, used "hanhagot" (הנהגות , not sure how to write this concept in english, if someone knows ,will be appreciated)  of the zohar ,this hanhagot was even brought in his own siddur .