Once again, I’m delving into hoary Hebrew books that have been collecting dust on my shelves for a long time.
Now that I realize that Grok does a pretty good job at translating, I’m availing myself of this service (thank you, Mr. Musk!). While the previous book I partially translated was by a friend who passed many years ago, this one was written by me, and I have yet to pass. However, I feel my mortality, and this is part of the legacy I’d like to leave, even if nobody reads it. I wrote the book long ago, and I called it, “The Key” because its introduction centers around the concept that we must accept the truth from ANYBODY, regardless of fame or status. This is, indeed, a very important principle, but that part of the book (the introduction) is very repetitive, and I already translated it to English. If anybody’s interested, I’ll post that as well.
In the meantime, I’ll post Grok’s translation (including short explanations as Grok deems necessary) of the body of the book a few pages at a time. The book is a collection of proofs that the Zohar (the main book and source of the so-called Kabbalah). It also includes debunking of “proofs” of its authenticity.
I spent a long time researching this topic, poring over microfilm at Hebrew University, searching for obscure books that were no longer in print, photocopying some whose owners didn’t want to lend me their tomes. This research was quite controversial, to say the least. It almost cost me my marriage and made me enemies. The person who first brought the forgery of the Zohar to my attention was no other than Ben Zion Cohen – who authored the previous Hebrew book that I translated (in part). In short, this was an important part of my life and if I’m to be remembered at all, I’d like it to be partly for this effort. Speaking of effort, it turns out I cannot simply copy and paste from Grok; it has many errors. I’ll fix the obvious ones as I go through it.
The book starts on page 9 my book, and here’s Grok’s translation of the first few pages:
Pg. 9
Rabbi Yaakov Emden, in his book Mitpachat Sefarim (“The Book-Cover”), lists two kinds of problems: a) Problems that come from the actual ideas and methods that were common in later generations. b) Problems of language and expressions that appear in the Zohar and that, in his opinion, do not belong to the time of the Tannaim (the early rabbis of the Mishnah) or even to the time of the later Talmudic rabbis in general. Because my purpose is only to examine the book itself, I have not bothered to mention the first kind of problems at all. I have collected all of Emden’s claims that belong to the second kind — the ones that look like solid proofs — and these are the ones that appear in Mitpachat Sefarim as completely decisive. I have added a few new comments of my own, and in a few places I have brought a slightly different version of the wording that I found in another source. I then copied the pages from the Livorno printing (a new, corrected edition).
(1) Page 8
“And why is my heart called a synagogue?” (Zohar III 282a)
In Sephardic Hebrew a synagogue is called beit knesset (house of assembly). (The author is pointing out that this wording sounds later than the time the Zohar claims to come from.)
(2) Page 10
“Creation, the attack, the need, etc.” (Tikkunei Zohar 16a)
This comes from the explanations of the Mishnah that appear in the introduction to the Talmud by Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid. He was a Spanish scholar, a friend or student of Rabbeinu Chananel, from the first generation of the later rabbis (Rishonim). Most of these sections are mentioned here only to show the hidden meaning.
(3) Page 13
“Pekuda tminata umahai gadfa atparsha letarin omin achrin, da’inun kribin biyichuda leYisrael” (Zohar I 13a)
It seems clear to me that this is talking about two nations — Edom (Christianity) and Ishmael (Islam) — and it says this according to people who believe in the Torah of Moses… Look, in the days of the author of the Zohar the religion of Ishmael already existed in the world… (this was newly invented in later times by later thinkers) because before that time all the Ishmaelites were complete idol-worshippers, like all the other nations of the world.
(4) Page 17
“The little one who was brought to me made her a bride, to whom shall I say? Or will you say to the angels, who said… except this is Abraham…” (Zohar I 105b)
This statement is strange and unique. It goes against the plain meaning of the verse and against its context. In this book of the Zohar, without any doubt, “right” means the side of kindness (chessed) and “left” means the side of strength (gevurah)… but it is not missing and it is not extra, which is not the usual way this book of the Zohar explains things. Even though the style of the Zohar is often confusing, the written text itself commands… I do not know why they did this. The only point here is that the writer did not feel the switch between the small letter and the large letter — and that shows the book was written in the Middle Ages (the time of the later rabbis).
(5) Page 19
“Ezra said, ‘Remember me, O my God, for good’” (Zohar I 96b)
We do not find in Scripture that Ezra said this for his own comfort, and because the story in Nehemiah is not really called by the name Ezra (it is a mistake in the words of Ezra), this is not enough to change the real name that brings redemption forever.
(6) Page 20
“Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Yosi were sitting before Rashbi…” (Zohar I 163b)
This is a statement of Rav Chisda that is forbidden to be learned in public, and also what is written further on: “I have a tradition that a prophet is not allowed to add…” He is saying “that a master said,” and it is impossible to say that this came from the mouth of the early Tannaim. That is not the way of the Talmudic rabbis, who say things in the name of the one who said them, even when there is a doubt about the wording of the text.
In everyday language:
This page begins the main part of the book. The author is going through Rabbi Yaakov Emden’s list of places in the Zohar that, in Emden’s opinion, use language or ideas that could not have been written in the time of the early rabbis. The author copies Emden’s strongest proofs and starts answering or examining them one by one.
Pg. 10
(7) Page 21
“That this is what was said to Uba Tamia…” (Zohar II 19b)
This wording is the language of the Gemara in the chapter “The Seer,” where Rav Ketina (an Amora — a later Talmudic rabbi) said it in the time of Rav and Shmuel. From here it is also clear that the names of Tannaim (early Mishnah rabbis) mentioned here are not real Tannaim. It is impossible that they said something that only happened much later, in the days of the later Babylonian Amoraim… The difficulty, if we do not say that the souls of the Tannaim appeared in a later generation to the author of the Zohar.
(8) Page 21
“Where is its place?” etc. (Zohar I, additional notes, paragraph 50)
It is known that the statement “Where is its place?” together with the section of the sacrifices comes from Rav Amram Gaon. He arranged and edited this, and there is no hint of it in the Talmud… The last of the Geonim — he is new.
(9) Page 23
“I found this in the secret of the blowing (of the ram’s horn) of Rav in Babylon” (Zohar II 52a)
This too is reliable testimony about this holy composition, that it does not belong to Rashbi the Tanna (Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai).
(10) Page 25
“They came and asked Rav Hamnuna Saba…” (Zohar II 24a)
This is surprising, because according to what appears in the Zohar in several places, he lived in the same generation as Rashbi. And it also appears that even Rashbi the Tanna was not alive at the time of the destruction of the Temple, because in the days of Rabbi Yehuda the Temple was destroyed, and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi were students of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Akiva their teacher is the one whose Mishnah “Whoever has studied Torah…” belongs to Rashbi and his colleagues the Tannaim. If so, it is far-fetched that he saw the Temple standing. And at the time they were close, as is seen here, even though Rav Hamnuna Saba is mentioned several times in the Talmud as a student of Rav. And at the end of chapter “The Great Heart” (Bava Metzia 85a) he is called a student of a student of Rav. Also, at the time of the Temple they were not yet using the title “Rav” at all, and Rabbi Yehuda’s place was in Tzippori, in the region of Ashur, which is close to Babylon, and he was called by the title Rabbi Kahana, and in his days this event mentioned here happened, as is seen in Rosh Hashanah and Pesachim.
(11) Page 26
“And Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi was standing with him” (Zohar II 122b)
And he lived in the time of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
(12) Page 26
“Rav Safra” (Zohar II 165b)
It is far-fetched that he lived in the days of Rashbi the Tanna.
(13) Page 27
“Tannaim and Amoraim” (Zohar III 142b, and many more places)
I have also seen it clearly stated that this holy composition is a later work, mixed together. Also another work that the Amoraim are known in the world, as I have proven and shown in several places from our commentary that is not later than them.
(14) Page 27
“And in the book of Rav Hamnuna Saba, it explains uniquely, that every returning soul is rolled in a ball” (Zohar III 10a)
This whole subject goes according to the way of the later scholars of investigation, not according to the way of Rabbi Chiya in the Talmud.
(15) Page 28
“Rabbi Shamlai” (Zohar III 75b)
Rabbi Shamlai is not found anywhere in the six orders of the Mishnah, only one and there is no second to him, and he is Rabbi Shamlai who lived in the days of Rabbi Yochanan the Amora, who came to learn before him… And he was the one who heard the words of Yehuda haNasi, and from this it sounds as if he lived in the time of Rashbi — this is a surprising thing.
(16) Page 30
“They also mentioned both of them, Rav Yeba and Rav Manuna Saba” (Zohar III 155b)
And they were students of Rav. And how is it possible that they said the words of Rashbi and his sons, Tannaim, a statement that comes from Amoraim?
In everyday language:
The author keeps listing places where the Zohar uses names, titles, or ideas that belong to rabbis who lived hundreds of years after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (the person the Zohar is traditionally said to have been written by). These anachronisms are presented as evidence that the book was written later.
Pg. 11
(17) Page 30
“Thus the Holy One blessed be He in the palace of the children of the academy, and they said, ‘Who proves this is so-and-so who offered proof’” (Zohar III 125b)
This hints at what is written at the beginning of chapter “The Workers,” in Bava Metzia 83b: it is known that he is from the generation of the later Amoraim.
(18) Page 30
“And even so, Rabbi A son of Pedat pushed him away…” (Zohar III 216b)
He is an Amora, a student of Rav and Shmuel, and this is also found in the Gemara in chapter “My Pious Ones.”
(19) Page 30
“In the exile of Ishmael” (Zohar III 142b)
This is also clear. Likewise, the truth is that the author of the Zohar lived after the Amoraim.
(20) Page 31
“And they did not take the path of the earth to hide the words of the Geonim” (Zohar III, Tikkunim, page 70)
This is a clear and strong proof about the composition of Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco and the Tikkunim, which were created in a later generation, at a time when it was already customary to use the title “Geonim,” which is after the time of the Talmud and the Amoraim.
(21) Page 31
“He took revenge from Ishmael” (Zohar III 246b)
And so he said in the next line. This too testifies to the truth of what we have said several times, and so on at length.
(22) Page 31
“The remembering soul, the thinking soul, and the commanding soul, which are three brains” (Tikkunei Zohar 126a)
The later philosophers took all these terms, as is well known.
(23) Page 31
“It was called Yosef Shida” (Zohar III 259a)
This is found at the beginning of chapter “The Oath,” that he studied with Rabbi Chiya and Rabbah, who were Amoraim.
(24) Page 31
“And the day of my glory came” (Zohar III 264a)
We do not find this language except among the Amoraim.
(25) Page 31
“And they need this enactment to say Kok Nidre” (Zohar III 265a)
This enactment belongs to the later Geonim, as is well known, because the last of the Geonim, in time, and the first in greatness, is Rav Hai Gaon, from whom we have not found it said, as is explained in Tur Orach Chaim (section 619).
(26) Page 31
“As it is written that everything in heaven and on earth, and Targum Yonatan son of Uzziel” (Zohar III 267a)
It is known what our rabbi, the Rosh, said, that Yonatan son of Uzziel did not translate the Writings.
(27) Page 31
“And they joined the words of the Mishnah from the hidden things of my knowledge of leaven, to the hidden things of the examination of the hidden things” (Zohar III 275a)
The being of Abbaye and Rava is unique here; we are the order of the Gemara that deals with the Mishnah, etc.
(28) Page 31
“The poor one who is there with the sign of the Talmudic tractates Eruvin, Niddah and Yebamoth (acronym ANI, which means poor)” (Zohar III 275b)
He built an esoteric “secret” upon a play of words, which is found in the mouths of those who study the Talmud in yeshiva… Is it possible that words like these came from the mouth of a Tanna? There is no need to say they came from the mouth of Moses our teacher or from the rest of the souls of the hidden world.
(29) Page 32
“In the legend of the hidden things, Rabbah bar bar Chana” (Tikkunei Zohar 2b)
Who is the one who arranged this and did not see this, that it is impossible that this came from the mouth of Rashbi, from his soul — I do not know.
(30) Page 32
“And I saw the glory of the Creator” (Tikkunei Zohar 5a)
This is the language of the Smag (13th century France).
In everyday language:
The list continues. The author points out more names, titles (“Gaon”), philosophical terms, and later customs that appear in the Zohar and the Tikkunei Zohar. These things belong to rabbis and periods that came long after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, which is used as evidence that the books were written later.
Pg. 12
(31) Page 32
“And still some of the exact language of the masters of precision remain, which is a great movement” (Tikkunei Zohar 7b).
This language also testifies with clear evidence that this composition does not belong to Rashbi the Tanna. It is well known that the later masters of precise language (the grammarians) — there is no need to mention this among the Tannaim, and not even among the Amoraim and Geonim. There is no mention of it. Only these arose and were created after the Geonim, in the West, the first one who brought out the wisdom of precise language being Rabbi Yehuda Chayyug of Fez.
(33) Page 32
“And everything written in this book of the Zohar about these corrections of the tefillin is taken from the Midrash Rabbah.” (the earliest parts were composed around the 5th century).
(34) Page 32
““And they are included in the 248 [words] of the Reading of Shema, which are 248 together with ‘El Melech Ne’eman’ (‘God, faithful King’). And because they do not pause between the words, they enacted that the prayer leader should repeat ‘Hashem Elokeichem Emet’” (Tikkunei Zohar 25b). Who would not feel that these are not the words of a Tanna, that he cited a stringency of later tradition… Why would the author of Tikkune Zohar go after a later authority, the author of the book of Tikkunim from a later generation, and from the books of the later legal authorities that came into his hands, and he was well versed about their opinions (see Tur Orach Chaim section 61)… And so he did often, for example with the two pairs of tefillin, and likewise with the two blessings of the tefillin, that he took doubts of legal authorities and attributed to them esoteric secrets, as is his habit in many places.
(35) Page 32
“And because of this they established the words of the Mishnah and explained them as women, etc.” (Tikkunei Zohar 32b, 126b).
Rava is the one who said this to the later scholars.
(36) Page 32
“And this is the secret of potential to action” (Tikkunei Zohar 9b).
This is the language of the philosophers among our people.
(37) Page 32
“And because of this it is forbidden to pray toward the West” (Tikkunei Zohar 56b).Look, besides the fact that this contradicts the opinion of the Talmudic Sages… And Rabbi Shimon said to his attendant: they may be set up toward any direction except the East.
(38) Page 33
“And to designate for them the middle path” (Tikkunei Zohar 59a).
This is taken from the new holy laws of the Rambam, because we do not find any hint of this in the Rosh.
(39) Page 33
“But Rabbi Meir, he ate the inside and discarded the peel” (Tikkunei Zohar 69a).
These are the words of an Amora — Rav.
(40) Page 33
“And in the exile of the Lord only four” (Tikkunei Zohar 85a).
Rabbi Yochanan is the master, as we hear this (in the Gemara, page 283).
(41) Page 33
“And this is Rabbi Pedat (and Rabbi Elazar son of Pedat, may his memory be a blessing)” (Zohar III 216b).
Look, we have brought the matter of an Amora who lived several generations after Rashbi the Tanna.
(42) Page 34
“He explains the names of the vowel points according to the esoteric secrets (and also in the introduction of this book) and also the names of the cantillation notes… and even though this is certainly a legitimate Jewish tradition… in any case, these vowel points are not called by these names, and they were not known neither to the Tannaim nor to the Amoraim; they were not used at all by the Talmudic rabbis. Therefore, we must not attribute these explanations, which are mentioned to Rashbi the Tanna.”
(43) Page 34
“And the Cause of causes” (many times throughout the Zohar).
This term is also found in the introduction to the Zohar. And the philosophers (starting in Medieval times) among our people used it; we do not find it among the Talmudic rabbis, not in the Mishnah, not in the Gemara, and not in the Midrashim.
(44) Page 34
“And your mnemonic is petuchei chotam (‘engravings of a signet’).” (Tikkunei Zohar 135b).
This is a common expression among the (later) grammarians, who gave it as a sign for the five long vowels — we do not find it elsewhere.
In everyday language:
The author continues pointing out words, grammatical terms, legal rulings, and philosophical phrases in the Zohar and Tikkunei Zohar that only appeared centuries after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai — especially terms from later grammarians, the Rambam, and medieval philosophers.
Pg 13
(45) Page 34
“The speaking form, the growing form, the intellectual form” (Zohar Chadash I 11b).
This is the language of the outsiders (non-Jewish or later philosophers), not the language of the Talmudic Sages — even though it is the language of a Tanna or Amora, they themselves regarded it as secular.
(46) Page 34
“The earth stood in its strength and its nature” (Zohar Chadash I 37b).
The word “its nature” (tiv‘ah) is common in the mouths of the philosophers and the natural scientists — it is not found in the words of our Sages.
(47) Page 34
“Esau and Ishmael… that they are all in tranquility,” “that they will be subjugated by their children in exile” (Tikkunim 30a, 52b).
The kingdom of Ishmael (Islam) had not yet become famous or widespread in the days of the Tannaim and Amoraim, because at that time it was still a lowly, small, and weak kingdom.
(48) Page 35
“The masters of the Jerusalem Talmud, etc., and concerning the testimony — this is the Jerusalem Talmud” (Tikkunim 9a, Zohar Chadash I 49b).
This, too, is clear proof that it was composed after the Talmud.
(49) Page 35
“And in that name there was a great one who uproots mountains” (Tikkunei Zohar Chadash 65b).
This matter is at the end of tractate Horayot. This, too, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai certainly did not say.
(50) Page 35
“A donkey carrying books” (Zohar Chadash II 69b).
This expression is not found in any book in the world except in Chovot HaLevavot (“Duties of the Heart” composed in the late 11th century), in the Gate of the Service of God. And its author, of blessed memory, was a Spanish author.
(51) Page 35
“And because these of the later generation are not experts, they instituted two pairs of tefillin” (Tikkunei Zohar Chadash 69b).
Here too is decisive proof about the composition of the Tikkunei Zohar, that it is among the very latest works.
(52) Page 35
“That it was a worn vessel of the rabbis” (Zohar II 113b).
This is the language of the Gemara at the beginning of Berakhot; Rava said it.
(53) Page 35
“And they established that whoever occupies himself with the Gemara is as if he occupied himself with everything” (Zohar Chadash II 78b).
These are the words of Rabbeinu Tam in the Tosafot (in Avodah Zarah 19b. 12th century France) on the statement “A person should always divide his years into three.”
(54) Page 93
“To the love of the true love that is with me, from all the desire of the world, everything that is done on earth, I will not delay the words of one holy man who speaks about the existence of the composition of the Zohar and its origin, which the pious scholar, the author of the book Yuchasin, having attributed it to the great Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco, of blessed memory… In the year 5053 (1293). Rabbi Moses of Leon lived in Avila (and he was very much a heretic) at that time. And in order that you may tell it to a later generation, I will inform you what I heard in writing from Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco, who went to investigate the book of the Zohar, because it appeared that his words were fantastical, that they came from a hidden source, and that it was the language of the Jerusalem Talmud. It seemed that his words were words of Kabbalah and truth, and that they were the holy language, the words of Zohar. He said: I asked the students who had the book of the Zohar in their hands, ‘From whom did it come to them?’ and I did not find their accounts to be consistent. There is someone who said that the Ramban found it in the Land of Israel and sent it to Catalonia, and it found its way to Aragon, and it fell into the hands of Rabbi Moses of Leon. And there are those who say that we never heard that it was a composition of Rashbi, only that Rabbi Moses knew the Name of the author, and with his power he would write wonderful things, and in order to get a high price for them, he attributed it to a great man, which is Rashbi and his son Rabbi Elazar and his colleagues. And I came to Guadalajara and I found there Rabbi Moses of Leon. And he swore to me that the book of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is in his house in Avila, and he will show it to me when I go there. And when he returned to his house he died in Arévalo. And I came to the city of Avila and I found there an old scholar whose name was Rabbi David Rapan, his relative. And I found favor in his eyes, and I made him swear to tell me if he knew…”
Pg. 14
…the authenticity of the book of the Zohar, whether it is true or not. And the scholar said that it has now become clear to him with certainty that Rabbi Moses is the writer, and he would attribute is (to R. Shimon bar Yochai), and the reason he knows this is because Rabbi Moses, the aforementioned, was writing esoteric secrets and wonders for rich people who were in that kingdom. And he would take from them many gifts — gold and silver. And that same day, everything that was in his possession was scattered. Until the day of his death nothing remained for him, not even a penny. His wife and his sons were in hunger and thirst and nakedness and lacking everything. And when I heard of his death, I arose (and I went) to Rabbi Yosef of Avila, who was a great rich man, and he had taken a large sum of money from (R. Moses) when he was still alive. And I said to him: “Now, here is a good opportunity; give a gift for a great book.” And he immediately sent a beautiful gift to R. Moses’ widow, by way of his wife. And this is what he did, and he sent gifts in the hand of his wife to the wife of Rabbi Moses, of blessed memory. And she answered her, the wife of Rabbi Moses of blessed memory: “He never had such a book, and the writings were from his own mind and imagination. And I say to my husband, why are you hanging your livelihood on another scholar? Is it not better for you to say that from your own mind you are writing, and they will honor you, and they will give you more gifts for it? And my husband answered me: ‘If I were to say that they are from my own knowledge, they would not pay attention to them at all, and they would not give me gifts for them. Therefore, I am attributing them to Rashbi and his colleagues.’” And after I spoke with her in this way, I found her words correct. These are the things that I found from the old scholar Rabbi David.
And I traveled from Avila and I came to Guadalajara. And I investigated there a wonderful scholar whose name is Rabbi Yosef HaLevi son of Rabbi Todros the Kabbalist. And the investigation reached the point of knowing what is in his hands concerning the book of the Zohar. And he said to me: “Know in truth that it was in the hand of Rabbi Moses of blessed memory. The book of the Zohar is true, and the reason I know this is because he used to give me notebooks, and I, in order to test this doubt, took from him one notebook, from among the notebooks. And I said to him that the notebook was lost from me, that he should give me a replacement.” And he said to me: “Wait for me until I copy the first notebook for you.” And I saw the later notebook, and I wrote one notebook for him, and I saw that there was no difference between them at all, not even one letter, only one language and identical words. It was a great test. After this I came to Toledo, and they told me in praise of the scholar Rabbi Yosef HaLevi that this is not a good test, that perhaps he was writing from his own imagination, and he kept the originals for himself, and he was supporting himself from his own work. And after that, from among those notebooks that were in his house, he was writing for others.
From the words of the later authors, and from the books of Yaavetz (Rabbi Yaakov Emden)
Page 3
“Many things from very late authors have been absorbed in this book, even though, aside from myself, others have not noticed it.”
Page 8
“Because we have found in it many books that attribute themselves to an earlier source, even though they were composed only in a later generation… so it is in the matter of the composition of the book of the Zohar.”
Page 12
“That the books of Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco and the Tikkunim of the Zohar are one composition (this is certainly one language and identical words… and their language is equal).”
Page 12
“The authors of (Raya Mehemna and the Tikkunim) are from the works of the later Kabbalists who composed many things. If it was R. Moses DeLeon, as suspected, This is according to a lot of evidence, and the probability that he named his work Raya Mehemna (“faithful shepherd,” a reference to Moses) after himself. In any event, there is suspicion of this, and it is not a trivial matter, and if so, who could oblige us to accept, as true esoteric secrets, these things if he came up with them of his own accord?”
Page 36
“However, that all the rest of the book is very sacred without doubt… that it is all attributed to Rashbi — would that it were justified in some of it, for I truly have a divided heart about this, and I cannot believe with certainty that even some of the words of the Tanna who is known by the name Rashbi, in the entire Talmud, as we have already written above, because it is not so. In any event, even the primary things that also appear in the Talmud (are of suspicious origin).”
