The following is the main text of the book HaMafteah, which I wrote in my youth. Now I am much older, and I am finally translating it into English (with the help of Grok).
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.
The book is a collection of proofs/rebuttals that the Zohar (the main book and source of the so-called Kabbalah) is ancient/not ancient but a Medieval forgery.
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).
Several books were composed in defense of the Zohar. From the perspective of Orthodox Jewry, these books are not meant to be read, but to be pointed to. If somebody were to raise doubts about the origin of the Zohar, a rabbi needn’t do any research, or have any expertise, to respond. All he has to do is use the “Thick Book Method;” He points to a thick book, which he never read, and tells the troublesome fellow that the matter has been dealt with – by men far more knowledgeable and intelligent than him. The Thick Book Method is not restricted to religious circles. It is a common, and lazy, tactic to defend the status quo in various human societies.
I actually did read these books. I read them from cover to cover, and I checked their sources. Not surprisingly, it turned out that none of them can be taken seriously; the authors were either intentionally deceptive, grossly ignorant or both.
The main text starts on page 9, and for my own benefit, I am keeping the page numbers consistent for the time being.
As mentioned, the Zohar is the most important source for the Kabbalah. It became known in Medieval times and was attributed to the great sage of the Mishnah, R. Shimon ben Yohai, who lived in the Land of Israel during the second century. The sages of the Mishnah, as a rule, used Hebrew for religious purposes.
Here is a timeline and terms you must know to understand this book:
Zogoth (sing. Zog): “Pairs.” Sets of two authorities, in each generation, who had different approaches to Jewish law. The most famous of these are Hillel and Shamai. About 150BCE. to about 10CE.
Tanna (pl. Tannaim): Sages of the Mishnah who lived from about 10CE to 220CE in the Land of Israel.
Amura (pl. Amuraim): Sages of the Gemarah who lived from about 220CE. to 500CE in Babylon and up to around 400CE in the Land of Israel. The ones in Babylon composed the Babylonian Talmud (commentaries on the Mishnah) and the ones in the Land of Israel composed the Jerusalem Talmud.
Savura (pl. Savuraim): Sages of the transitional period of about 500CE to 600CE in Babylon when the Talmud had its final editing and some later amendments.
Gaon (pl. Geonim): Heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita in Babylon from around 600CE. to 1040CE. Rav ‘Amram Gaon, Rav Sa’adia Gaon, Rav Sherira Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon (d. 1038) are the best-known.
Rishon (pl. Rishonim): Rabbis who lived from around 1050CE to 1500CE.
In traditional Judaism, there is a hierarchy of generations, with the earlier authorities being of higher status than the more recent ones. Hence, an Amura cannot disagree with a Tanna; he can only interpret the words of the Tanna and decide which Tanna’s opinion is applicable to practical Jewish law (when there are disputes among them). Technically, a modern authority may disagree with a Rishon, but this is not done in Orthodox circles. If a modern authority finds the opinion of a Rishon to be shocking or clearly mistaken, he will politely state that “it is not applicable to Jewish law” or that “we follow the opinion of another Rishon.” Deference is the rule, even when it is obvious that the Rishon is wrong. In practical terms, the words of a Tanna or Amura are respected almost as if they were written in the Torah.
This is why the Zohar was attributed to a Tanna; nobody would dispute it, nobody could challenge it, and nobody could override it. The cloak of esoterica (concepts that are so lofty that our mortal minds cannot fully understand them) gave it an even higher status. Hence, only the Zohar is referred to as “The Holy…”. Even when an esoteric (IE. “Kabbalistic”) concept is so clearly contrary to traditional Judaism, or so absurd that it should be worthy of ridicule, religious Jews will attribute the defect to their own limited understanding and defer to the Kabbala’s higher authority (“secrets” we that we can neither cannot understand, nor reject).
In practical terms, this amounts to a rejection of our own intellect, or at least its demotion to secondary status, subject to the whims of some Medieval mystics. This can lead to much harm – even to the point of suicide, insanity and a devotion to absurd rituals. Though the same can be said of religion in general, the Kabbalah takes it to a different level. It should be noted that “The Kabbalah” is not a monolithic school of thought. There have been several versions of the Kabbalah, some worse than others. All of them, to the best of my knowledge, take great inspiration from the Zohar.
It is important to note that not all editions of the Zohar are equal. Since it was first printed in 1558-1560, it has been subject to censorship by Christian authorities, revisions done in good faith and the inclusion/exclusion of addenda.
Not only was the Zohar a forgery, but it is largely contrary to traditional Judaism. I am not claiming that everything within the Zohar is false, only that it has no religious authority. Rather, it is a historic curiosity. A collection of books written in Medieval Spain, for either money or fame. If you find this distasteful, I am not to blame.
Pg. 9
Rabbi Yaakov Emden (18th century Germany), 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 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 dwelt on the first type of problem much. 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 more recent, corrected, edition). Quoted text is from the Zohar and associated works. Plain text, in this chapter, are the words of R. Yaakov Emdin, unless otherwise noted. Text in parentheses is my own except for sources that the original authors included.
(1) Page 8
“From this, they called a synagogue Ashnoga” (Zohar III 282a)
In Sephardic Hebrew a synagogue is called beit knesset (house of assembly). (The author is pointing out that the word “Ashnoga” is Spanish, a language that didn’t exist in the time of Rishbi. “Rishbi” is short for “Ribbi Shim’on ben Yohai, to whom the Zohar is falsely attributed).
(2) Page 10
“Creation, attack, and need, etc.” (Tikkunei Zohar 16a)
This comes from the explanations of the Mishnah that appear in the introduction to the Talmud by Ribbi Shemuel Hannagid. He was a Spanish scholar, a friend or student of Rabbeinu Hananel, from the first generation of the later rabbis (of Medieval times). Most of these sections are mentioned here only to explain them according the esoteric teachings.
(3) Page 13
“The hidden precept — and from this branch, it split into two other nations, who are close in unity to Israel.” (Zohar I 13a)
It seems clear to me that this is talking about two nations — Edom (Christianity) and Ishmael (Islam) — and it says this in reference to people who believe in the Torah of Moses… Behold, you can plainly see that in the days of the author of the Zohar the religion of Ishmael already existed in the world… (this was newly invented during the days of the later Savuraim) because before that time all the Ishmaelites were complete idol-worshippers, like all the other nations of the world.
(4) Page 17
“Have they, according to her cry, which has come to Me, committed destruction? (Genesis 18:21)” to whom did God say this? If it was to the angels, we have not seen them… therefore, it was directed to Abraham…” (Zohar I 105b).
This statement is shocking and strange. It goes against the plain meaning of the verse and against its context. In this book of the Zohar, without any doubt, he piles words upon words without thought, to say that left is right… but this author doesn’t realize what a fool he is making of himself, and he is oblivious to the fact that this verse is not a command, but it is past tense. (Even though the style of the Zohar is often confusing, and it does look like the author of the Zohar thought this verse is a command… it’s not much of an issue. The only point here is that R. Yaakov Emdin did not notice the confusion between the vowels Komes and Patah — and that shows the book was written in the Middle Ages, specifically in Spain whose traditional reading of Hebrew did not make this distinction. My note).
(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, but rather Nehemia said it, and because the book of Nehemiah is not named after him, but is included in the Book of Ezra, this is not good enough reason to attribute the quote to somebody else., for he brings salvation to the world.
(6) Page 20
“Ribbi Hiya and Rabbi Yosi were sitting before Rishbi. Ribbi Hiya said: We have learned that any dream that is not like a letter is not interpreted” (Zohar I 163b).
This is a statement of Rav Hisda, an Amura of the Babylonian Talmud. And what he wrote further on — “Even though prophecy is not permitted, sages are preferable to prophets” — is a statement of Ameimar. It is not reasonable that early Tannaim would say this in his name. That is not the way of the Talmudic sages: they always attribute a saying to the one who said it, even when there is doubt about the exact wording of the text.
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 Qatina (an Amura — a later Talmudic rabbi) said it in the time of Rav and Shemuel. From here it is also clear that the names of Tannaim (earlier rabbis of the Mishnah) mentioned here are not real Tannaim. It is impossible that they spoke of something that only happened much later, in the days of the later Babylonian Amuraim and quoting the very last of the Amuraim… This is a problem – unless we say that the souls of the Tannaim appeared in a later generation to the author of the Zohar.
(8) Page 21
“Eizehu Meqoman” in the portion of “Sau” (‘Where is its place’) etc. (Zohar I, additional notes, paragraph 50)
It is known that the liturgical piece “Eizehu Meqoman” 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 the one who instituted it.
(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 Rishbi the Tanna (Rav was the last of the Amuraim, and he lived centuries later).
(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 Rishbi. And it also appears that even Rishbi the Tanna was not alive at the time of the destruction of the Temple, because in the days of Ribbi Yehuda the Temple was destroyed, and Ribbi Yehuda and Ribbi Yosi were students of Ribbi Yohanan ben Zakai. And Ribbi Aqiva their teacher is the one whose Mishnah “Whoever has studied Torah…” belongs to Rishbi 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 Mesia 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 Ribbi Yehuda’s place was in Sippori, in the region of Ashur, which is close to Babylon, and he was called by the title Ribbi Kahana, and in his days the event mentioned here happened, as is seen in Rosh Hashanah and Pesahim.
(11) Page 26
“And Ribbi Yaaqov bar Idi was standing with him” (Zohar II 122b)
He lived in the time of Ribbi Yohanan and Resh Laqish (Amuraim).
(12) Page 26
“Rav Safra” (Zohar II 165b)
It is far-fetched that he lived in the days of Rishbi the Tanna.
(13) Page 27
“Tannaim and Amuraim” (Zohar III 142b, and many more places).
From this, it is very clear that this holy composition is a later work, mixed together. Also it was composed at a time when the Amuraim were known in the world, as I have proven and shown in several places with the ultimate clarity.
(14) Page 27
“And in the book of Rav Hamnuna Saba, it explains very well, that the entire inhabited world rotates as a sphere like a ball” (Zohar III 10a)
This whole subject is according to the style of the later scientists, not according to the style of the sages of the Talmud. (The Talmudic sages believed that the Earth is flat, as I prove elsewhere).
(15) Page 28
“Ribbi Shamlai” (Zohar III 75b)
Ribbi Shamlai is not found anywhere in the six orders of the Mishnah. There was only one and there were no others by that name, and he is Ribbi Shamlai who lived in the days of Ribbi Yohanan the Amura, 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 Rishbi — this is a surprising thing.
(16) Page 30
“They also mentioned both of them, Rav Yeba and Rav Hamnuna Saba” (Zohar III 155b)
They were both students of Rav (a later Amura). And how is it possible that Rishbi and his son, Tannaim, quote the words of Amuraim?
Pg. 11
(17) Page 30
“When the Holy One is in a dispute among the members of the academy, and they say: ‘Who will decide? Behold, it was So-and-so, who decided the matter” (Zohar III 185b).
This hints at what is written at the beginning of chapter “The Workers,” in The Story of Rabba. (Baba Mesia 83:b) it is known that it is from the third generation of Amuraim.
(18) Page 30
“And even so, Ribbi A son of Pedat pushed him away…” (Zohar III 216b)
He is an Amura, a student of Rav and Shemuel, and this is also found in the Gemara in chapter “My Pious Ones.”
(19) Page 30
“In the exile of Ishmael” (Zohar III 142b)
From this it becomes clear that the author of Ra’aya Mehemna lived after the Amuraim. (He refers to the Islamic expansion).
(20) Page 31
“And it is not the way of the world for Geonim to hide words” (Zohar III, Tiqunim, page 70)
This is a clear and strong proof about the composition of Ra’aya Mehemna and the Tiqunim, that they were written 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 Amuraim.
(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 (that it refers to the Islamic expansions), and so on at length.
(22) Page 31
“The remembering soul, the thinking soul, and the commanding soul, which are three brains” (Tiqunei Zohar 126a)
These expressions are from the later naturalists, 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 Ribbi Hiya and Rabbah, who were Amuraim.
(24) Page 31
“And he said, I retract” (Zohar III 264a)
This expression is only found among the Amuraim.
(25) Page 31
“And because of this, they enacted to recite Kol Nidre” (Zohar III 265a)
This enactment was from some of the later, unqualified, Geonim, because the last of the Geonim in time, and the first in greatness, was Rav Hai Gaon, who abolished this and instructed that it not be recited, as is explained in Tur Orah Haim (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 the masters of the Mishnah taught from the testimony of the time of hametz to the testimony of the searches of the witnesses.” (Zohar III 275a).
This is from a dialog between Abbaye and Rava that we see here; it is from the period of the Gemara and it’s being attributed to the period of 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 that is commonly used among those who study the Talmud in yeshiva… Is it possible that words like these came from the mouth of a Tanna? How much more so that 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 later Haggadah of Rabbah bar bar Hana” (Tiqunei Zohar 2b)
Who is the one who arranged this and did not notice that it is impossible that this came from the mouth of Rishbi, from his soul — I do not know. (This refers to a series of tall tales from an Amura who lived in the second half of the 3rd century. Rishbi lived in the 2nd century).
(30) Page 32
“And I saw the glory of the Creator” (Tiqunei Zohar 5a)
This is the language of the Smag (R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, 13th century France).
Pg. 12
(31) Page 32
“Furthermore, the masters of grammar established the vowel ‘Qomes,’ which is a long vowel” (Tiqunei Zohar 7b).
This language also testifies with clear evidence that this composition does not belong to Rishbi the Tanna. It is well known that the Hebrew Grammarians were very late, and not even close to the days of the Tannaim. Even among the Amuraim and Geonim, there is no mention of them. Rather, these arose and came into being after the Geonim, in the West, the first one who brought out the wisdom of precise language being Ribbi Yehuda Hayyug of Fez.
(33) Page 32
“And everything written in this book of the Zohar regarding the details of 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 Eloheichem Emeth’” (Tiqunei Zohar 25b).
Who would not realize that these are not the words of a Tanna, that he cited a stringency of later tradition… Why would the author of Tiqune Zohar defer to a later authority unless he, himself, was even later, and he copied from the books of legal authorities that he happened to come across? He was well versed about their opinions (see Tur Orah Haim section 61)… And he did this 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 the masters of the Mishnah established it: honor your women, etc.” (Tiqunei 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” (Tiqunei Zohar 9b).
This is the language of the (later) philosophers among our people.
(37) Page 32
“And because of this it is forbidden to pray toward the West” (Tiqunei Zohar 56b).
Look, besides the fact that this contradicts the opinion of the Talmudic Sages… And Ribbi 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” (Tiqunei Zohar 59a).
He copied this from the laws of the sanctification of the new moon of the Rambam (also known as Maimonides 12th century), because we do not find any hint of this from the sages of the Talmud.
(39) Page 33
“But Ribbi Meir, he ate the inside and discarded the peel” (Tiqunei Zohar 69a).
These are the words of an Amura — Rav.
(40) Page 33
“And in the exile we have only four” (Tiqunei Zohar 85a).
Ribbi Yohanan is the one who said this (in the Gemara – citation needed).
(41) Page 33
“And this is Ribbi Pedat (and Ribbi El’azar son of Pedat, may his memory be a blessing)” (Zohar III 216b).
Look, it’s clear that he’s quoting the words of an Amura who lived several generations after Rishbi the Tana.
(42) Page 34
“He explains the names of the vowel points according to 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 to either the Tannaim nor to the Amuraim; they were not used at all by the Talmudic rabbis. Therefore, we must not attribute these explanations, which are attributed to Rishbi 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 ‘petuhei hotam’ (‘engravings of a signet’).” (Tiqunei 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.
Pg 13
(45) Page 34
“The speaking form, the growing form, the intellectual form” (Zohar Hadash I 11b).
This is the language of the outsiders (non-Jewish or later philosophers), not the language of the Talmudic Sages — even if it were mentioned by a Tanna or Amora, they themselves regarded it as secular.
(46) Page 34
“The earth stood in its strength and its nature” (Zohar Hadash 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” (Tiqunim 30a, 52b).
The kingdom of Ishmael (Islam) had not yet become famous or widespread in the days of the Tannaim and Amuraim, 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” (Tiqunim 9a, Zohar Hadash I 49b).
This, too, is clear proof that it was composed after the Talmud.
(49) Page 35
And by this name Rabbah was an uprooter of mountains” (Tiqunei Zohar Hadash 65b).
This matter is at the end of tractate Horayoth. This, too, Rishbi certainly did not say.
(50) Page 35
“A donkey carrying books” (Zohar Hadash II 69b).
This expression is not found in any book in the world except in Hovoth HaLevavoth (“Duties of the Heart” composed in the late 11th century by R. Bahya ibn Paquda), in the chapter 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” (Tiqunei Zohar Hadash 69b).
Here too is decisive proof about the composition of the Tiqunei 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 Hadash 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
“For the sake of the truth, which I love more than all earthly treasures, and all the vanities in the world, I will not withhold the words of one holy man who speaks about the discovery of the Zohar and its origin, which he learned from the pious scholar, the author of the book Yuhasin, in the name of the great Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac of Acco, of blessed memory…
In the year 5053 (1293). Ribbi Moses of Leon lived in Avila (which is Guadalajara?) at that time. And in order that this can be told to the end of time, I will inform you what I found written, that Ribbi Isaac of Acco, went to investigate the book of the Zohar, because it appeared that its text was fantastic, that they came from a higher source, and that it was in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud. It seemed that it is words of Kabbalah and truth, but the parts that were written in Hebrew were forged. He said: I asked the students who had the book of the Zohar in their possession, ‘From whom did it come to them?’ and I did not find their accounts to be consistent. There is someone who said that the Rambam 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 Ribbi Moses of Leon. And there are those who say that we never heard that it was a composition of Rishbi, only that Ribbi Moses knew the Name of the author, and from his own initiative, he would write wonderful things, and in order to get a high price for them, he attributed it to a great man, which is Rishbi and his son Ribbi El’azar and his colleagues. And I came to Guadalajara and there I found Ribbi Moses of Leon. And he swore to me that the book was written by Ribbi Shimon ben Yohai and that it is in his house in Avila, and he will show it to me when I got 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 Ribbi 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 authentic or not. And the scholar said that it has now become clear to him with certainty that Ribbi Moses is the writer, and he would attribute it (to Rishbi), and the reason he knows this is because Ribbi 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 one 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 the widow of Ribbi Moses, of blessed memory swore: “He never had such a book, and the writings were from his own mind and imagination. And I asked my husband, why are you attributing your research to another scholar? Is it not better for you to tell them that this is your own work, 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 mind, they would not pay attention to them at all, and they would not give me gifts for them. Therefore, I am attributing them to Rishbi 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 Ribbi David.
And I traveled from Avila and I came to Guadalajara. And I found there a wonderful scholar whose name is Rabbi Joseph HaLevi son of Ribbi Todros the Kabbalist. And I questioned him about what he knew concerning the book of the Zohar. And he said to me: “Know in truth that true Zohar was in the possession of Ribbi Moses of blessed memory. The book of the Zohar is authentic, and the reason I know this is because he used to give me booklets, and I, in order to test this doubt, took from him one booklet, from among the booklets. And I said to him that the booklet was lost from me, that he should give me a replacement.” And he said to me: “Show me the end of the previous booklet and the beginning of the next one.” He wrote the (missing) booklet, 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 that the test of Ribbi Joseph HaLevi 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.
Quotes From 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 Ribbi Yitzchak of Acco and the Tiqunim of the Zohar are one composition (this is certainly one language and identical words… and their language is equal).”
Page 12
“The authors of (Ra’aya Mehemna and the Tiqunim) 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 Ra’aya 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 Rishbi — 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 it are the words of the Tanna who is known by the name Rishbi, in the entire Talmud, as we have already written above, because it is not so. In any event, also the main things that are in it, and the things that appear more true and more fitting…
Pg. 15
… to attribute them to him in the first place, they are based on the names Rav Hamnuna Saba and Rav Yeba Saba, as appears in several strategic places that he quotes their words in his name, especially in the introduction of the Zohar and in the Idrot and in Sava de-Mishpatim and in many other places. And Rishbi of the Zohar is the one who quotes Ribbi Hamnuna Saba and Ribbi Yeba Saba, and also Ribbi El’azar his son says many things in their name. Not only that, but he also quotes the son of Ribbi Hamnuna Saba, who had already passed away to his heavenly reward, they quoted deep secrets in his name as is known (see the introduction of the Zohar, 7a). And not only from his son, but even from his grandson (as the Ra’aya Mehemna wrote in the portion of Wayehi). They even quote the son of Rav Safra (Terumah 169b) and Rav Safra himself was a later Amura, and he is not a Tanna at all, and there is no doubt in this, that Ribbi Hamnuna Saba and Ribbi Yeba Saba were Amuraim and they are known in the Talmud. They were students of Rav (therefore, we are forced to admit that this is not the Ribbi Abba who is mentioned in the Zohar, even though many believe him to be the same one). And the real Rishbi preceded them by several generations, and he died before our holy teacher (Rav Ashe, who lived at the end of the Talmudic era), his student, who received from him, and lived to a ripe old age that until after Rishbi, and Rav learned from Ribbi, and he lived many years after him, and the students of Rav, Ribbi Hamnuna Saba and Ribbi Yeba Saba of blessed memory, they buried him, as is mentioned in chapter “How much” and in chapter “The owners,” and so the entire chain of these generations is explained in the Talmud. And how, if so, can Rishbi say, and even Ribbi Eliezer, his son, things from Ribbi Hamnuna Saba and his son and his grandson, after they already passed away… contradictory things? This is something that has no dawn in truth. Also, Rishbi the Tanna, he lived only in the Land of Israel, and these Amuraim are known and established in Babylon (as is explained in the Talmud), and so in the book of the Zohar itself it is explained in the portion Wayehi 85a, Rishbi said: “These Babylonians whose speech is stammering,” etc. They knew the praise of Rav Hamnuna Saba because he lived among them. Check there carefully, for there it is explained that Rishbi was in Babylon, and also the colleagues of the Rishbi of the book of the Zohar were found there, like Ribbi Yehudah who was in Mata Mehasia (see Niddah 70a) known to be in Babylon, and see the end of the portion of Lekh Lekha (72b). We must also conclude that Ribbi Abba was found in the village of Tarsha, and it is explained in the hidden Midrash that the village of Tarsha is Mata Mehasia — and they are far from each other.
Page 38
“And already the words of Rabbi Isaac of Acco (late 13th century) have been mixed into the Zohar itself — and it is very hard to distinguish them.”
Page 57
“But regarding the author of the composition of the Tiqunim and the Ra’aya Mehemna… that he was, without any doubt in the world, later than the main author of the body of the first book of the Zohar, in time and in stature… by the hand of a Spanish scholar at a very late time.”
Page 58
“Indeed, the hidden Midrash — that it’s a forgery is recognizable from its language, its content and the names of the Amuraim and Tannaim, Babylonians and Jerusalemites, that are mentioned in it in a random mixture, and in a stammering language he speaks; half of it is in Hebrew and its context is Aramaic from the Zohar, and they differ from one another greatly. And so testified Rabbi Isaac of Acco, that what is found in the book of the Zohar in the holy language, they are the words of Zohar, but there is also in it a clearly mixed Aramaic language.”
Page 59
“The third book is called ‘the hidden Midrash’ and its worlds have no number. Its content and its essence are distant and separate from the first two, together with the fact that it too seeks to imitate the language of the other two, and like a monkey in front of a man, it stumbles upon its language many times — a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic that are incompatible with each other, and its appearance is bad. That it’s a forgery is also recognizable from the strange concepts, and from the invented names, that it attributed to them bizarre and foreign things, in order to take advantage of the fame of others — this is clear to me, and to everyone who has eyes in his head, and a brain in his skull.”
Page 94
“And Rabbi Moses de Leon did not swear that these are also included in Rishbi’s book. But he attributed the entire thing to Rishbi (and in any case, he also hinted at his name through its title, in that he named the book by the name ‘Ra’aya Mehemna’) and he did well, as Rabbi ‘Aqiva said to Rishbi, of blessed memory, ‘It is better to hide your own name, and to attribute your words to a higher authority.’”
Pg. 16
Harsh Expressions, by R. Yaakov Emdin, against the actual concepts expressed in the Zohar
Page 2
“Behold, he did not escape from including things that have no basis in reality.”Page 25
“God forbid that one should believe this, and it is forbidden to listen to such things, which our fathers and our rabbis of blessed memory could never have imagined.”Page 26
“God forbid! Let there not be like this in Israel, a holy people, to entertain such thoughts, and it is not known from whose belly they came forth. In truth they appear, in my eyes, like words of heresy, or something a severely deranged person would invent, words that are strange, difficult and of evil appearance, and they have been included in the midst of the book of the Zohar.”Page 31
“This language — it is a duty to erase it.”Page 33
“All of this statement is strange and reprehensible.”Page 33
“It appears to be according to the opinion of sorcerers.”Page 34
“This opinion is foreign to Judaism.”Page 34
“And already the obligation for accuracy has been discarded by the author of the book of the Zohar.”Page 35
“But this language is entirely nonsensical. Certainly, it is not from the words of a sage at all, that he corrupted both language and faith — and I am ashamed of these words, woe to the eyes that see this, and happy are the simple and the blind, and blessed is the Lord who has struck the enemies of the religion with blindness. Please tell us, those who seek the Lord, whose souls love the truth, is it fitting for us to leave every stumbling-block that they have placed for us with these foreign esoteric books?”
My only intention in citing the above quotes is to disprove the words of the author of Zohar haRaqia’, who wrote (page 157) that R. Yaakov Emdin “did not have any suspicions or doubts about the authenticity of the book of the Zohar…” And he wasted a lot of ink on baseless arguments to say that what R. Emdin wrote in Mitpahat Sefarimwas not as it appears, and that he did not actually believe these things – but he wrote them only in opposition to the Sabbateans, a 17th century messianic cult based on the Kabbalah.
We find printed, together with the book Mitpahat Sefarim, a collection of rebuttals by the name “’Itur Sefarim,” They were written by Rabbi Reuven Cohen Rapaport. The author of “’Itur Sefarim” wrote at great length, and most of what he wrote is not relevant to the matter at hand. Because Yaavetz was brief in his words, I have quoted them as they are; this is not possible regarding the aforementioned rebuttals. Therefore, I will quote only the essence of his responses, with their contradictions, and I will not omit anything that is relevant to our topic. In one or two cases, the author succeeded in resolving the issues that R. Emdin brought up, more or less, and accordingly I have omitted those errors, together with the corresponding responses.
The Claims of “Itur Sefarim” and Their Rebuttals
(1) [Use of the Spanish word ashnoga for synagogue]. R. Rapaport wrote extensively to prove that our sages, of blessed memory, were accustomed to explaining verses by means of words in Arabic, Greek and Persian.
It doesn’t take much contemplation to understand that there is no rebuttal here; the languages that R. Rapaport lists were in existence in the days of the Talmudic Sages, but not Spanish, and we find the author of the book “Ben Yohai” raising the same objection to R. Rapaport.
(2) [Quotes Medieval author Shemuel Hannagid, “Creation, the attack, the need, etc.”] On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
Pg. 17
(3) [Hints at the dichotomy of Christianity and Islam]. He answers that this is an addition from the days of the Savuraim, or the Geonim, and there are such later additions in the Talmud. Just as they added to the Talmud, so too did they add to the Zohar.
This is actually R. Emdin’s claim in all of these (I have quoted him on this above). And in truth this “answer” is a multi-purpose one; how many “later additions” can one book contain, until we say that the entire book is a “later addition?”
(4) [Misinterprets the verse in Genesis regarding Abraham and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah]. This is the way of the Aggadah of the Sages, to expound a homily contrary to the plain meaning of the verses, and he spends many pages citing such examples.
But the style of the language in the Zohar (presenting a difficulty with the verse and then solving it by way of esoteric explanations) shows that this is intended to be interpreted as the plain meaning, and it does not imply that it’s intended as Aggadah; this is a far-fetched answer.
(5) [The confusion between the Books of Ezra and Nehemia]. He brought one incident, in the commentary of Bahye (Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa c. 1255–1340, Zaragoza, Spain) on the Torah, that he was not precise in writing “in Ezra” but wrote “Ezra,” and similarly in the Pesiqeta Zutrati —
This is like saying, “the suffering of many is half a consolation,” and what does he hope to accomplish by equating the style of Medieval rabbis to the style of the Sages?
(6) [Early Tannaim quoting later Amuraim]. On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
(7) [ibid.]. “The authors have already explained this at length.”
What a disappointing answer!
(8) From here until bullet point 25, he is silent and answers nothing at all.
(25) [ibid.]. The intention is not the famous Rav Hai, but rather Rav Hai the son of Mar Rav Nahshon, as is explained in Rishba, end of Yoma. And he goes on to argue that this is not a bad custom.
R. Emdin’s difficulty is twofold, and the main point of his difficulty is not that it is a bad custom, but that this is a later enactment, and in any case, this is what is relevant to us. And behold, between Rav Hai and Rav Hai there are only about a hundred years, and even the earlier Rav Hai was in the second half of the period of the Geonim, and if so, what does this argument accomplish?
(26) [ibid.]. On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
(27) [The Zohar refers to the actual collective title of much later authorities of the Gemarah: “Tannaim and Amuraim”] On this, R. Rapaport remains silent. (even though according to this printed edition there is an answer to this claim, the answer that is printed has no relevance to the claim and therefore it appears that there are printing errors).
(26) [Uses expression that only came into vogue in Medieval times]. On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
(28) [Refers to Ribbi Shamlai, who was never mentioned in the entire Mishnah]. On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
(29) [Mentions two authorities who lived centuries later]. The simple meaning of the words is that it is a later Aggadah of Rabbeinu Bahye, a note added to the margins.
Another “later addition.”
(30) From here until bullet note 41 he is silent and does not answer anything at all.
(41) [The Zohar offers explanations for the names of Hebrew vocalizations, which were invented centuries after the end of the Talmudic era] He cites evidence for the antiquity of the vocalizations, from the book “Hanniqud HaGadol” of Rav Ashi, and then he went back and admitted that it is not from Rav Ashi of the Talmud, but rather it is from a later scholar of that name. And then (after much wasting of ink just to say this) he writes “But, in any event, it is explained that Rav Hai Gaon already referred to these (the names of the vocalizations) a great deal, and so it is found there, and since the matter is complicated and needs a lengthily explanation, I am being concise here.”
I do not know what he thought to solve by this, by pointing out that the last of the Geonim already knew of the vocalizations; it is possible to go even further — that Rav Sa’adya Gaon, who preceded Rav Hai Gaon, also used vocalizations, and this is not surprising, because the vocalizations were invented in the middle of the days of the Geonim, but, as far as I know, Rav Sa’adya Gaon was among the first to mention them.
(42) From here until bullet note 45 he is silent and does not answer anything at all.
(45) [The use of much later expression, whose origins were in Medieval times]. He quotes similar language from Midrash Rabbah (Numbers), and then he wrote, “And even according to those who consider this Midrash to be of late origin (this includes Rabbi Shlomo Buber, Maharas Hayot and the entire world of Academia – my note), they admit that it is, in any event, of early origin, and from Rabbi Moses the scholar…”
Pg. 18
…they copied. Go and study it.
The author had no qualms with the Midrash, but seized upon the Tikkunim for nothing, but certainly, the ancient sages wrote of such things. — Anybody with eyes will see that this author does not make any distinction between “the early ones” in the generation of Rashi and “the early ones” in the generation of Rishbi. He also should have supported his “certainty” with some examples from the literature of the Sages, and he did not.
(46) From here until bullet note 52 he was silent and did not answer at all.
(52) [Discusses a quote whose original was from centuries after Talmudic times]. The illustrious author did not know that it is not Rabbeinu Tam who invented this idea or reinforced it, for Rav Hai Gaon already wrote about it and cited the words of the Sages in the Midrash (Proverbs, paragraph 10) in his explanation.
If you look in Midrash Mishlei you will see that it is saying that the ultimate study of the Torah is the Gemara; it is not that the study of the Gemara includes everything. And this idea came from Rav Hai Gaon, and he, of blessed memory, sought to support his idea from that Midrash, and therefore there is no real answer in this.
(53) On this, R. Rapaport remains silent.
From what I have quoted, one might get the impression that the author of “’Itur Sefarim” spared his pen and was concise in his language — actually, the opposite is correct; it was R. Yaakov Emdin who was very concise with his words, and the author of “’Itur Sefarim” was exceedingly long-winded, but R. Rapaport spent most of his words and effort in answering the errors that are included in the first category that we mentioned. As for the main difficulties, the remaining ones, he passed over them in silence.
It is written in the book “Ma’amar Zohar haRaqia’” (page 152): “The illustrious Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Emdin, known as Yaavetz, was a genius and a righteous man and a Kabbalist, a wise man and a scribe, a researcher and an investigator… but despite his being a strong Kabbalist… he wrote the book Mitpahat Sefarim, and in it he arouses suspicions and doubts about sayings in the book of the Zohar, that they are not actually from the book of the Zohar, only later additions, because of the difficulties and the strangeness that he found in them (hundreds of these ‘later additions.’ What’s more, he explicitly wrote in the commentary, in several places, that by his estimation, the entire thing was a “later addition. “My note). In opposition to this book, the illustrious Rabbi Reuven Cohen Rapport. of blessed memory, wrote the book ‘Itur Sefarim’ in order to respond to these objections, and it was printed together with the book Mitpahat Sefarim. Also, Rabbi Moshe Kunitz composed a large book, ‘Ben Yochai,’ to respond to all his objections.”
If so, we must examine the above work; perhaps there are words of reason within it. I am arranging the answers of “Ben Yohai” according to the order that I arranged the objections. in many of the objections, “Ben Yohai” relied on the words of “’Itur Sefarim” which he dealt with in other objections, and so will I arrange his answers likewise and therefore I will not note the objections that he did not respond to if they were dealt with elsewhere. The words of the Ben Yohai are in italics while my own words are plain text.
The claims of “Ben Yohai” and their contradictions
(1) Ashnoga — this is a compound Aramaic word (ash + noga): “Ashen” — a fixed place, like the Jerusalem Targum, “and Jacob went out,” “and it was evening for him that the sun did not set in ‘ashuna’ (a set place).” And “Shenog” means “subservience and constriction.” It is as like the translation of “and the Lord shook off” As “The Lord ‘Shanig‘.” and similarly did he translate “trouble and distress,” “the time of ‘Shenoka’.” And it is not a problem that it is not found in any other place, because there are many unique words in the Bible and the language of the Zohar is unique, and in the Zohar the synagogue is called “Ashnoga.” This is what he wrote: “and what is called in Scripture ‘house of prayer,’ you’ll find in the Babylonian Talmud ‘house of assembly’ and in the Jerusalem Gemara and in the Midrashim ‘Bei Kenishta’” and in the Zohar “Ashnoga”… according to what we have found in several places in the Zohar, from its beginning to its end, that it referred to the house of prayer as “Bei Kenishta,” except in these two instances, it is referred to by the name “Ashnoga.” But all this (that they used later languages, my note) is found only in the languages that were known in their times, and it is not a Spanish word, according to which the illustrious author responded (a hint to the answer of “’Itur Sefarim”), and this (Spanish) is a later language, which is composed of a mixture of…
Pg. 19
…old languages, of which they had no knowledge and they did not include any of it in the six orders of the Mishnah or in the Midrashim in any place, and this is the main point of the responding illustrious rabbi, and in his answer there is nothing at all, and according to what we have correctly written.
Concerning his quote from Targum Yonatan (Aramaic translation of the Bible), “and it was evening for him that the sun set in Ashnoga,” this word appears in the Arukh (entry “Ashen”) and this is what he wrote, “This is what “Ba-ishun hoshekh” means, as if to say, ‘in (the dark room) of a bathhouse.” And in the German translation, it is “Tunkeli Shtub,” which is “a room of darkness.” And in the book of Shorashim, by R. Yosef Kimchi, the root “ish” is like “ishon of his eye,” That is to say, “the pupil of his eye,” and he called it so because the form of a man appears within it… And my father wrote that he used the form “ishon” as a diminutive, because the form appears in miniature within the eye. And this is the way of the Hebrews to add letters to a word to indicate its diminutive form. For example, “Shabbat — Shabbaton” etc. And Rashi’s commentary on Psalms 17:8 “like the ishon — It’s called ishon to indicate darkness.” And so in the Concordance, he wrote that the root “ashen, along with the roots ishon and ashen and their diminutives conote black and dark.” Similarly, Ibn Janah explained in his book of Shorashim, under the root “ish,” the same as R. Yosef Qimhi, and he wrote “Bi-ishon, for night and Afilah, darkness of night, and it is to emphasize its darkness because the blackness of the night is similar to the blackness of the ishon…”
And all this fits well with the Jerusalem Targum, because the Sages, of blessed memory, believed that at night the sun enters inside a room, by way of windows (365 windows corresponding to the days of the solar year), and accordingly, we find the prayer for Sabbath, which states, “that opens, each day, the doors of the gates of the east and splits the windows of the firmament,” and also in the evening prayer, “in wisdom he opens gates…” And see the chapters of Ribbi Eli’ezer, chapter 6, the matter is explained at length, and also in Numbers Rabbah 15:22; and so, when the sun sets to this place, it brings night and darkness, they called it “ishoniah” — “its night” or “its darkness.” And after all that has been said, I do not know how this author invented this explanation, a new interpretation, which is in opposition to all the other opinions.
And regarding the word “Shenog” that appears in Targum Onkelos, Exodus 14:24, “and the Lord trapped the Egyptians in the sea,” the Arokh explains this as, “trouble and distress.” On this point, author of “Ben Yohai” admitted, himself, admitted it, and it’s shocking that he does not know the distinction between “submission” and “trouble and distress.” It is true that someone who is found in trouble and distress, sometimes will also be subjugated, but he can also repent, and will he therefore claim that the trouble and the repentance are one in the same? And it appears that this author insults all of the synagogues, that he calls them “a room of darkness of trouble and distress,” God forbid and heaven forfend!
In truth, the forced interpretation of his commentary is so far-fetched that there is no need to waste time on the rest of his words in this matter, but for the sake of completeness…
He tried to redeem himself that this is the only place, in all the holy books, that a synagogue is called Ashnoga (and even in the Zohar itself it appears only twice), we shouldn’t be shocked, because we find many unique words in the Bible. And in truth this explanation has no substance, because the Zohar did not use this word in passing or casually, but he mentions it in order to give a reason why the synagogue is called “Ashnoga” — as something that is known and famous, and there is nothing similar to the unique terms that we find in the Bible. Also, the literature of the Sages is much more extensive than the Bible, and you will hardly find, in the entire Talmud, an expression that has no companion. It turns out that, in his entire composition, the only statement of substance is what he said about the answer of “’Itur Sefarim,”
(2) [Using an expression that was invented by the Medieval R. Shemuel Hannagid]. “Also, we have found Amuraim in Babylon, who said things without attribution, and those same things were said, in the same language, in the Jerusalem Talmud, and from the mouths of Tannaim (and they are Rabbi Simai in Bava Mesia and Ribbi Sheshet in Hullin, that Rishbi said the same things). And so, Ribbi Shemuel Hannagid only collected these things from ancient traditions.”
To this I’ll respond that the similarity between the language of the Zohar and the book of the introduction of Ribbi Shemuel Hannagid, and the Kuzari is very clear. It is obvious that one of them copied from the other (either from written records or from an oral tradition) from the others. And on a matter like this it is hard to bring clear proofs one way or the other, but the matter is up to our discretion. Which is more likely: a) that the medieval author copied from a tradition that nobody else wrote before him, and that his source was a book that had been buried for almost a thousand years before him, and remained so until after his time, or b) that the author of the Zohar copied from a known and famous book, that was composed about two hundred years before his time, with some change of language?
Pg. 20
(3) [Hints at the dichotomy of Christianity and Islam]. He answered nothing.
(5) [Lack of precision in citing books of the Bible]. “This is nothing new in our eyes, because we find exactly the same thing in the Gemara as well (Sukkah 37a): ‘And so with Ezra he says, ‘Go out to the mountain and bring back olive branches…’ And it is a verse in Nehemiah 8:15, but it is not found in the book of Ezra. Our luminary and great teacher Rashi followed the same principle, writing (Beisah 27b) ‘buying and selling on Sabbath and on the holidays is forbidden,’ in the book of Ezra, and the verse that Rashi meant is that very verse in the book of Nehemiah… And similarly, Rashi commented on a verse in Nehemiah (Sukkah 12a) that is actually in the book of Ezra. And we find Rashi writing similarly (Megillah 3a), and also the Rosh who wrote, (end of chapter 5) ‘and also in the book of Ezra’ etc.’ and it is actually in the book of Nehemiah, that it is a holy day for our Lord.”
We have seen that our rabbis in the Gemara, in Yoma, and also our rabbis in the Zohar, refer to Nehemiah by the name Ezra, and the reason, as they said (Sanhedrin 93b), is so that all the words of Ezra were said by Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, and as for Nehemiah, what is the reason his book is not named after him? Rabbi Yirmiyah said in the name of Rav, because he spoke well of himself when he said, “Remember me, my God, for good,” etc. And from this we see that there is nothing unprecedented at all in the words of our rabbis in the Zohar.
He spilled a lot of ink on a matter that is quite simple, that Yaavetz himself mentioned in the same section of his book, and it’s famous that the ancient sages switched between the book of Ezra and the book of Nehemiah, and there is no surprise in this. And after reading this “rebuttal,” go back and read Yaavetz’s claim and review his words, and then you can decide if there is a rebuttal here or not.
(7) [Early Tannaim quoting sages who lived long after they passed away] The Amora Ribbi Qetina received the words of the Tanna Ribbi Eli’ezer that are written in the Zohar: that we pay no attention to the words of a necromancer concerning the cause of an earthquake, for we have received a correct reason of our own — it is given as two (or “ten crowns”), etc., as above.
Now it happened that Rabbi Qetina was walking on the road. When he reached the doorway of the necromancer, etc., Rabbi Ketina remembered the tradition he had received and said: ‘The necromancer is a liar and his words are lies…’
In the Gemara the same incident happened to Ribbi Qetina, and there he recalled the law he had received from that Tanna. But the actual story of the incident in the Gemara — which took place in the time of the Amuraim — is not mentioned at all in the Zohar. The only way it could have gotten there is if the answering scholar saw it in a dream or heard it from someone.”
He dropped the main difficulty and dealt with a side issue, because in reality, Yaavetz’s objection had nothing to do with’ the words “Rabbi Eli’ezer… we don’t believe the necromancer etc.”, but only from that which is said beforehand, “this is what happened… that he said, ‘We pay no attention to the necromancer…’.” that these words hint at a story that is already known. And according to this, the author labored in vain as he humored his own imagination.
(8) [Eizehu Meqoman – Where is its Place – is found in the Zohar, was a liturgy that was instituted by Rav ‘Amram Gaon, who lived in 9th century Babylon] “In the days of Rishbi they were accustomed to say this, and therefore Rishbi said (Menahot 75b), ‘the recitation of “Two Loaves” and “The Show Bread was baked” were always known and they were instituted very long ago.’ The author spent a lot of time proving that the names of these chapters were already known. And he wrote that the custom of reading ‘where is its place’ is an early enactment, and these are his proofs: Yoma 68b, and in the order of the five books he calls it by this name, and in the Jerusalem Talmud (ibid.) it says, ‘Because it was the order of the day.’ Tosafot (‘Avodah Zarah 19b) in the section that begins with, ‘they divide in three,’ they write, ‘and therefore they enacted’ (the implication being that it was the men of the Great Assembly (the governing body of sages who thrived from the 6th to the 4th centuries BCE), or other very ancient authorities, who enacted this, as this expression implies in several other places in the Talmud’). Similarly, see Tosafot Sanhedrin 24a, and Qiddushin 31a in the section that starts, ‘that there is no need’.”
This is a mystery to me. What is the relevance of the Mishnah, in Tractate Menahot, to the liturgy of Eizehu Meqoman (‘where is its place’); this Mishnah deals with the Show Bread, and in the chapter Eizehu Meqoman there is no mention of the Show Bread. Also, what Rishbi said, “he was accustomed to say,” means, “he would explain the law in such and such a way in contrast to Ribbi Yehudah. This is proven from the Mishnah itself, and this Mishnah does not refer to prayer and it is not Aggadah.
As for the claim that the names of the chapters were already known, we readily admit this. What novelty is there in this (that he spent so much time explaining it that most of his rebuttal is wasted on it) and how is this relevant to Yaavetz’s claim?
Also I was not able to understand his proof from the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud in Yoma, because there it is speaking of the reading of the portions of the Torah, and the chapter ‘Eizehu Meqoman’ is a Mishnah, and if…
Pg. 21
…he wants to reach a conclusion, by focusing on precise language, that they were expert in that same portion of the Torah, because it was the order of the day. As for “Eizehu Meqoman,” who mentioned its name?
And that he cited Tosafot in ‘Avodah Zarah, that “therefore they enacted,” this solution has no foundation; how does this imply that the men of the Great Assembly or the Talmudic Sages enacted it? Is it not far simpler that the Geonim enacted it for us, and this is well known. His conclusion, from the words, “they enacted” has no basis. The Tosafoth on Sanhedrin add nothing to our matter. Only there, instead of “therefore they enacted,” the wording is “we read.” And in his zeal to list many sources, in order to impress the reader — he damaged his already weak claim, because these Tosafoth actually support R. Emdin’s understanding – that these recitations are later customs. Anybody who delves into the books of Germany and France will see that they frequently used the terms “they enacted,” “they established,” etc., for later customs.
And behold, at the end of his words, he dismantled everything he had written by citing Tosafot on Kiddushin, because there it is written there explicitly as Yaavetz claimed. I quote: “This is what Rav ‘Amram Gaon instituted, as is our custom every day…”. With this Tosafoth, we understand the Tosafoth on ‘Avodah Zarah, where he wrote “therefore they enacted.” This refers to Rav ‘Amram Gaon — it would have been better for him to hide from us these last Tosafoth, as it seems that he himself never saw them and only relied on a note somebody wrote in the margins.
(9) On this he answered nothing.
(10) “Know that there were two Rav Hamnuna Sabas who were Amuraim, one a student of Rav and one a student of Rav Hisda, as we will explain. And so, there were two Ribbi Hamnuna Tannaim, one in the time of the Temple and one in the days of Rishbi…” And his proofs that the two latter were Amoraim are: Tosafot Ketubot 52b, “We find Ribbi Yosef sitting with Rav Hamnuna, and it sounds as if he was younger than he,” and in Kiddushin 25b, it sounds that Rav Hamnuna was a student of Rav Hisda, and Ribbi Yosef was a colleague of Rav Hisda, but we must conclude that there were two Rav Hamnunas.” Furthermore, in Tosafoth (‘Eruvin 63b): “There were two Rav Hamnunas”. He (‘Itur Sefarim?) wrote, “Now lend your ear and listen, because these proofs that forced our rabbis (into this conclusion), the authors of the Tosafoth, to say… these and those we have also forced them to conclude that there were two Tannaim by the name Ribbi Hamnuna Saba. And it is written in the Zohar… and also from the words of the Zohar… and we have found it written in the Zohar…” And he goes on at length to show that sometimes there were two Tanaim by the same name.
It’s obvious that there were two R. Hamnunas who were Amoraim because, if not, why did they use the title “Saba,” (“the elder”) except to distinguish from the other R. Hamnuna, “the younger.” And this has nothing to do with Yaavetz’s claim at all. But what he wrote about the two Rav Hamnuna Sabas Tannaim, who can see this and not laugh? The difficulty of Yaavetz is that the author of the Zohar mixed people from different and distant generations, one from the other, and he has them speaking with each other – and this man wants to solve it by citing the very same contradictions in the Zohar, that also the two Rav Hamnuna Sabas were Tannaim — and this is the same exact difficulty we’re dealing with! Can a crime suspect bear testimony to clear himself?
(11) On this he answered nothing.
(12) As above.
(13) “This is an easy matter for us, that the older Amuraim such as Hamnuna and Ribbi Yeba Saba, Rav or Ribbi Abba and Rav Shimon ben Laqish and Ribbi Shamlai, were already alive in the days of Rishbi as explained in the Talmud. We thank the grace of God, that he put this answer in our mouths, on every question there is a unique answer. Also in this case, his kindness will not end, and his mercy will not expire, and in this it is fitting for you to know that this R. Shim’on, who is mentioned here, is not the R. Shim’on who is mentioned elsewhere, who is Rishbi. Instead, he is R. Shim’on the son of Rabbi Eli’ezer, and he is the son of Rabbi Eli’ezer the son or R. Shim’on, who is mentioned respectfully in the Talmud (Bava Mesia’ 84b). He lived at the end of the Tannaim and the beginning of the Amuraim. And this is exactly how the Tosafoth explained it (Bava Mesia 85a) in the way that R. Shim’on who deals in golden dinar, that this R. Shim’on is not the usual R. Shim’on in all the Talmud, who (we refer to as) Rishbi, but he is R. Shim’on the son of Ribbi Eliezer.”
Pg. 22
Everything he wrote up to “that this R. Shim’on,” lacks substance (as we will explain in answer 16) and even he knows this, and therefore he continues to try to calm himself and to say that this R. Shim’on is not Rashbi. Know that I have counted how many times the phrase “Tannaim and Amoraim”, appears in the Zohar and in the Tiqunim, and I found it more than ten times – and this is what I found in passing, without looking very hard. And in any event, anyone who delves into Tiqunim (43b; 44b): will realize that it’s impossible to interpret that it’s referring to R. Shim’on the grandson of Rishbi. because if this were so, he would have been grossly impudent, that he commands his father, “Arise, Eli’ezer, and we will throw dice…” (44a). Furthermore, it would be strange that Tanaim and Amuraim of the Land of Israel would arise and call him “Ribbi” and I quote: (44b) “the Tannaim and Amuraim of the Land of Israel arose and said, ‘Ribbi! How many times will your dice numbers go up and down endlessly?” Furthermore, if we interpret portion Pinhas (223a) according to him, we find that R. Shim’on the son of Ribbi Eli’ezer lived long enough to converse with Ra’aya Mehemna (the author of this book). If this were the case, why have we not heard of such a great righteous man except for a handful of times in all the writing of the Sages? And there is no doubt that if I were to dedicate more time to search for the term “Tannaim and Amuraim” in the Zohar, I would find a lot more evidence that the one who uttered it is Rishbi, and not his grandson. Also, look at the words of the Tosafoth that he himself cited, and you’ll see that it says the opposite of what he claims.
(14) “I found it written in the Midrash (Numbers Rabbah 13), ‘The world is similar to a silver bowl, which is made like a ball…’. Furthermore, in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, this is explicit (Avodah Zarah 41a) ‘like a ball that holds…,’ and the Tosafoth wrote ‘the world is a circle like a ball as is seen in the Jerusalem Talmud, Alexander of Macedon went up…’ — and so they taught in Beraitha (‘Eruvin 56a) ‘the sun comes out…’ and Rashi’s commentary there. We also find in Bava Batra 25a, Ribbi Eli’ezer says and Ribbi Yehoshua’ says…”
What he brought as a proof from Midrash Rabbah Numbers is not a proof at all, nor does it clarify the opinion of the Talmudic Sages, because this Midrash is very late (see the introduction to Tanhuma HaQadum 8b and the introduction to Midrash Rabbah, of Ribbi Hayot), and specifically this passage is an addition from the editor (see the introduction to Tanhuma HaQadum 19a). Even so, the intention is not that the whole earth is a ball, but only one specific land, and this is what it says, “the Earth is like a silver bowl, which is made like a ball, and that was the territory of Issachar…,” and so the Radal explained, as I have just explained.
Regarding what he cited from the Gemara of ‘Avodah Zarah, behold, from the Gemara itself there is nothing that implies what he wrote, and this is what it says, “A staff — that it rules itself under the whole world like a staff. A bird — that it holds itself under the whole world like a bird. A ball — that it holds itself under the whole world like a ball.” If we want to learn from here that they thought of the earth as a ball, we must also say that they thought earth has the form of a staff or of a bird and this is easy to understand. For context, I will include Grok’s explanation of the Talmudic passage:
The Mishnah (‘Avodah Zarah 3:1) says a statue is forbidden as an idol only if it holds a staff, a bird, or a ball (orb). The Gemara on 41a explains why those three objects count as signs of worship: They are emblems of rule over the whole world:
- Staff — the idol is pictured as driving/ruling the whole world the way a person drives an animal with a stick.
- Bird — the idol is pictured as holding the whole world the way a person holds a bird in the hand.
- Ball — the idol is pictured as holding the whole world the way a person holds a ball in the hand.
The wording is deliberately upside-down and mocking (“it rules itself under the whole world like a staff”) so as not to speak as if the idol really rules the world.
In his interpretation of the Tosafoth there, he granted himself liberties to twist the words of others, to add, or to subtract as he wished. And he added to the words of the Tosafoth a word that is not in the source, and it is “like a ball.” For in the Tosafoth it is written only “that the world is a circle, as is seen in the Jerusalem Talmud…” And that passage from the Jerusalem Talmud was explained by the Tosafoth “like a ball,” which is a circle, because the ball, when one looks at it, he cannot see the whole thing, only one side, which is not so with the circle (it is clear that one side of it is habitation, wilderness and ocean, while the other side is emptiness and chaos). Aside from this, the Jerusalem Talmud goes on to say, “and the sea is like a basin” — clearly implying that the sea is not included in “the world,” and “the world,” mean “dry land.” The Tosafoth explained, “The sea is the Atlantic Ocean, which surrounds the whole world.”
And what he cited from the Gemara in ‘Eruvin, the absolute opposite is the case, for there it speaks of “The squareness of the world”! And all the “rotations” that are mentioned there, are of the heavenly bodies. Similarly, in Bava Batra it is mentioned, as a self-evident matter, that the world has a “western corner.” Are we to believe that a ball has corners? And see Rashi there. And in the matter of the opinions of the Sages about the shape of the earth, I have included a dedicated chapter.
Pg. 23
(15) “But all this is difficult, if the illustrious rabbi’s assumption is correct, that there was only one Ribbi Shamlai, and there was no other. Yet we have found in the Talmud Yerushlami in two places, and also in Midrash Rabbah, yet another, an earlier Ribbi Shamlai, who was a tanna in the days of Ribbi Yosi bar Halafta. And he is this Ribbi Shamlai. They said (Wayiqra Rabbah 22): ‘Said Ribbi Yosi ben Halafta… Ribbi Shamlai said to him, the Holy One, blessed be He…’ And this statement is repeated in the Yerushlami (Ta’anith ch. 2 and Megillah ch. 1). Indeed, what appears to be the truth in all this is that the Ribbi Shamlai mentioned here in the Zohar is not Ribbi Shamlai the tanna, and this Ribbi Yosi as well… And a sound piece of advice is to emend in the Gemara and in the Zohar ‘Rav Asi’ in place of ‘Ribbi Yosi’… And even if these famous holy Amuraim added from their received traditions and their expositions onto the midrashim of Rishbi and his son and his companions in the book of the Zohar, we have no objection…
After I wrote this, it was revealed to us that in truth all these Amuraim—Ribbi Abba, Ribbi Shamlai and Ribbi Asi—still spoke with Rishbi and his companion Ribbi Yosi ben Halafta, as is evident from the plain reading of the Zohar mentioned above. And here is a clear proof for this: We have seen in two places in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 35 and Midrash Tehillim 36, the incident of Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi)… And behold, Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi and Ribbi Shamlai were contemporary, as they said (Bekhoroth 36b): ‘Ribbi Shamlai and Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi said in the name of R. Yehudah the Prince.’ Also, Ribbi Abba… was in the days of Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi and Ribbi Yohanan, according to what we found that he was a companion of Lewi, as they said (Yerushlami end of Horayoth) and in Midrash Rabbah (Qohelet, ‘a man who gives’) ‘Ribbi Abba found Ribbi Lewi.’ Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi and Ribbi Yohanan were contemporary. And it appears that this Ribbi Abba is the Amura Rav, for there Rav’s name was Abba, as Ribbi said (Hullin 137b)… Behold, in Babylon they called him Rav, and in the Land of Israel they called him Ribbi Abba; therefore, he is called in the Babylonian Talmud ‘Rav’ and in the Talmud Yerushlami and in Midrash Rabbah, which is the aggadah of the Land of Israel… And likewise in the Zohar, which was composed in the Land of Israel, he is called by his name Ribbi Abba…
Afterward I found written in the responsa of the Gaon Hawwot Ya’ir (paragraph 152) in the name of R. Menahem di Fano (Italy 1548-1620), that the Ribbi Abba found in the Zohar is Rav. And I found the same thing written in the book Kanfei Yonah (part 3, end of paragraph 62?) and I found written in Shittah Mequbbeset (Ketubboth, ‘the woman who aborted,’ 88b?) in the name of Maimonides, that Rav lived for three hundred years; see there.”
When I reached this answer, I said in my heart: If only! Has (R. Yosef Kunitz) the author of Ben Yohai finally provided an answer of substance? But when I opened his source materials and compared their language with the language that appears in his book, I was forced to acknowledge that they bear no similarity one to the other. This is the actual wording of Wayiqra Rabbah 22:9:
“Said Ribbi Yosi to Ribbi Hanina, a high place (of sacrifices) is permitted only on the authority of a prophet. What is the reason? As it is said… Ribbi Shamlai said, the Holy One, blessed be He, told him (Elijah to build an alter and bring a sacrifice despite the prohibition against it outside the Temple) to do it. ”And in your words, I have done. (We interpret this to mean) “according to what you have said, I have done.” Ribbi Yohanan bar Meri…”. Go back to his “version” of the midrash and compare it to the original. He has no shame!
And in the Yerushlami, Ribbi Yosi is not even mentioned. and this is what it says, (Ta’anit ch. 2 h. 8 and Megillah ch. 1 h. 11) “Ribbi Shamlai said, by Your word I have done it, and by Your utterance I have done it.” And from here it is understood why this deceitful author (Ben Yohai) refrained from providing exact citations, and he only wrote the chapter and did not note which part of the chapter—so that the reader would have to search through the entire chapter, and he would despair and rely on him.
In the midst of his writing, he feared for his honor, lest his lies be revealed, and he thought to save himself with another deception—to manipulate the source books, both the Gemara and the Zohar, and to change what is written; what a brilliant solution this is! For with this solution, one can solve every difficulty that might arise. After he wrote this, he realized how far-fetched and forced his explanation actually is, and he understood that one cannot escape the fact that the Zohar was composed long after the period of the Tannaim, he fell back on the excuse that there are “later additions,” and that it really doesn’t matter, because they are all holy.
Look how far-fetched this author’s answers are, until even he himself understood how insulting his explanations truly are. And at the end of his writing this “answer,” he awakened to what R. Ya’aqov Emdin himself pointed out, that these are merely whispers in the world, and thus, lacking any alternative, he girded his loins to uproot the creations and to mix up the generations.
And now we shall discuss his proofs that Ribbi Yosi was in the days of Rishbi. And if so, Ribbi Shamlai as well. First, we shall admit to what he says, that according to the plain reading of the aggadah, which appears…
Pg. 24
… in Bereshith Rabbah and in Shoḥer Ṭov it sounds as if Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi and Rishbi lived at the same time; and this is difficult according to the order of the generations. I will copy the language of Ha-Semah Dawid on Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi, and you will understand why: “Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi lived in the days of Rav and Shemuel. Some counted him with the Tannaim and some counted him with the Amoraim… and he was the teacher of Ribbi Yohanan…” And Ha-Semah Dawid wrote a date for Rav and Shemuel: 3579 (219 in the Christian calendar). And in the aggadah of Rav Sherira Gaon it sounds as if he lived after Rav and Shemuel. And Rishbi died around the year 3900 (140 in the Christian calendar). It is possible, with difficulty, to say that Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi lived a long life and saw both Rishbi and also Rav and Shemuel. But in truth it seems one should understand that aggadah as a parable, and so the style of its language implies, for there it implies that the generation of Rishbi is not the generation of Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi. In any case, it would not be shocking if Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi saw Ribbi Shamlai, the student of Rabbenu ha-Qadosh (Ribbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, late 2nd–early 3rd century), and at that time Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi was already old, and Ribbi Shamlai was young. In any case, it does not follow that Ribbi Shamlai saw Rishbi. And this author wants to chronologically equalize all the generations by means of Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi, viewing him as a bridge between two or three generations. And by his method one could claim that Hillel the Elder lived in the days of Moses, as it is in Avot: Joshua saw Moses, the elders saw Joshua, and so on until Hillel.
And as for what he wrote about Ribbi Abba, that he lived in the days of Ribbi Yehoshua’ ben Lewi and Ribbi Yohanan: The Ribbi Abba who lived in the days of Ribbi Yohanan, mentioned in Qohelet Rabbah, is Ribbi Abba bar Kahana; and Ribbi Kahana, his father, is known to have lived in the days of Ribbi Yohanan. And regarding the Ribbi Abba in the Yerushlami: this author himself claims that he is Rav, who was called Abba by the Jews of the Land of Israel. If so, according to his own words, an incredible revelation comes to light: that Rav and Ribbi Abba bar Kahana are one and the same!
And as for what he wrote in the name of the Shittah Mequbbeṣet, that Rav lived three hundred years: all of this is built on a copyist’s error. I will copy here the language of Tequfat ha-Savoraim u-Sifrutah by R. Ya’aqov Efrati, p. 88, on a similar matter: “One error therefore caused a further error; in Seder Tannaim we-Amuraim it is said ‘Ribbi Yohanan lived long, up to eighty years’ (and in Sefer ha-Qabbalah, 80 years), but one of the copyists shortened the word and wrote (the letter) shin, that is, eighty years (the Hebrew letter Shin can be shorthand for “shemoim,” which means “eighty,” but it has a numeric value of three hundred), and a later copyist interpreted the shin as three hundred.” And in truth, in Sefer ha-Qabbalah of the Raavad (and likewise in Ha-Semah Dawid) it is written explicitly that Rav died in the year 4003 (242CE). And if we assume he lived three hundred years, it would turn out that he was born in 3703 (58BCE) — in the days of the Zogoth (The Pairs; 2nd century BCE to 1st century CE) — and was older than Ribbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, Hillel, and Shammai, and lived through the entire period of the Tannaim, and yet he is mentioned only at the end of his days, as a student of Ribbi, and as an Amura. A healthy mind cannot bear all this. And behold what the Radak (Rav Dawid Qimhi) wrote (Judges 10:4) on Hawwoth Yair: “If they are the ones mentioned in the Torah, and this Yair is Yair ben Menasheh, the matter is astonishing, for if so, Yair lived more than three hundred years; and we can say that this Yair the Gil’adi is not Yair ben Menasheh.” See the Mesudoth there. And if, in the days of the Judges, it is astonishing that someone should live three hundred years, how much more so in the days of the sages of the Talmud! Rather, this is certainly a copyist’s error. It is also difficult from what is found in Zohar Hadash vol. 1, 20a: “Ribbi Abba asked Ribbi Hiyya.” And Ribbi Hiyya was a student of Rav; and according to the “Ben Yohai”, this Ribbi Abba is actually Rav — and a master does not ask his student (see Pesiqta Rabbati on the Ten Commandments).
(16) “It is not so. Indeed, we have found in the Gemara that the students of Rav treated these two elders with great honor, and received from them the words of Rav, their master, for they had not heard them from his mouth, as they said (Pesahim 105a), ‘Ribbi Ḥananya ben Shemuel and the students of Rav…’ And they used the same language also of Ribbi Yeba Saba (Pesahim 103a and Hullin 86b): ‘Rav and Ribbi Ḥiyya, students of Rav, were sitting…’ And it appears that these elders were colleagues and students of Rav, and Rav was a student of Ribbi Yehudah the Prince, and Ribbi Yehudah the Prince and Ribbi Eli’ezer bar Ribbi Shim’on (who is the unspecified Ribbi Eli’ezer in the Zohar) were contemporaries. And these two sages were exceedingly elderly in their generation, and there is no doubt that the holy Ribbi Eli’ezer bar Ribbi Shim’on read and studied in the book of Ribbi Hamnuna and Ribbi Yeba Saba, when he found precious things in them, as is written in the Zohar.”
Pg. 25
What he accomplished with this reply I do not know. He brought Gemaras that show us that Ribbi Yeba and Ribbi Hamnuna Saba lived in the time of the students of Rav — and that we already knew. The rest of his words are only very remote conjectures, with no sources and no support. (In truth, there is proof from here that even he does not rely on himself: according to his words in the previous reply, those students of Rav could have lived in the days of Hillel and Shammai.) He also erred in the name of Rishbi’s son, who is Ribbi El’azar, not Ribbi Eli’ezer.
And in order to make still clearer how remote these words of his are, let us set out the relevant dates. Rishbi died around the year 3900 (140 of their count). Rav went down to Bavel in the year 3579 (219 of their count), and there is no doubt that it took him some years to found his academy and establish a group of students. It also appears that those meals mentioned in the Talmud with the students of Rav were after his death; for if not, why should they rely on the reports of these elders? They could have asked their master directly. Rather, by then he was certainly no longer with them. And Rav lived twenty-four years after his descent to Babylon, that is, until the year 4003 (243 of their count). And as if this chronological gap were not enough — in the Zohar it appears that they were greater than Rishbi, to the point that Rishbi, and Ribbi El’azar his son, were debating out of their books. All this can exist only in the imagination of this author.
(17) To this he did not reply.
(18) “And you should know that R. El’azar ben Pedat was a colleague-student of Mar Ribbi Yohanan, as is explicit in the Yerushlami (Sanhedrin ch. 1)… and it is explained further in the Yerushlami (Berakhot ch. 2; Sheqalim ch. 2). See Rashi (Kethuboth 25b). See also (Yevamoth 72b): Ribbi Yohanan said to Resh Laqish, I have seen the son of Pedat…”
He answered nothing here — he only strengthened R. Yaaqov ‘Emdin’s objection. We have already seen that Ribbi Yohanan lived eighty years, and that he was born around the year 3529 (163 of their count). If so, how many years were there between the death of Rishbi and the birth of Ribbi Yohanan? And if Ribbi El’azar ben Pedat was a colleague-student of Ribbi Yohanan, he was presumably younger than he. And even if we say he was older, in order to be mentioned in Rishbi’s book he would have had to already be a great Torah scholar twenty-three years before Ribbi Yohanan was born. If so, how can he be a colleague-student of Ribbi Yohanan?
(18) To this he replied nothing.
(19) To this he replied nothing.
(21) To this he replied nothing.
(22) (This reply is to another objection which I did not bring; and since it also belongs here, this is where I’ll put it.)
“And in truth the Zohar perceived future events, as is clear from its language there: ‘And the sons of Ishmael are destined to rule in the Holy Land,’ etc…. And this too, that Rishbi knew future events by the Holy Spirit, is known to us from the words of our rabbis, written and sealed at once, more than a thousand years before the book of the Zohar was found and revealed to us. They said (Yerushlami Shevi’it ch. 9): ‘Rishbi foresaw by the Holy Spirit,’ etc.; ‘Rishbi swore that he had heard from Heaven that Tiberias is destined to be purified.’ And in the Babylonian Gemara they said (Megillah 17b): ‘Let Rishbi go before us, for he is experienced in miracles.’” He also cited Bereshith Rabbah, ch. 45: “Three were called by their names, etc., and some say also Ishmael among the nations.”
It is well known that the Sages used the term “Holy Spirit” for several things. Sometimes the intent is the quality of truth itself, as when they say “the Holy Spirit cries out…” Sometimes the intent is actual prophecy. And sometimes the intent is a well-founded intuition, whose truth became clear in the end. And here this last meaning is the correct one, for…
Pg. 26
…to this conjecture, people used to respond:
(a) regarding Gentiles, of whom Scripture testifies, “whose mouth speaks vanity” (Psalms 144:8); see also the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Pesaḥim 8:6;
(b) the very approach of the Gentile and his words aroused suspicion. What does it matter to a Gentile — unless it is to mock the elders of Israel? And as for the fulfillment of Rishbi’s decree, there is no cause for wonder, for his merit was very great, and a righteous man decrees and the Lord fulfills.
What he cited from the Gemara in Megillah has no bearing at all on our issue. Did R. Emdin come to deny that the Holy One does miracles for those who fear Him?
More importantly, the Zohar itself declared that prophecy had already ceased. Here is what it said (Part 1:238a): “And they would know and look, to know the supernal glory; once prophecy had ceased from them, they would avail themselves of lesser audible revelations — now prophecy has ceased and lesser audible revelations have ceased.”
(25) He brought a proof from Nedarim 23b that the enactment of Kol Nidrei is ancient, and that Yom Kippur is also called Rosh Hashanah, as we find in ‘Arakhin 12a. See further Tosafoth on Gittin 35b, in the paragraph that starts, “And for the pedigree.”
This is the language of the Mishnah (corrected according to the Gemara): “And he who wishes that his vows not be binding all year should stand at Rosh Hashanah and say, ‘Every vow that I am going to make shall be void.’” From its language it is clear that:
(a) there was no enactment at all (just as there was no enactment for “vows of encouragement,” when one promises to eat at his fellow’s table);
(b) the wording the Mishnah proposes is the same as the wording of Kol Nidrei;
(c) it did not propose that it be said in Aramaic, but rather in the Holy Tongue. In contrast, here is the language of the Zohar: “And therefore they enacted that one should say (on that day) “Let all vows and (voluntary) prohibitions be released and abandoned, not binding and not standing.” There is no doubt that this Mishnah influenced the later sages who enacted Kol Nidrei. And the Tosafoth on Gittin added nothing to this subject; they only mentioned a dispute whether one must specify his sins on Yom Kippur or not, and that among the sins there are also vows, and that because of shame some say he does not need to specify, even in a case like this, lest they suspect him of other offenses as well.
(27) From here until bullet point 39 he did not respond.
(39) “In Bereshit Rabbah, ch. 6, Ribbi Shim’on said: We do not know whether they fly in the air (that is, the stars) or whether they glide on the firmament and are fixed in the sphere, etc. Behold, this is a new opinion, which the philosophers of our time received, born of the scholar Copernicus and his school… We have also found (Eruvin 18b), Tosafoth: ‘Rabbenu Hananel reads in the Gemara, read it ‘hanshamah’ (breathing), with a dagesh; and the word dagesh, in the grammatical sense, which the grammarians coined themselves (if we judge by the standard of this illustrious rabbi’s who is answerig) more than a thousand years after the close of the Talmud — and the word dagesh in the sense the grammarians give it is not found in the Babylonian Talmud, nor in the Yerushlami, nor in the Midrashim. And how then did the sage, the author of Tosafot, Rabbenu Hananel, of blessed memory, slip this reading into the language of the Gemara? But the truth is that no secret is withheld from the sages of the Talmud, of blessed memory, and they already knew, in the breadth of their heart, many of the innovations of the philosophers, new and old, which were only new to us, and before them there is nothing new… And before Rishbi’s eyes the heavens were rolled out like a scroll, and he saw all that is done, from the height of heaven to the bottom of the earth.”
It is plain to every reader that Ribbi Shim’on (Rishbi) expressed no opinion at all about the stars. Only, while declaring that he does not know, he mentioned several possibilities. Therefore, there is no place to attribute an opinion that was not stated to anyone at all. Further, I do not know what connection there is between the possibilities Rishbi proposed and the innovations of Copernicus; for Copernicus only taught us that the earth is not in the middle of the spheres, but the sun, and that system is called by his name. Further, it appears that this author has no eyes to see, for only a moment ago he copied Rishbi’s saying, in which he admitted, and was not ashamed…
Pg. 27
…that he did not know how the stars stand in the heavens (and in this he revealed that he did not know the law of gravity, something no man had imagined in his days). And now he testifies in contradiction of Rishbi himself, writing that no secret is withheld from him — while Rishbi said that he does not know. And this man writes of him that he does know, and all this in the same breath!
And regarding the Tosafoth that cited Rabbenu Hananel: he made crude and serious errors. First I’ll point out that even though the word “dagesh” was indeed not known to the Sages (for strong proof of this see Sefer Yesirah 2:2, where the words dagesh and rafeh are badly needed, and yet they are not mentioned; and as this author said, so it is: it is not mentioned anywhere in the words of the sages at all). But when he wrote that it was coined “more than a thousand years after the close of the Talmud,” he revealed that he did not even trouble himself to look it up before writing these words. For the Radaq and Ibn ‘Ezra (and others among their contemporaries) all knew what a dagesh is, and they lived only some six hundred years from the close of the Talmud. Even before that, R. Saadya Gaon, in his commentary on Sefer Yesirah 2:2, mentioned used the term “dagesh”, and he lived only some four hundred years after the close of the Talmud. And what shall we say of an author who thinks that Rabbenu Hananel (11th century North Africa) lived more than a thousand years after the close of the Talmud? He himself quoted his words that mention dagesh — or does he suppose that Ribbi Hananel too was a prophet? For the life of me, I have not yet seen ignorance like this in any author.
Still more serious than all this: look, dear reader, at that same Tosafoth, and you will see how far the cowardice of this author goes. For it is not written that Rabbenu Hananel read thus in the Gemara, but that he explained thus — and there is an enormous difference between “read” (gires) and “explained” (piresh). And one cannot judge him charitably, to say that that is how it is worded in the Tosafoth; for if so, he should have told us of this variant. And more than that: he himself quoted the language of the Tosafoth, according to our reading, in the book he composed, Ha-‘Iyun (p. 80).
And as for knowledge of grammar, which is the science of the Holy Tongue: we will grant him that the Sages were expert in it — but not in the same terminology and vocabulary that were coined hundreds of years after their death. And let us ask one simple question: According to this author’s claim, the sages knew, by their Holy Spirit, even the terms of the scholars of later generations, and did not refrain from writing in those terms, to the point that Rishbi argued and parsed and expounded according to the names of the vowels and accents, which were coined long after his death — if so, when he reached the science of astronomy, why did he refrain from mentioning Copernicus by name? After all, a good many wicked men of the nations (according to some versions, even Muhammad) are mentioned in his book. Is Copernicus worse than them? In the end, only one thing in this reply is correct: that the Sages did not know of the term “dagesh.”
(38) From here until bullet point 44 he answered nothing.
(44) He noted to look up Hagigah 10a, Bava Mesi’a 85a, and Sanhedrin 24a.
This is the language of the Gemara in Ḥagigah: “even from Talmud to Talmud” (the words of Ribbi Yohanan). And Rashi explained: “from the Jerusalem Talmud to the Babylonian Talmud.” And in the Gemara of Bava Meṣi’a we find that the Amura Ribbi Zeira, when he went up to the Land of Israel, sat a hundred fasts to forget the Gemara of Babylon. And in Sanhedrin we find that the Amura Ribbi Yirmeyah said, “this is the Talmud of Babylon.” And on that same page they discussed the differences between the sages of the Land of Israel and the sages of Babylon, and they cited sayings of Rishbi and Ribbi Ush’iaya and Ribbi Yishaq (Tannaim, or first-generation Amuraim). And not one of them mentioned two Talmuds — only two sets of Amuraim. And from this it is not clear what he meant to resolve; on the contrary, R. ‘Emdin wrote that from this there is proof that the Zohar was composed after the Talmud. And the respondent simply did not understand that objection (or pretended not to understand). For where do we find in the words of the Sages that they said “Jerusalem Talmud”? Among them it is called, “the Talmud of the Land of Israel.” And even in the days of the Geonim they called it so. Only in the days of the Rishonim, or the last of the Geonim, did they begin to call it “the Jerusalem Talmud.”
(52) From here to the end he did not respond.
Pg. 28
The book Ben Yohai is entirely a work of fraud. Its author added, cut, and swapped words and names in order to manufacture “sources” for himself with which to cancel R. ‘Emdin’s arguments, and he treated R. Emdin as if he had never studied Talmud in his life. In the places where he changed the wording, he did not give detailed references, so as to make it hard for the reader to find that passage, and he relied on the reader’s laziness. But for anyone who has seen his his original sources, his distortions are obvious. If you wish to acquire his book in order to verify what I’m saying, it will be difficult, for it was printed only once, in the year 1815 in Vienna, and never again. Just as they took care that Mitpahat Sefarim should not be printed again, because of the force of its arguments, so they took care that Ben Yohai should not be printed again, because it is an embarrassment to those who hold the Zohar to be authentic and holy. The fact that Ben Yohai cannot be obtained is a great comfort to the author of Zohar ha-Raqia’ — for (since he omits all of R. ‘Emdin’s arguments) he can write that a “great book… which responds to all of his objections, was composed.”
About the Book Mitpahat Sefarim
The author, R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin, kept these arguments (about the Zohar) in his heart for forty years before he wrote them in a book (p. 11), and that was at the end of his life. It is not known why he composed this book. The Hida wrote (Shem ha-Gedolim) that his goal was to weaken the power of the Sabbatians, and therefore we need not be alarmed by the arguments found within. It is possible that that was his aim (however, it’s more reasonable to say the opposite — that his true aim was to expose the forgery of the Zohar, and that in order to protect himself, and to make it easier for others to accept his words, he made it appear as though his main intent was against the Sabbatians), for he mentioned them there several times with contempt. But this is no reason to ignore the arguments. What do we care why he wrote them? If there his objections are legitimate, we should judge them on their own merit. Furthermore, is it possible, if Ya’aveṣ believed that the book of the Zohar was entirely from the Sages, that he would invent a heresy for Jews to stumble upon in order to save them from another heresy? Surely, passivity would be a better option in such a scenario.
It is clear to me, after I have gone through the book, in what state of mind its author was in. I will reveal that state after I note several strange features of book:
A) He contradicts himself in a glaring way. For example (p. 7): “Heaven forbid to suspect R. Mosheh de Leon of doing such a thing, of inventing esoteric secrets entirely from his own heart… and attributing them to Rishbi.” And afterward he wrote (p. 12): “that the books of R. Mosheh and the Tiqunim… are from the later kabbalists of Spain – probably R. Mosheh de Leon as is suspected, according to many demonstrative estimates” (and likewise on p. 94 he decided that R. Mosheh de Leon was its author). Likewise, after he presented 281 oddities in the Zohar — he wrote of them that they are all “late additions,” and that the essence of the Zohar retains its status. And afterward he wrote (p. 72) of two books attributed to Rav Sa’adya Gaon that they are forgeries, without citing any evidence — only that in his opinion they are not consistent with his style in Emunot we-de’oth.
(B) After he devoted the first part of his book to proving the forgeries of the Zohar, he goes on, in the second part, to claim that the Guide to the Perplexed (by Maimonides) is also a forgery and is not the work of Maimonides (a suggestion that no reasonable person can tolerate). He also wrote of two letters of Maimonides that they are forgeries (pp. 71, 72), and likewise, as above, of two books attributed to Rav Sa’adya Gaon (the commentary on Daniel and the commentary on Sefer Yesirah). And he also poured scorn on Ibn Ezra and his commentary on the Torah, and wrote that there is no wisdom in it (p. 71).
(C) He praised the Kabbalah and the kabbalists at length and took this to an extreme – to the point where he denied, explicitly, creation from nothing, and wrote that it is impossible (pp. 52, 51). He was very dismissive of the Jewish philosophers, and of intellect in general. He wrote that whoever rejects the Kabbalah is a heretic — and this after he wrote that Rav Sa’adya Gaon and Maimonides rejected the Kabbalah outright. And toward the end of his book, he began to attribute the Zohar to later authors, but in a subtle way. At the end of the book he wrote, “for…
Pg. 29
…there is no obligation to believe everything found in the printed book of the Zohar, nor even everything that came in the writings copied from the Ari (R. Issac Luria, 16th century Land of Isrrael. A prominent kabbalist) … Rather, believe what your fathers and your teachers believed, and the authors of the Mishnah, which was arranged and composed by Rabbenu ha-Qadosh (Ribbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, late 2nd–early 3rd century), the student of Rishbi the true Tanna…”
In the end, R. Ya’aqov Emdin, being at the end of his days, when he wrote this book, was in confusion. He knew the truth about the book of the Zohar. He also knew that no one would listen to him. And even so he did not want to die without revealing the secret. He found himself longing for truth in a world of falsehood (as he wrote on pp. 3–4: “there is no truth in the world; all the more so now, when the world has been handed over to fools, who go after the opposite — truth does not stand, and falsehood stands… and truth is missing…”). It was not enough that the whole world was against him, but even within his own soul there was a war, He was not sure how to deal with this revelation. On the one hand, he obligated himself to write the truth, and on the other, “truth does not stand, falsehood stands,” and therefore he mixed far-fetched ideas into it as a form of camouflage, “so that they would accept it from him.” He was also afraid for his life, since he wrote what he wrote about the Zohar. He tried to protect himself by casting doubt upon the books of the Rambam and Ibn Ezra (who are viewed as typifying the antithesis of the Kabbalah) at least to the same degree that he cast doubt upon the Kabbalah. He claimed of many other “forgeries” in order to blur the matter, in the sense of “the trouble of many is half a comfort.” And at the very end of his book, he surmised that even the reader would come out confused, and so he advised his reader to remain faithful to the beliefs of his fathers, and that is sufficient – and happy is he who does not see.
The Arguments of The Book Ari Nohem
The book Ari Nohem, like Mitpahat Sefarim, was composed by a distinguished and famous scholar: R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena. And his purpose was not only to argue that the Zohar is a forgery, but also against the Kabbalah in general. Even so, he did not oppose the Zohar as such; he only claimed that it is a pleasant, late, midrash. His arguments about the Zohar are very general, and these are his main points:
(1) Since the book of the Zohar was not known, and not mentioned at all, until after the death of Nahmanides (R. Mosheh ben Nahman. 13th century Catalonia)., and since even the kabbalists admit that it is not known who composed it — one must say that it was composed only in later generations (after the death of Nahmanides). Chapter 16.
(2) Its name is not mentioned at all, neither in the Talmuds nor in any midrash. Chapter 17.
(3) If the author of the Zohar were Rishbi, and we see his greatness and depth of thought in the Zohar, Jewish law would certainly have to follow Rishbi — and Jewish law does not follow Rishbi. Chapter 18.
(4) There are matters in the Zohar that are against what we know to be clearly true in Jewish law. Chapter 20.
(5) They barely permitted the writing of the Oral Torah of the revealed part. How, then, would they permit writing, even before that, the secrets of the Torah? Chapters 17 and 21.
(6) It is not possible that Rishbi would write a book containing so many great titles and endless praises of himself. Chapter 21.
(7) If it had been written in the days of Rishbi, they certainly would not have written the secrets of the Torah in Aramaic, for their custom was to write lofty things only in the Holy Tongue. Further, the Aramaic language then was understood even by gentiles, women, and children; and its being written in Aramaic is proof that it was composed only at a time when not everyone understood that language, and in order to blur its forgery. Chapter 22
Pg. 30
(8) He cited the story of R. Yishaq of ‘Akko, which I have already included at the end of R. ‘Emdin’s words (Pages 13 and 14 above). Chapter 23.
Several books were composed against Ari Nohem. The most famous of them, and the main one, is Magen we-Sinah, by R. Isaac Aizik Haver. And before we discuss his entire book, I will present the gist of his replies to the arguments of Ari Nohem.
The Arguments of Magen we-Sinah and their Rebuttals
(1) “And I say… we are forced to admit that its author (of the Zohar) was, at any rate, great and a master in Torah, righteous and pious, whose intent was to prepare generations… If so, how can we entertain the notion that such a great and pious man would speak in the name of the Lord with things invented from his own heart and imagination? And all the more so since the Zohar itself said that it is a great sin for one to invent esoterica of his own that he did not receive from his teachers.” Chapter 14.
There are two good replies to this.
- It does not appear that the author of the Zohar invented any law from his own heart. Rather he received them from his teachers or colleagues, or found them in old books. But many of these laws are not according to the view of the Sages, and they were innovated in the days of the Geonim, or perhaps they were from the days of the Sages, and they did not want to mention them or to support them, because they did not mesh well with their attitudes; and the author of the Zohar was not in inventing them on his own. Also, regarding the Ra’aya Meheimna and the Tiqunim, the language is so different from the language of the ancient Sages, and they are so full of transparent hints that they were composed only in a late time — it is possible that their author did not imagine that anyone would be so naive as to think they came from the ancient Sages. And in this he was similar to R. Yehudah ha-Lewi, who attributed his views to the tale and dialog (between the king of the Khazars and representatives of the major faiths in his book, The Khuzari) that happened four hundred years before his time; and since it is clear to all that he is the author and that these are his views — he is not a forger, but a reputable author.
- One who comes to mislead a religiously observant public so that they will accept his book must certainly project an image of religiosity, piety and encouragement to keep the commandments, in order to win the readers’ hearts. For if he does not do so, and if he belittles keeping the commandments, or tries to persuade people that they need not keep them — no one will take his sayings to heart; on the contrary, they will burn his book. And this is simple.
(2) As above.
(3) This is no refutation, because in every single commandment there are many explanations, and Rishbi used to expound them all, and therefore they seized upon and ruled only according to one view. And we also find that Ribbi Yohanan ben Zakkai was expert in the secrets of the Chariot (This is a body of esoterica that was mentioned by the sages of the Talmud), as it is written in the second chapter of Sukkah, that he did not omit, etc. (The baraita says they said of him that he did not omit Scripture and Mishnah, Talmud, halakhot and aggadoth, the fine points of the Torah and of the scribes, a fortiori arguments and verbal analogies, calendrical cycles and gematrioth, the speech of ministering angels, of demons, and of palm trees, washermen’s parables and fox parables — a great thing and a small thing. The Gemara then explains: the great thing is Ma’aseh Merkavah (the secrets of the Chariot).; and R. Aqiva and his colleagues, and Rishbi, R. Meir, and R. Yehudah, and R. Nehemyah, were all his students; and also R. El’azar ben ‘Arakh, and R. Yehoshua’, and the four who entered the Pardes (discovered esoteric secrets)— all of them knew the secrets of Kabbalah and knew that there is a source for every view. And as they said in the first chapter of Hagigah, that R. El’azar ben ‘Azaryah said: the words of the sages are like ox goads, etc., they were given from one Shepherd, one God said them even though they seem to disagree, etc. (but see there Rashi’s explanation, which is striking). Behold, even in Jewish law, the Tannaim and Amuraim disagreed; and so too regarding the explanations for the commandments, which are many: Rishbi expounded the reasons for the commandment and their secrets. And his words are the words of the living God. And as they said in the second chapter of ‘Eruvin: “and he spoke three thousand proverbs,” etc. — this teaches that he would sit and expound and say three thousand reasons for every matter of Torah. That is the gist of his words. Chapter 18.
This does makes sense, and if only the later authorities took them to heart. For today the words of the Zohar have become more authoritative, in Jewish law, than the words of the Talmud. See for example Mishnah Berurah 3:6. And in any case, the difficulty has not been reconciled…
Pg. 31
…at all. For if we found in the Zohar only positive matters and explanations for the commandments alone, the difficulty would be settled. But we find in the Zohar also very sharp things against certain positions in Jewish law, for example, tefillin on the intermediate days of a festival. And from many phrases in the Zohar, we understand that the other sages of his generation were dwarfed by his authority. If so, they would certainly have had to rule explicitly according to his view, in those matters in which he expressed himself against his opponents so forcefully.
(4) I did not find that he replied to this; and R. ‘Emdin also raised this difficulty.
(5) The sages of Kabbalah permitted themselves, like the Tannaim and Amuraim, to write the wisdom of Kabbalah. In earlier times they wrote it only a little in a book… and the main prohibition was publishing it in public, that they should not study from the book but only from the mouth of a master. True, the Medieval authorities did not explain it well, only briefly, by hint and concealment, like Sefer ha-Bahir, Yesirah, and the Zohar, where the secrets and the principles of the wisdom of Kabbalah are expressed only in fine, subtle, hints. That is the gist of his words in chapter 15; and in chapter 21 he explained his intent well: That the Zohar is a hidden scroll (megillath setharim).
Let us examine this claim that the Zohar is a hidden scroll. He himself wrote (in chapter 15) the definition of a hidden scroll, as follows: “they did not write them out clearly, only in brief words and a wondrous hint and great concealment.” And it seems to me that the book of the Zohar does not fit this definition at all. For it has a long introduction, stories of deeds and polemics; and it is on all twenty-four books (so they claim, though today, some of it is missing). It is thoughtfully edited, and refers to itself as, “this is the book of the Zohar” and “this is the composition of the Zohar.” It contains several poems according to meter, prayers and blessings, and so on. And I am not the only one who thinks so. For the first rabbi who permitted it to be printed (in the first edition, he is called “His excellency, the erudie and exalted sage, our teacher R. Isaac Delashash,” and in the Hida, “Names of the Great Ones”, he is referred to as, “His excellency, our teacher Isaac son of R. Immanuel Delmatash”) wrotethe following in his ruling: “The secrets of Kabbalah were written in the Zohar explicitly and not by way of parable and riddle… explicitly, as they came in the Zohar….”. That is the first difficulty. The second difficulty in this claim is this: If we found hidden scrolls in the revealed Torah, can one learn from that to the hidden Torah, which they forbade to pass even from mouth to ear, with the exception of the head of a rabbinical court, and then only if he had specific concerns? The example that he provides bears no resemblance to the matter at hand – and that itself is the argument of Ari Nohem. Even the author of Magen we-Sinah admits this, for he wrote (in chapter 29): “That in truth it (the writing of the Zohar in the days of the Tannaim) is in violation of what the Sages required, to hide these matters, even when transmitting them orally, except to those worthy individuals.”
Furthermore, the claim that he makes here contradicts his own words. For he wrote (chapter 21) that Rishbi and his colleagues hid it for the last generation, and that they knew (by their Holy Spirit) that it would be revealed in the last generation — that it would then be permitted to write Oral Torah, because of “it is a time to act (meaning that there are times when the needs of the hour override legal technicalities).” They knew that the last generation would need these secrets. However, even if this were not the case, that many other books would be written on this subject in explicit terms – somehow, they did not know this? And why, according to his words, would they have written the Zohar as a “hidden scroll”? For by the time it would be revealed, it would already be permitted to possess and publish actual full-scale books.
The Zohar was “found” over 800 years ago, and forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but if the “last generation” was that long ago, how would we describe our OWN generation?
In the end, the book of the Zohar is not a hidden scroll, and with his own words, the author of Magen we-Sinah excluded this possibility.
(6) In truth, Rishbi did not write the book of the Zohar… for in the Idra Rabba it is explained that Rishbi commanded his student, Ribbi Abba, that he should write; and these things are clouded in mystery. The Zohar was written several generations after Rishbi, from what was in writing, and from what was orally transmitted in his name and in the name of the rest of his colleagues and students who were his contemporaries. And even this version was subject to very many additions that were made by the last of the later authorities. After it was written down, and was allowed to be copied, many hands ruled over it; each one, whatever seemed right in his opinion, and whatever was new to him, wrote on the margin of the book of the Zohar as notes. His successor would copy it without much contemplation and thought that these notes had been missing in the book, and he put the words into the body of the book. From additions like these came passages on matters of Rashi and Rabbenu Tam (Medieval authorities), and many more such things would occur. And we find in the writings of the Ari, of blessed memory, that he said of several things…
Pg. 32
…that they are not from the Zohar at all. And likewise, the arrangement of the portions was done at a later time. And hence the objection of R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena, regarding the praises said of Rishbi, is removed. That is the gist of what he wrote. Chapter 21.
If you read his words carefully, you will see that they are the very words of R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin (according to the plain sense of his words — which in truth he himself was not so naive as to believe). And I will not be long-winded here. I will only ask one simple question. We have many books, from the Sages and from the Geonim and the Rishonim, which passed from hand to hand and from generation to generation in a continuous way — and we have not found any book that suffered so much from late additions that entered from the margin. On the other side, the book of the Zohar, from the time of its revelation until its printing, passed only 260 years in all, and the printers possessed manuscripts that were not written the day before. It is nearly certain that among several dozen manuscripts that were in their possession, some of them were written close to the time of its discovery. If so, perhaps somebody could explain to me how they managed to include so many “late additions”, without intent and in such a short period of time, as this author described?
In any event, by his admission that Rishbi did not write the Zohar, nor was it written in his lifetime, this objection of R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena is indeed solved.
(7) Behold the end (days) of the Messiah, concerning which the duty of concealment is from the mouth of the angel: “the things are closed and sealed,” etc. How did they write it in the Aramaic language, “until a time and times and half a time (Daniel 7:25 and 12:7)”? Chapter 23.
The respondent’s answer is null and void. Who can explain to us clearly what “a time and times and half a time” is? No one knows its meaning, as he himself admitted. If so, what difference is there to us whether it is Aramaic or the Holy Tongue? No one understands. And if you ask, why then did he write thus? I say: in order to stress to the people that there is an appointed time for redemption. And if you find another explanation, so much the better.
(8) One should not bring testimony and proof from the talk of women. And perhaps some erring person or opponent put these things into Sefer Yuhasin, or into the source where the author of Yuhasin found this — and perhaps for this reason it was omitted in the other printings (of the Zohar). Chapter 23.
After we have seen all the above testimonies about the Zohar, that it is forged, and even so they persist in authenticating it — compare this attitude of theirs with their attitude to the report in Yuhasin, which there is no reason to suspect of being forged. And with no evidence at all they question its authenticity. Where is the equal treatment? And let us ask him: If one may not rely on a woman, even his own wife, then how did Joshua’s spies rely on Rahab the harlot, whom they did not know, and who had a strong interest to lie to them (to save her own people)? And further, in Rahab’s case people’s lives were at stake — and here we know of no interest that would cause her to lie; on the contrary, the subject is her husband, the righteous man, the godly kabbalist. And in this case, nobody’s life is at stake. Is this thing more severe than a prohibition whose punishment is the cutting off of one’s soul? We should question whether this auther ever touched his wife (since he has no trust in women).
In summarizing the above text, I availed myself of the work of Nehemyah Shemuel Leibowitz, in his edition of Ari Nohem.
Other Arguments From the Book Magen weSinah and their Rebuttals
Page 45b: “Set your heart upon what your eyes shall see… the greatness of the revelations and the awesome things that he had… and go out and see what a great man it is who testifies… either the Vilna Gaon (R. Eliyahu Zalman, 18th century Lithuania), of blessed memory, spoke falsehood, or his student, R. Hayim, invented such a falsehood…”
The gist of his argument is that great and trustworthy righteous men told us many and mighty wonders, indicating that Rishbi composed the book of the Zohar.
A recurrent theme in the Bible is that no man is perfect. Even the greatest of all men, Moses, erred, and his burial place was kept secret so that Jews would not come to worship him. Moses wasn’t perfect – and neither was the Vilna Gaon. It is my position that if, for all practical purposes, you consider a person to be infallible (that is to say, one cannot disagree with him), then you are worshipping that person. I will now illustrate that even “words of prophecy,” or “heavenly announcements,” must be discarded if they contradict logic. Logic reigns supreme, even against “heavenly voices” and “divine revelations.” How much more so, against the opinions of a mere mortal.
And now, see the words of the editor (p. 27b), as follows: “His intent is to say that from heaven they will force him to accept…
Pg. 33
…what our mind agrees is the opposite — like the case in Bava Mesi’a of Ribbi Eli’ezer, where most of the sages agreed to declare the oven impure, and wonders from Heaven forced them to accept what was against their view —but that the heart understands it one way, and the heavens say otherwise — the truth can come through anyone.” His words are very sound and this is the explanation: If we are in doubt about a certain matter, and we have nothing with which to decide (for example, whether the law follows Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel), we may accept the arbitration of a lesser heavenly voice, or to signs from heaven, for in any case we have no decision this way or that. But in our case, since we have powerful evidence, and an enormous quantity of proof, of the forgery of the book of the Zohar — even if we were to see, with our own eyes, wonders and a lesser heavenly voice and so on that tell us the opposite — it is forbidden to accept them, for “it is not in Heaven.” And if the matter were left in doubt, then we would accept them with joy; but since the matter is not so, we must explain these phenomena in other ways. How great is the power of imagination! Especially in people who drive sleep from their eyes and long for visions and sights of prophecy and the like. The force of imagination is known even in men who are entirely sane and upright, who can be completely convinced that they saw Elijah and that he revealed to them such and such, or that they prophesied a prophecy. And I know myself that it is hard to accept these answers when the subject is famous great men of Torah. But what can we do? There is no escape and what has been proven has been proven. And even so, here I will copy the words of one scholar who saw a prophecy, as follows:
“Behold, anyone who knew me, or saw me, or knew of me, can bear true and faithful witness that from my childhood until this day no trace of unfitness has been found in me; and I kept the Torah in my poverty, and I meditated on it day and night, thanks be to God. And I never pursued bodily desires; and even at a time when I had the means to indulge myself in the way of all the earth, I added afflictions and sufferings with all my strength, and I took no bodily pleasure at all… and there are several faithful witnesses who will testify. Still more than all this: I studied Torah in purity until I was twenty years old, and I performed the Tikkun Klali (rites of penitence) that the Ari, of blessed memory, said for anyone who had sinned much — even though, thank God, no willful sin was found in me; I did it on the chance that my soul was soiled from another incarnation, Heaven forbid. And in my twentieth year I began to study the book of the Zohar and a little of the writings of the Ari, of blessed memory; and one who comes to be purified, they assist him from heaven, and He sent His holy angels and His pure souls and they made known to me many of the secrets of the Torah. And in that year, after my spirit was awakened in visions of angels and holy souls, when I was in the portion of Wayaqhel, and I was shut in a special room in holiness and purity, after I had prayed the silent prayer with great weeping, while I was occupied with supplications — behold, a spirit passed over my face, the hair of my flesh stood up, and my knees knocked one against the other; I gazed at the Chariot and I saw visions of God all that day and all the night; and then I prophesied a complete prophecy like one of the prophets, ‘Thus said the Lord,’ etc., and it was engraved in my heart with complete clarity…”
On the face of it, if a pious man and a righteous man so great saw a vision like this, there is certainly substance in it. But not so, dear reader: He prophesied concerning Shabbetai Sevi that he is Messiah, and the man spoken of here is Nathan of Gaza, may the name of the wicked rot. And if you wish to say that he lied in this — that is possible; but it is also possible that he truly thought he had received a prophecy. And now incline your ear to another vision, from a man you will not wish to deny. Namely the head of the kabbalists in Jerusalem, R. Yehudah Fataya, in his book Minhat Yehudah, “The Spirits Speak” (Jerusalem, 1957), p. 75:
“…I come bearing news. For in the year 5671, Monday night, the 25th of Kislev (26 December 1910), while I was telling my household the story of the miracle of Hanukkah written in the book Hemdat Yamim, I dozed a little in the middle of the study, and I saw a man about forty-five years old, of beautiful form and beautiful appearance, and he was a smooth man and had no beard, except some twenty or so hairs, one here and one there on the face, far from one another. And he stood behind my left side, and he brought his face near my ear and whispered to me: ‘I am the author of the book Hemdat Yamim, and now hear my voice and conduct yourself according to my custom’ (that is, that he believed in Shabbetai Sevi, may the name of the wicked rot, that he is the Messiah of the Lord…”
Pg. 34
…Heaven forbid), and I will teach you all four parts of Hemdat Yamim in a single moment.” I said to him: “How can such a thing be, that I should learn the four parts of Hemdat Yamim in a single moment?” (even though it was not my intent, in the dream, to conduct myself according to his custom, Heaven forbid). He said to me: “For when I composed the book Hemdat Yamim, I was already attached to Shabbetai Sevi, and I conducted myself in humility according to his custom; and because it was my will to draw the hearts of the children of Israel after him as well, I judged in my mind that they would certainly not listen to my words. Therefore I made a great stratagem, and I composed the book Hemdat Yamim, which is entirely full of morals and piety and fear of the Lord, so that if afterward I should entice Israel to follow after Shabbetai Sevi, they would accept my words with no protest, saying: How could a pious and holy man, such an expert in the revealed and the hidden things, create a stumbling-block for Israel, Heaven forbid?” (This is the argument of Magen we-Sinah above, which he copies.) “If they are not sure that Shabbetai Sevi is the Messiah of the Lord in truth, then by this they will nullify their own opinion in favor of my opinion. And that is what I said to you: If you do according to my custom, I will teach you in a single moment all four parts of Hemdat Yamim, because the whole essence of the composition of the four parts of Hemdat Yamim is only so that those who study it will agree to follow after my opinion and my will. And if you are willing to agree, then you are as one who has already learned all four parts. For why should you still study them, once my request has been done without studying it? And the result is as if you learned, in a single moment, all the purpose of the composition Hemdat Yamim.” At that point, the vision ended, and I woke up. Later, on the night of the fourth day, the 24th of Kislew mentioned above, I had a vision as if it were Sabbath afternoon, and I was wrapped in a wool cloak because of the cold, and sitting on wool cushions in a special room, and sitting and studying the book Es Hayim, and about twenty other books… in order to research some urgent matter that was hard to understand… and my heart was very troubled, and confused in understanding that subject. And in the midst of this I saw one very large raven, twice the size of other ravens, that was greatly confused and turning over in its flight, as if it had been struck on the head by those chasing it; and it came and hid under my cloak from great fear. And I turned my face backward in order to see who it was who was chasing it, and behold, I saw three men with large sticks in their hands, with which they were beating that raven with cruel blows; and indeed, they did not see where the raven had escaped from their pursuit. And they were looking in anger and rage this way and that, to find out where the raven had fled, in order to chase it further and beat it. And behold, there appeared to my eyes one man who was an officer over those three men, and this is what he told them: “Say to the Gazans: Nathan has come — here he is!” And he pointed with his finger at the raven hidden under my cloak (and from this I understood that the raven is Natan of Gaza)… and I awakened, and I slept again, and dreamed a second time, and behold it was a weekday, and I was praying the morning prayer in the synagogue called “The Egyptian House”… and Natan of Gaza came and stood outside the doorway of the synagogue, and spread his hands toward me and was pleading and saying: “And it shall be charitable for you before the Lord” — that is, I shall be gratefull if, in your kindness, you make a rectification for my soul, to save it and give it rest from the hollow of the sling, in which I am tortured…
Stories like these have greatly proliferated, also among the nations of the world; and from here it is understood that one should not use visions as evidence for anything.
Page 52a: “And besides this, the true intelligent man will see that it is impossible to say, in any way, that all the things mentioned in the book of the Zohar came from the heart of R. Mosheh de Leon…”
I do not know what he meant to tell us here that we didn’t already know. I have not yet heard of anyone who claims that R. Mosheh de Leon composed the entire Zohar, and this is a simple matter — R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin also testified to this, and all the academics in our own time. Even a casual observer, with nothing more than a superficial glance, can see that there was more than one author of the Zohar, and that other authors composed the Ra’ya Mehemna seperately, the Tiqunim separately, the Zohar separately, and the Zohar Hadash separately.
Page 52a: “Behold, even according to his own claim, that in truth Rabbi Yishaq of ‘Akko testified that the book of the Zohar… R. Mosheh invented from his heart — if so, why did he himself give so much credence to this discipline (the Kabbalah), as is known that he was a student of Nahmanides?”
Pg. 35
This response is not relevant to the matter at hand. Nahmanides was a firm believer in the Kabbalah without even knowing of the existence of the book of the Zohar. And what has belief in the authenticity of the Zohar to do with belief in the wisdom of Kabbalah? R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin did not believe in the authenticity of most of the book of the Zohar, and even so he was very diligent in Kabbalah; one does not depend upon the other. You should also know that in that same period R. Yishaq of ‘Akko himself composed a commentary on the Torah according to the Kabbalah (Me’irat ‘Enayim). And perhaps he feared that through a forgery like this (that people would believe there is a commentary on the Torah, according to Kabbalah, from Rishbi), no one would want to look into his own book; and after all his hard work on his commentary, it is no wonder that he longed to clarify the truth of the revelation of the book of the Zohar, and to publicize its forgery, if it was indeed a forgery.
Page 52b: “But the expositions and the interpretations of the Writings (one of the three sections of Scripture, which also includes Torah and Prophets), and who arranged them according to the order of the portions — in truth it is not known to us.”
Now we will quote nearly all of chapter 21 of his book, and the intelligent reader will see, from his own words, the refutation of his arguments (and my words are in parentheses):
“He returned to what he claimed in the beginning, that Rishbi did not compose the book of the Zohar, for it is forbidden to write Oral Torah. And I have already debunked his words above, by what we find also in the Talmud: That even before Ravina and Rav Ashi (he accepts the French version of the letter of Rav Sherira Gaon, that the sages considered it forbidden to write down the Mishnah until the closing of the Talmud, by Ravina and Rav Ashi in the 5th century) they permitted, with the agreement of the sages of their generation, to write, because of ‘it is a time to act for the Lord (IE. we sometimes compromise legality for the greater good),’ etc. We also find, in several places, that they had hidden scrolls, which Rashi explained as writings they hid because it is forbidden to write Oral Torah. If so, it shouldn’t shock anybody if we claim that in the days of Rishbi, and the generation after him, things were written in a book so that they would not be forgotten? And in truth it was a hidden scroll and was not revealed to any man; rather, they were hidden in a cave, as will be explained in coming chapters — until He, may He be blessed, agreed to the revelation of these things, according to the time and the season fit for the repair of the world (“Tiqqun ‘Olam), as the Ari, of blessed memory, said about this. And this too was because of ‘it is a time to act for the Lord,’ as Ravina and Rav Ashi intended when they wrote the entire Talmud. And in truth the holy Zohar was revealed several generations after the time of the Amuraim; so too it was from Heaven that these writings should be revealed in a later time, after the days of Nahmanides. So it is written in the holy Zohar itself, in several places, that it is destined to be revealed at the end of days. For so it was necessary according to the season and the time; and who has stood in the counsel of the Lord and His thought, which is deep and lofty? And hence, his argument is entirely nullified. And in truth, Rishbi did not write these things in a book, and he was not the one who arranged them according to the order of the portions of the Torah as it is before us today. For also in the Idra Rabba it is explained that Rishbi commanded his student, Ribbi Abba, that he should write them, because he knew in his heart that he could hide the lofty things and the awesome secrets in concise and in a discrete way, so that only one who is fit for it would understand them. For in truth the things are sealed and hidden very much. And in truth the book of the Zohar was written several generations after Rishbi” (this is astonishing; he just wrote that Ribbi Abba wrote it according to Rishbi’s instructions) “from what was written and received in his name and from the rest of his colleagues and students who were in his days… And in truth the arrangement of the holy Zohar according to the order of the portions was in the time of the Geonim” (it’s impressive that they succeeded in doing so, even though it was not revealed at all until after the death of the Ramban, as he wrote above, explicitly; and he wrote this even more clearly in chapter 29, as follows: “Rishbi and his colleagues, who composed the holy Zohar and hid them… for the last generation”).
It is no wonder that almost all the arguments of the author of Magen weSinah are illogical, for he himself scorns the intellect, as he wrote (p. 4a): “only what his short intellect attains; if so, the entire Torah depends on this shaky foundation, and it is known that the human intellect is not secure in the truth of a matter, for it changes in quantity and in truth and falsehood.” And he wrote (p. 10a): “for there is no knowledge and attainment in the world that depends on the human intellect which is fit to be called by the name ‘truth.’” And likewise (p. 17a): “to distance a man from human inquiry and from wisdoms other than… the wisdom of the Torah.” If so, since this author does not believe in “the human intellect,” we must ask how knows anything…
Pg. 36
… and on what does he rely? The answer is found on p. 5b: “Our great master (the Vilna Gaon) … there is no wisdom and knowledge in the world which he did not attain to its end; and all who praise themselves and boast in the secular sciences, and the wicked, did not reach his ankles, even like a lapping dog,” etc. He attached so much importance to the Vilna Gaon that even the Ari could not stand against him, as he wrote (p. 37b): “And the main thing is as we have written, that sometimes even the famous kabbalists did not fully understand the depth of the words of the holy Zohar, as is known to us from the words of our great master the Vilna Gaon, of blessed memory, that they did not fully understand the depth of the holy Zohar in this….” And R. Hayim Vital (the main student of the famous kabbalist, the Ari. He lived in the 16th and 17th century and codified his teacher’s kabbalistic insights) too was small beside him, as he wrote (p. 5b): “things which no ear has ever heard, and which were not revealed even by R. Hayim Vital, of blessed memory.” From here it is clear that the author of Magen weSinah relied on the Vilna Gaon with closed eyes and subjugated himself to him entirely. His entire book (since he does not believe in the intellect — evidence is not relevant to anything) is only baseless arguments and a profusion of empty words to calm himself and others that “there are answers.”
The Arguments of the Essay Zohar haRaqia’ and Their Rebuttals
Its author, R. Yeruham Leiner, did not compose it as a response to Ari Nohem; even so, I decided to discuss it here because it deals with the arguments of Ari Nohem that we have not dealt with up to now. This book’s purpose is to provide a basic background to all the parts of the Zohar and their history. On the title page it is written: “Proofs and demonstrations from the Geonim and the Rishonim for the antiquity of the book of the Zohar.” The book is well produced and printed in attractive, large, letters (in contrast to Mitpahat Sefarim), and it is presented as a continuation of the essay “The Antiquity of the Book of the Zohar” (and therefore it begins from p. 111).
Page 121, in a note: “And he quoted the words of Nahmonides in his commentary on the book of Job: ‘…and over a sin you complain… a hint in the word tit-onen (you complain), to Onan, the king and the queen, Judah and Tamar his daughter-in-law; you look forward to his redemption, Boaz who was a redeemer…’ And I found the source of Nahmanides’ words — in Zohar Hadash, portion of Tese, in the Hidden Midrash (Warsaw printing, 59a): ‘And further we have learned from Onan,’ etc.; and another proof: a child was born to Naomi — and was he born to Naomi? Was it not Ruth who bore him?” etc.
On the contrary — from here we have proof that Zohar Hadash was composed after Nahmanides, for it copied from his words in his commentary on Job. And to say that in the days of Nahmanides, the Zohar Hadash was already known — this would be an enormous novelty, and we will discuss this further in our critique of the essay “The Antiquity of the Book of the Zohar.”
Page 123: He quoted Maimonides, in the introduction to his Codex of Jewish Law, that the prohibition of writing Oral Torah only applies if it’s for teaching in public, but not for an individual; and therefore, it was permitted for Ribbi Abba, or for Rishbi, to write the Zohar.
His inference from Maimonides is correct — but it will not help him. For there the subject is specifically the revealed Torah, and here, we are discussing esoterica; and regarding esoterica, Maimonides wrote in the Guide for the Perplexed (introduction to part three) that the esoterica of the Torah were never written in a book. And if we say that it was permitted to write the revealed Torah in hidden scrolls — how can we assume that this also applies to its secrets? Did not R. Moshe Hayim Luzzatto (18th century moralist and kabbalist) also write (in his writing on the Aggadot of the Sages): “For regarding the explanation of the commandments and the laws, there is no harm at all if they are written in explanatory books that are available to all. But the esoterica are not fit to be delivered thus before anyone who wishes to delve into them…”.
Page 125: he cited the objection raised by some that it is not reasonable that the Sages would write secrets in Aramaic, for it is more honorable to write them in the Holy Tongue; and he brought evidence that one may teach in whatever language he wishes, from the words of Rav Sherira Gaon in his letter, and he called him “a faithful witness.”
Pg. 37
He does not address the main argument at all. It is simply easier for him to respond to the low hanging fruit than the main difficulty. And the main difficulty of Ari Nohem is: How would they write the secrets of the Torah in a language that everyone speaks — even Gentiles, women, and children? They should have written in the Holy Tongue, which only disciples of the sages understand. Therefore, his answer is not an answer. Furthermore, if this author admits that Rav Sherira Gaon is a “faithful witness” for him, let us cite other things that he wrote in that same letter: “And there was not one of the early ones who wrote anything, until the end of the days of our Holy Teacher (Judah the Prince, died around 217 CE)” (French version: “and until the end of the days of the rabbis, there is no one who wrote anything at all”). If Rav Sherira Gaon was faithful — then R. Leiner was not faithful.
Page 124: he solved the difficulty of the mention of Amuraim in the Zohar with the claim that “the books of the Zohar were arranged by the students of his students, who were Amuraim.”
This answer is very nice — but it does not explain to us how Rishbi himself is described there as sitting with, and speaking with, the Amuraim, as R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin and HaWikuah (which we shall discuss later) clearly stated in their objection.
Page 130: he cited the objection that the cantillation marks and the vocalizations are late; and according to his version of this objection, he cited the following ancient sources:
Nedarim 37b, “and they understood the Scripture — this is the punctuation of the accents”; and the Ran and the Rosh explained it as the vocalization (vowels) of the accents, as it says in the first chapter of Ḥagigah (6b), “the difference is for the punctuation of the accent”; and Rashi explained, “to punctuate the accents with the melodies… with an etnaḥta… or with a zaqef qatan (these are the names of two of the traditional cantillation marks)….”
Bamidbar Rabbah and Avoth deRibbi Nathan 34: “when Ezra wrote the Torah, he made points.”
Sifrei on Beha’alotekha, paragraph 69, enumerates the pointed words in the Torah.
Qohelet Rabbah 7:1: “Rav Osh’aya taught: Even a single point.”
If you have read R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin’s argument, you would know that he did not think the ancient Sages had no tradition of the chanting of the Torah and no tradition of the vowels — only that they were not written, and that the cantillation marks and the vocalizations were not known by their names. And this is very clear from R. ‘Emdin’s words; look there again. Therefore, what he quoted from tractate Nedarim is irrelevant to R. ‘Emdin’s objection or to that of Ha-Wikuah.
As for what he cited from Bemidbar Rabbah, Avoth deRabbi Natan, and Sifrei, it is not possible, in any of these, to explain that the intent is the vowel points (for if so, what sense is there in counting all the pointed words in the Torah? Are they not all pointed?). And it is obvious that the intent in all of these is the letters that are dotted above them, such as “for us and for our children,” “and he kissed him.” As for the quote from Qohelet Rabbah, we will explain it later among the arguments of the book HaWikuah.
Page 133: he claimed that the very fact that the book of the Zohar contradicts the words of the Talmud is evidence of its antiquity, for if not, he wouldn’t dare do so.
This claim of his is built on a conclusion he fixed for himself — that one of the Sages composed it and conducted himself according to the rules customary among them. But for one who maintains that it is a forgery, the matter is easily understood: Its author pretended to be one of the Sages and permitted himself to disagree with them.
Page 134: He discussed the question why the Zohar is not mentioned in the Talmud. He wrote that this is “an argument of fraud,” for they were sternly warned to hide the Work of Creation and the Work of the Chariot (esoterica). And Rashi explained that “they are baraitot (similar to the Mishnah but with less authority).”
This is an answer of fraud. Was Sefer Yesirah not mentioned in the Talmud, and the Work of Creation and the Work of the Chariot? And why did they refrain from mentioning the Book of the Zohar, without revealing its secrets, as they did with the compositions just named? Today, there are collections of stories, collected from the Zohar, that women and children read, and no one interprets them according to their literal meaning…
Pg. 38
… as esoterica. Bearing this in mind, why do we not find, in the words of the Sages, any deed or law from the book of the Zohar that is not (according to its plain sense) esoterica? What evidence does he have that the very mention of the name of a book that contains secrets is considered “revealing secrets”? If this were the case, why was it permitted for them to mention “the Work of Creation” and “the Work of the Chariot” and Sefer Yesirah?
All the rest of his book, on this subject, is dedicated to convincing us that the Geonim and the Rishonim used the Zohar as a source — even though “they completely refrained from mentioning explicitly” (p. 139). And below (in our critique of the essay “The Antiquity of the Book of the Zohar”) we will discuss this further. And in any case, it appears that he has concealed from us the fact that the Geonim and the Rambam (whom many claim drew from the Zohar). In most cases, their rulings were contrary to the views of the Zohar and the kabbalists, as is well known, except to him and to the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In any event, according to his own words, he is forced to admit that the letter (“The Scroll of Secrets”) which they claim Maimonides wrote when he discovered the Kabbalah at the end of his life — is a forgery. For according to him, Maimonides was familiar with the Kabbalah for most of his life.
The Arguments of the book Arzei Levanon
Its author was R. Isaac Ber Levinsohn of Kremenets, and he was a Hebrew grammarian. At the end of his grammar book is an essay on the origin of the book of the Zohar. In a sense, it would have been proper to copy all his words on this subject, for he wrote it concisely and with understanding; but for the sake of my own brevity, I have copied only his arguments which I did not find in other places, and which I consider especially forceful. And they are these:
Page 242: “The author said, I thought it would be proper to show here, for the benefit of the reader, many examples from the language of the Zohar, to support what we’ve been saying (that it’s a very late origin); but I have refrained, for this subject would grow long. And inspiration will come, God willing… And in any event, I will present here one example: In the Zohar Aharei (65b), ‘Moses knew the esoteric secret… and Ithdabeq what the rest of the world did not ithdabequ.” The intent is that he comprehended what others did not comprehend — and every reader knows that this use of the word (Ithdabeq) “hasagah” came about among later authors, in the fields of ethics and spirituality. For example: A person attained in his intellect a fine matter in some wisdom, and his attainment is higher and greater than his fellow’s,etc. And this is taken from the Hebrew root nasag, which is borrowed from the word for ‘reaching’ a place and a situation, as is known. And because the Aramaic translation of nasag is dabaq, we translate ‘and he overtook him,’ we-adbqinnun, and so we also find in Scripture the root dabaq in the sense of reaching a place, exactly like the root nasag, ‘and he pursued him and clung to him at Mount Gilead,’ etc. The author of the book of the Zohar took the root dabaq in the later Aramaic sense of hasagah, and this use of the word does not exist in the Talmuds and the midrashim in this sense. They used different words, for example: ‘it rose (‘aletha) into his hand,’ ‘it was revealed (nithgaleh) to R. so-and-so what was not revealed to Moses,’ ‘a maidservant saw (raatha) on the sea…’ etc.”
Page 244: “But it seems to me that he did this (forged the Zohar), without doubt, for another reason, and out of great necessity, in the spirit of ‘it is a time to act for the Lord.’ For it is known that in the time of Nahmanides and those who followed him, in the time of his students, the Rishba (R. Shelomoh ben Avraham ibn Adret of Barcelona 1235–1310), many men arose and allowed themselves to be influenced by foreign studies, in the philosophy of the Aristotelians, and as is known from the excommunications that were then decreed. This sage, R. Moses de Leon, feared lest the foundations of the religion fall by their hands entirely. Then he rose and clothed himself in zeal and composed the book of the Zohar, a book that is founded upon the ancient philosophy (collected and founded upon the books of Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates, and the Greek sages whose view was close to the view of the sages of Israel, as the Zohar wrote explicitly, Exodus 237a, ‘which has no defect, that is the kingdom of Greece,’ that they are close to the faithful path, and R. Moses Ricanati (R. Menahem Recanati late 13th–early 14th century, Italy), explained that this refers to the philosophers we mentioned)… And diligently look this up in the Zohar, portion Tese, in the words of the Ra’ya Mehemna, there are 408 demons, and alligned against them, the philosophers of Israel,” etc.
Pg. 39
The casual reader might conclude that I’m not being even-handed – since I do not include refutations against those who argue that the Zohar is a forgery; my only refutations are against those who claim its authenticity. The reason I do not include such refutations is very simple: There are none. Religious Jews are taught that they are not allowed to question the authenticity, or authority, of the Zohar; any such questioning is considered “heresy.” Hence, very little effort was spent, by the rabbis, in defense of the Zohar. “Faith” was all they needed. In the rare instances when somebody did question it, the rabbis would use the “Thick Book” method, pointing to one of the books I have critiqued and claiming that “the matter has been dealt with.”
Believers in the Zohar are spiritual cousins to certain political “progressives;” they seem to believe that if they repeat the same lies over and over again, eventually, they become “true.”
The Arguments of the Book HaWikuah
The author of HaWikuah is R. Shemuel David Luzzatto. He, apparently, identified as a “maskil” (a modern intellectual); even so, he was a great scholar who honored the rabbis, a grammarian, and he used all his strength to encourage the observance of the commandments. He wrote his book on two subjects, like Ari Nohem: To oppose the Kabbalah, and to prove the late date of the composition of the book of the Zohar. In my opinion he succeeded, in the last matter, more than all the other authors; and there is in his words enough and more than enough to prove this matter to the point where only the most stubborn would not be convinced after reading his book. There are many stubborn people.
A majority of his effort was to prove that the vocalizations and the cantillation marks did not exist in the days of the Sages at all; and to this end, he poured a lot of ink. This is important because the Zohar refers to these marks many times by name. The suggestion that all these references are “late additions” would be absurd. I will quote the headings of his chapters, and then my own commentary.
These are his sources on the subject of the late origin of the vocalizations and the cantillation marks (the written ones):
(a) Ibn Ezra in his book Sahoth: “from the sages of Tiberias (the Masoretes, who thrived from the 8th to the 10th centuries) we received all the vocalizations.”
(b) R. Eliyahu Bahur, Masoret ha-Masoret, introduction 3, proved that the vocalizations did not exist and were not invented until after the close of the Talmud. (He reviewed all the writings of the Sages and did not find any mention of a vocalization or cantillation.)
(c) The gentile, Hieronymus (who lived in the time of Rav Ashi), who translated and interpreted Scripture into Latin, never mentioned in any of his many books, neither vocalizations nor cantillation marks.
(d) At least in two places the Sages would have needed to mention the vocalizations (if they had had it). 1) Why did they not inform us that a vocalized Torah scroll is unfit? 2) In the matter of writing on the Sabbath, how did it not occur to the mind of even one of them to ask (when discussing the minimum two letters required to violate the prohibition of writing on Sabbath), “two letters with their vocalizations, or perhaps even without their vocalizations? And if you conclude that he’s culpable even without the vocalizations, what if he writes two vocalizations, one next to the other, what is his status? Do we consider it to be one sere (a vocalization written with two points side by side) so that he is exempt, or perhaps it is two hiraqs (each hiraq is only one point, so that it would qualify as two symbols) and he is culpable? After all, don’t we find many such far-fetched questions in the Talmud? Regarding the cantillation marks, there are thousands of places where they should have mentioned them, in order to derive from them the interpretations of the verses.
(e) The masters of the masorah were after the Talmud. 1) Hovot ha-Levavoth, introduction, “I have studied the books of the ancients who were after the men of the Talmud… in the book of R. Yonah ibn Janah and the masters of the masorah.” 2) The Ibn ‘Ezra, at the beginning of his book Me’oznayim, “and after that (after the men of the Talmud) there arose… the men of the masorah.” 3) It appears from the Rambam, laws of Torah scrolls chapter 8: “and so the masters of the masorah (whose version of the Torah we depend upon) are according to the corrections of ben Asher (who was a great master of the Masorah)”
(f) The “masorah”, which is mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud, refers to whether words of Scripture are written in their full form or abridged form (with or without auxiliary letters that can indicate a vowel). So wrote the Rosh (R. Asher ben Yehiel c. 1250–1327) and the Tosafoth, Nedarim 37b.
(g) The writing of the cantillation marks is a late innovation — Qiddushin 30a: “We are not expert in the verses either. For when Rav Aha bar Adda came, he said: In the West they divide this verse into three verses — ‘And the Lord said to Moses, Behold I come to you in the thickness of the cloud…’” And do not object by saying, “behold, they were even unsure about full forms and abridged forms of spelling, and this is in the written text; if so, why should they not have doubts about vocalizations and cantillation marks?” This is not so, for full form and abridged form spelling is a very difficult matter, that all the scribes spent a lot of effort to get right. And the fact is that even in this exile, there arose disputes about this, between the various communities. However, from the time the masorah was founded, we do not find any dispute about the division of the verses. And how, if in the past thousand and four hundred years there has been no such dispute, then among the Sages (who were far more expert and precise) would there be doubts from the time of Ezra until the sages of the Talmud, that this period was much shorter? (These doubts could only have arisen in the absence of written cantillation marks).
Pg. 40
(8) Menahot 29b (or Yoma 52b. Needs clarification): “Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at every time into the Holy Place, from within the veil, before the cover that is on the Ark, so that he does not die.” Rabban Gamliel reads “into the Holy Place” without “he shall come,” and “from within the veil… before the cover” without “he shall die,” which is the sense of the cantillation we have today. If they had a written masoretic tradition, how did a dispute like this begin?
(9) Yoma 52b (Mekhiletha of Rishbi on Shelah 17): Five verses in the Torah whose parsing is in doubt —se’et — “shall be lifted” / “sin offering” (Genesis 4:7)
meshukkadim — “almond-shaped” (Exodus 25:34)
maḥar — “tomorrow” (Exodus 17:9)
arur — “cursed” (Genesis 49:7)
we-qam — “and he will arise” (Deuteronomy 31:16)
And in Bereshith Rabbah (portion 80) R. Tanhuma adds one more:
“…and the sons of Jacob came from the field when they heard” (Genesis 34:7).
Since the days of the Geonim, we have not had such disputes. And do not object from the dispute of “the Halleluyah” (Pesahim 117a) and “kasiah” and “yiddidah” and “u-merḥavyah,” whether they are one word or two words, because this depends on the written text; if so, the books were also faulty — this is not a valid objection, for the joining of a word to its fellow, or its distance from it, is a thing that a man might err in. And further, this objection actually includes our own objection (that is, if you raise this objection, we’ll agree – and it only strengthens our own objection), for in the masorah every word has a cantillation mark, and if some men sometimes erred in distancing a letter from its fellow, that is possible; but to claim that they also did not see if there is a cantillation mark on every instance of the word “Yah” or not — and in all the Psalms?! That is not possible.
(10) Avodah Zarah 18a: Ribbi Hanina ben Teradyon was punished by die by burning, because he would pronounce the Name by its letters. And according to the explanation of Tosafoth (and the rest of the commentators, except for Rishbi), the intent was that he would read the Name with four letters, as it is written, in order to teach students; and if there was then vocalizations, he certainly would have spared himself from this offense, and would have said to them “Yod with a shawa, the letter Heh with a holem” etc.
(11) Hieronymus also wrote that he feared to translate the book of Chronicles, lest he err in the many names in it. He already knew the Holy Tongue and did not approach this work until he read it from its beginning to its end with a Jewish sage from among the sages of Tiberias (this letter is found in the book “the Biblia” in the introduction to the translation of Chronicles). (This man was “a Gentile Messiah according to his purity” the copyist.)
(12) The author of Me’or ‘Enayim (chapter 59) cited “evidence” for the antiquity of the vocalizations from the words of Hieronymus, and his proof is no proof, for it is based on a corrupted translation. On the contrary, his words are decisive proof that in the days of Rav Ashi there was no vocalization. Here is the original text of what he wrote:
VOCABULIS IN MEDIO LITTERIS PERRARO UTUNTUR HEBRAEI ET PRO VOLUNTATE LECTORUM ET VARIETATE REGIONUM EADEM VERBA DIVERSIS SONIS ATQUE ACCENTIBUS PROFERUNTUR
Translation: “The Hebrews almost never write extra letters (vowels) in the middle of words. As a result, the same words are spoken with different sounds and stresses, depending on the reader’s preference and the region they come from..”
(13) Qiddushin 54b: “Who reads it Qodesh?’ ‘Qadosh’ is how we read it.” They did not say who WRITES it ‘Qodesh’, or who VOCALIZES it ‘Qodesh’. Similarly, in Yevamoth 75b, “Rabbah said, we read it ‘Pasua’ (a shawa with the letter Peh), and we do not read it posua’ (a Qomes with the letter Peh).” He did not say, “As it is written Pasua’,” and similarly in many places.
(14) ‘Avodah Zarah 29b: “He said to him, Ishmael my brother, how do you read: ‘Ki tovim dodekha (for your breasts are good – Song of Songs 1:2),’ or ‘Ki tovim dodayikh’?” And he did not say to him, “how is it written,” or “how is it vocalized?” Aside from the fact that had their books been vocalized, there would be no possibility of such a question. If you object that they forgot or that some of the vocalizations were rendered difficult to read, they would not have had to discuss it from logical deduction; they would have counted the books and gone after the majority (as it is in tractate Soferim, chapter 6).
Pg. 41
15) Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah on the Tore Zahav: “We will make you circlets of gold, with points of silver” (Song of Songs 1:11): “With points of silver” — Ribbi Abba bar Kahana said, “these are the letters”. Ribbi Aha said: “these are the words”. That is, “we shall make you ornaments of gold” — this is the written text; “with points of silver” — this is the (Aramaic) translation. And how did it not occur to anyone to expound the “points of silver” as the vocalizations? And on the verse “and his banner over me is love” (Song of Songs 2:4), the author of Mattenoth Kehunah wrote in his commentary that their books were not vocalized. And this what he wrote: “For their books were not vocalized, and we know this from Joab’s master and how he misinterpreted the words “Zekher ‘Amaleq” (reading it, instead, as “Zakhar ‘Amaleq, the only difference being in the vocalization, which was clearly not written; “Zekher” would mean, “the memory of…” and “Zakhar” would mean, “the males of”); and in old books the name “Moshe” was written with and extra letter Waw to indicate the vowel O, and Aharon was written similarly with an extra letter Waw. However, they did not add an extra Waw to the name “‘Ephron (because unvocalized manuscripts can be inconsistent with vowel letters).”
These are the sources that can be mistaken as evidence that vocalization did exist in the days of the Talmud, and their explanation:
(a) Hagigah 6b: “How is this verse written? ‘And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen to the Lord (Exodus 24:5).’ What is the difference? To punctuate the accents.” On the contrary: from here, that the cantillations were not written; and this comes to strengthen the correct reading of the verse, which is Oral Torah here.
Explanation from Grok:
The last word is parim (“oxen / bulls”). The question is what it belongs to.
- Only the peace-offerings were bulls:
they offered burnt-offerings, and they sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen. - Both were bulls:
they offered burnt-offerings of oxen, and they sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen.
That is a pause-problem. A written atnaha or similar mark would fix whether parim reaches back over both clauses or only the last one. The Gemara (Ḥagigah 6b) says the difference is le-fasuq ṭa’amei — “to punctuate the accents,” i.e. to fix that parsing.
(b) Megillah 32a: one who reads (scripture) without chanting according to the cantillations, of him Scripture says, “And I also gave them statutes that were not good.” This is to encourage the preservation of part of the Oral Torah, which is the chanting of the verses.
(c) Tractate Soferim, chapter 3, halakhah 7: A (Torah) scroll whose verses they divided and vocalized. That is to say, they would make a mark at the beginning of the verses. And this, in itself, is proof that they did not have vocalization and cantillation marks; for if this were not so, why did they not mention that as well?
(d) Yerushlami, beginning of Qiddushin, and in Shevi’it it is written, and Ribbi Yehoshua’ explained in Benveniste (R. Yehoshua’ Raphael ben Yisrael Benveniste 17th century Constantinople): “and in the Shevi’it (the seventh year) it is written with a patah, and not in Shevi’it with a hireq; and if so, that is Shevi’it of sale.” And behold, they say “written” and they did not say “we read.” Hence, it seems to imply that their books were vocalized. If the explanation of the commentator is correct, we shall say they were simply not precise in their language, and they said, “we write” instead of “we read.” However, it is certainly more reasonable to say that the Talmud was not referring to the letter Heh as a definite article, but upon the waw that joins the end of the verse with its beginning.
Here is Grok’s explanation:
Exodus 21:2: u-va-shevi’it yese la-hofshi hinam — “and in the seventh he shall go out free.”
Two readings of ובשביעית:
- u-va-shevi’it (pataḥ under the shin) — the seventh year of this sale
- u-vi-shevi’it (ḥireq) — the Sabbatical year of the calendar
The Yerushlami (start of Qiddushin, and the parallel in Shevi’it) says: u-va-shevi’it ketiv — “it is written u-va-shevi’it.” Benveniste takes that as: written with a patah, not a hireq, therefore it is the seventh of the sale, not shemitah of the world.
(e) Zevahim 64b: “Is it written yimseh? Yimseh is written.” Since in most places they used the language “we read” (qarinan), we must say that here they were not being precise — just as they said in Berakhot 54a: “One who comes upon his mother should look forward to understanding (binah), as it is said, ‘For if (ki im) you call to understanding.’” They ought to have said, “Do not read ki im but ki em” (“em” meaning “mother”) — they were not always precise in their terminology.
(f) Shemoth Rabbah 2:6: “And he said, Moses, Moses”; you find in Abraham, Abraham there is a break in it; Jacob, Jacob there is a break in it; Samuel, Samuel there is a break in it; but Moses, Moses — there is no break in it. And so Midrash Qohelet, “a good name is better than good oil,” and this is also in Midrash Shemuel, portion 23. And it is cited in Yalquth Qohelet, hint 973, this is what it says: (the names of the tribes are engraved on Aaron’s heart), “If they were missing even one letter; they would not bring atonement.” Ribbi Hosh’iyah taught, ‘even if it was missing one dot.’ The word “break,” which is in Shemoth Rabbah, might be referring to an oral pause, that one must pause with the voice and not in writing; that is to say, that it was received among them in the Oral Torah that one must pause between Abraham and Abraham, etc., but not between Moses and Moses. And regarding the “one dot,” mentioned in Midrash Qohelet, it is possible that the intent in it is the dots that, together, constitute the letter, such as the three heads of the shin. And so, they expounded in Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah, “points of silver,” these are the letters, for even if we accept the antiquity of the vocalizations, we have not yet seen anybody who claims that the names of the tribes that are engraved in the stones of the ephod were vocalized (this is why I translated the word “niqud” here as “dot” even though I translated it elsewhere as “vocalization”). Another answer: not all the midrashim are as ancient as the Talmud (especially this passage, which from a midrash that is well-known to be late, and it is an anonymous saying — indicating that it is an addition of an editor).
Pg. 42
A Few of My Own Conjectures on This Matter
(a) If the vocalizations were Torah to Moses from Sinai, and accepted among the people of Israel from the days of the Tannaim and the prophets, if so, how did several different systems of vocalization arise — that of the Land of Israel, Tiberian, and Babylonian?
(b) In many places we find “do not read thus, but thus,” and the sole difference between the two forms is in the vocalization. The one who says it to his fellow verbally does not need to explain which difference there is in the vocalization because it can be clearly heard — but the copyist would have had to explain it because readers cannot hear the difference from the text. Here are some examples where the ancient sages make plays on the words of Scripture where the difference is not detectable from the script; had the vocalizations existed in their time, they would certainly have referred to them in these cases:
(1) Berakhot 32b (and also Pesiqta de-Rav Kahana, and Zion Said, Isaiah 49:14), “Can a woman forget her nursing child, and have no compassion on the son of her womb?” Ribbi Abbahu says, “‘Can a woman forget a burnt-offering?’ — You have forgotten those offerings that we used to bring before You.” (The only difference is the vowels: ulah / olah, which is not reflected in the written scripture).
(2) Berakhot 48b: “And He will bless (u-verakh) your bread and your water; do not read u-verakh but u-varekh.”
(Exodus 23:25. Same letters, וברך: u-verakh = “and He will bless”; u-varekh = “and bless.”)
(3) Rosh Hashanah 2b: “Do not read we-yir’u but we-yera’u.”
(Same letters, ויראו: we-yir’u = “and they shall see / fear”; we-yera’u = “and they shall appear.”)
(4) Tanhuma, Masse’ei 9: “Do not let it be read midbar but medabber.”
(מדבר: midbar = “wilderness”; medabber = “speaking.”)
(5) Pesiqta Rabbati, I shall comfort you: “And a shoot shall come forth (we-yasa) from the stock of Jesse.” He does not say “but we-yasa.” See Radak.
(Isaiah 11:1. The midrash never states the other pointing.)
(6) Eikhah Rabbah, opening 4: “And He said to him eikhah; eikhah is written.”
(איכה: eikhah = “how!”; ayekkah = “where are you?”)
(7) Sifrei, Ha’azinu 318: “Do not read we-yinabel but we-yinbal.”
(וינבל: we-yinabel = “and he treated as vile”; we-yinbal = “and he became a fool.”)
(8) Ibid. on “And this is the blessing”: “Do not read lo nes lehoh but lo nes leḥah.”
(Same letters; only the vowels change the sense.)
(9) Avot de-Rabbi Natan 2: “Do not read harut but herut.”
(Exodus 32:16, חרות: harut = “engraved”; herut = “freedom.”)
(10) Midrash Tehillim 24: “I will exalt You (aromimkha), my God, the King.” He does not say “but I will divide what is Yours (ahaleq shelakh); I will divide my foes, and my enemies are mine — why.”
(The alternative reading is never spelled out as a pointed pair.)
Conversely, when there is a difference between two versions in the letter of the written text, even though there is no need to explain (since the difference is both heard and read), we sometimes find them explaining anyway; ‘Eruvin 53a: “Ribbi Yohanan said: I grew up for 18 years with Ribbi Osh’iya the son of Ribbi, and I learned from him only one thing in our Mishnah: how they extend the cities — with an alef.” The difference between the two versions is that one is said with the letter Aleph, while the other is said with the letter ‘Ayin – and the letter difference is specified.
(c) Tractate Soferim 7:1, “These are written with the letter Waw, and they are read without the letter Waw: Waya’alu, ameru etc.”etc. And there, halakhah 2, “These are written with the letter heh and they are not read (with the letter heh): We’ere, wa’avi etc.” — it would have been more accurate to say, “and they are read with a Shureq or with a holem,” or “and they read them without a qames,” because these are the actual vowels that they were referring to – but clearly, they did not have the terminology to do so, since it hadn’t been invented yet.
(d) If a vocalization or a cantillation were to be found in a midrash — it would not constitute evidence of the antiquity of the vocalization or the cantillation marks, for many midrashim are of late origin. But if even the later midrashim have no mention of them — it does present a measure of proof that the vocalizations and cantillation marks are not ancient. And even though at the time the later midrashim were composed, vocalizations already existed, their editors perpetuated the habits and style of the Sages in most cases, and most of their sayings too, they took from more ancient sources.
Pg. 43
(e) It is reasonable that the full spelling (liberal use of the letters Waw and Yod to indicate vowels) that was customary in the days of the Geonim (to which Mattenoth Kehunah alluded above) sprang from the lack of vocalization at a time when the Holy Tongue had ceased to be a spoken language — and one may ask why Israelis, in our own time, are accustomed to write this way, even though we have vocalization — this is due to the influence of European languages.
Additional arguments of the author of HaWikuah
(a) The Minhath Yehudah, in the introduction, admits that the book of the Zohar was not known in the days of the Geonim, Rashi, the Ra’avad, Maimonides, Nahmanides, and the Rosh (remember this when we discuss the essay “Qadmuth Sefer ha Zohar”).
(b) “Animal soul,” (Zohar 1 79b) (a term that belongs to the Middle Ages).
(c) “The desirous soul,” (Zohar 1 109b) (as above).
(d) Use of the term “Hasagah” to denote “comprehension.” (Zohar 1 126a (as above; and see above, my comments on the book Arzei Levanon).
(e) “Petuhei Ḥotam,” Tikkunim 4b (as above, this is a mnemonic used by yeshiva students in Medieval times; and see R. Ya’aqov ‘Emdin’s comments on this, chapter 43).
(6) “Rishbi said in the name of Ribbi Yosi in the name of Rav…” (Zohar 1 126b). Rishbi would not say something in the name of Ribbi Yosi, who was his colleague, and Ribbi Yosi would not say something in the name of Rav, who was a student of his student. And so “Ribbi Yosi said… and this is what R. Hizqiyah said in the name of Ribbi Ḥiyya (Zohar 1, 91b). And Ribbi Yosi was one of the teachers of Ribbi, and Ribbi was the teacher of Ribbi Hiyya, who was the father of Hizqiyah. And Ribbi Yosi cites evidence from the words of one who had not yet been born, and who was a student of the student of his student. And so “Ribbi El’azar said to Ribbi Yisa” (Zohar 1, 87a). And in the Yerushlami of Kil’ayim, Ribbi Yisa fasted 80 days to acquire a vision of Ribbi Ḥiyya Rabbah, of blessed memory, after his death; and if so, he did not see him in his days. And Ribbi Hiyya was a student of Rabbenu ha-Qadosh (Ribbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, late 2nd–early 3rd century), who was a colleague of Ribbi El’azar. And if Ribbi Yisa did not see Ribbi Hiyya — how did he speak with Ribbi El’azar, who died before Rabbenu ha-Qadosh?
(7) “This is Ribbi Hamnuna Saba, who came to us from that world” (Zohar 1, 7a). This implies that Ribbi Hamnuna Saba passed away before Ribbi El’azar son of Rishbi. And in the Talmud (Gittin 26b) “Ribbi Hamnuna Saba said, Ada bar Ahavah said, Rav said,” that Ribbi Hamnuna Saba was a student of Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who was born on the day Ribbi died, and Ribbi was seeking to marry the widow of Ribbi El’azar. How is it possible to say that Ribbi Hamnuna Saba preceded Ribbi El’azar in death? And do not answer that this Ribbi Hamnuna Saba is another. Firstly, there is no other, by this name, mentioned at all in the entire Talmud. Further, if there were two, how would they refer to the younger one as “Saba (“The Elder”)?” at least they would call the first “the elder” (as they did for Rabban Gamliel the Elder), so as not to cause confusion. Also, the sages of the Land of Israel were called “Ribbi,” and not “Rav,” and Rav Hamnuna Saba was in Babylon. And in the Idra we find that Ribbi Hizqiyah bar Rav was with Rishbi.
(8) Our Sages said (Sanhedrin 97b): “Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the ends (end of the world).” However, the author of the book of the Zohar fixed nine different ends, and they have all already passed (I 117b, I 119a, I 139b, II 17a, II 227a, III 252[?], Zohar Ḥadash I 48b, Zohar Ḥadash II 60a, Tikkunim 4b). And not one of them fell between the time of Rishbi and the year 1240 CE; they are all from the year 1240 CE onward. We find that the Talmudic Sages hoped for redemption very close to their own time!
Pg. 44
(9) On the story of R. Yisḥaq of Acco (about how R. Moses De Leon forged the Zohar) he wrote, “This story is found only in the book of Yuhasin (by R. Avraham Zucato, 15th century Spain), first printing (Constantinople 1566)… and the first printer as well, who is Shemuel Shulam, wrote a note beside it with accusations against whoever slandered the book of the Zohar as a forgery. If so, this first printer was not at ease with that story. If he was not confident that the story was actually from the book of Yuhasin, and had he had any doubt that that story was an addition to the book of Yuḥasin, then he would certainly have not printed it. Rather, he would have omitted it as those who came after him did. The author of Yuhasin was a great sage, and not a fool who believed everything; therefore, he certainly found it in a reliable source.”
(10) “For in truth it is not the language of Onqelos and Yonathan, nor the language of the Jerusalem translations, nor the language of the Babylonian Talmud, nor the language of the Yerushlami Talmud, nor the language of the midrashim, nor the language of the Geonim, nor the language of the commentators, nor the language of the Medieval authorities, nor the language of the philosophers — but a defective language, mixed from all the aforementioned languages. It is the language of default that flows from the lips of anyone who wants to write in the language of the Talmud and has not occupied himself with it enough. I actually know a man who learned a little bit of the Talmud and when he wants to write in the language of the Talmud, all that his hand produces is the language of the Zohar.”
(11) “‘And the heavens, le-asga’ah the lower heavens’ (Zohar I 39b)” — le-asga’ah is meant as “to increase / add.” It is corrupt language. Our Rabbis did not say le-asga’ah; they said le-rabbuyei or le-atosfei (“to increase” / “to add”).
(12) “‘When they take (de-nasvei) a remedy (aswata)’ (Zohar I 40a).” Drinking a medicine is not called “taking” in the language of the Sages, only in a foreign tongue and in the language of later writers.
(13) “‘From here olifna’ (Zohar I 49a)” — “from here I have learned.” That is a hif’il (causative) form. He should have said mehakha yalfinan (“from here we learn”).
(14) “‘And if not, he shall not yavit (sleep) with her’ (ibid.).” The intent is intercourse. But the root bat does not mean lying with a woman, only lodging in general. So too malon (“inn”) is rendered in the Aramaic translation as mabata.
(15) “‘And they become pregnant mi-telath banin’ (Zohar I 73a)” — “pregnant from three sons.” He should have said be-telath banin (“pregnant with three sons”), as they said (Sotah 46b) “that their mother became pregnant with them,” and so (Bemidbar Rabbah 3) “how heavy was their mother, pregnant with her.” The mem after “pregnant” goes back to the one who impregnates, not to the child born, as they said (Bemidbar Rabbah 9) “from you I am pregnant.”
(16) “‘For the dead know in the world to come mi-yeqara (from the glory) of the righteous and from the lower world’ (Zohar I 81b)” — “they know from the glory…” This mem too is a corruption. It is only in the manner of a foreign tongue. In the Holy Tongue and in Aramaic one says, “he knows in it,” not “he knows from it.”
(17) Wherever one finds “thirteen mekhilin of mercy” — “thirteen measures of mercy” — it is a complete corruption. Mekhilin is from “and all in a third”; it is the translation of “measure” in its first sense: a vessel to measure with. The word “measure” also has a transferred sense in the language of the Sages, as in “that is the measure of Sodom,” and then it does not mean a measuring-vessel. In that transferred sense they never said mekhilta. The translation of that word is orah (“way / custom”), as in “this one according to his orah and the other one according to his orah.” They never said, “this one according to his mekhilta and the other one according to his mekhilta.”
(18) “‘He uzfuha Ribbi Abba three miles’ (Zohar I 96b).” The intent is that he escorted him three miles. But uzfuha means lending money, not an escort.
Pg. 45
(19) There was a story in Spain in the year 1242: A Jew, in the city of Toledo, while digging in a mountain, allegedly found a book inside of a boulder written in three languages… according to the book, the son of God would be born of the virgin Mary… and that that book was destined to be revealed when Ferdinand would reign in the kingdom of Castile….” It is very plausible that the author of the Zohar was inspired by this story. The aforementioned story is found in the Latin book Proofs of Faith Against the Jews, year 1494, and it is also mentioned in the book Diotamundo, book 2, chapter 27.
Arguments of the Book Addereth Eliyahu and Their Rebuttals
Addereth Eliyahu was composed to counter the claims of Ha-Wikuah, and it was written by R. Shelomo ben Eliyahu Nissim (19th century Italy). And these are the main points of his counter-claims, according to the order of his book:
Page 18. On the testimony of the wife of R. Moshe de Leon, quoted in Yuhasin, he wrote “that they included it in the book by deceit, so that (it was inserted into) the first printing of the book Yuhasin. The story was invented out of thin air.”
To this reply we have already answered, in our words on Magen we-Sinah. So long as he does not cite evidence, or at least a grounded conjecture, that the passage is forged, this does not rise to the category of a reply at all, but only complaints.
Page 20. He grudgingly admitted that the Zohar includes “later additions,” and wrote, “And since it has been established that innovations of the later generations were added to it…”
Page 21. He claimed prophecy for the author of the Zohar, by citing a passage that reveals future things. Here is what that passage says, (Zohar I 117a): “In the six hundredth year of the sixth [thousand] (this is the year 1840AD) the gates of wisdom above will be opened and the springs of wisdom below.” And he wrote on this “that it has been fulfilled, wonder of wonders, in our days, in many exalted new sciences that astonish every heart.”
“Wisdom,” unspecified, in the words of our Rabbis, is the wisdom of the Torah (thus, almost all the commentators explained, for example, the words of the book of Proverbs). And even the colleague of this author, the author of Ta’am le-Shad, wrote (p. 114): “the name ‘wisdom,’ unspecified, is refers to it (to Kabbalah).” And precisely in the generations in question, there occurred an enormous decline in the true wisdom, which is the wisdom of the Torah. Behold, the intent of the author of the Zohar here is precisely the wisdom of the Torah, and his words refer to the coming of redemption through an increase in the wisdom of the Torah. Here is the second part of that same passage, which Addereth Eliyahu omitted: “And the world will be prepared to enter the seventh, like a man who prepares himself on the sixth day from the time the sun sets to enter the Sabbath — so too here… Ribbi Yosei said to him: “All of that stretches the time out farther than what the colleagues already fixed. They fixed that the exile of the Congregation of Israel is one day (a day of God, which is a thousand years), and no more.”
Page 38. On the matter of the vocalization he wrote, “But how is it possible that from the days of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, until the sages of Tiberias, that is two thousand years… they had no cantillations or vocalizations and signs and their associated names? Did not our Sages teach us, on the verse ‘and teach it to the children of Israel, put it in their mouths,’ make signs? And the beginning of study is the correct reading, and without them they would have had no way to learn and to teach and to instruct pupils in the ways of the language and of Scripture…”
In truth, to most of the people of our generation, this argument might seem like a strong one. But if you research, investigate and observe, you will find that several hundred languages (of whole peoples) not only had no signs for the vowels, but they had no writing at all, until one or two generations ago, and some of them (like the Eskimos) who lived in tribes,
Pg. 46
…one far more distant from the other over hundreds or thousands of years, and through all this they preserved the unity of their language, and the Eskimo from Alaska, for example, can still somewhat understand his fellow from Greenland — and all this by the power of the sense of hearing. The child hears how they pronounce every word and every syllable, and thus the tradition is maintained. Similarly, traditional songs were preserved over many generations among the tribes in Africa, Australia, and so on, without any written letters of vowels. And all this by the power of oral tradition — Does he believe that Israel is less capable than one of these tribes, that one would think it impossible to preserve a tradition without writing? If so, by this argument, it is possible to deny the entire Oral Torah.
Page 38. On the matter mentioned above, and this is his language: “It is found in chapter Ha-Ro’eh 62b: ‘For what reason does one not wipe with the right hand, but only with the left?’ Rav Nahman bar Yitzhaq says: because with it he indicates the ta’ame of the Torah.’ And Rashi explained there: ‘ta’ame Torah — the cantillations and the punctuation of Scripture… he leads his hand according to the flow of the cantillations.’ Behold, for Rashi it is clear that the cantillation and the punctuation existed in the time of the Sages of the Mishnah and the Gemara.”
There is no evidence for his claim here at all, for the explanation of, “He shows the punctuation of the Torah” is that in places that one must pause, he makes a motion with his hand to pause, to go on reading, a motion with his hand to go on. And this tradition can be seen in every Yemenite synagogue, when they read from the Torah: the prayer leader directs whoever is reading from the Torah by means of known hand gestures.
Page 40. On the matter mentioned above, and I quote, “And so what was decreed… that Ribbi Hanina son of Teradyon did not know the vocalizations in any way, shape or form, since he found no method of teaching his pupils the correct pronunciation of the ineffable name without actually pronouncing it with his lips, his evidence debunks itself, for it this were the case, then it was forced and compelled — for there was no way around it. If so, how could his sin have been so severe that he suffered execution by burning?”
The reply to this is very simple — he could have taught them syllable by syllable, without putting forth the whole word at one time, as they do today.
Page 41. He wanted to prove that the vocalization system is ancient on the basis of the testimony of a certain Karaite, whom he called “one of the greatest of their sages, the sage….” [His claim is] that the Karaites began before the close of the Talmud (against what is well known among us: that ‘Anan ben Dawid, may his name rot, founded this movement in the days of the Geonim), and that even so we find their tradition in Tanakh identical with ours. And if the vocalizations were a late invention, how would they have agreed to accept it?
Afterward, he proposed an explanation of ‘do not read thus but thus’ that is not worthy of the paper it is written upon, and it is contrary to traditional Jewish beliefs. And from the continuation of that chapter, it becomes clear that his entire argument is based upon the words of that Karaite. It turns out that this Karaite is not a sage, as his words are only a pit, in addition to his opposition to traditional Judaism. And whoever researches the Karaites, even a little, will discover that they “stole” many things from Rabbinic Jews, very many things, and therefore how shall we rely on them that their tradition in Tanakh is not among the ‘stolen’ things?
Arguments of Ta’am le-Shad and Their Refutations
Its author is R. Eliyahu ben Amozeg (1823-1900 Leghorn, Italy), and he also composed his book in order to refute the arguments of R. Shemuel Dawid Luzzatto. He loved and admired R. Luzzatto very much, and he and he wrote in his introduction (p. VI, Leghorn printing 1863, and so too all the citations that I mention here), “And now to the researcher, the sage whom I have made for a target, I have heard you with my ears, but until now, I have not seen you with my eyes, and I know you by name, and also you have found favor in my eyes, for the love of wisdom is a constant fire that burns within your heart, and it shall not be extinguished…”. He also wrote, (Pg. 2), “the nature of this man, and his conduct in all his books and investigations, that he never makes a claim, either small nor great, unless that claim has been sifted 13 times like clean flour, and then then he fastens it with nails so that it cannot budge. The sages shall praise him.” Also, R. Almozeg conducts himself with the utmost integrity, and he speaks calmly throughout his entire book, so that he will not insult the honor of any scholar.
Pg. 47
Regarding the question of the antiquity of the Zohar, this author takes a unique approach:
(pg. 34): “And how they murmured, and how enough ink was poured, and how pens were broken, to know whether this book is ancient by virtue of its inner traits and its external letters. Yet they did not pay attention or contemplate on the concepts presented within it, whether their forms testify to its antiquity and its voracity or not. For as the heavens are high above the earth, so this investigation is higher than the previous one. If because the wisdom itself is wonderful and exalted over other books, or if from another perspective, because when the antiquity of wisdom itself is made clear, the books that teach it will be elevated with it and be sanctified in its holiness”.
“(p. 32): For even if it is not right or proper to believe that the things mentioned in the Zohar were spoken by the sages that they’re attributed to, even if this were so, and we were to assume that there never even existed a book called the Zohar, nevertheless, we cannot escape the fact that this faith was kept by the people of Israel. For the Kabbalah does not depend upon the foundation that the author imagined. We do not believe things because of whom they were attributed to, but we believe them on their own merit”.
That is to say, once we have proven the antiquity of the wisdom of Kabbalah, together with it we have proved the antiquity of the concepts that are expressed in the book of the Zohar. Therefore, most of his book is dedicated to collecting all the sayings of our Sages and the Geonim that imply a belief in mysticism, the faith of heavenly palaces, angels, amulets, and so on, to prove that the wisdom of Kabbalah in the Zohar is ancient.
He also calmed the reader that we needn’t worry about the great period of the time that elapsed between Rishbi and the composition (or discovery) of the Zohar, for it was exactly the same with the Mishnah and the Gemara, that the words of those Tannaim and Amoraim were arranged and written only a long time after their death (pp. 42, 37). And this, that we have not seen from the sages of Israel anyone who speaks of the secrets of the Zohar most of that period, is no wonder at all, since they were secrets, and only a few individuals merited to be privy to them. Little by little, they revealed those secrets until they gathered everything together in the book of the Zohar, and until then everything was an oral tradition. And these are his words:
(pp. 43, 44): “They were not widespread at any time among the general population of Israel, whether due to their quality, their depth or their lofty concepts, that they should be reserved only for the sages of the heart, deep thinkers who delved in hidden treasures and in the divine investigations, or due to external factors that were attached to them, that they became associated with the desire for concealment and hiding… they would study them and teach them in secret…”.
(pg. 50): “This is the reason that the publication of the Zohar, in its current form and structure, was delayed so much. In my opinion, before it acquired this form that we see in it, there remained an extended time when its existence was only in oral form, without being written down or recorded in a book, just as happened to every form of the Oral Torah — and after that they began to write isolated notebooks by various disparate individuals”.
To the argument of R. Luzzatto, that the language of the Zohar is not suitable to any kind of Aramaic or Hebrew, not Talmudic and not midrashic, not halakhic and not philosophical, he replied thusly:
(Pg. 151): “For this judgment which he has issued against the books of Kabbalah — is applicable and appropriate for all the remaining books of the early Talmudic Sages, for is not the language of the Mishnah mixed with the language of Scripture, with the language of the (Aramaic) translations, with the Greek language and the Roman language, and perhaps also Persian, and perhaps other languages. Regarding the Talmud, one can see that besides these languages that we have mentioned, still more were added upon them, such as Arabic and Syrian, and perhaps also others — and so regarding the midrashim and the Yerushalmi this same judgement is very fitting. There is not one of the compositions that we have mentioned that doesn’t look like it’s mixed with something… The Zohar is just like these other compositions… To what is this similar? To the language of an author whose style and habits are such that we can’t avoid detecting impressions of other authors who preceded him or followed him — but we cannot conclude from this that he plagiarized from other authors”.
Pg. 48
These are his conjectures on this matter, and I shall first reply to them, and afterward I’ll discuss his proofs.
I have not been able to understand the foundational assumption that he laid out for us in the introduction, that the antiquity of the book of the Zohar (or the ideas therein) is bound up with the antiquity of the wisdom of Kabbalah. If all the kabbalists in all the generations, and all the lands, agreed in every matter, with one unified approach and one monolithic opinion, without any dispute, perhaps then it would make sense. But this is very far from what we find, for we have seen that the kabbalists disagree, each against his fellow many times. They have many different points of view. If we were to attempt to count the disputes of the kabbalists we would never finish, but this is not our goal. At any rate, who can obligate us to accept the words of the author of the Zohar as the Torah of Moses from Sinai, especially since even in the books of the Zohar itself there are divided opinions (for example, if one who desecrates the Sabbath in this life, he has rest in it in Hell), that the opinion of the author of a Zohar Hadash contradicts the opinion of the author of the Zohar himself?
Actually, his reasoning is flawed to the core; we are certain about the antiquity of the concepts within the Talmud. Does this oblige us to embrace the opinions of whoever composed a book about Talmudic concepts and Halakha, even if he lived many generations after the close of the Talmud? By his logic, we would be obliged to accept the antiquity of the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Qodashim, which we shall discuss near the end of this book – and it is a known forgery.
And what he wrote, that the secrets of the Zohar were oral traditions until the time of its writing, we shall discuss this at length in the chapter on “the antiquity of the book of the Zohar.” If so, how could it be that Kabbalists hold opinions that are contrary to those of the Zohar — written by Rishbi, king of the kabbalists? The very existence of contrary opinions is proof that the secrets of the Zohar were not oral traditions at all in the name of Rishbi, or of any other Tanna, until it was written. And do not answer me that the other kabblistic opinions also have sources in words of our Sages, for anyone who delves into the Zohar will see very clearly that none of the other sages can disagree with Rishbi on matters of Kabbalah, and they all bow and submit to him. This being the case, how could those who come after them hold kabbalistic opinions that differ from those of Rishbi?
And even if we grant him that there were traditions in Kabbalah that were handed down by word of mouth from Rishbi until the compilation of the Zohar, who will testify that all these traditions arrived at the writers of the Zohar as they were given? Over the course of a thousand years, a thousand corruptions could have taken place. If you want to argue that they stand in their strength until a reason is found to cast doubt upon them, I shall reply that those opinions that oppose those of the Zohar (which the author of Qadmut Sefer ha-Zohar hinted at in section one of his book) prove that we have reason to suspect corruptions, and who will oblige us to believe the book of the Zohar more than we are obliged to believe any other kabbalist after the time of R. Moshe de Leon?
It’s not clear what he wanted to teach us from this long-windedness, to say that the languages of the books of our Sages are mixed from different languages. This is obvious and apparent to everyone — more than this, the Torah itself is written with a few Egyptian and Aramaic words, and certainly this fact was not lost on R. Luzzatto. But anybody who contemplates the words of R. Luzzatto, even a little, will understand that he is not referring to the inclusion of foreign words, or the quoting of other compositions, but rather the inclusion of the expressions of the language of languages and the quotation of compositions that only existed long after the time of our Sages, that these are clear signs that the author of the Zohar came after them. There are expressions that we can explain their appearance in two different periods, or two different authors in a source, as coincidence, and there are expressions that cannot bear this explanation — how much more so when there are many, and when they are repeated hundreds or thousands of times, and when the same book appears in the place and in the time that matches the use of those expressions (that is, Spain 800 years ago). Who is so foolish as to believe that the same book was composed a thousand years earlier. And that the book contains thousands of contemporary expressions within it — is merely coincidence.
As is the custom of the rest of those who defend the antiquity of the book of the Zohar, this author also made it easy upon himself in his admission that the Zohar we have today is not what came out from under the hand of Rishbi, and he also admitted later additions, and this is what he wrote:
(p. 41) “For we do not believe at all like the multitude of kabbalists that the entire book of the Zohar, in its form, in its name, in its stories, and in its place came out, complete in body and complete in teachings, from under the hand of Rishbi”.
Pg. 49
(Pg. 57) “Behold, I have presented evidence that the Zohar was known by various names before it was known within Israel by the name ‘Zohar’, and who is arrogant enough to say that from the day of its compilation, this was its name and it was only referred to this way, and this name was not applied at a later date? And also, if there is found in the body of the book a small hint or a great one to the title Zohar (this is explicit, not a hint, in the books of the Zohar at least 11 times, the copyist), behold, it never arose within my heart to say that the book of the Zohar also was not vulnerable to (copying mistakes and additions) by later hands, like the rest of the ancient books. How many things were added in it through the passage of time which are obvious in their various locations, and in their various languages (here, he assures us that all of the later additions are obvious, the copyist)”.
R. Amozeg’s Evidence for the Antiquity of the Zohar
(pp. 51, 52) “Behold, here are two strong and valid explanation (for why the sections of the Zohar, arranged by portions of the Torah, often don’t seem to match the portions in content). The first one is that not every section fits neatly into the portion it was assigned to. The second is that many of the sayings of the Zohar are not given to assignment to particular places; they cannot be pin holed in this way. And I shall add two additional good explanations for you. The first is that you will find expositions and sayings in the Zohar that are assigned to a particular portion, and your eyes will see that they do not fit in any order of the orders of the Torah… and I will educate you about the truth, and that is that you will not find in any nook or cranny in the Zohar a matter or half a matter that one can point to and assign to a particular Torah portion – and that portion is explicitly mentioned. For example, we don’t find it saying, ‘in parashah such-and-such,’ or ‘in this parashah,’ or in verse so-and-so (this is fairly strong evidence that there are no ‘later additions,’ the copyist). That is to say, that they do not hint to that order and portion in the book, and all this points to the fact that it was not arranged and edited from the day of its inception as it is before us today… for we have proved in the straight path that the arrangement before us is a later arrangement, and before it there was another arrangement, as it appears from the text of the Zohar itself… for if we have clearly proven that the arrangement that we see today was later editing, and that the an earlier version preceded it, as we can see from the Zohar itself, then we have faithfully found a clear sign and wonder for what we seek – that the origin of the Zohar was long before its publication, and it lay buried and hidden until then, ”.
It is absolutely possible that the arrangement of the Zohar into Torah portions was done generations after its composition. It’s also possible that this was the author’s style, to not concern himself with writing only about matters pertaining to the portion that he assigned that chapter to. Be it as it may, the author considers only two possibilities. He assumes that either R. Moshe de Leon composed it, or that it dates back to the Tannaim. It is very possible that R. Moshe de Leon collected and arranged the sayings of the Zohar, which were composed decades before his time, but that he did not compose the main body of the Zohar. We should not be surprised that its author was careful with certain things – as is the habit of all forgers.
(p. 53) “Certainly you have seen what Maimonides wrote in his commentary to the Torah in Shelah, and I quote: ‘And I saw in the Mekhiletha of Rishbi that Ribbi Yonatan ben Yohai asked Rishbi: Why is it always written, “the angel of the Lord,” but here it says, “the angel of God”? He told him that wherever we find the name Elohim (God), it means judgment, etc.’ And who knows what else might have been written. You see with your own eyes sees a book attributed to Rishbi, by the name Mekhiletha of Rishbi that we only know of its existence from Maimonides’ mentioning it — and this means that it was kept discrete and hidden. The things mentioned in his name, and the recognition of his name, all bear testimony that they sprang from the kabbala and its sources. And a third great proof is that in the book of the Zohar the things were cited with minor differences (Zohar pt. 2, 52b) in the name of Rishbi… And he goes on at length that we have not found a sage by the name Ribbi Yonatan ben Yohai in any other place, and that this is a trait of the Zohar, to mention sages who are not known elsewhere”.
The rebuttal to this argument is obvious, for even if he had never heard of the Mekhiletha of Rishbi, we have seen it. It has been printed in two different editions based on two different manuscripts, and from what was collected from Midrash haGadol. It is in Hebrew, ….
Pg. 50
…in the language of the passage that Nahmanides cited, and which is not the way of the Zohar (which for the most part is in Aramaic). Also, that passage isn’t even found in the Zohar, and in the spot that R. Luria cited, it only says that the name “Elohim” indicates judgement. The passage does appear in the Mekhiletha of Rishbi in that location (there, instead of Ribbi Yonatan ben Yoḥai, it says Ribbi Nathan, and this is how it appears in the Midrash ha-Gadol, and that is the correct reading).
After that (on the same page) he quoted another passage from Nahmanides’ commentary on the Torah where he quoted from the Mekhiletha of Rishbi, and this time he admitted that he had not found that passage in the Zohar. He was also pressed to explain why, in Nahmanides’ commentary, the passage appears in Hebrew, when most of the Zohar is in Aramaic – and I see no need to waste many words on this, when this same passage appears in the Mekhiletha of Rishbi in exactly the same place and form as in Nahmanides’ commentary.
From the difficulty just mentioned (that the passage was quoted in Hebrew) he arrived at the conjecture that the early authorities were in the habbit of translating passages of the Zohar into Hebrew. He also found other passages from the Mekhiletha of Rishbi that appears in other Medieval commentary on the Torah, where the Zohar has similar passages that appear in Aramaic — of course the author of the Zohar copied either from one of these commentaries or from the Mekhiletha of Rishbi. By means of this conjecture he wanted to solve the issue of the defective language of the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam (The Hidden Midrash), such as it is, the (Aramaic) translations of early authorities were inserted into the body of the book and mixed together with the original. And for all this there is no evidence at all except those passages of the Mekhiletha of Rishbi, which we have already shown to be lacking any foundation.
Even though most of R. Luzzatto’s efforts were to prove the lateness of the vocalizations and the cantillation marks (which appear in great number throughout the Zohar — and thereby the lateness of its composition would be proved), to this matter this author did not devote even a word. From the very few of R. Luzzatto’s arguments that he listed, he spilled a lot of ink upon them and replied to them with the arguments we have seen.
The author of Ta‘am le-Shad does not bear much responsibility for not knowing of the lateness of the composition of the Zohar. He apparently relied on the only stable proof he had for its antiquity — those passages from the Mekhiletha of Rishbi — and since in his days it had not yet been published and was not known, he is not at fault in this. But today, anyone with a brain in his skull will admit that we have seen no evidence of substance in his words. And if so, even he, in the world of truth, will admit to our opinion, as he wrote:
“For it never arose in our mind to say, ‘Receive the Zohar with closed eyes,’ if not from faithful witnesses and correct proofs upon which the perfect intellect will rely” (p. 58).
Arguments of the Essay Qadmuth Sefer haZohar and Their Refutations
Qadmuth Sefer haZohar was written by Ribbi David Luria of Bykhov (the Radal), 1798–1855, and he paid no attention at all to the objections of R. ‘Emdin, or to any other critic of the Zohar. Also, he did not claim that he had proofs for the antiquity of the book of the Zohar, but only conjectures. Part of the arguments of Qadmut Sefer ha-Zohar have already been refuted among the arguments of Magen weSina, and here we shall try to be briefer. In truth, when I began to review this essay, I hoped that I would find valid arguments, but here too, I was disappointed.
This is a popular “thick book” that rabbis refer to when confronted with doubts about the authenticity of the Zohar – possibly due to its name, which literally means, “The Antiquity of the Book of the Zohar.”
These are the five sections in which he promised to clarify the following claims for us in his essay:
(1) It is impossible that R. Moshe de Leon composed the book of the Zohar, for some of his opinions differ from those of the Zohar.
(2) In every place where R. Moses de Leon quoted the Zohar, either he cited a corrupted text, or he did not understand its explanation.
(3) Those sages who preceded him, or who were older than him, already quoted the Zohar.
(4) In the Zohar, there are references to historic events without exact dates, such as the conquest of Jerusalem. If R. Moshe de Leon had written the book, he would have followed the dates known in his own day. The inexactness is therefore a proof that he is not the author, and that the book was composed before those events.
(5) Regarding the Zohar’s corrupted Aramaic, it was written in the Aramaic of its own generation, and this language shows it is not a later addition to the literature of earlier generations.
The First Section:
Regarding the basis of his argument, I concede to him a little bit; only the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tiqqunim were composed by R. Moshe de Leon, as R. ‘Emdin wrote. The body of the Zohar was composed, in all likelihood, a little before him.
Pg. 51
The Midrash ha-Ne‘elam and the Zohar Hadash were composed after him. All this is known to researchers, and there is nothing revolutionary about this at all. In any event, the fact that his opinions are sometimes contrary to those of the Zohar itself does not represent evidence that he is not its author. It is possible that, in order to avoid suspicion from himself, he inserted here and there matters that are contrary to his own opinions.
Page 29. “In most of his opinions and attitudes, he (R. Moses de Leon) is consistent with the kabbalists of his own time and with those who preceded him, of blessed memory, and he built most of his compositions according to their opinions (only in a few places are his opinions the same as those of the Zohar).”
This plainly means that the opinions of the kabbalists of the generations shortly before R. Moses de Leon are not the same as the opinions of the Zohar – but the entire second section is devoted to proving that the Zohar was in the possession of the Geonim and the Medieval authorities, and that they copied from it. If we assume that his words are correct, it certainly will not enter the mind that they would abandon the words of the living God, the words of Rishbi, to search broken cisterns, at the very time when they have the book of the Zohar. Also, if his words here are correct, then we have canceled the whole premise of the second section. And according to these words of his, they certainly would not have chosen opinions that conflict with what they had received from Rishbi.
He continued and wrote: “And in a number of places it appears that he inserted a little of the beginnings of paragraphs from the words of the Zohar into his own words, without stating the Zohar as their source, and perhaps this too is a sign that he wanted to be brief…” For Heaven’s sake! How naive this author is! This in itself is an indication that he is the author of those passages in the Zohar (which, in all likelihood, are in part from the Ra‘ya Mehemna that were swallowed into the Zohar, as R. ‘Emdin wrote).
Page 30. He continues to highlight contradictions between the words of R. Moshe de Leon and the Zohar itself. We have already written that this is nothing to be astonished about, since R. Moshe de Leon composed only the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tiqqunim.
Page 31. “And it (the words of R. Moshe de Leon) is from the words of the Tiqqunim, Tiqqun 10… and it is not mentioned here (in the Zohar itself) at all, (and see the Ra‘ya Mehemna… that perhaps it can be reconciled with the words of R. Moshe de Leon).”
Again, according to our perspective, this is very understandable, for the author of the Tiqqunim is the author of the Ra‘ya Mehemna, and that is R. Moshe de Leon. Therefore, it is clear that their words will be similar to one another. (Do not object I’m contradicting myself because of what I wrote above, that their words being opposed is not evidence that he is not its author. That is correct. On the other hand, their being similar gives support to the claim that he is the author.)
Page 31. He cites a contradiction between the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Zohar Ḥadash. This too is not difficult, for they are two different authors. And the same applies with all the other examples he lists; every one of them supports our position.
Page 33. “…in the history of the authors, some innovations that the historians never could have imagined” — for in order to even entertain the posibility of his conjectures, we are forced to corrupt the entire history.
Pages 33–34. After he built flimsy theories, which even he calls “theories,” that the author of Yalquth Shim’oni (is a midrashic anthology on the whole Bible, arranged by verse. It was compiled in the thirteenth century, in Germany) quoted from the Zohar without mentioning its name, he proposes a further theory (that Recanati lived before the accepted date, around 1310) in order “to prove” that the Zohar was before this. And in order to arrive at all of this, he had to claim that the date written in the handwriting of the author of the Yalquth Shim‘oni is not exact.
Page 34. “In the book Berith Menuhah (a kabbalistic work of unknown authorship and origin) many passages are cited in the name of the Tanna Rishbi, in Aramaic that is similar to the language of the Zohar… and even though they are not found in our version of the Zohar, we have learned, in any case, that there were before him passages in Aramaic on matters of Kabbalah in the name of the Tanna Rishbi (and as it is known that the book of the Zohar before us is missing a great deal…).”
Pg. 52
He himself wrote a few lines earlier, “According to the many midrashim that were available to him, which have been lost to history… for they still had many midrashim that were since lost.” This is correct, and how can we know that he his source was the Zohar? It’s just as likely that his source was one of the lost midrashim. There is no evidence that his source was the Zohar. Additionally, according to his following words, his “theory” gets even weaker. He wrote, “and the author of the book Berit Menuhah, in my opinion, is Rav Hammai Gaon (There is no evidence that such a Gaon even existed, the copyist), and even according to the opinion of those who say that its author is Ribbi Abraham of Rimon in Spain (Grenada, 13th-14th century), behold, he too was in the days of the Rishba (Ribbi Shelomoh ben Abraham ibn Aderet, Barcelona, about 1235–1310) …” — and the Zohar was “revealed” in the days of the Rishba, after the death of Nahmanides. If so, what has he gained from this?
He then quoted kabbalists who were older than R. Moshe de Leon, and who cited expressions found in the Zohar. He wrote that these sages would not have cited the words of R. Moshe, who was their junior, for they were greater than he, and so on. Had R. Moshe published these words under his own name, R. Luria might have had a point. But since he claimed that they were written by Rishbi, why would they refrain from citing them?
He went on to cite kabbalists of the generation of R. Moshe de Leon himself, and he spent many paragraphs doing so. Through the whole of this section, he did not find a single person, who lived before R. Moshe de Leon, who quoted the Zohar. What of his promises?
The second section:
(Page 38). “That the Geonim, of blessed memory, already quoted passages, on matters of Kabbalah, in the name of a ‘Jerusalem Midrash,’ in the language of the Zohar, and even though most of them are not found before us in the book of the Zohar and the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam…”
Page 69. “That many of the early authorities, of blessed memory, are found who call midrashim by the name ‘Jerusalem Midrash’…”
If so, he is saying that their source was another midrash, or perhaps several of them. This is what a reasonable person would conclude. But for R. Luria — the fact that these passages are not found in the Zohar does not trouble him at all. This is what he wrote, “For if all the passages were found before us today in the book of the Zohar, there would be fodder for deniers to claim that scribes took the passages from the Zohar and then plagiarized them into the responsa of the Geonim. But since the passages are not found in the Zohar, there is no longer any room for such suspicions…” Such reasoning might be suitable as a joke, not to be taken seriously.
Then he listed examples, one by one, and most of the volume of this section is nothing but explanations of the answers that are cited. The examples he brought are not many. Out of all of them in this branch he wrote “a conjecture,” or “one might theorize,” or “it is possible,” eight times, and he wrote “(this is) also not in the Zohar,” “also not in the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam,” and the like, six times — until he was ashamed to continue writing this, instead writing (p. 64): “it is from the Zohar and the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam — in the version of the Geonim which was hidden and concealed from those who came after them.” And on page 64 he wrote: “Based on the style, it is from the version of Midrash ha-Ne‘elam which the Geonim had in their possession.”
In the end he found only one Gaonic responsum in which a matter is mentioned that is also spoken of in the Zohar. The responsum in question is that of Rav Hai Gaon (p. 46), and this is what it says:
And we have seen in a Yerusalem text, “the sanctifications that the ministering angels recite, Israel also recites. There is, however, an extra teaching — that Israel below is to sanctify itself with a further sanctification, because it is written, ‘You shall sanctify yourselves and be holy.’ By this sanctification, Israel is sanctified in its own holiness, as the ministering angels look on. We say it in Aramaic, because they pay no attention to what is said in Aramaic. They have only two sanctifications; we have an extra one in this extra sanctification (of ourselves).’
The author wrote much about this responsum, which has no relevance to the issue at hand. And this is the language of the Zohar (which the author did not quote, only noting its location: Terumah 129a):
When Israel reaches the Qedushah de-Sidra (in the morning prayers), this hidden pride comes forth, for this is the sanctification that Israel recites. The pride shines more than the upper angels, who join them (in prayer). It shines and rejoices at the moment Israel recites the sanctification, because Israel finishes as the upper angels look on. They are shaken above, and they do not make accusations.…”
Pg. 53
…against (Israel).”
Rav Hai mentioned (a) an equality of sanctifications between us and the angels; (b) a preference on our side, because we sanctify ourselves; (c) that we say it in Aramaic, because the angels do not attend to Aramaic; (d) that before they pay attention to us, we say the sanctification prayer; (e) that we have more sanctifications. In contrast, only these are mentioned in the Zohar: (a) the preference of our sanctifications; (b) that before they pay attention to us, we say the sanctification prayer. Of the matters that Rav Hai mentioned, some things in this passage are mentioned only by him and not by the Zohar, and some are mentioned by the Zohar and not by Rav Hai. There are only four or five words in common between them, where the difference is only in syntax and they are otherwise the same. It is therefore clear that he was not using the Zohar as his source. On the contrary, this is evidence that he did not have the Zohar — for if he had, he would have quoted it. Rather, one must say that Rav Hai and the Zohar each drew from other sources.
Further, in connection with the second section, the author wrote that the Geonim wrote “concerning matters of the Kabbalah.” But among all the responsa that he cited — and also among all the responsa of the Geonim that we have — there is no mention of the ten sefirot, nor of the union of sefiroth, nor of the drawing down of divine flow, nor of reincarnation, nor of combinations of letters, names, and so on. If so, how is it possible to describe them as “concerning the subject of Kabbalah”? It is more correct to say that they are concerning the subject of “aggadah.”
Furthermore, this approach of his — and this is the main point — to prove, according to his imagination, that the Geonim had the book of the Zohar, is against the opinion of all the kabbalists, against the words of Magen ve-Sinnah, and against the words of the Zohar itself in several places. We shall begin with the language of the Zohar:
Tiqqunim 23b: “And how many people will be sustained from this composition of yours, when it is revealed below in the last generation, at the end of days; and because of it, ‘you shall proclaim liberty in the land.’”
Pt. I 116a: “And even though I arrive early, during the exile, before the end of fifth millennia, for this is the secret of the letter Heh, and at the beginning of the sixth millennia.” (Here he explained to us when “liberty in the land” will be: Roughly in the year 1240).
Pt. I 198a: “This is the verse ‘and now my head will be lifted’… Ribbi Yosei said: behold, a ‘time’ has been said, and it is an upper level; and what is that time? It is the (letter) heh (which has a value of 5, hinting at the fifth millennium, ending in the autumn of 1239), and it is called ‘now.’”
Pt. II 9b: “It will grow dark for Israel until the (letter) waw (which has a value of 6) is awakened for a time of sixty years… which are the thousand and two hundred years of the exile. (If the exile started at the destruction of the Temple in the year 70, then this is the year 1270).”
Tiqqunei Zohar Hadash 148b: “When this composition is revealed in the world, many will gather to it…”
The Zohar proclaims of itself that it will be hidden and revealed only in the last generation, which is the beginning of the year sixth thousand (1240AD). This author denies it in order to support his theories. Even if the theories were correct — that the Geonim too had the Zohar — this is not evidence that it was written by the sages of the Talmud. And it is not enough that he denies that it was hidden: he also thinks that only select individuals had access to it until after the days of Nahmanides. Perhaps his understanding of “it will be revealed” is its publication, and this is not the implication of the Zohar at all, for it is written explicitly that when it is revealed, many will gather to it.
I’ll repeat what I wrote earlier, that there is a difficulty in the matter of the “discovery” of the Zohar. We have seen that the authors of the Zohar wrote that it will be revealed in the last generation. Even without the theories of the essay Qadmut Sefer ha-Zohar, nearly 800 years have passed from the death of Nahmanides until now, so by what definition would that be “the last generation?” As if this were not enough, this author wants us to believe that this “last generation” was already in the days of the Geonim — for even then, the book of the Zohar was revealed. He is adding insult to injury, to say that we missed the “last generation” by over a thousand years – since that would be when the Zohar was revealed.
Here is a quote from the Ben Ish Hai (Ribbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad, 1835 to 1909), in his book Da‘at u-Tvunah, in the preface:
Why was the holy book of the Zohar not revealed to the Amuraim, the sages of the era of the Savuraim, …”
Pg. 54
… the Geonim and the great rabbis? And how is it that it was revealed afterward, in lesser generations?… It is possible that, since the decree of the destruction was for a thousand years, and all the saints were within those thousand years, the Holy One did not want the book of the Zohar to be revealed, for it contains many stringencies and punishments — as a father has mercy on his children. For in that period there were religious persecutions and intense suffering, and Israel was in great sorrow. If the words of the saints, Rishbi and his companions, and all the punishments had been revealed, there would have been room for the Other Side to accuse… Therefore, close to the generations after a thousand years from the destruction, the light of the Zohar was revealed.”
Know that the Ben Ish Ḥai copied all of this from the words of the Rashash (Ribbi Sar Shalom Shar‘abi, 1720–1777 Jerusalem). He continued to quote another passage from the Rashash:
And when Rishbi and Ribbi El‘azar and all that generation died, the wisdom of the Kabbalah was lost, until the Lord had one of the kings of the East start an excavation in a certain place for the sake of money, and a chest was found there with the book of the Zohar inside it. He sent for the (gentile) sages of the Holy Land and the sages of Europe, and they did not know (what it was) and did not understand it. He sent for the Jews, and they came to him and saw the book and said to him, “Our lord the king, this book was composed by a certain sage, and it is deep, and we do not understand it.” He replied, “Is there no Jew in the world who understands it?” They responded, “There is one in the city of Toledo.” The king sent the books with his warriors to the king of Toledo, and when the sages of Toledo saw it, they rejoiced with a great joy and sent the king many gifts, and from there the Kabbalah was publicized in Israel.”
The above story is told by the Hida (Ribbi Ḥayim Yosef Dawid Azulai 1724–1806), in his book Shem ha-Gedolim, entry “Zohar.” If we rely on the Rashash and the author of Yuhasin (Ribbi Abraham Zacuto 1452–about 1515, Spain) and the Ben Ish Ḥai, it is certainly impossible that the Geonim copied from the Zohar, or even from oral traditions included in the Zohar, for this is the “wisdom of the Kabbalah” which the Rashash wrote was lost.
If you want to claim that those sages of Toledo lived in the days of the Geonim — this also cannot be so, for we have already learned that when they saw that book “they rejoiced with a great joy,” and from then the Kabbalah was publicized. If so, how is it possible that it remained hidden, even from the eyes of the great kabbalists, until after the days of Nahmonides? R. Moshe de Leon in Toledo was from Toledo. He was not one of the Geonim. If so, it was upon them, the sages of Toledo, to reply with responsa on these matters, and not upon the Geonim. Furthermore, the Rashash explicitly wrote that the Zohar was revealed only several generations after a thousand years from the destruction (after the year 1070), and the last Gaon, Rav Hai Gaon, died in the year 1038.
From the words of R. Yosef Karo (1488–1575, Spain), the Beth Yosef, the same is implied, in Even ha-‘Ezer 25, the gloss Bedeq ha-Bayith, he writes:
And if R. Ya‘aqov (son of the Rosh 1250–1327) had seen what is written in the Zohar… he would not have written what he wrote.
And even though the Zohar was “revealed” some forty years before his father’s death, and he certainly could have seen it — we shall speak of this further.
From R. Yehudah Ḥayyat (15th-16th century Spain), in his introduction to Ma‘arekhet ha-Elohut:
Certainly, the book of the Zohar was not revealed in the days of Rav Hai Gaon and all the Geonim, and Rabbenu El‘azar of Worms, and the Raavad, and Nahmanides, and the Rashba did not see it.
So too, it is implied from the language of the book ha-Berith (R. Pinhas Eliyahu Hurwitz of Vilna 1765–1821), part I, essay 20, chapter 15:
That every place where Ibn Ezra (1089–1164, Spain), of blessed memory, wrote that it is a secret, it is not of the secrets of the Torah, such as the work of creation or the work of the chariot… Not so in our time, which is close to the season of love; there was light for the Jews, and the books of the early sages were revealed to us, which speak of the secret of the Lord and the mysteries of the honored names.”
And so wrote the Vilna Gaon (R. Eliyahu ben Shelomoh 1720–1797) in Addereth Eliyahu (p. 13):
And when it was revealed at the end of the days of Nahmanides.
I’ll remind the reader what the author of Magen WeSina wrote, regarding the Vilna Gaon, which we quoted above (pg. 32). It would be interesting to ask the authors of Qadmuth Sefer haZohar and Zohar haRaqia’ how they dare disagree with the Vilna Gaon.
Similarly, we find in the rulings of the Maharis (Ribbi Yihya Salih of Sana‘a, Yemen 1713–1805), part I, page 4, and this is what he wrote:
And I saw in the book ‘Atereth Rosh (need citation), page 18, that he took pains to prove that the opinion of all the halakhic authorities — the Rif (R. Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi 1013–1103 Fez, North Africa), and Maimonides, and the Rosh, and the Tosafoth, and the Tur (sic. composed by the Rosh, above), and all the later authorities — is the same as the explanation of Rashi (R. Shelomo Yishaqi 1040-1105 France). And the reason is because of the honor of the Holy Presence. But in the correspondence of the Rama’ (Menahem Azariah da Fano 1545-1620 Italy), in responsum 5, he wrote, in the name of the Zohar, the opposite opinion. And the book ‘Atereth Rosh listed several…”
Pg. 55
…quotes from the Zohar that agree with the opinion of Rama‘, and that this is the explanation of the Gemara in Berakhot. He wrote that the halakhic authorities (listed above) differed from the opinion of Rama‘ because they did not see the splendor of the Holy Zohar. He is shocked at Maran, the Beit Yosef, that he did not notice this.”
And this matter, that the book of the Zohar was not “revealed” until after the death of Nahmanides, and that even the Rosh did not see it, is explicit in Sefer Yuhasin, Seder ha-Doroth, Semah David (R. David Gans of Prague 1541–1613), and all the history books of our people. And in that he chose as the name of his book “Zohar,” he provided a great hint of this matter (see Daniel 12:3, 4).
At first glance, it might seem plausible to claim that the Geonim were in possession of pamphlets, representing small portions of the Zohar that were not hidden, and afterwards, after the death of Nahmanides, the rest was revealed – and then most of these older pamphlets were lost, leaving us with only what was revealed later on, along with the fragments from the aforementioned pamphlets that were transferred into the book of the Zohar that was revealed, and the occasional quote from the Geonim when they cited them in their responsa. To this conjecture we shall reply that this is true; all the of the evidence we have cited applies only to the Zohar that was “revealed” after the death of Nahmanides. Therefore, if you wish to claim that the passages cited in the essay Qadmut Sefer ha-Zohar, from the Geonim, are also from the Zohar — very well. Those passages have the authenticity of primary sources, and it is proper to rely on them as we would the rest of the aggadot of the Sages. But the rest — which is everything printed in the Zohar, the Tiqqunim, the Ra‘ya Mehemna, and Zohar Ḥadash — we have already proved the lateness of their composition. In other words, your conclusion would be that the Zohar (the true one) is ancient, but it has been lost from us. What would you have gained by this?
There is a further difficulty in this theory of the R. Luria, in his book Qadmuth Sefer haZohar. He claims that the Geonim quoted passages from the Zohar, which are in the category of secrets, and even though the name “Zohar” is never mentioned by the sages of Israel (until a number of years after “its revealing”), even though it refers to itself as “the Book of the Zohar” throughout the book, at least twelve times — why did they refrain from mentioning the true name of the book from which they quoted? In a note (pp. 28–29 of Qadmut Sefer ha-Zohar) it is written “that the early Geonim used to conceal the existence of the book of the Zohar.” Would any reasonable person accept such a proposition, that it was considered acceptable to copy what is written in the book, and to send it to the ends of the world, but to reveal the name of the book is not acceptable? We must conclude that if they did not mention the name of the book, and they did not quote anything from the book, it means that they did not have access to the book. This is much more plausible than the castles in the air that he builds.
As for the one or two places where R. Luria found a similarity of language (in part), or a similarity of subject, between a statement of a Gaon and some passage in the Zohar, this proves nothing at all. The books of the Zohar together include about a thousand pages of various ideas, and all kinds of expressions from ancient sources; many of those sources have been lost to us (to this he himself admitted). And the number of responsa of the Geonim also reaches several hundred or thousands. They include many concepts and drew from many ancient sources, many of which have been lost to us. If we had not found several similar expressions and concepts between the books of the Zohar and the responsa of the Geonim, it would be astounding. If you find similar things, for example, in Midrash Rabbah, to what is written in a random novel from this century, would you conclude from this that the authors of the midrash copied from the novel?
It seems that this new idea, that the ancients copied from the Zohar without mentioning its name, found favor in the eyes of some of the later authorities, to the point that a certain Hassidic rebbe believed that even Maimonides studied the Zohar and that he was a kabbalist. What was obvious to the early authorities, that Maimonides knew nothing at all of the Zohar, is not at all obvious to some of the later rabbis.
It is worth mentioning here that Ben-Siyyon Krinfiss, who edited the commentary on Pirqei Avoth, (Ben-Siyyon Krinfiss, in the Jerusalem edition of 1991, printed by Makhon ha-Kethav) Midrash David on Pirqei Avot, by Ribbi David the Nagid, grandson of Maimonides, composed an index in which he listed all the statements of Ribbi David the Nagid that appear in his book, and their sources. Among the sources, he wrote “the Holy Zohar and the books of Kabbalah,” and he listed eleven items. In two of them it becomes clear that the Ari (R. Isaac Luria 1534–1572) wrote something similar or had the same idea. Did Ribbi David foresee, by the holy spirit, that the Ari would later come up with this idea, and shall we therefore consider the words of the Ari as his source? In four of them, the same statement is also found in other midrashim, and the editor found a version in the Zohar that more…
Pg. 56
…closely matches the words of Ribbi David. Based on this, he decided that his source must have been from the Zohar. However, it is equally possible that this was his version in that midrash, and that the author of the Zohar drew from that same source — or copied from his version.
One of them does not appear in the location he cited. This leaves four passages by R. David, that appear (according to Mr. Krinfiss) only in the Zohar in that language, but nowhere else. After this, he listed “statements whose source is not known,” and there he listed 17 passages that fit this category. If so, it is clear that R. David had access to sources that have been lost to us. I propose tthe following correction: There are 25 statements whose source we do not know. of these, 4 also appears in the Zohar. It appears that the authors of the Zohar also drew from these unknown sources. Either that, or the authors of the Zohar drew from R. David’s commentary itself.”
The third section:
The argument mentioned within the Zohar, that its author was a pious man and God-fearing and so on, and after this he brought a list of laws that appear only in the Zohar and they have no mention in the words of the sages or in the early authorities. And the little from the Zohar itself, whose custom is whoever says a thing without a received tradition, and upon the secret of this he relies, that he knows, surely the author of the book of the Zohar lived before the sealing of the Talmud, for if not so, he is found passing over his own words, and we claim that he is a righteous man.
Regarding the foundation of his first argument, we have already replied in the chapter on Magen weṢinah, that anybody who forges a book, and wishes for it to be well-received in the religious community, must forcefully praise the fulfilment of the commandments, and condemn the commitment of sins. Otherwise, nobody would accept his book. There is no evidence here that the author of the Zohar was a righteous and pious man. That the Zohar mentions laws that have no foundation in the words of the Sages, he did violate his own words at all, mainly, for the exact language, from the Zohar, that he cited is, “all who says words of Torah that he is not familiar with, and that he did not receive as tradition…”. I am fairly certain that the authors of the Zohar received their teachings from their teachers, and they were familiar with them. That is to say that, by their own reasoning, they were justified in manufacturing the laws – and they didn’t consider themselves to be included in this curse. It is also possible that they received them from sources of the Sages that have been lost to us, and we can give them the benefit of the doubt.
The fourth section:
He cited several historical events that are mentioned in the Zohar that R. Moshe de Leon surely would have known their exact dates. The fact that the Zohar mentions them without giving their exact dates is a proof that it was composed before these events occurred. He is mainly referring to the conquest of Jerusalem by Muslims. He then presents the argument that if this were a forgery, why was he not careful as he was when quoting statements from the Talmud or other matters? Hence, it is surely not a forgery.
The response to all this is very simple, and it is that the author of the Zohar himself, in truth, was careful with these matters up to the limits of his ability, however, sometimes he stumbled, forgot or didn’t know to avoid using language that revealed the late date of his work. In contrast, the authors of the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam practically used no caution at all, and you find on every page, evidence that they are of late origin. In fact, as I have already mentioned, it is possible that the author of the Ra‘ya Mehemna had no intention to forge. He simply used a historic context in which to frame his ideas (like R. Yehudah haLevi in The Kuzari), and it never occurred to him that somebody would be so naive as to believe that the book is ancient. Regarding the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam that is included within Zohar Hadash, we shall dedicate a special chapter.
The fifth section:
Here, it is not his intention to defend the faith in the antiquity of the Zohar, only to refute one of the difficulties that are raised against it, and it is the subject of the language in which the Zohar composed — corrupted Aramaic. His argument is that it was written specifically in Aramaic “to make known that it was not intended to be revealed until after the passing of many generations…”
This claim is rather difficult for me the fathom. If this is the case, what will he say about the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam, that most of it is in simple Hebrew? And what will he reply about the rest of the compositions that (according to most of the kabbalists) are also in esoterica, such as Sefer Yesirah, Sefer ha-Bahir, the Heikhaloth, Pirqei Merkavah and Pirqei Ma‘aseh Bereshith? According to him (p. 89) they should have all been written in Aramaic – yet they’re all in Hebrew.
After thus, near the end of his book, he unintentionally presents an argument that destroys most of his claims in section two of his book. Most of his conjectures in the second branch. There, he relied upon the similarity of the style of a few Geonic responsa, to the style of the Zohar, and he wanted to say that they are from sections of the Zohar that have been lost over time.
Pg. 57
