Note:

For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)

7.27.2006

TORAH SHEBALPEH-----the zohar


The Zohar was indeed written by Rav Shimon bar Yochai, as confirmed by all our Torah experts, including the Arizal, who was the greatest expert in Kabbalah ever.

The Gra, too, as well as all other experts in this topic, agree that the Zohar is for real.

It is quoted by the Bais Yosef in Ch. 140, and by the Ramah in Shulchan Aruch in a number of places. It is also quoted countless times in the Poskim, throughout the generations.

(There was one Rav who questioned the authenticity of the Zohar, but his opinion has been dismissed as an overreaction to the Shabsai Tzvi debacle, because of the above reasons, plus the fact that he had not one shred of evidence to back up his position).

You are correct that we do not learn Kabbalah because it is the "inner sphere" (see the Kabbalah topic elsewhere on these boards), but it is more than 100% legitimate. There is no Torah authority after the above authenticating authorities who have chas v'sholom rejected the Zohar. The whole idea is nonsensical, and a product of non-religious, anti-Torah elements.

You're confusing two issues. Rav Yaakov Emden held that parts of the Zohar were written by the "students and students' students" of Rav Shimon bar Yochai without a doubt, but it is as if Rav Shimon bar Yochai himself wrote it" (M'tpchas Sforim I p.31).

This is not the issue. The issue is whether the Zohar was "written centuries later", which alludes to the old, disproved opinion of Gershom Sholem, a heretic who knew not much about Judaism, despite - or actually, in line with - his title of "Professor of Kabbalah" at Hebrew University.

This man decided, about 60 years ago, that that he understood Kabbalah better than the Arizal, the Ramak, and the other masters, and that really Kabblah is not part of Torah but rather an alien outgrowth from Gnosticism and philosophy.

This is not, c"v, the view of Rav Yaakov Emden, the Chasam Sofer, or any other clear headed Jew. R. Yaakov Emden writes about the Zohar:

"Holy is the Sefer HaZohar ... cholilah to question it! The worthy reader will see in it holy light and the path to righteousness ... " (ibid, intro.)

Said R. Yaakov Emden, "The Seforim that I authored are full of Kabblah, based on the Zohar" (Adus B'Yaakov p. 21)

While it is true that Rav Yaakov Emden did on occasion change the text of the Zohar to conform to what he held was the original, or remove some later insertions - and it should be mentioned that even this opinion of his was rejected by the overwhelming majority of scholars - he writes, "Cholilah that I should erase even one letter from the Zohar except where it is absolutely necessary" (MS I p.31). (See also Teshuvos Teshuva M'Ahava I:13, and I:26).

So out of touch was this G. Sholem, and that he even went on a campaign to publicize his "discovery" that Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz ZT"L was a closet follower of Shabse Tzvi! I promise this is true.


Of course, Rav Yonason was accused of that, in his day, by Rav Yaakov Emden, but the accusation was subsequently found to be a total mistake. But the fact that the Vilna Gaon himself found only pure Torah in Rav Yonason's Kabalistic writings did not impress Sholem. I guess it was because The Gra was did not have a PhD from Hebrew U in Kabalah.

Of course, all serious scholars at that time such as Rabbi Reuven Margolis ZT"L did a chain saw massacre on Sholom's "discovery", exposing it for nothing more than ignorance and distortions.


Sholem latched on to a statement of Rav Yonason quoting "Drush Tanini" regarding the Kabalistic concept of "the holy nachash" and that Moshiach is Gemtria "nachash", which, the professor of Kabblaah said, is obviously referring to a work of Noson Ha'azasi, the notorious student of Shabse Tzvi.

Of course, Rav Margolis pointed out that in the Zohar (Bo) there is a "Drush Taninim" and that is what Rav Yonason was referring to.

Sholem insisted that his opposition doesn’t know what they are talking about, and "anyone who understands the Zohar knows that this is an open lie, that we do not even have to deal with".

He writes: "Every single commentary on the Zohar without exception agrees with me".

This is what happens when someone tries to learn Kabbakah from the printed word without a mentor, thus misunderstanding everything he sees.

Well, the professor, of course, turned out to be wrong. The Kabbalistic explanation of Rav Yonason Eyebushitz ZT"L turned up --- guess where? -- in the commentary of Rav Yaaov Emden on that very Zohar!

Kind of a Kiddush Hashem, when something like that happens. (See Zaharei Yaavetz p.125 - 132 for details)

Even the phony secular pseudo-Kabbalists have begun to give up on Sholem's ideas. Moshe Idel, "professor of Jewish thought" (sic) in Hebrew U (he has a "PhD in Kabbalah" (sic). I am not kidding) has proven Sholem wrong. In his "Kabblah, New Perspectives" (SIC!) he shows that Kabalah is really ancient and that the Gnostics actually were influenced by Kabbalah, not vice versa.

Well, duh. At least someone takes Sholom seriously enough to bother disproving him.

No, sorry, all so-called "scholarship" trying to discredit Kabbalah has already been discredited, and if you present any particular tidbit of such "scholarship" I will show you why it doesn’t work.

Or perhaps you can find a "Professor of Truth" somewhere in Hebrew U that can explain it.



...That RSHBI didn’t write the Zohar, meaning, that, all the exact words are not written by him is pretty clear - and yes, you don’t need to swear to that. The Zohar was clearly edited by students of RSHBI, or even Geonim (the Steipler said that). Like the Mishna was edited by R"Y Hanasi.

That doesn’t mean at all that it doesn’t have the authority of RSHBI any more than the fact that the Mishna was edited means c"v it doesn’t represent the opinions of the Tannaim quoted there.

As far as the disproofs of Gershom Sholem, my point is that since there is a clear tradition and expert testimony to the authoritativeness of the Zohar, the onus would lie on those who dispute that. Once their claims are disproved, the default value so to speak of this issue is the traditional one.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Great site loved it alot, will come back and visit again.
»