You can read or download Dr. Marc B. Shapiro's article in the new issue of Milin Havivin here. The article is called "?האם יש חיוב להאמין שהזוהר נכתב על ידי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי"("Is There An Obligation To Believe that the Zohar Was Written By Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai?" ). While I thought the question was settled years ago (see here) and subsequently had to reconsider (here) you can read what Shapiro has to say in his interesting article. He brought some interesting sources to my attention, such as a Darke Moshe which says "שמעתי כי בעל ספר הזוהר הוא סתם רבי שמעון המוזכר בתלמוד שהוא רבי שמעון בן יוחאי," sounding a lot less committal than you'd think.
Once can also read some classic works on the question of the Zohar's authenticity:
R. Elijah Del Medigo - Bechinas Ha-das here
Yaavetz - Mitpachas Sefarim here
R. Moshe Kunitz - Ben Yochai here
Shir Rapoport - Nachalas Yehuda here
R. Leone Modena - Ari Nohem here
Shadal - Vikuach al Chochmas ha-Zohar, etc. link
R. Elia Benamozegh - Ta'am Le-shad here
R. Eliyahu Nissim - Ana Kesil here
R. Shlomo b"r Eliyahu Nissim - Aderes Eliyahu here
R. Moshe Yisrael Hazzan - Shearis Ha-nachalah here
R. David Luria - Kadmus Sefer Ha-zohar here
The above list is not meant to be exhaustive.
The entire issue of Milin Havivin 5 can be downloaded here.
Where is the Darkei Moshe (what siman?)
ReplyDeleteYou should read the article, but it's 65:12.
ReplyDeleteHey - did you give the wrong link to Rabbi Leff's reconsideration? Your link leads us to a discussion of dayyanim in brown suits who dont beleive in kaballah, but its not the retraction I think you were referring to.
ReplyDeleteNo, the second link was intentional.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember Rabbi Leff retracting. Link?
Miss Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou might also want to include R. Yahya Kapach's
"'Amal Ur'ut Ruach" - here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/43777
I thought I heard he retracted that. I'm not such a googler, but I just saw on October 28, 2010 someone named "Rabbi Natan Slifkin" writes about this and says he had been told Rabbi Leff commented his comment. I could be wrong. [But, could also be right.]
ReplyDeleteI do plan on reading the article. However as you point out the Darchei Moshe is very interesting to see!
ReplyDeleteIn which chelek of SA?
ReplyDeleteShir Rapoport = Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport Rapoport?
ReplyDeleteShimon S, yes, that Rapoport.
ReplyDeleteS., why didn't Shir get his "R."?
Yeedle, was he really Rapoport Rapoport? You do know Shir was not his name, right? Would you write Rabbi Shadal Luzzatto?
ReplyDeleteBecause I used "Shir." I wouldn't say "Rabbi Chida" either.
ReplyDeleteTruth be told, I added "Rapoport" because sometimes you just want to work with Google.
In a list of "classic works on the question of the Zohar's authenticity" I'm missing some major apologetics defending it's authenticity. This is more like a list of "classic works questioning the Zohar's authenticity".
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not familiar with the work or the author but the book and database lists Yedidya Nissim as the author of Ana Kesil (not Eliyahu Nissim).
ReplyDeleteShimon S,I didn't realize your question was about the 2 X Rapaport.
ReplyDeleteWould I say Rabbi Shadal? Hmmm... probably not. Like Chida. or Neziv. Or Malbim. So why do I say Ramchal, Radal? I don't know.
These acronyms seem to be assigned on the basis of phonetic preference. It seems kind of arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteRav tzair in toldos haposkim vol 3 pg 68 mentions this Darcei Moshe. See there for further analysis of the rema's approach to Kabbala in general and to incorporating it into Halacha.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Darkei Moshe, though the word שמעתי sounds "less committal than you'd think", nevertheless the Darkei Moshe over there is using rashbi's authorship of the zohar to be lenient.
ReplyDeleteEven if he was in doubt as to the specific author of the zohar, it's clear he didn't doubt it's divine source and veracity, see his toras haolah vol.2 ch. 1
דבר זה לקטתי מדברי הזוהר והם דברים הנתנים בסיני
vol. 3 ch. 4
ובהיות כי המקובלים קבלו עניני השמות ופירושיהן איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו עליו השלום
ch.32
הם דברי המקובלים באומה הישראלית אשר
עמדו על זה בקבלה איש מפי איש מפי משה רבינו עליו השלום
"These acronyms seem to be assigned on the basis of phonetic preference. It seems kind of arbitrary."
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily. Two factors should be considered:
1. Does the acronym correspond with an existing Hebrew word?
2. Was the acronym chosen by the author himself?
Concerning the Darkei Moshe, though the word שמעתי sounds "less committal than you'd think", nevertheless the Darkei Moshe seems to be so sure of rashbi's authorship of the zohar that he will rule leniently because of it..
ReplyDeleteEven if he was in doubt as to the specific author of the zohar, it's clear he didn't doubt it's divine source and veracity, see his toras haolah vol.2 ch. 1
דבר זה לקטתי מדברי הזוהר והם דברים הנתנים בסיני
vol. 3 ch. 4
ובהיות כי המקובלים קבלו עניני השמות ופירושיהן איש מפי איש עד משה רבינו עליו השלום
ch.32
הם דברי המקובלים באומה הישראלית אשר
עמדו על זה בקבלה איש מפי איש מפי משה רבינו עליו השלום
Anonymous --
ReplyDeleteBooya!!!
For an academic the Darchei Moshe is a nice "chop"...But you'll always find someone to fire back...
In which chelek of SA is this Darchei Moshe in (the siman was already posted)
ReplyDeleteיורה דעה
ReplyDeleteGuest2, Shapiro's discussion is whether it's permitted to believe that the Zohar was not written by Rashbi, not on the veracity of Kaballah. It's more then a "nice academic chop". In the town square test, saying nowadays that Rashbi didn't author the Zohar would fail.
ReplyDeleteGuest and Guest 2 -
ReplyDeleteMarc Shapiro discusses the gradations between not beleiving kaballah at all, beleiving in kaballah but not beleiving that Rashbi write the Zohar, and beleiving that Rashbi wrote only part of the Zohar.
Good citations to the Toiras Haolah. doesnt he also say there that kabbalh is another word for philosophy? agav,
agav, guest2, this has nothing to with Marc Shaprio's status as an academic rather than a professional rabbi. Everyone gets shlugged up from other sources, zoo hi darka shel toirah.
The discussion on who wrote the Zohar, what to believe and what not to is PURELY academic...True mainly because no one in the "charedi" world will say otherwise...But another point is because in the realm of lets say psak or limud of kabballah I don't think it'll anyway matter at the end of the day if the Rashbi wrote the Zohar or not (especially where we are holding in terms of history.) Nothing will change.
ReplyDeleteThe M"A says in Hilchos Purim that we are not m'vatel any minhag even if there is some issur involved in it. So any minhag or halacha based on the Zohar there wouldn't be any room to get rid of.
Marc Shapiro is a moreh-dika Talmud Chocham I've listened to his shiurim, read his posts on Seforim blog, etc. I look forward to reading this article as well. However to bring this Darchei Moshe is cute -- big talmidei chochamim already know -- in fact a Rebbe of mine once pointed it out to myself and few other talmidim around 4 years ago. The way these things are found also interests me. Was the person learning Yoreh Deah and found it agav, did they look for it, did someone tell them. No difference really, just curious to know.
Guest2 re. the M"A in Hilkhos Purim: So even if I totally disbelieve in kaballah I'm still patur from putting on tefillin on Chol Ha'Moed? Hey, who was it who spoke about a karkafta d'lo manach tefillin? :-)
ReplyDeleteWhat's your minhag? There are some that do put on Tefillin on Chol HaMoed.
ReplyDelete(B'frat if you don't believe in Kabballah mistama your minhag is like those that do put on on Chol HaMoed)
I wouldn't live it up to the academics for any inyun to start deciding practical halacha for the people based on their cheshbonos and research -- as good as it might be..
My family minhag is not to put on tefillin. My personal minhag is to put on at home. Reason being, well, you basically said it.
ReplyDeleteGuest2, By the way, Dr. Marc Shapiro has semikah from R. Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg. So maybe that's an academic you would allow to decide practical halakhah.
ReplyDeleteMight I add R' Yichyah Kapach's book on the authenticity of the Zohar? This one is in English: http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/book55/
ReplyDeleteDF, my point was that when you quote a line like that out of context, it sounds more radical than when you see it in context.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of that is your one-liner "doesnt he also say there that kabbalah is another word for philosophy?" here is the context vol. 3 chapter 4 (emphases added)
לפי מה שנתבאר ידוע כי דרכי הקבלה הן בעצמן דרכי הפילוסופים האמתיים המאמינים וכמו שכל מה שחקרו והוציאו הפילוסופים מעיוניהם המופתיים שהשם יתעלה נמצא ושהוא אחד ושאינו גוף ולא כח בגוף שהוא תכלית פילוסופיא אלהית קבלו ישראל במתן תורה מפי הגבורה וכן כל מה שדקדקו בהרחקת התוארים ושאר דברים הנתלים בזה עד שמקצתן עמדו על האמת לתארו בפעולות או בדרך שוללי כן קבלו חכמי ישראל ענינים האלו בקבלה בענין הספירות ונתוספו בעלי הקבלה מבעלי החקירה בזה שהם קבלו האמת כאשר הוא ויודעים דברים שלא עמדו עליו הפילוסופים בחקירתם ויודעים דרכי הכחות והתפשטותן בעולם ואיך נקשרו בשמות ובמלות ובאותיות עד שידעו על ידי זה לפעול בהן ברצונן והן דרכי השמות ופעולותם שהם ביד ישראל מקובלים ממשה רבינו עליו השלום וכן קבלו ענין המרכבות והיכלות העליונים ושם המשרתים לעבוד את קונם אשר ממנו נאצל הכל טוב ורע וקבלו שמות המשרתים אשר הם מורים על כחן ופעולותם ועל ידי זה היה כח בידן להשתמש בשמות ובכתרים ההם כפי אשר קבלו מן הנבואה אשר היא למעלה מן החקירה האנושית וכ"ז מבואר למודה על האמת...הכלל כאשר נתבאר כי הספירות הם תוארי הפעולות ואין מחלוקת בזה בין חכמי הקבלה ובין חכמי הפילוסופים רק בקריאת השמות בלבד כי אלו קראום ספירות ושמות ואלו קראום תוארים ופעולות וכן כתב הרב רבי משה בוטריל בפירוש ספר יצירה כי חכמת הקבלה היא חכמת הפילוסופיא רק שבשני לשונות ידברו
Yeedle -
ReplyDeleteI live in Yerushalayim and i know how R' Z N Goldberg's tests work...
Depends what type of test he took and if he has shimush with reshus to pasken...Smicha doesn't mean you can pasken. Especially that type of smicha (if you knew how the tests works you'd understand ;)
(Answer questions b'csav, open book, as long as you want to do it, at home, with a chevrusa, etc..You then bring him the test he takes out a pre-made paper and fills in your name and on what material you answered on - i.e. shabbos, issur v'heter, niddah, etc...I don't know why he does this but this is what he does. Someone told me it's so people that want to work in Chinuch in America will at least have some sort of "smicha".
anon @1:50 am, interesting, Shadal writes very similarly to this, that kaballah is the same/comes from philosophy.
ReplyDeleteGuest2, I know, I was just kidding. It seems that some people would rather look at titles than at essence.
ReplyDeleteIf style can be used to prove or disprove authorship of a given work, one might conclude, after reading this article, that the flowery rabbinic prose, honorific titles, and mocking tone (when discussing the reform publication) could not have been produced by the academic pen of Marc Shapiro.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the source for a requirement to believe that RSBY wrote the Zohar? All I see is an argument for how such a requirement does not exist. Where would the requirement come from (for those who say it exists)?
ReplyDeleteEmunas Chachomim, Torah shebeal peh, lo sasur, etc. is my guess. It would not surprise me if someone might even adapt a statement allegedly said by R. Yisrael Salanter about covering the head, A man who does not cover his head is not necessarily a heretic, but heretics don't cover their head.
ReplyDeleteHow bout Magen V'Tzinah by R. Y. I. Chaver? http://hebrewbooks.org/20122
ReplyDelete