A prefatory note on transliteration: I have attempted to remain consistent in my transliterations and to represent most Hebrew letters with unique English letters. However, I have also tried to avoid needless awkwardness - for example, in transliterating Ashkenazic last names (e.g. Emden, not `Emdin; Kunitz, not Qunitz). The author wrote dates almost always according to the Jewish calendar; I have rendered their equivalents in the secular calendar in brackets1, or after a slash where aesthetically appropriate. On the translation: As always, a translation is perforce an interpretation. While I have striven to remain faithful to the text, a particular mood conveyed by the syntax or word choice of the original Hebrew cannot always be rendered literally in English. In such instances, I have resorted to minor changes or additions to reflect the intent of the author. Comments and constructive criticism are most welcome. All footnotes are those of the translator.

The Zohar By Rabbi Menachem M. Kasher Translated & published with permission. Thanks to Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem. This translation is solely the rendition of the independent translator and he bears full responsibility for its content and accuracy. © 5773 / 2013 by the translator. Sinai, Jubilee Volume Mosad HaRav Kook, Jerusalem 5718 [1958] Published Without the Footnotes Contents: Foreword 1. 2. 3. 4.

The Progression of the Disputations Concerning the Zohar Refutation of the Proofs Attributing the Zohar’s Authorship to R. Moshe de Leon Resolution of Difficulties in the Literary Style of the Zohar Manuscripts Which Have Been Discovered That Prove the Antiquity of the Zohar

Addendum – The Mishna and The Zohar Summary: The author explains the controversy surrounding the question of the Zohar and its author, and expresses his personal opinion on this topic. 1

All dates are in the Common Era. I have disregarded the four or so months at the beginning of the Jewish year and assumed all years are according to the formula (Jewish year) – 3760 = (Secular year).

Key words: Zohar.

Foreword In the year 5701 [1941] a book entitled Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism was published in Jerusalem, by professor G. Scholem, in which he treats at length the question of the Zohar and its author. He takes the position of those who attribute the work to R. Moshe de Leon and not of those who fix it at an earlier date. Scholem's student, Y. Tishby, in his Mishnath ha-Zohar (Jerusalem, 5709/1949), also maintains that the Zohar's principal parts were written by R. Moshe de Leon, and that no part of the work preceded him. In the introduction to his book he declares that we must accept the conclusions of his teacher [Scholem] as “the final word in the great dispute concerning the composition of the Zohar and its author, which spanned several generations of Judaic scholarship.” I have waited many years for someone from among the faithful Torah scholars to arise and deal with this question, however, I have waited in vain. I, myself, possess material in manuscript for my [unpublished] book Midreshei Ḥazal VehaZohar in which I have dealt with hundreds of passages from the Zohar that are quoted in the [first] 17 volumes of my Torah Sheleimah, comparing them to other Midrashic works of the Sages. I have especially focused on sayings of the Sages which, though quoted by the Rishonim, are not found in extant Midrashim, but which are relevant to the literature of the Zohar and Midrash HaNe`elam. R. David Luria in his book “Kadmuth Sefer HaZohar,” anaf 2, cited a number of similar passages in order to prove the antiquity of the Zohar, and I have continued in this vein. I have principally shown [the correlation of passages from the Zohar with] Midrashim and the works of ancient scholars which have been discovered in manuscript form in recent times. I also discuss in the book many questions and inquiries concerning the Zohar and the relationship between the Zohar and the works of R. M. de Leon. Due to my many other activities I am unable at present to arrange all of the material which I have accumulated. Therefore, I have decided that it is worthwhile to clarify at least some particular points about this important topic. First of all, I must point out that after having carefully reviewed all of the sources which Scholem and Tishby cite to draw their conclusions, I have found that those sources in fact support the exact opposite. For it is clear, without any doubt, that the contents of R. M. de Leon’s published works “HaNefesh HaḤachamah2” and “Sheqel HaQodesh,” and especially his works that are still in manuscript, “HaRimon”3 and “Mishkan Ha`Eduth,” demonstrate that R. M. de Leon did not author the Zohar – rather, he made much use of the Zohar manuscripts in his possession and translated many passages into Hebrew. In the following chapters I will make it clear that Scholem and Tishby erred in the very foundations of their theory by comparing the works of R. Moshe de Leon to the Zohar. In general, one 2

3

The original contains a typo: ‫הנפש והחכמה‬

This work is no longer only in manuscript; Rabbi David Holzer has just recently published it with an English translation, and the other version I am aware of is The Book of the Pomegranate, Elliot R. Wolfson, Scholars Press, 1988.

who carefully examines the works of R. M. de Leon will clearly see that his style, his mode of expression, his phraseology, his topical descriptions and his methods of explanation and discourse are as far from those of the Zohar as the east is from the west. The pen that wrote them is neither qualified nor competent enough to write even one chapter – let alone the one thousand seven hundred published pages – of the authentic, living Aramaic of the Zohar. The Zohar is a gigantic, unique creation. It has a wondrous ability to arouse and enflame a person’s soul to supernal kedushah (holiness). This is the book that speaks to men’s hearts, and thus it has been loved and revered so much over the generations by G-d-fearing, elevated people. It bears no resemblance at all to the books of R. Moshe de Leon, which are ordinary books, like the other Kabbalistic works which were composed in that time period. To be perfectly honest, I cannot understand the reasoning of the two aforementioned authors. Scholem writes that we must admit that there is a large portion of the Zohar whose Aramaic is exemplary, and which comes from the mouths of sages for whom Aramaic was a living language. And even Tishby writes that the Zohar has unique literary qualities, a sublime and lofty pathos, a style of poetic imagery, colorful and vivid constructs, et cetera. So, we must inquire: Is it possible to find even one of all these wonderful qualities in the works of R. Moshe de Leon? How could one find one of these things in the books of R. Moshe de Leon?4 And how, in the midst of writing these same lines, could an author disregard his own statements and declare that it is definite that R. Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar, and that there is no section of it that precedes his era?

The Progression of the Disputations Concerning the Zohar The first reports of the existence of the Zohar are found in many works of the Rishonim who lived in the first half of the first century of the sixth millennium [1240-1290]. In these books, parts of the Zohar are quoted in the name of “the midrash,” “Midrash Yerushalmi,” just “Yerushalmi,” or “Midrash R. Shim`on bar Yoḥai.” R. Eliyahu del Medigo in his work Beḥinath HaDath, which was authored in the year 5251 [1491], writes critically of the Zohar: “the book has only been publicly known in our nation for close to 300 years.” Even according to his statement, the Zohar had already been publicized by the last century of the fifth millennium [circa 1200]. A historical testament to the revelation of the Zohar is left to us in the form of Sefer HaYuḥasin HaShalem, first edition, Constantinople 5326 [1566]. This records the testimony of R. Yitzḥaq of Acco, who came especially from the land of Israel to Spain in 5065 [1305] to investigate the Zohar, whose authenticity had come under attack. The critics of the time claimed that only the passages written in Palestinian Aramaic are from R. Shim`on, and what is written in Hebrew is a forgery – meaning that R. Moshe de Leon wrote it, and it is not a reflection of RSHBY’s thought. R. Yitzḥaq came to the city 4

I am not certain about the precise intent here, but it seems like a rhetorical question: ‫ כלום אפשר למצוא אפילו אחת מכל אלו המעלות בספרי ר' משה די ליאון? וכיצד אפשר למצוא אפילו‬:‫הרי נשאלת השאלה‬ ?‫אחת מכל אלו המעלות בספרי ר' משה די ליאון‬

Valladolid and found R. Moshe de Leon there. He asked him about the claims, and R. Moshe de Leon made an oath to him that he had in his home in Ávila a manuscript attributed to RSHBY, and when R. Yitzḥaq came there he would show it to him. Shortly after returning home, however, R. Moshe de Leon passed away. In the account, R. Yitzḥaq testifies that he heard from men who saw R. Ya`aqov, R. Moshe’s primary student, that he “called heaven and earth to witness that the Zohar which R. Shim`on bar Yoḥai authored…” The rest of the piece is missing in the testament; seemingly from its language, R. Ya`aqov also testified against the critics. Also in this testament, R. Yitzḥaq of Acco cited a witness who himself testified that a woman said to him5 that R. Moshe told his wife that he was writing from his own intellect. Additionally, R. Yosef HaLevi ben R. Todros testified that R. Moshe de Leon possessed many thick booklets, and he tested R. Moshe on whether he really had [original] manuscripts in his possession, and he found it to be true. Seemingly, R. Yitzḥaq of Acco accepted and believed the words of R. Moshe, as well as the testimony of R. Yosef Todros and what was said in the name of R. Ya`aqov, [R. Moshe’s] student. He dismissed the claims of the critics, considering them unreliable. The evidence for this is that in his work “Me’irath `Einayim,” which is a commentary on the Kabbalistic hints contained in the Ramban’s Bible commentary (currently in manuscript in the British Museum and elsewhere), he quotes the Zohar and calls it “Midrash Yerushalmi.”6 This implies that he believed the Zohar to be an authentic midrash of Ḥazal. It also appears that, at that time, the criticisms of the Zohar died out. Thus we find contemporary Rishonim utilizing it as a midrash, and many writers in the next 200 years quoting various passages in the name of the Zohar, and during that entire time period there is no record of critical arguments against the Zohar. R. Eliyahu del Medigo argues in his work Beḥinath HaDath (which as we have mentioned was written in the year 5251) against the antiquity of the Zohar and that its author was not RSHBY. His book was printed in 5389 [1629] by R. Yasha”r [Yosef Shlomo Rofeh del Medigo] of Candia [Crete], who then responded to all of his arguments, with the aim of defending the Zohar‘s authenticity, in his book Matzref LeḤochma. When the Zohar was originally brought to print in 5318 [1558], vigorous disputations were sparked regarding the antiquity of the Zohar. By the year 5399 [1639 ], R. Yehuda Arye of Modena, who served in the Rabbinate of Venice, published his book Ari Nohem, in which he fought against the Zohar and declared decisively that it had only been written 350 years prior. R. Avi`ad Sar Shalom authored Emunath Ḥachamim (Mantua 5490/1730), which battled the arguments of the Zohar’s critics, seemingly because he had heard about the fundamentals of R. Yehuda Arye of Modena’s arguments.

5

This seems to be the intent of Rabbi Kasher’s words in the Hebrew, although I think I remember the story being that the wife herself told this person. I don’t know where to find the account in Sefer HaYuḥasin. 6 The strength of this proof would lie in the dating of Me’irath `Einayim to after RYOA’s investigations, which I believe has been done elsewhere. This requires research.

In the year 5528 [1768], R. Ya`aqov Emden published his book Miṭpaḥath Sefarim (Altoona) and wrote approximately 300 critical notes on7 the Zohar. His main goal was [to utilize the arguments] in his mighty war against Sabbateanism. Sabbateans encouraged learning of the Zohar, which allowed them to bolster the legitimacy of their theology by explaining difficult passages in strange ways. R. Ya`aqov Emden emphasizes many times that he believes that the Zohar is in essence “holy of holies,” and that it was written at the end of the period of the Amora’im and the time of the Ge’onim. However, many parts were added in to it in the times of R. Moshe de Leon. He leans toward the opinion that only the Ra`ya Mehemna and the Tiqunei Zohar were perhaps written entirely by R. Moshe de Leon or someone else in his generation. In the year 5575 [1815], the book Ben Yoḥai by R. Moshe Kunitz was published. In it, he deconstructs all of R. Ya`aqov Emden’s arguments. Even though he produced an extensive work, his arguments are unconvincing in the face of R. Ya`aqov Emden’s, except in a very few places. Additionally, he did not write with the appropriate respect due R. Emden. He misunderstood and mixed up sources, as Shi”r [Shlomo Yehuda Leib Rapoport] pointed out in his monograph Naḥalath Yehuda (Lemberg 5633/1873) – but as I have explained in my book in manuscript, Shir also made many errors. R. Re’uven Rapoport also wrote responses and refutations to R. Ya`aqov Emden in his critical notes to the book Mishpaḥath Lvov, as well as strongly criticizing R. M. Kunitz. In the year 5610 [1850], Dr. Aharon Jellinek publicized his investigations on the Zohar in comparison to R. Moshe de Leon’s work HaNefesh HaḤachamah. He concludes that parts of the Zohar were written by a school of Kabbalists which R. Moshe de Leon headed. Shada”l [Shmu’el David Luzzatto] also wrote the book Vikuaḥ `al Ḥochmath HaQabala (Gorizia 5612/1852) against the Zohar. To argue against Shadal, R. Eliyahu Benamozegh wrote the book Ta`am LeSha”d (Leghorn 5621/1861), in which he dismisses Shadal’s arguments in an academic fashion and demonstrates the antiquity of the Zohar. Preceding R. Eliyahu Benamozegh was R. Elyaqim8 Hamilzahgi of Brody, author of the Sefer Raaviya”h (Ofen 5597/1837), with a fundamental, broad and penetrating investigation, demonstrating a comprehensive familiarity with all of the arguments of the critics. His arguments are described with particular clarity in his book that is left in manuscript form in the National Library in Jerusalem, in which he dismisses the claims of all the critics and concludes that there are ancient and more recent parts of the Zohar which were written throughout the generations. Also holding this opinion is the important scholar Y. Stern in his article in the journal Ben Ḥananya 1-5. R. Frank9 came to a similar conclusion. After re-publication of the book Ari Nohem (Leipzig 5600/1840), one of the members of the Vilna Gaon’s circle of students and rabbi of Suwałki, R. Yitzḥaq Isaac Ḥaver, came out against it in his book Magen V’Tzina, in order to discredit all its claims. In the year 5616 [1856], the book Qadmuth Sefer HaZohar was published by R. David Luria. In it, he responds to the opinion that R. Moshe de Leon wrote the Zohar by comparing it to [R. de Leon’s] book 7

or: “arguments against” Spelled with a yud according to the title page of his book, unlike R. Kasher who spelled it with a vav. 9 From the Hebrew it is clear that “R.” is a first initial and does not stand for Rabbi. I do not know to whom this refers. 8

HaNefesh HaḤachamah. He also brings proofs to the antiquity of the Zohar. Hillel Zeitlin followed in his footsteps in the essays he published in the journal HaTequfah, volumes 5-7, 9 [?]10, and he strengthened the proofs of R. David Luria by making comparisons to R. de Leon’s work Sheqel HaQodesh (published in London 5671/1911). One should also mention the name A. Kaminka among the later scholars who attempted to prove the antiquity of the Zohar, in his essay “HaRa`yonoth HaSodiyim Shel Rashb”y” in Sefer Klozner (5697/1937) and also his essay “LeQadmuth Sefer HaZohar” in “Sinai”, vol. 7 (5700/1940); Dr. Moshe Gaster in “Encyclopedia LeDath UMidoth”, vol. 12 (5690/1930), and Rabbi Y. L. Zlotnik in “Midrash HaMelitza Ha`Ivrith” (Jerusalem 5699/1939). Also, Rabbi Levi (Louis) Ginzburg makes use of the Zohar in tandem with other Midrashim of the Talmudic Sages in the last two volumes of his work “Aggadoth HaYehudim.” In the year 5686 [1926], Prof. G. Scholem published in Mada`ei HaYahaduth, part 1, an essay called “Did R. Moshe de Leon Write The Zohar?11” (His first book, translating the Sefer HaBahir into German, was published in 5683/1923.) In this essay, he argues against those who attribute the Zohar to R. M. de Leon and demonstrates with various proofs that the Zohar preceded R. M. de Leon. So too, he writes in his book “Peraqim LeToldoth Safruth HaQabalah”, p. 62 (Jerusalem 5691/1931): “And with this, the theory that R. Moshe de Leon had a hand in the composition or editing of the main part of the Zohar has fallen.” This theme runs through all of the essays which G. Scholem wrote over the course of many years. He exerted himself in researching the Zohar and various Kabbalistic manuscripts from every library in the world, and he gathered much new material which had not been known to those who preceded him. In them he found proofs to his position, which concurred with others who affirmed the antiquity of the Zohar. However, to our great amazement, a change came over him in his last book, which he published in 5701 [1941]. He reversed the very opinion that for many years he himself had advanced and given a strong foundation. In this new book he came to the conclusion of Graetz and Jellinek, that the main sections of the Zohar were written by R. Moshe de Leon and no part of it preceded him; also, the Ra`ya Meheimna and Tiqunei Zohar were written by a member of R. Moshe de Leon’s circle. In fact, he points out (pp. 190-92) that even after he has come to this determination, there are still problematic questions which require a resolution, for example: what is the relationship of R. Yosef Gikatilia to the Zohar? It is impossible to identify him as its author; also, there is no one who lived during that time period whom we would be able to identify as the Zohar’s author (R. Avraham Abulafia not being considered). Even so, it seems to him that R. Yosef Gikatilia, who was a friend of R. Moshe de Leon (one may even venture to call him both his mentor and student), had a hand in the formation of the Zohar and its distribution. After Scholem, Y. Tishby published his own book Mishnath HaZohar with an extensive, 116-page introduction. He provides a lengthy historical overview of critical study of the Zohar, scholarly problems and proposed solutions, and he also concludes that R. Moshe de Leon was its author.

10 11

Reprinted in the book Pardes haḤassiduth vehaQabbalah. Yavneh Publishing, Tel Aviv (1960). pp. 55-127 Hebrew: "?‫"האם חיבר ר' משה די ליאון את הזוהר‬

One should take note of a significant disagreement between master and student: Scholem believes that R. M. de Leon wrote the Zohar during a period of six years, from 1280-1286, and then hid it. In the years when he wrote his Hebrew works, from 1286-1293, he made use of the Zohar, which he had already written. His copying of the manuscript and its distribution took place during the years 1293-1305. Jellinek argues just the opposite, that his Hebrew books were written first. Tishby takes a composite view – in his opinion this division [of periods] is not reasonable and feels too artificial. Rather, this is what happened: When R. M. de Leon began to write his Hebrew works, he simultaneously began composing the Zohar, and from 1293 until the day of his death he was primarily engaged in completing the different parts of the Zohar. Thus all of the difficulties with Scholem’s approach may be resolved. Tishby warns, however, that even his theory remains in the category of conjecture. In fact, these academic speculations are accompanied by their own refutation. Could anyone imagine R. M. de Leon to be capable of writing the 1700 pages of the Zohar in a period of exactly six years?! Scholem forgot that those who originally accused R. M. de Leon of forging the Zohar, as attested to in the account of R. Yitzḥaq of Acco, (in the Yuḥasin HaShalem, London 1875, pp. 88-89), said: “But this R. Moshe knew the shem hakothev [G-d’s holy name associated with writing] and with its power this R. Moshe writes wondrous things.” And also: “And thus R. Moshe was a master of the shem hakothev and with its power wrote everything in this book.” Meaning, those people believed that R. Moshe wrote by mystically binding his quill with a oath, because they understood that it is impossible for a human being to write such an enormous amount of material naturally in such a short amount of time. Perhaps they knew him to have mediocre talent, and they could not imagine how he could write such a work himself – unless he used a holy name and wrote it in a miraculous fashion. But Scholem, who does not believe [in holy names] – how could he even consider that R. Moshe de Leon was talented enough to compose such a great work, in both quantity and quality, from his own mind, in just six years? Consider that even a gaon ten times as talented as R. Moshe de Leon has not accomplished such a thing, and all of the books that R. Moshe de Leon wrote during his entire life (Scholem, in his book on p. 387, wrote that he composed other small books and essays12), would not even equal one volume of the Zohar in length. The concept is astounding: One the one hand, R. M. de Leon was able to write a book as wondrous as the Zohar in six short years, which indicates that he was a gaon ha-gaonim [genius of geniuses] in this field, and on the other hand he didn’t even know how to translate some of the words, and his style13 is filled with errors. Additionally, he assisted in forging responsa, etc.14 Behold, two opposite qualities in one subject! If it were permitted to write such conjectures, I would say that all of RMDL’s lifetime was an insufficient amount of time [for him] to have forged even one section of the Zohar.

12

Kasher seems to be implying that Scholem believed RMDL to have written only a small amount of other material not extant today. 13 The intent seems to be the style with which he wrote his “other” works. 14 In other words, this is what Scholem accused him of.

When I went through Scholem’s book and wanted to understand his opinion – how he negates all of the proofs to the antiquity of the Zohar which he himself proposed in his essays written over the course of many years – I was astonished to discover that he ignored all of these proofs and found no reason to discuss them. We understand that every person has the right to change his mind and opinion; in fact, this sometimes indicates that a person is seeking the truth. However, this is only with regards to the views of a person that are dependent upon his mind and intellect, but if we are discussing an opinion chiefly based on documentary evidence and others’ scholarly publications – if a person changes his mind about these things, he is forced to say that his entire original scholarly opinion, to wit: his comprehension in reading the sources before him, was faulty and based in error, and that there is an entirely different way to understand all of those sources. If so, Scholem should have dedicated at least one page of his 450-page book to briefly citing the sources which he previously used to prove the antiquity of the Zohar, and to show that there is an alternate way to interpret them according to his new theory. But at the very least, Scholem of 5701/1941 has no right to relate with such complete dismissal to Scholem of 5686-95/1926-35. In my opinion, the views of the early Scholem are more correct than those of the later Scholem.

II. Refutation of the Proofs Attributing the Zohar’s Authorship to R. Moshe de Leon Let us examine the main evidence which led Scholem to change his mind and join those who attribute the Zohar to R. M. de Leon: 1) The framework of the relationship between the Zohar and the works of R. Moshe de Leon and his [other] writings: The linguistic comparison between them and the Zohar brought him to his new position, to attribute the Zohar to R. M. de Leon. To the other aspects of the field of Zohar criticism, which Tishby listed in the fourth chapter of his introduction – Scholem added nothing. 2) An investigation into the language of the Zohar based on a dictionary of the Zohar’s lexicon which he himself wrote and is still in manuscript form. With this he clarified: 1. On the one hand, the Zohar’s unity of style, and on the other hand, its late authorship. 2. It is filled with late forms of expression and grammar, whose source is in the rabbinic Hebrew of the Middle Ages; the symbolism and ideology of the Zohar are built on the streams of Kabbalistic thought in the generations which preceded [its dissemination]. Indeed, a comparative investigation between the books of R. M. de Leon and the Zohar is the most trustworthy basis from which to reach clarity on whether it is possible to attribute to him the authorship of the Zohar. The first person to explore this area was RDL [R. David Luria] in his book Qadmuth HaZohar. He had access to HaNefesh HaḤachama, and demonstrated with several proofs that although R. M. de Leon made much use of the Zohar, still, many of his ideas are opposed to the Kabbalistic system of the Zohar. He also demonstrates that in several places R. M. de Leon cites the words of the Zohar but erred in his comprehension of the material, [and in other places clearly] had a deficient manuscript. Subsequently, Zeitlin published his essays in Ha-Tequfah vol. 6 pp. 329-334; vol. 7, pp. 365-368, and clarifies from RMDL’s second book Sheqel HaQodesh that there are various contradictions between it

and the system of the Zohar. In his opinion, R. M. de Leon transcribed the booklets of the Zohar which came into his possession. When I went through the four extant works of R. M. de Leon, including the two in manuscript form, HaRimon and Mishkan Ha`Eduth, the same thing became clear to me. Besides that their style and content are not at all similar to the Zohar, I have discovered a new point that no one until now has perceived. R. M. de Leon in several places in his books discusses certain topics, asking questions and giving explanation, proposing difficulties and giving solutions, in cases where the Zohar gives completely different answers to those same questions. This shows that not only did R. M. de Leon not write the Zohar, but he did not even remember everything that was written in it. Now for Scholem. He conducted a linguistic comparison between the printed and manuscript books of R. M. de Leon and the Zohar, and writes in his book (p. 193) that R. M. de Leon’s style is similar to the Zohar’s – the same grammatical mistakes, the same poor structure, the same words used in an inappropriate context. In short, one may find R. M. de Leon’s same unique tone in the Zohar itself. After reading this introduction, I thought: Surely, Scholem will dedicate several pages to this fundamental point. First, he will refute R. David Luria’s and R. Hillel Zeitlin’s proofs, and subsequently he will produce a long list of examples from R. M. de Leon’s language in his books, and parallel to them a list of similar constructions from the Zohar, according to his unpublished dictionary, in the way that even an amateur academic would continue. However – I found not even a small amount of this, and he did not address RDL’s and Zeitlin’s points at all. And so, what are the fruits of Scholem’s labors in this investigation? To this, he dedicates several lines. In note 137 he cites several grammatical mistakes and poor constructions found in R. M. de Leon’s works and the Zohar. They are as follows: "‫( "התעורר‬lit. he aroused himself) in a transitive usage; " ...‫הוא‬ ‫( "נקודה אחת להשתלשל משם כל ההוויות‬lit. [He?] is… one point whence all existing things emanated), which is a very common phrase in the Zohar; "‫ "עלה בשם‬... "‫( "השתדל אחרי‬strove after) … (arose in the name) in the sense of “to be called by the name…”; "‫( "מסכים מחלוקת‬agreed [to] dispute), in the sense of “wronged me”; "‫( "חוזר‬returns, intransitive usage) instead of "‫( "מחזיר‬returns, transitive usage); and nothing more. This tiny list is very strange and totally lacking in an academic approach. He does not cite their location in the works of R. M. de Leon, nor in the Zohar, so that we may check them and evaluate them. In any event, from this small list we can say decisively that it proves the opposite of Scholem’s conclusions, because even if we agree that there are several words that R. M. de Leon used in the same sense as they appear in the Zohar, what kind of proof is this? On the contrary, this shows us that R. M. de Leon used the Zohar that was before him. It is known that he translated many passages from the Zohar into Hebrew, and so how does this begin to prove that he is the author of the Zohar? Indeed, Scholem gives us two examples in the main text of his book: On p. 196 he writes15:

15

I don’t have Scholem’s book in front of me, so I am re-translating something from Hebrew that was originally written in English.

The errors that R. M. de Leon makes in copying the sources in front of him shed light on his authorship of the Zohar. For example, in Pesiqta d’Rav Kahana, Buber edition, page 6, the drash on the verse ‫ביום כלות משה‬, on the day Moses concluded, is explained, "‫ "כלת‬is written (kethiv), which literally means “the bride of,” and thus the verse is saying, on the day the bride entered the garden. What this midrash means is that the dedication of the tabernacle is compared to a wedding ceremony between the Holy One, blessed is He, and the congregation of Israel. From here the kabbalists innovated the idea that there is a similar connection between Moses and the sheḥina (divine presence), and therefore he is called “the man of G-d,” meaning, “husband of the Matron,” (‫)בעלה דמטרוניתא‬. This explanation, even though it is totally foreign to the Pesiqta, is cited in many kabbalistic works. The essential idea appears several times in the Zohar, in different wordings, saying that Moses was the only person in the world who merited being “husband of the Matron” for his entire life. R. M. de Leon innovated this theory from his own mind and wove it into the Zohar as an integral concept; however, in one place in his book in manuscript he forgot that he invented this idea himself and he attributes it to the Pesiqta. Similarly, Scholem writes in the note to p. 143, that in the manuscript of HaRimon, R. M. de Leon cites, from the Pesiqta, words that are actually in the Zohar (Bereishith p. 236b) relating to the verse from Bamidbar 30:14, “her husband upholds it or her husband annuls it”: “Moses, the man of G-d, master of the household, husband of the Matron. Here we have an entire pilpul to demonstrate how R. M. de Leon: A. Introduced a strange, original explanation into the Pesiqta. B. Placed this explanation into the Zohar. C. Forgot what was written in the Zohar and in one of his books attributes that same idea to the Pesiqta. Undoubtedly, Scholem has brought us the clearest example, better than anything that could be found in R. M. de Leon’s two printed works, HaNefesh HaḤachamah and Sheqel HaQodesh, as evidenced by the fact that he had to resort to an obscure source, the manuscript of HaRimon, which is held in the library of the British Museum. In his opinion, he has literally caught R. M. de Leon red-handed in his forgery of the Zohar. Let us examine how much truth is in all of this. In the same way that Scholem evaluates R. M. de Leon, we will evaluate him. A) Scholem did not write the original language of the manuscript HaRimon, rather, he explained in English what is written there. Thus, here is the language of the manuscript of the book HaRimon (photocopied from the British Museum manuscript): “But the foundation of the idea and the nuance [of the verse] is that which [the Talmud] says, “for Moses [fear of Heaven] is a small thing,” for the level of Moses and his elevation is the place of his glory, and thus is the secret of the idea “man of G-d,”

and the Sages said in the Pesiqta, “like ‘her husband upholds it or her husband annuls it’,” and therefore for Moses it is a small thing.” B) Scholem saw the Pesiqta on p. 6 and thought that R. M. de Leon and the kabbalists innovated the aforementioned explanation based on it. But if Scholem would have treated R. M. de Leon in a serious fashion, as is appropriate for a man who seeks the truth, he would not have come up with such a convoluted proof and built a “tower which flies through the air,” claiming that R. M. de Leon innovated an explanation of the Pesiqta and then forgot about it. Instead, he would have appropriately searched through the Pesiqta and found that it is indeed written explicitly there exactly as the book HaRimon writes – no strange interpretation, no forgery and no forgetfulness on the part of R. M. de Leon. This is the wording of the Pesiqta d’Rav Kahana, Buber edition, p. 198: “Man of G-d.” Said Rabbi Yoḥanan: “Her husband upholds it or her husband annuls it,” [Bamidbar 30:14]: Her husband upholds it: “And it was when the ark traveled, and Moses said, ‘Arise, Lord.’” Her husband annuls it: “And when it rested, he said, ‘Return, Lord, myriads of the thousands of Israel.’” [Meaning, Moses said,] “I will not move from this spot until you make the thousands into myriads.” The same passage is found in Midrash Tehillim, Psalm 95: Said Rabbi Yehuda b. Rabbi Simon in the name of R. Shimon b. Laqish: Why is his name called, “Man of G-d?” Just like the husband who wishes to annul his wife’s vow may annul, and if he wishes to uphold it he may uphold it, as it says, “Her husband upholds it or her husband annuls it,” Moses said – so to speak – to the Holy One, blessed is He, “Arise, Lord; Return, Lord.” Note that it explicitly corresponds with the writing of R. M. de Leon. And see Zohar, Breishith pp. 21-22; Naso p. 148a. And it is interesting that such a fundamental idea, which is a glowing thread running through kabbalistic sources, is founded upon the teachings of the Sages in the Midrashim. This bolsters the theory of RDL, as I have explained in my yet-unpublished book, that much of the foundations of the kabbalah in the Zohar can be found in works of the Sages, whose antiquity is recognized. Here is a second example: On p. 197 Scholem quotes the words of RDL in Qadmuth HaZohar referring to what R. M. de Leon wrote in HaNefesh HaḤachamah §10: “[Here is a] metaphorical comparison to a shepherd. As long as the sheep are in the wilderness, amid wolves, the shepherd prays for their safety, for he is afraid for them. As long as the sheep are in their pens, he is not afraid and does not need to pray for their safety.” RDL wrote that the source of this passage is in the responsa of the Geonim Sha`arei Teshuvah, siman 80, and it is also quoted by the Recanati, parshath Vayeira 54, 3. Rabbi M. Gabai also cites it in Tola`ath Ya`aqov. Scholem decides that R. M. de Leon is the first to quote this metaphor, and then hypothesizes that R. M. de Leon had a hand in forging those Geonic responsa which RDL had quoted as a source for the passage. And what will Scholem answer to the fact that R. Avraham b. R. Yitzḥaq (who died in 4919 / 1159,

around 140 years before R. M. de Leon) already cited this metaphor in the name of the Talmudic sages? Behold, in his work HaEshkol16, vol. 1, p. 60: “And Rava said, this is metaphorically compared to a shepherd. When the sheep are in the wilderness among the wolves, he prays for their safety and when he finds them in the city he does not pray for them…” Also in Masecheth Maḥkim in the Eshkol, vol. 6, p. 301, he cites this metaphor and references Sha`arei Teshuvah (New York edition). And one must point out that a similar metaphor is written in different words in Maḥzor Vitry, p. 81, and in Orḥoth Ḥayim, vol. 1, §70, §73, and in Kol Bo, §35. And see Rabanan Savora’ei V’Talmudam by R. B. M. Levi, p. 25. Witness that R. M. de Leon was not involved in17 forging Geonic responsa, and he was not the first to invent this metaphor. Rather, it is as RDL wrote in the introduction to Teshuvoth HaGe’onim, Sha`arei Teshuvah, p. 14, that the source of the passage is in Midrash HaNe`elam, which was in the hands of the Geonim.

III. Resolution of Difficulties in the Literary Style of the Zohar Let us now take stock of the revelations from Scholem’s linguistic investigation of the Zohar, based on the Zohar dictionary that he has compiled. A) It contains expressions and philosophical concepts which were devised in the 12th and 13th centuries by the Ibn Tibbon family in their translations from Arabic. Tishby, on page 77 of his book’s Introduction, counts ten words as representing philosophical concepts from the Middle Ages which are also found, in Aramaic guise, in the main body of the Zohar, as well as the other sections of the Zohar. He only cites two examples from the Zohar itself, “four elements” (Zohar Bereshith 27, 1); and ‫גולמא‬, gulma – “unformed matter.” Now, the word ‫ גולמא‬is in fact based on the verse, “‫ גלמי ראו עיניך‬- Your eyes saw my unformed substance,” (Tehillim 139:16). Also, the Talmud Yerushalmi (Niddah 3:3) calls a fetus ‫גולמא‬. The expressions “four elements” (‫ )ד' יסודות‬is already found in the Siddur Rav Sa`adia Ga’on, in the hosha`na of the fourth intermediate day: "‫"היוצר בעולמו יסודות ארבעה‬. Thus, according to R. Ya`aqov Emden, who sets the last editing of the Zohar in the era of the Gaonim (as was the case with many Midrashim of Ḥazal), this is not at all surprising. Additionally, according to the opinion of R. Emden that there are interpolations in the text of the Zohar (as will be clarified

16

In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that the first edition of HaEshkol to appear, by Rabbi B. Z. Auerbach, has very strong evidence against its authenticity. It seems that large portions of it were forged, either by said R. Auerbach or an earlier manuscript forger. I did not succeed in locating this passage in the Albeck edition, which to my knowledge no one suspects of including forged passages (in fact, R. Shalom Albeck was the first to accuse Auerbach of forgery). If anyone can verify this easily, please pass along the information. About the forgery of the Eshkol, see Prof. Marc Shapiro’s extensive discussions: http://tinyurl.com/shapiroeshkol1, http://tinyurl.com/shapiroeshkol2, http://tinyurl.com/shapiroeshkol3, http://tinyurl.com/shapiroeshkol4. 17

The Hebrew has a typo, ‫ די‬instead of ‫יד‬.

later on in this essay), one may further say that these two places happen to be [later] interpolations. I believe that Scholem’s dictionary actually proves the antiquity of the Zohar beyond any doubt. If, from the entire Zohar (which includes more than 1700 pages; over one million words) he only found two words – that is the clearest proof against his own conclusions. B) He has found five words in the Zohar, [only] four of which are used in an unusual sense: a. The verb ‫ אוזיף‬ozif, which means “lending money,” and its meaning in the Zohar is: “accompanied a person.” b. ‫תוקפא‬, tuqpa, which means “strength,” is used in the Zohar in the sense of “bosom” – a simple misunderstanding of the Targum, Bamidbar 11:12, where “carry it in your bosom” is [interpretively] translated "‫סוברהי בתוקפך‬," “bear it with your strength.” The author of the Zohar, meaning, R. M. de Leon, thought that this was a word-for-word literal translation. c. ‫טיקלא‬, which is based on the word ‫תקלא‬, "weight," is not only found in the Zohar in the sense of “scales,” but also meaning, “sphere.” d. 18‫צחותא‬, which in Aramaic is always understood to mean “thirst,” is conflated with the word "‫ "צחות‬in Hebrew and presented in the sense of “clarity of thought.” e. ‫ טייעא‬in the Talmud simply means “Arab,” but in the Zohar it always means specifically a Jewish “donkey-driver.” Now, letters a, c, d, and e belong on the list of novel words, and this is not strange in the least, as will be explained later. Letter b does not involve any mistake whatsoever. See the commentary of R. Avraham Ibn Ezra to Shemoth 4:6 – “The Gaon said that the ‘bosom’ is what is held by the forearms and it is in this sense in the verse ‘carry it in your bosom.’ Others say that it is the garment closest to the chest.” And R. Yonah Ibn Janaḥ explains:

For in his bosom, it will lie between his forearms, and the forearm signifies power and might, as in “the forearm of Your valor;” “I have shattered the forearm of the king of Egypt.” C) In the tabulation of defects in the Zohar’s wording according to his own dictionary, Scholem found nine words that are grammatically incorrect, meaning that the verbal binyanim (modes) are mixed up, for example, using the binyan qal (simple active) instead of pa`el (intensive) and af`el (causative). Once again, the dictionary only proves – not the defectiveness of the Zohar’s language – but its amazing accuracy. If, out of an entire dictionary, just this small number of errors are to be found, it is a clear indication of the Zohar’s [accurate] grammatical construction. Someone intimately familiar with manuscripts of Amoraic and Tannaitic works knows just how many textual variants are found in the various manuscripts. In even one tractate of the 18

The Hebrew has a typo, “‫”צחוחא‬.

Babylonian Talmud, we find hundreds of places in the manuscripts where the text varies from the published one. Many of the alternate versions are improvements in the Aramaic, words written in masculine form instead of feminine, singular instead of plural, past tense rather than present, etc. D) A unique aspect of the Zohar’s language is that it contains a large number of words that have no other attested source. For the most part, it is difficult to deduce the author’s meaning. Scholem lists fourteen surprising words culled from all the different sections of the Zohar. I am amazed that he nowhere cited the list at the end of R. David Luria’s Qadmuth HaZohar, which gives 130 strange and difficult words that he endeavors to explain the meaning of. Tishby himself states, on p. 80, that Milzahgi thought the most fruitful place to look for the meanings of the Zohar’s “strange” words is in ancient Syriac. R. M. Gaster is also of the opinion that the Zohar’s language stems from popular spoken Syriac. Support for their position may be brought from the story of Eldad HaDani, about which “the people of Kirouan asked R. Tzemaḥ Ga’on Ya`aqov”19: And the Hebrew which he speaks contains words which we have never heard of. For example, he calls a dove tintera, a bird reiquth, and pepper he terms darmush. They wrote down many such words from him. We would show him an object, he would tell us the Hebrew name for it and we would write it down. Days later, we repeated the questions about those very same objects, and we found his answers to be identical with the first ones. He also quotes from R. Yonah ibn Janaḥ (p. 101): …and so explained R. Yehudah ben Qarish, and he says that he heard [Eldad Ha]Dani say: li shagyeh to mean “I have necessities and affairs,” and similar to this usage is: v’kol shogeh bo, “and all who are occupied with it” (Proverbs 20:1). And Rashi (Proverbs, ibid.) wrote: “I found that R. Moshe HaDarshan explained tishgeh20 tamid as “be constantly occupied,” and this usage is typical of the Arabic language…” Epstein (p. 8) concludes in his introduction that: “Eldad spoke Arabic and was accustomed to expressing himself in it… He also used Hebrew cognate roots in the semantic sense they have in Arabic.”

19

The translator is handicapped by the lack of footnotes in the online published version. I must assume that R. Kasher cited the work in which this story appears in the original. The only clue is later when he later names Epstein as the author. Suggestions are welcome. 20 From the same Hebrew root as shagyeh / shogeh.

The exact same thing may be said about the Zoharic words that have a source in ancient Syriac.21 Tishby’s solution, that these words are “an imaginative invention intended to bewilder the reader,” is unsatisfactory22. In fact, this specific point is most germane in demonstrating that what lies before us is a very ancient source text. We find the same phenomenon in recently discovered geniza scrolls – a number of difficult-to-understand words and expressions. Does that undermine the authenticity of those sources? On the contrary, it shows the antiquity of the material. There is another solution which could explain these [cryptic] words, based on the manuscript commentary to Shi`ur Qomah cited in Reishith HaQabbalah, p. 220: Excerpts from the commentary to Sefer HaQomah from the Angelica23 and New York manuscripts.24 This is why He is called the Great, Mighty, and Fearsome King, B’leitheih Preciousness Living G-d B’leitha B’zeitha B’zizta Hamaquq Haqatan Qtl For Rejoicing, blessed is His name, glory, and kingdom for all eternity: They have said, all who know this secret is promised life in the World to Come. Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the entire earth is filled with His glory, blessed is the glory of the Lord from its place, the letters ‫ג"ן‬, and do not be surprised by the change in the alphabet, for they are all in Sefer Yetzirah, and do not be surprised that sometimes they are interpreted this way and that, for Rav Sa`adiyah Ga’on derived the Forty-Two-Letter-Name from B’reishith in ‘this’ way, and all of the ancient sages also comprehended ‘this,’ and ‘this’ is also above all, for Q.D.W.Sh. (Holy) + Q. D. is numerically equal to “This Is The Great 21

I.e. the author or editor of the Zohar spoke ancient Syriac (a dialect of Aramaic) as his first language and made use of Syriac vocabulary in his narrative. He may have used words, which have one sense in Talmudic Aramaic, in their Syriac sense instead. 22 ‫ חסר רצינות‬lit. “lacks seriousness.” 23 Perhaps this refers to the Angelica Library in Rome. 24 Despite the fact that this Kabbalistic text is coded to be understood only by those already familiar with its system and terminology, I have endeavored to translate as much of it as I can according to the simple meaning of the words, guessing at the proper punctuation. Anyone with more familiarity with these terms is invited to assist me. Here is the text in its entirety: . ‫"ליקוטים מפי' ספר הקומה מכ"י אנג'ליקה ונויארק‬ ,‫ בליתיה ידידות אל חי בליתא בזיתא בזיזתא המקוק הקטן קטל בעבור משוש‬,‫ל הגדול הגיבור והנורא‬-‫לפיכך נקרא הא‬ '‫ ברוך כבוד ה‬,‫ קדוש קדוש קדוש ה' צבקות מלא כל הארץ כבודו‬,‫ אמרו כל היודע רז זה מובטח לו לחיי העולם הבא‬.‫בשכמל"ו‬ ‫ ואל תתמה על שינוי האלפא ביתא כי כולם בספר יצירה ואל תתמה שלפעמים יוצא בזה ולפעמים בזה כי‬,‫ אותיות ג"ן‬,‫ממקומו‬ '‫ וכל הקדמונים ירדו לזה וגם זה על הכל כי ק'ד'ו'ש' ק'ד' בגימ' ז'ה'ו‬,‫רב סעדיה גאון הוציא השם בן מ"ב מבראשית בעניין זה‬ ‫ קדוש קדוש קדוש בגימ' זה האל‬.'‫ וגם כן יוצא י'ד'י'ד'ו'ת' בגימ' ז'ה ה'ו'א ק'ד'ו'ש‬,‫ב'ל'י'ת'י'ה' ה'ג'ד'ו'ל' כי לא שם נקרא גדול‬ '‫ צ'ב'ק'ו'ת‬.‫ ואל תתמה על מילוי השם אחרי שלא חשבנו כי אי אפשר לחלק השם מן הקדוש‬,‫הגדול והנורא בליתיה ידידות‬ ‫ הארץ כבודו ברוך כבוד אדנ' ממקומו‬,‫ מלא כל במילוי זהו בזיתא‬,‫בגימ' ז'ה' ב'ל'י'ת'א' ה'ג'ד'ו'ל' צ' יתר רמז שהוא שם רביעי‬ ‫ (כאן באה רשימת הצירופים בהם יוצאים שמות אלו מן‬...‫זה הוא בזיזתא המקוק הקטן קטל בעבור משוש הגבור בשכמל"ו‬ ,‫ הרי קימתי בשם זה הגדול הגבור והנורא‬...)‫ על פי צירופי אלפא ביתא שונות‬,‫הפסוקים הנ"ל קק"ק וגו' ברוך כבוד ה' ממקומו‬ ‫והוצאתי מן הפסוק הזה הן באלפא ביתות הן בגימטריא כאשר הראוני משמים בכוח ספר יצירה והשם שזיכני להוציא יזכני‬ ".‫לפרשו בלי מכשול‬

B’leitheih,” for a name is not called “great,” and so too, Y. D. Y. D. W. T. (Preciousness) is numerically equal to “This Is The Holy One.” “Holy, holy, holy” is numerically equal to “The Great and Fearsome G-d B’litheih Preciousness.” And do not be surprised about the filling25 of the Name since we have not calculated, for it is impossible to separate the Name from the Holy. Tz. V. Q. W. T. (Hosts) is numerically equal to “This is B’leitheih the Great” plus 90 more to hint that it is the fourth name, filling all, in the filling of “This is B’zeitha,” the earth is His glory, “Blessed is the glory of A-donay from its place,” this is B’zizta Hamaquq Haqatan Qtl For Rejoicing, the Great, blessed is His name, glory, and kingdom for all eternity… (here appears a list of letter combinations whereby these names are derived from the aforementioned verses (“Holy, holy, holy,” and “Blessed is the glory,”) according to various systems of gematria.)… Behold, I have upheld this great, mighty, and fearsome Name, and have extracted from this verse, both with alphabetical combinations and gematria, as I have been shown from Heaven with the power of Sefer Yetzira, and G-d who has given me the merit of deriving them, should give me the merit of explaining them without error. Here we have an entire system of metaphors [for G-d], like B’leitheih, B’leitha, B’zeitha, B’zizta, etc. which have no comprehensible meaning, and were invented by using acronyms and gematria. It is possible that these strange words in the Zohar whose meaning is difficult to ascertain are based on this sort of system. I also estimate that the work Bartalia Qanseirin fits into this paradigm. Additionally, the mystical work Ḥarba d’Moshe contains over one thousand names of angels which we have no way of understanding, and many of the actual words in it are quite similar to the angelic names. As an aside: Above I mentioned the opinion of R. Ya`aqov Emden in his book Miṭpaḥath Sefarim26 that much phraseology and many passages of a medieval style entered the Zohar from manuscript copyists. Now, I have actually found in the standard text of the Zohar an entire passage copied from the work Shulḥan Arba` of Rabbeinu Baḥye. I think this is the only such passage that none of the critics or commentators of the Zohar have yet noted. It is in Zohar `Eiqev 274a, beginning with "‫ "ברכת המזון‬and ending with "‫"אלקיכם ע"כ‬. This is a letter-for-letter duplication from Shulḥan Arba`, p. 103 (Warsaw, 5632/1872), which was printed together with Rabbeinu Baḥye’s work Kad HaQemaḥ. Undoubtedly, a copyist wrote it on the margin of his Zohar manuscript, and the printer inserted it into the main text. There are similar additions in many Midrashim. Even in the Talmud Bavli there are additions and commentaries of Ga’onim which were inserted into the Talmudic text. On this basis, R. Emden resolves all of the passages whose form and style testify that they are of late origin – they were added in by the copyists. All

25

A technique in Jewish numerology whereby each letter of a word is spelled out individually and then the numerical values of all the resulting letters are added together. E.G. Aleph = Aleph Lamed Peh = 111. 26 The Hebrew text has a typo, "‫"מטפחת סופרים‬.

the difficulties can be resolved in this way, because the work itself cannot be judged based on the interpolation of marginal notes.

IV. Manuscripts Which Have Been Discovered That Prove the Antiquity of the Zohar In a responsum of R. Hai Gaon, printed in Ta`am Zekenim, he writes: We have very much similar material in what is called Sefer HaYashar27 (in the footnotes: This is similar to what is in ‫לק"ט ואתחנן ז‬: “One should not be surprised by the Heiḥaloth of R. Yishma`el and the words of R. Aqiva in Sefer HaYashar, who spoke about the ‘Work of the Chariot’.”) and in what is called Ḥarba d’Moshe28 (printed in London, 1866), which begins by stating that four kings29 are appointed over the sword, for there are elevated and wondrous matters in it, and in the book called Raza Rabba30, aside from the abbreviated [passages] and the infinite, uncountable details… J. Mann in his book Forms and Investigations (English), vol. 2, pp. 75-81, cites Karaite manuscripts dating to approximately 4750 (990 CE), which object to commentaries that make use of these types of books: “Barthalia Qanserin, and the Book of Bil`am and other books, like the Book of Adam, Book of Straightness, Book of Secrets, and Raza Rabbah.” Three later manuscripts, dated about 100-200 years later, also list these books. See the footnotes there, which discuss these books that have been lost from us. In the year 5708 (1948), G. Scholem printed Reishith HaQabbalah. On p. 195 he references the Geonic responsum cited above and writes that he found a commentary on “HaQomah” in eight manuscripts and he estimates (op. cit. p. 203) that it was written in the middle of the first century of the fifth millennium (c. 1240-1340 CE). This commentary makes extensive use of quotes from Sod HaGadol (= Raza Rabbah) which are [also] found in the Bahir (p. 198).

Indeed, we must thank G. Scholem for raising this precious treasury from the forgotten abyss. I believe that these quotes, from the book Sod HaGadol, are the most important thing he uncovered in his work relating to the Zohar, and they greatly strengthen the proof for the antiquity of its core texts. The reason is that their contents are similar in their style and method of discourse to the Bahir and the Zohar. The commentator of Shi`ur Qomah specifically compares it to the Bahir. The Sod HaGadol was already wellknown in the times of the Geonim, as has been explained. In the middle of the last century of the fourth millennium (1140-1240 CE) it reached Ashkenaz [Germanic lands]. One may estimate that in that same time period, the Bahir and the Zohar also arrived from the East, and the mequbbalim who delved into 27

“Book of Straightness” “Sword of Moses” 29 Kasher’s text says ‫ מלכים‬but one gets the impression it is perhaps meant to read ‫מלאכים‬, “angels”. 30 “Great Secret” 28

them arranged the texts and added to them, as R. Ya`aqov Emden has proved. I also feel that the core of the Zohar and its source are from Raza Rabbah. Some called it Sod HaGadol and some called it Zohar HaGadol.

Another important source for establishing the antiquity of the Zohar, cited by Scholem in Reishith HaQabbalah (p. 17) is the manuscript commentary to Sefer Yetzira by R. Meir ben Shlomo Avi-Sahulam from the end of the first century of the present millennium (1330’s). It states: “We are obligated to investigate all [these] things according to our level of understanding and tread the same path as those in our generation, [and] in the generations 200 years prior to us, who are called mequbbalim, and they call the wisdom of the ten sefiroth and some explanations of reasons for the commandments, ‘Qabbalah’.” G. Scholem writes about this, “From here [we see]... this teaching is not, in his opinion, ancient, and it does not reach back to the early generations, rather, it is around 200 years old.” This explanation of R. M. Sahula’s words is entirely incorrect. R. Sahula is not attempting to emphasize that this teaching is not intrinsically older than 200 years. He is saying that 200 years prior, the sages in his own country began to involve themselves with it, just as Scholem himself writes later in the book, p. 196, that the book Raza Rabbah, which was known in the East in the 11th century (CE), only became known in Ashkenaz in the 12th and 13th centuries in Haside Ashkenaz circles. And this book is one of the sources of the Bahir, and so it was then that sages were aroused to begin delving into this subject. That is clearly what R. Sahula is referring to.

The words of R. M. Sahula correspond with what R. Eliyahu Delmedigo wrote in Behinath Hadath, which was written in 5251 (1491), “And they shall further claim that this book [the Zohar] was only publicized in our nation close to 300 years ago.” Meaning: in the middle of the last century of the fourth millennium, 100 years before the time of R. Moshe de Leon, at the same time that they obtained Raza Rabbah and other works.

One should bear in mind, when it comes to the fundamental question of the Zohar’s authenticity, that there are hundreds of subjects from the teachings of sod [Kabbalah] that are scattered throughout the two Talmuds and Midrashim of Chazal, as well as a number of small Midrashim that are dedicated to sod and assumed to be authored by Chazal. As explained above, in Geonic times many of these works were known, as well as similar ones that have been lost from us. The content of these books was known to the great Rishonim after the era of the Geonim, in the ninth century of the fourth millennium. Among them were those who did not interest themselves in this subject at all; there were those who opposed it completely and there were those who, to a greater or lesser extent involved themselves in it and mentioned it in their works. That was the situation for about 200 years, until the middle of the first century of the present millennium. Then, the subject developed immensely and many manuscripts were revealed, including the book that is today called “the Zohar,” which was previously known by other

names. From the middle of the first to second centuries, an important number of Rishonim were already using it in their own works. Therefore, the opinion “that there is no historical continuity between Kabbalah and the ancient Jewish movements of mysticism,” and that [Kabbalah] is a foreign import, is laughable. Many researchers have previously debunked this opinion and proved that Kabbalah is a continuation of more ancient mysticism - but, over the course of time philosophical concepts were absorbed into it.

Addendum - the Mishna and the Zohar To be continued...