The Authenticity of the Zohar -- pt viii

Shadal continues his Vikuach al Chochmat haKabbalah. (See previous segment.) Here, they finish discussing mechilan used to refer to middot, and moves on to another error -- that the author of the Zohar confused a term meaning lending (halvaah) and used it instead to mean accompanying (levaya). And further that this idea of "addition" rather than forgery is unique.

The author: And why? How do you say that our Rabbis did not make use of the word mechilta as a borrowed term. And did they not call by this name each of the masechtot of the Mishna, and are not the masechtot vessels with which we measure. If so, necessarily it is a borrowed terminology.

The guest: The masechtot are called mechiltot, such that each masechet is a vessel which contains many things, and it really never goes out the meaning of its root kul or kil; However, to say mechilta in the sense of a way or a custom, this never was and never was created.

And what will you say when you see (chelek 1, page 96b) "אוזפוה to Rabbi Abba three mil." The intent was to say that they made an accompaniment (levaya) for him for three mil, but אוזפוה meaning is lending {halvaa} of money, not accompaniment (levaya).

And so too in chelek 2, page 54a, "אוזפוה to that ruach {spirit} to its place."

See how much the author of the sefer HaZohar was an expert in the Aramaic language -- that he {accidentally} switched the languages of levaya {accompaniment} with the language of lending {halvaat} money.

Do you still not admit to me that the statements in which is found one of these signs are forgeries?

The author: I do not know now if I admit or if I do not admit. But what do you wish to produce from this?

The guest: That I do not know, and have not heard in my days, of any sefer in the world which was added within it as many statements, as happened to the sefer haZohar.

Is it not that the Mishna and the Talmud, which were written 1300 years ago, this evil happenstance did not happen to it. And if variant girsaot did arise in them, however, we do not find in them full statements in which are found the signs of forgery. And so too, see in all the sefarim of the Gaonim and the Sages who were before the invention of printing, they had scribal errors arise in them, but there were not found in them many forged statements.