tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post9063938640903830381..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: The Chasam Sofer's position that the Zohar is a forgeryjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34590958532076501502023-01-25T11:25:02.558-05:002023-01-25T11:25:02.558-05:00Some time during the past 8 years, the YouTube vid...Some time during the past 8 years, the YouTube video of R Wein was taken down. If you recall what it looks like, could you help me find it?micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29808088939397039262022-11-06T11:54:34.577-05:002022-11-06T11:54:34.577-05:00And then there is the Bahir.And then there is the Bahir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6629403293889304352014-08-27T18:10:12.452-04:002014-08-27T18:10:12.452-04:00That seems like one question, not two. And it is a...That seems like one question, not two. And it is an old objection, which I have heard raised many times before. Here is my take on that objection.<br /><br />Given that the Vilna Gaon did not address the issue head-on, we don't know (a) THAT he noticed any of these problems, or (b) what he would answered, or (c) whether we would agree with his answers.<br /><br />While the Gra was indeed extremely smart and clever, I don't agree with every answer he has given. (Nor btw do many posekim, for his many halachic positions.) For instance, the <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-chazal-darshen-samaritan-version-of.html" rel="nofollow">Vilna Gaon makes a brilliant textual emendation</a> to a gemara in Berachot 53b that solves a number of problems. But I disagree with his textual emendation because I know that the **Samaritans** had precisely the Torah text darshened by Chazal in that gemara. And the <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/was-vilna-gaon-flat-earther-it-would.html" rel="nofollow">Vilna Gaon appears to have been a flat-Earther</a>, rejecting the scientists of his day. Though I don't know his reasoning and refutations, having seen images from space, I can feel confident that those refutations were incorrect.<br /><br />It is not so clear that these difficulties with the Zohar were obvious to every brilliant observer in the 18th century. Some of these rely on specialized fields. Some of these rely on accumulated evidence, and if one is not a "kofer" actively looking for such evidence, anything which looks awry can be easily dismissed, in isolation, as a scribal error, or a different Cappodocia, or a demonstration of what Talmudic words or ideas meant. It is only when one builds the full picture that this becomes compelling.<br /><br />And there is an idea, expressed by Chazal: אין חבוש מתיר עצמו מבית האסורים. A person cannot release himself from prison. And this applies to conceptual prisons as well. When one's entire religious framework is based on kabbalah, as integrated with the rest of Torah, it is extremely difficult, even for someone as brilliant as the Gra, to extract oneself and think about it in a different way.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-4450987745101232014-08-26T19:54:58.279-04:002014-08-26T19:54:58.279-04:00Rav Yaakov Emdens proofs, many of them are very ha...Rav Yaakov Emdens proofs, many of them are very hard to argue with. The famous Eshnoga comes to mind. 2 issues bother me about the non Rabbi Shimon authorship proposition:<br /><br />1. The Gaon of Vilna. He held it was completely authentic, that Sefer Dezniuta was like the "mishna" of the Zohar and upheld the Ari zals system. <br /><br />The gaon was both a abnormal genius and a expert i manydifferant discplines including philoogy... If one believes even half the stories that R Chaim of Volozin writes about him, youd half to conclude he almost super human in intellect and erudition. Many of the problems with the Zohar are apparent, he definately saw them....whos to say hedidnt have an answer???<br /><br />SimonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80488288959103701112013-05-31T17:30:57.352-04:002013-05-31T17:30:57.352-04:00thenutgarden:
thanks for commenting.
a few though...thenutgarden:<br />thanks for commenting.<br /><br />a few thoughts:<br />"Let's not forget that Rav Emden attacked the Guide of the Perplexed as a forgery too."<br />Indeed. Though I don't hide behind rabbinic personalities and say X is a forgery because (Rav Yaakov Emden, Chasam Sofer, Rashdal) said so. Rather, I read and evaluate their arguments, and see if they are convincing. Rav Yaakov Emden could be wrong about one thing and right about something else.<br /><br />"Zohar is no more a book than the Talmud is! The essence of Zohar may truely be from Rashbi, like a Mishnah. The rest is layers of commentary, like a Gemara"<br />The problem with this analogy is that there was no time that the Talmud, as a book, was hidden/non-existent, and then introduced by someone saying 'look at this ancient work I have discovered'. Once someone makes a sudden claim that a book is ancient, and there was no (or scant) evidence of its existence beforehand, then these later layers could (and should IMHO) be taken as evidence of bad faith, such that I won't believe that it was discovered.<br /><br />Also, proposing that there are multiple layers of commentary does not answer invented Tannaim who never existed, or conversations between Tannaim who did not live in the same lifetime as one another. <br /><br />And what is the shorter time-span than the Talmud? Within the Tannaic period? How does that account for the consistent use of an invented Aramaic, with misuse of terms pulled from gemaras, put into the mouths of Tannaim? Or for darshening the shape or nikkud and trup, when the written nikkud and trup did not exist in the time of Chazal? Or darshening a Ladino word (Esnoga as Esh Noga)? This is evidence of forgery, not of a layered text. Especially for a discovered text. One it has been put forth by a confirmed liar, I no longer believe his testimony about even a core portion not being invented.<br /><br />But anyway, the point of this post is not to argue about the authenticity of the Zohar.<br /><br />It is to discuss the beliefs of Chasam Sofer regarding the Zohar.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-74812531417322487142013-05-31T13:40:03.791-04:002013-05-31T13:40:03.791-04:00The author of the later work Ra'aya Meheimna a...The author of the later work Ra'aya Meheimna alludes to the fact that Rabbi Moses deLeon was like the unfaithful raven. See here: http://thenutgarden.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/the-raven-and-the-dove/<br /><br />Let's not forget that Rav Emden attacked the Guide of the Perplexed as a forgery too. Rav Emden couldn't accept that one and the same other penned Mishneh Torah and the Moreh Nevuchim.<br /><br />The problem is we still think that Zohar is a book (a book normally has a single author); Zohar is no more a book than the Talmud is! The essence of Zohar may truely be from Rashbi, like a Mishnah. The rest is layers of commentary, like a Gemara (only Zohar was compiled over a shorter time-span than the Talmud).<br /><br />We know that the Arizal wrote very little and that his scribe was Haim Vital. But no one doubts that the source of Vital's writings was the Arizal (there are manuscripts of Vital's which pre-date his becoming a pupil of the Arizal).<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66093826533191480432012-05-13T06:03:03.905-04:002012-05-13T06:03:03.905-04:00So the Rashbi wear tefilin on chol hamoed.Did he w...So the Rashbi wear tefilin on chol hamoed.Did he wear tefilin on moussaf roch Hodech ? Can someone tell me when started the "minhag" not to wear tefiline on moussaf Roch Hodech ?<br />Thank you.<br />Patrick<br />caradiam strudel netvision point net point ilPatricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6128074048161983032012-05-09T17:05:07.104-04:002012-05-09T17:05:07.104-04:00Shut maharsho No. 78 says God forbid to say that r...Shut maharsho No. 78 says God forbid to say that rashbi didn't wear teffilin on chol hamoed etc.yekkinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-3103459495126625912012-02-21T06:55:13.056-05:002012-02-21T06:55:13.056-05:00I waste too much time as it is with pointless back...I waste too much time as it is with pointless back and forths, especially with people who would *never* be convinced. I've likely addressed most of his points already in other posts (including Shadal's Vikuach). I don't need to create a counter-site or seek out arguments with everyone who holds differently. Also, going to a site that someone else controls and moderates means that my replies might not show up. This is something that has happened to me more than once.<br /><br />What precisely does he write that he finds convincing?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-58123821875637074432012-02-21T00:00:41.142-05:002012-02-21T00:00:41.142-05:00"Do you think that what he writes needs a rej..."Do you think that what he writes needs a rejoinder? "<br /><br />Yes, I think it does. Please post a response on his site, refuting what he says:<br /><br />http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?/topic/328-kabbalah/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41859296192217705812012-01-15T19:35:54.188-05:002012-01-15T19:35:54.188-05:00Thanks.
Do you think that what he writes needs a ...Thanks.<br /><br />Do you think that what he writes needs a rejoinder? (Personally, I think that the responses are rather obvious...)<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29662249531365302592012-01-15T19:30:38.811-05:002012-01-15T19:30:38.811-05:00Regarding the authenticity of the Zohar, check out...Regarding the authenticity of the Zohar, check out what the frumteens moderator writes:<br /><br />http://classic.frumteens.com//topic.php?topic_id=8946&forum_id=13&Topic_Title=kabbalah&forum_title=Basic+Judaism<br /><br />http://classic.frumteens.com//topic.php?topic_id=1654&forum_id=21&topic_title=Nistar+is+torah%2C+or+rational+logic%3F&forum_title=&M=1<br /><br />http://classic.frumteens.com/topic.php?whichpage=1&pagesize=15&forum_title=&topic_title=important+questions&forum_id=21&topic_id=480 (starting with "(2)For whatever reason...")<br /><br />and his new website:<br /><br />http://www.jewswithquestions.com/index.php?/topic/328-kabbalah/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-83929156373357602582011-06-29T00:00:06.482-04:002011-06-29T00:00:06.482-04:00Well, like Galileo didn't really say, "An...Well, like Galileo didn't really say, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!" rel="nofollow">And yet, it moves</a>."S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-22317820681658677632011-06-28T22:51:41.824-04:002011-06-28T22:51:41.824-04:00S.
Thank you for your response, but my concerns ar...S.<br />Thank you for your response, but my concerns are no so much about being called a heretic - after going through shadal's vicuach, Scholem's chapters and various other things I am pretty much convinced and cast my lot with the yaavets etc. - as much as with my conclusions in general about emunas chachamim. If so many for so long got it so wrong, you lose your trust in other areas also. It's hard to practice Judaism without emunas chachamim, for me at least.<br />Thanks for that interesting tidbit from the minchos elazar, but I don't really have a problem with fights that gedolim had. However, something like the Zohar issue, presents serious flaws in our mesorah.<br /><br />In other words, I could "get passed" the fact that Rashbi didn't author the Zohar. I cant get passed that most of the gedolim missed out on it and totally changed the face of judaism from previous times. I also guess that if I could be convinced of the truth of the Zohar and Kabbala in general, regardless of who made it up, it would be a lot easier to deal with.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-11903672548249043432011-06-28T21:54:24.971-04:002011-06-28T21:54:24.971-04:00You can of course choose to cast your lot with the...You can of course choose to cast your lot with them and believe it.<br /><br />If you can't do that, then you have to cast your lot with the Yaavetz. It's not like you'll be floating alone. <br /><br />While no one wants to be considered a heretic, unless they are lehachis, just remember that many unquestionably great people were also considered heretics by others. Your sisters or daughters probably went/ go to Bais Yaakov. The Minchas Elazar referred to Bais Yaakov yeshivas as "Beis Esav." Can you live with that? I bet you can.S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-66575388619881472722011-06-28T19:24:36.835-04:002011-06-28T19:24:36.835-04:00S.
My specific issue is with emunas chachamim. I ...S. <br />My specific issue is with emunas chachamim. I would be willing to "take the middle ground" but why are so many of our leaders clueless about the truth of the Zohar to the point of considering nonbelievers to be kofrim, and even open- minded gedolim like RSZA.<br />Of course, the whole Slifkin affair brought this question up also, but the Zohar is something more fundamental and includes the majority of our leaders for the last few hundred years. In fact, as you know, the number one response you'll get from the hamon am is that the gra considered it authentic, so case closed.<br /><br />If something so huge, like this, was misjudged by so much of our leaders, what are we supposed to think about other areas. The steipler wrote in the introduction to the chayei olam that all the heretics started out with losing emuna in the chachamim - referring to the maskilm I believe.<br /><br />Other issues in our mesorah, like astrology, demons, or <br />who wrote koheles didnt affect observance and minhagim, <br />so they stand out less. <br /><br />But again, if you could think that the Zohar is a forgery without the majority of gedolim thinking you a heretic, it would be a lot easier.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-17576885019497524572011-06-28T19:00:17.409-04:002011-06-28T19:00:17.409-04:00please choose a pseudonym, as i request.
are you ...please choose a pseudonym, as i request.<br /><br />are you afraid to say "forgery"? is it nivul peh?<br /><br />how would you interpret the present teshuva?<br /><br />bli neder, i'll analyze this one. a cursory review of it does not seem to introduce any problems. see the teshuva here:<br />http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=794&st=&pgnum=30<br /><br />and see my last paragraph of the post. one can think it is a forgery and still think there are good ideas in there.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-9757871974176086352011-06-28T18:51:01.255-04:002011-06-28T18:51:01.255-04:00Chatam Sofer O.C.36
For someone who thinks the Cha...Chatam Sofer O.C.36<br />For someone who thinks the Chatam sofer thinks the the Zohar is a.........Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73779515856464877682011-06-28T18:23:12.956-04:002011-06-28T18:23:12.956-04:00"So please stop being so intellectually biase..."So please stop being so intellectually biased and present the full argument."<br /><br />I obviously know this, as does any reader.<br /><br />are you, by the way, the same person who posted so obnoxiously in the past, calling me a liar, over <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/06/one-mans-sin-and-authenticity-of-zohar.html?showComment=1308756704503#c41172184204190426" rel="nofollow">here</a>? your writing style in quite similar.<br /><br />i have an answer, but it would be wasted on you.<br /><br />truth in hashkafa and historical fact is not determined by majority. and no majority COULD be allowed to build when one side is consistently calling the other side kofrim, effectively suppressing them. even the Chasam Sofer took care to hide his position in this teshuva, so that hardly anyone knew of it; and so that this could not influence others to consider the weight of the evidence.<br /><br />i don't think this about the Zohar because the Chasam Sofer thought it was so. if i think it so, it is based on proofs one could bring, which you would likely dismiss, favoring personality over analysis.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-75833804357476405252011-06-28T18:02:56.220-04:002011-06-28T18:02:56.220-04:00Now that our Scholar in residents brought to the f...Now that our Scholar in residents brought to the fore front two of our Holy Rabbis opinions.<br /><br />Please be as bold to produce a full list of our Holy Rabbis who hold that it is part of our Torah.<br /><br />Your arm will surley tire from typing so long. <br /><br />So please stop being so intellectually biased and present the full argument.<br /><br />You will come to conclude that <br />99% of our Tzaddikim and scholars will claim that the source of the Zohar is Rabban Shimon.<br /><br />Josh you will not be the first nor the last but your conclusions cut you off from the Klal.<br /><br />The Chasam Sofer and Rav Yaakov Emden have weight to pull. <br /><br />But You...............?Ahavas Emmesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-2374969217801032512011-06-28T15:56:15.235-04:002011-06-28T15:56:15.235-04:00Even if one were to prove that there is nothing in...Even if one were to prove that there is <i>nothing</i> in the Zohar that can be traced back to historical authorities from the time of the Tannaim, it would only undermine it status as a Tannatic source. But the Zohar is not just that, it's not even primarly that. It is the most encompassing compendium of an esoteric discipline that was fully accepted, before the Zohar, by such authorities as the Raavad and the Ramban, while also integrating elements of traditions that were integrated in the culture of Rashi and the Baalei haTosfos before finding their way into the traditions of the Chasidei Ashkenaz. Moreover, when one knows how to read it (through prelurianic or Lurianic tools), it is no a random collection of "revelations" but a coherent system of discourse which, although it should not supercede talmudic logic, can legitimately supplement it when it reaches a teiku or a machlokes Rishonim.<br />If someone wanted to get rid of the esoteric influences on halacha not conforted by a historically ascertained mesora, it is not just the Zohar that one should repudiate, but also the whole of Ashkenazic and Provençal traditions of Sod, that also have a bearing, maybe not on pure talmudic discourse, but certainly on consolidated halacha le-maaseh that includes, even in Ashkenaz, many esoteric materials. One would end up with a "pure" Talmudical Judaism that has never been attested historically.Chanokhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90078031381254699162011-06-28T12:42:26.102-04:002011-06-28T12:42:26.102-04:00>Well, the Orthodox Jews worth talking to. But ...>Well, the Orthodox Jews worth talking to. But in all seriousness, I do think there are some things worth fighting for as not merely a take it or leave it possibility because the hamon am can't wrap their heads around a fuzzy middle ground.<br /><br />DC, Jr is a case in point for what I said. Surely your're not going to insult him for seeing this as very troublesome? <br /><br />Maybe you're right that there should be a middle ground, but maybe to get there we need a little bit of popularizing the historical issues. Raze the building a little bit before building it up. The alternative is to just ignore it all and forever patronize Orthodox Jews, all because the mystical mind of de Leon and his chug managed to work its way into the heart and soul of Judaism, which managed nicely for 2000 years without it. Yes, we know that we can't really extract the Zohar from Yahadut, and the Talmud also wasn't around for a very long time. But the Talmud has a much less problematic provenance. And what happens when people find out about the Zohar, which they will always continue to do?S.http://onthemainline.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5016015995912547542011-06-28T12:09:30.592-04:002011-06-28T12:09:30.592-04:00bli neder, i'll try.
in the meantime, i'l...bli neder, i'll try.<br /><br />in the meantime, i'll just note that it did not shatter the emunas chachamim of Rav Yaakov Emden or the Chasam Sofer.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6514030624575072282011-06-28T12:01:14.204-04:002011-06-28T12:01:14.204-04:00This is a very troublesome issue.
How does this no...This is a very troublesome issue.<br />How does this not shatter one's emunas chachamim when contemplating how much of our tradition and Halacha system is influenced by the Zohar ONLY because it was believed to be a tannaitic source.<br />Please please adress this issue also in the follow-up post.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-90647361918655565802011-06-27T22:50:33.945-04:002011-06-27T22:50:33.945-04:00In any case, you actually think that most Orthodox...<i>In any case, you actually think that most Orthodox Jews can "get past" the idea that tradition is invented along the way in general, and that the esoteric tradition is in particular? </i><br /><br />Well, the Orthodox Jews worth talking to. But in all seriousness, I do think there are some things worth fighting for as not merely a take it or leave it possibility because the hamon am can't wrap their heads around a fuzzy middle ground.DCnoreply@blogger.com