Wednesday, February 04, 2015

Archeih, and the Authenticity of the Zohar

Note: Bumped this rather old post (from 2/13/2011) to the top so that comments can go through without my explicit approval each time.

Summary: Continuing to debunk Rabbi Moshe Miller's debunkings. This time, based on the word ארחיה Here are some earlier posts responding to the article on the basis of Rabbi Yesa, Rabbi Abba, Cappadocia, and Kefar Kanya, as mentioned in the Zohar.

Post: Rabbi Moshe Miller wrote a seemingly erudite article debunking many proofs of late authorship of the Zohar. But when we actually look up the sources, we see that he is either incapable of understanding peshat in a gemara or else is deliberately misleading his readers.

Here is  what Rabbi Miller writes:
The claim is that Hebrew expressions first used in medieval times were used by the author of the Zohar, showing that it must have been compiled by someone [i.e., Moshe de Leon] during this era. As demonstrated below, many of these expressions are also found in early sources, contrary to the skeptics' claims.
Demonstrate away!
Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b. This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.
(It seems that Rabbi Miller does not know the correct nikkud for this Aramaic word.) So, if we look at Niddah 20b, will we find the word archeiha, or rather archeih, meaning "manner" or "way"? This is the gemara in Niddah:
דההיא אתתא דאייתא דמא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר הוה יתיב רבי אמי קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא בתר דנפקה אטפל לה רבי אמי א"ל בעלי היה בדרך וחמדתיו קרי עליה (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו אפרא הורמיז אמיה דשבור מלכא שדרה דמא לקמיה דרבא הוה יתיב רב עובדיה קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא
So the word appears. But what does it mean?
Because a woman once brought some blood before R. Eleazar when R. Ammi sat in his presence. Having smelt it he6  told her, 'This is blood of lust'.7  After she went out R. Ammi joined her and she told him, 'My husband was away on a journey but I felt an intense longing for him'. Thereupon he8  applied to him6  the text, The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him.9
Ifra Hormiz,10  the mother of King Shapur, once sent some blood to Raba when R. Obadiah was sitting in his presence. Having smelt it he said to him, 'This is blood of lust'.7 
This is NOT the word orach, as a translation of the word derech! Rather, it would appear to be based on the word re'ach, smell.

What about the other examples? It seems that Rabbi Miller has changed the goalposts. He is inserting a vav into the word, to make it urcheih. Is this part of the original claim? I would guess not, and that the point was that in the Zohar, all these times, it says archeih instead of urcheih.

But the word with a vav indeed appears in Shabbat 11b:
א"ל אביי אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי מאיר במידי דלאו היינו אורחיה במידי דהיינו אורחיה מי שמעת ליה
Or, in English:
Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]?
Thus, his normal way or manner of carrying. I won't bother investigating these other cases, because I agree that orcheih / urcheih would mean that. But this does not seem to match the argument put forth by the Zohar skeptics.

Of course, he could simply claim that all these chaser vav examples are scribal errors, or that the word is similar enough that it would have existed in all these forms. Whether one finds this plausible is another story, but regardless, he hasn't uprooted the question posed by these scholars.


E-Man said...

It saddens me that there are so many hacks out there that are given forums and followers.

Yankel said...

It would seem that you are off here. Archeih should probably be orcheih, with kamatz katan, which is interchangable with an u sound, is always written chaser in texts with nikkud and therefore can reasonably be expected to sometimes be chaser even without nikkud.

joshwaxman said...

you see, THAT would be an answer. a correct answer, or not. (we can evaluate that in a minute.)

what is NOT an answer is that "archeih DOES occur! see, it occurs in Niddah 20b", when what actually occurs is "he SMELLED it".

my point in this series is to evaluate the answers and debunkings in this particular article i am analyzing, from Rabbi Moshe Miller. in fact, check the previous posts in this series, and see that he does precisely the same type of either ignorant or deliberately misleading "debunking" in each case.

in terms of your suggestion, that is more or less what I was suggesting in the very last paragraph:
Of course, he could simply claim that all these chaser vav examples are scribal errors, or that the word is similar enough that it would have existed in all these forms. Whether one finds this plausible is another story,

Whether kametz katan functions in this way in *Aramaic*, and whether it reduces in this way absent some causative context (like vowel shift) is something we would need to demonstrate. can you give an example? We would also need to note that it does not seem to reduce in this way in the MANY times the word occurs in the texts we know are from Chazal, and note this irregularity alongside at least a dozen other examples. ("Yellow" in the Zohar is the next example in my queue.)

kol tuv,

Unknown said...

The only error here was a typo. It should have read Niddah 10b, which states, ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ''ל.
See also Niddah 22a אורחא דמילתא היא and
Niddah 64b אורח ארעא קמ''ל and Gittin 29a אורחא דמילתא קתני etc. etc.
Please address all questions to the author The original articles can be found at Search for "Authenticity of the Zohar

Unknown said...

The only error here is a typo. It should have said Niddah 10b (ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ''ל). But in any event, the word אורחא, אורחי' etc are used so many times in the Gemara that there are hundreds of examples. Just a few below:

בבא קמא (ב, ב): ומלתא אגב אורחיה קמ''ל
שם (ד, א): "ומועד דרכו להזיק כיון דאייעד אורחיה הוא אדם דרכו להזיק בישן ישן דרכו להזיק כיון דכייף ופשיט אורחיה הוא ושמירתן עליך
שם (ז, ב): עד פלגא אורחיה למיזל טפי לאו אורחיה למיזל

joshwaxman said...

Hi Rabbi Miller,

Thank you for taking the time to answer here.

You wrote this article many years ago and perhaps forgot your intent. I fear that, in your haste to reply, you have erred in interpreting your own words.

Allow me to explain why your explanation that this is a mere typo of Niddah 20b instead of Niddah 10b is not a credible one.

To cite your paragraph again:

Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b. This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.

What I placed in bold italics is the reisha of your paragraph. The focus there is that ארחיה, spelled without the vav, actually occurs in the Talmud.

What I placed only in italics is the seifa of your paragraph. The focus there is that, if we decide NOT to spell it as ארחיה but instead with a vav as אורחיה, then there are many examples of this spelling in the Talmud. And you give examples of this. (Examples which, I would note, the scholars you are critiquing were well aware.)

What you are now saying is that this was a typo of Niddah 20b instead of Niddah 10b. However, as you yourself point out, the quote there is ומילתא אגב אורחיה קמ''ל. That is, spelled WITH a vav.

If that is what you meant, then it should not have been placed in the (bold italics) reisha, where it serves to assert that there is a Talmudic example of ארחיה. Instead, it should have been placed in the (mere italics) seifa, alongside your other examples of אורחיה.

Further, if you indeed intended אורחיה, then all your new examples are adding nothing to the seifa of the paragraph you already wrote, so why pretend like you are arguing a new point in the comment section?

Finally, it seems rather suspect that this was a mere typo of 20b instead of 10b when, based on placement in the paragraph, we would be expecting an example without the vav and that 20b, which you indeed wrote, contains the only instance in all of Talmud of ארחיה. (Even though, as I wrote in the post, it means "he smelled it" and not "his way

Kol Tuv,

Anonymous said...

Rabbi Miller

I have shown your article to Heirich Guggenheimer the author of Jerusalem Talmud published by De Greutersin recient years.

It was a severe disappointment from losg lost of
falsifications, misinterpretations, and simple amhaaratzus to justify a big lie about Zohar.
you write
Again according to Tishby, (ibid. p. 61) Rabbi Chaggai was only known as an amora. But see Yerushalmi Yevamot 83b: "R. Chaggai said to R. Yehoshua ben Levi…" Now R. Yehoshua ben Levi was clearly a Tanna, as he is quoted in Mishna Avot 6:2 and Mishna Uktzin 3:12. See also Gemara Pesachim 26a: "We learned in a beraita - Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi…"

but look in talmud yerushalmi that you quote it does not mention Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, but Rabbi Yosi. So your proof is yet another falsification

Unknown said...

I don't know what Talmud Yerushalmi you or Guggenheimer are using but this is what it says in the standard version of the Talmud Yerushalmi Yevamot 83b end of the page (I'm assuming you read Hebrew or the whole point is moot... or worse):

אמר ר' חגי לרבי יהושע בן לוי זכור רבי בשלישי וכמה זקנים כל שהיו מתריסין כנגד רבי הושעיה ביד למעבד כהדה דר' שמעון בר לקיש והוא לא מקבל עליו. רב יהודה בשם רב אין הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בבא בישראל

It would certainly behoove you to check your comments before making them.

Anonymous said...

would you also be so kind as to comment on other posts, about Kapotkia ( shame), Rabbi Yasa ( who is really amora Rabbi Assi in Talmud Bavli), Rabbi Abba (use manuscripts of yerushalmi to avoid errors)

Zohar uses Babylonian order of parshiyot of Torah,
Zohar uses Haze- to see( Babylonian Aramaic) instead of Hame (Palestinian)
Zohar Has an introduction which became style of Jewish books only in medieval times
Zohar describes a silk cocoon in , that was Chinese secret until later Byzantine times
True Rabbi Shimon of Talmud is the biggest and most staunch supported of Hebrew far be it from him to write in corrupted Babylonian Aramaic

Dear Rabbi Miller, you will have much easier time proving that the real author of ideas in Neo Platonic Zohar is Sadducee Rabbi from Alexandria, Philo.

Unknown said...

To Josh Waxman: Chaser and yatir are important in Mikra; far less important in mishnah and of little consequence in Gemara.
Similarly in Zohar, which has also passed through the hands of many copyists. Since I have no idea (at this point) which ארחיה \ אורחיה Scholem or Kedari was referring to (if they even referenced it which they often did not, as mentioned earlier).
Both forms of the word are used in the Zohar eg. זהר ח"א נא, א -- ותא חזי אע"ג דאורחיה דהאי נהורא תכלא אוכמא לשיצאה
זהר ח"א סב, ב: זכאין אינון צדיקיא דאורחיהון מנהרא (plural form)
זהר ח"א סט, א: חד מנייהו מאן דמחבל אורחיה על ארעא כדאמרן
all above in the plene (yatir) form. In the chaser form:
זהר ח"א לא, א: מכאן ולהלאה כל חד לפום ארחיה
זהר ח"א נא, ב: ובגין דארחיה דהאי נהורא תכלא לשיצאה
זהר סב, א: מכאן ולהלאה כל חד לפום ארחיה

This is not a comprehensive list, obviously, merely a representation. As you can see, the word is used interchangeably with the same meaning.

Anonymous said...

you are right I was referring to רבי חגי בעא קומי רבי יוסי לא מסתברא נותנין לו שהות כדי טריפה אמר ליה אף אנא סבור כן:
my apologies

Still Rabbi Yehoshua be Levi is a student of Bar Kappara who is student of student/colleague of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, who was but a young man when Rabbi SHimon was niftar. Talmus says that the widow of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon refused to marry Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi.

Anonymous said...

What about Rav Hamnuna Sabba and Rav Yavva Sabba who are clearly 2nd-3rd generation Babylonian amoraim, how they communicate with Tannaim of Erez Israel

After all Zohar describes dirrect contacts of these Rabbis with Rabbi Shimon.

joshwaxman said...

Rabbi Miller:

To Josh Waxman: Chaser and yatir are important in Mikra; far less important in mishnah and of little consequence in Gemara.

However, this is not what you wrote in your article. In your article, you clearly made this distinction and offered first a false and misleading instance of ארחיה, and only then turned to instances of אורחיה.

To clarify, are you now retracting your explanation, and acknowledging that it was not a typo of 20b for 10b? Or are you persisting in this explanation?

Unknown said...

Furthermore, the same chaser form is also used for example in Talmud Yerushalmi (albeit in the plural)

:תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת סוכה דף א, ב
מסתברא מה דאמר רבי יאשיה לית היא פליגא דכן *ארחיהון* דעתירייא מיעבד דפנתא קלילן די ייא קרירה עליל. רב הושיע בעי הביא נסר ונתנו
סיטה ג, ב: שנאמר ילפתו *ארחות* דרכם יעלו בתוה

There are other examples but let these suffice. (Of course, that is if you are seeking the truth).

Unknown said...

Dear Rabbi Miller, you will have much easier time proving that the real author of ideas in Neo Platonic Zohar is Sadducee Rabbi from Alexandria, Philo.

I think that's what YOU are trying to do, or something similar.

Nor do I agree with your statement. Of course, you are free to accept the authenticity of the Zohar or otherwise, but my predecessors, such as the Arizal, Rabbi Chaim Vital, the Baal Shem Tov and so on, certainly did. That's enough for me, particularly after I have done my own research. I advise you to keep an open mind

Unknown said...

To Anonymous:
I have already answered many of these questions on the website. Search for Authenticity of the Zohar or my name. If there is something specific you need to ask write me at

joshwaxman said...

Sorry, I can't trust you any more that there are other examples without seeing them. Once it seems as if someone has repeatedly lied about sources, or as if they are being careless with sources, as with "he smelled it", then I can't just take their word for it any more.

For example, of your two examples, the second one, שנאמר ילפתו ארחות דרכם יעלו בתוה, is a citation the Talmud makes of a pasuk in Iyov 6:18. It is Hebrew: יִלָּפְתוּ אָרְחוֹת דַּרְכָּם יַעֲלוּ בַתֹּהוּ וְיֹאבֵדוּ. How this is to show that in Aramaic it means this?

The first instance might well mean this, and would have been a better source that "he smelled it".

But more importantly than all this (because it seems symptomatic of the entire essay), are you persisting in your assertion that this was a mere typo of 20b for 10b?

Unknown said...

To Josh: regarding archeiha
You wrote:
However, this is not what you wrote in your article. In your article, you clearly made this distinction and offered first a false and misleading instance of ארחיה, and only then turned to instances of אורחיה.

To clarify, are you now retracting your explanation, and acknowledging that it was not a typo of 20b for 10b? Or are you persisting in this explanation?

Yes 20b was a typoI'm not retracting anything. I'm explaining. Here are the words of the orig. article.
... meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b (read 10b now). This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.
"This is also written..." refers to the plene

joshwaxman said...

Hi Rabbi Miller,

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, I still do not think that this is a credible explanation of your own words, and your bringing in plene (malei) and deficient (chaser) changes nothing.

Your paragraph, again:

Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b. This is also written many times as orcheiha in Zohar and in Shabbat 11b, 123b, Eruvin 42a, 68a; Rosh HaShanah 15a; Ketuvot 31b, etc., etc.

The reisha, which I have placed in bold italics, deals with the chaser, deficient spelling. It states that it is chaser many times in Zohar, as well as in the Talmud, in Niddah 20b.

The seifa, which I have placed only in italics, deals with the malei, plene spelling. It states that the Zohar and Talmud have many instances of the plene spelling, and give examples.

If, at the time you wrote the article, you actually meant to refer to Niddah 10b, which as you admit has a plene spelling, then it does not belong in the reisha of your paragraph. It belongs alongside all your other examples in the seifa of your paragraph.

Furthermore, I would point out that the word ארחיה with those consonants appears only twice in all of Talmud, and both times are on Niddah 20b. (Though it means "he smelled it".) You would have us believe that, through an incredible stroke of luck, you hit the wrong key on your keyboard, a 2 instead of a 1, and managed to hit the only page in all of Talmud that happens to have that word?! That would defy belief even IF your new explanation of your paragraph, based on malei and chaser, was credible. Since it is not, this is piling an incredible claim on top of another incredible claim.

Sorry, I don't believe it.

I DO believe that, at the time you wrote the article, you were extremely happy to have found a counterexample and so, in haste, you did not check the meaning of the word in context. Not that you were trying to deliberately mislead in your article. If so, then there is little shame in this.

By the way, you mentioned that There are other examples but let these suffice. (Of course, that is if you are seeking the truth). As a lover of truth, I can't let the two examples suffice, especially since one of your two examples was a pasuk from Iyov and thus was Biblical Hebrew, which has nothing to do with Aramaic in the Talmud Yerushalmi. Since you are saying that there are these other examples, could you please provide me with five more frp, Talmud Yerushalmi?


Unknown said...

Anonymous regarding R. Hmnuna Sava and R. Yava Sava:

I do recall writing somewhere in that article (look for it at -- "authenticity of the Zohar") that the oldest core of the Zohar (called chibura kadmita) was written by R. shimon and his immediate circle but was developed, added to and edited through several generations (much like the Gemara), so it is not surprising to find later amoraim in the Zohar.
However, as to your question about direct face-to-face contact there are several explanations -- R. Cook I believe floats the idea that was through an aliyat haneshama or some other spiritual method. Others suggest that later amoraim, when putting the Zohar in its final form, did what we find in Shas as well, presenting arguments and discussions etc. between later chachamim and earlier chachamim even though these were not face-to-face, at least al pi peshat.
In any event, תן לחכם ויחקם עוד -- if you accept the Zohar as authentic (until proven otherwise, by scholars of the Torah and not PhD's with a chip on their shoulder or an agenda) and go from there, I'm sure you will find plausible answers.

Anonymous said...

Dear Rabbi Miller

thanks for your response
I think that common ground in our discussion will be the fact that you seem to agree that

1 Zohar was written by Rashbi is a false statement
2 Zohar contains historical, linguistic and theological anachronisms ( as regards to Tannaic Times) hense is the result of later generations
3 Zohar contains many ancient and traditional Jewish ideas some of which can be attributed to real Rashbi or very often can be traced to more ancient Jewish author Philo.
4 Zohar is very important Jewish text that should be studied for its true value.

1 Are you biased in your analysis of Scholem and Tishbi
2 is your attempt to disprove them manifests the struggle between your beliefs and doubts
3 are you willing to publicly appologize to Scholem and Tishbi for your comments on Kapotkia, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Hassan where you were clearly wrong
4 Do you believe that value of Zohar would be less if it's authored by someone other than Rashbi
5 How would you treat a person who plagerizes the names of Talmudic Sages to popularize his own writing


Anonymous said...


joshwaxman said...

Hi Rabbi Miller,

Have you had time to consider what I wrote above about why your "typo" explanation of your article does not make sense and is not credible?


Unknown said...

To anonymous regarding common ground

No I do not agree with any of your statements, except for (4) "Zohar is very important Jewish text that should be studied for its true value," with which I agree wholeheartedly.

As for your rather tendentious questions
1) is a foolish question. People with a bias rarely admit it and if they deny it no doubt people of your ilk will call them a liar or something. I have nothing personal against Scholem or Tishbi; I just don't agree with their conclusions, nor do I much admire their scholarship
2) Don't play psychologist because a) your reductionism and oversimplification of things suggests that you have very little understanding of human nature (or of the Zohar for that matter).
3) Scholem and Tishbi are both long gone and no doubt won't be coming back (l'shitatam) and I have nothing to apologize for at all; nor am I wrong regarding the issues you mentioned.
4) Less what? Authoritative? It's a moot (in the sense of irrelevant) point so why bother answering?
I have no idea what you mean by %5. I assume you must be referring to Moshe de Leon. By the way, are you aware of the essay G. Scholem wrote proving that M. de Leon could NOT have written the Zohar? As far as I know he never disproved his earlier proofs. It seems that he recanted (without said disproofs) in order to toe the academic line at the time or he would have been passed over for the head of Jewish Mysticism.

Unknown said...

Or perhaps by your question #5 you meant the plagiarism performed by Scholem? Yes that's true. He did steal most of his kushios on the Zohar from R. Yaakov Emdin's Mitpachat without acknowledging their origin

Anonymous said...

R Miller - can you please address that which we find Kol Nidre discussed in the Zohar despite finding no mention of it prior to medieval times?

Unknown said...

Found in siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (9th C), and discussed by R. Natronai Gaon (mid 9th C) and R. Hai Gaon (late 9th-early 10th C). (Whether it should be part of the tefilos is a matter of disagreement). Rav Amram did not compose it because he himself did not agree with the minhag. So it was apparently a minhag from before that time. See link to page in R. Amram's siddur

joshwaxman said...

Please choose a pseudonym. It makes it easier to track who is talking. For instance, we have no way of knowing whether you are the same anonymous as above.

Hi Rabbi Miller,

To perhaps clarify anonymous's question, he/she said "despite finding no mention of it prior to medieval times".

And medieval times includes the 9th century. See Wikipedia: Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.

So while most of your response was showing several Geonic sources from the 9th century onward, giving the impression that anonymous who posed the question was unaware of this, in fact all of these were medieval, just as anonymous said. (See a pattern?)

While the minhag may have predated Rav Amram Gaon in the 9th century, his giving the text yet arguing it should not be recited does not mean that it predates the 9th century, or not by much.

In fact, from a few minutes of searching (and arriving at The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies by Abraham P. Bloch, page 173), it is not Rav Amram Gaon who is the earliest. He is the earliest to give the full text, but it is his predecessor and teacher, Rav Natronai Gaon II, who discussed it as a minhag which prevailed in other lands and disagreed with its recitation.

Regardless, there is quite a bit of time between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (2nd century) and Rav Natronai (9th century).

It is suspicious that this debatable minhag is not discussed in the the Mishnah, Talmud, or Midrashim until the 9th century.

Which is what Anonymous was asking about. Your answer amounts to: since the earliest sources argue upon it, it did not originate with them, so perhaps it originated earlier, and not just that, much earlier.

To my mind, that is not such a convincing argument, when considering that this is just a single piece of evidence about the dating of the Zohar standing alongside many many other pieces of evidence.

If you are reading this, please note that I added a comment to the Teva post, noting that Rav Yaakov Emden himself considered the teva in Niddah to be unique, and himself in Mitpachat Soferim used this as a word in Zohar not in (common?) usage by Chazal, again noting Niddah.

Have you had a chance to consider the Cappadocia post? I've bumped it to the top so you could see it and consider it?

Unknown said...

5th-10th centuries are usually referred to as the Dark Ages in modern (20th C) literature and historiography

Unknown said...

See Shittah Mekubetzet Nedarim 23b. Established by Anshei Knesset Hagedolah

שטמ"ק נדרים כג ב [ד"ה רבא אמר כגון], שאנשי כנסת הגדולה תיקנו לומר "כל נדרי" כדי להסיר מהמכשול...

joshwaxman said...

well, consider that this is how Anonymous employed the term.

This Shittah Mekubetzet would not convince Anonymous.

After all, what you have found is that Rabbi Bezalel ben Abraham Ashkenazi, an early Rishon who lived from (ca. 1520 – ca. 1592) believed that Anshei Knesset Hagedolah composed it.

There were Rishonim and early Acharonim who similarly asserted that the Zohar was composed by Rashbi. Does that somehow end the question?

But more importantly, what do you have to say about my Cappadocia post?

joshwaxman said...

oops. "an early Acharon" I meant to write.

joshwaxman said...

However, you could simply point to the Mishnah Nedarim 23a and the gemara on 23b which Shittah Mekubetzet is commenting upon.

"And he who desires that none of his vows made during the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null."

The Ran says this may have provided a support for reciting Kol Nidrei on Erev Yom Kippur. You could argue (and perhaps this is what Shitta Mekubetzet is saying) that this Kol Nidrei already existed, instituted by Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, and this gemara is referring to that practice.

Unknown said...

True, except that neither the Mishnah nor the Gemara mention Kol Nidrei explicitly, nor that it is recited erev Yom Kippur

Baruch Yuabov said...

Dear Rabbi Miller

I am patiently waiting for your response on
חזי, חזא
Since you questioned my knowledge of Aramaic dialects, I would appreciate your scholarly opinion on this linguistic issue in Zohar.


Baruch Yuabov

Baruch Yuabov said...

And while you are researching about Aramaic dialects also, Plz clarify for me
Why the word בהו in them, to them, which is Babylonian Aramaic of mandaic dialect is used in Zohar by Palestinian Rabbis instead ofבהון
The same goes for many other words such as תרוויהו -תרויהון,כלהון-כלהו

Thank you


Baruch Yuabov

joshwaxman said...

"nor that it is recited erev Yom Kippur"

indeed, though one could kvetch the "at the beginning of the year and declare..."


Blog Widget by LinkWithin