tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post4594767099730992812..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Archeih, and the Authenticity of the Zoharjoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-78810217182747542182015-02-24T20:06:01.781-05:002015-02-24T20:06:01.781-05:00"nor that it is recited erev Yom Kippur"..."nor that it is recited erev Yom Kippur"<br /><br />indeed, though one could kvetch the "at the beginning of the year and declare..."joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-68649708452589937972015-02-23T01:33:21.653-05:002015-02-23T01:33:21.653-05:00And while you are researching about Aramaic dialec...And while you are researching about Aramaic dialects also, Plz clarify for me<br />Why the word בהו in them, to them, which is Babylonian Aramaic of mandaic dialect is used in Zohar by Palestinian Rabbis instead ofבהון<br />The same goes for many other words such as תרוויהו -תרויהון,כלהון-כלהו<br /><br />Thank you<br /><br />Respectfully<br /><br />Baruch YuabovBaruch Yuabovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71740043802821283032015-02-23T00:27:15.410-05:002015-02-23T00:27:15.410-05:00Dear Rabbi Miller
I am patiently waiting for your...Dear Rabbi Miller<br /><br />I am patiently waiting for your response on<br />חמי,חמא<br />חזי, חזא <br />Since you questioned my knowledge of Aramaic dialects, I would appreciate your scholarly opinion on this linguistic issue in Zohar.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Baruch Yuabov<br />Baruch Yuabovnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-84864700108847462402015-02-20T10:36:52.882-05:002015-02-20T10:36:52.882-05:00True, except that neither the Mishnah nor the Gema...True, except that neither the Mishnah nor the Gemara mention Kol Nidrei explicitly, nor that it is recited erev Yom KippurAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-51097134677394768942015-02-20T00:54:42.535-05:002015-02-20T00:54:42.535-05:00However, you could simply point to the Mishnah Ned...However, you could simply point to the Mishnah Nedarim 23a and the gemara on 23b which Shittah Mekubetzet is commenting upon.<br /><br /><i>"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."</i><br /><br />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.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-34287822169715973502015-02-20T00:48:34.172-05:002015-02-20T00:48:34.172-05:00oops. "an early Acharon" I meant to writ...oops. "an early Acharon" I meant to write.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-88098227636957097362015-02-20T00:47:56.516-05:002015-02-20T00:47:56.516-05:00well, consider that this is how Anonymous employed...well, consider that this is how Anonymous employed the term.<br /><br />This Shittah Mekubetzet would not convince Anonymous.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />There were Rishonim and early Acharonim who similarly asserted that the Zohar was composed by Rashbi. Does that somehow end the question?<br /><br />But more importantly, what do you have to say about <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/01/cappadocia-and-authenticity-of-zohar.html" rel="nofollow">my Cappadocia post</a>?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81571698442949545312015-02-19T23:46:29.510-05:002015-02-19T23:46:29.510-05:00See Shittah Mekubetzet Nedarim 23b. Established by...See Shittah Mekubetzet Nedarim 23b. Established by Anshei Knesset Hagedolah<br /><br />שטמ"ק נדרים כג ב [ד"ה רבא אמר כגון], שאנשי כנסת הגדולה תיקנו לומר "כל נדרי" כדי להסיר מהמכשול...<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-15168996630763261322015-02-19T23:19:52.024-05:002015-02-19T23:19:52.024-05:005th-10th centuries are usually referred to as the ...5th-10th centuries are usually referred to as the Dark Ages in modern (20th C) literature and historiographyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-36561935956876137372015-02-19T21:02:05.535-05:002015-02-19T21:02:05.535-05:00Anonymous:
Please choose a pseudonym. It makes it ...Anonymous:<br />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.<br /><br />Hi Rabbi Miller,<br /><br />To perhaps clarify anonymous's question, he/she said <i>"despite finding no mention of it prior to medieval times".</i><br /><br />And medieval times includes the 9th century. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>: <i>Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century.</i><br /><br />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?)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In fact, from a few minutes of searching (and arriving at <i>The Biblical and Historical Background of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies</i> 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.<br /><br />Regardless, there is quite a bit of time between Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (2nd century) and Rav Natronai (9th century).<br /><br />It is suspicious that this debatable minhag is not discussed in the the Mishnah, Talmud, or Midrashim until the 9th century.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Have you had a chance to consider the <a href="http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/01/cappadocia-and-authenticity-of-zohar.html" rel="nofollow">Cappadocia post</a>? I've bumped it to the top so you could see it and consider it?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-64889525292473338552015-02-19T13:06:32.733-05:002015-02-19T13:06:32.733-05:00Found in siddur of Rav Amram Gaon (9th C), and dis...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<br />http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42696&st=&pgnum=101Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-39561868603619372692015-02-19T12:37:08.637-05:002015-02-19T12:37:08.637-05:00R Miller - can you please address that which we fi...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-71641378703878532872015-02-06T14:07:48.261-05:002015-02-06T14:07:48.261-05:00Or perhaps by your question #5 you meant the plagi...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 originAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-55378392938079897952015-02-05T23:11:50.100-05:002015-02-05T23:11:50.100-05:00To anonymous regarding common ground
No I do not ...To anonymous regarding common ground<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As for your rather tendentious questions<br />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<br />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).<br />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.<br />4) Less what? Authoritative? It's a moot (in the sense of irrelevant) point so why bother answering?<br />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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-63438689354846747172015-02-05T21:51:03.673-05:002015-02-05T21:51:03.673-05:00Hi Rabbi Miller,
Have you had time to consider wh...Hi Rabbi Miller,<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-28546256395358748962015-02-05T20:00:07.227-05:002015-02-05T20:00:07.227-05:00Correction
RABBI YassaCorrection <br />RABBI YassaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-41852004107405344372015-02-05T19:52:15.967-05:002015-02-05T19:52:15.967-05:00Dear Rabbi Miller
thanks for your response
I thi...Dear Rabbi Miller<br /><br />thanks for your response <br />I think that common ground in our discussion will be the fact that you seem to agree that<br /><br />1 Zohar was written by Rashbi is a false statement<br />2 Zohar contains historical, linguistic and theological anachronisms ( as regards to Tannaic Times) hense is the result of later generations<br />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.<br />4 Zohar is very important Jewish text that should be studied for its true value.<br /><br />NOW FEW QUESTIONS<br />1 Are you biased in your analysis of Scholem and Tishbi <br />2 is your attempt to disprove them manifests the struggle between your beliefs and doubts <br />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<br />4 Do you believe that value of Zohar would be less if it's authored by someone other than Rashbi<br />5 How would you treat a person who plagerizes the names of Talmudic Sages to popularize his own writing<br /><br />THANKSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-16762146440849580402015-02-05T13:17:58.742-05:002015-02-05T13:17:58.742-05:00Anonymous regarding R. Hmnuna Sava and R. Yava Sav...Anonymous regarding R. Hmnuna Sava and R. Yava Sava:<br /><br />I do recall writing somewhere in that article (look for it at kabbalaonline.org -- "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.<br />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.<br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-27987167943879791372015-02-05T07:25:11.063-05:002015-02-05T07:25:11.063-05:00Hi Rabbi Miller,
Thank you for your response.
Un...Hi Rabbi Miller,<br /><br />Thank you for your response.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I still do not think that this is a credible explanation of your own words, and your bringing in plene (<i>malei</i>) and deficient (<i>chaser</i>) changes nothing.<br /><br />Your paragraph, again:<br /><br /><i><b>Archeiha, meaning "manner" or "way" found many times in Zohar. Also found in Niddah 20b.</b> 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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <b>IF</b> 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.<br /><br />Sorry, I don't believe it.<br /><br />I <b>DO</b> 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.<br /><br />By the way, you mentioned that <i>There are other examples but let these suffice. (Of course, that is if you are seeking the truth).</i> 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?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-18923769669264945682015-02-05T02:05:01.496-05:002015-02-05T02:05:01.496-05:00To Josh: regarding archeiha
You wrote:
However, th...To Josh: regarding archeiha<br />You wrote:<br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Yes 20b was a typoI'm not retracting anything. I'm explaining. Here are the words of the orig. article.<br />... 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.<br />"This is also written..." refers to the pleneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-1062935933156571352015-02-04T23:42:10.906-05:002015-02-04T23:42:10.906-05:00Sorry, I can't trust you any more that there a...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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />The first instance might well mean this, and would have been a better source that "he smelled it".<br /><br />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?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-46536347548467733172015-02-04T23:41:47.372-05:002015-02-04T23:41:47.372-05:00To Anonymous:
I have already answered many of thes...To Anonymous:<br />I have already answered many of these questions on the kabbalaonlijne.org website. Search for Authenticity of the Zohar or my name. If there is something specific you need to ask write me at ravm.icja@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-20212999103597483072015-02-04T23:38:49.325-05:002015-02-04T23:38:49.325-05:00Dear Rabbi Miller, you will have much easier time ...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.<br /><br />I think that's what YOU are trying to do, or something similar.<br /> <br />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 mindAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-80349765791368097502015-02-04T23:32:20.728-05:002015-02-04T23:32:20.728-05:00Furthermore, the same chaser form is also used for...Furthermore, the same chaser form is also used for example in Talmud Yerushalmi (albeit in the plural) <br /><br /> :תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת סוכה דף א, ב <br />מסתברא מה דאמר רבי יאשיה לית היא פליגא דכן *ארחיהון* דעתירייא מיעבד דפנתא קלילן די ייא קרירה עליל. רב הושיע בעי הביא נסר ונתנו<br />סיטה ג, ב: שנאמר ילפתו *ארחות* דרכם יעלו בתוה<br /><br />There are other examples but let these suffice. (Of course, that is if you are seeking the truth).<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01571880812618918138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-5098896138155995562015-02-04T23:32:15.651-05:002015-02-04T23:32:15.651-05:00Rabbi Miller:
To Josh Waxman: Chaser and yatir ar...Rabbi Miller:<br /><br /><i>To Josh Waxman: Chaser and yatir are important in Mikra; far less important in mishnah and of little consequence in Gemara.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />To clarify, are you now <b>retracting</b> your explanation, and acknowledging that it was not a typo of 20b for 10b? Or are you persisting in this explanation?joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.com