Regarding the shift you note in Da'as Torah: I think this is/was a natural result of galus. The lack of a concrete halachic reality means that Torah became abstract and separated from the real world. As such, many now consider those who cloister themselves to be on a higher level than those involved with the world.
There are movements to combat this notion. In general, from what I can tell, the focus of the Shalem Center and the Azure journal is to re-connect halacha with its political nature (in the land/state of Israel, natch).
"In the rest of this paper I want to indicate how very little of Maimonidean Judaism can be found in the contemporary Orthodox world."
That's enough to get me to read the rest. ;)
I hadn't considered the Zohar as a good counter-proof to the "It must be true cause you couldn't pull off such a big lie" argument. Shkoyach.
There are other things besides the Zohar which relate to that point. The origin of the nekkudot and te'amim, for example. Until R. Eliyahu Bahur (Elias Levita) all Jews believed these signs were from Ezra, if not from Sinai. Until 200 years ago Levita was probably the only Jew who believed they were post-Talmudic. It is safe to say that it has been disproved to the extent that today you will probably not be called a kofer for believing that they were created by the baalei ha-mesorah following the Talmud.
But even the leading, last of the baalei ha-mesorah, R. Aharon ben Moshe ben Asher, believed they were from Sinai (in his Dikdukei Te'amim), and they were 1) only created a couple of centuries earlier and 2) he personally was an insider to the entire enterprise.
See Dan Rabinowitz's fine article in Hakira, Vol. 2, about the nekudot controversy.
P. Kellner writes, "Scholars such as Gershon Scholem accept that these works are the invention of Moses de Leon, but in Orthodox circles, the Zohar is almost universally seen as the work of Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai, with all that implies."
I think he overstates it. The majority of Orthodox Jewry sees it as from the Rashbi, but there has alwyas been a sizeable minority (mi'ut ha-nikar)that thought otherwise. In the past, these Jews in the minority mainly kept their views under wraps, for fear of being branded heretics by the usually uneduacted majority. But in this age of educated laymen and the Internet, more and more Jews will publicly express support for the later-date viewpoint. We shall see how this affects Jewish life.
Regarding your observation on the da'as Torah issue - I agree with your view. Most Eastern European Jews were uneducated, in Torah and certainly in everything else. It was natural to turn to the educated Rabbi for advice, even in non-religious matters. In Western Europe, Jews were better educated, and thus did not practice this concept of Da'as Torah.
If this view is correct, people came to the Rabbi simply to get good advice from an intelligent person, the same way you might ask any smart fellow for advice today. Somewhere along the line the idea took hold that the good advice came from the Torah itself, and not from the man's innate intelligence.
And that's the root of the problem today. Today, the people becoming professional rabbis and teachers are not necessarily the smartest and best educated. (Some are, some aren't). The idea of across the board Da'as Torah now seems antiquated or absurd. I think even modern orthodox Jews would have no problem speaking to their rabbi about even non-religious issues, if they thought their Rabbi was particularly shrewd. it's the idea that a rabbi, merely by being a rabbi, has some special insight that people don't accept.
The authorship of the Zohar is a good example of non-experts repeating the words of non-experts. I think that most (not all) serious students of Kabbala realize that it is a different kind of knowledge - mystical, inward, and incapable of being measured by the usual standards of historicity. It is true in the sense of reflecting something very basic about spirituality. In Talmud we say that "lo beshamaim hi" but in Kabbala you have continuous revelation by maggidim, Eliahu and Ruach Hakodesh. Whether the Zohar was written by the Rashbi at a certain time is ultimately irrelevant for Baalei Kabbolo, klapei pnim, even if klapei chutz, they maintain so. (I am aware that there is some discussion of the role of precedent in selecting between Ari's and Ramak's Kabbolo as more true to the intent of the Zohar but it does not reflect on the thesis as as a whole)
It is incontravertible that Kabalistic knowledge and Zoharic ideas existed for hundreds of years before R. Moshe De Leon. Unless you are willing to consign multiple quotations from the Geonim to widespread forgery, they existed and were being discussed already at the time of the Geonim. , Sefer Yetsiran, Bahir, Ramban, Shharei Orah, R. Isaac Ako etc were writing of the Zoharic ideas before R. Moshe De Leon. MOST LIKELY R. Moshe De Leon transcribed and put together pre-existing manuscripts and traditions. Ultimately that matters only to non-Kabbalsits and not to those who accept Kabbala as a moshol that opens the doors to deeper cognition of reality and G-dliness.
for more on Kabbala as moshol see http://www.avakesh.com/2006/11/
i...bbala_a_mo.html
Avakesh: If you will look at all the early commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah, i,e. those of Saadia Gaon, Dunash ibn Tamim, Shabbetai
Donello, and Judah ibn Barzilai, you will see that there is nothing kabbalistic about the work. Re Ramban, Shaarei Orah, and R. Isaac de-man Akko, all were active in the second half of the thirteenth century. As for when Sefer ha-Bahir was written, that is a big question. Provence, late 12th century? Gerona, early 13th century. As for the "kabbalistic" teshuvot ha-Geonim, well, they are forgeies. As to how far back some kabbalisitc ideas go, that is a complex question, and the final word is not in.
> For years I have been convinced that the notion of da'at torah was a haredi innovation, a politically expedient if Jewishly questionable response to the challenges of modernity.
"... but now I've taken the time to read the Rambam, I see that's not the case."
Mmm... Schardenfreude...
I'd also point out that in '91 when Bush Snr was running for re-election, he was embarassed to not know how a bar-code scanner worked. I don't think the credit-cars story is at all suprising or noteworthy.
Why should it bother anyone that some of the ideas in the Zohar were not around at the time of Rashbi any more than it should bother people that some fo the ideas in the Moreh were not around during the time of Rashbi?
Dr. Kaplan,
Doesn't everyone agree that the MerkavahHeichalosShiur Komah type kabbalah dates back to the Talmudic era?
Hmm, the comment software stripped out all the slashes from my last comment.
>Doesn't everyone agree that the MerkavahHeichalosShiur Komah type kabbalah dates back to the Talmudic era?
There are whole passages of the Zohar which have been found in 4th century writings and some even earlier. The view that the Zohar spontaneously generated in the 13th century is just plain wrong. That being said, following the very nature of esoteric thought, there is little question that the Habura of R' Moses de Leon contributed a lot to the enterprize.
I don't see what the problem is with this. Jewish though has always progressed and developed. I highly doubt Kellner would deny some of the Hiddushim in the thought of the Rambam but for some reason I don't understand, rationalist Jewish academics all of a sudden turn originalist whenever it comes to Jewish mysticism.
I usually can never comment on your posts S, but I am hopping I can this time, as soon as I read it :)
>I think he overstates it. The majority of Orthodox Jewry sees it as from the Rashbi, but there has alwyas been a sizeable minority (mi'ut ha-nikar)that thought otherwise. In the past, these Jews in the minority mainly kept their views under wraps, for fear of being branded heretics by the usually uneduacted majority. But in this age of educated laymen and the Internet, more and more Jews will publicly express support for the later-date viewpoint. We shall see how this affects Jewish life.
That's true, but there is a gradation of views, from those who think it is not mamash authored by Rashb"y, yet still containing early and authentic teachings, to those who think it is entirely pseudepigrephal and from the 13th century. (Of course whether it is a beautiful book or not is actually a matter independent of its authorship.)
Either way, you are barely allowed to publically 'not like' the Zohar. However, as you said, we'll see what happens in the future. It's possible that more Orthodox Jews consider it a spurious work today than at any point in recent centuries.
Paranthetically, I recently saw somewhere a quote from a haskama authored by R. Hutner in which he wrote "ישראל ואורייתא חד הוא." Note what's missing.
>The authorship of the Zohar is a good example of non-experts repeating the words of non-experts.
One needn't be an expert to know that when a written work appears in one century the question of whether it contains teachings from a thousand years earlier or was actually written or recited orally by a person of a thousand years earlier arises and is not easily answered by platitudes like "incapable of being measured by the usual standards of historicity."
If so, then it's only meaningful to those who take whatever leap of faith needed.
>Paranthetically, I recently saw somewhere a quote from a haskama authored by R. Hutner in which he wrote "ישראל ואורייתא חד הוא." Note what's missing.
I think that the phrase you cite is actually a reference that all three things are expressions of the sefira of tiferet. An idea that I believe preceded the Zohar and already is seen in Gerona.
I have to look that up as I am not completely sure but I think I am right.
I never said that it first appeared in the Zohar. Look, obviously the Zohar was a stage of development in a particular field, however you look at it.
Chardal, you're valiant attempts to defend the Zohar as a valuable and important Jewish work are side issues. It could be that, and still not be what it came to be accepted as.
>I never said that it first appeared in the Zohar. Look, obviously the Zohar was a stage of development in a particular field, however you look at it.
Which makes its authorship much less significant - definitely less than the monumental proportions it assumes in prof. Kellner's article.
>It could be that, and still not be what it came to be accepted as.
There are two issues.
One, what the authorship of the Zohar is popularly conceived as being.
Two, the influence of the work which is not necessarily linked to its authorship. One could argue that if the Zohar was not attributed to Rashbi, then its influence would have been minimal but that is conjectural at best. Such what if questions can never really be answered. However, if you see it as an important step in a long line of Jewish mystical thought, then context is achieved and one can at least recognize the POSSIBILITY that similar ideas would have become normative in the Jewish world without this particular attribution.
>you're valiant attempts
And I never knew I was a valiant attempt! ;)
>Which makes its authorship much less significant - definitely less than the monumental proportions it assumes in prof. Kellner's article.
Only if it was accepted in the nuanced way you advocate. I mean, the Shulhan Arukh didn't need a private revelation. Instead, it was as if the Book of Enoch appeared and the Jewish people regarded it as written by חנוך and made it canonical for that reason. It didn't undergo any process of authentication so it remains pseudepigrephal (not to mention the problems Scholem and others before him raised, although not all of them are crucial).
Ironically, this issue should only be problematic if you're wedded to the Kuzari's idea about public vs private revelation. If this isn't your concern, already being convinced that you haven't got a historical 'proof' of the Torah's divinity, one can keep faith in the Zohar for much the reason one does in the Torah.
>There are two issues.
Tzvei dinim. ;)
You are right, the popular perception is not necessarily that meaningful, although it remains to be probed why that became the popular perception. At the end of the day, if the masses will just accept pseudepigrephal books, this belies claims regarding why other important Jewish books are canonical.
Second, I think it is not unlike the Besomim Rosh (see seforim blog over the past few days) in that its authorship may well be linked with its influence. Was the author(s) operating in good faith or not?
>I mean, the Shulhan Arukh didn't need a private revelation.
But that is a completely different Genre of work. Halacha has a particular methodology which alows for internal validation of texts. Works of essoteric though (or thought in general) are just not subject to the same scrutiny. Case in point is the fact that many mystical teaching written anonymously before and after the Zohar were accepted or rejected based on their content, not based on their authorship.
The authorship of the Zohar is a question of popular belief, but even one of the strongest opponents of Tannaitic authorship, R' Yaakov Emden, still upheld the Holiness of the work. They were two seperate questions in his book.
Let me pose this to you, if someone were to prove that the Moreh was actually written by someone other than the Rambam, would that take away the importance of the work? I don't think so.
>At the end of the day, if the masses will just accept pseudepigrephal books, this belies claims regarding why other important Jewish books are canonical.
Books become canonical for many reasons, one of which is that the Jewish people or a large segment of the Jewish people accept their teachings as appropriate.
This is actually a good example. Hazal had no problem agreeing regarding the canonicity of a biblical book while disagreeing about the authorship of the same book. (Job being the particular book I had in mind)
>Second, I think it is not unlike the Besomim Rosh
Again, this is an halachic work which I would argue falls into a different category and into different standards.
Remember, the mechaber was a mekubal who firmly believed that the Zohar was tannaitic, yet he consistantly and conciosly refrained from using it to argue on gemara. It was simply a differnet Genre in his book.
>The authorship of the Zohar is a question of popular belief, but even one of the strongest opponents of Tannaitic authorship, R' Yaakov Emden, still upheld the Holiness of the work. They were two seperate questions in his book.
Fine, but ultimately one can't validate this. It becomes a matter of personal opinion. Granted, whose opinion people decide to give weight to is their choice. I think everyone who is part of rabbinic Judaism will agree that Talmudic era teachings and works by chachmei ha-Talmud have holiness. Not everyone will agree that this is the case regarding other works simply because of their origin. Talmudic--holy? Yes. Pre or post-Talmudic? Maybe, maybe not. I mean, frankly, we distinguish between the rabbinic writings and other writings. Whether there is a critically sound reason for this or not is immaterial.
>Let me pose this to you, if someone were to prove that the Moreh was actually written by someone other than the Rambam, would that take away the importance of the work? I don't think so.
It would alter the importance. What if it turned out it was entirely written by a Muslim qadi? It might then be more important as a part of intellectual history then for Jewish thought.
>Books become canonical for many reasons, one of which is that the Jewish people or a large segment of the Jewish people accept their teachings as appropriate.
You're right, but this is not the ostensible reason why the Zohar is canonical. You try telling a rebbe that Catholic Israel's riach hakoydesh sanctified the Zoyhar.
>This is actually a good example. Hazal had no problem agreeing regarding the canonicity of a biblical book while disagreeing about the authorship of the same book. (Job being the particular book I had in mind)
Yes, but 1) it was already canonical and 2) it wasn't a late work offered as an earlier one.
In the final analysis, I already agreed that if you aren't of the Kuzari's opinion then you're basically fine to have faith in it. I just don't personally see that people inclined to doubt the Kuzari's chain-of-tradition-as-authenticating-ingredient have such faith in the Zohar, while the opposite seems to be the case.
>Again, this is an halachic work which I would argue falls into a different category and into different standards.
>Remember, the mechaber was a mekubal who firmly believed that the Zohar was tannaitic, yet he consistantly and conciosly refrained from using it to argue on gemara. It was simply a differnet Genre in his book.
True, but the Zohar has influenced more than Jewish thought. It had to, because something that influential ultimately makes inroads on praxis.
By the way, you're 'enlightened traditional' view of the Zohar is great but its so not what the Zohar was conceived of by those who accepted it, not to mention the klal. I think it it was accepted your way a lot of people who don't care for how it entered the Jewish canon would think of it in happier terms.
But it did't, did it?
S.: It was I who on some blog quoted this statement of Rav Hutner(in which he left out kudsha berikh hu) in a haskamah he gave to Rabbi Shlomo Rothenburg's Toldot Am Olam, Part 3, a book on Jewish history. See Pahad Yitzhak, Iggerot u-Ketavim, p.162.
Berel Fredman. Yes, you are right. The Hekhalot and Shiur Komah writings go back to talmudic times, though the relationship between the circles responsible for those writings and Hazal is matter of grave debate. The questions to be addressed are, however: What are the special ideas characterizing the books of kabbalah which were written or appeared in the 12th and 13th centuries? When were the "midrashic" works appearing in the 12th and 13th centuries, the Bahir and the Zohar, written? How far back can we trace the special ideas that characterize 12th and 13th century kabbalah?
I agree that even if the Zohar, as I think it is, is the work of a group of Kabbalists writing in Spain in the latter half or third of the 13th century, this does not mean that we should reject their ideas for that reason. Th Zohar would still carry the same weight as the Rambam or the Ramban or Judah Halevi, etc. But -- NO MORE.
>It was I who on some blog quoted this statement of Rav Hutner(in which he left out kudsha berikh hu) in a haskamah he gave to Rabbi Shlomo Rothenburg's Toldot Am Olam, Part 3, a book on Jewish history. See Pahad Yitzhak, Iggerot u-Ketavim, p.162.
Thanks. I have it so I can look it up easily.
Dr K, do you think I'm right to see it as interesting, or am I reading something into it that isn't there at all?
>Fine, but ultimately one can't validate this
validate what? This get to the fundamental issue of why we put books of rishonim and achronim in a geniza and other such questions. If I was trying to argue that one is halachicaly bound to uphold the holiness of the Zohar, this would be a kashya, but I make no such claims. I am pretty much a minimalist when it comes to the overlap of halacha and hashkafa. I just find it odd that Kellner takes such an originalist view of the sanctity of the Zohar when I have a hunch he would do no such thing when it comes to doctrines advanced by the Rambam.
>You try telling a rebbe that Catholic Israel's riach hakoydesh sanctified the Zoyhar.
Which Rebbe? If I were to concieve of myself as a Hussid of Rav Kook (which I am :) ), then I would have no problem suggesting such an idea to him or any of his talmidim.
>It would alter the importance. What if it turned out it was entirely written by a Muslim qadi? It might then be more important as a part of intellectual history then for Jewish thought.
Fair enough, but to keep it analogous, lets say it was simply a lesser known rabbinic figure.
>Yes, but 1) it was already canonical and 2) it wasn't a late work offered as an earlier one.
1) so is the Zohar (obviously not in the same way as a sefer mikra)
2) I don't think that is so relevant. And anyway, there is debate as to when it was written as well (I believe that there are something like 10 different opinions in the gemera)
>True, but the Zohar has influenced more than Jewish thought. It had to, because something that influential ultimately makes inroads on praxis.
Well, that is true of any work, but that does not make is a normative halachic work. When you learn a sugya aliba deHilcheta, you simply don't look up the Rif, Rosh, Rambam and Zohar before you go onto beis yosef. The fact that it sometimes influences halacha does not change its basic genre.
>By the way, you're 'enlightened traditional' view of the Zohar is great but its so not what the Zohar was conceived of by those who accepted it, not to mention the klal.
You are right about the klal. I have to disagree with the other statement. There is no question that those who pushed mystical thought were acutely aware of conceptions of continued revelation and the timelessness of mystical thought to varying extents. One can not really prove it but I have spent enough time learning mystical thought that I feel confident saying that if the Ari, Maharal, Ramak, Alsheich, Ramchal, or Alter Rebbe were aware of the Zohar being a late work, they would still have accepted it into their systems of thought.
Chardal: Re your question, if someone were to prove that the Rambam did not write the Moreh, would that take away from the importance of the work? ABSOLUTELY! The Moreh is an extremely controversial work and a radical one in many respects, and the main reason it was accepted by the traditional community was because it was authored by the author of the MT. Otherwise, it wouuld have been marginalized entirely. That exactly was what R. Yaakov Emden tried to do when he, on occasion, claimed it was a forgery.
Even among academics the central issue of the relationship of the Moreh to the MT and Sefer ha-Mitzvot would suddenly become mute. Moreover, the larger significance of the Rambam is precisely his being the author of both the MT and the Moreh. Anyway, the speculation is ridiculous, since if anything is certain it is that the Guide was written by the Rambam.
S.: When I first saw the statement of Rav Hutner, I too was struck by the omission of Kudsha berikh Hu. But without further research I am in no position to say how significant the omission is.
>validate what?
Its right to be called "hakodoysh."
>This get to the fundamental issue of why we put books of rishonim and achronim in a geniza and other such questions. If I was trying to argue that one is halachicaly bound to uphold the holiness of the Zohar, this would be a kashya, but I make no such claims. I am pretty much a minimalist when it comes to the overlap of halacha and hashkafa.
Not that you're in bad company, but I've heard that R. Elyashiv once refused to sit on a bet din with R. Qapah because of his views on the Zohar.
>I just find it odd that Kellner takes such an originalist view of the sanctity of the Zohar when I have a hunch he would do no such thing when it comes to doctrines advanced by the Rambam.
This is the same Kellner who wrote 'Must a Jew Believe Anything?' which would have done much better had he published it five years later and had internet yentas like us to promote it. I don't think he thinks that the Rambam's doctrines are authoritative because of their source, as opposed to their relative merit. Also, the Rambam signed his own name. :D
>Which Rebbe? If I were to concieve of myself as a Hussid of Rav Kook (which I am :) ), then I would have no problem suggesting such an idea to him or any of his talmidim.
Rebbah, not rebbe. ;) R Kook was an exceptional case. I'm not saying that you haven't found yourself a good role model and rebbe, if indeed we can consider our deceased role models our rabbeim per se.
>1) so is the Zohar (obviously not in the same way as a sefer mikra)
Ah, but we know all about it, warts and all. Maybe there is a reason why sifrei Nakh came about over a thousand years before a thousand years before critical and skeptical modes of thought. I say that seriously. You may well be right that sifrei qodesh would not have been viewed differently from the Zohar, and subject to the same inquiries by people of faith had they came about much later in history. But they didn't.
>2) I don't think that is so relevant. And anyway, there is debate as to when it was written as well (I believe that there are something like 10 different opinions in the gemera)
But these came way after they were part of the canon. You're right, its a curious matter as to why the origin of biblical books apparently are immaterial.
>Well, that is true of any work, but that does not make is a normative halachic work. When you learn a sugya aliba deHilcheta, you simply don't look up the Rif, Rosh, Rambam and Zohar before you go onto beis yosef. The fact that it sometimes influences halacha does not change its basic genre.
But the question is still: should it influence halakhah at all? On what grounds?
>Anyway, the speculation is ridiculous, since if anything is certain it is that the Guide was written by the Rambam.
I wasn't suggesting it! I was using it as an hypothetical in a discussion. :)
>You are right about the klal. I have to disagree with the other statement. There is no question that those who pushed mystical thought were acutely aware of conceptions of continued revelation and the timelessness of mystical thought to varying extents. One can not really prove it but I have spent enough time learning mystical thought that I feel confident saying that if the Ari, Maharal, Ramak, Alsheich, Ramchal, or Alter Rebbe were aware of the Zohar being a late work, they would still have accepted it into their systems of thought.
Perhaps, but perhaps it would have had a different signifigance to them.
Also, not everyone accepts (or thinks they accept) continuous revelation ideas.
>Not that you're in bad company, but I've heard that R. Elyashiv once refused to sit on a bet din with R. Qapah because of his views on the Zohar.
I doubt he would be happy with my views of the Zohar either. :)
>I don't think he thinks that the Rambam's doctrines are authoritative because of their source
Never heard him comment on it, but I have heard many a rationalist comment on how the Rambam is the true extention of the messorah of Hazal. Lets be honest, there is some level of double standard that often occurs here.
>if indeed we can consider our deceased role models our rabbeim per se.
Sefareinu hen hen Raboteinu.
>Ah, but we know all about it, warts and all.
Ah, one man's wart is another man's beauty mark. :)
>You're right, its a curious matter as to why the origin of biblical books apparently are immaterial.
curious, AND helpful to my line of argument. :)
>But the question is still: should it influence halakhah at all? On what grounds?
It should influence it to the same extent that hashkafic works inevitably influence minhagim which become part of halacha. Or to the extent that it influences the worldview of poskim who are accepted by various segments of the Jewish people.
You can never have a clean break. That being said, the zohar IS not a part of the normative halachic process. There are curious intanced where it has had its influence but it will simply never win against an actual halachic work in the final analysis.
>Perhaps, but perhaps it would have had a different signifigance to them.
Maybe, maybe. Such talk is speculative in any case. I am just putting forth my speculation.
>Also, not everyone accepts (or thinks they accept) continuous revelation ideas.
I am not claiming that everyone does. Only that most of the thinkers above did so in one form or another AND that these same thinkers were some of the major players in the advancement of Jewish mystical thought.
>Never heard him comment on it, but I have heard many a rationalist comment on how the Rambam is the true extention of the messorah of Hazal.
Rambam worship is no more rational than any other kind of worship. I'm not hear to defend Maimonideans. After all, the Rambam wasn't a Maimonidean. He probably would have felt slightly ill at the thought that he is taken as an oracular figure.
>Sefareinu hen hen Raboteinu.
I agree, but I could see why other people think the flesh-and-blood model is manifold better. :)
>curious, AND helpful to my line of argument. :)
On the other hand your line of argument is mainly Catholic Israel, or Catholic Hahamim, is it not?
>It should influence it to the same extent that hashkafic works inevitably influence minhagim which become part of halacha. Or to the extent that it influences the worldview of poskim who are accepted by various segments of the Jewish people.
Fair enough, but is that the nature of its influence?
>You can never have a clean break. That being said, the zohar IS not a part of the normative halachic process. There are curious intanced where it has had its influence but it will simply never win against an actual halachic work in the final analysis.
I think that depends upon the community. Whatever happened to tephillin on hol ha-mo'ed? ;)
>On the other hand your line of argument is mainly Catholic Israel, or Catholic Hahamim, is it not?
stop using the word Catholic! :)
That is part of the equation but I would not reduce it to JUST that. I believe that there are multiple factors involved in these questions and that in the end, we can not reduce it to a simple one-dimentional formula. My conception of hashkafa is based on the thought of Rav Kook which put much emphesis on Klal Israel as a viehcle of prophecy. For more, see Orot, Orot HaKodesh, Shmoneh Kvatzim, and many other writings. :) (yes, that was the lazy way out of the question)
>I think that depends upon the community. Whatever happened to tephillin on hol ha-mo'ed
The beis yosef is machria the rishonim in favor of the tosephot and uses the Zohar as the reason for the hachraa. He would never have used the Zohar against the rishonim as a direct argument. I think he was fairly explicit that the Zohar is not an halachic work.
>stop using the word Catholic!
I actually once used the word 'corporate' in its stead, and someone appreciated it. :)
R' Bezalel Naor like to use Ecclesiasta Yisrael
Still sounds heebeejeebeeish.
Of course so does 'corporate.'
Chardal: I am aware that you raised the issue of the Moreh not being written by the Rambam as a hypothetical, and I first answered it as a hypothetical before dismissing the assumption as historically ridiculous. What do you think of my answer to the hypothetical?
"There are whole passages of the Zohar which have been found in 4th century writings and some even earlier."
Name one.
"If the Zohar, on the other hand, is the brilliant work of the Spanish kabbalist Moses de Leon (c. 1240--1305) and his friends, if the anonymous mystical work Sefer bahir, attributed to first century sage Nehunya Ben Ha-Kanah, is in fact a clumsy forgery, "
This statement does not reflect current scholarly opinion regarding the origins of the Zohar or the Bahir. I suggest that "Butch" Kellner (his St. Louis name) review Ronit Meroz, “A Passage Attributed to the Book Bahir” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts. Volume 7 2002 : 319-326; idem, "Zoharic Narratives and their Adaptations" Hispania Judaica Bulletin 3 5760/2000 : 3-63. She cites multiple authors and an earlier date for much of the Zohar, and Babylonian influences in the Bahir.
>What do you think of my answer to the hypothetical?
I think it is a fair answer. I guess I maybe projecting a little. I would assume that what you are saying is that if the Moreh was not authored by the Rambam, then it would have a similar status to the Ralbag's milchemot Hashem. I would also assume that you consider the Ralbag's milchemot Hashem as being a marginal work. (here I may assume too much).
I would tend to agree that such a discovery would have been significant for the generations following the publication of the Moreh. I would, however, claim that after Moreh has achieved the place it has on the Jewish bookshelf, such a discovery TODAY would not be as significant. Once again, all this is speculation, but I tend to think that great works of thought end up with a life of their own independant of their author. (maybe that is why Jews tend to talk about people using the names of their works, the Nodah BeYehuda, the Hafez Haim, etc)
All I can say for sure is that in my personal book, such a discovery would not be that significant vis-a-vis how I view the importance of the work. everything else is just fun conjecture.
>Name one.
Dr. Leiman informed of one passage in the Zohar which exists in its entirety (in translation obviously) in the writings of Jerome. I would have to ask him for the chapter and verse.
Also, there are other pieces of evidence see here:
http://www.yutorah.org/
searchRes...iyunFilters.cfm
"There are whole passages of the Zohar which have been found in 4th century writings and some even earlier."
Name one.
Not sure what Chardal had in mind but I do know that Dr Leiman had told us that back in the early 70s or so when he was studying the early Church Fathers for their testimony re (contemporary) rabbinic
commentary, he came upon a (few?) instance(s) where they attributed a certain comment to a "rabbi" they corresponded with, and the only (other) time that that/those comment(s) appears in rabbinic literature was in the Zohar. To Leiman, this probably meant that there was at least some authentic mesorah handed down from early times to the ppl who compiled the Zohar (although of course this doesnt imply that the entire Zohar is made of of such mesorah; and of course the possibility does exist that the parallels are mere coincidence). Also, Leiman compiled a few examples of such Church Fathers testimony and mailed them to Scholem, who responded "interesting" but nothing further!
>who responded "interesting" but nothing further!
Dr. Leiman told me that Scholem responded. "I still say its a late work"
So it's the work of a school of Rishonim, rather than the Tan'aim. Big deal - it's not like (most) people follow it over the Gemara. Lemai nafka mina?
Mivami: Your point is judicously stated. My question is the following. I am very very far from being an expert in the Zohar, but I do know that many Zoharic passages read more or less as straight non-kabbalistic midrash. So my question is whether the alleged parallels discovered by Dr. Leiman are of the standard midrashic type or do any of them involve kabbalistic or proto-kabbalistic concepts?
But that's not a Merkavah text or early apocalyptic but a church father! That could have been kicking around church circles for a long time, although I find the idea that it is in the Zohar most offensive! I would like to check it out as I am sure it is an earlier concept for both sources.
In his commentary to the Zohar in Avraham Azulai's Or ha-Chammah, R. Avraham Galante writes that the Zohar was only transcribed in the gaonic period. Would that offend orthodox sensibilities? He was a talmid of the AR"I & built the buildings in Meiron.
>But that's not a Merkavah text or early apocalyptic but a church father!
He is quoting the rabbis in EY at the time. Those are amoraim he is talking about!
>But that's not a Merkavah text or early apocalyptic but a church father!
Not when Jerome said a rabbi told it to him. There is a some actual rabbinic materials found in Syriac writings, for example.
But is the Zohar citing Jerome or a midrash!?!
I assume SZ Leiman's assumption was that it is quoting an authentically ancient Jewish teaching and not Jerome (which would be odd for a 13th century Jew to consciously do, I'd think).
However, when this was brought to my attention a few months ago I raised the possibility that De Leone or some other Jew read Jerome even if it seems odd. It certainly is possible, as is that this idea was arrived at independently.
"Paranthetically, I recently saw somewhere a quote from a haskama authored by R. Hutner in which he wrote "ישראל ואורייתא חד הוא." Note what's missing."
The reason it was missing is that it's not relevant to his point.
I wrote that comment, and dr. Kaplan kindly provided the reference - i had long forgotten where I'd seen the haskama. I mistakenly quoted him as saying yisrael oreisa v'kudsha brich hu chad hu, and he does omit mention of God. However, his aim is to say that study of Jewish history is important to torah. He describes torah as the nefesh and Jewish history as the guf. He then says yisrael v'oreisa chad hu; I don't think this should be taken as a repudiation of mystical concepts.
Apologies - I wrote the above before I'd completed reading the comment thread, and missed Dr Kaplan's response.
I don't think you should construe this as a rejection of zoharic theosophy in any way. Not only is that a leap in context, R Hutner was a virulent opponent of Scholem and generally of scientific study of kabala. In addition, he was an admirer of R Kook and was somewhat influenced by kabbalistic concepts himself. I even think that I remember R Hutner quoting this memre in full elsewhere in his work, but I could be wrong about that. But he wasn't disowning kabbala.
There are passages in which the Zohar and Rashi seem either to have been dervied from a common source--so closely that one wonders if the Zohar was written with Rashi on the table, or if Rashi wrote with the Zohar in front of him.
Don't know about Jerome in the Zohar. He did take the trouble to learn Hebrew and some rabbinic teaching from at least one contemporary rabbi (already unusual for a Gentile clergyman), and quoted them when it served his purpose. Just as Aquinas quotes from Rashi when it served his purposes.
The basic meaning of Catholic is universal, so the closest Hebrew term for "Catholic Israel" is probably Klal Yisrael.
And as for the ability of the Jewish people to determine what is and is not holy, one shouldn't forget Hillel's dictum that "they may not be prophets, but they are the children of prophets" when he needed to discover the halacha on a point which had been forgotten among the rabbis of his time.
"In his commentary to the Zohar in Avraham Azulai's Or ha-Chammah, R. Avraham Galante writes that the Zohar was only transcribed in the gaonic period. Would that offend orthodox sensibilities? He was a talmid of the AR"I & built the buildings in Meiron."
Maharam Chagiz (definitely an orthodox kabbalist) writes (in Mishnas Chachamim) that anyone who believes that the entire Zohar is from Rashbi's times is as stupid as those who believe that Avraham Avinu knew the Mishnah. I don't think "orthodox" kabbalists believed what you think they did.
"Perhaps, but perhaps it would have had a different signifigance to them.
Also, not everyone accepts (or thinks they accept) continuous revelation ideas."
All kabbalists agree that the major Lurianic ideas are not rooted in any tradition and accept them on the basis of revalation. Perhaps it would have been different with the Zohar, but I doubt it.
chardal:
"Let me pose this to you, if someone were to prove that the Moreh was actually written by someone other than the Rambam, would that take away the importance of the work?"
we don't quote the moreh as if it is an indivisible unit of torah shebalpeh
s:
where does one draw the line when arguing that a text must be questioned if it only first appeared on the public horizon (as far as is known to us) centuries later than it is ostensibly from? what about late collections of midrash? or the mishnah for that matter?
>we don't quote the moreh as if it is an indivisible unit of torah shebalpeh
That really depends on which circles you run in.
I don't know what you mean by "indivisible unit of torah shebalpeh". If you mean that it is quoted along with midrashim, you are right and that is as it should be.
And as for the Rambam, you can hardly go 10 pages of any book of the maharal without realizing that he is talking to the Moreh. The Moreh is a central work of hashkafa that was treated by Jewish machshava in every century since it was written.
To suggest that it has not had as much influence as the Zohar is highly debatable.
>where does one draw the line when arguing that a text must be questioned if it only first appeared on the public horizon (as far as is known to us) centuries later than it is ostensibly from? what about late collections of midrash? or the mishnah for that matter?
Good question.
On a related note, did the Beis Yosef himself write the Magid Meisharim implying that he himself claimed to learn with a magid or is that not clear?
I think its clear that he did, isn't it?
The discovery of Dr. Leiman being discussed here is cited in a footnote in his book on the cannonization of the Bible. It is not cited in connection with the Zoharic discussion here, but just in connection with the Church Fathers ( Jerome & others) that he discusses therein. I'm pretty sure it was a mystical discussion of the Hebrew letters with regard to the building of the mishkan. If no one beats me to it, I'll post the exact page BL"N when I get home this afternoon to check.
David, could you also scan the page and email it to me or post it? Thanks.
I would like to see the Leiman quote also. When I was at YU, the teachers were sometimes apt to toss out mild bromides for the students which did not, in fact, stand up to scrutiny.
Moreover, when I asked if Galante's point of view would offend "orthodox" sensibilitites, I didn't mean orthodox mekuballim. I specifically meant the sort of people who make pronouncements about the Zohar without having any familiarity with what is in the book.
Finally, clal gadol: The Zohar makes no claim to be by Shimon Bar Yochai. It is rather *about* Shimon Bar Yochai, and his circle. RaSHB"Y comes on the scene about one-sixth of the way into the book (in Zohar Chadash, parashat Ki Tavo, also Midrash ha-Ne'elam Bereishit), dies about two thirds of the way through and reappears in Heaven for the Tiqqunim and Ra'aya Meheimna.
This begs certain interesting questions about how the latter texts got here. The author of those works makes reference to a kind of automatic writing, in which the quill or "kulmus" moves of its own accord, so that they are considered what in New Age circles are called "channeled" documents.
>On a related note, did the Beis Yosef himself write the Magid Meisharim implying that he himself claimed to learn with a magid or is that not clear?
I believe that Werblowsky pretty much proves that he did.
Wow, I am sorry I totally missed this discussion. The only thing I can add is to correct a small error: R' Naor does not translate 'Knesset Yisrael' as Ecclesiasta Israel, but Ecclesia Israel. Not that it matters. I just wanted to be in on this great discussion somehow.
Pinchas,
The Maharam Hagiz which Berel quoted above actually married into the Galante family so I highly doubt they were very offended by such sensibilities. :)
>When I was at YU, the teachers were sometimes apt to toss out mild bromides for the students which did not, in fact, stand up to scrutiny.
This would not be characteristic of Dr. Leiman. Also, he would not have sent it to Scholem if he did not think it was significant and he DEFINITLY would not have included it in his book.
>Wow, I am sorry I totally missed this discussion. The only thing I can add is to correct a small error: R' Naor does not translate 'Knesset Yisrael' as Ecclesiasta Israel, but Ecclesia Israel. Not that it matters. I just wanted to be in on this great discussion somehow.
Thanks. I live for the pedantic. ;)
If nothing better comes to mind, pedantic is a fun last resort. :)
I am far from being an expert on the Maharal, but to my knowledge while he may be in dialogue with the Moreh, his views are diametrically opposed to those of the Moreh. Thus the Rambam in Moreh 2:40 states that though the Torah is not natural, it accommodates itself to the natural. ("Yesh lo mavo be-teva" according to the translation of ibn Tibbon, IIRC) For the Maharal the Torah is the polar opposite of the natural. The view of the Maharal on taamei ha-mitvot differs radically from that of the Rambam, the way they explain aggadot dfffers as well, etc. etc.
>I am far from being an expert on the Maharal, but to my knowledge while he may be in dialogue with the Moreh, his views are diametrically opposed to those of the Moreh
>For the Maharal the Torah is the polar opposite of the natural.
While I agree that the Maharal in some respects vehemently disagrees with the Rambam (most explicitly in the treatment of miracles where the Maharal tackles the Rambam directly. See Derech HaChaim, somewhere in the begining of the 5th chapter, I forget which mishna), I am not sure that the maharal would agree that Torah is the opposite of natural. He would say that in its essense, it is nivdal but he absolutly concieved of the Torah as we have it in the practical realm as being in a "levush" of nature. I forget the exact chapter in Tiferet Yisrael where he discusses this but he is pretty explicit that the Term Torah means different things in different realms.
Of course my main point is that you can see the significance of a work also through the fact that it was deemed worthy of such disagreement centuries later.
Of course it would be better if the discussion had to do with the content of the work and not its production.
"The Maharam Hagiz which Berel quoted above actually married into the Galante family so I highly doubt they were very offended by such sensibilities."
Actually, it was his father R' Yaakov Chagiz who married the daughter of R' Moshe Galante. It seems they didn't always agree as to what constitutes orthodox kabbalah, as R' Moshe Galante was one of Shabbetai Tzvi's most prominent early followers and R' Yaakov Chagiz was one of his fiercest opponents.
shavua tov, I am not a regular blogger by my hevruta is, and he alerted me to discussions of my 'Covenant' article on this list (and another). I want to thank everyone here for their interest in my article and point out that the article is a version of the last chapter of my latest book (stripped of notes). The book is called 'Maimonides' Confrontation With Mysticism' (http://www.littman.co.uk/cat/kellner-
maimonides.html) - with a wonderfully interesting foreword by Moshe Idel. Many of the issues raised in the discussion here are taken up in the book, especially the first chapter. On whether or not I 'caved' on DT (fine heading as far as I am concerned), some of you may want to look at the fuller discussion in my (Hebrew) article, "Rabbis in Politics: A Study in Medieval and Modern Jewish Political Theory," State and Society [Medinah ve-Hevrah] 3 (2003): 673-698.
Let me apologize in advance: I am very busy right now and do not anticipate having the time to reply to letters sent to me directly.
kol tuv, Menachem Kellner
R' Moshe Galante was one of Shabbetai Tzvi's most prominent early followers and R' Yaakov Chagiz was one of his fiercest opponents.
It should be mentioned that he repented for his support and activly opposed the Sabbatean movement after the apostacy.
"Maybe there is a reason why sifrei Nakh came about over a thousand years before a thousand years before critical and skeptical modes of thought."
You pointed out the one-of-three thing that Rav Hutner left out. What's the one-of-three missing from your sentence?
s:
i tried posting a comment right before shabbat but i don't see it here (unless i commented on the wrong post).
if david does not have leiman's book, i do. i looked at it again quickly this afternoon but i could not find the relevant footnote. but i did inside a copy of an interesting article by leiman on conflicts between the massorah and halakhah (from the moshe greenberg festschrift).
shavu'ah tov
Gutte Voch/Shavua Tov to everyone. Ok, this is what I was referring to in Dr. Leiman's " The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture". On page 45, he has a section dealing with Jerome. Jerome states as follows:
That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testifed by the Syrian and Chaldean languages which are nearly related to the Hebrew, for they have twenty two elementary sounds which are prononuced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also employ just the same number of letters in their copies of the Pentateuch of Moses, and differ only in the shape and outline of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and restoration of the temple of Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, although up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew charachters were the same. In the book of Numbers also, where we have the census of the Levites and priests, the mystic teaching of Scripture conducts us to the same result.*
*[The citation from Jerome continues on. However, at this point is footnote 238, where Dr. Leiman writes:] See Nu. 3:39 and cf. Menachem Recanti (early 14th century) Perush Al Hatorah ad.loc. who - independently of Jerome - records the very same mystical interpretation.
-----------
A number of years ago I had the privilege of hosting Dr. Leiman for a Shabbos, and among the many questions I peppered him with was whether this was in fact the citation he sent to Gershom Scholem. I am fairly certain, though not absolutlely 100% sure, that he affirmed that it was.
Which one of you guys is Prof Kellner's havruta?
whether this was in fact the citation he sent to Gershom Scholem
This might have been among the citations he sent Scholem; it was clearly not everything. Dr Leiman was clear his parallels came from the Zohar.
Mivami, that's what I'm not sure about. So far as I know, this incident with Dr. Leiman and G. Scholem is all an oral tradition. I've heard it from him, and so have many others. The point he was demonstrating to Scholem is that kabbalistic ideas go all the way back to Jerome. To do that he did not necessarily have to show a parallel between the Zohar and Jerome, but only between kaballastic books and Jerome. But, again, I am not sure.
The good doctor is rumored to read some of these blogs. If there was ever a time to step out from behind the curtain, this is it!
The point he was demonstrating to Scholem is that kabbalistic ideas go all the way back to Jerome
I'd be willing to bet you misunderstood his intention. Scholem didnt need Leiman to tell him that there were mystical trends in the 4th cen or even earlier. Just look at his chapters on Gnosticism etc. Further, the world didnt need Leiman to tell them that Church Fathers' writings contained testimony of Jews ("rabbis") of the Amoraic age re biblical interpretation, much of which does not appear in the standard rabbinic literature (although Leiman's article about the two Jews who were killed in Jer 29? was great in re such testimony). What Scholem did need, although he ultimately wasnt willing to accept the evidence as compelling, was for Leiman to compile a list of Zohar parallels that go back to the 4th cen and thereabouts...bec that would call into question -- although obviously not totally destroy -- the theory that the Zohar was completely late, without an iota of early rabbinic tradition. That, I believe, was the point of his letter.
And surely you dont expect the professor to publish all his personal letters, do you? Thus, it must remain an "oral tradition" as you say.
And, to answer a question of DLK, I of course do not know precisely which traditions were cited but I cant believe they were of the proto-kabbalistic variety, rather than midrashic type commentary.
Mivami: That, of course, is my sense as well.
I hope when ther is time to start a series on this topic on my blog. This topic deserves a comprehensive treatment.
The main points would be:
1. Existence of mystical ideas in the pagan religions of ancient mediterranean
2.Many traces of a mystical teaching in the Tanach
3.The question of language - what does it mean to use specific names and apellations for fragments of mystical experiences.
4.The solidification of mystical language among Chazal and relationship of the language of Enochic and hekhalos literature and the evolving sephirotic terminology.
5.Existence of the sephirotic teachings in the Talmudic time
6.The Geonim and early Kabbalsitic works that predate Zohar but use its concepts.
7.Zoharic ideas and quotations in the Spanish works before the Zohar is published
8.How the Zohar arises out of the pre-existsnt manuscripts and oral tradition.
9.Innovation and progressive revelation as a permissible method in Kabbala. Ari vs. Ramak
10.Kabbala after Ari and is the cannon closed.
Commenting by HaloScan
