Authenticity of Sefer HaZohar

In honor of Lag Baomer and the hellige Rashbi.

"R' Menachem Mendel Kasher in an article in the periodical Sinai refutes many of Scholem's points (used to argue that Zohar was authored by R. Moshe De Leon). He writes:

• 1. Many statements in the works of the Rishonim refer to Medrashim that we are not aware of. He writes that these are in fact references to the Zohar. This has also been pointed out by R' David Luria in his work "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar".
• 2. The Zohar's major opponent Elijah Delmedigo refers to the Zohar as having existed for "only" 300 years. Even he agrees that it was extant before the time of R' Moses De Leon.
• 3. He brings a document from R' Yitchok M' Acco who was sent by the Ramban to investigate the Zohar. The document brings witnesses that attest to the existance of the manuscript.
• 4. It is impossible to accept that R' Moshe De Leon managed to forge a work of the scope of the Zohar (1700 pages) within a period of six years as Scholem claims.
• 5. A comparison between the Zohar and De Leon's other works show major stylistic differences. Although he made use of his manuscript of the Zohar, many ideas presented in his works contradict or ignore ideas mentioned in the Zohar. (Luria also points this out)
• 6. Many of the Midrashic works acheived their final redaction in the Geonic period. Some of the anachronistic terminology of the Zohar may date from that time.
• 7. Out of the thousands of words used in the Zohar Scholem finds two anachronistic terms and nine cases of ungrammatical usage of words. This proves that the majority of the Zohar was written within the accepted time frame and only a small amount was added later (in the Geonic period as mentioned).
• 8. Some hard to understand terms may be attributed to acronyms or codes. He finds corrolaries to such a practice in other ancient manuscripts.
• 9. The "borrowings" from medieval commentaries may be explained in a simple manner. It is not unheard of that a note written on the side of a text should on later copying be added into the main part of the text. The Talmud itself has Geonic additions from such a cause. Certainly this would apply to the Zohar to which there did not exist other manuscripts to compare it with.
• 10. He cites an ancient manuscript that refers to a book Sod Gadol that seems to in fact be the Zohar.

Concerning the Zohars's lack of knowledge of the land of Israel, Scholem bases this on the many references to a city Kaputkia which he states was situated in Turkey not in Israel.

R' Reuvain Margolies (Peninim U' Margolies) states that in an ancient Israeli tombstone there is mentioned a village Kaputkia. In addition, the Zohar states that this village was sitiuated within a day's walk of Lod and Margolies's research corroborates this. This would imply that the author of the Zohar had precise knowledge of the geography of Israel.

In the same book he cites many statements of Maimonides that could only have come from a text very like the Zohar. In his notes on the Zohar (Nitzotzei Zohar), he points to many corrolaries between statements in the Zohar and other Tannatic literature (Medrashim, The two Talmuds,etc.). (from Wikipedia, entry Zohar).

I also copy a relevant Avodah comment:

Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:50:00 -0500
From: "Clark, Eli" <[email protected]>
Subject: Historicity of Zohar/R. Kasher's Critique of Scholem

As promised, I summarize below R. Kasher's response to Scholem's
arguments regarding the authorship of the Zohar (from Sinai Sefer Yovel
[Jerusalem, 1958], 40-56).  As I mentioned in my previous post, everyone
who is interested should study the original, if possible.  R. Kasher
also addresses the arguments of I. Tishby in Mishnat ha-Zohar
(Jerusalem, 1949).

At the outset, R. Kasher states that the same Hebrew writings of R.
Moshe de Leon (RMDL) that Scholem and Tishby cite as evidence that he
wrote the Zohar, prove to R. Kasher that he did not.

R. Kasher summarizes the historical debate over the Zohar's authorship,
including the story of R. Yitzhak me-Akko, and naming the authorities
who questioned its ancient provenance: R. Eliyahu Dilmediggo, R. Yehuda
Aryeh de Modena, R Yaakov Emden (partially), A. Jellinek, R. Shemuel
David Luzzatto.  In defense of the Zohar, he cites R. Aviad Sar Shalom,
R. Moshe Konitz (whose tone and arguments  R. Kasher criticizes), R.
Reuven Rappaport, R. Eliyahu ben Amozeg, R. Elyakum Hamilzahgi, I.
Stern, A. Frank, R. Yitzhak Haver, R. David Luria, R. Hillel Zeitlin, A.
Kaminka, M. Gaster, R. Yehudah Leib Zlotnick, L. Ginzberg, and, of
course, the early writings of G. Scholem.

Kasher notes that, according to Scholem, RMDL wrote the 1700 pages of
the Zohar in six years!  This prodigious accomplishment of genius,
moreover, was purportedly achieved by a person to whom Scholem also
attributes grammatical and stylistic errors, errors in Talmudic
interpretation, etc.

Kasher cites R. D. Luria, who found that RMDL's haNefesh ha-Hakhamah
disagrees with the Zohar and cites the Zohar incorrectly.  R. Kasher too
finds that RMDL's Hebrew writings answer questions differently than the
Zohar.  Scholem identifies some midrashim that he claims RMDL made up
and put in the Zohar, but R. Kasher argues that they originate in the
Hazal.

Regarding Medieval terms in the Zohar, only two appear in the Zohar
itself, "golma" (meaning hyle) and "arba yesodot" (the 4 elements).  The
former is used in the Yerushalmi to describe a fetus and the latter is
used by R. Saadia.  Hence, this fits well with R. Emden's notion that
the Zohar was edited in Geonic times or that these are interpolations.
But, in any case, contends R. Kasher, two words out of 1700 pages really
prove that the Zohar is ancient.

Regarding the Zohar's purported misuse of words, R. Kasher tries to
defend one usage and explains that the others are all newly coined
terms.  The Zohar's coinage of new words, according to Tishby, was meant
to confuse the reader.  But R. Kasher argues that these incomprehensible
words are proof of the Zohar's authenticity, based perhaps on rashei
tevot and gimatriya.  Regarding grammatical errors, R. Kasher argues
that these are simply scribal errors, commonly found in ancient
manuscripts.

[Derekh agav, R. Kasher confirms R. Emden's theory of interpolations,
showing that Zohar Ekev 274a contains a word-for-word interpolation from
R. Bahya b. Asher's Shulhan Arba.]

R. Kasher cites a number of teshuvot ha-Geonim referring to and citing a
Sefer Raza Rabbah, which closely resembles the style of the Zohar and
Bahir.  He also cites a comment published in 1491 speaking of the Zohar
being published 300 years earlier, i.e. a century before RMDL.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

The full article by R. Kasher can be found here:

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm

Comment: A recent compilation of books defending the authenticity of the Zohar is "Magen V'Tzina", republished recently by Frank in Jerusalem, includes the following works: Magen V'Tzina by R. Isaac Chaver, Kadmus Sefer HaZohar by Radal, and Zohar Harakia by R. Yerucham Lainer.

The Radal, in particular, shows that Zoharic material was circulating and is quoted by many works prior to the appearance of the Zohar. I would point out that Ramban's commentary  on the Torah contains much material that looks like it comes directly from the Zohar. For example, the first comment on Genesis is practically quoting Zohar, as pointed out by R. Chavels' notes. Of course, it can be countered by saying that, on the contrary, R. De Leon incorporated Ramban's material into the Zohar and not vice verse. Harder to explain is finding large stretches of Zoharic material in R. Yosef Kara's commentary on Judges (I saw this in Dr. H. Besser's, "History of Interpretation to Judges 5:4-5 with Special attention to Rabbi Yosef Kara,"in REJ).

It seems that even then, Zohar was known but not considered to be a primary source of Kabbalah in all circles. R. Isaac of Akko writes:" The Sages of Catalonia rely on a strong foundation, which is the Sefer Habahir, and the Sages of Castile on a firm foundation, which is Sefer Ha-Zohar (cited in Scholem, Major trends, p.394, n.127; see also B. Huss, Sefer Hazohar as canonical, sacred, and holy text: Changing perspectives of the Book of Splendor between the 13th and 18th centruies, The Journal of Jewish Philosophy, Vol. 7, pp.257-306). Also see a discussion of various manuscript and printed editions of Zohar in Shaarei Hazohar, a companion to commentary Masok Midvash. It becomes apparent that various fragments of Zoharic material and style were cirulating under different names prior to R. Moshe De Leon. If so, his contribution was to collate and perhaps expand or elaborate, nothing more than that.

An interesting suggestion that can explain stylistic and literary peculiarites of Zohar was made by R. Chizkiah Medini (Sde Chemed) in his appropation to Hebrew translation of Zohar by R. Yudel Rozenberg a fascinating man in his own right. He suggests that Zohar was originally written in Hebrew, like Bahir, which then may simply be one of Zoharic fragments we already discussed. It was translated later on in Aramaic, to make it more comprehensible to speakers of that language.

Comments

[S.]

What about the interpretations the Zohar gives of the nekkudot, which I assume we agree are proved to postdate the Talmud?

[avakesh]

I admit this approach is not scientific in that it does not employ the principle of parsimmony, i.e that the simplest explantion is the one correct. For this same reason it can never be disproven. Problem with nekudos (or "esnoga", or anything else)? Answer: It's a later interpolation into an otherwise ancient text.

[S.]

Thanks.