Kotzk Blog

by Rabbi Dr Gavin Michal

I have always been drawn to the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. His approach was predicated upon uncompromising truth and intellectual independence. This allowed him to be fearless and never to succumb to societal pressures. He knew that Judaism was so much deeper and more profound than the way it was perceived by the masses and bent by religious populism. These essays, although not necessarily Kotzker in essence, are certainly Kotzk inspired.

Sunday, 16 November 2025

530) Early textual layering in Zohar and Bahir as clues to their dating

Sefer haZohar, Cremona Edition (1559-1560)

Introduction

This article—based extensively on the work by Professor Ronit Meroz—examines new evidence suggesting that the Zohar and Sefer haBahir may have originated in the Middle East, challenging the prevailing Spanish and Provencal origin theories. Sidestepping the controversies over who wrote the Zohar, it is historically evident that the text first appeared in material form around 1290 in Spain. This emergence led the majority of scholars to conclude that the Zohar was a creation of Spanish Kabbalists. Meroz's research, however, shifts the cultural milieu for the origins of this emerging Kabbalah, from Spanish and French Christian lands to Middle Eastern Muslim lands.

Gershom Scholem: Single authorship by Moshe de León in Spain

In the 1940s, Gershom Scholem ascribed the role of sole authorship of the Zohar to Moshe de León, based on similarities in Moshe de León’s writing style when compared to his other known books. This view remained the dominant scholarship for half a century.

There were good arguments to support a later authorship over the traditional view that the Zohar was written a thousand years earlier by the second-century Tanna, Shimon bar Yochai. These included the incorrect designation of Pinchas ben Yair as Shimon bar Yochai’s father-in-law, when he was, in fact, his son-in-law.[1] This suggests a later authorship. Also, the Zohar mentions Muslim sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which we know only began in the seventh century. Additionally, the writer of the Zohar evinces familiarity with characters that lived a thousand years after Shimon bar Yochai, like Maimonides and Nachmanides (Meroz 2007:39). Rabbi Yakov Emden presented more than 300 arguments in favour of the Zohar being of later provenance than the second century [מטפחת_עם_תוספות.pdf (dropbox.com) (Hebrew)].

Yehudah Liebes: Multiple authorship

Then, just before the turn of the century, Yehudah Liebes (1993) reconstructed an old argument that suggested that Moshe de León did not work alone but in conjunction with other mystical writers. This formulation helped explain some of the inconsistencies in the writing style of the Zohar, which contains about 2500 pages.

Meroz: Multiple authorship with roots in Babylonia and Egypt

Meroz’s research led to the confirmation of the multiple authors theory, but led to the fascinating discovery of an entirely new theory of the origins of Jewish mysticism in general. Meroz proposes an alternative history and a different geography for the origins of pre-Zoharic Kabbalah, and these roots lay not in Spain nor Provence but in the Middle East, including Babylonia and Egypt.

Did the Zohar emerge ‘suddenly’?

According to Meroz, the Zohar did not emerge suddenly from a mystical vacuum in the thirteenth century, as some scholars have suggested. Gershom Scholem, for example, had already observed that while the Zohar “appears to have emerged suddenly in the thirteenth century,” it must have originated in “distant lands or from subterranean levels of the Jewish societies” (Scholem 1987:45). Meroz builds on this insight by probing the textual layers of the Zohar itself, uncovering certain bilingual units—composed in both Hebrew and Aramaic—that hint at a more complex and gradual process of transmission and transformation. This bilingual layer of text is striking as the Zohar is generally considered an Aramaic work.

The bilingual unit within the Zohar

Meroz, after analysing Zoharic manuscripts found around the world, identified a striking textual discrepancy among editions of the Zohar. In the popular and widely circulated editions, certain passages from the Torah portion of Shemot (Exodus) are printed in Aramaic, like the rest of the Zohar. The sixteenth century Cremona edition, however, diverges from this norm by presenting the text solely in Hebrew.

Hebrew was the original language of the bilingual unit, not Aramaic

It seems, however, that Hebrew, and not Aramaic, was the original language of this bilingual block:

“When we compare the Hebrew and the Aramaic in these bilingual passages, we cannot escape the conclusion that these passages were originally composed in Hebrew—with the Aramaic serving as its translation” (Meroz 2007:41).

Meroz arrives at this conclusion because: a) the Aramaic is often flawed and has mistakes; and b) there are many Aramaic versions of the Hebrew, but not once is there an instance where there are two Hebrew versions of the Aramaic. These textual trends suggest that the Zohar’s original language in these bilingual units may have been Hebrew. Over the centuries following its initial emergence around 1290, these Hebrew texts appear to have been translated into Aramaic by multiple scribes working independently. This process continued until the sixteenth century, when the first definitive printed edition of the Zohar was finally produced.

During this intermediate period, some of the mistakes occurring in the Aramaic are rather dramatic. For example, the Hebrew (following the Torah) describes Levi as begetting Amram, who in turn begets Aaron and Miriam (Zohar II, 19a):

לוי...הוליד לעמרם והוא הוליד לאהרן ומרים

On the other hand, the Aramaic translation reads that Levi was born to Amram, and he (supposedly Amram) was born to Aaron and Miriam (Mss. Zurich Heidelberg 83, around 1500):

ואתיליד הוא [לוי] לעמרם, והוא אתיליד לאהרן ומרים

All this undergirds the notion that a singular Hebrew version came before the (sometimes multiple and flawed) Aramaic versions of the Zohar (Meroz 2007:41).

Content of the bilingual unit

The content of this bilingual unit comprises verses from Exodus intertwined with material from the Song of Songs. Together, this represents a theme of love between G-d and His people (Song of Songs), contrasted against the unhealthy relationship between Egypt and Israel (verses from Exodus).

Digging a little deeper, this same bilingual unit raises more questions than answers, because if it were a product of the thirteenth century, one would expect to find typical thirteenth-century Zoharic cosmology describing the ten Sefirot (Spheres). Yet—while the terminology of Sefirot is maintained—it is used not in relation to the Zoharic spheres or manifestations of the Divine being, but rather to angelic beings. For example, it retains the term Keter (Crown)—usually used in the Zohar to describe the higher emanations of G-d—and surprisingly applies it collectively to the angels, called “Ketarim (Crowns) of the King (G-d).”

The bilingual unit as evidence of an earlier cosmology

This bilingual textual unit departs from what was to become classical Zoharic Kabbalah—which centres on the Sefirotic framework—and, although it preserves the dichotomy and contrast between Din (Judgment/Severity) and Rachamim (Compassion) as generally applied to the Sefirotic system, it reconfigures this duality by attributing it not to divine emanations (Sefirot), but to two opposing angelic figures: the Angel of Judgment and the Angel of Mercy. In other words, this textual unit does not yet seem to recognise the nascent and developing Sefirotic system of Divine emanations and, instead, perhaps still locked in a pre-Zoharic form of mysticism, speaks the language of angelic (Heichalot) mysticism.

Historically, angelic mysticism preceded the Sefirotic system, and, in a sense, the Sefirotic system of the Zohar mirrored the previous angelic mysticism. An example of this mirroring can be seen in the evolution of the idea of the Shechinah (G-d’s Presence). In Zoharic Kabbalah, the Shechinah is understood as the lowest Sefirah (G-dly attribute). The Shechinah is not the ‘essence’ of G-d, but the lowest manifestation of G-d’s emanations or Sefirot. The Shechina has alternatively been described by the Zohar as the ‘bridge’ between G-dliness and the beginning of creation; G-d’s ‘bride,’[2] as she is feminine; and as the ‘keeper’ of Jewish souls (Knesset Yisrael).[3]

However, in the bilingual unit—seemingly an older stratum of text—the Shechina is described as an assembly of angels or even as the master of the angels. This matches the pattern noted earlier of the Zohar substituting Sefirot for angels. The earlier angelic cosmology is retained as an archaeological layer in the specific group of bilingual texts of the Zohar:

“[E]even though the bilingual unit now appears in the printed book of the Zohar (the principal book of Kabbalah), the cosmology presented within it does not belong to the world of [Zoharic -GM] Kabbalah” (Meroz 2007:44).

Significance of the Song of Songs to angelology

As mentioned, this bilingual unit contains verses from Exodus intertwined with material from the Song of Songs. The Song of Songs becomes dramatically significant in the context of an earlier pre-Zoharic stratum, specifically dealing with angelology. This is because it was believed that unity between the earthly and upper realms could be attained through: “conjugal relations between the inhabitants of this world and the angels” (Meroz 2007:43).

Theurgy in pre- and post-Zoharic mysticism

The bilingual unit “promotes angelology, rather than the divine Sefirot” (Meroz 2007:44). Having established how a pre-Zoharic angelic mysticism evolved into a parallel Sefirotic mysticism in the Zohar, it is interesting to see how notions of theurgy also evolved simultaneously. Theurgy is the belief that humans can intervene in cosmic matters (sometimes also described as a type of ‘magic’), and by doing certain physical, mindful or religious actions in the mundane world, one can affect changes in the cosmos.

The bilingual unit of the Zohar, with its window into earlier angelic mysticism, may also offer us insight into how models of theurgy had changed. In the earlier pre-Zoharic mystical period, it was believed that the lower worlds possess:

“an ability to influence the upper worlds (theurgy), but the goal of this activation of power is not God; it is the world of angels” (Meroz 2007:43).

During the earlier period, there was no attempt to change the Godhead, as it were, but only to effect changes in the angelic realm, by courting the favour of the angels or bribing demons [Kotzk Blog: 525) Tashlich, water and ‘bribing’ demons]. This changed during the Zoharic period with the more ambitious and audatious aim to effect changes in the Godhead by uniting masculine and feminine Sefirot.

Three Stages: Angelic chaos (Heichalot), Systemisation of angelology (intermediate stage), and Sefirot (Zohar)

1) The earlier angelic mysticism of the first millennium—known as Heichalot Literature— involved a chaotic and unstructured form of angelology. The earlier mysticism produced complicated lists of angelic names with little substance.

2) Slowly, a semblance of form and structure emerged in the ancient angelology and abstract divisions of angels into different categories became evident. This is the intermediate phase in the development of Jewish mysticism. Here, we find angels divided into upper and lower levels, males and females, and also distinguished by compartmentalisation in terms of character, such as Din (Judgement) and Rachamim (Compassion). This is where the unit ‘ten’ further categorises the assemblies of angels, a further indication of systemisation (Meroz 2007:45).

3) A third stage in the development of mysticism begins from around the second millennium, reaching full expression by the thirteenth century with the emergence of the Zohar. Now the powers and significance of the angels are represented by more abstract elements, which become known as Sefirot. Meroz describes this transition as the “spiritualization of the world of angels,” as they are elevated to the levels “within the divinity” (Meroz 2007:45).

Tracing the angelic roots of the Sefirotic tree

The evidence provided by the bilingual textual unit identified by Meroz seems to point to the intermediate phase, where systemisation in angelology begins to take place:

“[O]ur [bilingual-GM] unit represents a transitional stage between the angelology of the first millennium and the [Zoharic-GM] Kabbalah of the 2^nd millennium. It applies a system and categories to the world of angels, and these categories are later used in the new world of kabbalistic concepts” (Meroz 2007:45).

This way, the Angels of Judgement and Compassion in the bilingual unit are transformed into the Sefirot of Judgement and Compassion in Zoharic Kabbalah— and Heichalot Angels became Sefirot.

Naming and dating the bilingual unit: One thousand years of exile

One of the sections or pericopes from the bilingual unit speaks about the bondage and exile of Israel, which was to last only one thousand years from the destruction of the Second Temple. During this one thousand-year period, the nations of the world would occupy the Temple Mount. Then, at the end of that period of time, G-d would expel them from the Temple Mount and purify that location, and a messianic era would ensue.

This pericope was authored by R. Yitzchak, who is also the dominant personality in the entire bilingual section. R. Yitzchak is so fundamental to this bilingual textual unit that Meroz (reasonably) labels the entire bilingual section as Midrash d’R. Yitzchak. The specific pericope of Midrash d’R. Yitzchak—that offers the messianic prediction that Redemption will take place after a thousand years—gives us a clue as to the dating of this entire bilingual unit. Considering that traditional Jewish dating of the destruction of the Second Temple is given, not as 70CE, but 68CE, the authorship of Midrash d’R. Yitzchak, must have been before 1068CE!

Now, in a section of the Zohar that does not contain this bilingual unit known as Midrash d’R. Yitzchak—in other words, in the more recent section of the majority of the Zohar (produced after 1068), which is also the section that only occurs in Aramaic—we find an apologetic passage that seems to acknowledge that the earlier prediction about the Messiah did not come to pass:

“Rabbi Yossi said: If they are in bondage for more [than a thousand years], it is… because they do not want to repent before Him” (Zohar, II 17a, §294).

This apparent later text, likely written after 1068, explains that the messianic prediction was accurate, but the people, unfortunately, were not worthy. There are a number of other references in the Zohar that similarly express disappointment that Redeption did not occur in the thousandth year after the destruction of the Second Temple. These passages equally indicate and buttress the notion of a later period of authorship sometime after 1068.

Another historical clue in the bilingual unit known as Midrash d’R. Yitzchak

In the same bilingual Midrash d’R. Yitzchak section of the Zohar (Parashat Shemot), we find an astonishing reference to Islam, which only emerged from the seventh century (questioning the claimed second-century authorship of R. Shimon bar Yochai):

“[T]here is no nation lowly and despised before the Most Holy One…as the Egyptians, and He gave them mastery because of Israel… Hagar…gave birth to Ishmael, who brought about evil to Israel, and ruled them, and tortured them with various cruelties, and proclaimed decrees of forced conversion against them. And until this day, they rule over them and do not allow them to keep their religion, and there is no harsher exile for Israel than that of the exile of Ishmael” (Zohar II, 16b-17a, §289).

This periscope anachronistically compares the rule of the Muslims to the biblical enslavement by the ancient Egyptians. The Ishmaelites (Muslims) are equated with the Egyptians. The rule of the Muslims has now become the new archetype of enslavement, replacing, as it were, the biblical Egyptians. Historically, the Fatimid Caliphate ruled over Jews, particularly those living in the Land of Israel, during the eleventh century. Significantly, the Fatimid Caliphate was based in Egypt!

The Zoharic pericope references “decrees of forced conversion,” likely alluding to the edicts imposed upon Jews (and Christians) under Caliph al-Hakim beginning in 1004. Scholars who uphold the single-authorship theory of the Zohar, with its compilation in medieval Spain, tend to associate this passage with the Almohad persecutions in North Africa (the Maghreb) and Iberia. Meroz’s reading, however, aligns more convincingly with the Zoharic reference to Egypt, where the Fatimid Caliphate was centred.

These historical clues—the messianic prediction of one thousand years of exile and the Islamic connection—indicate two strata of Zoharic texts: a) the short, earlier bilingual unit known as Midrash d’R. Yitzchak, first written in Hebrew and later translated into Aramaic, occurring in the Zoharic section of Shemot, produced between 1004 and 1068; and b) the majority of the standard Zohar, produced in Aramaic after 1068 (bearing in mind that the Zohar only first appeared around 1290). This supports the multiple authorship thesis for the Zohar.

Sefer haBahir

To further support these findings by Meroz, not only was the Zohar rooted in the Middle East, but its mystical predecessor—the Sefer haBahir—may likewise have originated within that same Muslim cultural sphere. Both the bilingual Midrash d’R. Yitzchak and the Sefer haBahir appear to have emerged during the transitional mystical phase, bridging the older Heichalot literature and the eventual crystallisation of the Zoharic corpus after its emergence around 1290.

Meroz also distinguishes between distinct textual layers in Sefer haBahir. Some were written in the Middle East around the ninth and tenth centuries, while others were produced in Provence, or Southern France, later, during the twelfth century. The clue to a Middle Eastern origin of the earlier Bahir texts is found in its use of the Babylonian vocalisation (nekudot), as opposed to the Tiberian vocalisation system used for Hebrew. In the Babylonian system the nekudot—vowels or dots and markings in the Hebrew letters—are placed mainly above the letters, and the segol (‘eh’) is pronounced like a patach (‘ah’). In fact, in the Babylonian system, the segol and patach are both pronounced ‘ah,’ without the distinction between ‘eh’ and ‘ah’ as in the Tiberian Hebrew we use today.

In one periscope in the Bahir we read:

“[T]he Lord placed a patah above [a letter] and a segol beneath” (Sefer haBahir, §25).

We know that the patach is on the top, according to the Babylonian system, whereas the segol is at the bottom according to the Tiberian system. One can only pronounce this combination of vowels simultaneously (both are ‘ah’) if one uses the Babylonian vocalisation system. This information can help us date this particular pericope from the Bahir, because during the tenth century, a debate ensued within the Jewish community as to which system of vocalisation was superior. Which system could be best used to represent the way Hebrew was spoken at the time of Sinai? In other words, which was the more holy system of vocalisation? The conclusion was that the Babylonian system was considered inferior to the Tiberian system and was corrupted by foreign Babylonian and Arabic influences. From the tenth century on, it was no longer acceptable to use the Babylonian pronunciation for holy matters. This means that our text cited above—discussing a matter of holiness with G-d is said to have placed the patach above the letters, and which employed the Babylonian system where both segol and patach are pronounced ‘ah’—had to have been produced before the tenth century, in Babylonia and not later in Provence! (Meroz 2007:51).

Furthermore, the earlier layer of Bahir texts—like the bilingual Midrash d’R. Yitzchak—is also associated with angelology. It was only later, in the texts produced in Provence, that “the doctrine of Divine Sefirot develops and grows” (Meroz 2007:51). While it is true that the Zohar developed the doctrine of Sefirot even more fully than the Bahir, the early stirrings of Sefirotic Kabbalah begin to emerge in the Bahir.

Conclusion

Meroz convincingly argues that clues to the dating of the Zohar can be found in the bilingual section of the Zohar in Parashat Shemot (Exodus), titled Midrash d’R. Yitzchak. That is the section that deals with angelology and appears to be an earlier compilation before the discussions on the Sefirot, which later became the hallmark of Zoharic theosophy. The earlier sections were probably written during the eleventh century, in Hebrew, and in the Land of Israel, Babylonia and Egypt. This challenges the common assumption that the Zohar was composed entirely in Aramaic and in Christian Spain by one author, Moshe de León. As Meroz puts it:

“[I]t would seem that the hidden roots of the Zoharic tree were planted in the Moslem East, while its top [later- GM] spread out in Christian Spain” (Meroz 2007:49).

This development is similarly reflected and paralleled in Sefer haBahir. In both cases, Meroz has identified the characteristics of a period of transition situated between the chaotic angelology in the era of Heikhalot literature and the systemeised Sefirotic era of Kabbalah represented by Sefer haBahir and particularly the Zohar. Two types of texts have been defined that belong to this transitional era—the bilingual Midrash d’R. Yitzchak and the Babylonian stratum of Sefer haBahir—which Meroz has convincingly argued may have been produced in the Muslim Middle East.