Menu

Sunday, 3 July 2016

087) MYSTERIES BEHIND THE ORIGINS OF THE ZOHAR:

INTRODUCTION:

Who wrote the great kabbalistic work known as the Zohar?[1]

The short simple answer is: it was Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai[2], who lived during the 2nd century.

According to many, he wrote down the Zohar which had hitherto been an oral tradition dating back to the biblical period. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai thus redacted the Zohar at about the same time as Rabbi Yehudah haNasi redacted the Mishna.[3]

But there are many Torah scholars who take a different view.

THE CONTROVERSY:

The problem is that the first sections of the Zohar only emerged in Spain as late as the 1200’s.[4]

This is significant because it was about 1000 years after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. There is also no reference to the Zohar in Talmudic or other writings during this interim period.[5]

At the heart of the debate is Rabbi Moshe de León (1240-1305) who first publicised the book. The controversy hinges around whether he revealed an ancient document or wrote the book himself.
Rabbi Moshe de León himself claimed he had published the Zohar as written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai some 1000 years before, based on the ancient and original manuscript.

THE STORY:

In 1305 the kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko[6] fled persecution in the Holy Land and settled in Spain. On arrival on Spanish soil he heard that Rabbi Moshe de León had recently discovered and published a mystical book called the Zohar. Intrigued by this, and not having heard of the Zohar while previously in Israel, he met with Rabbi Moshe de León, who took an oath that he had in his possession the original copy of the Zohar as written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. He offered to show the original manuscript to Rabbi Yitzchak but unfortunately passed away before he was able to return to his home in Avila, where the alleged document was apparently hidden.

The story then takes on an even more bizarre twist.

Now, more intrigued than ever, Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko located a certain Rabbi David Rafan, who revealed to him that Rabbi Moshe de León’s widow and children admitted that the work was not copied from an ancient document but authored by de León himself:

Shadal:  Vikuah Al Chachmat HaKabbalah



“A story tells that after the death of Moshe de Leon, a rich man of Avila...offered Moses’ widow (who had been left without any means of supporting herself) a large sum of money for the original from which her husband had made the copy. She confessed that her husband himself was the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she said, why he had chosen to credit his own teachings to another, and he always answered that doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Shimon bar Yochai would be a rich source of profit.”[7]


According to Shadal’s version; “All the money that Rabbi Moshe de León made from the false document was squandered during his lifetime and his wife and children were left with nothing.”[8]


If this is true, it may explain the motive behind the testimony of de León’s widow and children.[9]

Accordingly, at this point in the saga, Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko had received two conflicting versions of the events: 
- One from Rabbi de León himself who claimed the original was concealed at home. 
- And the other from a family associate who claimed the widow and children admitted it was a fake. 

There appears to be further controversy as to which version of the events Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko considered to be truthful.[10]

SEFER HAYUCHSIN:

Two hundred years later, in 1504, a major historical work known as Sefer HaYuchsin was written by the great Jewish chronicler Rabbi Avraham Zacuto[11]. One of the documented events in the chronicle was the controversy surrounding the authorship of the then celebrated Zohar. 

Rabbi Zacuto recorded the story of Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko as outlined above, and it appeared in the first edition of Sefer HaYuchsin some sixty years later, in 1566. 

However this section was censored from all subsequent printings for the next 300 years, until it was restored in the 1857 edition. Some believe this censoring out of the difficulties raised by Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko for as long as three centuries, helped cement the assumed authority of the Zohar.

Either way, when this blatant censorship was revealed, it only added fuel to the fire of intrigue and uncertainty, surrounding the issue of authorship of the Zohar.

RAMBAN (NACHMANIDES 1194-1270):

Adding an extra dimension to the narrative, there is a legend that Nachmanides (Ramban), after fleeing persecution in Spain and settling in Israel in 1267, somehow obtained the original manuscript of R. Shimon bar Yochai. He then sent it by ship from Israel to Catalonia in Spain, which was closer to the centre of mysticism at that time. Somehow, due to the ship diverting, the document found its way to R. Moshe de León. In the actual writings of Nachmanides, however, there is no record of this alleged event, and because he passed away ten years before the Zohar was first published, it is improbable that he was even aware of the text. In some contemporary accounts of Nachmanides, this story is presented as fact, but without any supporting citations. [12]

ZOHAR AS A RESPONSE TO MAIMONIDEAN RATIONALISM 

Some see the emergence of the Zohar in 1290 as mystical or anti-rationalist counter to Maimonidean rationalism. Maimonides passed away 86 years earlier, in 1204, and opposition to growing interest in rationalist thought triggered a two-century-long series of Maimonidean Conflicts. These controversies were not just theoretical—they involved bans, book burnings, and intense communal divisions, perhaps the most enduring and bitter in Jewish history. The mystics viewed Maimonidean attempts to harmonise Jewish tradition with Greco-Islamic philosophy and science as an existential threat to piety and faith. Maimonidean and Aristotelian rationalism emphasised logic and introduced allegorical interpretation of scripture. Maimonides challenged the prevailing literal understandings of angels, prophecy, resurrection, and divine providence. What emerged was essentially a theological civil war (Citron n.d.: 1-15)[1] (Silver 1965).[2]

 

There is a speculative account suggesting that in 1264, Moshe de León commissioned a Hebrew copy of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, purportedly inscribed for “the scholar Rabbi Moshe de León.” Over the years, Moshe de León is said to have grown increasingly critical of Maimonidean rationalism, particularly its influence among the affluent Spanish Jewish elite. In one anecdote, he allegedly rebuked rationalists for mocking the Hakafah (circling) ceremony during the festival of Sukkot. According to this theory, de León’s disillusionment with rationalism led him to compose a mystical Midrash—possibly the Zohar—as a spiritual counterweight to the prevailing philosophical trends.

 


[2] Silver, D.J., Maimonidean Criticism and the Maimonidean Controversy, 1180-1240, The University of Michigan, E.J. Brill.


RABBI ELIYAHU DELMEDIGO (1458-1493):


According to Rabbi Delmedigo[14], the Zohar could not have been written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai because it is not mentioned in the Talmud, while other non-Talmudic writings were. 

This criticism is particularly relevant to the Zohar which explains the hidden meanings behind the commandments. So a work which dealt with the very material the Talmud was debating and explained the divine nature of the commandments, would most certainly have been referenced by the Talmud. He also points out that the Zohar contains names of Rabbis who lived after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.[15]

RABBI YOSEF KARO (1488- 1575):

Although primarily a legal writer, having authored the code of the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo did occasionally lean towards kabbalistic rulings.[16] Both he as well as Rabbi Moshe Isserless who wrote glosses to the Shulchan Aruch, believed strongly in the authenticity of the Zohar.


These are significant views as our legal rulings today are taken primarily from the Shulchan Aruch which supersedes all other halachic writings, even those of Rambam.

Needless to say that the avowed mystics throughout the ages all considered the Zohar to have been written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The Chassidic Rebbe Pinchas of Koretz is known to have said; “The Zohar has kept me Jewish.” 

RABBI LEONE MODENA (1571-1648):

In 1639, the Italian Rabbi Modena wrote in his Ari Nohem that the Zohar was not written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and that ‘it was not than 350 years old’.[17] He did, however acknowledge the inspirational element to the work. Apparently Rabbi Modena was afraid to publish his Ari Nohem and it was only printed 200 years later in 1840.

RABBI YAAKOV EMDEN (1697-1776):

Rabbi Yaakov Emden was outspoken in his view on the Zohar and considered parts of it to be outright forgeries. He wrote a book, Mitpachat Sefarim which was directed against the followers of the false messiah Shabetai Zvi who used the Zohar to justify their messianic claims.  See here.

Rabbi Emden is rather scathing in his criticism of the Zohar saying that it misquotes the Torah, misunderstands the Talmud, mentions the Muslims (who only came centuries after Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai), and writes about practices that were only introduced much later. 

He pointed out that there were 280 additions to the Zohar and that the books Raaya Mehemna and Tikkunim were absolute forgeries. He also mentions that the Zohar refers to a synagogue by the Portuguese designation ‘esnoga’, and references Nikud (vocalization) and Trop (cantilation) which are much latter innovations.

Rabbi Emden wrote that it took him forty years of suppressing these ideas before he mustered up the courage to write them.

CHATAM SOFER (1762-1839):

R. Moshe Schriber, known after his work Chatam Sofer, references Yakov Emden’s Mitpachas Sefarim mentioned above, in a responsum:

 

“The book Mitpachat Sefarim is now available in your area...and you will find in it astonishing material that will amaze those who read it...enough said” (Shu’’t Chatam Sofer, vol. 6, siman 59).

 

This way, the Chatam Sofer states his view on the Zohar, seemingly in support of Yakov Emden, but in an indirect manner, avoiding harsh criticisms that most certainly would have been levelled against him had he been more direct. In his book Mei Menuchot (Calm Waters), a student of the Chatam Sofer, Eliezer Lipman Neisatz cites his teacher:

 

“Were it possible to identify the authentic statements in the Midrashim of R. Shimon bar Yochai, as opposed to the material that was added over the generations by various rabbis, it would be a very small book indeed, and would come to no more than a few pages” (Bar-Hayim 2012).[1] 


[1] Bar-Hayim, D., 2012, Truth, Authenticity, Tradition and Reason: Who Wrote the Zohar?

BAAL HATANYA AND VILNA GAON:

While both R. Shneur Zalman of Laidi (Baal haTanya, 1745-1812) and R. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (Vilna Gaon, 1720-1797) stood in stark theological opposition—embodying the divergent paths of Chasidism and its Mitnagdic critics—they both accepted the authenticity of the Zohar, which was intrinsic to their very different systems of theology.


BALADI YEMENITES:

While Yemenites in general are associated with mystical Judaism, Baladi Yemenites are known for their staunch rationalism. Historically, Baladi Yemenites opposed mystical traditions, viewing them as gateways to superstition and theological distortion. Rooted firmly in the teachings of Maimonides, they identified as Talmidei haRambam—students and heirs of his philosophical legacy. This rationalist posture led many within that community, particularly under the leadership of R. Yihyah Qafih (Kapach), to reject the authenticity of the Zohar, which they regarded as a later forgery. Though diminished in number, adherents of the Baladi tradition continue to preserve this rationalist heritage to this day. See here.

RABBI ELIYAHU DESSLER, R. ARYEH CARMEL AND RABBI GEDALIAH NADEL:

In more recent times, rabbinic attitudes toward the Zohar’s authorship have varied widely. While some authorities regard scepticism about its attribution to Shimon bar Yochai as bordering on heresy, others have taken a more nuanced position. Notably, Eliyahu Dessler (1892–1953), spiritual mentor at the Ponevezh Yeshiva, is reported to have accepted the possibility that the Zohar was composed in the thirteenth century. His student, Aryeh Carmell, later recalled being asked whether belief in Shimon bar Yochai’s authorship was obligatory. He is said to have responded: 

“My Rebbe [R. Dessler] accepted the possibility that the Zohar was written sometime in the thirteenth century.”[1] 

Similarly, Gedaliah Nadel (1923–2004), a prominent disciple of the Chazon Ish, maintained that questioning the traditional authorship of the Zohar does not constitute heresy and that its later composition is a legitimate position to maintain.[2]


RABBI MENACHEM MENDEL KASHER (1895-1983):

Menachem Mendel Kasher, author of the encyclopaedic work on the Torah known as Torah Shleimah, wrote a defence of the Zohar. He mentions that, according to traditional accounts, Yitzchak of Akko was encouraged by Nachmanides to examine the authenticity of the Zohar. In the process, he is said to have encountered witnesses who claimed to have seen the original manuscript of Shimon bar Yochai. 

Kasher also argues that Moshe de León’s known writings differ significantly in style and theological content from the Zohar, making it unlikely that he composed the entire work himself. Furthermore, Kasher acknowledges the presence of a small number of anachronisms or non-chronological elements in the Zohar, which he attributes to possible editorial additions during the Geonic period (circa 500–1038 CE). These, he suggests, do not undermine the overall antiquity or spiritual depth of the text.[1]


[1] Online source: https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm. Accessed 19 August 2025.


RABBI NACHMAN OF BRESLOV (1772-1810):

Rabbi Nachman was a fervent follower of the Zohar. He wrote; “Learning Zohar is capable of bringing good favour (mesugal). By learning Zohar, desire is generated for all other types of study of the holy Torah.”[23]

ANALYSIS:

The controversy over who wrote the Zohar is not easy to resolve. At the end of the day it is probably a matter of emotion rather than fact that will sway us one way or the other.

- Those with mystical leanings, who today would probably make up the majority of the Torah world (including non-Chassidim), would go with the view that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai wrote the Zohar about 1800 years ago.

- And those who take a different position would go with the view that it may only have been written about 800 years ago by Rabbi Moshe de León.

Both views have significant bodies of support from within the Torah world.

Whatever side one takes, one thing is certain – there is an astonishing array of vastly divergent views regarding a text considered so primary by so many.



[1] The Zohar falls under the category rabbinic literature known as Midrash. It is not just one book but comprises many books, some only a few pages long (such as the Sifra DiTzniuta or Hidden Book which has three pages).
[2] Also known as ‘Rashbi’. He was a student of Rabbi Akiva.
[4] According to the diary of Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko, the Zohar was first distributed only in small portions. When the first complete text of the Zohar was printed in Italy in the 16th century, it was printed from numerous smaller manuscripts.
[5] See Bechinat HaDa’at by Rabbi Eliyahu Delmegido (1458-1493).

It must be pointed out that this article is dealing specifically with the Zohar. There were, however, other mystical texts that were in usage from the earliest of times.

Take Sefer Yetzirah for example; “The Sefer Yetzirah is without question the oldest and most mysterious of all Kabbalistic texts. The first commentaries on this book were written in the 10th century, and the text itself is quoted as early as the sixth. References to the work appear in the first century, while traditions regarding its use attest to its existence even in Biblical times. So ancient is this book that its origins are no longer accessable to historians. We are totally dependent on traditions with regard to its authorship.” (From Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s introduction to Sefer Yetzirah.)

[6] Rabbi Yitzchak ben Shemuel d’min Akko. He may have been a student of Ramban (who had moved to the Holy Land) who also had mystical leanings.
[7] Jacobs, Joseph; Broydé, Isaac. “Zohar”. Jewish Encyclopedia. It appears as if this section is a paraphrase of Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865) in his Vikuach al Chachmat haKabbalah. It should be pointed out that some would consider Shadal to be a controversial reference source. Rabbi Gil Student says (See Shadal and the Orthodox Canon); "The traditional yeshiva student will have no need for Shadal. However, the sophisticated reader will find many worthy interpretations in Shadal’s commentary."  Either way, the same series of events is recorded in the original version of Sefer haYuchsin, which is the (only?) primary source for this version of the story, and seems to have been quoted by all who deal with it, including Rabbi Yaakov Emden.
[8] Vikuach al Chachmat haKabbalah, quoting Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko as written in Sefer HaYuchsin and recorded in Mitpachat Sefarim of Rabbi Yaakov Emden.
[9] There is another version of the story which states that Yosef of Avila, a wealthy tax collector, had offered his son to de León’s widow for her impoverished daughter to wed provided that the family would transfer the original manuscript of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai to them.

·        [10]Some say he did indeed accept the testimony of the widow and children that it was a forgery.
·        Others say he disregarded the testimony of the widow and daughter, and opted instead to believe the testimony, under oath, of a student of the de León, Yosef ben Todros (of the Abulafia family), who swore it was not a forgery.
·        Others say that he believed the Hebrew sections of the Zohar were forgeries while the Aramaic sections were from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.

[11] Rabbi Zacuto of Tunisia wrote this work which dealt with the history of the Jewish People during the first 1500 year period - from creation to the end of the period of the Rishonim.
·        [15] This may not be such a crucial issue, as perhaps sections of the Zohar were added a later stages while the majority of the work could have still been penned by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
·        Also, some assert that writing about the future in a mystical work is appropriate as this can be achieved through ruach hakodesh (a spirit of prophecy).
·        Shadal writes in his Vikuach al Chachmat haKabbalah; “The Zohar was written with spiritual inspiration...like (Mohammed) the prophet of the Ishmaelites and the two pairs of tefillin (Rashi and Rabbenu Tam).”  
·        It is of further interest to note that the Mishna, also of the second century, was written in Hebrew, while the Zohar is in Aramaic.
·        Others maintain that the reason why it is not mentioned in the Talmud was because it remained a secret document at that time.
[16] Rabbi Yosef Karo’ s colleague, the famous kabbalist Rabbi Cordovero, said that while in Salonica Rabbi Karo was instructed by a maggid – an angelic teacher who taught him the ways of mysticism.
[17] Yaakov H Dweck, The critique of Kabbalah in Leon Modena’s Ari Nohem.
[18] Shu’’t Chassam Sofer, vol. 6, siman 59
[19] The mashgiach ruchani (spiritual counsellor) of Ponevezh Yeshivah.
[20] A leading student of the Chazon Ish.
[21] Rabbi Carmel was Rosh Kollel at Gateshead in the 1940’s and then went on to serve as mashgiach ruchani at Ponovezh Yeshivah.
[22] See Sinai 2012-06-06
[23] Sichot HaRan 108



NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY:

The following is extracted from the writings of R. David Bar-Hayim of Machon Shilo:

"...the Talmud, like all extant Hazalic literature, has come down to us by a long but clearly traceable chain of tradition
The Oral Tradition was known and studied by Jews from that time down to the present day, as opposed to the Zohar which was unknown until it suddenly made its appearance in 13 th century Spain. 

We know with great precision who the Hakhamim of the Mishna and Talmud were, where they lived, from whom they received the Oral Tradition, etc. This cannot be said of the Zohar.

To point to certain great rabbis of the past who believed the Zohar to have been authored by R. Shimon ben Yohai or his disciples and claim that therefore it must be so is simply no argument at all. 

A man, even a very sagacious man, can be mistaken. Hazal were misinformed regarding certain aspects of the physical world due to the poor state of scientific knowledge in their day; this fact in no way detracts from their greatness or authority.

R. Ya'aqov Emden was not alone. R. Moshe Sopher, the famous Hatham Sopher, was of the same view. In the fascinating book Me M'nuhoth p. 43b a close disciple of the Hatham Sopher, R. Eliezer Lipman Neisatz, quotes his teacher as saying "before many of his students that were it possible to identify the authentic statements in the midrashim of Rashbi, as opposed to the material which was added over the generations by various Hakhamim, it would be a very small book indeed, and would come to no more than a few pages. " "



See: Truth, Authenticity, Tradition and Reason: Who Wrote the Zohar? Written by Rav Bar-Hayim Sunday, 26 February 2012 








Posted by at 10 comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, 27 June 2016

086) A TRADITIONAL SCHOOL OF YEMENITE RATIONALISM:

Rabbi Yichya Kapach  (1850-1931)
INTRODUCTION:

While the common perception is that Sefardim and Yemenites are more inclined towards the mystical traditions of Judaism than their Ashkenazi coreligionists, this is not necessarily the case.   
Yemenites, firstly, are a distinct group from the Sefardim and Ashkenazim. 
Secondly, there has always existed a very rational segment of the Yemenite community which opposed mysticism. 
They were generally known as Talmidei HaRambam (the ‘students of Maimonides’) or more recently, as the Dor Deah (the ‘Generation of Reason’), or simply as Yemenite rationalists.



ORIGINS:

These rationalists were originally a major sector within the ancient Yemenite community. They based their teachings directly on what they considered to be the most accurate representation of Judaism. For them this was Talmudic Judaism (10-500 C.E.) as transmitted by the Geonim (650-1038) and early Rishonim (1038-1500) – particularly the teachings of Rambam (1135-1204).

While the rest of the Jewish world certainly acknowledges and studies Rambam, he is not regarded as the final authority on halachik matters. As a general rule, most adhere instead to the codification of the law as per the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), who lived some three hundred years later.[1]

For the Dor Daim, however, what happened in the halachik world after Rambam is of little consequence to them. They maintain that there was too much interference and influence particularly from the Jewish mystics in the post Rambam era, which introduced what they considered to be superstitious practices into Judaism - and shaped a modern system that little resembles the Judaism of Rambam. Even Rabbi Yosef Karo, in their view, was influenced by some mystical practices which he introduced into his Shulchan Aruch and which are not found in earlier Talmudic sources.

One of the reasons why they follow Rambam so closely was because he had collected the most accurate Talmudic texts and manuscripts at the time, and he based his writings on those. Therefore the best way to get a window into authentic Talmud was through the portal of Rambam, especially his Mishneh Torah, which was a most comprehensive anthology of all Talmudic literature.

The fact that some Yemenites were traditional rationalists was already recorded in the writings of Ramban (Nachmanides 1194-1270) who was born just forty nine years after Rambam.
However around the 1600’s the spread of Kabbalah took on a new impetus and it reached Yemen where many Yemenites were tremendously influenced by its mysticism.[2]

Rambam Tzitzit with 13 knots
The Yemenite community then split into two groups: The Baladi (‘from the country’) or traditional rationalists – and the Shami (‘from the north’, i.e. Palestine), who adopted a more sefardic approach and accepted Rabbi Karo and his Shulchan Aruch over Rambam and his Mishneh Torah.

The Rambam-faithful Baladi Jews, however, remained true to the vision of their master. They are also known technically as mekori’im, (‘originalists’) or ‘Rambamists’[3]. 
They prayed from a shorter version of the (Rambam’s) siddur (because he didn’t want to ‘burden the community’).[4] They Yemenites tie their tzitzit differently, with 7 or 13 chulyot or knots and an ‘open space’ between each knot, according to the custom of Rambam.  They also wear a tallit on Friday nights.


THE RATIONALIST YEMENITES:

About a century ago many of the traditional Baladi or Maimonidean rationalists became known as Dor Daim. They felt their community was becoming so superstitious and fatalistic to the extent that they even questioned the legitimacy of their Judaism. They believed an over emphasis of mysticism was contributing to an overall decline in the social and economic status of their society.

In order to intellectually and economically uplift his community Rabbi Yichya Kapach (1850-1931) started a new religious schooling system which included some secular studies. (In this sense he may be regarded as the Shimshon Rephael Hirsch of the east.) Rabbi Kapach made it his life work to acquire and collect as many of Rambam’s original manuscripts, and even fragments of manuscripts, as possible.

Rabbi Kapach went so far as to teach that the Zohar was a forgery which even contained aspects of idolatry! Rabbi Kapach referred to those steeped in mystical traditions as ‘ikshim’ or ‘people who withhold knowledge from their contemporaries’. He systematically set out his views in a book called Milchamot HaShem which criticizes the very foundations of contemporary mysticism.

These Yemenite rationalists were specifically opposed to the kabbalistic concept of zeir anpin[5], which if taken in a literal sense, assumes certain G-dly powers and could be conceived as an entity somewhat separate from G-d.[6]

Many of their objections were based on their interpretation of Rambam’s prohibition of ‘ribbuy reshuyot’ or multiplicity of spiritual reigning powers.

They quoted Rambam: “There is one simple Essence in which there is no complexity or multiplicity of notions, but one notion only...”[7]

Neither did they entertain the kabbalistic concept of reincarnation, and cited Rav Saadiya Gaon (892-942) who regarded this idea as foreign to Judaism.

The Dor Daim also rejected the practice of asking tzadikim or even angels to intercede with G-d on behalf of another. In a similar vein they disagreed with the popular concept of visiting gravesites of holy people, as they claimed this resembled idolatry. They say that for this reason we were never told where Moshe is buried.

Interestingly enough, they do not reject the more ancient form of secret mysticism known as Ma’aseh Bereshit as practiced in Talmudic times - but firmly held that in no ways did it remotely resemble the modern interpretations of popular kabbalah of contemporary times.

REACTION FROM OTHERS:

Many take great umbrage to the Dor Daim’s open distrust of mysticism which has to a large extent become normative the modern Torah world. And, as to be expected, many disagree with the idea of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah superseding Rabbi Karo’ s Shulchan Aruch.

Some halachik authorities - while themselves in disagreement - do nevertheless tolerate their pro-Rambam and anti-Zohar position. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, for example, disagreed with Rabbi Kapach but did not consider his works to be heretical.

Others, like Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, have gone so far as to declare some of the writings of Rabbi Kapach as heretical.[8]

Today, many Dor Daim are secretive about their rational Maimonidean leanings for fear of ostracism by the wider community[9]. 

This - because of or despite - the fact that they probably represent the most accurate depiction of Rambam’s halachik and theological worldview, in living reality today.


BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Yemen History and Culture, by P. Ram
Tema, Journal of Judeo-Yemenite Studies



[1] Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) is regarded as an early Acharon (1500-present day), although he was born towards the end of the period of the Rishonim (1038-1500).
[2] A similar phenomenon also occurred with some eastern Sefardim who followed the Ben Ish Chai, who allowed the kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria to sometimes override Rabbi Yosef Karo’ s Shulchan Aruch. Sefardi Chief Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef tried to ‘wean’ some Sefardim off the Ben Ish Chai for this very reason.
[3] Not to be confused with modern-day groups who go by this name.
[4] This followed the version as presented in Rambam’s Sefer Ahavah.
[5] Also known as ‘the lesser countenance’.
[6] See Sefer HaBrit 29:15 and Yosher Levav p. 4
[7] Moreh Nevuchim 1:51
[8] Nezer Chaim p. 176
Rabbi Dessler and Rabbi Gedalia Nader (1923-2004, a leading student of Chazon Ish) do not consider questioning the authorship of the Zohar to be heretical. Even the Nodah BiYehudah maintains that the break from Rashbi (who is considered to have authored the Zohar), to the time when the Zohar was popularised, is too long for its authenticity to be undeniably accurate (Derushei HaTzlach).
[9] Rabbi Yosef Kapach (1917-2000), grandson of Rabbi Yichya Kapach, and a highly respected world authority on Rambam, may have been pressured to remove himself from his grandfather’s anti-Zohar stance before he could take up a position of leadership. Although he did say that it was better to draw spiritual sustenance from the writings of Rambam himself.
The Rambam's Mishneh Torah according to Ktav Yad Teiman, with commentary by Rabbi Yosef Kapach.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, 20 June 2016

085) TALE OF TWO SEFORIM:


INTRODUCTION:

In the previous post we looked at the possibility (as recorded by some classical Geonin and contemporary scholars), that the Talmud may have been finally completed in written form a lot later than commonly believed. 

On this view, although written texts were extant, the Talmud may have continued to be transmitted primarily in an oral format until towards the end of the Geonic period, sometime before 1038.

[Note: As pointed out in the previous post, not everyone agrees with this hypothesis. Most take the common view that the Talmud was completed as a written document by around 500 C.E.]

In this article we will expand on this issue, by analyzing two of the earliest post-Talmudic writings (from the Geonic period), and see what bearing they have on our thesis.

THE SHE'ILTOT:



In the middle of the Geonic period, around the 8th-century Rav Achai Gaon penned the She'iltot in (what is said to be) the first rabbinic work of the post-Talmudic period. This pioneering work paved the way for what is today an unimaginably voluminous labyrinth of rabbinical writings.




Although referred to by the title ‘Gaon’, he never became an official head of either the Sura or Pumpedita academies. He was, however, groomed for the position but was upstaged by his assistant Natronai ben Nechemia with some assistance from the Nasi, Shlomo bar Chasdai.


Hurt by this apparent corruption, Rav Achai left Babylonia for Palestine, where he wrote his She'iltot.
The She'iltot is an unusual work because, in its original form, it contains very little reference to earlier Talmudic decisions. It is for that reason that it appears to have been written for the layman and not for the scholar. The book follows the order of the weekly portions of the Torah, and deals with general and broad themes such as love, kindness, respect for parents and the importance of truth. It also contains frequent repetitions of the same phrases.

Some contend, therefore, that this work may have been directed towards the youth. Others say the reason it lacked Talmudic scholarship was because it was written for the Jews of Palestine who were not known for their scholars at that time.

The Meiri (1249-1310) wrote:

“We received a clear tradition regarding R. Achai of blessed memory: He had a son who was not at all inclined to be diligent [in his studies]. And [so] he [R. Achai] compiled for him Sefer ha-Sheiltot so that, each and every Sabbath, when the Torah portion would be read, known halakhot from the Talmud [connected with the weekly reading] would be explained...”[1]

When the book was eventually printed (Venice 1546), it included material that had accumulated over time and took on a more scholarly and Talmudic appearance compared to the older and original manuscripts.[2]

HALACHOT GEDOLOT:

Around the 9th-century, a little after the Sheiltot, Rav Shimon Kayara (or Kiara) wrote the Halachot Gedolot, in Sura, Babylonia[3]. He is also known as the ‘Bahag’- which stands for Baal (author of) Halachot Gedolot. He too, although of the Geonic period, never assumed the title ‘Gaon’.


Halachot Gedolot was to a large extent based on the She'iltot, with over 150 references to it throughout the book. However, it does have a more scholarly style and is probably one of the first attempts at codification of Talmudic decisions.

But it was only a hundred years after it was first written, that the Spanish edition, known as Mahadurat Aspamia (from around the year 900), incorporated many texts from the Talmud itself.



This may have some bearing on our discussion as that is (according to Meiri’s hypothesis) around the time that the Talmud in its entirety may have been put into writing.

(Although called the Spanish edition, it may have originated in North Africa in Kairouan (now Tunisia), as it contains references to ‘benei Africa’.)

Just like the She'iltot, with the passage of time many additional halachic rulings of the later Geonim had been added to the work, so that when Halachot Gedolot was first printed (Venice 1548), it no longer resembled its less technical and original text.

Accordingly, after looking at both the original versions of the earliest rabbinic writings of the Geonic period, the She'iltot and Halachot Gedolot, it could be feasible that Talmudic texts were not quoted as frequently as one would have expected because they were taught primarily as an oral tradition until the end of that era. This would support Meiri’s view.

(However, see previous post and here where we mentioned that Otzar HaGaonim - a collection of other Geonic writing only recently discovered in the Cairo Geniza - did contain reference to Talmudic texts! The compiler of this work, ironically, was upset that his scholarly anthology never gained acceptance by the ‘yeshiva world’.)

 THE RAMBAM / MEIRI DEBATE:

Rambam, an early Rishon, wrote that he was disappointed that the Geonim (whose era preceded his), had written so sparingly and sparsely. 

The Peninei Halacha underscores this point and writes; “Throughout the generations, the number of books (manuscripts) increased exponentially. Already in the era of Rishonim (in which Rambam lived, and which followed the era of Geonim) they began to write numerous commentaries to the Talmud.”[4]

The big question is why did it take in excess of 500 years to begin, in earnest, to write commentaries to the Talmud?

The Rishonim, however, did indeed make up for the Geonim’s sparseness of writing.
The Meiri picks up on Rambam’s criticism of the meagre writings from the Geonic period, but believed it was a mistake to condemn the Geonim. This was, he contends, because the Geonim were in fact so much more astute than the later generations of Rishonim, as they had committed the Talmudic teachings to memory. They transmitted the Talmud throughout their 500 year period primarily through an oral format.

What Rambam considered a flaw - was instead an attribute in the view of Meiri!

Meiri wrote that because of the Geonim’s reliance predominantly on oral tradition:

“...this is what caused them to write only a little...And even this (minimalistic writing) was not (even) for their own need, but [only] for their children or relatives who lacked the competence of the other students. And they wrote short [hiburim] (compositions) to be a mouth (means of instruction) for them...”

Then the Meiri continues:

“We have similarly received [a tradition] regarding our Master, Sa’adya (Gaon), of blessed memory regarding Sefer ha-Piqqadon - that he compiled it for one who was appointed a judge in his town...And the judge was sometimes perplexed. And pleaded with him [Sa’adya] to explain to him the laws...”[5]

It is clear that, at least according to Meiri, the Geonim hardly wrote anything (except, as our examples brought above seem to show, for the young and the relatively unlearned). This was because they were still transmitting their teachings orally.

Rav Sherira Gaon makes this point in his Iggeret, where he wrote of the Geonic era:
“The Talmud and the Mishna were not written, but they were arranged. And the sages were careful to recite them by heart, but not from written versions.”[6]

CONCLUSION:

- Considering the reasons why Rav Achai Gaon (She'iltot) and Rav Shimon Kayara (Halachot Gedolot) wrote their original sparse and rather non-technical compositions. And why Rav Sa’adia Gaon (Sefer ha-Piqqadon) wrote an unusual legal aid.

- Considering why there was not a major commentary on the Talmud during the Geonic period until Rashi at the beginning of the period of the Rishonim.
 
- And considering the forthright views of Meiri, Rav Sherira Gaon and others, that the Talmud was not written down until towards the end of the period of the Geonim... 

- Taken all together, could this not strongly indicate that the final committing of the Talmud to writing may have been closer to the year 1000 than the year 500?



[1] Translation from Professor Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, p. 166
[2] Some of these manuscripts are in the Bodleian Library, Oxford and also in the Bibliothéque Nationale , Paris.
[3] Some put the date at 825.
[4] Peninei Halacha, Likuttim 1, p.7
[5] Translation from Professor Fishman, ibid.
[6] See Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)