User:Empireheart/sandbox2


 * For the villages in southern Israel, see Zohar, Israel and Tzochar. "Zohar" is also a common name among Israelis.



The Zohar (זֹהַר, lit Splendor or Radiance) is the foundational work in the literature of Jewish mystical thought known as Kabbalah. It is a commentary on the mystical aspects of the Torah (the five books of Moses), written in medieval Aramaic. The Zohar is a group of books including scriptural interpretations as well as material on theosophic theology, mythical cosmogony, and mystical psychology.

It contains a discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of Ego to Darkness and "true self" to "The Light of God," and the relationship between the "universal energy" and man. Its scriptural exegesis can be considered an esoteric form of Midrash (Rabbinic elaboration on the Tanach). This accords with the traditional claim by adherents, that Kabbalah is the concealed part of the Oral Torah.

Origin
The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. De Leon himself ascribed this work to Shimon bar Yochai, a rabbi of the second century CE. Jewish legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for 13 years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar. During this time he is said to have been inspired by Elijah the Prophet to write the Zohar. According to the 20th century religious historian Gershom Scholem, most of the Zohar was written in an exalted, eccentric style of Aramaic, a language that was spoken in the Land of Israel during the Roman Period in the first centuries of the Common Era. Scholem, based on accounts from De Leon's contemporaries, and on evidence within the Zohar (Spanish idioms and syntax, for example), concluded that De Leon was the actual author.

Most of Orthodox Judaism holds that the teachings of Kabbalah were transmitted from teacher to teacher, in a long and continuous chain, from the Biblical era until its redaction by Shimon ben Yochai, accepting fully the claims that the Kabbalah's teachings were revealed to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, Moses, and other ancient figures, but were never printed and made publicly available until the time of the Zohar's medieval publication. Jews in non-Orthodox Jewish denominations accept the conclusions of historical academic studies on the Zohar and other kabbalistic texts. As such, most non-Orthodox Jews have long viewed the Zohar as pseudepigraphy and apocrypha. Nonetheless, many accepted that some of its contents had meaning for modern Judaism. Siddurim edited by non-Orthodox Jews often have excerpts from the Zohar and other kabbalistic works, e.g. Siddur Sim Shalom edited by Jules Harlow, even though the editors are not kabbalists.

Traditional view
Over time, the general view in the Jewish community came to be one of acceptance of Moses de Leon's claims; the Zohar was held to be an authentic book of mysticism passed down from the second century, though certain small groups (Baladi Yemenite, Andalusian [Western Sefardic or Spanish and Portuguese Jews] and some Italian communities) never accepted it as authentic. The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness. Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many Kabbalists, including the Italian mystical writer Menahem Recanati. Its authority was so well established in Spain in the 15th century that Joseph ibn Shem-Tov drew from it arguments in his attacks against Maimonides. Even representatives of non-mysticism oriented Judaism began to regard it as a sacred book and to invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions.

The Zohar was quoted by Todros Abulafia, by Menahem Recanati, and even by Isaac of Acco, in whose name the story of the confession of Moses de Leon's widow is related.

Isaac evidently ignored the woman's alleged confession in favor of the testimony of Joseph ben Todros and of Jacob, a pupil of Moses de Leon, both of whom assured him on oath that the work was not written by Moses.

One objection considered by the believers in the authenticity of the Zohar was the lack of references to the work in Jewish literature; and to this they answered that Shimon ben Yochai did not commit his teachings to writing, but transmitted them orally to his disciples, who in turn confided them to their disciples, and these to their successors, until finally the doctrines were embodied in the Zohar.

As to the references in the book to historical events of the post-Talmudic period, it was not deemed surprising that Shimon ben Yochai should have foretold future happenings. See below however for a more extensive explanation of these problems.

Most of the major Halachic authorities&mdash;like most other Orthodox Jews for that matter&mdash;accepted the Zohar as authentic, and many of them were themselves Kabbalists. This includes R' Yosef Karo, R' Moses Isserles, R' Solomon Luria, R' Yechiel Michel Epstein, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (The Baal HaTanya), The Vilna Gaon and R' Yisrael Meir Kagan.

R' Solomon Luria in his responsa writes that except where the Zohar is contradicted by the Babylonian Talmud, the Halacha (Law) follows the Zohar.

Contemporary religious view
Most of Orthodox Judaism holds that the teachings of Kabbalah were transmitted from teacher to teacher, in a long and continuous chain, from the Biblical era until its redaction by Shimon ben Yochai. Many (most?) accept fully the claims that the Kabbalah's teachings are in essence a revelation from God to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, Moses and other ancient figures, but were never printed and made publicly available until the time of the Zohar's medieval publication. The greatest acceptance of this sequence of events is held within Haredi Judaism. Some claim the tradition that Rabbi Shimon wrote that the concealment of the Zohar would last for exactly 1200 years from the time of destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE and so before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel.

In recent years there has been a growing willingness of non-Orthodox Jews to study the Zohar, and a growing minority have a position that is similar to the Modern Orthodox position described above. This seems pronounced among Jews who follow the path of Jewish Renewal.

Arguments for a late dating

 * The suspicion that the Zohar was found by one person, Moses de Leon, and that it refers to historical events of the post-Talmudical period, caused the authorship to be questioned from the outset. A story tells that after the death of Moses de Leon, a rich man of Avila named Joseph 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 had always answered that doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Shimon bar Yochai would be a rich source of profit. The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.


 * These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his Ari Nohem. A work devoted to the criticism of the Zohar was written, Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, by Jacob Emden, who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Sabbatai Zevi movement, endeavored to show that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Muslims (who did not exist in the second century); uses the expression esnoga, which is a Portuguese term for "synagogue,"; and gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period.


 * There is a small group among the Orthodox who refuse to accept the Zohar, known as Dor Daim (דרדעים). They are mainly from the Jewish community in Yemen, and claim that the Zohar cannot be true because its ideas clash with the ideas of the Rambam (Maimonides), the great medieval rabbi and rationalist, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, and other early representatives of the Jewish faith. The Zohar is rejected by almost all Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Some among them believe the Zohar is collection of ideas based on Midrasim and misinterpretation of midrashic concepts.


 * In the mid-20th century, the Jewish historian Gershom Scholem contended that de Leon himself was the most likely author of the Zohar. Among other things, Scholem noticed the Zohar's frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces of Spanish words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of the land of Israel. This finding is still disputed by many within Orthodox Judaism, although not because of any scholarly proofs, but rather because of tradition.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, noted professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, claimed that "It is clear that the Zohar was written by de Leon as it is clear that Theodore Herzl wrote Medinat HaYehudim (The Jewish State)."

Arguments for an earlier dating
R' Menachem Mendel Kasher in an article in the periodical Sinai refutes many of Scholem's points. He writes:


 * 1. Many statements in the works of the Rishonim (medieval commentors who preceded De Leon) 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 cites 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 existence 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 achieved 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 (Cappadocia) which he states was situated in Turkey not in Israel. A city by this name located in Israel does appear, however, in Targum Onkelos, Targum Yonatan, Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud and several Midrashim.

Academic View of the Zohar
In Eros and Kabbalah, Moshe Idel (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, Hebrew University in Jerusalem) argues that the fundamental distinction between the rational-philosophic strain of Judaism and theosophic-mystical Judaism, as exemplified by the Zohar, is the mystical belief that the Godhead is complex, rather than simple, and that divinity is dynamic and incorporates gender, having both male and female dimensions. These polarities must be conjoined (have yihud, "union") to maintain the harmony of the cosmos. Idel characterizes this metaphysical point of view as "ditheism," holding that there are two aspects to God, and the process of union as "theoeroticism." This ditheism, the dynamics it entails, and its reverberations within creation is arguably the central interest of the Zohar, making up a huge proportion of its discourse (pp. 5-56).

Mention should also be made of the work of Elliot Wolfson (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, New York University), who has almost single-handedly challenged the conventional view, which is affirmed by Idel as well. Wolfson likewise recognizes the importance of heteroerotic symbolism in the kabbalistic understanding of the divine nature. The oneness of God is perceived in androgynous terms as the pairing of male and female, the former characterized as the capacity to overflow and the latter as the potential to receive. Where Wolfson breaks with Idel and other scholars of the kabbalah is in his insistence that the consequence of that heteroerotic union is the restoration of the female to the male. Just as, in the case of the original Adam, woman was constructed from man, and their carnal cleaving together was portrayed as becoming one flesh, so the ideal for kabbalists is the reconstitution of what Wolfson calls the male androgyne. Much closer in spirit to some ancient Gnostic dicta, Wolfson understands the eschatological ideal in traditional kabbalah to have been the female becoming male (see his Circle in the Square and Language, Eros, Being).

Pardes and Biblical exegesis
The Zohar assumes four kinds of Biblical text exegesis: Peshat ("simple/literal meaning"), Remez ("through its hint or allusion/allegorical meaning"), Derash ("through rabbinic sermon's comparison or illustration/metaphorical meaning), and Sod ("through its secret or mystery/hidden meaning"). The initial letters of the words (P, R, D, S) form together the word PaRDeS ("paradise/orchard"), which became the designation for the fourfold meaning of which the mystical sense is the highest part. Note also the similarity to the word and concept of "paradise."

In Judaism
On the one hand, the Zohar was lauded by many rabbis because it opposed religious formalism, stimulated one's imagination and emotions, and for many people helped reinvigorate the experience of prayer. In many places prayer had become a mere external religious exercise, while prayer was supposed to be a means of transcending earthly affairs and placing oneself in union with God.

On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose overexcited imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences. Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaic principles of faith.

Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to substitute mystic Judaism in the place of traditional rabbinic Judaism. For example, Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath, began to be looked upon as the embodiment of God in temporal life, and every ceremony performed on that day was considered to have an influence upon the superior world.

Elements of the Zohar crept into the liturgy of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the religious poets not only used the allegorism and symbolism of the Zohar in their compositions, but even adopted its style, e.g. the use of erotic terminology to illustrate the relations between man and God. Thus, in the language of some Jewish poets, the beloved one's curls indicate the mysteries of the Deity; sensuous pleasures, and especially intoxication, typify the highest degree of divine love as ecstatic contemplation; while the wine-room represents merely the state through which the human qualities merge or are exalted into those of God.

On Christian mysticism
The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johann Reuchlin, Aegidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity. They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain Christian dogmas, such as the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which seems to be expressed in the Zohar

This and other similar doctrines found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity, but the Christian scholars who were led by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar.

The Structure of the Zohar
The Book of Zohar consists of:

1. Hakdamat Sefer HaZohar – “The Introduction to the Book of Zohar.”

2. Sefer HaZohar – The Book of Zohar. It is divided into parts and chapters in conformance with the weekly chapters of the Torah:


 * The Book of Bereishit
 * The Book of Shemot
 * The Book of Vayikra
 * The Book of Bamidbar
 * The Book of Devarim

3. Zohar Hadash – “The New Zohar” – additions to the weekly chapters:

Beresheet, Noach, Lech Lecha, Vayera, Vayetze, Vayeshev, Bashalach, Yitro, Teruma, Ki Titze, Tzav, Acharey, Ba Har, Naso, Chukat, Balak, Matot, Ve Etchanen, Ki Titze, Ki Tavo.

4. Additional appendixes in the Book of Zohar that are not a direct commentary on the Torah:


 * Sifra di-Tsni`uta, consisting of five chapters, in which are chiefly discussed the questions involved in the Creation, such as the transition from the infinite to the finite, that from absolute unity to multifariousness, that from pure intelligence to matter, etc.
 * Idra Rabbah, in which the teachings of the preceding portion are enlarged upon and developed.
 * Idra Zuta, giving a résumé of the two preceding sections.
 * Midrash Ha Ne’ela, the commentary on the writings: Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, and on the Torah. explaining passages of Scripture mystically by way of hints and gematria (mystical numerology);

5. To the larger appendixes are added the following fragments:


 * Raza de Razin, ("Secret of Secrets") dealing with the connection of the soul with the body;
 * Sefer Hekalot, describing the seven heavenly halls, paradise, and hell;
 * Raya Mehemna, giving a conversation between Moses, the prophet Elijah, and Shimon ben Yochai on the allegorical import of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the rabbinical injunctions.
 * Saba, containing a conversation between the prophet Elijah and Shimon ben Yochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis;
 * Sitre Torah, on various topics;
 * Ashmatot,
 * Sitrey Torah,
 * Sitrey Otiot,
 * Tikuney Zohar,
 * Yanuḳa, on the importance of washing the hands before meals and on similar subjects, written in the name of a child of Hamnuna Saba, whence the title Yanuḳa ("child");
 * Tosefta and Matnitin, in which are sketched the doctrines of the Sefirot, the emanation of the primordial light, etc.

Sulam Commentary on the Zohar
The Sulam Commentary was written by Yehuda Ashlag also known as Baal Hasulam which means 'master of the ladder' was completed between 1943 and 1953. This work was written after his work on Talmud Eser Sefirot which was his commentary on the Ari's Tree of LIfe Isaac Luria. The commentary explained each passage of the Zohar in the language of Kabbalah from the original language of Midrash. It also allows the reader to grasp the internal message of the Zohar more clearly as a result. Ashlah wrote the commentary on the Zohar as his last work before he died in 1954 and viewed the commentary as a major part in the redemption of humanity. as Ashlag said "explains fully everything the `Zohar' says in terms of the simple, analytical intellect, so that the average person can understand and this is a clear proof that we are living in the messianic age"

Introductions and Prefaces
Apart from the Sulam commentary on the Zohar Yehuda Ashlag also wrote five introductions to the Zohar. These are the Introduction to the Book of Zohar, Preface to the Book of Zohar, The Preamble to the Commentary of the Sulam, Pticha—Preface to the Wisdom of Kabbalah, and General Preface. The Preface to the Zohar deals with Kabbalistic concepts regarding the perception of reality. Ashlag deals with the limitations on what the Book of Zohar speaks about. The Introduction to the Book of Zohar spans a wider range of concepts, covering the entire picture of creation, the evolution of souls, and history of world according to Ashlag’s Kabbalistic system. The Preface to the Sulam Commentary and Pticha and the General Preface give a overview on the technical Kabbalistic terms used in the Zohar. Ashlag provides a synthesis between the Zohar and the works of the Ari.

English translations

 * Matt, Daniel C., trans. Zohar: Pritzker Edition (5 vols. to date). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004-2009. (The first five volumes of a projected 12-volume, comprehensively-annotated English translation)
 * Book of Zohar: Introduction, Laitman Kabbalah Publishers, 2008, ISBN 9657065666, 9789657065662
 * ____. Zohar: Annotated and Explained. Woodstock, Vt.: SkyLights Paths Publishing Co., 2002. (Selections)
 * ____. Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. (Selections)
 * Scholem, Gershom, ed. Zohar: The Book of Splendor. New York: Schocken Books, 1963. (Selections)
 * Sperling, Harry and Maurice Simon, eds. The Zohar (5 vols.). London: Soncino Press.
 * Tishby, Isaiah, ed. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts (3 vols.). Translated from the Hebrew by David Goldstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
 * Berg, Michael: Zohar 23 Volume Set- The Kabbalah Centre Internatonal. Full 23 Volumes english translation with commentary and annotations.