Difference between revisions of "Zohar" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
(Images OK)
(Expanded Introduction)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Images OK}}{{Started}}{{Contracted}}
 
{{Images OK}}{{Started}}{{Contracted}}
The '''Zohar''' ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]: '''זהר''' "Splendor, radiance") is widely considered the most important work of [[Kabbalah]], Jewish mysticism. It is a mystical commentary on the [[Torah]] (the five books of [[Moses]]), written in medieval [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] and medieval [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]. It contains a mystical discussion of the nature of [[Names of God in Judaism|God]], the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of [[soul]]s, [[sin]], redemption, good and evil, and related topics.
+
The '''Zohar''' ([[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]: '''זהר''' "Splendor, radiance") is widely considered to be the most important work of [[Kabbalah]] (Jewish mysticism). It is an esoteric commentary on the [[Torah]] (the five books of [[Moses]]), written in medieval [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] and medieval [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]]. It contains a mystical discussion of the nature of [[Ein Sof|God]], the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of [[soul]]s, [[sin]], redemption, good and evil, and other related topics.
 +
 
 
[[Image:Zohar.png|thumb|right|200px|Title page of first edition of the Zohar, Mantua, 1558. Library of Congress.]]
 
[[Image:Zohar.png|thumb|right|200px|Title page of first edition of the Zohar, Mantua, 1558. Library of Congress.]]
 +
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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
  
==Origin==
+
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaic principles of faith.
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 [[Land of Israel|Israel]] during the Roman Period in the first centuries of the Common Era. The Zohar first appeared in [[Spain]] in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named [[Moses de Leon]]. 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.<ref>Gershom Scholem, ''On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah.'' (Schocken, 1997), pg. 265.</ref>  However, more recent scholars have found aspects of Scholem's work problematic and some have proposed (though without any substantial proof or documentation) that the teachings preserved in portions of the Zohar may in fact date back to Talmudic times.<ref>Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.</ref>
 
  
De Leon himself ascribed this work to a [[rabbi]] of the second century, [[Shimon bar Yochai]].<ref name="jewcyclo">{{cite encyclopedia|last=Jacobs|first=Joseph|coauthors=Broydé, Isaac|encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia|title=Zohar|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406|accessdate=|publisher=Funk & Wagnalls Company}}</ref> Jewish legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for thirteen years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar.<ref>{{cite book|last=Scharfstein|first=Sol|title=Jewish History and You II|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uFuBCOzObf0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=simeon+bar+yohai+cave+13+years&source=web&ots=4stAsWsEER&sig=C5d4vwiGMFzn92srw8NHAeqm-iE|accessdate=|series= Jewish History and You|date=2004|publisher = KTAV Publishing House|location=Jersey City, NJ, USA|isbn=|pages=p. 24}}</ref><ref>[http://www.ou.org/chagim/lagbaomer/yochai.htm Lag BaOmer: Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochi]</ref> During this time he is said to have been inspired by [[Elijah]] the Prophet to write the Zohar.
+
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
  
===Traditional view of authorship===
+
==Question of Authorship==
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] and some Italian communities) never accepted it as authentic.
 
The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many [[Kabbalah|Kabbalists]], including the Italian mystical writer [[Menahem Recanati]].<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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]].<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
They were attracted by its [[glory|glorification]] of man, its doctrine of [[immortality]], and its ethical principles, which are more in keeping with the spirit of [[Talmud|Talmudic Judaism]] than are those taught by the philosophers.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 
While Maimonides and his followers regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect, the Zohar declared him to be the lord of the [[Creation theology|Creation]], whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
According to the Zohar, the moral perfection of man influences the ideal world of the [[Sefirot]]; for although the Sefirot expect everything from the [[Ein Sof]] ([[Hebrew language|Heb.]] אין סוף, infinity), the Ein Sof itself is dependent upon man: he alone can bring about the divine effusion.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
The dew that vivifies the universe flows from the just.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
By the practice of virtue and by moral perfection, man may increase the outpouring of heavenly grace.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 
Even physical life is subservient to virtue.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
This, says the Zohar, is indicated in the words "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain" ([[Genesis|Gen.]] 2:5), which means that there had not yet been beneficent action in heaven, because man had not yet been created to pray for it.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 
  
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
+
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 [[Israel]] during the Roman Period in the first centuries of the Common Era. The Zohar first appeared in [[Spain]] in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named [[Moses de Leon]]. 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.<ref>Gershom Scholem, ''On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah.'' (Schocken, 1997), pg. 265.</ref>  However, more recent scholars have found aspects of Scholem's work problematic and some have proposed (though without any substantial proof or documentation) that the teachings preserved in portions of the Zohar may in fact date back to Talmudic times.<ref>Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.</ref>
  
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
+
De Leon himself ascribed this work to a [[rabbi]] of the second century, [[Shimon bar Yochai]].<ref name="jewcyclo">{{cite encyclopedia|last=Jacobs|first=Joseph|coauthors=Broydé, Isaac|encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia|title=Zohar|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406|accessdate=|publisher=Funk & Wagnalls Company}}</ref> Jewish legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for thirteen years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar.<ref>{{cite book|last=Scharfstein|first=Sol|title=Jewish History and You II|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=uFuBCOzObf0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=simeon+bar+yohai+cave+13+years&source=web&ots=4stAsWsEER&sig=C5d4vwiGMFzn92srw8NHAeqm-iE|accessdate=|series= Jewish History and You|date=2004|publisher = KTAV Publishing House|location=Jersey City, NJ, USA|isbn=|pages=p. 24}}</ref><ref>[http://www.ou.org/chagim/lagbaomer/yochai.htm Lag BaOmer: Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochi]</ref> During this time he is said to have been inspired by [[Elijah]] the Prophet to write the Zohar.
  
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
+
===Arguments for a late dating===
 
+
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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
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. <ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
 
 
It is worth noting that most of the major Halachic authorities accept the Zohar as authentic and/or have written works on the Kabala. This includes R' [[Yosef Karo]], R' [[Moses Isserles]], R' [[Solomon Luria]], R' [[Yechiel Michel Epstein]], Rabbi [[Shneur Zalman of Liadi]] (The Alter Rebbe), 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.
 
 
 
See Likeutei Sichos Vol. 33 pg. 98 where the author, quoting a response Reb Hillel Paricher related from Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman of Liadi (The Alter Rebbe), explains that where there is an argument between Kabbalah and '''Poskim''', the '''former''' should be followed. For it is impossible to say that the Kabbalah is in contradiction with the Talmud itself, rather the Kabbalists and the Halachists have variant understanding of the explanation of the Talmud as explained by the Radvaz (Chelek 4, Siman 1,111)and the Chacham Tzvi (Siman 36)(cited in the Sha'arei Teshuvah 25:14). See also Responsa Tzemach Tzedek A.H. Siman 18,4 and Divrei Nechemia Responsa O.H. 21. It should be noted however that as Poskim, the view of the Radvaz [and of the Chacham Tzvi] is that one should follow the opinion of the Zohar only where a conclusive statement has not been made by the Gemara or Poskim or when an argument is found between the Poskim. The above quoted view, attributed to Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman of Liadi, would thus be accepted as authoritative only by followers of Rabbi Shne'ur Zalman of Liadi (The Alter Rebbe)— i.e., the [[Lubavitchers]]— the [[Ben Ish Chai]], and other Halacha codifiers who accept to follow the rulings of Kabala over those of the Poskim.
 
 
 
===In Jewish thought today===
 
Much, perhaps 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 C.E. and so before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel.
 
 
 
Some in [[Modern Orthodox Judaism]] reject the above view as naive. Some Orthodox Jews accept the earlier rabbinic position that the Zohar was a work written in the middle medieval period by Moses de Leon, but argue that since it is obviously based on earlier materials, it can still be held to be authentic, but not as authoritative or without error as others within Orthodoxy might hold.
 
 
 
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. [[Siddur]]im 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.
 
 
 
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]].
 
 
 
===Critical view of authorship===
 
====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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 
  
 
Elijah Delmedigo, in his ''Bechinat ha-Dat'' endeavored to show that it could not be attributed to Shimon bar Yochai.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> The objections were that:
 
Elijah Delmedigo, in his ''Bechinat ha-Dat'' endeavored to show that it could not be attributed to Shimon bar Yochai.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> The objections were that:
Line 51: Line 22:
 
#If the Zohar was the work of Shimon bar Yochai, it would have been mentioned by the [[Talmud]], as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
#If the Zohar was the work of Shimon bar Yochai, it would have been mentioned by the [[Talmud]], as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
#The Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
#The Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
#Were Shimon ben Yochai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his [[halakha|decisions on Jewish law]] would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
+
#Were Shimon ben Yochai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done;<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
#Were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts (''Bechinat ha-Dat'' ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 
#Were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts (''Bechinat ha-Dat'' ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
  
These arguments and others of the same kind were used by [[Leon of Modena]] in his ''Ari Nohem''.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
+
These arguments and others of the same kind were used by [[Leon of Modena]] in his ''Ari Nohem''.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
  
 
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.
 
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.
  
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.
+
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'' ("A State for the Jews")."
 
 
Other Jewish scholars have also suggested the possibility that the Zohar was written by a group of people, including de Leon. This theory generally presents de Leon as having been the leader of a mystical school, whose collective effort resulted in the Zohar.
 
  
Another theory as to the authorship of the Zohar is that it was transmitted like the Talmud before it was transcribed: as an oral tradition reapplied to changing conditions and eventually recorded. This view simultaneously believes that the Zohar was not written by Shimon bar Yochai, but was a holy work because it consisted of his principles.
+
Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz claimed that "It is clear that the Zohar was written by de Leon as it is clear that [[Theodore Herzl]] wrote ''Medinat HaYehudim'' ("A State for the Jews")."
  
 
Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.
 
Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.
  
 
====Arguments for an earlier dating====
 
====Arguments for an earlier dating====
R' [[Menachem Mendel Kasher]] in an article in the periodical  [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm Sinai] refutes many of Scholem's points. He writes:
+
R' Menachem Mendel Kasher attempts to refute many of Scholem's points.<ref>[http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm Sinai]</ref> He writes:
  
 
* 1. Many statements in the works of the [[Rishonim]] (medieval commentors who preceded De Leon)refer to [[Medrash|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".
 
* 1. Many statements in the works of the [[Rishonim]] (medieval commentors who preceded De Leon)refer to [[Medrash|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".
Line 84: Line 51:
 
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.
 
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.
  
R' [[Reuvein 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.
+
R' Reuvein 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 similar to 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.).
 
In the same book he cites many statements of [[Maimonides]] that could only have come from a text very similar to 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.).
 +
 +
==Historical Reception==
 +
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] and some Italian communities) never accepted it as authentic.
 +
The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many [[Kabbalah|Kabbalists]], including the Italian mystical writer [[Menahem Recanati]].<ref name="jewcyclo"/> 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]].<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 +
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
They were attracted by its [[glory|glorification]] of man, its doctrine of [[immortality]], and its ethical principles, which are more in keeping with the spirit of [[Talmud|Talmudic Judaism]] than are those taught by the philosophers.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 +
While Maimonides and his followers regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect, the Zohar declared him to be the lord of the [[Creation theology|Creation]], whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
According to the Zohar, the moral perfection of man influences the ideal world of the [[Sefirot]]; for although the Sefirot expect everything from the [[Ein Sof]] ([[Hebrew language|Heb.]] אין סוף, infinity), the Ein Sof itself is dependent upon man: he alone can bring about the divine effusion.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
The dew that vivifies the universe flows from the just.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
By the practice of virtue and by moral perfection, man may increase the outpouring of heavenly grace.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 +
Even physical life is subservient to virtue.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
This, says the Zohar, is indicated in the words "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain" ([[Genesis|Gen.]] 2:5), which means that there had not yet been beneficent action in heaven, because man had not yet been created to pray for it.<ref name="jewcyclo" />
 +
 +
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
 +
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
 +
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.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
 +
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. <ref name="jewcyclo"/>
 +
 +
It is worth noting that most of the major Halachic authorities accept the Zohar as authentic and/or have written works on the Kabala. This includes R' [[Yosef Karo]], R' [[Moses Isserles]], R' [[Solomon Luria]], R' [[Yechiel Michel Epstein]], Rabbi [[Shneur Zalman of Liadi]] (The Alter Rebbe), 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.
 +
 +
Much 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 C.E. and so before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel.
 +
 +
Some in [[Modern Orthodox Judaism]] reject the above view as naive. Some Orthodox Jews accept the earlier rabbinic position that the Zohar was a work written in the middle medieval period by Moses de Leon, but argue that since it is obviously based on earlier materials, it can still be held to be authentic, but not as authoritative or without error as others might hold.
 +
 +
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. [[Siddur]]im 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.
 +
 +
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]].
  
 
==Academic historical views==
 
==Academic historical views==
  
In "Zohar", the [[Encyclopaedia Judaica]] article written by the late Professor [[Gershom Scholem]] (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) there is an extensive discussion of the sources that the author of the Zohar drew upon.  Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of the [[Kabbalah]], but like all textual historical investigations, are not uncriticially accepted; many of the following conclusions are still accepted as accurate, but some current academic scholars of Kabbalah have differing ideas.
+
The ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' article written by the late Professor Gershom Scholem (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has an extensive discussion of the sources that the author of the Zohar drew upon.  Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of the [[Kabbalah]], but like all textual historical investigations, are not uncriticially accepted; many of the following conclusions are still accepted as accurate, but some current academic scholars of Kabbalah have differing ideas.
  
 
Scholem views the author of the Zohar as not writing a totally original work, but rather based the Zohar on a wide variety of Jewish sources that existed before him. The author, however, invents a number of fictious works that the Zohar supposedly quotes, e.g., the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others.
 
Scholem views the author of the Zohar as not writing a totally original work, but rather based the Zohar on a wide variety of Jewish sources that existed before him. The author, however, invents a number of fictious works that the Zohar supposedly quotes, e.g., the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others.
Line 106: Line 105:
 
Scholem's studies concluded that the author of the Zohar "develops tendencies which appeared first in the writings of the circle of the Gnostics in Castile in the middle of the 13th century ." While this view is still widely accepted as plausible, it is currently being argued that perhaps Scholem has this conclusion backwards. Moshe Idel has argued that the Gnostic views found within the Zohar developed indigenously within Judaism, and from there extended outwards towards adherents of Gnostic theology. A similar approach has been taken by other scholars as well, for example, Yehuda Liebes and Eliiot R. Wolfson. A careful reading of Scholem indicates that Idel's critique is only partially correct. Scholem was equivocal on this point, sometimes arguing that medieval kabbalah was a gnostification of rabbinic thought and practice, and at other time arguing that underlying the ancient gnostic sources we could find a jewish heterodoxy. The latter position is not at odds with the more recent work of Idel, Liebes, and Wolfson.<ref>Moshe Idel, ''Kabbalah: New Perspectives.'' (Yale University Press, 1990); Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.</ref>
 
Scholem's studies concluded that the author of the Zohar "develops tendencies which appeared first in the writings of the circle of the Gnostics in Castile in the middle of the 13th century ." While this view is still widely accepted as plausible, it is currently being argued that perhaps Scholem has this conclusion backwards. Moshe Idel has argued that the Gnostic views found within the Zohar developed indigenously within Judaism, and from there extended outwards towards adherents of Gnostic theology. A similar approach has been taken by other scholars as well, for example, Yehuda Liebes and Eliiot R. Wolfson. A careful reading of Scholem indicates that Idel's critique is only partially correct. Scholem was equivocal on this point, sometimes arguing that medieval kabbalah was a gnostification of rabbinic thought and practice, and at other time arguing that underlying the ancient gnostic sources we could find a jewish heterodoxy. The latter position is not at odds with the more recent work of Idel, Liebes, and Wolfson.<ref>Moshe Idel, ''Kabbalah: New Perspectives.'' (Yale University Press, 1990); Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.</ref>
  
 
+
==Mystical Teachings==
 
 
===Zohar's ditheistic theology===
 
 
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).
 
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).
  

Revision as of 13:59, 25 September 2007

The Zohar (Hebrew: זהר "Splendor, radiance") is widely considered to be the most important work of Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism). It is an esoteric commentary on the Torah (the five books of Moses), written in medieval Aramaic and medieval Hebrew. It contains a mystical discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, sin, redemption, good and evil, and other related topics.

Title page of first edition of the Zohar, Mantua, 1558. Library of Congress.

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.[1] 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.[1]

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.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1]

Question of Authorship

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 Israel during the Roman Period in the first centuries of the Common Era. The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. 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.[2] However, more recent scholars have found aspects of Scholem's work problematic and some have proposed (though without any substantial proof or documentation) that the teachings preserved in portions of the Zohar may in fact date back to Talmudic times.[3]

De Leon himself ascribed this work to a rabbi of the second century, Shimon bar Yochai.[1] Jewish legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for thirteen years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar.[4][5] During this time he is said to have been inspired by Elijah the Prophet to write the Zohar.

Arguments for a late dating

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.[1] 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.[1] The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.[1]

Elijah Delmedigo, in his Bechinat ha-Dat endeavored to show that it could not be attributed to Shimon bar Yochai.[1] The objections were that:

  1. If the Zohar was the work of Shimon bar Yochai, it would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period;[1]
  2. The Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon;[1]
  3. Were Shimon ben Yochai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done;[1]
  4. Were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts (Bechinat ha-Dat ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).[1]

These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his Ari Nohem.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1]

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.

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.

Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz claimed that "It is clear that the Zohar was written by de Leon as it is clear that Theodore Herzl wrote Medinat HaYehudim ("A State for the Jews")."

Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.

Arguments for an earlier dating

R' Menachem Mendel Kasher attempts to refute many of Scholem's points.[6] 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.

R' Reuvein 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 similar to 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.).

Historical Reception

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] and some Italian communities) never accepted it as authentic. The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness.[1] Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many Kabbalists, including the Italian mystical writer Menahem Recanati.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1] They were attracted by its glorification of man, its doctrine of immortality, and its ethical principles, which are more in keeping with the spirit of Talmudic Judaism than are those taught by the philosophers.[1] While Maimonides and his followers regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect, the Zohar declared him to be the lord of the Creation, whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.[1] According to the Zohar, the moral perfection of man influences the ideal world of the Sefirot; for although the Sefirot expect everything from the Ein Sof (Heb. אין סוף, infinity), the Ein Sof itself is dependent upon man: he alone can bring about the divine effusion.[1] The dew that vivifies the universe flows from the just.[1] By the practice of virtue and by moral perfection, man may increase the outpouring of heavenly grace.[1] Even physical life is subservient to virtue.[1] This, says the Zohar, is indicated in the words "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain" (Gen. 2:5), which means that there had not yet been beneficent action in heaven, because man had not yet been created to pray for it.[1]

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.[1]

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.[1]

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.[1]

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. [1]

It is worth noting that most of the major Halachic authorities accept the Zohar as authentic and/or have written works on the Kabala. This includes R' Yosef Karo, R' Moses Isserles, R' Solomon Luria, R' Yechiel Michel Epstein, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (The Alter Rebbe), 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.

Much 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 C.E. and so before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel.

Some in Modern Orthodox Judaism reject the above view as naive. Some Orthodox Jews accept the earlier rabbinic position that the Zohar was a work written in the middle medieval period by Moses de Leon, but argue that since it is obviously based on earlier materials, it can still be held to be authentic, but not as authoritative or without error as others might hold.

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.

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.

Academic historical views

The Encyclopaedia Judaica article written by the late Professor Gershom Scholem (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has an extensive discussion of the sources that the author of the Zohar drew upon. Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of the Kabbalah, but like all textual historical investigations, are not uncriticially accepted; many of the following conclusions are still accepted as accurate, but some current academic scholars of Kabbalah have differing ideas.

Scholem views the author of the Zohar as not writing a totally original work, but rather based the Zohar on a wide variety of Jewish sources that existed before him. The author, however, invents a number of fictious works that the Zohar supposedly quotes, e.g., the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others.

While many original ideas in the Zohar are presented as being from (fictitious) Jewish mystical works, many ancient and clearly rabbinic mystical teachings are presented without their real, identifiable sources being named. Academic studies of the Zohar show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works of midrash, and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:

The writer had expert knowledge of the early material and he often used it as a foundation for his expositions, putting into it variations of his own. His main sources were the Babylonian Talmud, the complete Midrash Rabbah, the Midrash Tanhuma, and the two Pesiktot (Pesikta De-Rav Kahana or Pesikta Rabbati), the Midrash on Psalms, the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and the Targum Onkelos. Generally speaking they are not quoted exactly, but translated into the peculiar style of the Zohar and summarized....
... Less use is made of the halakhic Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the other Targums, nor of the Midrashim like the Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim, the Midrash on Proverbs, and the Alfabet de-R. Akiva. It is not clear whether the author used the Yalkut Shimoni, or whether he knew the sources of its aggadah separately. Of the smaller Midrashim he used the Heikhalot Rabbati, the Alfabet de-Ben Sira, the Sefer Zerubabel, the Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit, [and many others]...

The author of the Zohar drew upon the Bible commentaries written by medieval Jewish rabbis, including Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi and even authorities as late as Nahmanides and Maimonides. Scholem gives a variety of examples of such borrowings.

The Zohar draws upon early mystical texts such as the Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir, and the early medieval writings of the Hasidei Ashkenaz.

Scholem's studies concluded that the author of the Zohar "develops tendencies which appeared first in the writings of the circle of the Gnostics in Castile in the middle of the 13th century ." While this view is still widely accepted as plausible, it is currently being argued that perhaps Scholem has this conclusion backwards. Moshe Idel has argued that the Gnostic views found within the Zohar developed indigenously within Judaism, and from there extended outwards towards adherents of Gnostic theology. A similar approach has been taken by other scholars as well, for example, Yehuda Liebes and Eliiot R. Wolfson. A careful reading of Scholem indicates that Idel's critique is only partially correct. Scholem was equivocal on this point, sometimes arguing that medieval kabbalah was a gnostification of rabbinic thought and practice, and at other time arguing that underlying the ancient gnostic sources we could find a jewish heterodoxy. The latter position is not at odds with the more recent work of Idel, Liebes, and Wolfson.[7]

Mystical Teachings

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, although in the above passage Idel's views were presented as unique. 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 resotration 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 in 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). If his reading is accepted, then Idel's ditheism may not be the most felicitous term to characterize kabbalistic theology.

View of God as a trinity

In Studies in the Zohar, Yehuda Liebes (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, Department of Jewish Thought, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) discusses the rarely mentioned Zoharic teachings which are influenced by the Christian concept of God as a Trinity. Liebes states that the Zohar's secret teaching of God as a trinity might be based on a passage from a midrash, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and thus opines that such a belief in the Trinity is within the realm of traditional Judaism.

It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism. (Studies in the Zohar, pg. 140)

The Zohar's idea of a trinity may derive from the earlier teachings of Hai Gaon; a responsa attributed to Hai Gaon states that:

above all emanated powers, there exist in "the root of all roots" three hidden lights which have no beginning, "for they are the name and essence of the root of all roots and are beyond the grasp of thought." As the "primeval inner light" spreads throughout the hidden root two other lights are kindled, called or mezuhzah and or zah ("sparkling light"). It is stressed that these three lights constitute one essence and one root which is "infinitely hidden" (ne'lam ad le-ein sof), forming a kind of kabbalistic trinity that precedes the emanation of the ten Sefirot. However, it is not sufficiently clear whether the reference is to three lights between the Emanator and the first emanation, or to three lights irradiating one another within the substance of the Emanator itself—both possibilities can be supported.
(Scholem, Kabbalah, Encyclopaedia Judaica)

Scholem states that the need to posit this hidden trinity is because rabbis wanted to reconcile the existence of ten sefirot ("emanation") with a rabbinic teaching that there are thirteen attributes of God. He concludes the matter by cautioning "It is hardly surprising that Christians later found an allusion to their own doctrine of the trinity in this theory, although it contains none of the personal hypostases characteristic of the Christian trinity." (ibid.)

Alan Unterman, Minister of the Yeshurun Synagogue and part-time Lecturer in Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester (UK), writes:

Liebes is also quite convincing in showing Christian parallels to the language and images of the Zohar. He argues that some of the more original Christological elements of the Zohar were censored by Jewish copyists and are preserved by Christian kabbalists. He even finds something of Jesus in the literary persona of Shimon ben Yochai in the Zohar.
The question he leaves unanswered, however, is why members of the Zohar group, who were antagonistic to Christianity, should have been so ambivalent towards Jesus and have used overtly Christian ideas in formulating their system. He merely remarks about "the spiritual affinity," between Judaism and Christianity, which was indeed "among the causes for the animosity between them."
(MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism; Reinterpreting Mysticism and Messianism)

David R. Blumenthal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Emory University, Georgia, USA, holds that the Zoharic version of trinitarianism is misunderstood, and is not the same as Christian trinitarianism.

The historical interlude of the Christian reception of the Zohar in counterreformation Italy aside, it seems to me that a more profound theological question has arisen: If God can, indeed, have personalist dimensions as part of God's own inner being, why should there be only three such dimensions? If God can, indeed, encompass different levels of being, all of which are equal within God's inner-ness, why should there not be as many such levels as necessary? To put it clearly: If God's being is plural, why only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why not Ineffability, Knowability (Father), Intuition (Mother), Grace (male), Judgment (female), Compassion (Husband), Eternity, Awe, Fecundity (male), and Providence (Bride, Mother) — all of which are equally integral to the divine whole? To put it in declarative form: The zoharic dialogue with the trinity leads to the statement: Three is not enough! God, in God's fullness, is more than three. God, in Whose Image humanity is created, has more than three dimensions. The awesome complexity of the human personality — in which Image humanity is created — suggests that there are many more than three basic dimensions to God's personhood. Indeed, if we, humans, are more than trinitarian, certainly God is more than three.
Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking

In addition to the work of Liebes, Elliot Wolfson has written quite extensively on zoharic kabbalah and Christology, focusing especially on trinitarian formulations, the problem of anthropomorphism, and the incarnation. Perhaps his most extensive discussion occurs in chapter five of Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (Fordham University Press, 2005). Wolfson points out that for the kabbalists, the use of human terms to speak about matters divine is not simply understood in the philosophical manner as an approximate way to speak of God figuratively, a concession to the inevitable limitations of embodied human beings who desire to speak of that which is disembodied. On the contrary, from the kabbalistic standpoint, the examples of anthropomorphism in the canonical texts of Scripture indicate that the nature of human corporeality can only be understood in light of divine corporeality, but to comprehend the nature of divine corporeality one must suppose that the body of God is constituted by the letters of the name. The Tetragrammaton, which is the root-word, the origin of all language, the mystical essence of the Torah, comprises within itself the rest of the Hebrew alphabet. The “incarnational insight” on the part of the kabbalists, therefore, affirms that the “onto-graphic inscripting of flesh into word and the consequent conversion of the carnal body into the etheral, luminous body, finally transposed into the literal body, the body that is the letter, hyperliterally, the name that is the Torah.” Contrasting this conception with the more familiar Christological doctrine, Wolfson observed that both narratives “presume a correlation of body and book but in an inverse manner: for Christians, the literal body is embodied in the book of the body; for Jews, the literal body is embodied in the body of the book” (p. 191). Reiterating the point at the conclusion of the chapter, Wolfson writes: "The secret of poetic incarnation imparted by masters of Jewish esoteric lore, beholding the luminous flesh from the word, may be seen as a countermyth to the image of the word/light made flesh in the Johannine prologue, a mythologoumenon that played an inestimable role in fashioning the hermeneutical aesthetic of medieval Christendom. This is not to deny that in the history of Christian devotion the incarnational theme did express itself in terms of textual embodiment. My point is, however, that the mythologic basis for this form of embodiment in Christianity is always the incarnation of the Word in the person of Jesus, whether this is understood veridically or docetically. As a consequence, medieval Christian piety was informed by the exegetical supposition that incarnation of the word in the flesh had the effect of removing the veil of the letter as expounded by Jews, who resolutely refused to accept the spiritual interpretation that the Christological understanding demanded; the literal meaning, intricately bound to the carnal law, thus killed the spirit by obstructing the true knowledge of the Last Things. By contrast, in the kabbalistic wisdom that concretized in the course of the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries, incarnation of the flesh in the word preserved the letter of the veil, as the only credible means to apprehend the inner meaning of the law was thought to be through its outer covering, to behold mysteries of Torah from underneath the garment, to see the image of the imageless embodied iconically in the text that is the textual embodiment of the name" (p. 260).

Pardes and Biblical exegesis

The Zohar assumes four kinds of Biblical exegesis: Peshat ("simple/literal meaning"), Remez ("hint/allusion"), Derash ("interpretative/anagogical), and Sod ("secret/mystic").[1] 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.[1] Note also the similarity to the word and concept of "paradise."

The mystic allegory in the Zohar is based on the principle that all visible things, including natural phenomena, have both an exoteric reality and an esoteric reality, the latter of which instructs Man in that which is invisible.[1]

This principle is the necessary corollary of the fundamental doctrine of the Zohar.[1] According to that doctrine, as the universe is a gradation of emanations, it follows that the human mind may recognize in each effect the supreme mark, and thus ascend to the cause of all causes.[1]

This ascension, however, can only be made gradually, after the mind has attained four various stages of knowledge; namely: (1) the knowledge of the exterior aspect of things, or, as the Zohar calls it (ii. 36b), "the vision through the mirror that projects an indirect light"; (2) the knowledge of the essence of things, or "the vision through the mirror that projects a direct light"; (3) the knowledge through intuitive representation; and (4) the knowledge through love, since the Law reveals its secrets only to those who love it (ii. 99b).[1]

After the knowledge through love comes the ecstatic state which is applied to the most holy visions.[1] To enter the state of ecstasy one had to remain motionless, with the head between the knees, absorbed in contemplation and murmuring prayers and hymns.[1]

There were seven ecstatic stages, each of which was marked by a vision of a different color.[1] At each new stage the contemplative entered a heavenly hall (hekal) of a different hue, until he reached the seventh, which was colorless, and the appearance of which marked both the end of his contemplation and his lapse into unconsciousness.[1]

The Zohar gives the following illustration of an ecstatic state:

One of the most central parts of the Zohar is its interpretation of Biblical text. The Biblical exegesis of the Zohar has been described in the past as a "Mystical interpretation of Biblical verses," however this does not accurately describe the Zohar's relationship to the biblical text. As is often the case in mystical traditions, the author or authors of the Zohar are not satisfied examining anything from a superficial level. This is especially true regarding the Biblical text, where four different levels of increasingly secretive reading are presented. Collectively known as PaRDeS, they include Peshat (most simple) Remez , Drash and Sod (most secretive). Interestingly, unlike many philosophical books of its time, the Zohar works closely with the Biblical text. Its authors closely analyze verses from the Bible, trying to make sense of them without imposing any ideology on to them from the outside. Often, the most enigmatic verses can be understood only after the nuances in the biblical text have been sufficiently understood. Unlike many medieval commentators, the Zohar does not apply any sort of order to systematic thought when trying to understand the Bible. In his book Mishnat Hazohar, Isaiah Tishby describes the style of the Zohar as a "homiletical exegesis." Similarly the style is associative and many verses are explained multiple ways through a constructed dialogue. However Tishby also notes that this lack of structure also has its downsides. The reader who is unfamiliar with the internal logic of the Zohar will find it very difficult to decipher its message.

Perhaps the most unique aspect of the Zohar's exegesis is its relationship to the Bible itself. Unlike most commentators who develop a subject-object relationship with the text, the Zohar describes a different sort of relationship, comparing the Torah to a lover. This sort of subject-subject relationship allows the reader of the Torah (the author of the Zohar) to engage in a sort of playful dialogue with the text. Significant is Elliot Wolfson's argument in "Beautiful Maiden Without Eyes: Peshat and Sod in Zoharic Hermeneutics,” in The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish Exegesis, Thought, and History, edited by Michael Fishbane (State University of New York Press, 1993), 155-203, that the zoharic understanding of the literal and mystical is such that the two are in essence one. For one who first sets out on the path, it seems as if the inner and outer are separate, but as one becomes enlightened, one comes to understand that the external is the internal, and the internal is external. In more recent work, for example, in Language, Eros, Being, Wolfson develops his earlier insight by speaking of the dialectic of concealment and disclosure. Prone to paradoxical modes of expression, Wolfson has argued that the secret is seen from within the garment of the text, and not by discarding that garment. In Wolfson's formulation, the mystery lies right on the surface. In that sense, the text of Torah comprises everything; indeed, from the standpoint of the Zohar, the Torah is the name of God, and just as the name is hidden (the written form YHWH is not pronounced) and revealed (it is vocalized by its epithet Adonai), so the Torah is hidden and revealed. The mystic sage, who is the lover of the Torah, knows, however, that the hidden and the revealed are not paradoxically the same. Wolfson has also argued (in the fifth chapter of Language, Eros, Being) that this insight on the part of the zoharic kabbalists is a tacit polemic against Christian exegesis, which is based on a sharper distinction between the literal and the mystical. The kabbalist resists any notion of reaching the spirit of the text without taking hold of the letter.

Effects on 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.[1] 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.[1]

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.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1]

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.[1] 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.[1]

Originally, many held that only Jewish men who were at least 40 years old could study Kabbalah, and by extension read the Zohar, because they were believed to be too powerful for those less emotionally mature and experienced.

Influence 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.[8] 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 in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one.[8] He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another.[8][These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One.[8] None knows what He contains; He is above all conception.[8] He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [Ayin]"[8] (Zohar, iii. 288b).

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.[8] Shortly after the publication of the work (Mantua and Cremona, 1558) Joseph de Voisin translated extracts from it which deal with the soul.[8] He was followed by many others.[8]

The disastrous effects of the Sabbatai Zevi messianic movement on the Jewish community dampened the enthusiasm that had been felt for the book in the Jewish community.[8] However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Hasidim (Hasidic Jews).[8]

Appendices and additions

The Zohar is not considered complete without the addition of certain appendixes, which are often attributed either to the same author, or to some of his immediate disciples. These supplementary portions are almost always printed as part of the text with separate titles, or in separate columns. They are as follows:[1]

  • 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;[1]
  • Idra Rabbah, in which the teachings of the preceding portion are enlarged upon and developed;[1] and Idra Zuta, giving a résumé of the two preceding sections.[1]

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;[1]
  • Sefer Hekalot, describing the seven heavenly halls, paradise, and hell;[1]
  • 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.[1]
  • Sitre Torah, on various topics;[1]
  • Midrash ha-Ne'elam, explaining passages of Scripture mystically by way of hints and gematria (mystical numerology);[1]
  • Saba, containing a conversation between the prophet Elijah and Shimon ben Yochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis;[1]
  • 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");[1]
  • Tosefta and Matnitin, in which are sketched the doctrines of the Sefirot, the emanation of the primordial light, etc.

[1]

English translations

  • Matt, Daniel C., trans. Zohar: Pritzker Edition (3 vols. to date). Stanford: Stanford University Press, . (The first three volumes of a projected 12-volume, comprehensively-annotated English translation)
  • ____. 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, . (The only complete English translation)
  • 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.

Notes

  1. 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 1.49 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.53 1.54 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.58 1.59 1.60 Jacobs, Joseph.; Broydé, Isaac "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls Company.
  2. Gershom Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah. (Schocken, 1997), pg. 265.
  3. Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.
  4. Scharfstein, Sol (2004). Jewish History and You II, Jewish History and You. Jersey City, NJ, USA: KTAV Publishing House, p. 24. 
  5. Lag BaOmer: Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochi
  6. Sinai
  7. Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives. (Yale University Press, 1990); Yehuda Liebes, "How the Zohar was Written," in Studies in the Zohar (Albany: SUNY, 1993), pp. 85-138.
  8. 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 Jacobs, Joseph.; Broydé, Isaac "Zohar". Jewish Encyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls Company.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Blumenthal, David R. "Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking", in Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich, ed. M. Vial Theodore and Mark Hadley. Brown Judaic Studies, 2001. ISBN 978-1930675063
  • Dennis, Geoffrey. The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism, Llewellyn Worldwide, 2007. ISBN 978-0738709055
  • Liebes, Yehuda. Studies in the Zohar, SUNY Press, SUNY series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion, 1993. ISBN 978-0791411896
  • Scholem, Gershom. Kabbalah in Encyclopadeia Judaica, Keter Publishing
  • Scholem, Gershom. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah. (Schocken, 1997), pg. 265. ISBN 978-0805210811

External Links

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.