| Zohar | |
|---|---|
 Title page of the first printed edition of the Zohar,Mantua, 1558 | |
| Information | |
| Religion | Judaism |
| Author | Moses de León |
| Language | Aramaic,Medieval Hebrew |
| Period | High medieval |
| Full text | |
 Zohar at HebrewWikisource | |
| Zohar at English Wikisource | |
TheZohar (Hebrew:זֹהַר,romanized: Zōhar,lit. 'Splendor' or 'Radiance'[a]) is afoundational work of Kabbalistic literature.[1] It is a group of books including commentary on the mystical aspects of theTorah and scriptural interpretations as well as material onmysticism, mythicalcosmogony, and mysticalpsychology. TheZohar contains discussions of the nature ofGod, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of ego[citation needed] to darkness and "true self" to "the light of God".
TheZohar was first publicized byMoses de León (c. 1240 – 1305 CE), who claimed it was aTannaitic work recording the teachings ofSimeon ben Yochai[b] (c. 100 CE). This claim is universally rejected by modern scholars, most of whom believe de León, also an infamous forger ofGeonic material, wrote the book himself between 1280 and 1286. Some scholars argue that theZohar is the work of multiple medieval authors and/or contains a small amount of genuinely antique novel material. Later additions to theZohar, includingTiqqune hazZohar andRa'ya Meheimna, were composed by a 14th century imitator.
According toGershom Scholem and other modern scholars, Zoharic Aramaic is an artificial dialect largely based on a linguistic fusion of theBabylonian Talmud andTargum Onkelos, but confused by de León's simple and imperfect grammar, his limited vocabulary, and his reliance on loanwords, including from contemporaneous medieval languages.[2][3][4] The author further confused his text with occasional strings of Aramaic-seeminggibberish, in order to give the impression of obscure knowledge.[5]
The original text of theZohar, as cited by various earlyKabbalists beginning around the 14th century (e.g.Isaac b. Samuel of Acre, David b. Judah the Pious,Israel Alnaqua,Alfonso de Zamora) was partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic.[c] By the time of the first edition (1558) the text was entirely in Aramaic,[6] with the exception of theMidrash haNe'elam, where Hebrew words and phrases are often employed as in theBabylonian Talmud. "The Hebrew of theMidrash haNe'elam is similar in its overall form to the language of the early midrashim, but its specific vocabulary, idioms, and stylistic characteristics bear the imprint ofmedieval Hebrew, and its midrashic manner is clearly that of a later imitation."[5]
Authorship of theZohar was questioned from the outset, due to the claim that it was discovered by one person and referred to historical events of the post-Talmudic period while purporting to be from an earlier date.[7]Abraham Zacuto's 1504 workSefer Yuhasin (first printed 1566) quotes from the KabbalistIsaac ben Samuel of Acre's 13th century memoirDivre hayYamim (lost), which claims that the widow and daughter of de León revealed that he had written it himself and only ascribed the authorship to Simeon ben Yochai for personal profit:
And [Isaac] went to Spain, to investigate how it happened in his time that the Book of the Zohar was found, which Simeon ben Yochai andhis son Elazar had made in the cave . . . and some say that [de Leon] forged it among his forgeries,[d] but [Isaac later] said that thePalestinian Aramaic[e] sections were genuinely written by Simeon b. Yochai[f] . . . And [Isaac] wrote:
- Because I had seen that these words were wonderous, that they ran from a well high above which is beyond those uninitiated into the secrets of the divine, I chased after it and I asked the scholars . . . and some said it had fallen into the hand of the sage Moses de Leon, whom they call Moses of Guadalajara, and some said Simeon ben Yochai had never written this book, but that Moses had written these wonderous words and falsely ascribed them to Simeon ben Yochai and his son Elazar in order to sell them for huge sums of money. And I went to Spain, to the capital city of Valladolid, and presented myself to Moses, and was received favorably, and he swore to me by the Lord that the ancient book of Simeon ben Yochai was that day in his house in Ávila, and that he would show it to me when I visited him, and Moses parted from me to return home, but he sickened inArévalo on the way, and he died there, and when I heard of this I was mortally pained, and I took to the road, and I came to Ávila, and I found a great old sage there named David dePancorbo,[g] and he received me favorably, and I demanded he explain to me the secrets of the Book of the Zohar, about which men were disputing, and about which Moses himself had sworn beyond doubt until his death, but about which I did not know upon whom to rely or whom to trust, and he told me, "Know in truth that it is clear to me beyond doubt that it never came to the hand of this Moses, and that there is no Book of the Zohar except that of which Moses himself wrote every word. Know that this Moses was a great spendthrift; one day his house was filled with treasures that the wealthy mystics had given him in exchange for excerpts, and the next his wife and children were starving naked in the street. So when we heard that he had died in Arévalo, I went to the house of the richest man in the city, Joseph de Ávila,[h] and said to him, 'Now the time has come for you to earn the priceless Zohar if you will do what I advise', and he followed my advice, and he sent his wife to the house of Moses' widow, and she said to her, 'Know that my wish is to marry your daughter to my son, and I ask nothing from you except the Book of the Zohar from which your husband excerpted for many people,' and Moses' widow swore to Joseph's wife, 'By the Lord, my husband never had such a book except in his mind, and everything he wrote came from his own intellect. When I saw him writing, I asked him why he claimed to be excerpting from a book I knew he did not have, and he told me that it was because, while for his own words they would not give a penny, for the divinely inspired work of Simeon ben Yochai they will pay in blood.' And Moses' daughter said exactly the same." Can you ask for better proof than this?
Isaac goes on to say that he obtained mixed evidence of Zohar's authenticity from other Spanish Kabbalists, but the fragment ends abruptly, mid-sentence, without any conclusion. Though Isaac is willing to quote it in hisOtzar haChayyim[8] and hisMeirat Einayim,[9] he does so rarely.[10] Isaac's testimony was censored from the second edition (1580)[11] and remained absent from all editions thereafter until its restoration nearly 300 years later in the 1857 edition.[12][13] In 1243 a different Jew had reportedly found a different ancient mystical book in a cave nearToledo, which may have been de Leon's inspiration.[14][15]
Within fifty years of its appearance in Spain it was quoted by Kabbalists, including theItalian mystical writerMenahem Recanati andTodros ben Joseph Abulafia. However,Joseph ben Waqar harshly attacked theZohar,[16] which he considered inauthentic,[17] and some Jewish communities, such as theDor Daim from Yemen,Andalusian (Western Sefardic orSpanish and Portuguese Jews), and some Italian communities, never accepted it as authentic.[7] Other early Kabbalists, such asDavid b. Judah the Pious (fl. c. 1300),Abraham b. Isaac of Granada, (fl. c. 1300), andDavid b. Amram of Aden (fl. c. 1350), so readily imitate its pseudepigraphy by ascribing contemporaries' statements to Zoharic sages that it is obvious they understood its nature.[5][18] The manuscripts of theZohar are from the 14th-16th centuries.[19]
By the 15th century, theZohar's authority in theIberian Jewish community was such thatJoseph ibn Shem-Tov drew arguments from it in his attacks againstMaimonides, and even representatives of non-mystical Jewish thought began to assert its sacredness and invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions. In Jacobs' and Broyde's view, they were attracted by itsglorification of man, its doctrine ofimmortality, and its ethical principles, which they saw as more in keeping with the spirit ofTalmudic Judaism than are those taught by thephilosophers, and which was held in contrast to the view of Maimonides and his followers, who regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect. TheZohar instead declared Man to bethe lord of creation, whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.[7]
Conversely,Elia del Medigo (c. 1458 – c. 1493), in hisBeḥinat ha-Dat, endeavored to show that theZohar could not be attributed to Simeon ben Yochai, by a number of arguments. He claims that if it were his work, theZohar would have been mentioned by theTalmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period; he claims that had ben Yochai known by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions onJewish law from the Talmudic period would have been adopted by the Talmud, that it would not contain the names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of ben Yochai; he claims that if the Kabbalah were a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts.[7][20]
Believers in the authenticity of theZohar countered that the lack of references to the work in Jewish literature was because ben Yochai did not commit his teachings to writing but transmitted them orally to his disciples over generations until finally the doctrines were embodied in theZohar. They found it unsurprising that ben Yochai should have foretold future happenings or made references to historical events of the post-Talmudic period.[7]
By the late 16th century, theZohar was present in one-tenth of all private Jewish libraries in Mantua.[21] The authenticity of theZohar was accepted by such 16th century Jewish luminaries asJoseph Karo (d. 1575), andSolomon Luria (d. 1574), who wrote nonetheless that Jewish law does not follow theZohar when it is contradicted by the Babylonian Talmud.[22]
Luria writes that theZohar cannot even override aminhag.[23]Moses Isserles (d. 1572) writes that he "heard" that the author of theZohar is ben Yochai.[24]Elijah Levita (d. 1559) did not believe in its antiquity,[25] nor didJoseph Scaliger (d. 1609)[26] orLouis Cappel (d. 1658) orJohannes Drusius (d. 1616).[27]David ibn abi Zimra (d. 1573) held that one can follow theZohar only when it does not conflict with any other source[28] and records that "You asked me about scribes modifyingtorah scrolls to accord with theZohar ... and I was shocked, for how can they consider theZohar better than the Talmud Bavli, which has come down to us?[i] ... So I went myself to the house of the scribe and I found three scrolls which he had edited, and I fixed them, and I restored the Torah to its proper glory."[29]
Debate continued over the generations; del Medigo's arguments were echoed byLeon of Modena (d. 1648) in hisAri Nohem, byJean Morin (d. 1659), and byJacob Emden (d. 1776).
Emden—who may have been familiar with Modena through Morin's arguments[7]—devoted a book to the criticism of theZohar, calledMitpachas Sefarim (מטפחת ספרים), in an effort against the remaining adherents of theSabbatean movement (in whichSabbatai Zevi, aJewish apostate, cited Messianic prophecies from theZohar as proof of his legitimacy). Emden argued that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery, arguing that theZohar:
Saul Berlin (d. 1794) argued that the presence of an introduction in theZohar, unknown to the Talmudic literary genre, itself indicates a medieval date.[30]
In theAshkenazi community of Eastern Europe, religious authorities includingElijah of Vilna (d. 1797) andShneur Zalman of Liadi (d. 1812) believed in the authenticity of theZohar, whileEzekiel Landau (d. 1793), in hisseferDerushei HaTzlach (דרושי הצל"ח),[31] argued that theZohar is to be considered unreliable as it was made public many hundreds of years after Ben Yochai's death and lacks an unbroken tradition of authenticity, among other reasons.[32]
Isaac Satanow accepted Emden's arguments and referred to theZohar as a forgery,[33] also offering new evidence.[15] By 1813Samuel David Luzzatto had concluded that "these books [the Zohar and the Tiqqunei Zohar] are utter forgeries," in part because they repeatedly discuss theHebrew cantillation marks, which were not invented until the 9th century.[15] In 1817 Luzzatto published these arguments, and in 1825 he penned a fuller treatise, giving many reasons why theZohar could not be ancient. However, he did not publish this until 1852, when he felt it justified by the rise ofHasidism.[34][15] Moses Landau (d. 1852), Ezekiel's grandson, published the same conclusion in 1822.[35] Isaac Haver (d. 1852) admits the vast majority of content comes from the 13th century but argues that there was a genuine core.[36]Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport (d. 1867) spoke against theZohar's antiquity.[37]Eliakim ha-Milzahgi (d. 1854) accepted Emden's arguments.[38]
The influence of theZohar in Yemen contributed to the formation of theDor Deah movement, led byYiḥyah Qafiḥ in the later part of the 19th century. Among its objects was the opposition of the influence of theZohar, as presented in Qafiḥ'sMilhamoth Hashem (Wars of the Lord)[39] andDa'at Elohim.
Shlomo Zalman Geiger (d. 1878), in his bookDivrei Kehilot on the liturgical practice ofFrankfurt am Main, records that "We do not saybrikh shmei in Frankfurt, because its source is in theZohar, and the sages of Frankfurt refused to accept Qabbalah."[40]
In 1892,Adolf Neubauer called on theOrthodox rabbinate to reject theZohar as a forgery and to remove Zoharic prayers from the liturgy.[6] However,Yechiel Michel Epstein (d. 1908) andYisrael Meir Kagan (d. 1933) both believed in the authenticity of theZohar, as didMenachem Mendel Kasher (d. 1983),Aryeh Kaplan (d. 1983),[8]David Luria (d. 1855),[41] andChaim Kanievsky (d. 2022).[42] The foremost halachik authority of the 20th Century, Moshe Feinstein, stated unequivocally that theZohar andTikkunim are words of the Tannaim.[43]Aryeh Carmell (d. 2006) did not, andEliyahu Dessler (d. 1953) accepted the possibility that it was composed in the 13th century.Gedaliah Nadel (d. 2004) was unsure if theZohar were genuine but was sure that it is acceptable to believe that it is not.[44]Ovadia Yosef (d. 2013) held that Orthodox Jews should accept theZohar's antiquity in practice based on medieval precedent, but agreed that rejecting it is rational and religiously valid.[42]Joseph Hertz (d. 1946) called the claim of ben Yochai's authorship "untenable", citingGershom Scholem's evidence.[45]Samuel Belkin (d. 1976) argued that the Mystical Midrash section, specifically, predated de León.[46]Joseph B. Soloveitchik (d. 1993) apparently dismissed theZohar's antiquity.[42]Moses Gaster (d. 1939) wrote that the claim of ben Yochai's authorship was "untenable" but that Moses de León had compiled earlier material.[47]Meir Mazuz (d. 2025) accepts Emden's arguments.[42]Yeshayahu Leibowitz wrote (1990) that "Moses de León composed theZohar in the 1270s as certainly asTheodor Herzl composedDer Judenstaat in the 1890s ... theZohar was influential because in every generation the idolatrous influence outpowers the true faith".[48]
Early attempts includedM. H. Landauer'sVorläufiger Bericht über meine Entdeckung in Ansehung des Sohar (1845), which fingeredAbraham Abulafia as the author, andSamuel David Luzzatto'sויכוח על חכמת הקבלה (1852), but the first systematic and critical academic proof for the authorship of Moses de León was given byAdolf Jellinek in his 1851 monograph "Moses ben Shem-tob de León und sein Verhältnis zum Sohar". Jellinek's proofs, which combined previous analyses withIsaac of Acre's testimony and comparison of theZohar to de Leon's Hebrew works, were accepted by every other major scholar in the field, includingHeinrich Graetz (History of the Jews, vol. 7),Moritz Steinschneider,Bernhard Beer,Leopold Zunz, andChristian David Ginsburg. Ginsburg summarized Jellinek's, Graetz's, and other scholars' proofs for the English-reading world in 1865, also introducing several novel proofs, including that theZohar includes a translation of a poem bySolomon ibn Gabirol (d. 1058) and that it includes a mystical explanation of amezuzah style only introduced in the 13th century.[49]Adolf Neubauer andSamuel Rolles Driver were convinced by these arguments, butEdward Bouverie Pusey held to aTannaitic date.[50]
By 1913, the critical view had apparently lost some support:Israel Abrahams recalls that "Zunz, like Graetz, had little patience with the Zohar . . . at this date we are much more inclined to treat the Kabbalah with respect."[51]
Gershom Scholem, who was to found modern academic study ofKabbalah, began his career at theHebrew University of Jerusalem in 1925 with a lecture in which he promised to refute Graetz and Jellinek.[9] However, after years of research, he came to conclusions similar to theirs by 1938, when he argued again that de León was the most likely author. Scholem noted theZohar's frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces ofArabic andSpanish words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of theLand of Israel, among other proofs.[2]
Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of Kabbalah, but they are not uncritically accepted. Scholars who continue to research the background of theZohar includeYehuda Liebes (who wrote his doctorate thesis for Scholem on the subject,Dictionary of the Vocabulary of the Zohar in 1976), andDaniel C. Matt, a student of Scholem's who has published acritical edition of theZohar.[52]
Academic studies of theZohar show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works ofmidrash, and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:[2]
At the same time, Scholem says, the author "invent[ed] a number of fictitious works that theZohar 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."
TheZohar also draws from theBible commentaries written by medieval rabbis, includingRashi,Abraham ibn Ezra,David Kimhi and even authorities as late asNachmanides andMaimonides, and earlier mystical texts such as theSefer Yetzirah and theBahir and the medieval writings of theHasidei Ashkenaz.
Another influence that Scholem, and scholars like Yehudah Liebes and Ronit Meroz have identified[53] was a circle of Spanish Kabbalists inCastile who dealt with the appearance of an evil side emanating from within the world of thesefirot. Scholem saw thisdualism of good and evil within the Godhead as a kind ofgnostic inclination within Kabbalah, and as a predecessor of theSitra Ahra (the other, evil side) in theZohar. The main text of the Castile circle, theTreatise on the Left Emanation, was written byJacob ha-Cohen around 1265.[54]
Tikunei haZohar was first printed inMantua in 1557. The main body of theZohar was printed inCremona in 1558 (a one-volume edition), in Mantua in 1558-1560 (a three-volume edition), and inSalonika in 1597 (a two-volume edition). Each of these editions included somewhat different texts.[55] When they were printed there were many partial manuscripts in circulation that were not available to the first printers. These were later printed asZohar Chadash (lit. 'New Radiance'), butZohar Chadash actually contains parts that pertain to theZohar, as well asTikunim (plural ofTikun, "Repair", see alsoTikkun olam) that are akin toTikunei haZohar, as described below. The termZohar, in usage, may refer to just the firstZohar collection, with or without the applicable sections ofZohar Chadash, or to the entireZohar and Tikunim.
Citations referring to theZohar conventionally follow the volume and page numbers of the Mantua edition, while citations referring toTikkunei haZohar follow the edition of Ortakoy (Constantinople) 1719 whose text and pagination became the basis for most subsequent editions. Volumes II and III begin their numbering anew, so citation can be made byparashah and page number (e.g.Zohar: Nasso 127a), or by volume and page number (e.g.Zohar III:127a).[citation needed]
After the book of theZohar had been printed (in Mantua and in Cremona, in the Jewish years 5318–5320 or 1558–1560? CE), many more manuscripts were found that included paragraphs pertaining to theZohar which had not been included in printed editions. The manuscripts pertained also to all parts of theZohar; some were similar toZohar on the Torah, some were similar to the inner parts of theZohar (Midrash haNe'elam, Sitrei Otiyot and more), and some pertained toTikunei haZohar. Some thirty years after the first edition of theZohar was printed, the manuscripts were gathered and arranged according to theparashiyot of the Torah and themegillot (apparently the arrangement was done by the Kabbalist, Avraham haLevi ofTsfat), and were printed first in Salonika in Jewish year 5357 (1587? CE), and then in Kraków (5363), and afterwards in various editions.[56]
According to Scholem, theZohar can be divided into 21 types of content, of which the first 18 (a.–s.) are the work of the original author (probably de Leon) and the final 3 (t.–v.) are the work of a later imitator.
a. Untitled Torah commentary
A "bulky part" which is "wholly composed of discursive commentaries on various passages from the Torah".[2]
b. Book of Concealment (ספרא דצניעותא)
A short part of only six pages, containing a commentary to the first six chapters ofGenesis. It is "highly oracular and obscure," citing no authorities and explaining nothing.
c. Greater Assembly (אדרא רבא)
This part contains an explanation of the oracular hints in the previous section. Ben Yochai's friends gather together to discuss secrets of Kabbalah. After the opening of the discussion by ben Yochai, the sages rise, one after the other, and lecture on the secret of Divinity, while ben Yochai adds to and responds to their words. The sages become steadily more ecstatic until three of them die. Scholem calls this part "architecturally perfect."
d. Lesser Assembly (אדרא זוטא)
Ben Yochai dies and a speech is quoted in which he explains the previous section.
e. Assembly of the Tabernacle (אדרא דמשכנא)
This part has the same structure asc. but discusses instead the mysticism ofprayer.
f. Palaces (היכלות)
Seven palaces of light are described, which are perceived by the devout in death. This description appears again in another passage, heavily embellished.
g. Secretum Secretorum (רזא דרזין)
An anonymous discourse onphysiognomy and a discourse onchiromancy by ben Yochai.
h. Old Man (סבא)
An elaborate narrative about a speech by an old Kabbalist.
i. Child (ינוקא)
A story of a prodigy and his Kabbalistic speech.
k. Head of the Academy (רב מתיבתא)
APardes narrative in which a head of the celestial academy reveals secrets about the destinies of the soul.
l. Secrets of Torah (סתרי תורה)
Allegorical and mystical interpretations of Torah passages.
m.Mishnas (מתניתין)
Imitations of theMishnaic style, designed to introduce longer commentaries in the style of the Talmud.
n. Zohar to the Song of Songs
Kabbalistic commentary to theSong of Songs.
o. Standard of Measure (קו המידה)
Profound interpretation ofDeut. 6:4.
p. Secrets of Letters (סתרי אותיות)
A monologue by ben Yochai on the letters in thenames of God and their use in creation.
q. Commentary to theMerkabah
r. Mystical Midrash (מדרש הנעלם)
A Kabbalistic commentary on the Torah, citing a wide variety of Talmudic sages. According toRamaz, it is fit to be calledMidrash haNe'elam because "its topic is mostly theneshamah (an upper level of soul), the source of which is inBeri'ah, which is the place of the upperGan Eden; and it is written in thePardes thatdrash is inBeri'ah... and the revealed midrash is the secret of externality, andMidrash haNe'elam is the secret of internality, which is the neshamah. And thisderush is founded on the neshamah; its name befits it—Midrash haNe'elam.[57]
The language ofMidrash haNe'elam is sometimesHebrew, sometimes Aramaic, and sometimes both mixed. Unlike the body of theZohar, itsdrashot are short and not long. Also, the topics it discusses—the work of Creation, the nature of the soul, the days ofMashiach, andOlam Haba—are not of the type found in theZohar, which are the nature of God, theemanation of worlds, the "forces" of evil, and more.
s. Mystic Midrash on Ruth
A commentary on theBook of Ruth in the same style.
t. Faithful Shepherd (רעיא מהימנא)
By far the largest "book" included in theZohar, this is a Kabbalistic commentary onMoses' teachings revealed to ben Yochai and his friends.[56]Moshe Cordovero said, "Know that this book, which is calledRa'aya Meheimna, which ben Yochai made with thetzadikim who are in Gan Eden, was a repair of theShekhinah, and an aid and support for it in the exile, for there is no aid or support for the Shekhinah besides the secrets of the Torah... And everything that he says here of the secrets and the concepts—it is all with the intention of unifying the Shekhinah and aiding it during the exile.[58]
u. Rectifications of the Zohar (תקוני זוהר)
Tikunei haZohar, which was printed as a separate book, includes seventy commentaries calledTikunim (lit. 'Repairs') and an additional elevenTikunim. In some editions,Tikunim are printed that were already printed in theZohar Chadash, which in their content and style also pertain toTikunei haZohar.[56]
Each of the seventyTikunim ofTikunei haZohar begins by explaining the wordBereshit (בראשית), and continues by explaining other verses, mainly inparashat Bereshit, and also from the rest ofTanakh. And all this is in the way ofSod, in commentaries that reveal the hidden and mystical aspects of the Torah.
Tikunei haZohar andRa'aya Meheimna are similar in style, language, and concepts, and are different from the rest of theZohar. For example, the idea of theFour Worlds is found inTikunei haZohar andRa'aya Meheimna but not elsewhere, as is true of the very use of the term "Kabbalah". In terminology, what is called Kabbalah inTikunei haZohar andRa'aya Meheimna is simply calledrazin (clues or hints) in the rest of theZohar.[59] InTikunei haZohar there are many references tochibura kadma'ah (meaning "the earlier book"). This refers to the main body of theZohar.[59]
v. Further Additions
These include laterTikkunim and other texts in the same style.
On the one hand, theZohar 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.[7] In many placesprayer 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.[7]
According to theJewish Encyclopedia, "On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated manysuperstitious 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."[7] Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation ofJewish 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 traditionalRabbinic Judaism.[7] For example,Shabbat, the JewishSabbath, 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.[7]
Elements of theZohar crept into the liturgy of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the religious poets not only used the allegorism and symbolism of theZohar in their compositions, but even adopted its style, e.g. the use of erotic terminology to illustrate the relations between man and God.[7] 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.[7]
TheZohar is also credited with popularizing de Leon'sPaRDeS codification of biblical exegesis.[citation needed]
According to theJewish Encyclopedia, "The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such asGiovanni Pico della Mirandola,Johann Reuchlin,Aegidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth ofChristianity.[60] They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of theZohar and certain Christian dogmas, such as thefall and redemption of man, and the dogma of theTrinity, which seems to be expressed in theZohar in the following terms:
The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [Ayin][60] (Zohar, iii. 288b).
According to theJewish Encyclopedia, "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."[60]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)[...] but upon examining many of the original manuscripts of theZohar dating from the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries [...]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) | This article'suse ofexternal links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Pleaseimprove this article by removingexcessive orinappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate intofootnote references.(September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
ספר הזהר, Sefer haZohar, Zohar text in original AramaicTranslation:Zohar at English Wikisource| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Population |
| ||
| Languages (Diasporic) |
| ||
| Philosophy | |||
| Branches | |||
| Literature | |||
| Culture | |||
| Studies |
| ||
Italics indicateextinct languages | |||
