The Ramchal himself expresses a similar point of view in his work Adir b'Marom and therefor although there may be people who don't want such ideas to become known, they are already known. Furthermore R. Ashlag (who was friendly with R. Kook) wrote a mamar in which he expressed the idea that the origin of the Zohar is not so relevant because anyone who understands the material in the Zohar (as R. Ashlag said he did) understands its importance and authenticity no matter when it was written. So it is not surprising that R. Kook might have held such opinions yet at the same time revered the Zohar as a Holy work. The whole idea of "Reya Mehemnah" is that the soul of Moshe comes and speaks to the author of the Zohar.... so implicit in the text itself is the very idea that one who is no longer alive can in fact "author" a work long after he has passed away.
I totally relate to this methodology. My difficulty is that given we have this problem (robitic learning אנשים מצוות מלומדה) for generations, as pointed out by the Rabbi, how is it that we still say “this is the way we poskin”. I would like to make a donation.
As an Outsider, who studies alot, I firmly concluded in my teenage years that the Rectification of Radiance was from the 12th / 13th century, not to be arrogant. Then in my twenties when I approached the work again, I was firmly convinced it was from at least the 13th century-ish. Then when I started taking things seriously in my 30s (after I got sick), my suspicion remained the same, I always understood it being "in the spirit of the 'age'... ' but in all practicality anyone who has read it should firmly be aware that it is not from 1800 years ago. Sorry, I just don't understand. Thanks for the letter though, it just again confirms I'm going to start relying more on my intuition...
@Menachem Mevashir YW. Daniel Matts spent 17 years translating the Aramaic and commenting on the Zohar ( Pritzker Zohar if you want to buy it). He realized upon translating the Aramaic that it was written in the 13th century by Moses De Leon. Moses had stated he found the original ancient Zohar written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai so his work would be taken seriously.
@Menachem Mevashir here is a link: ua-cam.com/video/Q80hzEvQ-84/v-deo.html. He has quite a few videos on the Zohar that are very well done. He thinks it’s worth reading but not as a normal book. It’s more about reading a few pages, reflecting and coming to your own interpretation. He does not agree with everything that is written but found many gems within the pages. I have not read the Zohar nor bought his Zohar set. I have been doing spiritual healing for over 20 years and watch a variety of educational videos on spirituality.
When I studied Machshevet Yisrael at the Hebrew University, I already heard the lecturers refer the Zoharic literature to belong to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Zoharic literature is a result of the oppression and persecution many Jews underwent in those centuries and the restrictions on teaching the Torah. I myself felt that this oppression and persecution is expressed in many ways through the Zoharic literature. As you mention that many maniscripts are hidden from public view by well known and lesser known rabbis, it creates a cloud of secrecy that is endemic in Zoharic literature. I am glad that the Hebrew University, just as you do, has the attitude to make everything available for public reference. Again we see how the actions of antisemites influence the creation of Jewish literature. If we could remove the actions of antisemites of the 13th and 14th centuries, I doubt that we would ever have had the Zoharic literature. I tend to see the development of Judaism within the cultural and spiritual environment Jews lived in through the ages. May Ruach HaKodesh enlighten us all with true wisdom and humility and cleans us from all evil intentions.
I am not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion but logic makes me ask could it be that the author in the 13th century could be writing down in his time in his own words what was a received tradition? I mean that is what those who claim it was from Sinai say. That it was written down much later. Not sure how the style and lexicon matching 13th century proves anything
I work in the National Library, I'll check that writting, maybe it should be placed in the nedirim (rare books) section, rather than in the Sholem ulam.
Why is it controversial to believe the Zohar HaKadosh was transmitted orally until the 13th century when it was finally written down? Just like the Mishna may have some Greek words no one suspects the Mishna was created by the Tannaim. So too the Zohar was given by R Shimon bar Yohai and his Talmud im but written down later.
Soon after its dissemination, The Zohar was known to not be authored by Simeon ben Yohai. Moses De Leon, the actual author, chose to credit his own teachings to Simeon ben Yohai because, as he told his wife, it would be a rich source of profit. And for the 20 years he was writing it, and selling the pamphlets, it was. Every serious modern scholar, from Gershom Scholem to Daniel Matt, reached the same conclusion; it is a pseudepigraphic work which pretends to be a revelation from God communicated through Simeon ben Yoḥai to the latter's select disciples. Scholem, in the introduction of his book "Zohar, The Book of Splendor, Basic Readings From the Kabbalah", wrote the following: Soon, however, the light shadow of scandal that had fallen upon its publication and initial appearance in the world of literature, the enigma of the illegitimate birth of a literary forgery, disappeared and was forgotten. Very slowly but surely the influence of the Zohar grew; and when the groups among which it had gained dominion proved themselves in the storms of Jewish history to be the bearers of a new religious attitude that not only laid claim to, but in fact achieved, authority, then the Zohar in a late but exceedingly intensive afterglow of national life came to fulfil the great historical task of a sacred text supplementing the Bible and Talmud on a new level of religious consciousness. Clearly, scholarly research of The Zohar pointed to Moses De Leon as its author (or at least he was the most significant author, leaving room for the possibility that he had colleagues and assistants). Jacob Emden wrote one of the first scholarly reviews of the Zohar. He was extremely opposed to the false messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi, and endeavored to show that the book on which the pseudo-Messiah based his doctrines was a forgery. Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities, mentions the crusades against the Muslims, uses the expression "esnoga" - a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue," gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were introduced long after the Talmudic period. Here are four main points from his Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, Section 1. Writes that the Zohar is a corrupted commentary of the Torah, akin to sabotage. Section 2. Writes that De Leon wrote the book from his own heart and, later, that De Leone lost his mind. Section 3. Discusses, among other issues, how no one seemed to notice, or care, that a purportedly ancient text from Israel used a foreign word for synagogue. Section 4. Discusses "hundreds of erroneous and confused matters and articles" in De Leon's retelling of the Torah.
The document said to be as authored by Rav Kook, which this video is about, states that it came directly from the neshamas, souls, of Moses and Shimon bar Yohai. This is at 8.23 and onward. That's holy enough for me.
In this talk the rabbi is referring to two texts within the Zohar collection namely Tikkunei Zohar and Raya Mehemna. The bulk of the Zohar is commentary based on the various weekly portions we read in the Torah. These two texts and a number of others stand outside the " Zohar proper"
The Tikkunei Zohar, specifically, not the other works of the Zohar, just the Two works in question. Do not conflate Tikkunei Zohar with the Entirety of Zohar. Put it this way, If Rav Kook, and all the other Kabbalist, Rabbi's, etc and even this Rabbi here, put importance on this work, and know that it should be taken seriously, (the minds of the semi-literate are ill suited to comprehending the contents) then it should be given merit, at least Honoring the Station of the Teacher/Authority/Rabbi presenting the information. (Considering it IS Rav Kook!) Don't misunderstand simply because Rav Kook acknowledges that it is in Spirit of the Time past, but that it was written a couple hundred years before Rav Kook was born, he wrote this so the Learned, don't get confused with the Flowery Language of it being 'in the spirit' of time's past, as often the Learned become pressured by external sources and often repeat things that are untrue. (Look at how Jewish society has, to some opinions, 'devolved' in the last 300 years, more so in the last 100, reform, messianic, etc etc.) The Tikkunei Zohar is one of the most... Esoteric... Complicated Subject matter that exist in Judaic Literature. (At least in regards to Kabbalah), anyone who has actually read the Rectification of the Zohar, and knows the History and Culture of the Jewish People, and Shephat Canaan, knows that it was not written 1800 years ago. More Importantly, It's called "Rectification of..." which means it CAME AFTER. the other works. YOu cannot rectify something before it's broken!!!
Anyone who knows aramaic, and has been through the entire zohar, including raya mehimna and the tikunim, knows 100% that the contents are absolutely from Rashbi and his students. Why don't you speak about the hundreds of huge rabbis who totally demolish the yaabetz's "mitpachat sefarim"!? See Kadmut Sefer HaZohar. They have found manuscript pieces of the Zohar from the Kera'im (!!! From before the time of the Geo'nim!!!) Whoch shows without a doubt that the zohars contents is ANCIENT. Do not listen to one opinion listen to the majority of the greatest most knowledgeable Rabbi's who totally dismantle mitpachat sefarim!!!
Moseh de Leon's wife said that her late husband wrote it and instructed her to say he had found a manuscript of Rashbi. It's a fraud, a forgery, a complete put-on.
@@liamsandal6360 Impossible, since ancient parts of the Zohar Manuscripts were found with the kera'im/karaites dating to way way before Moshe De Lion, also, the Recanti, a earlier contemporary of Moshe De Lion, had the zohar quoting it on every page of his own book the Racanti on the Torah. Also there's responses by the Geonim that quote unknown midrashim, and when we check, they're in fact quoting from the Zohar. The zohar is so massive that it would literally be not possible for Moshe de lion to write it, also, we find even the student of the Rashba, R' Bachyeh in his commentary on the Torah, quote word for word from the zohar, showing that it was held in regard as "Midrash Rashbi" even then. Its impossible for it to have been written by Moshe De Lion also since the contents of the Z totally contradict his approach to Jewish Mysticsm, and, the Aramaic throughout the whole zohar is identical to the aramaic of targum yerushalmi or targum yonatan in a flawless way. Even Rav Yaakov emdin who came out the spiciest out of everyone on the Zohar, believed fully that the book originated from the tanaim and amoraim. Read the sefer zohar harakia, its indisputable, the zohar is ancient way way predating r moshe delion, simply takes some studying.
@@Yehonatan613 Please contact Professor Daniel Matt, the internationally known scholar and translator of the Zohar. He has written extensively on the authorship of the work, which though done in stages over generations, was initiated with Moshe De Leon.
@@liamsandal6360 i read aramaic, i dont need any translation, ive read the entire zohar in its original language, did you not read what i just wrote to you? The entire zohar was already known and quoted even before moshe delion AND the 1st hand account of rav yitzchak of acco concluded that it was from.an ancient manuscript, seek truth, not a sense of validation for your beliefs.
@@liamsandal6360 Have you read Kadmut Sefer haZohar? Zohar haRakiah? Magein Utzina? Ittur Seforim? If you’re a skeptic and you haven’t read these works FROM BEGINNING TO END, then you have no business commenting on this topic.
How can one be confident in deciding the age of a manuscript based upon stylistic considerations? The Torah itself, reflects varying styles of expression - from poetic allegories to plain prose.
The Torah doesn't randomly use Spanish words in it though unlike the Zohar. The Aramaic being used in the way it is in the Zohar can *most* definitely be dated to the time period when it appears. "The Torah itself ... from poetic allegories to plain prose." This gets down into the very nature of the language itself, not just style. The Aramaic expressed in the Zohar is more similar to the Aramaic Jews in Sepharad were using at that time than anything that was actually spoken.
@Samuel Levy look up Moses de Leon - Gershom Scholem ,who Rabbi Bar Chaim mentions, thought he was the real author. Apparently he translated some of his own works from Hebrew into Aramaic and put them in the Zohar and pretended he had the original manuscript of the Zohar. After his death some rich Jew tried to get the manuscript by offering to marry his son to De Leon's daughter, then his widow admitted they never had it, Moses de Leon was the real author. She said she asked her husband why he didn't write it under his own name and he said no one would read it and they would make money everyone would buy his book if they thought it was from Shimon Bar Yochai. This could explain the strange form of Aramiac in the Zohar. This is not to say he did not have good intentions and believe the book would help Jews. It is still a holy book written by a Kabbalist.
You are right though. The language of the Torah is also sometimes problematic for dating and also has a lot of research on it. For example, the word שליט is used in the Joseph story of Genesis. It is more used as a specific political office during the Persian exile. There are other issues and a lot of explanation for why this is the case.
Put it this way, If Rav Kook, and all the other Kabbalist, Rabbi's, etc and even this Rabbi here, put importance on this work, and know that it should be taken seriously, (the minds of the semi-literate are ill suited to comprehending the contents) then it should be given merit, at least Honoring the Station of the Teacher/Authority/Rabbi presenting the information. (Considering it IS Rav Kook!) Don't misunderstand simply because Rav Kook acknowledges that it is in Spirit of the Time past, but that it was written a couple hundred years before Rav Kook was born, he wrote this so the Learned, don't get confused with the Flowery Language of it being 'in the spirit' of time's past, as often the Learned become pressured by external sources and often repeat things that are untrue. (Look at how Jewish society has, to some opinions, 'devolved' in the last 300 years, more so in the last 100, reform, messianic, etc etc.) The Tikkunei Zohar is one of the most... Esoteric... Complicated Subject matter that exist in Judaic Literature. (At least in regards to Kabbalah), anyone who has actually read the Rectification of the Zohar, and knows the History and Culture of the Jewish People, and Shephat Canaan, knows that it was not written 1800 years ago. More Importantly, It's called "Rectification of..." which means it CAME AFTER. the other works. YOu cannot rectify something before it's broken!!!
@@tapasyatyaga4041 R. Cook is not arguing with R. Emden, who lived about 150 years before him. R. Emden wrote a scholarly work describing many problems with Zohar. An orally attributed statement can never have as much weight compared to a published work. Do you understand my question?
@@ydj8081R’Emden knew that the Zohar was the root of the spread of sabbateanism. He knew Eibeschutz was a sabbatean, the Noda B’Yehuda tried to smooth out the situation so as not to create a shameful situation for the community in a letter, in which he made a decree that nobody could learn Zohar until age 40, nobody could use kamayos. Now teenagers are learning Zohar and people are wearing kamayos all the time. R’Emden wasn’t subject to his congregation for his livelihood, so he had no qualms in calling out heresy. He had a house minyan on top of his synagogue and had a following of loyal tzadikim who rejected the shabbtai tzvi and his followers. We need more R’Emdens and less Eibeschutzs’
Shalom, Salam, Peace. Indeed You Are The Most Sincere Pious Rabbi On You Tube, Whom Is Surely Versed In The Torah [Old Testament] Who Is Full Of Wisdom. May Almighty God Blot Out Your Sins. Quran [Last Testament]: Ask the Children of Isrā’īl (Israel) how many a clear sign We have given to them; and whoever changes the blessing of God after it has come to him, then God is severe in punishment.
Many thanks Kavod HaRav for having the courage to speak the truth. Would be every interested to know what is written of the Ramchal.
The shiurim of RAMHAL are online with Rav Mendel Kessin.
The Ramchal himself expresses a similar point of view in his work Adir b'Marom and therefor although there may be people who don't want such ideas to become known, they are already known.
Furthermore R. Ashlag (who was friendly with R. Kook) wrote a mamar in which he expressed the idea that the origin of the Zohar is not so relevant because anyone who understands the material in the Zohar (as R. Ashlag said he did) understands its importance and authenticity no matter when it was written. So it is not surprising that R. Kook might have held such opinions yet at the same time revered the Zohar as a Holy work. The whole idea of "Reya Mehemnah" is that the soul of Moshe comes and speaks to the author of the Zohar.... so implicit in the text itself is the very idea that one who is no longer alive can in fact "author" a work long after he has passed away.
I totally relate to this methodology. My difficulty is that given we have this problem (robitic learning אנשים מצוות מלומדה) for generations, as pointed out by the Rabbi, how is it that we still say “this is the way we poskin”. I would like to make a donation.
As an Outsider, who studies alot, I firmly concluded in my teenage years that the Rectification of Radiance was from the 12th / 13th century, not to be arrogant.
Then in my twenties when I approached the work again, I was firmly convinced it was from at least the 13th century-ish.
Then when I started taking things seriously in my 30s (after I got sick), my suspicion remained the same, I always understood it being "in the spirit of the 'age'... ' but in all practicality anyone who has read it should firmly be aware that it is not from 1800 years ago.
Sorry, I just don't understand.
Thanks for the letter though, it just again confirms I'm going to start relying more on my intuition...
@Menachem Mevashir 😂 they have no idea how Mesorah works
Daniel C Matt recently translated the Zohar and also said it was written in the 1300s by Moshe De Leon
@Menachem Mevashir YW. Daniel Matts spent 17 years translating the Aramaic and commenting on the Zohar ( Pritzker Zohar if you want to buy it). He realized upon translating the Aramaic that it was written in the 13th century by Moses De Leon. Moses had stated he found the original ancient Zohar written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yohai so his work would be taken seriously.
@Menachem Mevashir here is a link: ua-cam.com/video/Q80hzEvQ-84/v-deo.html. He has quite a few videos on the Zohar that are very well done. He thinks it’s worth reading but not as a normal book. It’s more about reading a few pages, reflecting and coming to your own interpretation. He does not agree with everything that is written but found many gems within the pages. I have not read the Zohar nor bought his Zohar set. I have been doing spiritual healing for over 20 years and watch a variety of educational videos on spirituality.
You made valid points and then undercut yourself unnecessarily by saying, "Sorry, I just don't understand." Please don't do that.
When I studied Machshevet Yisrael at the Hebrew University, I already heard the lecturers refer the Zoharic literature to belong to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Zoharic literature is a result of the oppression and persecution many Jews underwent in those centuries and the restrictions on teaching the Torah. I myself felt that this oppression and persecution is expressed in many ways through the Zoharic literature. As you mention that many maniscripts are hidden from public view by well known and lesser known rabbis, it creates a cloud of secrecy that is endemic in Zoharic literature. I am glad that the Hebrew University, just as you do, has the attitude to make everything available for public reference. Again we see how the actions of antisemites influence the creation of Jewish literature. If we could remove the actions of antisemites of the 13th and 14th centuries, I doubt that we would ever have had the Zoharic literature. I tend to see the development of Judaism within the cultural and spiritual environment Jews lived in through the ages. May Ruach HaKodesh enlighten us all with true wisdom and humility and cleans us from all evil intentions.
I am not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion but logic makes me ask could it be that the author in the 13th century could be writing down in his time in his own words what was a received tradition? I mean that is what those who claim it was from Sinai say. That it was written down much later. Not sure how the style and lexicon matching 13th century proves anything
Good thinking 👌🏻
I work in the National Library, I'll check that writting, maybe it should be placed in the nedirim (rare books) section, rather than in the Sholem ulam.
did you find it?
Do you have access to any other esoteric books there that are beneath the surface? I would be interested to read them
Why is it controversial to believe the Zohar HaKadosh was transmitted orally until the 13th century when it was finally written down?
Just like the Mishna may have some Greek words no one suspects the Mishna was created by the Tannaim. So too the Zohar was given by R Shimon bar Yohai and his Talmud im but written down later.
Because Moses De Leon's own wife testified that Moses De Leon fabricated the whole thing.
Soon after its dissemination, The Zohar was known to not be authored by Simeon ben Yohai. Moses De Leon, the actual author, chose to credit his own teachings to Simeon ben Yohai because, as he told his wife, it would be a rich source of profit. And for the 20 years he was writing it, and selling the pamphlets, it was.
Every serious modern scholar, from Gershom Scholem to Daniel Matt, reached the same conclusion; it is a pseudepigraphic work which pretends to be a revelation from God communicated through Simeon ben Yoḥai to the latter's select disciples.
Scholem, in the introduction of his book "Zohar, The Book of Splendor, Basic Readings From the Kabbalah", wrote the following:
Soon, however, the light shadow of scandal that had fallen upon its publication and initial appearance in the world of literature, the enigma of the illegitimate birth of a literary forgery, disappeared and was forgotten. Very slowly but surely the influence of the Zohar grew; and when the groups among which it had gained dominion proved themselves in the storms of Jewish history to be the bearers of a new religious attitude that not only laid claim to, but in fact achieved, authority, then the Zohar in a late but exceedingly intensive afterglow of national life came to fulfil the great historical task of a sacred text supplementing the Bible and Talmud on a new level of religious consciousness.
Clearly, scholarly research of The Zohar pointed to Moses De Leon as its author (or at least he was the most significant author, leaving room for the possibility that he had colleagues and assistants).
Jacob Emden wrote one of the first scholarly reviews of the Zohar. He was extremely opposed to the false messiah, Shabbetai Tzvi, and endeavored to show that the book on which the pseudo-Messiah based his doctrines was a forgery.
Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture, misunderstands the Talmud, contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities, mentions the crusades against the Muslims, uses the expression "esnoga" - a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue," gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were introduced long after the Talmudic period.
Here are four main points from his Miṭpaḥat Sefarim,
Section 1. Writes that the Zohar is a corrupted commentary of the Torah, akin to sabotage.
Section 2. Writes that De Leon wrote the book from his own heart and, later, that De Leone lost his mind.
Section 3. Discusses, among other issues, how no one seemed to notice, or care, that a purportedly ancient text from Israel used a foreign word for synagogue.
Section 4. Discusses "hundreds of erroneous and confused matters and articles" in De Leon's retelling of the Torah.
Ok so the Zohar isn't as ancient as most of the traditionalists believe. Surely Rav Kook still considered it the "holy Zohar."
Doubtful if it is holy - rather it is a late collection of midrashim by anonymous rabbis.
The document said to be as authored by Rav Kook, which this video is about, states that it came directly from the neshamas, souls, of Moses and Shimon bar Yohai. This is at 8.23 and onward.
That's holy enough for me.
In this talk the rabbi is referring to two texts within the Zohar collection namely Tikkunei Zohar and Raya Mehemna. The bulk of the Zohar is commentary based on the various weekly portions we read in the Torah. These two texts and a number of others stand outside the " Zohar proper"
Yes, very much so.
The Tikkunei Zohar, specifically, not the other works of the Zohar, just the Two works in question.
Do not conflate Tikkunei Zohar with the Entirety of Zohar.
Put it this way, If Rav Kook, and all the other Kabbalist, Rabbi's, etc and even this Rabbi here, put importance on this work, and know that it should be taken seriously, (the minds of the semi-literate are ill suited to comprehending the contents) then it should be given merit, at least Honoring the Station of the Teacher/Authority/Rabbi presenting the information. (Considering it IS Rav Kook!)
Don't misunderstand simply because Rav Kook acknowledges that it is in Spirit of the Time past, but that it was written a couple hundred years before Rav Kook was born, he wrote this so the Learned, don't get confused with the Flowery Language of it being 'in the spirit' of time's past, as often the Learned become pressured by external sources and often repeat things that are untrue. (Look at how Jewish society has, to some opinions, 'devolved' in the last 300 years, more so in the last 100, reform, messianic, etc etc.)
The Tikkunei Zohar is one of the most... Esoteric... Complicated Subject matter that exist in Judaic Literature. (At least in regards to Kabbalah), anyone who has actually read the Rectification of the Zohar, and knows the History and Culture of the Jewish People, and Shephat Canaan, knows that it was not written 1800 years ago.
More Importantly, It's called "Rectification of..." which means it CAME AFTER. the other works.
YOu cannot rectify something before it's broken!!!
Anyone who knows aramaic, and has been through the entire zohar, including raya mehimna and the tikunim, knows 100% that the contents are absolutely from Rashbi and his students. Why don't you speak about the hundreds of huge rabbis who totally demolish the yaabetz's "mitpachat sefarim"!? See Kadmut Sefer HaZohar. They have found manuscript pieces of the Zohar from the Kera'im (!!! From before the time of the Geo'nim!!!) Whoch shows without a doubt that the zohars contents is ANCIENT. Do not listen to one opinion listen to the majority of the greatest most knowledgeable Rabbi's who totally dismantle mitpachat sefarim!!!
Moseh de Leon's wife said that her late husband wrote it and instructed her to say he had found a manuscript of Rashbi. It's a fraud, a forgery, a complete put-on.
@@liamsandal6360 Impossible, since ancient parts of the Zohar Manuscripts were found with the kera'im/karaites dating to way way before Moshe De Lion, also, the Recanti, a earlier contemporary of Moshe De Lion, had the zohar quoting it on every page of his own book the Racanti on the Torah. Also there's responses by the Geonim that quote unknown midrashim, and when we check, they're in fact quoting from the Zohar. The zohar is so massive that it would literally be not possible for Moshe de lion to write it, also, we find even the student of the Rashba, R' Bachyeh in his commentary on the Torah, quote word for word from the zohar, showing that it was held in regard as "Midrash Rashbi" even then. Its impossible for it to have been written by Moshe De Lion also since the contents of the Z totally contradict his approach to Jewish Mysticsm, and, the Aramaic throughout the whole zohar is identical to the aramaic of targum yerushalmi or targum yonatan in a flawless way. Even Rav Yaakov emdin who came out the spiciest out of everyone on the Zohar, believed fully that the book originated from the tanaim and amoraim. Read the sefer zohar harakia, its indisputable, the zohar is ancient way way predating r moshe delion, simply takes some studying.
@@Yehonatan613 Please contact Professor Daniel Matt, the internationally known scholar and translator of the Zohar. He has written extensively on the authorship of the work, which though done in stages over generations, was initiated with Moshe De Leon.
@@liamsandal6360 i read aramaic, i dont need any translation, ive read the entire zohar in its original language, did you not read what i just wrote to you? The entire zohar was already known and quoted even before moshe delion AND the 1st hand account of rav yitzchak of acco concluded that it was from.an ancient manuscript, seek truth, not a sense of validation for your beliefs.
@@liamsandal6360 Have you read Kadmut Sefer haZohar? Zohar haRakiah? Magein Utzina? Ittur Seforim? If you’re a skeptic and you haven’t read these works FROM BEGINNING TO END, then you have no business commenting on this topic.
The udra zuta clearly states who wrote it
Thank you Sir.
How can one be confident in deciding the age of a manuscript based upon stylistic considerations? The Torah itself, reflects varying styles of expression - from poetic allegories to plain prose.
The Torah doesn't randomly use Spanish words in it though unlike the Zohar. The Aramaic being used in the way it is in the Zohar can *most* definitely be dated to the time period when it appears. "The Torah itself ... from poetic allegories to plain prose." This gets down into the very nature of the language itself, not just style. The Aramaic expressed in the Zohar is more similar to the Aramaic Jews in Sepharad were using at that time than anything that was actually spoken.
@Samuel Levy look up Moses de Leon - Gershom Scholem ,who Rabbi Bar Chaim mentions, thought he was the real author. Apparently he translated some of his own works from Hebrew into Aramaic and put them in the Zohar and pretended he had the original manuscript of the Zohar. After his death some rich Jew tried to get the manuscript by offering to marry his son to De Leon's daughter, then his widow admitted they never had it, Moses de Leon was the real author. She said she asked her husband why he didn't write it under his own name and he said no one would read it and they would make money everyone would buy his book if they thought it was from Shimon Bar Yochai. This could explain the strange form of Aramiac in the Zohar. This is not to say he did not have good intentions and believe the book would help Jews. It is still a holy book written by a Kabbalist.
if it was really made in the 13th century than whoever made it would make it in hebrew NOT Aramaic
Unless it was written in Aramaic for the sake of proving its authenticity as being ancient.
You are right though. The language of the Torah is also sometimes problematic for dating and also has a lot of research on it.
For example, the word שליט is used in the Joseph story of Genesis. It is more used as a specific political office during the Persian exile. There are other issues and a lot of explanation for why this is the case.
Want to join the group
I want to learn how to speak Hebrew can u help me out?
@Menachem Mevashir the God of the Jews is the greatest myth
@@lightworker4512 Oh look, another drive-by hate comment from an anti-Semite...
Put it this way, If Rav Kook, and all the other Kabbalist, Rabbi's, etc and even this Rabbi here, put importance on this work, and know that it should be taken seriously, (the minds of the semi-literate are ill suited to comprehending the contents) then it should be given merit, at least Honoring the Station of the Teacher/Authority/Rabbi presenting the information. (Considering it IS Rav Kook!)
Don't misunderstand simply because Rav Kook acknowledges that it is in Spirit of the Time past, but that it was written a couple hundred years before Rav Kook was born, he wrote this so the Learned, don't get confused with the Flowery Language of it being 'in the spirit' of time's past, as often the Learned become pressured by external sources and often repeat things that are untrue. (Look at how Jewish society has, to some opinions, 'devolved' in the last 300 years, more so in the last 100, reform, messianic, etc etc.)
The Tikkunei Zohar is one of the most... Esoteric... Complicated Subject matter that exist in Judaic Literature. (At least in regards to Kabbalah), anyone who has actually read the Rectification of the Zohar, and knows the History and Culture of the Jewish People, and Shephat Canaan, knows that it was not written 1800 years ago.
More Importantly, It's called "Rectification of..." which means it CAME AFTER. the other works.
YOu cannot rectify something before it's broken!!!
Rebbe Shimon Ben Yochai! (ben becuase he was in Eretz Haqodesh? if so why does everyone say Bar?)
Because by that time, Aramaic was the spoken language of most Jews, and Hebrew was for liturgical and intellectual purposes.
@@jabujolly9020 and bar is Aramaic ben is Hebrew
rabi shimon was in galili and there thay spoke Aramaic and Bar is instead of Ben
❤️
Nice to see universal rabbi, usually ashkenazi are not interested in sfardi
Where can I get a copy of this photocopied manuscript?
Why is this statement of 'attributed' to r. Kook has any more weight than much more scholarly analysis of r. Yakov Emden? It is a shanda!
ITS A SHANDA. A SHANDA I TELL YOU!!!!
MY REBBE IS SMARTER THAN YOURS. ITS A SHANDA!! A SHANDA!!!
@@tapasyatyaga4041 R. Cook is not arguing with R. Emden, who lived about 150 years before him. R. Emden wrote a scholarly work describing many problems with Zohar. An orally attributed statement can never have as much weight compared to a published work. Do you understand my question?
@@ydj8081R’Emden knew that the Zohar was the root of the spread of sabbateanism. He knew Eibeschutz was a sabbatean, the Noda B’Yehuda tried to smooth out the situation so as not to create a shameful situation for the community in a letter, in which he made a decree that nobody could learn Zohar until age 40, nobody could use kamayos. Now teenagers are learning Zohar and people are wearing kamayos all the time. R’Emden wasn’t subject to his congregation for his livelihood, so he had no qualms in calling out heresy. He had a house minyan on top of his synagogue and had a following of loyal tzadikim who rejected the shabbtai tzvi and his followers. We need more R’Emdens and less Eibeschutzs’
Shalom, Salam, Peace. Indeed You Are The Most Sincere Pious Rabbi On You Tube, Whom Is Surely Versed In The Torah [Old Testament] Who Is Full Of Wisdom. May Almighty God Blot Out Your Sins.
Quran [Last Testament]: Ask the Children of Isrā’īl (Israel) how many a clear sign We have given to them; and whoever changes the blessing of God after it has come to him, then God is severe in punishment.
Zohar is Holy of Holy! B”H it’s being studied more and more throughout klal Yisrael. The study of Kabbalah is the key to the Geulah. Brachot
"Zohar" was written by a Spanish priest who pretended to be Jewish
Zohar is garbage
Is any of you capable of any truth" Esau Edom "??! Always talking of illusions that don't exist & unprovable "?!!
Lmao. You are indoctrinated