The Global Yeshiva
Get More Enthusiasm for Your Judaism!
History of Kabbalah
‘The History of Kabbalah and Zohar’
Rabbi David Sedley and TorahLab have translated the introduction to Shomer Emunim HaKadmon. Written by Rabbi Yaakov Irgas in the late 17th century, Shomer Emunim HaKadmon is a basic introduction to kabbalah.
This introduction, taken from the text of the book itself and updated to the late 20th century, was written by Rabbi Yitzchak Stern of Jerusalem in 1965. It provides an invaluable guide to the transmission and development of kabbalah from the time of Avraham Avinu and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai through the Gaonim and Rishonim to the modern era.
Perfect for Lag BaOmer, the hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
Download your free copy at
www.torahlab.org
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on -
I admit that the Shadal, I was uneducated about, but I still doubt he is an appropriate author to bring to this website.
I was familiar with R' Yaakov Emden's critique of the Zohar although I didn't realize he brought that specific example of "Esnoga" as support.
I am certainly familiar with the debate between philosophy and mysticism. The belief that the mysticism is neoplatonistic, I don't believe is appropriate for this website either.
Aryeh Shore said:
No. I am not appealing to authority since I am not an authority (Well, since "gedolim" do ask me questions on animals and stuff, I guess I am an authority on chickens and cows.)
I just meant to say that your responses show a lack of depth of knowledge that I am sure you will acquire in time. To my mind, a educated person knows who the Shadal was and is familiar with R. Yaakov Emden's critique of the Zohar. Somehow I also don't think you are aware of the debate between neoplatonistic and Aristotelian streams of Judaism.Admitedly and apparently I have not learned nearly as much Gemara as you two. But, aren't you now appealing to authority?
-
Permalink Reply by Rabbi Joshua Waxman on
-
Yes, I've seen many of these answers from other people, and don't find them convincing.
(Some of these I've seen advanced here:
http://www.torathmoshe.com/2009/04/the-%E2%80%98zohar%E2%80%99-cont...
)
For example, (1) is put forth by Rabbi Bar-Ron, coupled with the assertion that then, a late scribe substituted Esnoga for Synagoga. But he said this without seeing the Zohar inside. It is unconvincing because then the rather clear derasha does not work. In terms of (2), yes, of course there is a logical, semantic relationship established between Shechina and the Be Kenishta. But the words of the Zohar are umeihacha karu levei kenishta Esh noga (either as one word or two). Karu is Aramaic for "they call". Later, in referring to the same, it is itkaryat, "it is called", which is more neutral. But karu suggests that there are people about who call it that. In terms of (3), indeed this might work with your points 1 and 2, except that for me it seems that the author of the Zohar is deliberately calling it that. (Rabbi Bar-Ron tries to say that he deliberately called it that with Ruach HaKodesh.) In terms of (4), Rabbi Bar-Ron makes precisely that point. And the answer (as I'll give it in my eventual response) is that the state of linguistics knowledge is much more developed nowadays than it was back then. Why do you assume that Rav Moshe de Leon would know Latin, or would know that Esnoga was a late development of Spanish or Judeo-Spanish, rather than the Spanish word for synagogue that would have existed all the way up to Rashbi? If he wouldn't know this, this is not "leaving himself open to such an attack".
Look, I am sure one could eventually give an answer, which people would either think is straightforward or far-fetched. Just as one could claim that obviously Rav Saadia Gaon was deliberately lying, when attacking the concept of gilgul. But then, there is first a kasha and then there is a teretz. And this is then one of many proofs that Rav Yaakov Emden offers. To cite him from his sefer Mitpachat Sefarim, at the conclusion of his Esnoga proof, ואם על פי עד אחד לא יקום דבר, בא ואראך חידוש נפלא בזה או יתר עליו..
By the way, here is the Zohar inside -- or at least one such Zohar inside, the Raya Mehemna. The sefer Tikkunim I didn't put up yet.
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/01/esnoga-and-authenticity-of-zohar...
Regardless, shkoyach on elaborating on the "why" of why you find it unconvincing.
kol tuv,
josh
Evan Gary Moss said:1) Wasn't the word "synagogue" in use in Rashbi's time?
2) The Zohar is not saying that that is what people call it, but that is a spiritual representation of a Shul, which is congruent to other kabbalistic teachings.
3) It's only an example of Hashgachah Protis (or call it coincidental) that in Ladino they called it that.4) Why would R' Moshe de Leon (if he was the author) leave himself open to such an attack?
-
-
Just a bit of responding to some earlier points brought up on this thread... I don't know if this would bolster his image for you, but Nechama Leibowitz often discussed the opinion of Shadal on the parsha. See here for just one example:
http://www.moreshet.net/oldsite/nechama/gilyonot/5760/shemini60_1.htm
In terms of Shu"t, is is actually She'eilot u-Teshuvot. Hebrew phonology does not allow to shva nas in a row, so the vav sheva in the second word would get transformed into a shuruk. It is commonly written in short as שו"ת.
kol tuv,
josh
Evan Gary Moss said:I admit that the Shadal, I was uneducated about, but I still doubt he is an appropriate author to bring to this website.
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on
-
Your point about U'Tshevos is well taken, and understood. I consider myself very knowedgeable of dikduk.
I was responding to Reb Aryeh who wrote it that way, although I should have been more careful.
And are they not, by many, mispronounced and written that way?
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on
-
Who is Rabbi Bar-Ron?
How do we know that Esnoga was not in use in Rashbi's time?
"Synagogue" (which, I think, certainly was used in Rashbi's time)
is phonetically related enough to support the derasha...
especially when the derasha is SO in tune with the Zohar's teachings.
Do all manuscripts of the Zohar have "karu"? Isn't that a frequent and easy scribal substitution for "Iskarei"
(Especially when those contemporary scribes used Ladino?
And, most importantly, there are these answers, albeit you want to debate their validity.
I believe strongly that the Torah is divine and there are metaphyical teachings intrinsic to learning the Torah.
The belief that the Zohar is divine has a firm basis.
(Also, I don't think the debate of its divine origin has its place in this public domain. I am guilty for provoking it. I didn't realize how knowedgeable you and Reb Aryeh are. I respect your knowledge, but not your approaches and piety.)
I enjoy conversing with both of you though, could we spend some time on other topics?
-
-
i) From what I can gather, a member of an (Orthodox) group that unduly pays too much respect to the Rambam.
ii) I would guess from studying language, and texts in various dialects. Spanish derived from an Iberian dialect of Latin. And Esnoga, as far as I understand, is unique to Ladino, that is the Spanish equivalent of Yiddish that developed later.
iii) i would disagree, since we would get neither Esh in sequence nor Noga, since the word would start with an /s/ and we would have "nagoga". It works much, much better as Esnoga.
iv) one could posit anything. but as far as I've heard, no one has encountered any such variant texts. And it is consistent in at least three places in Zohar.
Finally, one could always give answers -- but this might simply be because it is the function of the brain to come up with explanations. For example, perhaps Rav Yaakov Emden and his agents went through all these Zohar texts and deliberately inserted these anachronisms (not just Esnoga, but also reference to Arabs as monotheists, when during Rashbi's time they were actually pagans, etc., etc.), so as to impugn the Zohar, and so take the sails out of Sabbateanism. But certain answers are more, or less, plausible than others.
One can believe in Torah MiSinai without agreeing that the Zohar is similarly Torah miSinai, or from Rashbi. And protecting the masorah against contamination and forgery is something someone who believes in Torah miSinai would do. Thus, Rav Yaakov Emden was an expert kabbalist himself, and he used this expert knowledge to investigate what he asserted were Sabbatean kabbalah in his well-known contemporary.
I'll end with a limmud zechut for all of these anachronisms. It was actually not so uncommon in non-Jewish as well as Jewish circles to write under an assumed name of the greats of ages past. For a nice Jewish example, Rav Avraham Abulafia the kabbalist used pseudonyms, each of which was the same gematria as his name. This might have been well known to the general kabbalistic audience. (The same for the invented Rav Kashisha Gaon and Rav Chamai Gaon, as well as what was seemingly falsely attributed to Rav Hai Gaon.) Which means that there was no attempt to defraud, and that the Zohar might have been one work in the continued development of the kabbalah.
I don't entirely agree with the above, but I would consider this the strongest of suggestions I've seen, in my limited research.
If you start some new topic, bli neder, I'll try to add some insights.
kol tuv,
josh
Evan Gary Moss said:
Who is Rabbi Bar-Ron?
How do we know that Esnoga was not in use in Rashbi's time?
"Synagogue" (which, I think, certainly was used in Rashbi's time)
is phonetically related enough to support the derasha...
especially when the derasha is SO in tune with the Zohar's teachings.
Do all manuscripts of the Zohar have "karu"? Isn't that a frequent and easy scribal substitution for "Iskarei"
(Especially when those contemporary scribes used Ladino?
And, most importantly, there are these answers, albeit you want to debate their validity.
I believe strongly that the Torah is divine and there are metaphyical teachings intrinsic to learning the Torah.
The belief that the Zohar is divine has a firm basis.
(Also, I don't think the debate of its divine origin has its place in this public domain. I am guilty for provoking it. I didn't realize how knowedgeable you and Reb Aryeh are. I respect your knowledge, but not your approaches and piety.)
I enjoy conversing with both of you though, could we spend some time on other topics?
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on
-
Not being familiar with the Shadal, or the term "Shutim" and not being able to recall that particular detail about R' Emden's oppositional arguments to the validity of the Zohar doesn't detract from any points I was making.
Aryeh Shore said:
No. I am not appealing to authority since I am not an authority (Well, since "gedolim" do ask me questions on animals and stuff, I guess I am an authority on chickens and cows.)
I just meant to say that your responses show a lack of depth of knowledge that I am sure you will acquire in time. To my mind, a educated person knows who the Shadal was and is familiar with R. Yaakov Emden's critique of the Zohar. Somehow I also don't think you are aware of the debate between neoplatonistic and Aristotelian streams of Judaism.Admitedly and apparently I have not learned nearly as much Gemara as you two. But, aren't you now appealing to authority?
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on
-
I had just made longer comment, but it wasn't saved.
Evan Gary Moss said:Not being familiar with the Shadal, or the term "Shutim" and not being able to recall that particular detail about R' Emden's oppositional arguments to the validity of the Zohar doesn't detract from any points I was making.
Aryeh Shore said:
No. I am not appealing to authority since I am not an authority (Well, since "gedolim" do ask me questions on animals and stuff, I guess I am an authority on chickens and cows.)
I just meant to say that your responses show a lack of depth of knowledge that I am sure you will acquire in time. To my mind, a educated person knows who the Shadal was and is familiar with R. Yaakov Emden's critique of the Zohar. Somehow I also don't think you are aware of the debate between neoplatonistic and Aristotelian streams of Judaism.Admitedly and apparently I have not learned nearly as much Gemara as you two. But, aren't you now appealing to authority?
-
-
This has happened to me on occasion. One thing I sometimes do is, when writing a lengthy comment, where saving doesn't happen immediately, or can get lost on submit, is to first write it in a word processor or in notepad.
kol tuv,
josh
> I had just made longer comment, but it wasn't saved.
-
-
While I'm here commenting anyway, I might as well bolster my response to your earlier query. Besides Nechama Leibowitz citing Shadal often, the Rav also quoted him in the YU Chag Hasmicha, 1953. See here:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/01/rav-and-shadal-on-removing-yekum...
Also, check out the comments there regarding his semicha, and how he was regarded. And also, that the Malbim referred to him as Rashdal.
kol tuv,
josh
-
-
As a belated followup to this discussion, here is the Chasam Sofer, calling the Zohar a forgery:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/06/chasam-sofers-position-that-zoha...
kol tuv,
josh
-
Permalink Reply by Evan Gary Moss on
-
Dear Josh,
Forgive me... I don't have the patience now for this inquiry, but, at least,
it seems that you are trying to prove that the Chasam Sofer said... Not that the Chasam Sofer is a proof...
Can you please answer my other questions though, on the the Gemara?
For that discussion, I think I will much more appreciate your wisdom. Thank you.
Can you find my email from a month ago, about?
Hershel
© 2013 Created by Rav Mitterhoff.
