Are there any commonalities between believers in the Zohar and believers in Christianity?

My dear, I never thought I would hear such a stupid argument here.
Does the Trinity not harm monotheism because to claim so is a lack of empathy? Is this a joke?
And because there are critics of the Trinity who themselves are not really monotheists does this undermine the factual argument?
There is really no fundamental difference between the interpretations of the Trinity recognized in Christianity. The different schools disagree on minor things but not mainly. Unless you mean small and insignificant sects or various metaphilosophers whose teachings are accepted only by themselves. In practice, the belief that God is one who is three and three who are one is the foundation of the foundations of Christianity. Regarding Kabbalah – There may be interpretations here and there, I am not knowledgeable enough, but there is no doubt at all that some of the believers of Kabbalah, especially those who really study it, are worshippers of the G-d.
As far as I know, although it interests me less, even among the Poskim there is no disagreement regarding the idolatry of Christianity, they only disagreed on whether collaborative work is permitted for Gentiles or not.

Thank you very much.

I certainly agree that the passage I quoted is not necessarily a sharing of authority, but according to this we should not complain about Christians who believe in the Trinity, which is also essentially a description of the deity as an abstract of layers that constitute a single God – I did not see a fundamental difference. The Rambam ruled that Christians are worshipers of God compared to Muslims.

The Holy One, Israel and the Torah are one is certainly similar to the Christian Trinity, but for the sake of fairness it must be said that there is no giving of divine power to Israel as in Christianity to the Son – to Jesus.

For the sake of the unity of the Holy One, bless him and his Shechinah, the famous in Judah has already written against this as a sick evil and came out as the Aryan, as I understand it he believed that it was a sharing of two powers and therefore forbade it.

In short, the believers in the Zohar will interpret it as they please, and the Christian sects - who did not like the Trinity and its conflict with monotheism, will find an apologetic way to explain the ‘secret of the Trinity’ (as in the Zohar, add the word secret and solve any problem).

One might ask what the rabbi's attitude is towards the Book of Zohar and its acceptance in general (which the rabbi also agrees have strong Christian elements in them), should it have any status in Judaism, or is it better to ignore and even deny this esoteric Torah?

Krishna, assertiveness is no substitute for arguments or lack of reading comprehension. At least when you present my position written here on my screen, present it as it is. Then laugh as much as you want so it doesn't sound like a fool's laugh.

Lavi, Maimonides, as is known, was not one of the Kabbalists either. Did Agbara create a ceramic?!
Relationships to Kabbalah and Zohar are written here and you can search the site.

A nice distinction that the Rambam treats Kabbalah and Christianity in the same way, although I think there are many other reasons for the Rambam's reservations about Kabbalah.

Regarding other methods, it seems that the Ramban held that Christians are worshipers of the Law, at least in ancient times. Although the Zohar did not exist (or was 'revealed'...) in his time, Kabbalistic ideas can certainly be found in his writings, meaning that at least in some of the ideas of Kabbalah he was not afraid of Christianity/sharing.

The Gra abolished many customs because of their similarity to Christianity (for example, tashlich, trees in synagogues on Shavuot, etc.) and he already knew the Zohar and used it.

According to the law, it seems that today we rely on the words of the Rishonim, which are now considered 'the custom of their ancestors in their hands', but this does not indicate the ideas of Christianity itself, but rather its believers over the years (including the majority of Kabbalah believers, who are in the process of learning the custom of their ancestors in their hands).

I looked for articles by the rabbi on the subject, and saw brief references in the responsa, more in the style of disinterest and that it was irrelevant. I did not find an article or post in the rabbi's style, and if there is one, I would be happy to study it.

See column 267.

Thank you very much for the reference. I carefully read the fascinating post that gives a pluralistic perspective to what is considered non-rationalistic (but possibly rational, according to you).

Although I did not find there your attitude to the Book of Zohar, even the Book of Creation that you mentioned at the beginning of the article, you did not require it from a Jewish perspective, but you noted that there are overlapping ideas between it and mystics in the world.

I understand from your words that the mystical part of Kabbalah and the Zohar does not constitute a reason for rejection for you, but a reasonableness test is required and if it is found to be reasonable then rational it is also correct to accept it (like the pigeons that you mention in many places).

Is there any reasonableness in the doctrine of Kabbalah that allows for its rational acceptance? And if not, is it because you have no fundamental impediment to accepting mysticism, is the sequence of Kabbalah in our traditions sufficient for acceptance as it is, until proven otherwise?

Yes, indeed.

My relationship to the Zohar is no different from my relationship to Kabbalah in general. I think I explained there what mysticism is, what its value is, and how it is examined. I also have a series of lessons on mysticism.
I have nothing to say about such materials from a Jewish perspective. The important question is whether it is true or not. I don't care if it is Jewish or not. I also don't examine morality and philosophy from a Jewish perspective (the devil knows what it is).
It is clear that something passes through tradition does not qualify it and should not make us accept it, unless it is a tradition from Sinai. Things must be examined on their own merits.

Beyond the conflict between philosophical and mystical concepts, there are many customs in Judaism that are rooted in Kabbalah, such as the Shabbat Kabbalah prayer and the "Lach Dodi" (to my uncle), various corrections and fasts (for example, in the Shovavim), a bride does not go to the cemetery, a bride walks around the groom, growing a beard (although there are some Kabbalists like the Ramchal and the Ramma of Pano who were shaved and who say that growing a beard is specifically in Israel), intentions in prayer and mitzvot, and so on. There is room here for a more Jewish perspective than a discussion of mysticism.

The Zohar (and the Book of Creation), which have been accepted in most communities for generations, plus a collection of customs, some of which have taken root in all Jewish communities, are not a tradition from Sinai, but not far from the Talmud. Of course, I am not going into the case of a conflict between Kabbalah and Halacha, but the Jewish people, for the most part, accepted that there is a concept of Kabbalah, that the Book of Zohar is authentic and attributed to the ancients, and that many customs are practiced because of Kabbalah (even the Karaites did not accept the Mishnah and Talmud, and the rabbi accepts that the student has authority). Isn't this different and more binding in the rabbi's view?

These are customs and should be treated like any other custom. It is of no importance that they come from Kabbalah.
Kabbalah in tradition regarding facts has no status. Atvads are examined according to whether they are true or not. Therefore, when the people accept that there is Kabbalah or the authenticity of the Zohar, it has no meaning and authoritative validity.

Thank you, glad to hear that is indeed the case.

If I may ask one last question on the subject, why is the Talmud really an authority and the Zohar not, if both are texts that were accepted by the Jewish people for many generations?

Because everyone accepted the Talmud and Kabbalah did not. Also in terms of credibility, the Talmud passed a broad and critical front and Kabbalah did not.

It is not certain that the rabbi is factually correct.
A. Not everyone accepted the Talmud.
B. The broad and critical front that the Talmud went through is that of its creators and their students. It is not clear what their role was among the people in real time (if there is information about this, I would be happy to hear) and whether their level of criticism was sufficient.
C. Almost everyone who accepted the Talmud also accepted the new Kabbalah as soon as it appeared, and vice versa.

But even if we assume that everyone accepted the Talmud and not Kabbalah, the question here is why accept it at all and what is the source of authority. The answer given here is like asking a Christian why he accepts the books that are included in the holy scriptures of his sect and not the books of other gospels, and he will answer that this is what the ancients of his sect accepted. But that is the question itself – Why *do* you accept them as authority? Just because this happens to be the religious sect you were born into?
And from other answers here that I've read, I assume the rabbi would answer that if you don't accept, then you don't accept. But that's a circular argument. Why do you accept? Because I accept. And if you don't accept, then you don't. In short: why? Like this.

A. Yes, everyone accepted it.
B. I didn't understand. It has been passed down on a broad front throughout history since its creation.
C. Not true. And even those who accepted it do not see it as something binding like the Talmud.

I have written more than once about the meaning of the acceptance of the majority. It has nothing to do with one religious sect or another. If a certain community to which you belong has accepted something as binding, then in principle it binds you. Like a law in the Knesset. And it is really not circular in any way.

A. There were groups that did not accept. At one point in history, they even almost won. It is strange that it even needs to be said.
B. It passed through those who wrote it and those who accepted its sanctity and discussed it within the framework that attributes sanctity and authority to it. This is not criticism at the level of research. The impure Zohar also passed through a certain stage on a broad front (although I agree that in the case of the Zohar it is more artificial, meaning that as soon as they discovered the book they accepted it, unlike the Tosh”a which was probably an organic process to a certain extent).
C. You will find individual opponents to everything, we are talking in generalities. And in this case about an almost absolute majority. In any case, the Judaism that has come down to us is after centuries of almost absolute acceptance of Kabbalah. Although the majority admit that in practice the Talmud prevails (you surely know that not everyone refrained from this either), this does not contradict the fact that both are considered a source of authority. In the Shul, for example, there are laws that originate only in the Zohar, and I have recourse to later rabbis.

The laws of the Knesset bind me against my will. I was born in Israel against my will, I am a citizen of it, and as such I am bound by its laws. If I break the law, I will be punished (unless I am a member of a certain caste). I have no obligation to the laws beyond the fear of punishment (some of them correspond to my values, opinions, and desires, but this does not stem from a commitment to the law but from myself) and I will happily break many laws and without remorse if I know I will not be caught. And today, since the Jewish religion has no enforcement institutions, I do not understand what binds me. Even if you say that I choose to belong to the Jewish community (and I do), this does not mean that this affiliation will bind me to all of the law, at most in symbolic customs, folklore, and the like, like most Jews today.
I'm really curious to understand the rabbi's position and I can't.

We're wasting our time, and I feel like you're just insisting. I'm exhausted.

Is this your version of "You have found a place of disgrace, Khazar king"?

The rabbi's argument regarding the acceptance of the Talmud may be a circular argument, but it does not change the main point. The Talmud was accepted. Kabbalah was not. Even the Kabbalists admit this and say it openly.

Do you even know Judaism? As I already wrote, everyone who accepted the Talmud also accepted Kabbalah, at least in the last 500 years. A boy would count the exceptions. Kabbalists do not admit anything and some even explicitly say that Kabbalah is superior to the Mishnah and the Talmud. The only thing that is agreed upon (and even that is not entirely) is that in matters of halakhic rulings - the Talmud is superior to the Zohar. But both are sources of authority and are held to be equally holy. This is the Judaism that has come down to us - in halakhic law, customs, prayers, beliefs and opinions.
If you are hung up on the few great men who opposed it, you will easily condemn the Torah Sheva - which a large part of the Jewish people rejected at different times.
And in general, I do not understand which of these arguments was accepted or not, but I am repeating myself.

There is not even a shred of circularity here. I simply don't understand this delusional discussion.

The circularity arises because there is no documentation of an official process by which the Babylonian Talmud was accepted by the people of Israel. All that exists is a social reality in which the Talmud is perceived as having authority. When asked where the authority comes from? They answer: Because that is how the people of Israel received it. And when asked how do you know that the people of Israel received it? They answer: Here is a fact that the Talmud has authority over the people of Israel. This is exactly the famous Shtreimel argument. From a logical point of view, it is completely valid, but it is still circular.

And in fact, the historian Saul Baron gave a different historical description. According to his description, the historical process goes like this:
Before the Muslim period -
Babylon – The Babylonian Talmud was signed and accepted as authoritative only in Babylon
Eretz Israel – The Jerusalem Talmud is authoritative
Scattered Jewish communities with all kinds of customs, some rabbinical and some Sadducean.

The Muslim conquest conquers the entire Middle East from Central Asia to Spain. The only Jewish communities outside their control are in Byzantium and Europe. The assumption in the study is that those communities have Land of Israel traditions that are ready-made “custom” (if we ignore the theory of the “Third Yeshiva in Babylon” of Professor Chaim Soloveitchik). The Muslim caliphs control the head of the Babylonian diaspora over all Jews in the Muslim area. He in turn uses his political power to control the Babylonian Talmud over all Jews in the Muslim area. In response, the Karaite revolt breaks out in communities with Sadducean traditions. The Jewish communities in the Christian area accept the Talmud while adapting to local custom. In the new situation, the Jewish world is divided between those who accepted the authority of the Babylonian Talmud for the Karaites.

However, Baron's description gives us the context of revelation and not the context of justification. After all, the Muslim government allowed the Jews to be Karaites. And yet most Jews remained faithful to the Babylonian Talmud. In other words, the rabbinical argument that the people of Israel accepted the Babylonian Talmud is indeed correct, if only by virtue of the argument that "most of it is like the whole of it." It is true that we have no official documentation, but the result speaks for itself.

When you simply insist that there is no argument on earth that is not circular. There is no circularity here, but I see that a short logic lesson is needed to explain this.
The Talmud was accepted by the general public and the sages, that is a fact. The claim I made is that what is accepted has validity. From these two assumptions, the conclusion follows that the Talmud has validity. Now note: the statement that the Talmud has validity (the conclusion) is not the same as the statement that it was accepted (the assumption), and therefore there is no circularity here. Why? Because the first claim is a normative claim and the second claim is a factual claim.
[The bridge assumption is needed precisely to bridge the fact between the fact and the norm without falling into the ought-is fallacy of today.] One can of course argue about the bridge assumption (what is accepted has validity) or the factual assumption (that the Talmud was indeed accepted). But there is no circularity here. Prov.

YD, the historical overview you provided is nice, but there are holes in it. For example, the Geoni Ai, who ruled according to the Jerusalemite and whose authority was accepted by the Jews in several countries, continued to exist even after the period of the Geoni of Babylon ended, that is, hundreds of years after the Muslim conquest. The Karaites, at least the one led by Anan (groups that settled in Toshish'a probably existed since the time of the Temple), did not break out exactly at the time of the conquest, but here it is already relatively recent, so I am not sure. In fact, any Geoni Ai matter is almost unknown to the public, everyone thinks that since the signing of the Babylonian, everyone has accepted it. But in reality, there were Sadducean/Karaite sects and there were rabbis subordinate to the Jerusalemite, and who knows if there weren't other different groups.

Just for the record, do you have a link to the material on the geniuses of the Land of Israel?