Questions about the sanctity of the Zohar and the Ari

In honor of Rabbi Malkiel Avraham Shlita
Peace and blessings
In recent years, feelings and doubts have been developing within me about the sanctity of the Book of Zohar and the Ari’s interpretation. For several years, I have been trying to suppress these thoughts, because of the principle of faith in the sages . To my great regret, lately, my soul has not given me rest and thoughts of heresy in the teachings of the Zohar arise in me again and again.
I asked a number of Kabbalistic scholars with my questions, and strangely enough, the vast majority of them decided not to answer me. Unfortunately, the answers of the minority of scholars or Kabbalists who answered were not relevant or sufficient to dispel my thoughts, and therefore I will ask the esteemed Rabbi to help me and bring peace to my soul.
I could write an entire book on the subject, but I will try to concisely present the key questions that are on my mind.
First question regarding the antiquity of the Zohar
The Book of Zohar became known to the world only about seven hundred years ago, about two hundred years after the death of Rashi, about a hundred years after the death of Maimonides, and, as mentioned, about one thousand and one hundred years after the time of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The book was unknown to anyone before this period, and there was no hint of its existence. There are four versions of the discovery of the Book of Zohar.
The first and second versions are described in the words of Rabbi Avraham Zakut in his well-known work Sefer Yochasin, in which he wrote down rules on the Shas and the Poskim. For centuries, this book was the most important of the books of the history of Israel, and included a description of the history of the people of Israel and its sages throughout history until his own time:
“…I will inform you of what I found written: Rabbi Yitzhak Daman of Acre went to investigate the Book of Zohar…and I asked the students who had the Book of Zohar in their hands where they got it from. And I did not see their words as deliberate.
A. Some say that the Ramban found it in the Land of Israel and sent it to Catalonia, where it was brought to the organization and fell into the hands of Rabbi Moshe Leon.
on. And some say that there was never a composition by Rashbi. Only Rabbi Moshe knew the name of the writer, and with his power he would write wondrous things. And in order to get a great price for them. He would hang himself on a large tree, which was Rashbi and his friends and his son Rabbi Elazar… And I came to the city of Valyad and I found there an old sage named Rabbi David Dafan-Corbo and I found favor in my eyes, and I convinced him to say, if he knew the truth of the Book of Zohar, whether it was true or not. And the sage said, because it was clear to him that Rabbi Moshe was the author of it, he was their creator. And the grandeur of truths is that Rabbi Moshe, who is mentioned, used to write secrets and wonders for the rich in that kingdom and took from them many gifts of gold and silver… But from his head and heart and mind and intellect he wrote everything he wrote. And I said to him, when I saw him writing without a word before him: Why do you say that you are copying a book, and you only write from your head? Wouldn’t it be nice for you to say that you are writing from your mind, and you will have more honor. And he answered me And he said: If I were to tell them my secret that I write with my mind, they would not heed my words or give them a penny, for they would say that he fabricated them from his heart. But now, when they hear that I am copying them from the Book of Zohar, which Rashbi composed with the Holy Spirit, they will buy them with precious blood, as your eyes can see… And from this you will understand that the Book of Zohar and the source from which it came out and spread were not known like the other famous works of the sages from the day of their revelation: the Mishnah, the Babylonian Talmud, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Tosefta, the Sephara, and my books, all of which are known and famous in their origin and who is their author… Because I have seen that his words (From the Book of Zohar) Wonderful, they will draw from the source of the upper, the influential spring… I pursued Rabbi Moshe de Leon… and asked the students who have in their hands things greater than him: Where did they get the wonderful secrets accepted by word of mouth that were not given to be written down and are found there explained to every reader of a book?… And I did not find their answers to my question intentional, this one says crying and this one says crying” (‘Sefer Yochasin’ by Rabbi Avraham Zakut (1448-1515). In the testimony of Rabbi Yitzchak Daman of Acre).
The first version that the book was given from the Ramban to Rabbi Moshe de Leon is very puzzling. After all, the Ramban was already considered one of the greatest of his generation in his time. Why would he give the book to an unknown kabbalist outside the Land of Israel? Were there a lack of kabbalists in the Holy Land? Why would he give the book to a Jew who was far away from him?
If this version is correct, is it possible that the Ramban was afraid to publish the book under his own name, because he was afraid that people would not believe that it was Rashbi’s ancient book?
The second version is more disappointing. According to the testimony of Rabbi Yitzchak Daman Acre (1250-1340), who was one of the greatest Acre scholars of his generation, he was told by Rabbi David di Pancorbo (who spoke with his wife and daughter) that the Zohar was a forgery and that Moshe di Leon was the one who composed the Zohar and had it hung by the Rashbi so that his words would be accepted and he could sell them for a lot of blood.
A third version of the discovery of the Zohar by the Kabbalist Rabbi Avraham ben Mordechai Azulai, the great-grandfather of the Chida:
“…and they said that the Book of Zohar was hidden in Meron in a cave, and they found an Ishmaelite and sold it to vendors in the Upper Galilee, and some papers from it fell into the hands of a sage who came from the West, and he went and searched and collected all the papers from all the vendors, and he also searched in the garbage and found that the vendors were selling spices in them, although its main origin was in a city in the West called Todna, and it is possible that the aforementioned Western sage was the one who led it to his city” (Introduction to the book ‘Or Hama’ by Mahara Azulai).
A fourth version of the discovery of the Zohar by Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai (HaChida):
“Until the Lord appeared before a king of the kings of the East, who ordered to dig in a certain place for money matters. And there was found a chest containing the Book of Zohar, and he sent it to the sages of Edom, but they did not know it and would not understand it. He sent after the Jews… and they said to him, “Our lord the king, this is the book that one sage made, and it is profound and we do not understand it.” He said to him, “Is there not a Jew in the world who understands it?” He said to him, “There is one in the state of Tolitila.” And the king sent the books with his warriors to Tolitila, and when the sages of Tolitila saw it, they rejoiced greatly over it and sent the king many gifts, and from there the Kabbalah spread in Israel…” (The Hidda in the Name of the Great, entry “Zohar”).
First, it is surprising that the Hida did not accept the version of his grandfather (presented in the third version). This great-grandfather was one of the faithful disciples of Rabbi Chaim Vital and it was he who removed Rabbi Vital’s confidential writings from his grave.
Second, the Azoulay family’s versions are very problematic. Both because the work appeared out of nowhere after so many years, and because during this time, it was not in authorized Jewish hands. Where does our belief come from that the book is not a pseudoepigraphic forgery? (i.e., a book whose composition is attributed to an ancient sage and is made famous in order to increase his honor and influence)? After all, everyone admits that there is no tradition about the origin of this book, and there is no hint in the extensive scholastic literature of the existence of this book or that Rashbi even composed a book! And in the thousand and one hundred years that have passed since Rashbi lived, countless authors could have arisen and attributed their words to him (as indeed happened with additional works attributed to Rashbi, and other works unjustly attributed to other authors).
Let’s say that in our time, archaeologists were to find a new, unknown book in an ancient cave, such as the Book of Adam, which contains deep secrets that have never been revealed. There is no doubt that all the sages of Israel would oppose this book, claiming that it is a forgery. Even if one of the sages of the generation claimed to have received the Holy Spirit and the deep secrets of the book were revealed to him, would it be conceivable that any of the rabbis of Israel today would agree to accept his commentaries and put them in the Jewish bookcase?
Where does the certainty come from that the Rashbi is the one who wrote the book and not another person?
It is known that Rabbi Moshe de Leon was a scholar and even studied with renowned Kabbalists in Spain (Rabbi Todorus ben Yosef Abulafia and Rabbi Yosef Jiktilia), and wrote several books on Kabbalah, but he was not known and famous as one of the greats of his generation (both openly and secretly), and he was not held or tested as a true prophet, and therefore the claim that he was the one who wrote the Book of Zohar through divine prophecy is also rejected.
The descriptions that the book was found in a cave by an Arab merchant or by a Gentile king also seem very puzzling. Our sages taught us:
“Did I not tell you that every baraita that was not recited in the study of Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshaya is corrupted, and you should not argue about it in the study of Rabbi Chiya?” (Chulin Kama 1:1).
And similarly, the sages of the Land of Israel taught us:
“Any Mishnah that does not enter the group is not trusted” (Yerushalmi Eruvin, 1, 6).
Even if the sages saw the Book of Zohar and marveled at it (because they recognized, through oral tradition, many of the ideas written in the Zohar), they were forbidden to accept it because it was not given in tradition.
Even from the world of halakhic law, it is understandable that we must demand tradition even about things that are absolutely clear and well-known (I mean – even if the Sages recognized some of the ideas in the Zohar in the oral tradition, it is still obligatory to demand the tradition handed down from generation to generation), as we learned in the prohibition of foods with signs of purity that are missing in the tradition:
“Davna Debbi Rabbi Yishmael, this is the animal that you shall eat – teaches that the Blessed One, blessed be He, took from every species and showed it to Moses and said to him, “This you shall eat, and this you shall not eat” (Chulin 44).. And the halakhic ruling is that “pure chicken is eaten according to tradition” (Yod. 42). “…It is said: And no fowl may be eaten except in accordance with the tradition that they have accepted that it is pure, and this is the practice and should not be changed” (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah, section 42).
Or as Ibn Ezra clarifies about accepting books found over the generations without a Jewish origin:
“…And I tell you in general that any book that was not written by prophets or sages from the mouth of Kabbalah should not be trusted, even if it contains things that are denied by correct knowledge. And so is the book of Zerubbabel. And also the book of Eldad the Danite, and similar to them” (Iben Ezra Exodus 2:23).
Or as the RSG wrote, regarding the non-acceptance of the Shiur Qoma book because it was not accepted in tradition:
“We do not have the authority to accept the book Shiur Qoma from the sages of our faith, since it is neither in the Mishnah nor in the Talmud, and there is also no evidence to learn from it whether Rabbi Ishmael truly said it, or whether others besides him said it and attributed it to Rabbi Ishmael, as many of the books written by some of the famous sages are attributed” (from an ancient Kondris from the group of our ancestors).
And I wonder, how, after over a thousand years, does someone find a book and say that it is from the words of Rashbi, and the book is accepted as a book handed down in tradition from generation to generation?
To my great regret, in my occupation as an exposer of fraudsters who pretend to be Kabbalists, I see the serious consequences of everything that branches out from the belief of the fatwas. Because of the vague mysticism, I have come to see that many (including scholars and rabbis) have fallen under the false spell of the Kabbalists’ sermons in the past and present. The entire movement of the false destroyers, headed by Shabtai Zvi Shari, or the false prophets known in recent centuries, were based on the teachings of Jewish Kabbalah.
A second question regarding who wrote the Book of Zohar
The status of the Book of Zohar was accepted because of its attribution to the holy Rashbi, but even the greatest sages and Kabbalists admit that it was not Rashbi who wrote it:
“And please listen to the words of the book ‘Shelshelet Hakaballah’, which he wrote on leaf 31, in his language: And it is fitting that you know that Rashbi and his son did not write the Book of Zohar that we have today, but there were his students, the students of his students who compiled the pamphlets that they and their friends wrote about sixty years after his death. And I have accepted by word of mouth that this compilation is so great that if it were all found together, it would be a camel’s weight” (The Yeshar of Kandia, appended to Lechma, chapter 18).
And the famous Jew asked, how do we accept a book attributed to Rashbi, which may have been distorted and forged by other authors:
“And this is something that all the owners of the Zohar and the owners of the Ari’s writings will not deny, that the Zohar is not accepted by the Israeli nation generation after generation from person to person, just as the Mishnah and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud and the books of Vespers and Safra and Tosefta and Makhilta are accepted by us from the Tannaim and the Amoraim, generation after generation up to the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud themselves… And how can we rely on writings that exist several hundred years after the death of Rashbi, and is it not Rashbi who signed every word, and if many things came out of it, who knows how many were added to them, and even in those that came out of it, who knows if they were not mistaken” (Dershath Honeda Bi Yehuda).
Also according to Rabbi Moshe Hagiz, who was one of the sages of Jerusalem in the 18th century, the Book of Zohar was not written by Rashbi, but was created at a later period:
“The truth is revealed through the compiler and author of the book of Zohar, Dudai was a great man. The Kontris were gathered near him, and from heaven they granted him the privilege of bringing to light the mysteries of high and hidden wisdom, and he arranged the Kontris according to the order of the Pharisees. But God forbid, Rashbi or Rabbi Abba did not make this order that is in our hands. For this is a famous error and foolishness, like those who believe that we believe something that is not true, that the Talmud as it is arranged with us was with our forefather Abraham” (Mishnah Chacham 1:1).
Or as Rabbi Yitzchak bar Sheshet (the Rivash), one of the greatest Sages of Sephardim, a student of the Ran and of Rabbi Hasdai Karshakash, taught:
“…And for this reason I do not stick myself in that other wisdom that I did not receive from a wise Kabbalist…and am close to making a mistake in something from them, and therefore I have chosen not to have anything to do with the occult…” (Responsa Rivash, 197).
Or as Rabbi Elazar Plekels, a fellow disciple of the renowned Jew, who supported the royal decree that banned the importation of Kabbalah books, warned in his oath:
“I swear by the Torah of God that in the Book of Zohar there were found several forgeries and corruptions that were added… because all the generations before did not remember (mention) the Book of Zohar at all, neither in a waking state nor in a dream, because here is the truth of the saying that this collection is from the Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, which Rabbi Yehuda the President also received from him… How could he not mention this book in his compilation of Shas Mishnayot or anywhere, and even Rabbi Yochanan, who composed the Jerusalem Talmud, does not mention it anywhere, and Rabina and Rav Ashi, who composed the Babylonian Talmud a hundred years after the compilation of the Jerusalem Talmud and were the last of the Amoraim and did not mention the Book of Zohar in the entire Talmud, and Rav Bar Nachmani, who composed many (Midrash Rabbah) and Shochar Tov and many such, did not mention it from the compilation of Rashbi… and I do not, God forbid, cast blame or blemish on the honor of the Tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, because he was one of the followers of Elohim, but I say: It is not the seal of the Darshbi and its azkathi Sealed on it (this book is not sealed from the teachings of Rashbi)… And behold, from the day the Book of Zohar was renewed, many have stumbled over it, because of some obscure and sealed things that the latter have invented to mislead people who live in the darkness of the mind…” (Rabbi Elazar Plekels, ‘Teshuvah from Love’, Ch. 1, paragraph 26).
It is worth noting that Rabbi Pleks was friends with many of the great men of his generation, including the grandfather of Rabbi Yechiel Michal Epstein, author of “Aruch Hashulchan,” so even if he did not know or was familiar with the secret teachings, he would learn them from his wise friends.
The Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac ben Yaakov Heber, a student of the Vilna Gaon, wrote in his book:
“A few generations after Rashbi… and GAZ, many additions were made to it by the last of the last, and many hands ruled over it, 21 whatever seemed to him to be new to him… and from this came several articles that clearly appear to be from the last, as is the case with Rashi and R.T., and many such things, and on several articles we find in the writings of the Arizal that he said it is not from the Zohar at all” (Magen and Tzina, 21).
And the Kabbalist Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo (also known as Yeshar of Candia) wrote:
“…all the matters of the Amoraim mentioned in it (in the Book of Zohar) are later additions” (Mitzraef Lechma 21).
And Rabbi Yosef Chaim (ben Ish Chai) wrote:
“In fact, this hypothesis is not strange, for we find many such things in the Holy Zohar, for in it there are things said by our Rabbi Arizal that are not from the Zohar, but are the words of a later sage that the copyists inserted in the Zohar and the Poq Chezi in the book of the Gaon Rabbi Ya’avetz, who found several such things” (Sod Yesharim 44, 32, 20).
He added that even the Ari claimed that there are Zohar articles that are not sacred, and are the words of the last sages that the copyists inserted into the Zohar:
“…which Rabbi Chaim Vital wrote in the name of the Ari. Regarding the verses mentioned in the Zohar to be recited during the marriage ceremony on Shabbat night, which he would stammer out as not being from the words of the Zohar.” (In the Secret of Yesharim, Part 4, Section 2).
Rabbi Hanoch of Sasov writes that nowadays it is no longer possible to distinguish between the words of the Rashbi and the additions that have been introduced over the years:
“On every page of the Zohar and its corrections, there are many significant additions that were added during the days of the late Geonim to the pages, and after that the scribes inserted these things into the book, to the point that it is now very difficult to ascertain which is the main point and which is the addition “ (Responsa Mephaneh Ne’lamim 3:5).
Rabbi Yaakov Emdin, one of the great rabbis of the 18th century (Yabach), proved in his book (‘Metafach Sfarim’) by means of one hundred and eighty examples, that the Zohar contains passages that were added in later periods:
“But I have no doubt at all that, with all the praise of the Book of Zohar, things that have no basis in fact have not escaped its approach. Perhaps the scribes secretly copied the book, adding to it additional, slag-covered, dross-covered, and the moon of Kabbalah does not shine, and they are called by the name of the Book of Zohar in a counterfeit. And by saying that they are counterfeit, I do not mean to say that they are unsuitable for use in the assembly of God, like counterfeit currency with an absolute lie. God forbid that I fail to teach about everything that is found in it, to the extent that the hand of possibility can reach… Even though the Zohar itself was not composed by Rashbi Tanna, even though it is attributed after him and is called by his name (as happened in several early books and most later ones), but rather by the students of his students’ students, who undoubtedly compiled it, collected it, and composed it… But I say this for sure, in any case, many things from later, very late authors were swallowed up in this compilation… But there is this book in print, with Bar and Tevan mixed in, and the words of the Midrash of the Unknown, visible and exciting to anyone who is not interested in the compilation, and also several articles are inserted into the actual Book of Zohar, and they are in corrupted Aramaic… And I have already said twice and thrice that in the actual Book of Zohar there is nothing said and there are no words that from a holy place he will walk and from the source of Israel he will be carved, and the Rashbi himself did not do it, only the students of his students, MM is rightly called after his name, as in it you will find many books related according to their first source, even though they were not compiled until the last generation, but no one suspects anything.” (Bookkeeper A).
Likewise, even the last Kabbalists in recent generations admitted that Rashbi was not the one who wrote the Book of Zohar:
” In the spiritual root of the world of nobility, the words of the Zohar certainly belong to the Rashbi, but in the world of creation (that is, in reality) the words were indeed written later” (“The Rabbi the Nazir” Emunah on the Crossroads).
Rabbi Yaba Halevi wrote in his book that there are absurd things in the Zohar that cannot be attributed to the Rashbi:
“Refer to the Zohar, Ch. 1, page 22, end of A. 1 and Rish A. 2, where it is said that God opposed the creation of Adam the First, and “Mama” created Adhar by the will of God, in the name of strange and strange things, and without a doubt they did not originate with the Rashbi” (‘Do not forsake the Torah of Your Mother’, p. 15).
The Rebbe of Qumran also wrote about the additions to the Zohar: “The Ra’iya of the Hymn was written during the time of the Ge’onim” (in Zohar Hai, Genesis, p. 41a).
Rabbi Hillel Zeitlin explained this by saying that the Tosafot Tamahot were written by Rabbi Moshe de Leon:
“Rabbi Moshe collected, gathered and compiled with wonderful diligence all the aforementioned tracts, however, he was not only a collector and arranger, but he also infused into them his own spirit, carried forward the holy and great ideas he found, studied them as a kind of material, turned them over and over again, and at times found in them many motives, which he came up with for many sermons, which he endeavored to write in the same text as the tracts he collected. Sometimes he came up with the aforementioned text, and sometimes he did not. Therefore, there are some that we encounter there, as Rabbi Yaakov Emdin has already noted, Sephardic words and the like…” (“Key to the Book ‘HaZohar’,” The Period, Vol. 7, 1874, pp. 367-368).
And we will return to the question again: how do we attribute this book to Rashbi when it is proven even by the Kabbalists themselves that Rashbi did not write all of these writings, and even if some of the ideas were expressed in Rashbi’s name, it is agreed that the book included ideas that were not expressed by the saints of God, and how were they accepted as the Torah of God?
Third question regarding belief in prophets without proof
Prophecies given from heaven directly to the prophet Elijah raise many questions. As the Rebbe of Qumran describes in his writings on the sanctity of the Tosafot of the Zohar:
“At the end of the days of the rabbis who believed in the beginning of the Geonim, there was one holy man who had the soul of Moses our Lord in him…and all the Rabbis and his companions appeared to him…and he composed a book of hymns from the Hymn…and he also arranged a book of corrections…and added to it some things from the Zohar, as well as his own words and innovations…” (Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Yechiel of Qumran, ‘The Path of Your Commandments’, Shvil HaTorah 33, 10).
A similar approach is presented in the words of Rabbi Zeitlin, who claims that Rabbi Moshe de Leon wrote the Book of Zohar in prophecy:
“…When he arranged the Zohar pamphlets, he was entirely under their sublime influence, living entirely in his spirit in the company of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, his friends and disciples, standing entirely among those saints and pure ones, in whose Torah he meditated day and night and labored so much to understand and attain every single thing from their words. He believed then truly and sincerely that he stood in the company of these Irin Kaddishin, and that everything he innovates — according to them he innovates, all his Torah — is theirs. Therefore, he conversed and attained with Elijah, Moses, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and his group, as with the people of his generation… All the pamphlets, and many of the pamphlets that he sent to the wealthy people, were truly the fruit of his spirit, but that spirit always lived in the company of “the Holy One, in whose presence he was, and in whose presence he was,” in the “entourage of the above and the entourage of the below,” among the scribes in the orchard and among those who “have no bar” (“Key to the Book of ‘The Zohar,'” The Period, Vol. 7, 1914, p. 368).
The Rashba also testified in his responsa that in his time (i.e., close to the time of Rabbi Moshe de Leon) there was one man who was not a rabbi and yet, despite this, he would demand secrets that you have never heard of and more honorable than what the great men of the generation would say (as I believe in the Rashba’s responsa, part 1, paragraph 39).
First, one must ask, can the secrets of the Torah come through spiritual action in a superhuman flow even to those who are not scholars of Torah (‘Neither the people of the land is pious nor the ignorant fear sin’), so how can one testify that a person who is not a Torah scholar received a revelation (prophecy) from Rashbi and his friends?
Secondly, how can one testify about a person who truly had the soul of Moses our Lord?
Third, how can one testify about a person who had a conversation and achieved something with Elijah, Moses, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and his group, as well as with the people of his generation?
It is important for me to emphasize that I have no problem if the Zohar was written by a later prophet or prophets, but accepting testimony of prophecy requires examination and verification, as the sages warned us , that the Torah is not given from heaven and that false prophecy can occur even to people who appear righteous and are considered scholars!
All those dozens of sources that relied on prophecy, a voice, the Holy Spirit, and dreams were accepted in Jewish tradition because they were verified by prophetic tests. In contrast, Rabbi Moshe de Leon, the Ari, and Rabbi Chaim Vital, the Baal Shem Tov, and their ilk, were not publicly verified as true prophets. I note this because most of the great Kabbalists did not continue the teachings of their rabbis, but rather developed a new system of their own.
The claim that the Holy Spirit is not prophecy is a false claim (I wrote an entire article about it). In the entire Tanakh, the Geonim and Rishonim, there is no difference between prophecy and the Holy Spirit. Of course, prophecy is a divine revelation of a higher power than the Holy Spirit, but even lower spiritual revelations such as the Holy Spirit or Bat Kol belong to the family of prophecy, as the Ramban writes:
“…And know that there are four degrees in prophecy, Bat Kol, Urim and Tomi, the Holy Spirit, prophecy, and all of them are degrees divided one above the other, and all of them proceed from the measure called righteousness…And the point of the Holy Spirit is that a person finds a broad heart in himself and wonderful things come to his mouth and he foretells the future and his feelings are not at all nullified, but he brings out the words from his mouth according to what the Holy Spirit puts into his mouth, and he does not know where the words came from.” (Ramban, Exodus, Chapter 28, 30).
The problem is not just with the Ari, many of the recent Kabbalists have testified about themselves that they received a prophecy, the Ramchal also writes about himself: “But you suggested…on the first day of the month of Sivan, when I was a single monk, I fell asleep and when I woke up I heard a voice saying: “Let us be glad, we will be given a recitation of the Tamirin de Malka Kadisha”…On the second day at that time I tried to be alone in the room, and the voice came back and said another secret. Until one day later he revealed to me that he was a messenger from heaven…Then he commanded me to compose a book on Ecclesiastes, that he would interpret for me the secret of each verse. Then Elijah came and said the secrets of what he said…And in the writers of the novellas, which they say, I will write it one day. And I do all these things without falling on my face. And I see these holy souls, as if from a dream, in the form of a man.” (Letter 15).
Rabbi Yosef Karo also testified about himself: “And you will also asceticize your soul as I told you so that you may be worthy to see Elijah in a dream face to face and he will speak to you face to face” (Maggid Meishram, p. 9) – “And if prophecy ceases from Israel, it does not cease from you” (Maggid Meishram, p. 370) “That you may be worthy to speak face to face as I speak to you” (Maggid Meishram, p. 116).
I find the words of the Hidda very puzzling, as on the one hand he denied the possibility of determining halakha through prophetic dreams by Rabbi Yaakov of Meroish, in his book: Responsa entitled “From the Heavens” (except in the blessing of women on the four species), and on the other hand, he wrote to rely for halakha on the words of the Ari in the custom of saying “Breich Shemiya” because “to him God revealed Himself.”
Once the Torah has descended from heaven and been given to us, a halakhic dispute cannot be decided, other than according to the rules of haskaz, by relying on prophecy or a voice. This rule also prevents a prophet from establishing halakhic law for generations or changing in any way the end of a Yod in the Torah of Moses:
“Return (Rabbi Eliezer)” And he said to them: If a law like mine were to be established from heaven, they would prove it… A voice came out and said: What do you have against Rabbi Eliezer, who has a law like his everywhere? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is not in heaven!
In the book Ben Yochai by Rabbi Moshe Kunitz, pp. 11-13, there appears a large list of laws originating from the Zohar that conflict with the laws of the Talmud (both in the obligation to search for the commandment of sending the nest, contrary to the Gemara in Cholin Kelt, which holds that only if one meets someone by chance on the way does one gain the mitzvah. And also in the dispute between the Kabbalists and the halachic authorities (such as the Rosh Maharam Rema and the Samak) regarding the putting on of tefillin on Chol HaMoed, which today is not done on Chol HaMoed. And also in the dispute over the reading of the Torah aloud by the person ascending to the Torah. And also in the recitation of the Berkot Hashachar, which according to Kabbalah bless them, even when they do not benefit from them. And also in the washing of the hands of the priests before ascending to the lectern, even when their hands are clean. And also in the washing of the hands of the priests by the Levites according to the Zohar ruling, or in the permission for the priests to visit the graves of the saints, and even in emphasizing the seriousness of ejaculating semen in vain. to the point of death and many other examples).
I wonder how new laws, new customs, and new interpretations are accepted as Torah from heaven, when this book and its commentators have no tradition from generation to generation?
I wonder how some of the halachic arbiters, such as the Hidda and Ben Ish-Chai, hold the opinion that we must rule in halachic matters according to the words of the Ari, even against the opinion of the Shulchan Arbiter (because the Ari saw the rewriting of the Bible and considered his opinion and nevertheless decided to rule differently, and if the Shulchan Arbiter had not known the greatness of the Ari, he would have ruled according to the opinion of the Ari). According to them, how can we trust the Ari as an experienced arbiter in practical halachic rulings, when it is known that for many years he was a recluse? We have no evidence, how many years did he study or serve his rabbis?
I wonder why the opposition of Rabbi Yaakov Abulafia, the rabbi of Damascus (he was the head of the sages and a reformer of ordination) was not accepted by the Kabbalist circle in Safed and by Rabbi Chaim in particular. Rabbi Abulafia not only did not believe in the miracles told about the Ari, but he actually opposed Rabbi Chaim Vital and even thwarted his appointment as rabbi of a synagogue (in the Book of Visions there are several passages in which Rabbi Vital describes Rabbi Yaakov as one of his greatest opponents).
How was the Ari – Rabbi Yitzchak ben Shlomo Luria, accepted by the absolute majority of the sages of Israel, as a man of God with prophetic revelations, when he was not verified or tested as a true prophet? Even if the Ari managed to impress all the sages of Safed with his extensive knowledge of the revealed and the hidden, he is obligated according to the Torah to undergo verification as a true prophet. Especially when he gave instructions from heaven for the correction of man.
In my humble opinion, even the style of his prophetic words quoted from Rabbi Vital requires prophetic verification:
“…And he would speak with spirits from the reincarnations, good spirits and evil spirits. And he would recognize the smell of clothes like a clean one who interprets the words, and with mute birds. And he would bring a person’s soul while he was still alive and speak to it about all its needs and desires, and then take it away. And he would see souls when they leave the body, and in cemeteries, and in their company every Sabbath evening to the Garden of Eden. And he would speak with the souls of the righteous who are in the world to come, and they would reveal to him the secrets of the Torah. And he would know the wisdom of the face, and the drawings of the hands, and the interpretation of dreams about their truth, and in old and new reincarnations. And he would recognize in a person’s forehead what he calculated and what he dreamed, and what verse he read when his soul ascended to the Garden of Eden at night, and he would teach the interpretation of the root of his soul. And he would read on his forehead the merits and demerits that he calculated. And he would give each and every one correction according to the special choice, or to the root of his soul that is in the root of Adhar….And he brought the Holy Spirit to him, and Elijah would always reveal himself to him.”
Rabbi Chaim Vital also wrote about the Ari:
“And now I will write the place of the graves of the righteous, as I received from my teacher (the Ari), may God have mercy on him, and I have already informed you that he would see and look at the souls of the righteous, in every place and at every time, and when he was at their graves, where their souls stand as is known, even from afar his eyes would look at the soul of the righteous standing at his grave, and he would know the grave of every righteous person, and he would talk with them, and learn from them some of the secrets of the Torah. And I have already tried several attempts and investigated thoroughly, and I found his words honest and true, and there is no need to prolong this now, because they are terrible and wonderful things and cannot contain a book” (Shaar Gilgulim Preface 37).
These words, which were not even spoken about Moses, are especially astonishing when they were not verified for generations (the Ari was not verified as a prophet), and we do not know about the Torah greatness of the holy man (some say that he wrote, together with Rabbi Bezalel Ashkenazi, the commentary “Shita Mekubets” on Tractate Minachot, but the commentary was lost while it was still in manuscript form, and therefore we cannot determine its Torah level).
In addition, not only did the Ari bring from heaven a new Torah that was not stated in the tradition, he rejected the later Kabbalists after the Ramban and claimed that they were not honest and that it was forbidden to read them (in the Book of Nagid and Mitzvah). He also claimed that all the piyutim, such as “Yagdal Elohim Chai” written by Rabbi Shlomo Ibn Gabirol or other piyutim written by the latter, are based on error and should not be recited. He even wrote about the Maggid of Rabbi Yosef Karo who was a liar: “What the Maggid of Rabbi Beit Yosef said… is a lie” (Sefer Galgulim, Chapter 35). And so on and so on…
Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh of Modena, in his book “Ari Nohem,” adds that Rabbi Yaakov Abulafia knew the Ari and was not impressed by his Torah and spiritual greatness:
“It is impossible to tell you what happened to me more than 50 years ago… The sage Rabbi Yedidia Galanti, a messenger from the Land of Israel, arrived here… Galanti began to tell about the miracles and wonders of the Ari, the late… And I will not hide this from you, that a great sage and pious man from our yeshiva… He also speaks about the wonders of the Ari, the late, before he was ordained to study, he said that several times the sage Rabbi Yaakov Abulafia, the late, who was the Ari’s cousin and brother, told him that there were never any stories about his actions, and that even he would tell him that the things that were being said were not true. He also said in the name of the aforementioned sage, that the Ari spent most of the day dealing with merchandise. “.
This is because the spiritual image of the Ari (as Rabbi Abulafia knew it intimately), which is reflected so powerfully and clearly in his praises and in the writings of his disciples, is nothing more than a lie that was made public. According to Rabbi Abulafia, the Ari was a merchant in Egypt and remained so even in Safed, and it is reasonable to assume that this is an indication that he dealt in the material world and not in the spiritual world.
The Ari’s lifestyle before arriving in Israel is also not entirely clear. His stay in Israel was very short, about two years before he died. To this day, it is not known for certain that he wrote a single book in Kabbalah, Halacha, or thought. And even if he was a co-author of one volume in the compiled system, does this not testify to the generations that he was a prophet endowed with the Holy Spirit who spoke with the prophet Elijah?
How do the old Rebbe and many of the sages of Israel determine that all of the Ari’s teachings were given by Elijah the Prophet?
I wonder why many describe and emphasize the stories and wonders told about the Ari, but do not describe and glorify his greatness and innovations in the revealed Torah?
Shabtai Zvi Shari (who was ordained as a Jewish sage by Rabbi Yosef Iscafe of Izmir) also convinced many of the sages of Israel at the beginning of his career that he was a holy man of God. The letters of his assistant Nathan Ha’azati throughout the Jewish world were received with immense joy. Among his followers were famous rabbis such as Rabbi Yonatan Eybshitz, Rabbi Chaim Ben-Nabashti (author of the Great Knesset) and most of the sages of his generation. Initially, the number of opponents of the Messianic movement was zero. It is possible that if he had died within a few years of his publication (similar to the Ari who died after two years) we would not have known at all that he was a false Messiah.
It is also possible that if he had not had delusions of grandeur (he tried to establish a new Jewish religion and abolish the commandments), he would have been defined as a supreme saint.
It is also possible that if he had not uttered the explicit name of God or had not declared himself Messiah, we would not have stood by his wickedness and would have considered him an angel of God.
Fourth question regarding descriptions that contradict the ancient Jewish view
The Zohar deals with its teachings in areas that were completely foreign to the Jewish world. Take, for example, the subject of ‘reincarnation’:
“…And the firstborn that he begets shall rise up in the name of his dead brother, and his name shall not be blotted out from Israel” – and this is the secret of the reincarnation (this is the secret of the reincarnation)” (Zohar, Vol. 3, p. 10:2).
But this Kabbalistic interpretation was completely foreign to previous generations. For example, our Rabbi Saadia Gaon (he was one of the Babylonian geniuses, the head of the Sura Yeshiva and a traditionalist of the Oral Torah), firmly denied the belief in reincarnation. In his book “Beliefs and Opinions” he devoted an entire section to denying this erroneous belief, and even called those who believed in it “hallucinating” and “confused”:
“…And I say that I have found people among those who are called Jews who believe in reincarnation and call it the transmigration, and we believe that the spirit of Reuben will be in Shimon, then Levi, and then Judah. ​​And some of them, or most of them, believe that there will be a human spirit in an animal and an animal spirit in a human, and many other things from these delusions and confusions…” (Beliefs and Opinions, Article Six, Letter 8).
The son of Maimonides, Rabbi Avraham, also saw this belief as a concept that contradicted Judaism and, in his opinion, a Zen concept that stemmed from the ancient believers of the world:
“The final reward is the life of the world to come… until some of the ancient nations… were forced to believe in the folly of reincarnation, and that is that the soul of the dead, when separated from it, will reincarnate and enter another body… And this idea was not held by a true sage, nor did a Torah scholar believe in it, but it is the folly of the opinions of the early believers, whose names the Lord has blotted out from his world” (The Sufficient for the Obedient of God, Rabbi Avraham ben Maimonides, quoted by Shmuel Even Tzretza, Mekor Chaim, page 123). It is reasonable to assume that he received his view on this subject from his father, who was his rabbi and teacher.
And so did the Rabbi (not the Rabbi who disagreed with Maimonides), who came out strongly against the belief in the reincarnation:
“…And this thing will never be imagined by anyone of himself…Here the copyist will not say, “My will is that his soul be in another person,” but he will say, “He will return to his own eyes, and he will be found tangible after his absence from the senses.” And this thing never was, and will never pass away…” (Ra’avad, Ha’Imana Harama, first article, chapter six, p. 39).
Rabbi Shmuel Even Tzretza, in his book “Amunah Rama,” went so far as to write that believing in reincarnation is like believing in the pagan faith:
“Those who believe tend to believe in one nation called pagans who have no religion… and they say that when the soul leaves a human body, it will enter the body of a child born at the same time the soul leaves his body, and if he is a bad person, it will enter the body of a dog, etc….” (‘Mekor Chaim’, p. 123).
How is Torah renewed, when not only was it unknown to most of the great geniuses and sages of Israel in their time, but they considered it a primitive belief that contradicted Judaism?
Fifth question regarding the acceptance of Rabbi Chaim Vital as a Torah scholar worthy of interpreting the Torah of the Ari
There are many mysteries about the personality of Rabbi Chaim Vital, as described in his writings about himself in the Book of Visions. Rabbi Vital writes that he went to fortune tellers (once to a woman who read in his name and claimed that he would reign over Israel because he was a great man. Another time he went and believed in Rabbi Lapidot, who was knowledgeable in fortune telling based on seeing the dead, and another time he described going to an Arab healer who was knowledgeable in healing demons). It is also puzzling that he praised himself for his prophetic greatness and as proof of this, he described that several women saw the fire above him (for example, the sister of Rabbi Yehuda Mishan, who was not confirmed as a prophetess, described that she saw the fire above him and Elijah the prophet standing to his right).
In the second part of his book, Rabbi Vital describes in great detail the visions that appeared to him in his dreams: he arrives at the gates of the Garden of Eden, meets with the prophet Elijah, flies on the wings of a mighty eagle, and imagines himself as the Messiah, son of Joseph and King of Israel. The highlight is undoubtedly his meeting with God in His own glory, who sits on a throne of honor in heaven. In addition, there are many places in which Rabbi Chaim Vital praises himself greatly.
Rabbi Reuven Margaliot’s claim that this book is a forgery was proven wrong. When his handwriting (what is called an “autograph” in Hebrew) was found, comparing this manuscript to other manuscripts by Rabbi Vital clearly proves that Rabbi Vital wrote it. The Hidda, who was an expert in manuscripts and bibliographer and who was very interested in the teachings of Rabbi Chaim Vital, also claimed that this was the original manuscript of Rabbi Vital: “And I answered that I was young and I was blessed and saw a book of visions from the late Rabbi Chaim Vital written by his hand” (Book of Visions, Rabbi Kook Institute, Jerusalem 1974, in the introduction). This was also the opinion of Rabbi Shlomo Lutzkir, the publisher of the book, who received the manuscript 200 years after Rabbi Vital’s death.
Question Six: About Distortions and Errors Written in the Book of Zohar
There are verses quoted in the Zohar from the Torah and many sermons were built on them, but they were not written in the Torah at all. For example, the verse: “And you, son of man, who lamented for the virgin of Israel” (Zohar Leviticus 6:1) does not exist at all in the entire Bible. It seems that the writer of the Zohar got confused between two verses and, based on this mistake, invented a new verse and midrash. Another example, in the Zohar, Parashat Shemini, the verse appears: “He who is wicked before the king, and he establishes his throne in righteousness ” (Zohar Shemini 40:2). The Zohar in its sermon deepens and expands on the word – in kindness. The problem is that the verse quoted on which the sermon was built is distorted. The original verse is: “He who is wicked before the king, and he establishes his throne in righteousness” (Proverbs 25:5).
The Zohar also writes in its sermon the verse: “Write that your ears may be open” (Adar P. Nasa Ketch). But this verse is also distorted, and apparently a distortion of the words of the prophet: “That your eyes may be open toward this house” (1 Kings, 8).
And it is also said in the Zohar Sermon: “And the Lord said to Moses, Do not fear him, both of them are complete in the Torah in two verses, one this, and one ‘Until your brother seeks him.’ What is the point? Because they are a literal sign.” (Zohar translated Hokat Kapad, 1). But in practice there are no two hooks in all the similar verses in the Bible: “And the Lord said to Moses, Do not fear him, for I have given him into your hand…” (Deuteronomy 3:2).
The example that left me speechless was Rabbi Chaim Vital’s explanation that in the books of the Bible (which have been handed down from generation to generation) there are many spelling errors. Many examples could be given, but I will limit myself to two of them. Regarding the verse: “And it came to pass on the day of Moses’ wedding that he should erect the tabernacle…” Rabbi Vital claims that the word “klot” should be omitted: “And it came to pass on the day of Moses’ wedding that he should erect the tabernacle…” (Bara’im P. Pinchas Rand, 1).
Similarly, in a verse from the Psalms:
“He will do the will of those who fear Him, and He will hear their cry and save them.” Should it have been written without a hyphen: “Your cry”?! (Glossary from the Rehva to the Zechariah, 5:2).
The argument of the Bani Issacharites that there are differences between the spelling in “Metivta Ila’a” and the spelling in “Metivta Darki’a” seems extremely puzzling and difficult to accept:
“For the Torah is required in two meetings, Matyivta Ilaah and Tat’ah,” and in this introduction it will be understood that “all the remaining matters were required by Chazal with a slight change from what is found in the tradition before us,” because they knew the text written in Matyivta Ilaah – “so it is in the Zohar” (“Bnei Issachar”, Tammuz-Av, article 2, letter 11).
I am aware that even in the Talmud there are incorrect quotations of verses, as the Tosafot authors claim about the Amoraim: “Sometimes they were not versed in the verses” (Bava Batra 133. Tosafot 45 Tarviyhu), but no sermons were written about errors in these verses or laws were learned from them.
The question arises, how can one accept Kabbalistic sermons that are based on incorrect verses?
There are also errors in quoting verses from the Torah. For example, the Zohar states that “Ishmael’s mother gave birth to Tahash, and he came from Abraham’s side,” while the Torah states that Tahash is the son of Nahor from his concubine Reuma?!
Another example, the Zohar writes: “Like David, in whom it is said, “And he was like a musician who plays. ” But does this verse refer to the prophet Elisha at all?!
We also find many contradictions that are supposedly stated by the Rashibi. Regarding the verse: “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were good, and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Genesis 6:2), the Rashibi says that the meaning of the phrase “sons of God” is the sons of the judges (since in biblical language the judges are sometimes called “God”), and he would curse those who interpret that the meaning is literally the sons of God (Genesis Rabba, Parashat Bereishit 26). However, in the Zohar, the exact same opinion appears, with the Rashibi cursing the phrase, and he identifies the sons of God with the angels Uzza and Azal (Zohar Hadash 2, Ruth 30:1).
Also written in the Zohar are dozens of chronologically illogical descriptions of encounters between Amoraim and Tannaim (for example, Rashbi Tanna blessed Rav Safra the Amora, who would give birth to a child who was great in the Torah, but Rav Safra was born 100 years after Rashbi’s death, or in that the Zohar defined Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair as Rashbi’s father, even though the Babylonian Talmud describes him as his son-in-law.
We also find that the Book of Zohar (written by the Holy Spirit according to the Kabbalistic method) was geographically incorrect in the cities and villages of the Land of Israel. For example, Lod, one of the central places in the Zohar, is described as a city in Galilee near Usha and Caesarea, and the Galilean cave where Rashbi and his son hid is in the “Desert of Lod.”
The Sea of ​​Galilee, which is located in the part of the tribe of Naphtali, is described in the Zohar as being located in the part of Zebulun, where the blue snail was hunted (according to the Talmud, the snail was hunted in the Mediterranean Sea), and so on and so forth.
From a linguistic perspective, it can also be clearly seen that the modern Aramaic language of the Zohar was not the Aramaic language of Rashbi. The Zohar was written in Aramaic, but the Aramaic in it is not the ancient Aramaic of Rashbi, but an artificial, distorted, and “modern” Aramaic with a strong Sephardic influence. For example, the word ‘busita’ is not found anywhere else, except in ‘Adra Rabbah’, and even Baal HaSulam, the modern commentator of the Zohar, did not know how to interpret it.
Linguist and (Orthodox) biblical scholar Shmuel David Luzzato wrote sharply about the language style, which is different from all ancient Jewish books of thought:
“For truly it is neither the language of the Bible, nor the language of the Mishnah, nor the language of Daniel and Ezra, nor the language of Onkelus and Jonathan, nor the language of the Jerusalem translations, nor the language of the Babylonian Talmud, nor the language of the Jerusalem Talmud, nor the language of the Midrash, nor the language of the Ge’onim, nor the language of the commentators, nor the language of the Poskim, nor the language of the philosophers, but a mocked language, mixed with all the languages ​​mentioned, and it is the language that naturally arises on the lips of anyone who seeks to write in the language of the Talmud and has not devoted all his efforts to it. And I truly know one person who has learned a little, a little, in the Talmud, and seeks to write in the language of the Talmud, and nothing comes to his mind except the language of the Zohar.” (From: Debate on the Wisdom of Kabbalah, pp. 113-114. Quoted in Tishbi, Mishnat Zohar, p. 77).
Even if we do not accept his words, we can see that there are many examples of linguistic distortions in the Zohar, such as the use of incorrect constructions. More interesting are words that are understood differently in the Zohar: the verb אוזיפ, which means to borrow money, is used in the Zohar to mean to accompany a person. אגזטא (= strength) is used in the sense of a lap (a distortion that stems from a misunderstanding of the translation of Onkelos on the verse “שאהו בחיכיך” – “סוברי באגזטא”). צחוטא (= thirst) is used in the sense of clarity of mind. טייעה – which in the Talmud is understood as Arabic, in the Zohar always indicates Jewish clay. The term “בוצינה דקרדנותה” used in the Zohar to mean a strong light stems from a misunderstanding of the Talmudic expression “חייטי קורדניתה” – wheat from Kurdistan that is hard and strong.
And in the Zohar, words can be found that were certainly not written in the early period of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, such as the word “singuga” which means in late Spanish – synagogue… and so on and so forth…..
Seventh Question: Why is disbelief in the Book of Zohar considered heresy?
There are today some sages in the Jewish world who have made the question of the origin of the Zohar a fundamental issue in the principles of faith. In their opinion, every Jew is obligated to believe not only in the validity of the sanctity of the Zohar, but also in the fact that the Tanna Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai was the author of this book, and anyone who denies this will face judgment for his lack of faith (Maharaj Ben Amozag in his book Ta’am La’Sed, Livorno 1923, p. 32).
Moreover, in recent generations, there are those who condemn the infidel’s judgment in the Zohar’s attribution to Rashbi as a complete heretic who has no part in the world to come.
In other words, according to this system, just as every Jew must believe that Moses wrote the five books of the Torah according to his heroism, he must also believe that Rashbi wrote the Zohar, and even if he believes with all his heart in the sanctity of the Zohar and its validity, if he does not believe that Rashbi wrote it, he is judged as a heretic and a wine imbibed.
Several years ago, a reply was printed from Rabbi Kanievsky, who ruled that anyone who does not believe in the Book of Zohar does not join the ten-member group for the sake of holiness.
Why did the rabbis of Jerusalem and all the Badatzim of the various denominations in the past boycott Rabbi Yahya Kaffah, one of the most prominent rabbis of Yemen, for his positions against accepting the Zohar (and against his negative attitude towards the concept of God in the Ten Sefirot) as a book accepted in tradition, and considered him a heretic, requiring excommunication?
Ostensibly, the question of belief in the Zohar and Kabbalah has become a question of halakhic law, to a question of belief in sages who claim to have answers, but do not reveal and prove them.
I know and am aware that almost all the great men of Israel, starting with Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramchal, the Hidda, the Gra and the Baal Shemesh, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, all the giants of Hasidism, Rabbi Kook and all the geniuses of our time, considered the Kabbalah and the “Zohar” to be Torah from Sinai, and opposing them seems like the actions of Korah and his followers. But the sages who preceded them taught us that a person is forbidden to accept things that he knows in his heart are not true, as the Jerusalem Talmud explains:
“Tell me: Can it be that if they tell you that on the right it is left and on the left it is right, will you listen to them? You will learn to say: go right and left – so that they will tell you that on the right it is right and on the left it is left” (Yerushalmi Horiyot, Chapter 1).
And as Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein explained about the obligation to accept the words of the sages when they are proven to be wrong:
“…But if they truly say about the right that it is the left, such as permitting milk and fornication, it is certainly forbidden to listen to them, and this is how it is explained in Yerushalmi Horiyot…” (Torah Tamimah, Notes on Deuteronomy, Chapter 17, Note 62).
Or as it is written in Tractate Kala:
“…even if you see the wise men transgressing and acting improperly, do not do as they do, but rather, “let your heart be in my opinion” (Tractate Kala Ravati, Chapter 3, Halacha 2).
And Haor HaChaim wrote in his book, Chafetz Ha.:
“…that the law of “the commandment to listen to the words of the sages” is stated only in a matter that is permission, or in a matter of prohibition, when the sages command to do something in a state of standing and doing, and if a person prevents himself from doing something in a state of standing and doing nothing and does not obey the voice of the sages, he transgresses without taksor – even in a matter of prohibition. Indeed, when the sages speak of a forbidden food, such as milk, which is permissible, then in this permissibility they do not command the person to eat this food, and the person is permitted on his own behalf to refrain from eating it, in such a way that when the student knows that the sage has erred, he is prohibited from listening to the voice of the sages, and in such a case it is not stated “Even I tell you on the right that it is the left and on the left that it is the right,” and therefore when a person errs in this, his judgment is as if he had made a mistake and is liable to sin.”
His words mean that only when the words of the sages correspond to reality should their voice be listened to.
Likewise, Rabbi Yaakov Zvi of Mecklenburg disputed the language of Rashi and his books that explained the saying that it is obligatory to listen to the sages even in matters that contradict logic:
“Right and left. Even if they show you with their eyes that the left is the right and the right is the left – the Delphic interpretation is that the sight of your eyes is a burden in the law of the Lord, you must listen to them; but if it is known for certain that they are wrong, they have already said in Yerushalmi that if they say that the right is the left and the left is the right, you must not listen to them, and Rashi’s language here needs correction” (‘Hakvat va’Kabbalah’).
And also in the spirit of Chaim, Rabbi Moaluzhin on the mishna of Hoy Matabof:
“A student is forbidden to accept the words of his teacher if he has questions about them” (Ruch Chaim Avot 1:4).
Who is greater than the Rashi of the Zel, who enlightened the eyes of the exile with his interpretations, and now the people of Yarcho, the R.T. and the R.I., disagree about him in many places, and contradict his words, because it is true Torah, and no one can flatter it, etc., and he opened in his generation as Samuel did in his generation… Why should he not disagree with his rabbi in ruling and teaching, and was not this the way of the Torah from the days of the Tannaim? Our holy rabbi disagreed with his father and his rabbi, the Rashbag, in several places. And in the Amoraim, Rava would disagree with his rabbi’s rabbi. And in the Ge’onim, the Rosh disagreed in 24 with Maharam, who was his rabbi’s most eminent rabbi… And so in the Responsa of the Radbaz, 1:1 (60 Tetzah) that it is permissible to disagree with one’s rabbi during his lifetime through evidence through negotiation, and he brought all of the above evidence, and concluded, and it is also permissible to disagree with one’s rabbi after his death and to rule and instruct according to his evidence and to do something even though they are against one’s rabbi. And he can write in a book the words and opinions of his master, and his own words and opinions, even if they contradict the words of his master. And so did all the rishonim, z”l. Also in the Responsa to the question of Ya’av’etz Cha’a (655), 20, that the student is certainly permitted to dispute his master based on proofs and evidence, whether written or oral, and those who are wise in wisdom are not strict about the one who holds them, and on the contrary, they hold him in favor of saving them from falling into the net of error. And Maharakh Pelaji wrote in Responsa to Ha’kke Lev (Chayvid 34) that a rabbi does not have to suppress his prophecy and is obliged to reveal his opinion in the halakhah, and it is written in the book (Yabi’a Cha’d – O’ch in the opening) and also the Maimonides ruled in the book Korbanot, Hilchot Shegagot, Chapter 13, Halakhah 5.
Although I believe and want to believe in the acceptance of the words of the sages of Israel, it is difficult for me. How can it be said: “He who disbelieves in the revealed in the hidden, then he disbelieves in the hidden in the revealed” when even the Ramak wrote that no one knows how the Book of Zohar was revealed because it is entirely in the world of the hidden?”
Perhaps the sages of Safed failed (as there were sages who failed with Shabtai Zvi, the Rabbi, and thus caused the other sages of Israel of their generations to believe their words).
The explanation that when the sages of Israel saw the Zohar, they were familiar with its ideas known to them through oral ancestral tradition and therefore accepted it is also unacceptable to me. Mainly because we did not hear from the great men of the generations the same ideas that were brought forward after the publication of the Zohar. As the Kabbalists also admit and as the Kabbalist Rabbi Yehuda Hayat writes in his introduction to the book Minchat Yehuda:
“And how blessed are we, how good is our lot that we have been granted access to the Book of Zohar, which our predecessors did not have, whose younger ones are thicker than our waists, such as Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Sheshet Gaon, Rabbi Eliezer of Garmisha, the Ramban, the Rashba, and the Rava, all of whom were among those who knew the beauty and did not taste its corruption, because it was not revealed in their time” (Minchat Yehuda).
It is very puzzling that the ancient Ashkenazi Hasidim did not mention the Book of Zohar, even though they published books on the Secret Torah. Even Rabbi Azriel the Kabbalist of Girona, in his commentaries, lists the chain of Kabbalah wisdom from the time of the Tannaites, but he does not mention Rashbi, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Yossi, or the other sages of the Zohar. Likewise, Rav Hai Gaon, who lists in his responsa all the books of Kabbalah that existed at his time, omits the Holy Book of Zohar and its ideas?!
I am willing to accept that there are passages and ideas written in the Zohar that were known in ancient Jewish tradition. It is possible that the quotations called ‘Midrash’, or ‘Midrash Yerushalmi’, or ‘Setham Yerushalmi’, or the Midrash known as the “Great Zohar,” are similar to some of the writings in the Zohar, but these passages are very few and were mostly written during the period of the Geonim, about 1,000 years after the time of Rashbi, and therefore they cannot be defined as ancient writings that were said in tradition and prove the truth of the Zohar that we have.
I am aware of the Talmud passage: “Things that are spoken orally, you are not permitted to say in writing” (Gittin 6). But since the time Rabbi Yehuda the President wrote the Mishnah, it seems that we can expect and assume that the same conditions will also be written down for the secret teachings that were handed down orally, so that they will not be forgotten by the people of Israel.
When the Talmud speaks of the Merkava incident and the secrets of the Torah, Rashi refers to the Hikhlot literature, and the question is asked why he did not refer to the Book of Zohar, since the Book of Zohar is the main book of Kabbalah wisdom, and the answer: because he simply had not heard of the Book of Zohar, it turns out that Rashi was not familiar with the Book of Zohar.
In addition, Maimonides, in his book “Teaching the Perplexed,” explicitly wrote that the Israeli nation had never published a book explaining the secrets of the Torah:
“…And this is the reason (because the secrets of the Torah should be taught only to individuals, only orally, and only at the beginning of chapters) that this science was completely discontinued from the nation, to the point that neither little nor much of it can be found, and it is appropriate to treat it this way, since it has not ceased to be handed down from heart to heart, and has not been written at all in a book” (Introduction to the Ha-Hag, Mo’N, p. Ra’a).
Why didn’t those who disagreed with Maimonides in his generation argue against him that he denied a foundation of faith in the Jewish Torah? Could it be that Maimonides didn’t spend his entire life talking to scholars from all over the world who knew and were familiar with the secret teachings?
Question Eight: The Kabbalists’ preoccupation with questions beyond human understanding
In addition to the general questions about the Book of Zohar, I have a number of internal doubts about a number of topics that Kabbalists deal with. These doubts raise in my mind the question, does all the preoccupation with Kabbalah diminish the greatness of God, blessed be He?
The Ari explained in the beginning of his book, ‘Tree of Life,’ that the purpose of creating the world was to bring to fruition His great goodness. According to him, without the creation of the world, the essence of the Creator would be lacking:
“Regarding the purpose of the creation of the worlds…he says that the reason for this was that He, blessed be He, must be complete in all His actions and powers and in all His names of greatness, exaltation, and honor. If He had not brought His actions and powers into action and deed, He would not, as it were, be called complete, neither in His actions nor in His names and titles…”
Rabbi Yosef Irgas, z”l, in his book “Shomer Emunim HaKadmon,” addressed this puzzlement and answered it in a puzzling way, stating that although the Creator is perfect even without the actual benefit to humans, despite this, the perfect good, by nature wants to benefit creatures:
“…like a good, benevolent, and generous person who does good to others according to his good nature, and not in order to receive benefit and praise. And from this side it is that the Ari said that the intention of creation was that the Infinite is the perfect good, in which all perfections are grouped and encapsulated in His simple essence before creation and after creation according to His power then and according to His power now, and He wanted to create the worlds not in order to add perfection to Himself…but according to the way of the good and the complete, to benefit and to influence perfection and reality…so that they may be found enjoying Him” ​​(Shomer Emunim, Second Debate, 12, p. 33).
But despite his expected explanation, the words of Rabbi Irgas, z”l, are difficult. How can one claim that the actual use of forces (as in the creation of the world) is merely an act that departs from the path of goodness, while the Ari writes explicitly that the Creator must be complete in all His actions and in filling the lack in Him, and this is the reason for the creation of the world?
The Creator requires subjects to reveal His kingdom.
Another angle that attempts to explain the purpose of the creation of the world appears in the Sages and in the words of the Kabbalists, and its main point is that the Creator needs subjects in order to be king: “There is no king without a people” (Pirki Darbi Eliezer, Chapter 3), and just as there is no rider without a horse, the Creator is called king only when He has someone to reign over.
As the late Ari explained:
“Bris Hormanuta Demalka”…Until He created the worlds, He and His name were one, and there was no one over whom His kingdom would extend. And when the world comes, He has someone over whom He will rule and judge.”
When we delve into the words of the Ari, we find that the Creator has always been a king in power, but only when He created creatures did He become a king in practice. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov took this idea (apparently from the teachings of the Ari) and defined it as a binding necessity of the Creator:
“For before creation there was the light of the Holy One, blessed be He, without end. And the Holy One, blessed be He, desired that His kingdom should be revealed, and there is no king without a people, and it was necessary to create human beings, who would accept the yoke of His kingdom…” (Likkuti Moharan Kama 9:1) .
And Rabbi Nachman’s words are puzzling, for need indicates lack.
When it is said that the Creator was forced to create humans, it is understood that the Creator is essentially lacking, without subjects to rule over.
How can it be said of the Creator of the complete world that He needed to complete it by creating human beings?
The Creator needs to be known.
Rabbi Shmuel Toledano cites in his book “Likkutei Kadamotu” the words of the Rema (Rabbi Menachem Azaria of Pano), that the purpose of benefiting humans is for them to recognize the greatness of the Creator:
“The late Rabbi Ramah in his book Seventy-Two Knowledges… writes that the intention of the Creator, may He be blessed… is to announce His divinity to His fellowmen… and you must know that the announcement of His divinity is in the measure of His abundant goodness from His good and simple will, may His name be blessed forever and ever, to create the entire world on the best side, and to be good to His creatures, that they may know His greatness and exaltation and be merited by knowing their Creator and doing His will to be a chariot on high, to cling to Him, may He be blessed, and may His name be exalted” (Likkuti Kadamoth, Chapter 1 – The Intention of Creation).
This insight was summarized in the Zohar in one sentence: ‘ Begin dishatmodon liya ‘ – that is, ‘so that they might know him’ – the world was created so that the created and the exalted would know the reality, greatness, and perfection of the Creator (Zohar Part 2, page 42, 2).
From these words, we can also understand that just as the Creator needs subjects to call Him king, He needs subjects to know and acknowledge Him.
Is it conceivable to describe the Creator as a being with a need for power and control?
If we explain that the Kabbalists’ intention, in using the words: must, muster, they must know, and so on, was to describe the Creator’s true desires, in the language of humans, in the sense of ‘the Torah was spoken in the language of man,’ we will encounter another question: is it possible that all descriptions of the purpose of the creation of the world and the creation of humans are not true in their true essence?
Is it conceivable that all the Kabbalistic explanations given in Kabbalah books are intended only to quiet the thoughts?
Doesn’t the preoccupation with this question dwarf the Lord of the universe? To say that God was compelled or obligated to create a world seems seemingly to be an infringement on the complete perfection of the Creator. The Creator is complete, even without creating creatures to benefit, or without subjects to rule over. Good is a material concept that belongs to this world. Likewise, will is a material concept that belongs to this world. To say that the Creator, on his part (as opposed to our part), is good is exactly the same as saying that the Creator is evil. Mercy, or evil, belong only to this world.
In exactly the same way, king and subjects are concepts only of this world, which do not belong at all to the Creator. Why describe a deficiency that exists in our lowly world as a deficiency in complete perfection?
We know today with certainty that the Creator exists in a different state of aggregation than humans, He has no past, no present, and no future, He has no time, no mourning, no anger, and no Sabbath. To say that from the Creator’s perspective, a day of the Creator is equivalent to a thousand human years is not only a mistaken statement, but a confusing opinion that puts man into a deep abyss from which there is no way out. This is the intention of Chazal that the man who believes in the physicality of the Creator diminishes the Blessed One and therefore deserves not to come into the world. Preoccupation with a realm that we are unable to understand can lead to a distorted perception of the Creator . The Creator is so transcendent than us that even the spiritual angels ask where the Creator is: “God is the place of His glory.” From this it must be understood that even in ‘heaven’ we will not be able to grasp the true essence of the Creator. We are far today, and will forever be far, from understanding the Blessed Creator.
My feelings are that the Kabbalistic preoccupation with these questions is completely unnecessary and belittles the dignity of the perfect Creator.
Proverbs without proverbs
It is agreed by most Kabbalists that the revelation of the Creator in His attributes, feelings, and actions is not His own essence. As Rabbi Chaim Vital, the late Rabbi, explained at the beginning of his book, Shaar HaKadakada:
“And indeed it is a clear thing that there is no body above, nor power in the body, God forbid, and all these imaginings and pictures are not because they are so, God forbid, indeed to soothe the ear when a person is able to understand the spiritual, incomprehensible things that are recorded in the human mind. Therefore, permission is given to speak in terms of pictures and imaginings… and this image is also a simple thing, because there is no letter or dot above, and this is also a way of a parable and a picture to soothe the ear.”
According to what Rabbi Chaim Vital z”l explains, all the preoccupation with understanding the ways of the Creator, its advantages and disadvantages, is to please the ear. So why bother with it?
In the book ‘Otsrot Chaim’, Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo wrote, on behalf of the disciples of the Ari, that the tzimtzum is a parable intended to understand the reality of the creation of the worlds. Likewise, in the book ‘Novelot Hochma’, they conclude that the clear truth is that the whole matter of the tzimtzum is a parable leading to a secret. Rabbi Yosef Irgas wrote that whoever believes in the tzimtzum in its simplest form, is a disbeliever in ten principles accepted by the Zohar and by all Kabbalists:
“Anyone who wants to understand the matter of tzimtzum literally falls into several distortions and contradictions of most of the tenets of faith… It is necessary to say that tzimtzum is not literally…and the truth is that it is nothing more than a way of allegorizing to soothe the ear” (Shomer Emunim, 34:39).
From this it appears that, in Rabbi Irgas’s opinion, the tzimtzum, the line, and the circle are not actual reality, but rather a parable, and therefore he interpreted the entire world of Kabbalistic concepts as merely a parable.
Likewise, Rabbi Chaim of Volozin wrote: ” All the words of the Ari z”l in the hidden are parables and should not be understood literally” (Nefesh Chaim from the Vilna edition, 1914, chapter 7, 30b).
In one of his letters, the Ramchal writes to his rabbi, Rabbi Isaiah of Esan:
“And the general intention is found in those rules for the well-exemplified in the words of the Ari Zelah according to the way of his example” (Igrot Ramchal, p. 60).
For parables, there is importance when the parables can be understood, but when the parable is not perceived in our true understanding, but only as another parable, isn’t engaging in it unnecessary and belittling the Creator?
If the whole point of Kabbalah is to deal with realities that exist only in the upper world (nobility) and that we, due to our short-sightedness, have no perception of, then seemingly there is no logic in dealing with the secret doctrine, since dealing with a parable, without the ability to reveal the parable, seems to be devoid of all logic.
The author of the Tanya answers this question: “On desire, there is no difficulty.” His intention is apparently because this is a matter that is beyond all limits of reason and understanding (Ohat Balak 3376. Continued from 1976 at the beginning. Sama’am 572 p. 34).
And his words are difficult, why is it necessary to teach puzzling and incomprehensible things in the first place?
The Creator is called in Kabbalah, ‘the place’: “He is the place of the world, and the world is not His place” (Bar”R, Vaytze, 68). But even the concept of the Creator’s dwelling place, the ‘Temple’, is not a sacred place from the Creator’s perspective, but only from the perspective of humans. The Tent of Meeting is a kind of spiritual “embassy” of the Blessed One, in the “earth”.
In essence, the Creator is equally present in every inanimate, growing, living and speaking object: “The Divine Presence has never descended below, and Moses and Elijah have never ascended to the heights…” As Rabbi Meir Simcha HaCohen of Dvinsk explains (in his book Masech Hochma), regarding the intrinsic holiness of the Temple, on the part of the Creator:
“These are holy matters in themselves, God forbid. The Lord dwells within His sons, and if they have transgressed, all holiness has been removed from them, and they are like earthen vessels. Burglars came and desecrated it, and Titus entered the Holy of Holies and committed fornication with him (Gatin 5:11).” And it was not damaged because its holiness was removed. Moreover, the tablets of the covenant, written by God, are not actually holy, and when a bride commits adultery within her canopy, they are considered to be unholy scoundrels and there is no holiness in them on their own part, only for you who guard them…” (Moshet Hochma, Shemot Lev).
From the Creator’s perspective , there is no difference in holiness between the Shekhinah in the Temple in the Holy of Holies and a slaughterhouse in Honolulu, as Rabbi Meir Simcha HaCohen explains:
“…And do not imagine that the Temple and the Tabernacle are holy matters in themselves, God forbid…The tablets are “the letter of God. They are also not holy in essence, only for you to fulfill what is written on them…There is no holy matter in the world, only God, the Blessed, is holy…All holy places have no basis in religion, except in that they were consecrated for the performance of the commandments…” (Meshech Hochma, Exodus 23:19).
Without the full presence of the Creator everywhere on earth, the place would dissolve and disappear immediately. Therefore, the continuation of wisdom explains that even if the Temple and its vessels were destroyed, the Creator’s personal holiness was not damaged because He has no dwelling place. And if so, what is the point of engaging in the study of this matter?
The purpose of studying Kabbalah
Some argue that the purpose of Kabbalah is not to study the Creator from His perspective, but to understand the purpose of the world from a human perspective. They argue that the Torah spoke in human language and therefore it is forbidden to think about spiritual concepts that are beyond our grasp. The Ramchal, in his book Da’at Tevonot, disputed this view and argued that the purpose of Kabbalah is to know what the Supreme Will is:
“The whole wisdom of Kabbalah is only to know the guidance of the Supreme Will, why He created all these beings? What does He want in them? And what will be the end of all the cycles of the world? And how are all these incarnations that are in the world interpreted, which are so foreign, because the Supreme Will itself has already imagined this cycle of guidance that ends in complete perfection. And these lessons are what we interpret in the secret of the Sephirot and the worlds” (Ramchal, Da’at Tivonot, p. 21).
And in his book ‘Student and Kabbalist’ he wrote against those who claim that it is forbidden to study the wisdom of Kabbalah and the Book of Zohar because they are forged:
“The Kabbalist said – Know that the whole matter of Kabbalah wisdom is nothing but clarifying His judgment, blessed be His name, and that He is one in the true purpose of uniqueness and there is no change in Him, and not one of the physical circumstances, God forbid…” (Ramchal – ‘Scientist and Kabbalist’).
This issue creates enormous difficulty in understanding the essence of Kabbalah. Many Kabbalistic concepts, such as the Sefirot, the line and circle, and the Tzimtzum, are symbolic and should not be understood literally.
So, why study a field we cannot understand?
In the Talmud, the recommendation is formulated, which ends with the words prohibiting the investigation of the occult:
“Could a man ask before the world was created? …and you do not ask what is above and what is below, what is before and what is behind” (Hagiga 11).
From the fact that, according to the Gemara, there is a halachic problem in investigating and delving into the realms of the occult.
The Zohar itself claims: “Thought is not perceptible in you at all” (Tikkunei Zohar, page 13). And the great Kabbalists explained that the Creator is not a concept that is perceived by any thought or drawing:
“…’For He is between me and you’…what is between me and you, which are the higher worlds and spheres, you cannot grasp in thought, except in letters, because in the infinite, blessed is He, thought cannot grasp at all” (Noam Elimelech, Parashat Ki Tisha, page 55a).
And the late Rabbi Chaim Vital wrote:
“…The upper light, above, above, to infinity, called the Infinite – its name proves that it has no perception, neither in thought nor in contemplation at all. It is abstract and distinct from all thoughts. It is prior to all the noble and created, the creatures and the made, and there was no time of beginning or beginning in it, for it always exists and exists forever, and there is no beginning or end in it at all” (Etz Chaim – Chapter 1).
Why is there an attempt (within the Torah’s inner workings) to understand the essence of the Creator if there is no possibility of understanding it at all?
I also have great difficulty with the subject of ‘the work of the Sefirot’. In his letter “And This to Judah,” the Kabbalist Avraham Abulafia sharply attacked some of the believers in the Sefirot and accused them of denying the unity of God:
“And therefore I will inform you that the Kabbalists of the Sefirot thought to single out the Name and to escape from the belief in the three and the ten, and just as the Gentiles say that He is three and the three are one, so some of the Kabbalists believe and say that the Deity is ten Sefirot and the ten are one, and behold, they multiplied Him for the purpose of multiplication and combined Him for the purpose of the Merkabah, and there is no multiplication after the ten.”
The Rivash wrote similar serious things:
“That they pray once for one count and once for another, as is the case with prayer… All of this is a very strange thing to those who are not Kabbalists like them; and they think that this is a belief in sects. And I have already heard one of the philosophers speak in condemnation of the Kabbalists, and he would say: The A’ag (the idolaters) are believers in the three (Christians) , and the Kabbalists are believers in tithing” (Responsa Rivash, 197).
In conclusion, I would like to clarify a few points:

1. I believe in the existence of an oral Torah tradition (Secrets of Torah) mainly of the early Kabbalists, but unfortunately for now I am satisfied with whether those Zohar articles are those Sats that were handed down mainly because the Kabbalah of the Ari was largely unknown to most of the early Kabbalists, and Kabbalists like Rabbi Yitzchak Daman of Acre (a student of the Kabbalist Rabbi Avraham Abulafia) will testify to this, who were not familiar with most of the ideas of the Zohar.
2. The questions that bother me the most are the verification of the Masora and the verification of prophecy. The other questions I brought up don’t bother me that much and I brought them up as an appendix to present the general problematic.
3. The rabbis who answered me wrote that the proof of the sanctity of the Zohar is the spiritual greatness of the book. The problem is that not only do I not see spiritual greatness in the Zohar, but I also find in it fundamental contradictions to the Jewish view that has been handed down from generation to generation. Unfortunately, I am unable to understand with my poor intellect how the sages of Israel were amazed by this book.
4. Some rabbis have written that the proof of the sanctity of the Zohar stems from the testimony of the Holy Ari (he testified with his Holy Spirit to the truth of the book). My problem is that the spiritual status of the Ari is also questionable to me (as I wrote).
5. I have read in depth ancient books that were published in defense of the Zohar, such as “Hoker ve Kabbalah” by the Ramchal, “Amunat Chachim” by Aviad Sher Shalom, “Bar Yochai” by Rabbi Moshe Kunitz, “Ta’am La’Sed” by Rabbi Eliyahu Amzog, “Magen Ve Tsina” by Rabbi Isaac Hever, “Kedumut Zohar” by Rabbi David Luria, “Metzeref Lechma” (some claim from his words that even the one who wrote in praise of the Zohar did not believe in it), and I have also read articles by rabbis from recent generations such as Rabbi Kosher, Hillel Tzitlin and others, and unfortunately (without any prejudice) the opinion of the deniers is dozens of times more convincing than the opinion of the supporters.

With great respect!