Question

To the honorable Rabbi Malkiel Abraham, may he live long and well,
Peace and blessing,
In recent years, feelings and doubts have been developing within me regarding the sanctity of the Book of the Zohar and the interpretation of the Ari. For several years I have tried to suppress these thoughts, because of the principle of faith in the sages. To my great sorrow, lately my soul gives me no rest, and thoughts of heresy regarding the teaching of the Zohar keep arising in me again and again.
I turned with my questions to several Kabbalists who are Torah scholars, and strangely, the overwhelming majority chose not to answer me. To my great regret, the answers of the minority of scholars or Kabbalists who did respond were not substantive or satisfactory enough to put my mind at ease, and therefore I ask the honorable Rabbi to help me and bring rest to my soul.
I could write an entire book on the subject, but I will try briefly to present the central questions that are on my heart.
First question regarding the antiquity of the Zohar
The Book of the Zohar became known to the world only about seven hundred years ago, about two hundred years after Rashi’s death, about one hundred years after Maimonides’ death, and, as stated, about eleven hundred years after the time of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The book was unknown to anyone before that period, and there was no hint of its existence. There are four versions of how the Book of the Zohar was found.
The first and second versions are described in the words of Rabbi Abraham Zacuto in his well-known work Sefer HaYuchasin, in which he recorded principles concerning the Talmud and the halakhic decisors. For centuries this book was the most important among the books of Jewish history, and included a description of the history of the Jewish people and its sages throughout history until his own day:
“…I will inform you of what I found written, that Rabbi Isaac of Acre went to investigate the Book of the Zohar … and I asked the students in whose possession the Book of the Zohar was found where it came from. And I did not find their words consistent.
A. Some said that Nachmanides found it in the Land of Israel and sent it to Catalonia, and it was brought to Aragon and fell into the hands of Rabbi Moses de Leon.
B. And some say that there was never a composition by Rashbi. Rather, Rabbi Moses knew the divine name of writing, and by its power he would write wondrous things. And so that he might receive a high price for them, he attributed himself to a great tree, namely Rashbi and his companions and his son Rabbi Elazar… And I came to the city of Valladolid and found there an elderly sage named Rabbi David of Pan-Corbo, and I found favor in his eyes, and I adjured him to tell me whether he knew the truth about the Book of the Zohar, whether it was true or not. And the sage said that it had become clear to him for certain that the aforementioned Rabbi Moses created them by means of the name of writing. And the reason for the truth of this is that the said Rabbi Moses would write secrets and wonders for the wealthy of that kingdom and take from them many gifts of gold and silver… but from his own head and heart, from his own knowledge and intellect, he wrote all that he wrote. And she told me that when she saw him writing with no book before him: why do you say that you are copying from a book when you have no book and are writing only from your own head? It would suit you better to say that you are writing from your own intellect, and you would receive more honor. And he answered me and said: if I reveal to them this secret of mine, that I am writing from my own intellect, they will pay no attention to my words and will not give even a coin for them, for they will say that he invents them from his own heart. But now, when they hear that I am copying them from the Book of the Zohar, which Rashbi composed through divine inspiration, they buy them at a high price, as your eyes can see… And from this you will understand that the Book of the Zohar and the source from which it emerged and spread were not known, unlike the other compositions of our rabbis of blessed memory that have been famous from the day of their revelation: the Mishnah and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and the Tosefta and Sifra and Sifrei, all of whose origin and authorship are known and publicized… because I saw that its words (those of the Book of the Zohar) are wondrous, drawing from the supernal source, the overflowing spring … I pursued Rabbi Moses de Leon… and I asked the students who had great matters from him: from where did they receive wondrous secrets transmitted orally, which were not to be written, and yet are found there explained to every reader? … And I did not find their answers to this question of mine consistent; this one said one thing and that one said another.” (Sefer HaYuchasin by Rabbi Abraham Zacuto (1448–1515), citing the testimony of Rabbi Isaac of Acre).
The first version, that the book was handed over by Nachmanides to Rabbi Moses de Leon, is very puzzling. Nachmanides was already considered in his own time one of the greatest sages of the generation, so why would he give the book to an anonymous Kabbalist outside the Land of Israel? Were there no Kabbalists in the Holy Land? Why would he hand the book to a Jew far away from him?
If this version is true, is it possible that Nachmanides was afraid to publish the book under his own name, because he feared people would not believe him that it was the ancient book of Rashbi?
The second version is even more disappointing. According to the testimony of Rabbi Isaac of Acre (1250–1340), one of the greatest sages of Acre in his generation, Rabbi David of Pan-Corbo (who had spoken with Moses de Leon’s wife and daughter) told him that the Book of the Zohar was forged, and that Moses de Leon was the one who composed it and attributed it to Rashbi so that his words would be accepted and he could sell them for high prices.
A third version of the discovery of the Book of the Zohar comes from the Kabbalist Rabbi Abraham ben Mordechai Azulai, the great-grandfather of the Chida:
“…And they said that the Book of the Zohar had been hidden in Meron in a certain cave, and an Ishmaelite found it and sold it to peddlers in the Upper Galilee, and some pages of it fell into the hands of a certain sage who came from the West, and he went and searched and gathered all the pages from all the peddlers, and also searched in the garbage heaps and found that the peddlers were using them to wrap spices. However, its main place of emergence was in a city of the western lands called Tudna, and it is possible that the said western sage was the one who brought it to his city.” (Introduction to the book Or HaChamah by Rabbi Abraham Azulai).
A fourth version of the discovery of the Book of the Zohar comes from Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai (the Chida):
“Until the Lord brought it before one of the kings of the East, who ordered digging in a certain place on account of money, and there a chest was found containing the Book of the Zohar. He sent it to the sages of Edom, and they did not know or understand it. He then sent for the Jews… and they said to him: Our lord the king, this book was made by a sage, and it is deep, and we do not understand it. He said to them: Is there no Jew in the world who understands it? They said to him: There is one in the province of Toledo. And the king sent the books with his mighty men to Toledo, and when the sages of Toledo saw it they rejoiced greatly, and sent many gifts to the king, and from there Kabbalah spread in Israel…” (Chida, Shem HaGedolim, entry “Zohar”).
First, it is astonishing that the Chida did not accept the version of his ancestor (brought in the third version). This great-grandfather of his was one of the devoted disciples of Rabbi Chaim Vital, and he was the one who removed Rabbi Vital’s hidden writings from his grave.
Second, the versions of the Azulai family are very problematic. Both because the work appeared out of nowhere after so many years, and because throughout that time it was not in authorized Jewish hands. From where do we derive our confidence that the book is not a pseudepigraphic forgery? That is, a book attributed to an ancient and famous sage in order to increase its prestige and influence. After all, everyone agrees there is no tradition about the origin of this book, and no hint in the vast rabbinic literature to the existence of such a book, or to the fact that Rashbi composed any book at all! And during the eleven hundred years since Rashbi lived, countless authors could have arisen and attributed their words to him—as indeed happened with other works attributed to Rashbi, and with other works falsely attributed to other authors.
Suppose that in our own day archaeologists were to find inside an ancient cave a new, unknown book, for example: “The Book of Adam the First Man,” containing deep secrets never before revealed. There is no doubt that all the sages of Israel would oppose such a book on the grounds that it was forged. Even if one of the sages of the generation claimed to have received divine inspiration and that the deep secrets of the book had been revealed to him, could anyone today imagine that any of Israel’s rabbis would agree to accept his interpretations and include them in the Jewish library?
From where do we have confidence that Rashbi composed the book and not someone else?
It is known that Rabbi Moses de Leon was a Torah scholar and also studied under well-known Kabbalists in Spain, such as Rabbi Todros ben Yosef Abulafia and Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla, and he also wrote a number of Kabbalistic books. But he was not known and famous as one of the greatest sages of his generation, neither in the revealed nor in the hidden Torah. Nor was he established or tested as a true prophet, and therefore the claim that he wrote the Book of the Zohar through divine prophecy must also be rejected.
The descriptions that the book was found in a cave by an Arab merchant or by a gentile king also seem very strange. Our sages taught us:
“Did I not tell you that any baraita not taught in the study hall of Rabbi Chiyya and Rabbi Oshaya is defective, and one should not raise difficulties from it in the study hall?” (Chullin 141a).
Similarly, the sages of the Land of Israel taught:
“Any Mishnah that did not enter the fellowship is not relied upon” (Jerusalem Talmud, Eruvin 1:6).
Even if sages saw the Book of the Zohar and were impressed by it, because they recognized in oral tradition many of the ideas written in the Zohar, they should not have accepted it, because it was not transmitted through tradition.
Even from the world of Jewish law one can understand that we are obligated to require tradition even for matters that are absolutely clear and well known. My point is that even if sages recognized some of the ideas in the Zohar from oral tradition, there is still an obligation to require a chain of transmission from generation to generation. As we learned regarding the prohibition of eating creatures with signs of purity when tradition is lacking:
“For it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: ‘This is the beast that you may eat’—this teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, seized each species and showed it to Moses and said to him: this you may eat, and this you may not eat” (Chullin 42a). And it was ruled as Jewish law that ‘a kosher bird is eaten only on the basis of tradition’ (Yoreh De’ah 82). “…Gloss: And no bird is to be eaten except on the basis of a tradition received that it is kosher, and such is the custom, and it should not be changed” (Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 82).
Or as Ibn Ezra explains regarding the acceptance of books found over the generations without a Jewish source:
“…And as a general rule I tell you: any book not written by prophets or sages on the basis of tradition should not be relied upon, especially if it contains things that contradict sound reason. Such is the case with the Book of Zerubbabel, and also the book of Eldad the Danite and the like.” (Ibn Ezra on Exodus 2:23).
Or as Rav Saadia Gaon wrote regarding his refusal to accept the book Shiur Komah because it was not accepted in tradition:
“As for the book Shiur Komah, we have received no tradition concerning it from the sages of our faith, for it is found neither in the Mishnah nor in the Talmud, and there is no proof by which to learn whether Rabbi Ishmael truly said it, or whether others said it and attributed it to Rabbi Ishmael, as many books are attributed to certain famous sages.” (From an ancient pamphlet among the writings of our early sages).
And I wonder: how is it that after more than a thousand years, someone finds a book and says that it is from the words of Rashbi, and the book is accepted as though it had been transmitted in tradition from generation to generation?
To my great regret, in my occupation exposing frauds who present themselves as Kabbalists, I see the severe consequences of all that stems from naïve belief. Because of the vague mysticism, I have seen many people—Torah scholars and rabbis included—fall under the false charm of the rhetoric of Kabbalists, both past and present. The entire false messianic movement headed by Sabbatai Zevi, may the name of the wicked rot, as well as the well-known false prophets of recent centuries, were based on Jewish Kabbalah.
Second question regarding who wrote the Book of the Zohar
The status of the Book of the Zohar was accepted because of its attribution to the holy Rashbi, but even great sages and Kabbalists admit that Rashbi did not write it:
“And hear now the words of the book Shalshelet HaKabbalah, which wrote on page 31 as follows: You should know that Rashbi and his son did not write the Book of the Zohar that is in our hands today. Rather, it was his students and his students’ students who composed the pamphlets that they and their colleagues wrote, some sixty years after his death. And I received orally that this composition is so vast that if all of it were found together it would be a camel’s load.” (Yashar of Candia, Metzaref LaChokhmah, chapter 18).
Likewise, the Noda B'Yehuda asked: how can we accept a book as being by Rashbi when it may have been corrupted and forged by other authors?
“And behold, none of the devotees of the Zohar and the writings of the Ari deny that the Zohar is not received in the hands of the Jewish nation from generation to generation, person from person, as we have received the Mishnah and the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and Sifrei and Sifra and Tosefta and Mekhilta from the tannaim and amoraim, generation after generation, back to the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud themselves… And how can we rely on writings found many hundreds of years after the death of Rashbi, when Rashbi did not sign each and every matter? And even if many things did come from him, who knows how much was added to them? And even in those that did come from him, who knows whether they were not corrupted?” (Sermon of the Noda B'Yehuda).
Even according to Rabbi Moshe Hagiz, one of the sages of Jerusalem in the 18th century, the Book of the Zohar was not written by Rashbi, but was created in a later period:
“The truth points the way, that the arranger and compiler of the holy Zohar was certainly a great man, for the pamphlets came into his hands, and Heaven granted him the merit of bringing to light mysteries of exalted and hidden wisdom, and he arranged the pamphlets according to the order of the weekly portions. But certainly not Rashbi, nor Rabbi Abba, made this arrangement that is in our hands. For that is a well-known error and foolishness, similar to those who suppose that we believe something untrue—namely, that the Talmud as arranged in our hands was already in existence in the time of Abraham our father.” (Mishnat Chachamim, letter 342).
Or as Rabbi Isaac bar Sheshet (the Rivash), one of the great sages of Spain and a student of the Ran and Rabbi Chasdai Crescas, taught:
“…And therefore I do not involve myself in that wisdom, since I did not receive it from the mouth of a wise Kabbalist… and one may easily err in these matters; therefore I chose not to engage in hidden things…” (Responsa Rivash, no. 157).
Or as Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles, student-colleague of the Noda B'Yehuda, warned in his oath, supporting the royal decree that forbade the import of Kabbalistic books:
“I hereby swear by the Torah of God that several forgeries and corruptions are found in the Book of the Zohar, which were added… for all the earlier generations never mentioned the Book of the Zohar at all, neither awake nor in a dream. For if it were true that this composition was from the tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, from whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also received… how did he not mention this book in his composition of the Mishnah, or anywhere else? And even Rabbi Yochanan, who composed the Jerusalem Talmud, mentions it nowhere; and Ravina and Rav Ashi, who composed the Babylonian Talmud a hundred years after the Jerusalem Talmud and were the end of the amoraim, placed no hint anywhere in the Talmud to the Book of the Zohar; and Rabbah bar Nachmani, who composed many works (Midrash Rabbah) and Shocher Tov and many such works, did not mention it as a composition of Rashbi… And Heaven forbid that I should cast aspersion upon the honor of the godly tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, for he was among the supreme pious; rather I say: this book does not bear the seal and signet of Rashbi’s teaching… And behold, from the day the Book of the Zohar was introduced, many have stumbled because of it, for many obscure and sealed matters that later writers invented in order to mislead people dwelling in intellectual darkness…” (Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles, Teshuvah MeAhavah, part 1, no. 26).
It is worth noting that Rabbi Fleckeles was friendly with many of the great sages of his generation, among them the grandfather of Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, author of Arukh HaShulchan. So even if he did not know or recognize the hidden Torah himself, he could have learned about it from his wise friends.
The Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik ben Yaakov Chaver, a student of the Vilna Gaon, wrote in his book:
“Several generations after Rashbi… many additions were made to it from the very late authorities, and many hands had power over it, each according to what seemed proper in his own mind and what he himself innovated… and from this came several passages that are plainly from later writers, such as those involving Rashi and Rabbenu Tam and many things like that. And regarding several passages we find in the writings of the Ari that he said: this is not from the Zohar at all.” (Magen VeTzinah, sec. 21).
The Kabbalist Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo (also known as Yashar of Candia) likewise wrote:
“…that all matters concerning the amoraim mentioned in it (in the Book of the Zohar) are later additions.” (Metzaref LaChokhmah 21).
Even Rabbi Yosef Chaim (the Ben Ish Chai) wrote:
“And truly this supposition is not strange, for many such cases are found. In the holy Zohar there are things that our master the Ari said are not from the Book of the Zohar, but are the words of a later sage that copyists inserted into the Book of the Zohar. Go and see in the book of the Gaon Rabbi Yaavetz, who found many such things.” (Sod Yesharim, part 4, no. 2:20).
And he added that even the Ari claimed there are Zohar passages that are not holy, but are the words of a later sage inserted by copyists into the Book of the Zohar:
“…for our master Chaim Vital wrote in the name of the Ari, regarding the verses mentioned in the Zohar to be said at marital union on Friday night, that he stammered over them, saying that they are not from the words of the Zohar.” (Sod Yesharim, part 4, no. 2).
Rabbi Chanoch of Sassov writes that in our times it is no longer possible to distinguish between the words of Rashbi and the additions inserted over the years:
“For on every page of the Book of the Zohar and Tikkunim there are many important additions that were added in the days of the Geonim in the margins, and afterward the scribes inserted these words into the body of the book, so that now it is very difficult to clarify what is original and what is added.” (Responsa Mefa’aneach Ne’elamim, no. 5).
Rabbi Jacob Emden, one of the greatest rabbis of the 18th century (Yaavetz), proved in his book Mitpachat Sefarim by means of 180 examples that the Zohar contains passages added in later periods:
“But there is no doubt at all in my mind that with all the praise due to the Book of the Zohar, it has not escaped containing things that have no foundation, perhaps the scribes who copied the book secretly poured into it additions, dross plated over earthenware, and the moon of Kabbalah will not shine with its light, and they are called by the name of the Book of the Zohar falsely. And when I say they are forged, I do not mean that they are absolutely invalid, like a counterfeit coin in total falsehood—Heaven forbid that I should fail to defend everything found in it to the degree possible… For even the Book of the Zohar itself, fundamentally, was not composed by Rashbi the tanna, even though it is attributed to him and bears his name, as happened with many books from both earlier and later times. Rather, the students of his students’ students made it, collected it, and compiled it without doubt… But this I say with confidence: however it may be, many things by later, very late authors have been swallowed into this composition… Yet in the printed book there is grain and chaff mixed together. The words of Midrash HaNe’elam are clearly and perceptibly not of the same matter as the composition, and so too several articles inserted into the very body of the Zohar, written in corrupted Aramaic… And I have said, repeated, and tripled that in the essence of the Zohar itself there is no speech and no words other than that it walks in a holy place and is hewn from the source of Israel. And even if Rashbi himself did not make it, but only his disciples’ disciples, nevertheless it is properly called by his name. Many books are similarly attributed to their original source, even though they were not composed until a later generation. But no man is suspected of such a thing.” (Mitpachat Sefarim 1).
Likewise, later Kabbalists in recent generations also admitted that Rashbi was not the one who wrote the Book of the Zohar:
“At the root of souls in the world of Atzilut, the words of the Zohar certainly belong to Rashbi, but in the world of Beriah (that is, in reality) the words were indeed written later.” (“The Nazir Rabbi,” Emunah on the Crossroads).
Rabbi Y.B.A. Halevi wrote in his book that there are things in the Zohar so absurd that they cannot be attributed to Rashbi:
“See Zohar part 1, page 22b–23a, where it implies that the Holy One, blessed be He, opposed the creation of Adam, and that ‘Mother’ created Adam against His will—see there, strange and bizarre things, and without doubt they did not come from Rashbi.” (Al Titosh Torat Imecha, p. 115).
Likewise, the Rebbe of Komarno wrote about the additions in the Zohar: “That the Ra’aya Meheimna was written in the period of the Geonim” (in Zohar Chai, Bereshit, p. 41a).
Rabbi Hillel Zeitlin explained this by saying that the puzzling additions were written by Rabbi Moses de Leon:
“Rabbi Moses gathered, collected, and assembled with marvelous diligence all the aforesaid pamphlets, but he was not merely a collector and arranger. He also inserted into them his own spirit, extended further the holy and great ideas that he found, expounded them thoroughly, turned them over and over, and at times found in them many meanings which gave rise to many expositions, which he strove to write in the same style as the pamphlets he had collected. Sometimes he succeeded in that style, and sometimes he did not. Therefore we encounter there, as Rabbi Jacob Emden already noted, Spanish words and the like…” (“Key to the Book of the Zohar,” HaTekufah, vol. 7, 1920, pp. 367–368).
And so I return to the question again: how do we attribute this book to Rashbi when even from the Kabbalists themselves it is clear that Rashbi did not write all these writings, and even if some of the ideas were said in his name, it is agreed that ideas not spoken by these holy men slipped into the book—so how can we accept them as the Torah of God?
Third question regarding belief in prophets without proof
Prophecies said to have been given directly from Heaven by Elijah the Prophet raise many questions. As the Rebbe of Komarno describes in his writings regarding the sanctity of the additions to the Zohar:
“At the end of the days of the Savoraim and the beginning of the Geonim there was a certain holy man who had in him the soul of Moses our teacher really… and all the fellowship of Rashbi and his companions were revealed to him… and he composed the book Ra’aya Meheimna… and also arranged the book of the Tikkunim… and added to it several things from the Zohar as well as his own words and innovations…” (Rabbi Yitzchak Eizik Yehiel of Komarno, Netiv Mitzvotecha, The Path of Torah 32, 101).
A similar approach appears in the words of Rabbi Zeitlin, who claims that Rabbi Moses de Leon wrote the Zohar in prophecy:
“…At the time he arranged the pamphlets of the ‘Zohar,’ he was entirely under their sublime influence, living wholly in spirit in the company of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, his colleagues and his students, standing wholly among those holy and pure ones whose teaching he contemplated day and night and labored so much to understand and grasp every single thing from their words. At that time he truly and wholeheartedly believed that he stood in the company of these holy watchers, and that whatever he was innovating, he was innovating according to them; all his Torah was theirs. Therefore he conversed with Elijah, Moses, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his fellowship as with people of his own generation… All the pamphlets, and many of the pamphlets that he sent to the wealthy, were truly the fruit of his own spirit, but that spirit always lived in the company of ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shekhinah,’ in the ‘heavenly entourage and the earthly entourage,’ among those who roam the orchard and those who ‘entered without grain’” (“Key to the Book of the Zohar,” HaTekufah, vol. 7, 1920, p. 368).
Likewise, Rashba testified in his responsa that in his time—that is, close to the time of Rabbi Moses de Leon—there was a certain man who was not a Torah scholar, yet expounded secrets unheard by any ear, nobler than what the great sages of the generation would say (apparently Responsa Rashba part 1, no. 611).
First, one must ask: can the secrets of Torah come in a spiritual act, in a superhuman flow, even to those who are not Torah scholars—after all, “an ignoramus cannot be pious, and an unlearned person cannot fear sin”? How can one testify that a person who is not a Torah scholar received a revelation, a prophecy, from Rashbi and his companions?
Second, how can one testify about a person that he literally had the soul of Moses our teacher within him?
Third, how can one testify about a person that he conversed with Elijah, Moses, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his fellowship as with the people of his own generation?
It is important for me to emphasize that I have no problem at all if the Zohar was written by a prophet or later 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 exists even among people who appear righteous and are presumed to be Torah scholars!
All those dozens of sources that relied on prophecy, a heavenly voice, divine inspiration, and dreams were accepted in Jewish tradition because they were validated through the tests of prophecy. By contrast, Rabbi Moses de Leon, the Ari, Rabbi Chaim Vital, the Baal Shem Tov and the like were never publicly verified as true prophets. I note this because most great Kabbalists did not continue the teachings of their master, but rather developed a new method of their own.
The claim that divine inspiration is not prophecy is a mistaken claim—I wrote an entire article about it. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the Geonim, and the medieval authorities, there is no distinction between prophecy and divine inspiration. Of course prophecy is a divine revelation of greater intensity than divine inspiration, but even lower spiritual revelations such as divine inspiration or a heavenly voice belong to the family of prophecy, as Nachmanides writes:
“…Know that there are four levels in prophecy: a heavenly voice, the Urim and Tumim, divine inspiration, and prophecy. All of them are distinct levels, one above the other, and all are drawn from the attribute called Tzedek… And the matter of divine inspiration is that a person finds within himself a broad heart, and wondrous things come to his mouth, and he foretells the future, while his senses are not nullified at all. Rather he utters the words from his mouth according to what the divine inspiration places there, and he does not know from where the words came to him.” (Nachmanides on Exodus 28:30).
The problem is not only with the Ari. Many later Kabbalists testified about themselves that they received prophecy. Ramchal also writes of himself: “But I begin… on the day of Rosh Chodesh Sivan 5487, while I was performing a unification, I fell asleep, and upon awaking I heard a voice saying: ‘I have descended to reveal the hidden mysteries of the Holy King’… On the second day at that hour I tried to be alone in the room, and the voice returned and said another secret. Then on one day it revealed to me that it was a maggid sent from Heaven… And then it commanded me to write a book on Ecclesiastes, while it would explain to me the secret of each verse. And afterward Elijah came and said secrets of what he said… And when I write the novelties they say, I write each day what was said that day. And I do all these things while fallen on my face. And I see these holy souls as though in an actual dream in human form.” (Letter 15).
Rabbi Yosef Karo also testified about himself: “And also afflict your soul as I told you, so that you may merit to see Elijah awake, face to face, and he will speak with you mouth to mouth” (Maggid Mesharim, p. 9) — “And though prophecy has ceased from Israel, from you it has not ceased” (Maggid Mesharim, p. 370), “for you have merited to speak mouth to mouth as I speak with you” (Maggid Mesharim, p. 116).
I find the words of the Chida very puzzling, since on the one hand he rejected issuing Jewish law by means of the prophetic dreams of Rabbi Yaakov of Marvege in the responsa Min HaShamayim—except regarding women’s blessing over the four species—and on the other hand he wrote that one may rely in Jewish law on the words of the Ari regarding the custom of reciting “Berikh Shemei,” because “God was revealed to him.”
Once the Torah descended from Heaven and was given to us, one may not decide a halakhic dispute contrary to the rules of halakhic ruling by relying on prophecy or a heavenly voice. This rule also prevents a prophet from establishing permanent Jewish law or changing even the slightest stroke of the Torah of Moses:
“Rabbi Eliezer again said to them: If the Jewish law is in accordance with me, let Heaven prove it… A heavenly voice went forth and said: Why do you differ with Rabbi Eliezer, for the Jewish law accords with him everywhere? Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: ‘It is not in Heaven!’”
In the book Ben Yochai by the great Rabbi Moshe Kunitz, p. 136 onward, there appears a large list of laws originating in the Zohar that conflict with the laws in the Talmud—for example, the obligation to seek out the commandment of sending away the mother bird, contrary to the Talmud in Chullin 139, which holds that the commandment applies only if one happens upon it; the dispute between Kabbalists and halakhic decisors such as the Rosh, Maharam, Rema, and Smak regarding putting on tefillin on Chol HaMoed, which today is not done on Chol HaMoed; the dispute about reading the Torah aloud by the one called up; reciting the morning blessings according to Kabbalah even when one did not benefit from them; the washing of the priests’ hands before ascending to bless the congregation even when their hands are clean; the washing of the priests’ hands by the Levites according to the Zohar’s ruling; the permission for priests to go to the graves of holy men; the severe emphasis on the gravity of wasting seed, to the point of deserving death; and many more examples.
I wonder how new laws, new customs, and new interpretations can be accepted as Torah from Heaven when neither this book nor its commentators have any tradition from generation to generation.
I wonder how some halakhic decisors such as the Chida and the Ben Ish Chai hold that we should rule in Jewish law in accordance with the Ari even against the Shulchan Arukh—because the Ari saw what Rabbi Yosef Karo had written and took his view into account, yet still decided differently, and had the Shulchan Arukh known the greatness of the Ari he would have ruled like him. According to that approach, how can one rely on the Ari as a decisor experienced in practical halakhic ruling, when it is known that for many years he lived in seclusion? We have no evidence how many years he studied or apprenticed himself to his teachers.
I wonder why the opposition of Rabbi Yaakov Abulafia, rabbi of Damascus, chief of the sages and renewer of ordination, to the circle of Kabbalists in Safed and especially to Rabbi Chaim was not accepted. Rabbi Abulafia not only did not believe in the miracle stories told about the Ari, but actively opposed Rabbi Chaim Vital and even thwarted his appointment as synagogue rabbi. In Sefer HaChezyonot there are several passages in which Rabbi Vital describes Rabbi Yaakov as one of his greatest opponents.
How was the Ari—Rabbi Isaac ben Shlomo Luria—accepted by an overwhelming majority of the sages of Israel as a man of God possessing prophetic revelations, when he was never verified or tested as a true prophet? Even if the Ari managed to impress all the sages of Safed with his many areas of knowledge in both revealed and hidden Torah, according to the Torah he was obligated to undergo verification as a true prophet, especially since he gave heavenly instructions for the repair of the soul.
In my humble opinion, even the style of his prophetic statements as quoted by Rabbi Vital requires prophetic verification:
“…And he would speak with spirits from reincarnations, good spirit and evil spirit. And he recognized by the smell of garments, like that child in the portion of Devarim, and by mute birds. And he would bring the soul of a person while he was still alive and speak with him as much as needed and desired, and afterward dismiss it. And he would see souls as they departed from the body, and in cemeteries, and as they ascended every Sabbath eve to the Garden of Eden. And he would speak with the souls of the righteous in the World to Come, and they would reveal to him secrets of Torah. He also knew the wisdom of physiognomy, palm lines, and true dream interpretation, and old and new reincarnations. And he could recognize from a person’s forehead what he was thinking and what he had dreamed, and what verse he had read when his soul ascended to the Garden of Eden at night, and he would teach the meaning of the root of his soul. And he would read on his forehead the merits and sins he had thought. And he would give each and every person a rectification according to his unique choice or according to the root of his soul attached to the root of Adam…”… “And this brought him to divine inspiration, and Elijah would constantly be revealed to him.”
Rabbi Chaim Vital further wrote about the Ari:
“And now I will write the places of the graves of the righteous, as I received from my teacher, the holy Ari, may his memory be blessed. And I have already informed you that he would see and gaze upon the souls of the righteous in every place and at every time, and all the more so when he was at their graves, where their souls stand, as is known. Even from afar his eyes would see the soul of the righteous standing upon his grave, and by this he knew the grave of each and every righteous person, and he would speak with them and learn from them many hidden secrets of Torah. And I have already tested this many times and investigated it to the utmost, and I found his words true and reliable. There is no need to elaborate now, for these are awesome and wondrous things, and no book could contain them.” (Sha’ar HaGilgulim, introduction 37).
These things, which were not even said about Moses our teacher, are especially astonishing when they were never verified for the generations—the Ari was not verified as a prophet—and we also do not know the Torah greatness of this holy man. Some say he wrote together with Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi the commentary Shitah Mekubetzet on tractate Menachot, but that commentary was lost while still in manuscript, so we cannot judge his Torah stature.
In addition, not only did the Ari bring from Heaven a new Torah that was never stated in tradition, he also rejected the later Kabbalists after Nachmanides and claimed they were not upright and that one must not read them (in the book Nagid UMetzaveh). He also claimed that all piyyutim such as “Yigdal Elohim Chai,” written by Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol, or other liturgical poems written by later authors, are based on error and should not be recited. He even wrote regarding the maggid of Rabbi Yosef Karo that it was false: “What the maggid of Rabbi Beit Yosef said… that is false” (Sefer HaGilgulim, 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 unimpressed by his Torah and spiritual greatness:
“It is impossible not to tell you what happened in my presence more than twenty-five years ago… The sage Rabbi Yedidya Galanti of blessed memory arrived here, an emissary from the Land of Israel… Galanti began to tell stories of the miracles and wonders of the Ari of blessed memory… And I will not conceal from you this as well: one great and pious sage from among the members of our yeshiva… while he was still speaking of the wonders of the Ari before we had begun studying, said that many times the sage Rabbi Yaakov Abulafia of blessed memory, who was close as a brother to the Ari, had told him that none of these stories about his deeds had ever happened, and that the Ari himself would say to him that the things said about him were not true. And he further said in the name of that sage that the Ari spent most of the day engaged in commerce.”
From this it would seem that the spiritual image of the Ari, as Rabbi Abulafia knew it closely, which is reflected so powerfully in the praise and writings of his students, is nothing but a falsehood that became publicized. According to Rabbi Abulafia’s knowledge, the Ari was a merchant in Egypt, and he remained such even in Safed. It is likely that he was hinting that he was occupied with the material world and not the spiritual one.
Even the Ari’s way of life before arriving in the Land of Israel is not fully clear. His stay in the Land was very short, about two years until his death. To this day it is not known with certainty that he wrote even one book in Kabbalah, Jewish law, or thought. And even if he took part in writing one volume of Shitah Mekubetzet, how does that prove for future generations that he was a prophet endowed with divine inspiration who spoke with Elijah the Prophet?
How do the Alter Rebbe and many sages of Israel determine that the entire teaching of the Ari was 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.
Sabbatai Zevi too, may the name of the wicked rot—who was ordained as a Jewish sage by Rabbi Yosef Escapa of Izmir—at the beginning of his path convinced many sages of Israel that he was a holy man of God. The letters of his assistant Nathan of Gaza throughout the Jewish world were received with immense joy. Among his believers were famous rabbis such as Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschütz, Rabbi Chaim Benveniste, author of Knesset HaGedolah, and most of the sages of his generation. At first the number of opponents to the messianic movement was negligible. It may be that if he had died within only a few years of his fame, similar to the Ari who died after two years, we might never have known at all that he was a false messiah.
It may also be that had he not suffered from grandiosity—he tried to found a new Jewish religion and abolish the commandments—he would have been defined as supremely holy.
It may also be that if he had not pronounced the explicit Name of God or declared himself the messiah, we would never have recognized his wickedness, and would have considered him an angel of God.
Fourth question regarding descriptions that contradict the ancient Jewish worldview
The Book of the Zohar deals in its midrashim with fields that were entirely foreign to the Jewish world. Take, for example, the issue of reincarnation of souls:
“‘And it shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his dead brother, that his name not be blotted out from Israel’—and this is the secret of reincarnation” (Zohar, vol. 3, p. 215b).
But this Kabbalistic interpretation was entirely foreign to previous generations. For example, Rav Saadia Gaon—one of the Geonim of Babylonia, head of the yeshiva of Sura and transmitter of the Oral Torah—rejected the belief in reincarnation forcefully. In his book Emunot VeDeot he devoted an entire section to rejecting this mistaken belief, and even called those who believe it “people of delusions” and “confused”:
“…And I say that I have found among people called Jews some who believe in reincarnation, calling it transference, and according to them the spirit of Reuven will be in Shimon, and afterward in Levi, and afterward in Yehudah. And some of them, or most of them, think that the spirit of a human being can enter an animal and the spirit of an animal a human being, and many such delusions and confusions…” (Emunot VeDeot, sixth essay, section 8).
Maimonides’ son, Rabbi Abraham, also viewed this belief as a notion contrary to Judaism, and in his opinion it came from believers in the eternity of the world:
“The ultimate reward is life in the World to Come… to the point that some of the ancient nations… were compelled because of this to believe in the absurdity of reincarnation, namely that the soul of the dead, upon departing from him, transmigrates and enters another body… This opinion was held by no true sage and believed by no possessor of Torah. Rather, it is among the absurd opinions of the believers in eternity, whose name God has erased from His world.” (HaMaspik LeOvdei Hashem by Rabbi Abraham son of Maimonides, cited by Shmuel ibn Tzartza, Mekor Chaim, fol. 123c). It is reasonable to assume he received this outlook from his father, who was his teacher and master.
So too the Raavad—not the Raavad who disputed Maimonides—came out sharply against belief in reincarnation:
“…And this is not something anyone could ever imagine on his own… For one would not say transmigration, meaning that his soul had been in another person; rather one would say that he himself would return exactly as he is, and that something perceptible would be found after having vanished from the senses. But such a thing has never happened and never will happen…” (Raavad, HaEmunah HaRamah, first essay, chapter 6, p. 39).
Rabbi Shmuel ibn Tzartza in his book Emunah Ramah went even further and wrote that one who believes in reincarnation is like one who believes in pagan religion:
“Whoever believes in it inclines toward the belief of a certain nation called pagans, who have no religion at all… and they say that when the soul leaves the body of a man, if he was good it enters the body of a child born at that very hour that the soul departs his body, and if he was a bad man it enters the body of a dog, etc….” (Mekor Chaim, p. 123).
How can a Torah be renewed that was not only unknown to most Geonim and the great sages of Israel in their time, but was seen by them as a primitive belief contradicting Judaism?
Fifth question regarding the acceptance of Rabbi Chaim Vital as a great Torah authority fit to interpret the teaching of the Ari
There are many troubling things about the personality of Rabbi Chaim Vital as he describes himself in Sefer HaChezyonot. Rabbi Vital writes that he went to fortune-tellers—once to a woman who read oil 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 expert in foretelling the future by seeing the dead; and another time he described going to an Arab sheikh who was expert in healing through demons. It is also strange that he praised himself for his prophetic greatness and as proof described that several women saw the fire above him—for example, the sister of Rabbi Yehuda Mishan, who was not verified as a prophetess, described that she saw the fire above him and Elijah the Prophet standing at his right.
In the second part of his book, Rabbi Vital describes in great detail the visions revealed to him in his dreams: he arrives at the entrance to the Garden of Eden, meets Elijah the Prophet, sails on the wings of a mighty eagle, and imagines himself as Messiah son of Joseph and king of Israel. The highlight is certainly his meeting with God Himself, seated on a throne of glory in Heaven. In addition, there are many places where Rabbi Chaim Vital praises himself lavishly.
The claim of Rabbi Reuven Margaliot that this book is forged has been proven mistaken, when his manuscript—what is called an “autograph” in foreign usage—was found. Comparison of this handwriting with the rest of Rabbi Vital’s manuscripts clearly proves that Rabbi Vital wrote it. The Chida as well, who was an expert in manuscripts and a bibliographer and dealt extensively with Rabbi Chaim Vital’s teachings, claimed that this was Rabbi Vital’s original handwriting: “And I answered that I, the young one, merited to see Sefer HaChezyonot of Rabbi Chaim Vital, written in his own hand” (Sefer HaChezyonot, Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem 1954, preface). Rabbi Shlomo Lutzkir, publisher of the book, who received the manuscript 200 years after Rabbi Vital’s death, likewise held so.
Sixth question about distortions and errors written in the Book of the Zohar
There are verses quoted in the Zohar from the Torah on which many expositions are built, but they were not written in the Torah at all. For example, the verse “And you, son of man, raise a lamentation over the virgin of Israel” (Zohar, Vayikra 6a) does not exist anywhere in Scripture. It seems that the author of the Zohar confused two verses, and on the basis of that mistake invented a new verse and a new midrash. Another example: in the Zohar on Parashat Shemini appears the verse “Remove the wicked before the king, and his throne shall be established in kindness” (Zohar, Shemini 40b). The Zohar in its exposition elaborates at length on the word “in kindness.” The problem is that the verse on which the exposition is built is distorted. The original verse is: “Remove the wicked before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness” (Proverbs 25:5).
Likewise the Zohar writes in its exposition the verse: “As it is written: ‘Let Your ears be open’” (Idra Rabba, Naso 129). But this verse too is corrupted, and was apparently distorted from the words of the prophet: “That Your eyes may be open toward this house” (I Kings 8).
Likewise it says in the Zohar’s exposition: “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Do not fear him’—the word ‘him’ is written in full with two vavs, one here and one in ‘until your brother seeks him’—what is the reason? Because they are literally the same letter” (translated Zohar, Chukat 184a). But in fact there are no two vavs in any of the similar verses in Scripture: “And the Lord said to Moses: Do not fear him, for I have delivered him into your hand…” (Deuteronomy 3:2).
The example that left me stunned was Rabbi Chaim Vital’s explanation that in the books of the Hebrew Bible, which have been transmitted generation after generation, there are many spelling errors. Many examples could be brought, but I will suffice with two. On the verse “And it came to pass on the day that Moses finished erecting the Tabernacle…” Rabbi Vital claims that the word “finished” should be written without a vav: “on the day that Moses finish erecting the Tabernacle…” (Ra’aya Meheimna, Pinchas 254a).
Similarly, in the verse from Psalms:
“He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him, and He will hear their cry and save them”, it should have been written without a vav: “their cry”?! (Glosses of Rabbi Chaim Vital to the Zohar, Tetzaveh 180b).
The excuse of the Bnei Yissaschar, that there are differences between the spelling in the “upper academy” and the spelling in the “academy of the firmament,” seems most puzzling and very hard to accept:
“For the Torah is expounded in two academies, the upper and the lower,” and with this introduction all “the other matters in which our sages expounded with some variation from what is found in the tradition before us” will be understood, because they knew the text as written in the upper academy—“so it is in the Zohar.” (Bnei Yissaschar, Tammuz-Av, article 2, sec. 11).
I am aware that even in the Talmud there are mistaken quotations of verses, as Tosafot says about the amoraim: “At times they were not proficient in the verses” (Bava Batra 113a, Tosafot s.v. Teravayhu), but on those mistaken verses no expositions were built and no laws were learned from them.
The question therefore arises: how can one accept Kabbalistic expositions built upon incorrect verses?
There are also errors in quotations of verses from the Torah. For example, it is said in the Zohar that “Ishmael’s mother gave birth to Tachash, and he came from Abraham’s side”, whereas the Torah states that Tachash was the son of Nachor by his concubine Reumah!
Another example: the Zohar writes: “Like David, of whom it was said: ‘And when the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon him.’” But this verse actually refers to the prophet Elisha!
We also find many contradictions in statements supposedly from Rashbi. On the verse “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose” (Genesis 6:2), Rashbi says that the expression “sons of God” means sons of judges—for in biblical language judges are sometimes called “elohim”—and he would curse anyone who interpreted it to mean actual divine beings (Genesis Rabbah, Bereshit 26). Yet in the Book of the Zohar the exact opinion appears that Rashbi curses someone for saying: it identifies the sons of God with the angels Aza and Azael (Zohar Chadash 2, Ruth 36a).
Likewise, in the Book of the Zohar there are dozens of chronologically impossible descriptions of encounters of amoraim with tannaim—for example, the tanna Rashbi blessed the amora Rav Safra that he would have a son great in Torah, but Rav Safra was born a hundred years after Rashbi’s death. Or the Zohar described Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair as Rashbi’s father-in-law, whereas in the Babylonian Talmud he is described as his son-in-law.
We also find that the Book of the Zohar—which according to the Kabbalists was written with divine inspiration—erred geographically about cities and villages in the Land of Israel. For example, Lod, one of the central places in the Zohar, is described as a city in the Galilee near Usha and Caesarea, and the Galilean cave where Rashbi and his son hid is located in the “desert of Lod.”
The Sea of Galilee, located in the territory of the tribe of Naphtali, is described in the Zohar as being in the territory of Zebulun, who hunted there the chilazon for tekhelet dye—whereas according to the Talmud the chilazon was caught in the Mediterranean Sea—and so on and so on.
Linguistically as well, one can clearly see that the modern Aramaic of the Zohar was not Rashbi’s Aramaic. The Book of the Zohar was written in Aramaic, but its Aramaic is not Rashbi’s ancient Aramaic. Rather, it is an artificial, corrupted, “modern” Aramaic with strong Spanish influence. For example, the word “busita” is not found anywhere else except in the Idra Rabba, and even Baal HaSulam, the modern commentator on the Zohar, did not know how to explain it.
The linguist and Bible scholar Shmuel David Luzzatto, who was Orthodox, wrote sharply about its style, so different from all earlier Jewish literature:
“For in truth it is neither the language of Scripture, nor the language of the Mishnah, nor the language of Daniel and Ezra, nor the language of Onkelos and Jonathan, nor the language of the Jerusalem Targums, nor the language of the Babylonian Talmud, nor the language of the Jerusalem Talmud, nor the language of the midrashim, nor the language of the Geonim, nor the language of the commentators, nor the language of the halakhic decisors, nor the language of the philosophers—but a ridiculous language, mixed from all the aforementioned languages. It is the sort of language that naturally rises to the lips of anyone trying to write in Talmudic style without having engaged sufficiently in it. And I know in truth one man who studied only a tiny bit of Talmud and seeks to write in Talmudic language, and all that comes out is the language of the Zohar.” (From: Debate on the Wisdom of Kabbalah, pp. 113–114, cited in Tishby, Mishnat HaZohar, p. 77).
Even if we do not accept his words, one can still see there are many examples of linguistic corruptions in the Zohar, such as the use of incorrect verbal forms. More interesting are words whose meanings changed in the Zohar: the verb “ozif,” which means to lend money, is used in the Zohar in the sense of accompanying a person. “Tokfa” (= strength) is used in the sense of lap, due to a misunderstanding of Onkelos on the verse “carry them in your bosom” — “bear them in your strength.” “Tzachuta” (= thirst) is used in the sense of clarity of mind. “Taya,” which in the Talmud means an Arab, in the Zohar always means a Jewish donkey driver. The term “butzina de-kardunita,” used in the Zohar in the sense of a strong light, stems from misunderstanding the Talmudic expression “chitei kordnaita”—wheat from Kurdistan, which is hard and strong.
One can also find in the Book of the Zohar words that certainly were not written in the ancient period of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, such as the word “sinagoga,” which in later Spanish means synagogue… and more and more.
Seventh question: why is disbelief in the Book of the Zohar considered heresy?
There are sages in the Jewish world today who have turned the question of the Zohar’s origin into a foundational matter of the principles of faith. In their opinion, every Jew must believe not only in the sanctity of the Zohar, but also that the tanna Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was the author of this book, and anyone who denies this will be called to account for his lack of faith (Rabbi Elijah Benamozegh in his book Ta’am LeShad, Livorno 1863, p. 32).
Even more than that: in recent generations there are those who declare anyone who denies the attribution of the Zohar to Rashbi to be a full-fledged heretic with no share in the World to Come.
In other words, according to this view, just as every Jew is obligated to believe that Moses our teacher wrote the Five Books of the Torah by divine command, so too he must believe that Rashbi wrote the Zohar. And even if he believes with all his heart in the holiness and force of the Zohar, if he does not believe that Rashbi wrote it, he is judged a heretic and his wine is considered libation wine.
A few years ago a responsum of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky was printed, ruling that anyone who does not believe in the Book of the Zohar may not be counted toward the quorum of ten for matters of sanctity.
Why did the rabbis of Jerusalem and all the rabbinical courts of the various communities in the past place Rabbi Yihya Qafih, one of the important rabbis of Yemen, under ban for his positions against the acceptance of the Zohar—and against his negative attitude toward the conception of divinity in the ten sefirot—as a book accepted in tradition, and regard him as a heretic requiring excommunication?
Seemingly the question of belief in the Zohar and Kabbalah has become, from a halakhic question, a question of belief in sages who claim they have answers but do not reveal or prove them.
I know and am aware that almost all the great sages of Israel—from Rabbi Yosef Karo, author of the Shulchan Arukh, to Ramchal, the Chida, the Vilna Gaon, the Baal Shem Tov, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, all the giants of Hasidism, Rabbi Kook, and the great sages of our day—regarded Kabbalah and the “Zohar” as Torah from Sinai, and opposing them seems like the deeds of Korach and his congregation. But the earlier sages taught us that a person must not accept things that he knows in his heart are untrue, as the Jerusalem Talmud explains:
“It was taught: Could it be that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you must obey them? Scripture says: ‘to go right and left’—meaning that they tell you about right that it is right, and about left that it is left.” (Jerusalem Talmud, Horayot chapter 1).
And as Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein explained regarding the obligation to accept the words of sages when it is proven they are mistaken:
“…But if they truly say about right that it is left—for example, if they permit forbidden fat or forbidden sexual relations—certainly it is forbidden to obey them. And so it is explicit in the Jerusalem Talmud Horayot…” (Torah Temimah, notes on Deuteronomy 17, note 62).
Or as is written in tractate Kallah:
“…For even if you see sages transgressing and acting improperly, do not do as they do; rather, ‘set your heart to my knowledge.’” (Kallah Rabbati, chapter 3, law 2).
And the author of Or HaChaim wrote in his book Chefetz Hashem:
“…That the rule of ‘it is a commandment to obey the words of the sages’ was said only regarding a discretionary matter, or regarding a prohibited matter when the sages command a person to do something through positive action. If a person refrains passively and does not obey the sages, he transgresses ‘do not turn aside’—even in a matter of prohibition. However, when the sages say about forbidden food, such as forbidden fat, that it is permitted, in that permission they are not commanding the person to eat that food, and the person is permitted on his own not to eat it. In such a case, when the student knows the sage has erred, he is forbidden to obey the sages. In such a case it was not said, ‘even if he tells you about right that it is left and about left that it is right.’ Therefore, if the person errs in this, he is considered inadvertent and is liable for a sin-offering.”
It follows from his words that one should listen to the sages only when their words accord with reality.
Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg also disagreed with the wording of Rashi and Sifrei, who explained the saying to mean that one must obey sages even in things that contradict reason:
“Right and left—even if they show you with your own eyes that left is right and right is left, meaning that according to your own appearance they are mistaken in law, still you obey them. But if it is known with certainty that they are mistaken, the Jerusalem Talmud already said: if they tell you about right that it is left and about left that it is right, one must not obey them. Rashi’s wording here needs correction.” (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah).
And likewise in Ruach Chaim by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin on the Mishnah “dust yourself in the dust of their feet”:
“A student is forbidden to accept the words of his teacher if he has difficulties with them.” (Ruach Chaim, Avot 1:4).
Who is greater for us than Rashi, may his memory be blessed, who illuminated the eyes of the exile with his commentaries, and yet his descendants Rabbenu Tam and Rabbi Isaac disagreed with him in many places and refuted his words, because it is the Torah of truth and one shows favoritism to no man in it, etc. And Yiftach in his generation was like Samuel in his generation… so why should one not dispute with his teacher in ruling and instruction? Was that not the way of Torah from the days of the tannaim? Our holy teacher Rabbi Judah the Prince disputed with his father and teacher Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in many places. Among the amoraim, Rava disputed with his teacher Rabbah. Among the Geonim, the Rosh disagreed in twenty-four places with Maharam, who was his primary teacher… And so too in Responsa Radbaz part 1 (no. 495) it is written that one may disagree with his teacher during his lifetime by means of proofs and discussion, and he brought all the above proofs, and concluded: so too one may disagree with his teacher after his death and rule and instruct according to his own proofs and act accordingly, even though they are against his teacher. And similarly he may write in a book the words of his teacher and his proofs, and his own words and proofs even if they contradict his teacher. And thus all the early authorities did. Also in Responsa She’elat Yaavetz part 1 (end of no. 5) he wrote that certainly a student may disagree with his teacher based on proofs and evidence, whether in writing or orally, and those complete in wisdom are not offended by one who seizes on their errors; on the contrary, they are grateful to him for saving them from falling into the trap of error. And so wrote Rabbi Chaim Palaggi in Responsa Chikekei Lev (Yoreh De’ah no. 42) that a Torah scholar may not suppress his prophecy and is obligated to reveal his opinion in Jewish law and write it in a book (Yabia Omer part 4, Orach Chaim, introduction). And Maimonides likewise ruled in the Book of Offerings, Laws of Errors, chapter 13, law 5.
Although I believe and want to believe in accepting the words of the sages of Israel, it is difficult for me. How can one say, “Whoever denies the hidden Torah denies the revealed Torah,” when even Rabbi Moshe Cordovero wrote that no one knows how the Book of the Zohar was revealed, because all of it is in the world of concealment?
Perhaps the sages of Safed stumbled, as sages stumbled with Sabbatai Zevi, may the name of the wicked rot, thereby causing the rest of the sages of Israel through the generations to believe their words.
Nor do I accept the explanation that when the sages of Israel saw the Book of the Zohar, they recognized ideas already known to them in oral ancestral tradition and therefore accepted it. Mainly because we did not hear from the great sages of earlier generations those same ideas that were brought only after the publication of the Zohar. As even the Kabbalists admit, and as the Kabbalist Rabbi Yehuda Chayat writes in his introduction to Minchat Yehudah:
“How fortunate is our portion that we merited the Book of the Zohar, which our predecessors did not merit, whose least was greater than our loins, such as Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Sheshet Gaon, Rabbi Eliezer of Worms, Nachmanides, Rashba, and the Raavad. All these were among those who knew grace, yet did not taste its honey, for in their days it had not been revealed.” (Minchat Yehudah).
It is also very puzzling that the early Ashkenazi pietists never mentioned the Book of the Zohar, although they published books in the hidden Torah. Rabbi Azriel the Kabbalist of Girona, in his commentaries, lists the chain of Kabbalistic wisdom from the days of the tannaim, but he does not mention Rashbi, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Yosi, and the rest of the sages of the Zohar. And Rav Hai Gaon too, who lists in his responsa all the books of Kabbalah known in his time, omits the holy Book of the Zohar and its ideas?!
I am prepared to accept that there are passages and ideas written in the Book of the Zohar that were known in the ancient Jewish tradition. It may also be that quotations under the name “midrash,” or “Jerusalem midrash,” or “plain Yerushalmi,” or the midrash called “the great Zohar,” resemble some of what is written in the Zohar. But these passages are very few, and most of them were written in the period of the Geonim, about a thousand years after the time of Rashbi. Therefore they cannot be defined as ancient writings transmitted in tradition, nor do they prove the authenticity of the Book of the Zohar in our hands.
I am aware of the Talmudic statement: “Words transmitted orally you are not permitted to say in writing” (Gittin 60). But from the time Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wrote the Mishnah, it would seem reasonable to expect that those tannaim would also write the hidden Torah that had been transmitted orally, so that it would not be forgotten by the Jewish people.
When the Talmud speaks of the Account of the Chariot and the secrets of Torah, Rashi refers to the Hekhalot literature. The obvious question is why he did not refer to the Book of the Zohar, since the Book of the Zohar is the central book of Kabbalah. And the answer is simple: he had never heard of the Book of the Zohar. It follows that Rashi did not know the Book of the Zohar.
In addition, Maimonides wrote explicitly in the Guide for the Perplexed that no book explaining the secrets of Torah had ever been composed in the Jewish nation:
“…And this is the reason (because the secrets of Torah are to be taught only to individuals, and only orally, and only in outline) that this knowledge has entirely ceased from the nation, so that little or much of it is not to be found. And it is proper to conduct oneself this way in it, for it has never ceased to be transmitted from heart to heart, and was never written in a book at all.” (Introduction to part 3 of Guide for the Perplexed, p. 275).
Why did those who disputed Maimonides in his generation not claim against him that he was denying a foundational belief of Jewish Torah? Is it conceivable that Maimonides, throughout his life, never spoke with Torah scholars from all over the world who knew and recognized the hidden Torah?
Eighth question: Kabbalists dealing with matters beyond human understanding
In addition to the general questions about the Book of the Zohar, I have a number of internal questions on several topics with which Kabbalists occupy themselves. These difficulties raise in my heart the question whether the entire occupation with Kabbalah diminishes the greatness of the blessed God.
The Ari explained at the beginning of his book Etz Chaim that the purpose of creating the world was to actualize His great goodness. According to his words, without creation the essence of the Creator would be lacking:
“Concerning the purpose intended in the creation of the worlds… I say that the reason for the matter was that He, may He be blessed, is necessarily complete in all His actions and powers and all His names of greatness, exaltation, and honor; and if He did not bring His actions and powers into actual deed, then as it were He would not be called complete either in His actions or in His names and appellations…”
Rabbi Yosef Ergas, of blessed memory, in his book Shomer Emunim HaKadmon addressed this difficulty and answered it in a strange way: namely, that the Creator is indeed complete even without actually bestowing goodness on human beings, but even so, perfect goodness by its nature wants to benefit creatures:
“…Like a good, beneficent, and generous man who benefits others according to his good nature, and not in order to receive benefit or praise. From this angle the Ari said that the purpose of creation was that the Infinite One is absolute goodness, in whom all perfections are gathered and hidden in His simple essence before creation, and after creation His power is the same as before. He wished to create the worlds not in order to add perfection to Himself… but because such is the way of the good and perfect—to benefit and bestow perfection and existence… so that beings might exist and enjoy from Him.” (Shomer Emunim, second debate, 12, p. 63).
But despite his enlightening explanation, the words of Rabbi Ergas remain difficult: how can one claim that bringing powers into actuality, such as the creation of the world, is only a consequence of the way of goodness, when the Ari explicitly writes that the Creator is compelled to be complete in all His actions and in filling what is lacking in Him, and that this is the reason for the creation of the world?
The Creator needs subjects in order to reveal His kingship
Another angle that tries to explain the purpose of creation appears in the words of the sages and the Kabbalists, and its essence is that the Creator needs subjects in order to be king: “There is no king without a people” (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, chapter 3). Just as there is no rider without a horse, the Creator is called king only when there is someone over whom to rule.
As the Ari explained:
“At the beginning of the king’s will”… before He created the worlds, He and His name were one, and there was no one over whom His kingship could apply. When the world came into being, He had over whom to rule and decree.”
If we think more deeply about the Ari’s words, we find that the Creator was always king potentially, but only when He created beings did He become king actually. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov took this idea, apparently from the Ari’s teaching, and defined it as a binding need of the Creator:
“For before creation the light of the Holy One, blessed be He, was infinite. And the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted His kingship to be revealed, and there is no king without a people, so He needed to create human beings to accept the yoke of His kingship…” (Likutei Moharan I, 9:1).
Rabbi Nachman’s words are puzzling, for need indicates lack.
When it is said that the Creator needed to create human beings, it follows that the Creator is lacking in His essence without subjects over whom to reign.
How can one say of the perfect Creator of the world that He needs, for His completion, to create human beings?
The Creator needs to be recognized
Rabbi Shmuel Toledano brings in his book Likutei Hakdamot the words of the Rema of Fano, Rabbi Menachem Azariah, that the purpose of benefitting human beings is that they recognize the greatness of the Creator:
“The Rema of Fano in his book Seventy-Two Insights… writes that the intention of the blessed Creator… is to make His divinity known to others… And you must know that making His divinity known is through the measure of His good bounty on the part of His good and simple will, may His name be blessed forever without end, to create the whole world in the best possible way and to benefit His creatures so that they may recognize His greatness and exaltedness, and by knowing their Creator and doing His will may merit to become a chariot above, cleaving to Him, may His name be exalted.” (Likutei Hakdamot, gate 1—Purpose of Creation).
This insight was summarized in the Book of the Zohar in one sentence: “So that they should know Him”—that is, the world was created so that created and emanated beings would know the existence, greatness, and perfection of the Creator (Zohar part 2, folio 42b).
From these words too one can understand that just as the Creator needs subjects to call Him king, He also needs subjects to know and recognize Him.
Can one really conceive of describing the Creator as a being with a need for rulership and control?
If we explain that the Kabbalists’ intention in using words such as compelled, needed, should know, and the like was only to describe the Creator’s real will in human language, in the sense that “the Torah speaks in human language,” then we run into another question: is it possible that all the Kabbalistic descriptions of the purpose of creating the world and of creating humanity are not actually true in their essential reality?
Can it be that all the Kabbalistic explanations given in the books of Kabbalah were intended only to quiet our thoughts?
Does not the entire occupation with this question belittle the Master of the Universe? To say that the Holy One, blessed be He, needed or was compelled to create a world seems, at least superficially, to undermine the Creator’s perfect completeness. The Creator is complete even without creating beings to benefit, or subjects over whom to reign. Goodness is a material concept belonging to this world. Will is likewise a material concept belonging to this world. To say that the Creator, from His side rather than ours, is good is exactly like saying that from the Creator’s side He is evil. Mercy or cruelty belong only to this world.
In exactly the same way, king and subjects are concepts only of this world, and do not belong to the Creator at all. Why describe a deficiency that exists in our lowly world as though it were a deficiency in perfect completeness?
Today we know with certainty that the Creator exists in a different mode of being from human beings. He has no past, no present, no future, no time, no mourning, no anger, and no Sabbath. To say that from the Creator’s perspective one divine day equals a thousand human years is not only mistaken, but a confusing notion that leads a person into a deep abyss from which there is no escape. This is what the sages meant when they said that one who believes in God’s corporeality diminishes the Holy One, blessed be He, and therefore it would have been better had he not come into the world. Engaging in a field that we are incapable of understanding can lead to a distorted conception of the Creator. The Creator is so exalted above us that even the spiritual angels ask where the Creator is: “Where is the place of His glory?” From this one should understand that even “in Heaven” we will not be able to grasp the true essence of the Creator. We are far today, and will remain far forever, from understanding the blessed Creator.
My feeling is that the Kabbalistic occupation with these questions is entirely unnecessary and demeans the honor of the perfect Creator.
Parables without what they point to
Most Kabbalists agree that the revelation of the Creator in His attributes, feelings, and acts is not His essential being. As Rabbi Chaim Vital explained at the beginning of his book Sha’ar HaHakdamot:
“It is clear that above there is no body and no force in a body, Heaven forbid. And all these images and depictions are not because things are so, Heaven forbid, but only to soothe the ear so that the human being may be able to understand the higher spiritual matters that cannot be grasped or marked in the human intellect. Therefore permission was given to speak by way of imaginary pictures and depictions… And this image too—plainly, above there is neither letter nor point, and this too is only by way of parable and depiction, to soothe the ear.”
According to Rabbi Chaim Vital’s explanation, the whole occupation with understanding the ways of the Creator, His advantages and His deficiencies, is just to make things intelligible to the ear. If so, why deal with it at all?
In the book Otzarot Chaim, Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo wrote in the name of the students of the Ari that the contraction is a parable meant to help understand the reality of the creation of the worlds. Likewise in the book Novlot Chokhmah it is concluded that the clear truth is that the whole matter of contraction is only a way of speaking in parable about the secret. Rabbi Yosef Ergas wrote that one who believes in contraction literally thereby denies ten principles accepted by the Zohar and by all the Kabbalists:
“Anyone who wants to understand the matter of contraction literally and truly falls into many errors and contradictions concerning most of the principles of faith… You are forced to say that the contraction is not literal… and the truth is that this is only a parable to soothe the ear.” (Shomer Emunim, 34, 39).
From this it appears that, according to Rabbi Ergas as well, the contraction, the line, and the circle are not an actual reality, but only a parable, and therefore he interpreted the whole Kabbalistic conceptual world as parable only.
And Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin likewise wrote: “All the words of the Ari of blessed memory in hidden matters are a parable, and it is forbidden to understand them literally” (Nefesh HaChaim, Vilna edition 1874, chapter 7, 30b).
In one of his letters, Ramchal writes to his teacher Rabbi Yeshaya Bassan:
“It follows that the entire intent of those principles is to explain what is pointed to in the words of the Ari, may his memory be blessed, according to his mode of parable.” (Letters of Ramchal, p. 166).
Parables are important when one can understand what they point to. But when what they point to is not truly graspable by us, and is only yet another parable, is not the whole occupation with it unnecessary and diminishing of the Creator’s honor?
If the entire concern of Kabbalah is with realities that exist only in the upper world, Atzilut, and we, because of our limited intellect, have no grasp of them at all, then there seems to be no logic in engaging in the hidden Torah, for dealing with a parable without the ability to uncover what it points to seems completely devoid of sense.
The author of Tanya answers this question: “One does not ask questions against a desire”—that is, against a craving one does not raise objections. Seemingly his intent is that this is a matter above every boundary of intellect and understanding (Or HaTorah, Balak 696; Hemshekh 5666 at its beginning; Sefer HaMa’amarim 1942 p. 34).
But his words are difficult: why teach baffling things that cannot be understood in the first place?
The Creator is called in Kabbalah “the Place”: “For He is the place of the world, and the world is not His place” (Genesis Rabbah, Vayetze 68). But even the concept of the place of the Creator’s dwelling—namely the Temple—is not a holy place from the Creator’s perspective, but only from the perspective of human beings. The Tent of Meeting is a kind of spiritual “embassy” of the Holy One, blessed be He, on earth.
In His essence, the Creator is present equally in every inanimate object, plant, animal, and speaking being: “The Shekhinah never descended below, and Moses and Elijah never ascended to on high…” As Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk explains in his Meshekh Chokhmah, regarding the intrinsic holiness of the Temple from the Creator’s side:
“These are not matters holy in themselves, Heaven forbid. The blessed God dwells among His children, and if they transgress, all holiness is removed from them and they become like mundane vessels. Marauders come and profane them; Titus entered the Holy of Holies with a harlot (Gittin 56) and was not harmed, because its holiness had been removed. Even more than this: the tablets of the covenant, which are the writing of God, are not holy in themselves, and when the bride played the harlot within her canopy they are considered mere earthenware and have no holiness in themselves, but only for your sake, because you keep them…” (Meshekh Chokhmah, Exodus 32).
From the Creator’s perspective, there is no difference in holiness between the divine presence in the Holy of Holies in the Temple and a slaughterhouse in Honolulu, as Rabbi Meir Simcha HaKohen explains:
“…Do not imagine that the Temple and Tabernacle are matters holy in themselves, Heaven forbid… The tablets, ‘the writing of God,’ are likewise not holy in themselves, but only for your sake, that you fulfill what is written on them… There is nothing holy in the world except the blessed God… All holy places have no foundation in religion except insofar as they were sanctified for the performance of commandments…” (Meshekh Chokhmah, Exodus 32:19).
Without the Creator’s full presence everywhere on earth, the Omnipresent would dissolve and disappear immediately. Therefore Meshekh Chokhmah explains that even when they defiled the Temple and its vessels, the Creator’s intrinsic holiness was not harmed, because He has no dwelling-place. If so, what relevance is there in occupying oneself with investigating this matter?
The purpose of studying Kabbalah
Some claim that the purpose of Kabbalah is not to investigate the Creator from His own perspective, but to understand the purpose of the world from the human point of view. According to them, the Torah speaks in human language, and therefore one must not think about spiritual concepts beyond our grasp. Ramchal, in his book Da’at Tevunot, disagreed with this approach and argued that the purpose of Kabbalah is to know the supernal will:
“All the wisdom of Kabbalah is only to know the governance of the supreme will: why did He create all these creatures? And what does He want from them? And what will be the end of all the cycles of the world? And how are all these revolutions of the world, which are so strange, to be explained? For the supreme will itself already measured out this cycle of governance that ends in complete perfection. And these measurements are what we explain through the secret of the sefirot and the worlds.” (Ramchal, Da’at Tevunot, p. 21).
And likewise in his book Choker U’Mekubal, written against those who argued that it is forbidden to study Kabbalah and the Book of the Zohar because they are forged:
“Said the Kabbalist: Know that the entire matter of the wisdom of Kabbalah is only to clarify His justice, blessed be His name, and that He is one in the truest and most absolute unity, with no change in Him, and not one in the accidental sense of body, Heaven forbid…” (Ramchal, Choker U’Mekubal).
This creates enormous difficulty in understanding the essence of Kabbalah. Many Kabbalistic concepts, such as the sefirot, the line and the circle, and the contraction, are symbolic and must not be understood literally.
If so, why study a field that we cannot understand?
In the Talmud, the warning against investigating hidden matters is phrased at its end almost as a prohibition:
“Might a person ask what was before the world was created? … But you may not ask what is above, what is below, what came before, and what will come after.” (Chagigah 11).
From this it emerges that according to the Talmud there is a halakhic problem with investigating and probing hidden matters.
The Zohar itself claims: “No thought can grasp You at all” (Tikkunei Zohar, folio 13), and the great Kabbalists explained that the Creator is not something graspable by any thought or image:
“…‘For it is a sign between Me and you’… As for what is between Me and you, namely the upper worlds and sefirot, you cannot grasp it in thought—only letters—for concerning the Infinite One, blessed be He, no thought grasps Him at all.” (Noam Elimelech, Ki Tisa, 52a).
And Rabbi Chaim Vital likewise wrote:
“…The supernal light, far above without end, called the Infinite—its name itself testifies that there is no grasp of it whatsoever, neither in thought nor in reflection at all. It is abstracted and separated from all thoughts. It precedes all emanated beings, created beings, formed beings, and made beings. There was no time of beginning or firstness in it, for it always exists and endures forever, and has no beginning or end at all.” (Etz Chaim, gate 1).
Why then is there an attempt, in the inner Torah, to understand the essence of the Creator if there is no possibility at all of understanding it?
I also have great difficulty with the issue of “serving the sefirot.” In the letter VeZot LiYehudah, the Kabbalist Abraham Abulafia attacked sharply some believers in the sefirot and accused them of denying the unity of God:
“And therefore I inform you that the the Kabbalists of the sefirot thought to unify the Name and to flee from belief in the Trinity, and they made Him tenfold. Just as the gentiles say He is three and the three are one, so too some the Kabbalists believe and say that the divinity is ten sefirot and the ten are one. Thus they multiplied Him to the utmost multiplicity and compounded Him to the utmost composition, and there is no multiplicity beyond ten.”
The Rivash wrote similarly severe things:
“For they pray sometimes to one sefirah and sometimes to another, according to the matter of the prayer… And all this is very strange in the eyes of one who is not a Kabbalist like them; and they think this is a belief in duality. And I have already heard one of the philosophers speaking disparagingly of the Kabbalists, saying: the idolaters are believers in threes (the Christians), and the Kabbalists are believers in tens.” (Responsa Rivash no. 157).
In summary I would like to clarify several points:

1. I believe in the existence of a tradition of Oral Torah, namely secrets of Torah, especially among the early Kabbalists. But unfortunately at present I doubt whether those Zoharic sayings are the same secrets of Torah that were transmitted, mainly because the Kabbalah of the Ari was mostly unknown to most early Kabbalists. Kabbalists such as Rabbi Isaac of Acre—a student of the Kabbalist Rabbi Abraham Abulafia—did not know most of the ideas of the Zohar.
2. The questions that trouble me most are verification of the tradition and verification of prophecy. The rest of the questions I brought trouble me less, and I included them as an appendix to present the general problem.
3. Those rabbis who answered me wrote that the proof of the sanctity of the Zohar is the book’s spiritual greatness. The problem is that not only do I not see spiritual greatness in the Book of the Zohar, I actually find in it essential contradictions to the Jewish worldview transmitted from generation to generation. Unfortunately, with my limited mind, I cannot understand how the sages of Israel were impressed by this book.
4. Some rabbis wrote that the proof of the sanctity of the Book of the Zohar derives from the testimony of the holy Ari, who testified through divine inspiration to the truth of the book. My problem is that the Ari’s own spiritual standing is also shaky for me, as I wrote.
5. I studied in depth early books written in defense of the Zohar, such as Choker U’Mekubal by Ramchal, Emunat Chachamim by Aviad Sar Shalom, Bar Yochai by Rabbi Moshe Kunitz, Ta’am LeShad by Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, Magen VeTzinah by Rabbi Isaac Chaver, Kadmut HaZohar by Rabbi David Luria, Metzaref LaChokhmah—some argue from his own words that even when he wrote in praise of the Zohar he did not believe in it—and I also read articles by rabbis from recent generations such as Rabbi Kasher, Hillel Zeitlin, and others. And unfortunately, without any prior bias, the opinion of the deniers is dozens of times more convincing than that of the supporters.

With great respect!