Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 170

Monday, February 22 1999

• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar and Emunah
• Re: Avodah V2 #169
• Re: OLD MATZAH; OLD ESROG
• Re: Avodah V2 #169
• Re: Avodah V2 #169
• Refusing to Give a Get
• Zohar as Authoritative
• "Higher Criticism?"
• Ribbis
• How Authoritative is Zohar?
• Oh no, not again (was Zohar)
• re: Zohar

Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> And R' Moshe also has a number of opinions that are largely rejected in
> practice.  Does that make his other opinions unreliable?

I never said that because the Yaavetz has some opinions which have been largely
rejected that his other opinions are unreliable. I would agree with you that any
statement made by a gadol - even Rav Moshe - which has been largely rejected should
be labeled as such. That was exactly my point. You can not say that any statement of
a gadol is "yeish al mi lismoch" if it has been basically rejected by all except for
some academics..

> AFAIK, only R' Emden and Gershom Scholem undertook such analyses, and both were
> rejected because of the rabbis' preconceived notions.  See below.

If I understand you properly - you are accusing the majority of our religious
leadership and scholars of refusing to acknowledge the Truth because of their
preconceived notions. That only Rav Yaakov Emden and Gershom Scholem cared enough to
find out this Truth? And that the beacon of light they were trying to bring to the
world was callously rejected????????????????.

>  As for others accepting the idea of late redaction or of late composition,

> Tishby cites:
>
> R' Abraham Galante, Sefer Zoharei Chamah (Venice 1655), p152b, and see
>     Sefer Yuchasin haShalem, p. 45.
>
> R' Moses Hagiz, Sefer Mishnat Chachamim (Wannseebeck, 1733), nos. 332, 334.
>

Rav Moshe Hagis states the following #332 "...the arranger or the writer of the Holy
Zohar - who was definitely an adom gadol - obtained the kuntreisim and Heaven helped
him to publish this elevated sublime hidden wisdom and he arranged these kuntreisim
according to the order of the parshos. But not chalila that the Rashbi or Rabbi
Abbah did the actually arrangement that we have in our hands today because such an
opinion is erroneous and obvious foolish - just as those who would want to believe
that the Talmud as we have it today was in the hands of Avraham....

#334 "Also here with this awesome composition the Sefer Zohar - there is no doubt at
all that these words are essentially those that  came out of the mouth of the Rashbi
and his colleagues. Therefore anyone who is meharhair after it is like he is
meharhair after the Shechina. However - the arranger made a proper organization of
the words that came to his hands...

Do you agree with the above? I don't think Scholem would accept it and it doesn't
fit in well with the Yaavetz who was trying to discredit parts of the Zohar.

BTW the Chida - who you accuse of being biased - cites the above writings of Rav
Moshe Chagiz  under the subject of Zohar.in Shem HaGedolim.

Scholem writes page 219 Kabbalah "The opinion of the kabbalists themselves
concerning the composition and editing of the Zohar was formed after the circulation
of the book. At first the view was widely held that this was the book written by
Simeon b. Yohai while he was hiding in the cave, or at least during his lifetime, or
at the latest in the generation that followed. Among the kabblists of Safed, who
generally believed in the antiquity of the whole of the Zohar, Abraham Galante
....thought that the whole work was put together in geonic times from the writings of
R. Abba who was Simeon b. yochai's scribe and that the book did not receive its
present form until that time.

Quibling over whether the Rashbi actually wrote down the Zohar is far  different
than saying that Rav Moshe DeLeone sat down and created the Zohar by synthesizing
some ancient traditions and mixed them together with his own fertile imagination -
which is Scholem's position. Again the issue is whether the Zohar we have today is
the record of the wisdom expressed by the Rashbi  and thus is the *Holy* Zohar or is
it merely informed by it in some vague fashion - but is largely the work of post
talmudic minds and thus has no more Kedusha than some uncertifiable medrashim. You
haven't cited any gedolim who agree with Scholem as to the origin and composition of
the Zohar.

In sum, the issue is basically - is the Zohar a sacred work which is a reliable
expression of esoteric knowledge transmitted by the Rashbi or is it [snicker] a
medieval forgery foisted on a group of superstitious suckers [i.e., Orthodox Jews]
who lack the sophistication or guts to see the obvious Truth.

> I do know a rav or two who avoid kabbalistic practices as much as
> possible, e.g. not saying Kabbalat Shabbat before Mizmor Shir.

The issue of avoiding kabbalistic practices is discussed by the Nodah B'Yehuda,
Chasam Sofer etc. It has nothing to do with the validity of Zohar or kabbala - at
least as a far as they were concerned. It has to do with the appropriateness of the
masses engaging in very elevated practices - that they felt should be reserved for
those on a very high level.

> By the way, could you please try to keep your lines down under 75 or so
> characters?  It's rather disconcerting to read on an 80-column screen.

I would be glad to accommodate your request if you let me know what parameter(s)
needs to be set on Netscape to achieve that. It could be, however,
that this is merely symptomatic of our  different perspectives. :)


                                      Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 2/20/99 10:29:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 Nevertheless, I find it illogical to rely on Scholem et al, when towering
 figures over them say distinctly differently.
 
 I have a similar problem with the separate issue of the discrepancy in
 chronologies between our Talmudic tradition of a 420 year Bayis Sheni vs.
 the secular chronology...
 
 YGB >>

I accept your criticisms in the kind and humorous spirit in which they were
offered, and would go one further and repair poste haste to the library, to
look up carefully some of the things that R' Daniel brought up as well. I
still think I would hold to my position, but I do agree that the work of
Scholem needs a more thourough analysis before I choose to hang my hat on him.
(Of course, I would have to go out and purchase a hat, perhaps even a black
one, in order to do that)
I appreciate, as well, that you acknowledged in a subtle way the Mussar point
I was making, and I hope that we can continue to disagree in a civilized way,
remembering always that our goal is to better understand and glorify Torah.

Jordan

From:  Bens22@juno.com
Date:  Feb 21, 1999
Topic:  Everyday Ribis Problems

Just wanted to post a couple of practical everyday occurrences which have
potential problems of Ribis.  It's amazing how many legitimate problems
there are when you start looking.  One of the biggest trouble spots are
prepayment discounts.  Depending on the specifics of the case, when a
seller offers you to pay now at one rate or later at a higher rate, if
you chose the pay later option we consider the difference to be Ribis on
the "loan" that the seller gives you by waiting for his payment.  Here
are some others I ran across.  

1.  When one buys an item in a Jewish store with a liberal return policy,
there is a serious question of Ribis.  When one returns the item we
consider it a retroactive annulment of the original purchase.  As such we
consider the money which was in the possession of the store to be a loan
from the purchaser to the store (see BM 66b and the Gemoros of Batie Oray
Comeh for similar thinking).  Therefore, that which the customer uses an
item which belongs to the store that is then considered Ribis on the
"loan".  (I believe that Rabbi Riesman discusses this case in "The Laws
Of Ribis", Artscroll)

2.  You ask a friend to borrow $100.  He tells you that all he has is a
$200 check, but that if you want you can take it to the bank, cash it ad
borrow $100 from there.  If you pay him back cash, and he would have
wanted to cash the check anyway, you may have a question of Ribis.  The
"service" that you provided him by taking the check to cash is Ribis on
the loan.  (see Bris Yehudah, Rabbi Y. Blau).

3.  Common in Israel.  You take a check written in American dollars to a
money changer who deducts 2% and gives you back Shekolim, if done
incorrectly you were Over on Ribis.  For proper procedure see Toras Ribis
(ch. 18 I believe).


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Noah Witty wrote:

> I seek citations as to validity of using old matzah for achilas matzah lail
> pesach and old esrog on succos. Comments as to shratzim, fungi, etc. by
> those knowledgeable would also be appreciated. (I wonder if this can be done
> w/o bad jokes, puns, etc.) This is a serious request.
>
> Noach Witty

Rav Moshe Feinstein addresses the issue of using an esrog frozen for a year -
which subsequent rots. O.H. I #185 page 318 and Y.D. II 21 page 29.

                              Daniel Eidensohn

I had written:
> there doesn't seem to be a way to get out of this without being in some
> way motzi laaz al gedolim.

Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> 
> > He was the first to actually undertake the analysis.  See below.
 
> This is incorrect, so the rest of the post falls away as well. I refer you

This is incorrect, so the rest of the post falls away as well.

> to "Meditation and Kabbalah" by R' Aryeh Kaplan, pp. 147-154, where he
> proves that a Kabbalist contemporaneous with the Zohar's publication, R'
> Yitzchok of Acco, investigated and accepted the Zohar's authenticity.

"Investigated" - he interviewed R' Moshe de Leon's wife, who he thought
had ulterior motives.  He interviewed some others who had other ideas.
The results were at best inconclusive.  But he did not undertake any
textual analysis, even though such techniques (analysis of sources)
had been available at least since the Gemara.
 
> But, I question the a priori assumption as well - why should you assume
> that the Arizal and Gra - particularly the latter, who did not hesitate to
> question Rishonim, emend Talmudic texts, etc. -accepted the Zohar blindly?

Who's to say?  Emending Talmudic texts is not the same as questioning
the Talmud's authorship.  One is "lower criticism", the other is "higher
criticism," and absent the Sabbatean threat there was no reason to engage
in higher criticism.  It was OK for the Masoretes to emend the text of 
the Tanach, but not OK for anyone to question its authorship.  What gives
anyone the right to elevate belief in the authorship of the Zohar to an
ikar emunah?  In either case it was written by people, be it RShB"Y himself
or a core by RShB"Y with accretions by others.

> To boot, he was younfer than RYE, and likely was aware of the latter's
> "research"... I do not even understand how the Chida, the quintessential
> expert on authorship, is assumed by you to be in the wrong - or worse -
> and RYE in the right.

As I said, this whole question cannot but bring nasty remarks to our Gedolim.
Either as you say RYE was just plain wrong, or as the Chida said he was 
intentionally lying for polemical purposes, or the Chida was deluding himself
as to the latter opinion's truth.

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> "Investigated" - he interviewed R' Moshe de Leon's wife, who he thought
> had ulterior motives.  He interviewed some others who had other ideas. 
> The results were at best inconclusive.  But he did not undertake any
> textual analysis, even though such techniques (analysis of sources)  had
> been available at least since the Gemara. 
> 

How do you know? R' Kaplan indicates that the conclusion was reached after
careful analysis?
 
> Who's to say?  Emending Talmudic texts is not the same as questioning
> the Talmud's authorship.  One is "lower criticism", the other is "higher
> criticism," and absent the Sabbatean threat there was no reason to
> engage in higher criticism.  It was OK for the Masoretes to emend the
> text of the Tanach, but not OK for anyone to question its authorship. 
> What gives anyone the right to elevate belief in the authorship of the
> Zohar to an ikar emunah?  In either case it was written by people, be it
> RShB"Y himself or a core by RShB"Y with accretions by others. 
> 

1. Anyone that wants to pasken al pi Zohar must engage in some form of
higher criticism.

2. I thought I made it clear that we are not talking ikkar emuna here!

> As I said, this whole question cannot but bring nasty remarks to our
> Gedolim.  Either as you say RYE was just plain wrong, or as the Chida
> said he was intentionally lying for polemical purposes, or the Chida was
> deluding himself as to the latter opinion's truth. 
> 

Yes, it is logical to believe that RYE was just plain wrong, since every
other authority on the matter stated elsewise. From an "eilu va'eilu"
standpoint his opinion is probably worht studying, but klalei ha'psak and
common sense (more apropos here, since this is not psak halacha) indicate
his position should be rejected.

> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Meir Shinar:>>Am I justified in viewing  someone who refuses to give a get, and
people who aid them, as being  at  best a naval birshut hatorah?<<

I know first hand of a a case where the wife abondoned her husband, too the 
child, etc.  The husband refused to give a get because he sought to reconcile.  
I think the estranged wife felt that he was manipulating her (and this 
perception had some merit) but the husband's intentions at seemd reaonsable on 
the surfcae, i.e. he wante to keep the family together.

My general point is that I had contatct with both sides.  The 2 stories had SO 
many contradicions that it seemed that they could not have been the case.  If a 
DB were going in with an agenda -  i.e. all husbands refusing gittin are bad - 
then their objectitivy is severely compromised.  This is not to defend the 
practice of wihtholding gittin.

Lmoshol, BD is predisposed to hate geneivo.  But until the psak is made, BD must
give the accused gonnif a chance to explain his actions.  If they hate geneivo 
to the point that they are predisposed to convict...Me'uvos lo yochol liskon...

Rich Wolpoe

Elie Ginsparg: >>Jordan Hirsch gives me the impresssion that he doesn't believe 
that the majority of the Zohar dates from RSBY (a Mishna personality), I won't
address this since rov gedolim in Jewish History from the Ari to the Gra
believe that it does. (if this wasn't Jordan's intentiuon I apologize). I
agree that the scenario Micha suggests to defend the treating of Zohar as
rishonic is possible. Regarding Rich's comment--it's true that we wouldn't
introduce a Meiri into Halacha, that's because Halacha has been codified
and accepted, but we surely learn Meiri as a Rishon who can argue wityh
rashi and Tos regarding P'shat in a sugya. WHereas Zohar was already
rewritten when HAlacha was codified. And the codifiers believed that it
was from a Tanaaic source. I think that makes a big difference.<<

For the sake of this thread, let's assume the Zohar is authentically based upon 
RSBY, AND that it had little or no bearing on halocho up until the time of tis 
publication, even if Gedolim were aware of the oral tradition..

EG if the Rambam ignored the Zohar, can we "trump" the Rambam with a Zohar or 
not?

Similarly, if an acharon paskens based upon sevarl Rishonim, can we "trump" that
acharon based upon a recently discovered Me'iri?

So far, no one has cited the Zohar as "trumping" TB.  But I believe it does in 
that there is a minhog to put Tefillin shel Yad on while sitting based upon the 
Zohar.  

So can the Zohar "trump" TB? And if it can, can the TY "trump" the TB?

Rich Wolpoe
    

R' Jon wrote:

> > Who's to say?  Emending Talmudic texts is not the same as questioning
> > the Talmud's authorship.  One is "lower criticism", the other is "higher
> > criticism," and absent the Sabbatean threat there was no reason to
> > engage in higher criticism.  It was OK for the Masoretes to emend the
> > text of the Tanach, but not OK for anyone to question its authorship. 
> > What gives anyone the right to elevate belief in the authorship of the
> > Zohar to an ikar emunah?  In either case it was written by people, be it
> > RShB"Y himself or a core by RShB"Y with accretions by others. 

And I responded previously.

But now, my learned colleagues, I ask you - from admitted lack of
knowledge - where do we find that this analysis known as "Higher
Criticism" has any validity? When we have a problem, say in the Chumash,
of a term such as "Sdeh Ha'Amaleki" in Lech Lecha, we either say "al shem
he'asid" (Rashi, if I recall) or that this may have been a later
interpolation (the controversial position of the Ibn Ezra in several
places and the manuscript attributed to R' Yehuda He'Chasid, etc.) - but
we do not - c"v! - say: "Aha! HC! This is a different document!"

Again, that concerns an ikkar emunah, which is not appllicable to the
Zohar - but the methodology is! When we see a passage in the Zohar that
clearly is late - we would give one of the two answers above. Would we
not?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Ben Smith wrote:

> 1.  When one buys an item in a Jewish store with a liberal return
> policy, there is a serious question of Ribis.  When one returns the item
> we consider it a retroactive annulment of the original purchase.  As
> such we consider the money which was in the possession of the store to
> be a loan from the purchaser to the store (see BM 66b and the Gemoros of
> Batie Oray Comeh for similar thinking).  Therefore, that which the
> customer uses an item which belongs to the store that is then considered
> Ribis on the "loan".  (I believe that Rabbi Riesman discusses this case
> in "The Laws Of Ribis", Artscroll) 
> 

I don't know if this is true if the seller receives an advantage form his
usage, i.e., more people come to buy in his store because he has a
liberal return policy. He is actually gaining from the usage and return by
establishing a reputation, etc.

Furthermore, if he sells the item at the same cost to someone else, your
hana'ah is not monetary, is it?

Finally, since this is a case that was relevant at the time of the Gemoro,
is it alluded to somewhere?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>>From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) 
Subject: Re: Zohar
Yeish al mi lismoch that the Zohar was not R' Shim'on bar Yochai's words.<<

Bepashtus,  I see 3 POV re: the Zohar text as we have it:
1) The Literal Midrash of RSBY
2) Pseudopigraphic, IOW putting words into RSBY that he never uttered. 
3) An oral Mesorah commited to Writing by Moshe DeLeone

1) Most contemporary critical thinkers, both frum and non-frum, will reject #1. 
There are simply too many difficulties with the text as we have it, including 
statemnts from Amoraim who came after RSBY, as well as linguistic problems.

2) Scholem and others might adhere to this one, this is an extremely critical 
shito.

3) This makes the most sense to me.  RSBY started the process going and it 
"snowballed".  There are layers that belong to RSBY and layers of embellishments
that went along with it. Lemoshol, we have a Mesorah that Peirush Rashi on 
certain mesechtos is suspect (eg Nedorim).  We seem to know better than to ask 
kashos on other Rashi's in shas from those suspect peirushim.  This does not 
compromise the overall integrity of Peirush Rahsi.

Questions:  What did Yaavetz, Gro and Ari think?
Did Yaavetz consider the entire Zohar as mezuyof, or was he simply attacking 
certain passages that fall into the "embelishment" category?

Did Gro and Ari consider the entire text as #1 or did they perceive distinctions
as #3?

Rich Wolpoe  

I think that previous experience indicates that Avodah is a singularly
poor forum for debating historical questions.  It is clear that list
members operate under a variety of different assumptions; and I am
certain that people who have made up their minds on the issue issue will
not be convinced otherwise.  Not to put too fine a point on it, those
who cite the Ari, the Hida, and the Gra as the historical experts upon
whom they rely are clearly of a different mindset than those who are
following Prof. Gershom Scholem (and latterly R. Yaakov Emden).

If anything this issue is even more complicated than previous topics of
historical debate, because the historical question is intertwined with
the halakhic one.  Indeed, if we can abstract the debate somewhat,
perhaps we can shed light upon the important question of classification.
 In other words, are we arguing about history, halakha, haskafa or all
three?  To a degree, I think how you answer this question will determine
how you answer the more specific issue of authorship.

RYGB introduced the issue of hashkafa this way:

>Along those lines: Is this not the claim of those who state that no all
> Torah is me'Sinai - that the authorities until the 18th-19th centuries had
> "incomplete information", that, when subsequently "completed", led them to
> their rejection?

It's a subtle jab, but implicit in the question is a theological
argument against the use of academic historical methods.  First, there
is the slippery slope issue.  (After all, isn't the historical method
what the practitioners of Wissenschaft used in undermining the divinity
of the Torah?)  Second, given that our Gedolim never embraced these
methods, isn't it clear that these our alien to the Orthodox approach to
talmud Torah and Halakha?

In my view, the slippery slope argument has some merit, although it is
not dispositive.  Taking a critical attitude toward Torah she-be'al peh
texts can certainly lead one to take a similar stance toward Torah
she-bikhtav texts.  On the other hand, as has been mentioned already,
gedolim like the Gra and Bah were willing to be magi'ah rabbinic texts.
One can argue (though I would not; see below) that they have shown us
how to do so in a manner that doesn't undermine ikkarei emunah.

This does not resolve the matter of course.  While we may all agree that
a person who utterly rejects the Zohar may not thereby sacrifice his
olam ha-ba, the question remains: how does such a person relate to
manifold halakhot that reflect Zoharic influence?  And how does that
person relate to the chain of gedolim who themselves viewed the Zohar as
the work of Rashby?

This latter question demonstrates how "Da'as Torah" relates to our
topic.  RYGB writes "Nevertheless, I find it illogical to rely on
Scholem et al, when towering figures over them say distinctly
differently."  In various ways, the same point is made by R. Eidensohn
and Elie Ginsparg.  If the Gedolim have considered the issue and drawn a
conclusion, who are we to question them?

One answer to this may be that they never really considered the issue.
Jordan suggests that, for most Gedolim, the authorship of the Zohar was
never in question and, once RYE suggested otherwise, they rejected his
analysis because of "preconceived notions."  A different way to put it
is that, in evaluating the question of authorship, they gave more
credence to the weight of tradition than the textual analysis of R.
Emden.  This is unsurprising and, as discussed below, thoroughly
justified.

RYGB, however does not accept that R. Emden was the first to broach the
subject.  He writes;

>This is incorrect, so the rest of the post falls away as well. I refer you
>to "Meditation and Kabbalah" by R' Aryeh Kaplan, pp. 147-154, where he
>proves that a Kabbalist contemporaneous with the Zohar's publication, R'
>Yitzchok of Acco, investigated and accepted the Zohar's authenticity.

It seems likely however that this Kabbalist, whom I know not at all, was
not employing modern methods of critical textual analysis.  Even so,
RYGB argues that the Gra (maybe) and the Hida certainly were acquainted
with R. Emden's conclusions and dismissed them.  R. Eidensohn too points
out that the Gra and Arizal were sophisticated about texts yet accepted
the Zohar as authentic.

I believe it is time for a reality check.  The desire to find a frum
precedent for Prof. Scholem has led to an equation of his methods with
R. Emden's.  They were not.  Nor were their conclusions the same.  Of
course, Gedolim who rejected R. Emden would have been even quicker to
dismiss Scholem.  But it is my belief that most contemproary individuals
who doubt the authenticity of the Zohar do so more on the basis of
Scholem than of R. Emden.

That having been said I think it is also clear that neither the Gra nor
the Hida used Scholem's analytical methods.  For Jordan, this means that
Scholem's evidence on the authorship issue was never considered before.
As R. Chaim Brown put it, lo ra'inu eino re'ayah.  Let us assume, for
the sake of argument, that the historical view of the Gedolim never took
into account the arguments put forth by Scholem.  Does this mean we
should reopen the issue?

This question relates to our second issue, that of methodology.  Very
few gedolim engaged in academic Torah scholarship.  Offhand, I can think
only of R. Hayyim Heller, R. Hutner and R. Kasher (who, by the way,
defended the traditional view of the Zohar).  There may be a few more,
but clearly we are talking about yehidim.  R. Soloveitchik -- for so
many the paragon of an intellectually open derekh ha-hayyim -- did not
have anything to do with academic Torah study; he vehemently opposed the
psychologization or sociologization of Halakhah.

Thus, separate from the academic historian's conclusions about the
Zohar, even his methods are suspect for those who look to Gedolim for
guidance on these issues.  We must ask: is there any heter to apply such
methods to Torah texts (or take seriously the conclusions based on such
methods), where the Gedolim virtually without exception have rejected
them?

I think many on this list would answer no.

But I think one can argue that modern critical analysis is a tool that
we enjoy, no less than the telephone or computer, whose recent vintage
deprives it of the sanction of tradition.  Like any tool we can use it
for good or ill.  For theological reasons, we will not apply such
analysis to Torah she-bikhtav.  And we will be skeptical of its use in
the hands of those who do not share our faith commitment.  But with
those caveats, we will employ the methodology and credit its
conclusions.  We appreciate that historical research can enrich our
appreciation of Torah and shed new light on both historical questions
and halakhic issues.  Lacking an explicit heter for academic Torah
scholarship, we will be guided by our unshakeable commitment to the One
she-hotamo emet.

On the other hand, as I intimated above, this also raises halakhic
issues: how does one relate to the halakhic practices that have been
codified based on the Zohar?  Here, R. Michael Broyde's post serves as a
guide: halakhically, the Zohar has been viewed as tannaitic, as Rishonic
or as a a source of minhag.  I think this analysis accords with R.
Eidensohn's post regarding the two schools of opinion on whether the
Zohar overrides other halakhic sources.

I recognize that one may argue that the question is not hashkafic or
historic, but halakhic, and therefore we are bound by the Gedolim.  This
too is an important topic -- when can an issue be discussed outside the
realm of halakhah?  I know that R. Bleich, for one, feels that virtually
everything  -- inlcuding hashkafah --- is basically a issue of issur
ve-heter.  But this question clearly calls for a separate thread.

Kol tuv and Adar same'ah,

Eli Clark

Having never really studied the question, I will offer no opinion on the
authoriship or authenticity of the Zohar.  But I would make two
comments/questions.

First, the Talmud cites many opinions that are based on what, in the light of
the current state of scientific knowledge, factually false premises.  My favorite
of these is the proposition in Shabbat 107b kina eina para v'rava.  Although
there was an opinion in the Gemara that strongly challenged this factual
assertion, the halachah as codified in the Rambam and later Poskim accords
with that opinion so that it is technically permissible to kill a kina on the
Sabbath.  Not only is this false proposition accepted as the basis of halachah
by the Rambam and subsequent halachic authorities down to the Mishnah
B'rura [side query, is this subject discussed in Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchita?],
these halachic authorities go into elaborate discussions of possible
distinctions in halachah between spontaneous generation from dust vs.
spontaneous generation from perspiration and between animals that
procreate but also spontaneously generate vs. animals that only
spontaneously generate.  Now my main question is the following:  Do those
who insist on accepting that the Zohar was written by R. Shimon b. Yochai
because the overwhelming majority of Gedolim have accepted the factual
truth of his authorship also accept that kinim and other animals
spontaneously generate because the overwhelming majority of Gedolim have
accepted the factual truth of spontaneous generation?  My follow-up
question is, if they do not accept the factual truth of spontaneous generation,
notwithstanding the nearly unanimous opinion of Gedolai Yisrael, how do they
justify their departure from the Mesorah that spontaneous generation actually
does occur?

Second.  Let us stipulate that the Zohar was indeed written by R. Shimon b.
Yochai.  I realize that we have not fully resolved our earlier discussion about
the process by which the Mishnah was reduced to writing.  Nevertheless, I
think that the consensus that seemed to form out of that discussion was that
the basis for the authority of the Mishnah was an acceptance on the part of
the faithful or some authoritative subset thereof that the Mishnah and other
Tannaitic material cited in the Talmud would be authoritative and that any
disagreemetn with such sources was highly problematic, to say the least. 
Now, under our stipulation, the material in the Zohar must have been known
to at least some of those who were engaged in the process of redacting the
Mishnah and the Talmud, which resulted in the special halachic status
accorded to those works and the associated materials.  Since the Zohar,
under our stipulation, was apparently consciously excluded from that set of
authoritative halachic material, on what basis could anyone claim for the
Zohar a halachic status equal to that of the Talmud?

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]