Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 172

Wednesday, February 24 1999

• Adar 7
• Your posting re: reverse agunah
• Re: Your posting re: reverse agunah
• The 420 Year Issue
• Zohar
• Re: extra-kesuba payments
• Tartei d'sasrei
• re: v'lo shanu malbusham
• re: 4 exiled from Bavel
• canonization; kitvei kodesh
• Re: Shkia and Maariv
• Re: reverse aguna syndrome
• Re: Avodah V2 #170
• Re: The 420 Year Issue
• Old matzo
• misc
• Re: Avodah V2 #171
• Re: Avodah V2 #171
• Tartei d'Sasrei
• Re: criticism - higher & lower
• Historicity of Zohar/Scholem's Methodology

Is there a Poseik or Sefer that is a source for not syaing Tachanun on Zayin 
Adar?

Rich Wolpoe 

It appears that there are far more girls who want to marry kollel boys than
available kollel boys.  No question, there are kollel boys who definitely
put up the requirements you describe.  As a general rule, they marry late.

I wouldn't exactly call it a Boro Park phenomenon, since most of Boro Park
today is Chasidic, and they still haven't bought into the kollel meshugas as
much as the yeshivishe.  However, a Flatbush phenomenon quite definitely.

Oh yes, two stories.  A girl's high school principal told me he often gets
bochrim looking for a shidduch with five or ten year's support attached.
His standard answer is "I deal in shidduchim, not in financing."  Second
story involves a match I proposed some years ago, in which the girl came
from a not-wealthy family.  The boy's father liked her otherwise, but he
wanted his son to continue learning as long as possible so he didn't pursue
matters.  Each got married to someone else.  The boy left learning and was
working in his father's business within a year or two, while the girl is now
married almost six years and her husband is still learning.  You go figure
it out.

Best wishes as ever,

Levi Reisman

P.S.  My oldest daughter, age 19, has already told me she doesn't want a
kollel boy.  Baruch HaShem!

In a message dated 2/23/99 3:40:21 PM EST, LMReisman@email.msn.com writes:

> A girl's high school principal told me he often gets
>  bochrim looking for a shidduch with five or ten year's support attached.

I guess they want to be Yotzeh Shitas HoRambam that first comes Bonoh Bayis
then Nosoh Isho :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

FYI, there is a single book that comprehensively discusses the 420 year 
controversy. The author is Mitchel First and the name I believe is "History in 
Conflict".  

Rich Wolpoe

From: Daniel A HaLevi Yolkut <yolkut@ymail.yu.edu>:...
Subject: The Zohar ha_kadosh

 I asked him if he felt that this  status should also be extended
to the Zohar ha-Kadosh, wch does seem to bear tyhe amrks of 13th century
Castile.<<

Without taking any sides, the fact that the style is 13th century Castile has 
litle bearing as to the main content.   We could hold even if every phrase was 
the publisher's, the concepts, etc. might have ALL been genuine RSBY.  In that 
sense, R. M. DeLeone might have funcitoned as something of "note-taker" at a 
lecture, where the ideas are the lectures and the sytle belongs to the writer.

I don't think even the most traditional view holds that the book is a 
word-for-word transcription on the Moshe Rabbeinu from Hashem model.

Rich Wolpoe  

<<
I heard from Rav Mordechai Eliyahu Shlit"a, that there is an issue of
reparations 
that a woman can sue her husband for, besides the Ketuba (to compensate for
her 
contribution toward the growth of the marital assets etc.).

He stated that at times the sum she would be awarded could be greater than
what she 
would have gotten under a secular settlement.

Does anyone know of this issue coming up in Batei Din outside Israel?
>>

Yes, some batei din in America take this into account as well.  It is based on
the halachos of ha'adafa al y'dei had'chak, as recorded in CM 80.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

RYGB:
>>Question: It seems from R Moshe in IM 2:60 that he holds that the
prevalent custom of davening Mincha shortly before Sheki'ah and Ma'arriv
shortly thereafter is a manifestation of tartei d'sasrei, and the only
ways to avoid the problem are by davening Mincha just before plag and
Ma'ariv thereafter, or Mincha just before tzeis ha'kochavim and Ma'ariv
shortly thereafter. The SA and Poskim in OC 235 seem, at first glance
little help in justifying the common practice. Anyone have any information
on sources that state that common practice does not constitute tartei
d'sasrei?<<

I have no first hand sources. My understanding of using shekio to end one day 
and being the next is based upon the Gro.  Until the advent of the Gro, Tzeis 
was considered the end of the day.  BTW, the Gro himself, however, would not 
permit Maariv until his tzeis, which while pretty early is still a bit after 
shkio (18-30 minutes are 2 versions I've heard).

Many shuls in Manhattan straddle Plag during the summer and NOT shekio.

Many Chassidishe shtibbles straddle Tzeis just about all year long.

KAJ (Breuer's) davens Mincho after shkio much of the winter, with Maariv after 
Tzeis.  In the summer, they have an early minyan straddling Plag and a 2nd 
Minyan straddling Tzeis.

A friend of mine who studied Leo Levi's work and others, concluded that 
according to Rov Poskim, the day is bechezkas day until Tzeis. 

The advantage of straddling tzeis over plag seems to be that krias shema is said
bizmono.  For those who hold "nacht" is tzeis, missing shkio is no big deal.

However, nobody I know, allows meleches Shabbos after Shkio.  And nobody I know 
holds that one may not do melocho after plag (providing the tzibbur is not 
mekabel early).

Many kehillos - who are makpid on Tartei d'sasrei -  are meikil Erev Shabbos.   

Rich Wolpoe



  

The Maharal in his Netzach Yisrael Perek 25 quotes a version of the Tanchuma
(Parshat Balak 16) that doesn't seem to exist in current editions of the
Midrash Tanchuma. There he states, "... v'lo shanu et malbushan". The word
"malbushan" doesn't appear in our edition of the Tanchuma.

Josh

The 4 gedolim from Bavel were on a boat which was captured by pirates. The
names of 3 of these gedolim are known: R. Moshe bar Chanoch who was sent by
his captors to Spain where he set up a yeshiva; R. Chanoch b'rav Moshe who
was captured with his father. After the death of R. Moshe, R. Chanoch took his
place and one of his talmidim was R. Shmuel Hanagid; the second was R. Chushiel
b'rav Elchanan who wound up in North Africa. His son was Rabbenu Channanel;
the 3rd was R. Shmaryahu b'rav Elchanan who wound up in Egypt and was redeemed
from his captors by the Jewish community in Alexandria. The name of the 4th
gadol isn't known.

Josh

>>>in the Megillah there is mention of Mitzvohs of purim <<<

If I understood you correctly the problem is in being mechadesh mitzvos of
purim.  I understood the debate of the sugya as revolving specifically around
the Megilla as one of the kitvei kodesh, not the mitzvas hayom.  Hence my
problem - if canonizing a text is a problem of a navi being mechadesh, so is
all of Nach!?

On another note: pashut pshat in the gemara (10)is that there is an issur of
writing kitvei kodesh in other languages, until Chazal were matir yevanis.  No
makor is given for the potential issur, or for the matir (Dochak would be to
say that there is no issur, it is just a question of whether the sefer has
kedusha; however, this does not sound at all like pshat in the sugya).

Also, interestingly, the gemera cites Tanaim that Meg. Esther is unique in
that it must be written only b'ktav ashurit. Perhaps Esther is different than
all other sefarim in that the tzuras haketiva is b'geder pirsumei nisa -
k'chtavam uk'zmanam - the writing itself serves as a zecher to the nes.

-Chaim 

Regarding the Mincha before Shkia/Maariv after Shkia phenomenon, perhaps
we can explain it by shedding light on another non-phenomenon:  That of
Tosfos Shabbos, (O"H 261) a Mitzvah which rov minyan ubinyan of Klal
Yisrael, except for some yechidim I know and several shuls in Bnei Brak, 
seems not to practice.  

It is a Mitzvah (mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (S"A)261) to verbally
accept upon oneself the kedusha of Shabbos before Bein Hashmashos, which
begins at Shkia Shnia, which is 58.5 minutes after "Sunset".  The S"A
writes that the ideal time-frame for adding on to Shabbos is between
Sunset and Bein Hashmashos.  However, as noted in the Mishna Berura,
since all of Klal Yisrael seems to accept the Gra's shita (as far as
issur melacha goes) that Bein Hashmashos begins at Sunset, we should be
taking on Tosfos Shabbos before Sunset, which most shuls, even those that
schedule Friday Mincha at 18 minutes before Sunset and begin on time,  do
not do since they only reach Mizmor Shir several minutes after sunset.  

I would like to suggest a limud z'chus:  It could be that we have taken
on the Gra's shita only l'chumra.  Really, m'ikar haDin these shuls rule
like the S"A.  As a stringency, we have accepted to stop m'lacha at
sunset, and when we say Mizmor Shir a few minutes later, we are
fulfilling Tosfos Shabbos according to the S"A et al.  

Likewise with Maariv after Shkia.  According to the Magen Avraham, and
maybe the B"Y too, Plag HaMincha on a perfect day (Equinox-time) is only
three minutes before sunset.  Even allowing for Shaos Z'manios, Plag
HaMincha according to this opinion is somewhere around sunset.  It could
very well be that the custom of davening Maariv right after sunset is
based on this shita.  

I look forward to a response.
Raffy

___________________________________________________________________
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]

Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> 
> the jewish press had an article last week on the reverse aguna, defined as
> follows:  in the communities where bais yakov girls are looking for
> 'learning guys',  the current going rate is five free-and-clear years of
> support, plus the wedding financed by the girl's side exclusively.  the
> kalla maidel's fate  is thus tied to the ~$150000 this encumbers.  many
> girls with great spiritual/physical midot [ the latter apparantly is an
> issue as well- we hear in our town of bochrim who want to know the dress
> size before they consider the shidduch [and usually refuse if it's greater
> than 6]] are thus in trouble before the game starts. I'd heard rumours of
> melamdim being asked to cough up that kind of gelt, but didn't really
> believe it.     From around the country, do you all think this is a bube
> mase, only a boro park phenomenon, or wide spread?


I don't recall if I posted this before but...

A friend of mine from my elementary school days who is a Mechanech in a 
large metroplitan area told me his horror story.  His daughter started 
going out with someone recommended through a reputable shadchan.  After 
about the fifth or sixth date, when things were getting pretty serious, 
My friend received a call from the shadchan with an ultimatum: Cough up 
at least two years of support to the tune of $50,000.00 (or some such 
ridiculous figure to a man in chinuch) per annum or forget the whole 
thing!  Needlless to say both he and even more so, his daughter were 
devestated.  The daughter was "falling in love" with this "wonderful" 
budding Talmud Chacham and cried out to her father.  Well, it was 
obvious that it was too late in the game to back out.  So, he called the 
Shadchan back and negotiated a support figure for his futre son in law 
that he could afford... sort of.  He had to cash in his pension plan 
(basically his life savings/security for his retirement) so that the 
shidach for his daughter could come to fruition. 

That was his oldest daughter.  He has many children.

There are many such stories.

Nice, No? 

HM

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Ben Smith wrote:

> I agree personally with this logic but when I asked around the accepted
> opinion seemed to be that once the Poskim declared it Ribis it is
> difficult to rely on such logic and as such a Rav should be consulted. 
> I do plan to research it further. 
> 

I do not know what "poskim" you refer to, but the same "poskim" (perhaps)
say that subscription at discount to Jewish newspapers are permitted
because they derive certain benefits from subscription rolls.

> This I would not agree with.  The right that I had to use his object is
> indeed monetary.  The fact that there was no cost out of pocket to him
> does not change the fact that I received value.  Furthermore the store
> did lose value as they could have rented out the object to someone else.
> The use of an object always has a market value.  In addition, even if
> the borrower does not lose, but if the lender gains ("Tarbis belo
> neshech")  it would still be Asur MiDirabanan. 
> 

That would be true if I could not go to my corner shu or llibrary and find
the volume there, but since I can, the seller is not providing me with a
service that elsewise I need pay for.

> The Gemara discusses a case where I sell you a field on condition that
> if I get money I can buy it back.  The gemara says that the fruit that
> the purchaser eats in between is Ribis.  See BMb at the 2 dots "Machar
> Lo Bayis, Machar Lo Sadeh.....) 
>

Maskanta b'lo nachyasa? But achilas peiros is definitely monetary, as
opposed to nidon didan, no? 

YGB

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

Not all that comprehensively. He had a dialogue in Jewish Action a few
years ago - I forget precisely when, but he does refer to it in his work -
with, I believe, Brad Aaronson, who reported on the work of, I believe,
Dr. Cheifetz in Israel, on the issue, based on Velikovsky and other
sources. In his book, Mr. First devotes almost no space to their
arguments.

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> FYI, there is a single book that comprehensively discusses the 420 year 
> controversy. The author is Mitchel First and the name I believe is "History in 
> Conflict".  
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
> 

YGB

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

>> 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. 
	Old esrogim are a problem re:  hiddur.  There is no such problem for
matzoh.  I in fact often put away matzoh,  both hand and machine made, 
from one year to the next.  Seal them in a plastic bag and, when the time
comes,  they will be essentially indistinguishable from the "fresh".  An
"istinis" can warm them in an oven to be sure.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

A couple of comments: What exactly is the value of modern literary
analysis I don't care what Scholem says b/c the minute I find out that
the Ari achieved spiritual heights through the Zohar I know it's authentic
and there is nothing that someone can come up with 800 years later that
should change this. This is comparable to spending time studying literary
analyisis of Tanach or archeological theories which contradict Tanach.
The minute that I accept that a red band turned white on yom kippur, or a
candle burned constantly in the menorah or that thousands of people stood
jammed in a courtyard and were able to bow and have space around them (all
reports of events which happened for hundreds of years in view of
thousands of people,)etc. I know Torah is true. This is besides for the
fact that I have no reason to believe the logical conclusion of a person
who wants to free himsdelf of the yoke of heaven, and declare his
existence meaningless instead of believing the testimony of outstanding
people who want to give purpose to every area of human life. In this sense
I believe that it is enough to sat the gemara says so , or such and such
gadol says so. Also do we really believe that Tosfos who was made up of a
number of briliant people and had studied more tannaic work then can be
imagined didn't realize that the piyitum of R. Eliezer didn't seem
tannaic, was he overcome with a wave of stupidity. In regards to David
Glassner's comments about the rabbis knowledge of science, my only comment
(besides the fact that he should read the Ramchal's maamer haagodos)is
that I'm glad I always believe aristotle and einstien who maintained
the universe always existed. I get such nachas when I read about
Einstein's intellectual honesty when he introduced a fudge factor to help
maintain that the world always existed. Thanks to the pursuit of truth it
was finally proven that the world had a begining. it's this spirit of
honesty that makes me laugh at Scholem and the like. The fact is that
people can prove anything if they want to believe it. A jury actually
aquited O.J.Simpson in spite of so much evidence that it was like we were
eye witnesses to the crime. We need to decide who to trust by looking at
all the evidence honestly. Which gets me to the 420 years issue. I don't
know so much about the particulars, but why shouldn't I ttrust Chazal just
becaiuse They are Chazal. They are great people who searched for truth.
Anything else I trust is just some other persons interpretation of similar
events.
How can anyone say anything conclusive about a period in history over 2000
years ago, when we can't always prove what happened yesterday. We have to
weigh all the evidence including the integrity and trust worthiness of the
witnesses. Finally in regards to shidduchim: people must have full
bitachon in Hashem that he will help them find their (40 day kodem havlad
) mate and not bow to the acts of bullies, but I don't understand why a
poster said Baruch Hashem that his Daughter doesn't want a kollel guy. I
understand it isn't  for everyone, but Why bless Hashem that your daughter
wont have the zchus of supporting someone who learns all day--kind of
makes you scratch your head and say huh?
Elie Ginsparg 

FROM S.A. Drebin
TO-Saul Z. Berman
Re- Reverse Agunot

In my opinion, the SHIDDUCH business is the Jewish equivalent of the free
market.  There is a wealth of free information available.  Only you can
decide if it is good or bad and if it should be acted upon.Sources  can
lie, imply, omit, embellish,seek revenge, or  be total morons. People can
ask whatever they like and the other party can answer whatever they like.
 You can seek to clarify Physical health, mental health, color of shirts
that the father wears (only white or colored), type of shoes worn
(slip-on loafers or tie-ups) or ask for handwriting samples (all true by
the way).  It may be the new milleneum but the women are still measured
by how much money they can bring to the table and how attractive they
are. Of course this could be improved upon if we could only tell how they
will look AFTER 5 kids. Just imagine:.....   (KVETCHY, WHINEY, YESHIVISHE
VOICE)- "EFSHER you can scrape the inside of "the girl's" mouth and the
mother's mouth with a toothpick and send the sample to the genetic lab
for testing"!  There are people who hide the fact that they have cancer
or other illnesses for fear of ruining a Shidduch for their chilren. 
It's Jewish Hong Kong!

It's just like the Internet!

If you want to approach it from a more humanistic standpoint, a great
deal of the blame can be laid at the feet of our present day
"leadership".  The boy from the wealthy home in your Yeshiva is a
cash-cow, and the longer he stays there, the more money the institution
receives.  As our modern day poets (the rappers) say "It's all about the
Bennies".  At 10K minimum for Shiddach Gelt who do you think gets served,
the poor shlob that might give you $500, or the 10K and up man.  Most
"leaders" don't even bother with the Shlob until he is too old, and
outlived his usefullness keeping the Yeshiva hopping.  In Eastern Europe
it seems that it was similar, but at least they could learn!  Don't
forget the cheque that that you palm at the CHASSINEH (tax free of
course).  

I am guessing here but I have never heard all of this nonsense from
Sphardim.  It seems to me that they support the superstars and everyone
else is supposed to ( GET THIS) work for a living and let the true
leaders lead.  There aren't that many true leaders, Hmmmmmmm).  

Of course the free market theory should also apply to our institutions
(which it doesn't) and there is my bone to pick with Dr. Aaron Twerski
with regard to those very Jewish weddings of which you refer to, but it
is almost Wednesday on the left coast and  that will have to wait for
another day. 

SAD
___________________________________________________________________
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]

Subject: Zohar

Daniel Eidensohn writes:
> 
> The question comes down to  - does the Zohar faithfully express 
> the esoteric information of ancient Kabbala? If it does - the 
> question of its precise historical origin is a question - but not 
> of great concern or relevant in terms of its use. 
> We saw this concerning the validity of the Mishna and Gemora. 

If I understand this correctly it implies that portions of the
actual text may be from the 13th century even though the basic ideas
are much older. I assume that an oral tradition would concentrate
on concepts rather than exact wording and hence the way of describing
these ideas may use concepts from the middle ages to explain ancient
ideas.

Even with respect to the gemara there are debates whether portions of
the gemara are due to Sabboraim or even gaonim rather than amoraim.
Already the rishonim indicate that some sections are later interpolations.
Whether this fact was used by rishonim in arriving a psak is debateable.
There are theories (I think due to Rabbi Feldblum and students at BarIlan)
that the Rambam did not pasken like the Bavli when it was a sabboraic
text. I don't know of any acharon who makes such a distinction.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com Subject: Tartei d'sasrei
> 
> I have no first hand sources. My understanding of using shekio to end
> one day and being the next is based upon the Gro.  Until the advent of
> the Gro, Tzeis was considered the end of the day.  BTW, the Gro himself,
> however, would not permit Maariv until his tzeis, which while pretty
> early is still a bit after shkio (18-30 minutes are 2 versions I've
> heard).
> 

Actually, some research via a nice sefer I saw in Shul yeterday called
"HaZemanim b'Halacha" yields the Meiri, Rashba and R' Yona in Berachos
around 27a (4th perek) all holding that zman ma'ariv begins at sheki'ah.

I am not sure about the GRA, noted in Ma'aseh Rav and the Biur Halacha
235, when he says b'zmana he may mean to preclude the justifications
offered by RT and others for davening before - what they held was -
sheki'a, not to require tzeis.

> From: raffyd@juno.com Subject: Re: Shkia and Maariv
> 
> I would like to suggest a limud z'chus:  It could be that we have taken
> on the Gra's shita only l'chumra.  Really, m'ikar haDin these shuls rule
> like the S"A.  As a stringency, we have accepted to stop m'lacha at
> sunset, and when we say Mizmor Shir a few minutes later, we are
> fulfilling Tosfos Shabbos according to the S"A et al.
> 

I am skeptical about this, as we mostly do adopt the GRA and Ba'al HaTanya
even l'kulla (Motzoei Shabbos) and their - the Geonim's shitta - is the
one most in line with physical reality as well.

I prefer - shamefacedly, since in my youth I was makpid and only late
became lax, but will try by your reminder to re-exert myself - to say the
mitzva of Tos. Shabbos is one that needs chizuk!

YGB

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

RYGB comments:

<<
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!"
>>

A general note on the text of the Torah, if I may.  Let us not forget that the
Troah was written by Moshe, and therefore any references to names of locations
that existed at the time of Moseh, even if they did not exist at the time of
the story, are not textual difficulties.  The names of the rivers surrounding
Eyden were given by thetime Moshe was told to write them down.  Similarly, one
can explain the use of the term b'heyma t'hora in the Noach story.  I think
Ramban discusses this concept when dealing with the kings of Edom listed at
the end of Vayishlach, which at face value has the Torah predicting kings well
beyond Moshe's lifetime.

<<
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?
>>

The answer to this depends on how late the passage in the Zohar is.  If it
discusses something that post-dates the tana'im, then we have a big problem
attributing it to RSBY, unless one wants to attribute prophetic powers to
tana'im, a position that is difficult to take.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>The question comes down to  - does the
>Zohar faithfully express the esoteric information of ancient
>Kabbala? If it does - the question of its precise historical
>origin is a question - but not of great concern or relevant in
>terms of its use.

I think this is a very accurate description of the attitude toward the
Zohar of those who have studied it over the centuries.  In particular,
one should recognize that Kabbalah has two aspects, one is theosophic,
which is to say, the philospohic concepts underliying kabbalistic
theology.  The other is practical -- the methods prescribed for
attaining mystic transcendence.  As Moshe Idel has pointed out,
Scholem's analysis was heavily weighted toward the former rather than
the latter.  Among Jewish kabbalists, on the other hand, the latter is
primary.  I believe this confirms and corroborates R. Eidensohn's point.

RYGB asks:

>If you have knowledge of Scholem's methods, can contrast them with those
>of the GRA and educate us - why don't you?

Oh, all right.  I propose the following.  Scholem's analysis of the
Zohar was initially presented as a chapter in his 1941 work, Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism.  This book has remained in print for at
least the last 30 years and is widely available in paperback.  Everyone
who is interested should read Scholem's arguments.  For purposes of this
discussion, I will present a brief summary of his evidence.  Tomorrow,
beli neder, I will present a summary of R. M.M. Kasher's critique of
Scholem's conclusions, published in the Sefer Yovel Sinai.  R. Kasher,
unlike the Gra, was responding directly to Scholem's argument.

Scholem writes that he initially believed the Zohar to be the final
edition of writings going back perhaps as far as Rashbi.  Graetz (who
harbored a strong antipathy to mysticism) had claimed that the Zohar was
a forgery by R. Moshe de Leon, but he had little proof.  Scholem set out
to analyze the Zohar philologically to prove Graetz wrong; in the end he
concluded that Graetz was right!

Scholem breaks down the "real" Zohar into 18 components, all of which he
finds reflect the same peculiarities of language and style; he views the
Raya Mehemna and Tikkunim as written by a different.
hand.  (In a footnote, he explains that he actually composed a
dictionary of the Zohar, which formed the basis of his philological
analysis.)  The Aramaic of the Zohar seems based on the Talmud Bavli and
Targum Onkelos.  But these styles are mixed together haphazardly.  There
are many grammatical errors, and the syntax follows that of medieval
Hebrew (e.g. using the word "ke-dein" the way medivals used "az" and "im
kol da" which is baed on "im kol zot," a Hebrew phrase coined by the Ibn
Tibbons -- Medieval translators).  Some expressions are based on Arabic,
others on Spanish.  Scholem sees the Zohar referring to concepts like
the sefirot, but using paraphrases to avoid use of the medieval term.
Many Zoharic terms are totally absent from ancient Jewish literature,
but represent translations of concepts of, for example, the
Neo-Platonists.

Literary analysis is also employed.  Scholem claims that the
descriptions of Eretz Yisrael are simply wrong, and names of places are
based on misreadings of the Gemara.  Other mistakes include calling
Pinhas ben Yair the father-in-law of Rashbi, when the Gemara calls him
the son-in-law and naming among Rashbi's talmidim people who lived
generations later or never lived at all!  Other descriptions seem based
on R. Bahya's Hovot ha-Levavot Sefer ha-Perishut.  Scholem sees passages
based on R. Yehudah haLevi, Ramban and Rambam, as well as some 13th
century kabbalists such as R. Yosef Gikatilla.  The Zohar assumes the
existence of a fixed liturgy, norms of polite conversation, attitudes
toward medicine and views on magic --  all of which are typical of
12-13th century Spain.

Regarding the person Scholem thinks is the author, R. Moshe de Leon,
Scholem admits the evidence is not conclusive.  He recounts the story of
R. Yitzhak me-Akko (R. Moshe swore to him the Zohar was based on an
authentic manuscript then in Avila.  After R. Moshe's death, R. Yitzhak
met a rich man in Avila who claimed the R. Moshe's widow told him that
R. Moshe had written it.)  Scholem claims that a number of R. Moshe's
Hebrew works began making references to the Zohar, "setting the stage"
for its eventual publication.  R. Moshe's references never reflect a
misunderstanding of the Zohar.  His Hebrew writings repeat the same
grammatical errors of the Zohar and avoid terms like sefirot and
over-use terms like sod.  Scholem even thinks he knows why R. Moshe
wrote the Zohar (to curb the radical rationalism that was leading
educated Jews away from Torah).

It is important to note that, unlike Graetz, Scholem does not see the
Zohar as a forgery, but pseudepigraphy, which he defends as legtimate
and thoroughly moral.

I hope to present R. Kasher's rebuttal in a post tomorrow.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

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


[ 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 ]