Response to Rabbi Chareidi’s attack on Kabbolah

Guest post from Professor Chiloni

This is a paper from a certain “Professor Chiloni” in response to a (superficially) serious attack on kabbalah that has circulated in the online “rationalist” world for over a decade. Professor Chiloni is a major Talmid Chochom and maggid shiur in a well-known yeshiva, as well as a historian.

You are probably already aware that one of the main beliefs of “rationalism” within Judaism is the idea that Kabbalah and especially the Zohar is a forgery and corruption, and by extension, that all of “mysticism” within Judaism is suspect (despite the fact that even leaving Kabbalah aside, what they call “mysticism” is a major pillar of Tanach and Chazal. The “rationalists” have no problem rejecting major pillars of the Torah, though. It’s what they do best.) As Professor Chiloni explains in the last section, the point of this paper is not to address every single question about kabbala, but to show that Rabbi Chareidi’s arguments (as opposed to those of the Ya’avetz, who nevertheless did believe in Kabbalah and the Zohar) are without substance and rooted in deep ignorance.

PDF version:

Response To Rabbi Chareidi

275KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Preface

I must preface this defense of Kabbolah and its centrality in Judaism by stating that I am expert neither in Kabbolah, the history of Judaism nor even in תורת הנגלה (although I haven’t entirely given up my aspirations in that direction). I say this not as a humble excuse for my mistakes, but to establish my credentials to write this essay. The purpose of this essay is not to debate the question of the Zohar’s authenticity. There are thoughtful people who have reservations about the authenticity of the Zohar (at least claiming that there are later interpolations, as posited by R’ Yaakov Emden). Marc Shapiro states that in academia this position is almost axiomatic, and I believe him. There are thoughtful people who are absolutely confident that the Zohar is כולו קדוש, and the majority of the (thoughtful) Chareidi community falls into this category.¹ It is not the entire Chareidi community because there are (thoughtful) Chareidim who are open to R’ Yaakov Emden’s position. I wouldn’t dream of wading into this debate between erudite scholars.

No, the thesis of this essay is much simpler, namely that Rabbi Chareidi is neither erudite nor thoughtful and is in fact a total idiot. Therefore, the response to his convoluted cavalcade of creative criticism does not need to be, and indeed should not be, from a scholar acquainted with the minutiae of Zoharic Aramaic, but from an intelligent layman who can demonstrate the logical fallacies which permeate his essay. I abundantly qualify as a layman, and to borrow a phrase from גביהא בן פסיסא – אם ינצחוני אמרו הדיוט שבנו נצחתם, ואם אני אנצח אותם אמרו להם תורת משה נצחתכם.

His essay is predicated on three theses, or perhaps a better way of phrasing this is that it revolves around three axes, 1 – Kabbalah has no legitimate Mesorah, and is not part of the Mesorah that Judaism prides itself on. 2 – The Kabbalah, and especially the Zohar, in fact stands in opposition to many of the basic tenets of Judaism. 3 – The claims of the MeKubalim, and especially the Zohar, are fantastic/ absurd/self-contradictory. The upshot of these theses is that the Zohar (and in fact all of Kabbalah) is not merely wrong, it is a vast fraud perpetrated against the Jewish nation.

Let us (the dupes of this fraud) examine his theses.

The Mesorah of Kabbalah

Etymology of the word ‘ Kabbalah’

To begin with, RC points out that the term Kabbalah is medieval. Very possible, but irrelevant; the idea of סודי תורה discussing how Hashem created the world, how He runs it, and its purpose, is of undeniable antiquity. This is the topic of Kabbalah, and this is what the Mishna refers to when it requires מעשה בראשית and מעשה מרכבה to be studied privately. The Rambam, who was not initiated into the Mesorah of Kabbalah, understood these סודות in philosophic terms, while the Mekubalim use a different repertoire of terms (often expressing remarkably similar ideas; as the Rema comments in מחיר היין, both philosophy and Kabbalah discuss the same topics and often arrive at the same conclusions, simply using different terminologies). Furthermore, there is documented evidence of these subjects being part of classic Jewish studies, as evidenced by the fact that the ספרי היכלות, ספר יצירה, etc. were being studied in the Geonic period.

Additionally, RC bizarrely ignores the entire Italian/Ashkenazi Mesorah of סודי התורה that have their origin in the mysterious אבו אהרן, a 9^th century Mekubal (again, the term might be anachronistic, but the idea is not) whose centrality to the Ashkenazi Mesorah is attested to by the Roke’ach and others, and whose existence is attested to (and elaborated upon) in the 11^th centuryמגילת אחימע"ץ .

RC also contends that in its original context Kabbalah did not refer to the gamut of סודי התורה, only to: 

the Study of philosophies concerning the 10 Sefiros and some Taamei haMitzvos based on these studies.’ (It was only) ‘Much later, (that) the use of the name was extended to refer also to Maaseh Merkovo (etc.) and basically all Razei Torah, and a lot of Razay not so-Torah. This is a completely false use of the term, a hijack, and may have been done purposefully to give the the original Kabalah greater legitimacy. So let us remember henceforth that Kabalah was a new term for the philosophical study of the mechanism of the 10 Sefiros.’ 

There’s a lot of malice apparent in this paragraph (and some ambiguity – ‘the philosophical study of the mechanism of the 10 Sefiros’?), but where is his source? It appears that it is from the statement of a late 13^th century author that the Mekubalim קוראים לחכמת עשר הספירות ולקצת טעמי המצוות קבלה. RC then uses a minimalist approach to exclude all other aspects of חכמת הנסתר. However, there is no reason to suppose he is correct (the description of Kabbalah as the study of the עשר ספירות and טעמי המצות would not be out of place even today after the tremendous גילוים of the Ar”i and others). More importantly, he is either ignorant or lying, for R’ Ezra (the Rebbe of the Ramban, died c. 1227) writes:

מאז היותי צעיר ועד הנה לא נחתי מהיותי מחפש ומבקש בסודי ה' יתברך ויתעלה, ומעניין בריאת מעשיו ברוך הוא שהגיד מעשיו לעמו, ואני ברוב תאותי בכל מקום שהייתי לא עצרתי כח לשאול מכל אדם מעניין הקבלה ולקבלה כאשר ייתכן, והאמנתי בדברי המקובלים אשר להם נגלו סתרי אל וכל תעלומותיו ואני כהיום בארץ ספרד הביאני הזמן במקום עומד השפל בין פילוסופים, ואחבר זה הספר להיות לפניהם. 

ספר יצירה and early Mekubalim

The Gemara states that the Sefer Yetzirah was used to create a Golem, and RC is determined not to deny the validity of this story (and so to do to the Gemara what he proposes to do to Kabbalah), therefore, we find the single instance of nuance in his paper. His personal comfort zone is to propose that there is an authentic kernel of סוד in the ספר יצירה overlayed with the philosophic meditations of R’ Akiva. I am not going to pontificate on the psychological mandate that RC retains from his Yeshiva years that impels him to preserve a semblance of הכנעה to the Gemara and Rishonim (grasping on a late minority opinion that it was written by R’ Akiva) and then destroy the substance of the Gemara and consensus of the Rishonim (that the Sefer Yetzira is authentic Torah). Oops, I think I just pontificated.

However, I will comment on his (always confident) assertion that “Until the mekubalim's publications, it was always interpreted very simply…” which, as he explains in detail, was a philosophical treatise devoid of Kabbalah content. It took me exactly three minutes on Google to discover a paper published by Tzahi Weiss in the Winter 2013 Jewish Quarterly Review (the premiere Jewish academic journal) titled ‘The Reception of Sefer Yetsirah and Jewish Mysticism in the Early Middle Ages.’ Weiss devotes his paper to delineating numerous 11th, 10th and even 9th century commentaries on the Sefer Yetzirah of a Kabbalistic nature. He explains that he is not the first to take note of them, and that this reevaluation has been ongoing for 25 years. Humph!

Next RC turns to the Ra’avad, stating that: I have never come across any evidence to the effect that he had anything to do with Kabbalah. Maybe ‘cause you didn’t look! Even if he wishes to discount the testimony of the famous Mekubalim (those devious Jewish charlatans), he should consult page 289 of Isadore Twersky’s magisterial biography of the Ra’avad where he cites evidence of the Ra’avad’s proficiency and standing in Kabbalah (and I’m astonished that RC could write anything about the Ra’avad without referencing Twersky’s book).

I pass over other slanted biographies, snide comments, and random stupidities without comment. (However, please don’t tell me that R’ Yehudah HaLevy wrote Anim Zemiros).

Kabbalah and Judaism

Before I discuss RC’s conception of Kabbalah and its perceived shortcomings, it is necessary to confront the central problem with his theses, a problem that he touches on only incidentally and refuses to truly address. Let me quote his preface: 

Ashkenazim too, while most attributed great holiness to it, felt themselves too removed from the mysterious text and too lowly and unworthy to study it - certainly en masse (hence, in my opinion the many important points of note in its context, that would undoubtedly have shocked some of them, evaded them, and the book rested safe enshrouded in mystery among the normally more critical Ashkenazim, and blindly accepted by the Sephardim until by the time of the Ari it became too late to challenge). And although many books by famous kabbalists were written on the Zohar, some of which claimed to explain it, nevertheless all of them were written using its own terms and concepts with little simplifications. The book itself is quoted by well known Talmidey chachomim throughout the generations - Rabeinu Bechayey, the Tashbetz, the Radvaz and Maharshal, the GRA and Rabbi Zalman MiLiady, down to basically all famous Poskim and Darshonim of our day. 

Give me a minute and let’s be clear. ‘Kabbalists’ were not a separate but associated graft onto the tree of Torah Judaism. They were, they were, um, there is no they. Kabbalah was a section of the Torah that our major luminaries not merely ‘quoted,’ but based their conception of Judaism on. The Zohar they cited for both its theological and halachic content, and since RC’s list of names is a bit sparse let me add a few, in rather random order and restricting myself to Achronim (and using our endearing custom of conflating the book with the author):

The first on our list is the Bais Yosef. RC writes of the Bais Yosef:

The point is, that the mekubalim didn't yet have the political power to muster a campaign to wrest the power from the poskim. Not even the Beis Yosef with his heavenly maggid, who along with imparting many kabalistic teachings to the beis yosef, quotes the zohar by name. He did not bestow upon the kabalists the power to change Judaism.

I have an admission to make; I’ve reread this statement several times and can’t exactly figure out what RC is trying to say. Is he denigrating the Bais Yosef for having a Magid? Well then, who can we respect? Is he saying that the Bais Yosef does not cite the Zohar in a Halachic context? Of course he does, over 50 times (I just counted). Is this sentence just the verbal equivalent of a demolition derby, where we are left to pick up the smoking wreck of an inchoate thought?

Let’s continue our list:

Rema, Maharal, Levush, Maharsha, R’ Dovid Ganz, Perisha (etc.), Taz, Shach, Be’er HaGoleh, Mogen Avroham, Eliah Rabbah, Pr”i Megadim, Gr”a, Chida, Machtzis HaShekel, R’ Akiva Eiger, R’ Ephraim Zalman Margolis, R’ Yaakov Etlinger, R’ Shamshon Refoel Hirsh, Chasam Sofer, R’ Yitzchok Elchonen Specter, R’ Chaim Volozner, R’ Itzel’e Volozner, the Netziv, the P’nei Yehoshua, the Ketzos, the Nesivos, the Nodeh B’Yehuda, R’ Menashe Ben Yisroel, Chavos Ya’ir, Chacham Tzvi, Teshuva Mai’Ahavah, Panim Me’iros, Seridei Aish, R’ Moshe Feinstein, R’ Chaim Schor, Maharam Schiff, Keren Orah, Mishne Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan, Chazon Ish, R’ Yoshe Ber Solovitzik of Boston (and his predecessor of Brisk) R’ Pinchos Horowitz, R’ Avroham HaKohen Kook, Ya’avetz, R’ Yehonasan Eibeschutz, the entire corpus of Chassidic thought, R’ Yisoel Salanter, Shnei Luchos HaBris… 

The point here isn’t to fill out a list. That is impossible because it would include all of the Gedolei Achronim. The point is that here is our Mesorah, we have no other. The last 500 years of Judaism is represented here. These aren’t merely names of individual men, these names represent of the sum of our heritage. 

RC seems to glory in the appellation he gave himself as ‘Charaidi,’ but that word connotes something more that ‘G-d fearing.’ I have no doubt that there are non-Charaidim who fear G-d more than some Charaidim. However, ‘Charaidi’ also means more than being a member of a social club for people who wear black hats and tend to schmooze during Kabbolas Shabbos. Charaidi is a theology, and a philosophy of Judaism contending that contemporary Judaism rests on an unbroken Mesorah passed down by the luminaries, and the Jewish people, of previous generations. If RC wishes to discount all the names listed above and try to reach back to a (mythical) ‘clearer, purer Mesorah’ that has been corrupted since the 13th century, then he is denying the validity of Judaism as a living religion. It is precisely analogous to Geiger’s rejection of the accretions of the Talmud to recreate ‘prophetic Judaism.’ 

Somehow, RC wishes to mitigate the trauma of having a foolish fallacy foisted on our fumbling forefathers by claiming that ‘Ashkenazim, while most attributed great holiness to it, felt themselves too removed from the mysterious text and too lowly and unworthy to study it.’ How contemptuous and condescending he is when speaking of our Mesorah! These Gedolim didn’t merely revere the Zohar while feeling themselves ‘too removed from the mysterious text and too lowly and unworthy to study it;’ they studied it, many in great depth. They authored deep treatises on it and found great inspiration in unraveling its secrets. Who were then the Jewish theologians of the modern Ashkenazi world if not the Maharal, the Ramchal, the Gr”a and the Magid, all of whom demonstrated superlative expertise in all of the ramifications of every line of the Zohar and (amongst the latter three) the Kisvei Ha’Ar”i. The same, of course, could be said for the Sefardi Gedolim, but as my list indicates, I am a biased, provincial and prejudiced Ashkenazi, and I beg indulgence for this undoubted, although understandable, fault.

Kabbalistic Criticism

The Kabbalistic system

And what of RC’s contention that ‘all of them (the books of the Mekubalim) were written using its own terms and concepts with little simplifications. Is he being willfully blind? The Maharal never used Kabbalistic terms, yet conveyed much of its inner meaning. The שומר אמונים introduces the Kabbalah to the beginner, and the Ramchal wrote the דעת תבונות describing the Kabbalistic world in its entirety without using a single world of the Kabbalah’s exoteric lexicon. Afterwards, he wrote a glossary to demonstrate the correspondence of his universe to Kabbalistic reality. True, Kabbalah has its own verbal shorthand available to its initiates, but so does engineering and (probably) trombone playing. 

I would have suggested that RC has never really made an attempt to understand the משל and the נמשל of the Kabbalists, or the beauty of their Kabbalah, and this led to his ignorant ramblings. This would explain his understanding of the Kabbalah as a:

cold, calculated and mechanical divine service, whereby their cavvonos were nothing more than reflections on the supposedly intricate divine mechanical processes that the incantations and thoughts were believed to automatically trigger.

Cold, calculated and mechanical? Cavvonos nothing more than…? Tell Elie Weisel that the Chasidic Masters didn’t have Souls on Fire, tell Gershom Schalom about mechanical motions of the Kabbalists, then go tell R’ Eliyahu Dessler the Kabbalah leads to a feelingless, chilly heart. Better yet, observe real Jews practicing authentic Judaism.

Cavvonos nothing more than…? Obviously, this man never opened the Nefesh HaChaim, which is a Kabbalistic ode to the power inherent in a single Jew לנטוע שמים וליסוד ארץ. 

The truth is that I decided that RC was obviously just profoundly (and perhaps incurably) ignorant.

However, I changed my mind. The explosive passion of RC’s rhetoric, the animosity that he shows towards a deep and intriguing section of the Torah, and towards unoffending people he has never met yet whom by reputation are holy men, bastions of our faith, and preservers of our מסורה, speaks of a deeper angst in his soul and of a troubled spirit.

Here we have a man who blandly informs us that Kabbalistic formulations of the rectification caused by the מעשי מצוות are wrong because Chazal tell us (there is a paucity of documented sources in his essay but the citation is from the Beraishis Rabbah) that – ‘Said Rav: The commandments were only given to purify the (free-willed) creations, for does God truly care more for slaughter that is done starting from the front of the neck over slaughter that is done starting from the back of the neck?.’ RC here implies, and takes Kabbalah to task for disputing, that our entire Mitzva framework is inherently meaningless. Nevertheless, he has the audacity to denigrate the Kabbalistic Cavvonos as ‘nothing more than… ?’ 

Furthermore, is it possible that he is unaware that this citation is cited by the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, and that the Ramban in Devarim 22/1 cites the passage from the Moreh and disputes its meaning? The Rambam explains that although all of the Mitzvos have deep and important reasons, not all of the details (such as which animals are brought for a specific Korban) are intrinsically important. The Ramban sees an even more benign meaning in this passage; that the Mitzvos are given for our (intrinsic) benefit, not for Hashem’s. Inasmuch as no one could be so incorrigibly ignorant, this has led me to conclude that RC is not ignorant, he is vindictive.

I therefore (tentatively) conjecture that the tone of RC’s rhetoric comes not from an inadequate education, rather, his vehement hatred is reminiscent of that of a spurned lover. Freed from the strictures of Lashon Harah by RC’s kind decision to remain anonymous, I submit that he has the marks of a man who attempted to plumb the depths of Kabbalistic lore, and found it beyond him. He therefore turned on Kabbalah with hatred incomprehensible to anyone unacquainted with his history.

Is this investigation into RC’s motives a digression and an ad hominem attack? Probably. Is it wrong? Possibly. It’s probably also the only way that I could remain sane while trying to comment on his drivel. Back to the grind.

Confused Conception of Kabbalah

RC is breathtakingly confident that he can quickly summarize and dismiss the fundamental concepts of Kabbalah. I will provide a few examples:

1. As these Mekubalim are prone to state - God is the Soul of the Sefiros. These statements are obviously allegorical, to a degree, though what they mean in real terms, I don't know, and I don't believe there is anybody alive today who does.

2. Their philosophy claimed to answer the question that since God is perfect he cannot bear change. Yet to have created, he must have had an expression of will - this is change. They therefore say that beings of thought and will emanated from him, the Sefiros - chochma bina daas etc. power of examination, power of calculation, power of decision etc. Though it stills leaves the question of what phenomenon caused them to emanate - - - if not the will of God himself! This, to the best of my knowledge, they do not answer.

3. Their philosophies were to stand in contrast to the Rambam who in the Moreh Nevuchim stated that God's Will and his, so to speak, "thought" are integral to his essence. We cannot understand his essence, and we shouldn't try - in the Rambam's own sharp words: . - If I truly knew Him I would be Him. אילו ידעתיו הייתיו

4. As we know from Bereishis Rabba 3:7, God created several worlds before this one. Maybe they used different mitzva mechanisms.

Ich! I feel like I just climbed out of a garbage dump, and if you don’t mind, I will refrain from citing other examples. These should suffice. 

Number 1 is truly a fundamental concept in Kabbalah, and RC doesn’t explain what he finds troubling with the explanation provided by the Kabbalists (for instance – the נפש החיים שער א' פ"ה, or the של"ה שער האותיות אות אל"ף - אמת ואמונה or the ראשית חכמה שער האהבה פרק יא). He is reinforcing my suspicion that he has tried and failed to become a student of Kabbalah. As a matter of fact, the only way that his statement (that he suspects that no one today understands it) has any viability at all is to assume that he made an honest and thorough attempt to understand it, studying the relevant explanatory sources, and failed. If so, his failure should be a warning to him, and he shouldn’t project his limitations onto others. This idea is not especially obscure, it’s not Kabbalah 303, its Kabbalah 101. I even think I understand it. Does RC believe that the נפש החיים understood it but the secret was lost, or was the נפש החיים himself a charlatan? I am including a link for him on the importance of being humble, https://www.gloveworx.com/blog/importance-humility/. (I think there’s something in the ספרי מוסר about this also).

Number 2 – Yes, they do. Here I am going to be slightly more circumspect, and not cite precise chapter and verse. I am going to urge him to study the שער הגדול of the שני לוחות הברית. I am doing this because rectification of his utter ignorance of Kabbalah (after all, isn’t that what we are all about in this world, rectification) requires that he take the time to slowly learn to crawl, then to walk, then to run when studying Kabbalah (hint – the answer to his question will be found in the crawling stage).

Number 3 – The Mekubalim cite approvingly this statement of the Rambam. Their philosophies do not stand in contrast to it. See ibid.

Number 4 – I’m just going to have some fun with this one. I think RC is saying that since Hashem created other worlds (and RC is ignorant of the way that the Ar”i explained that Medrash) maybe there was another Mitzva framework in place at that time, and maybe that Mitzva framework would prove the Mekubalim wrong. He could just as easily have said that Kabbalah is wrong because maybe jesus died for our sins.

The Zohar

History

RC points out that the Zohar was unknown before the 13^th century. He finds the explanations of the Kabbalists as to reason for its remaining hidden unpersuasive (so unpersuasive, in fact, that he neglects to mention that they explain this). He then cites the Yuchsin’s story about R’ Yizchok D’Min Akku’s (henceforth described as RYDA) attempt to confirm the authenticity of the Zohar, a story that ends abruptly without alluding to RYDA’s conclusion. I will not attempt to decipher RC’s tea leave reading of the story, where he confidently (always) decides what RYDA’s conclusion was. 

RC is so behind the times. In the 1960’s R’ Aryeh Kaplan presented to the world RYDA’s Sefer אורחות חיים, written late in his life, where he cites the Zohar, uses its language, and says explicitly that it was written by R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. This sefer was recently published in two separate editions. I don’t necessarily expect that RC should be conversant with the discoveries of R’ Aryeh Kaplan, but this is open knowledge in academia, and professor Yehuda Liebes of the Hebrew University (and recipient of the 2017 Israel prize), has written a paper on it; finding conclusive proof there that RYDA considered the Zohar to be authoritative and authored by R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. (I found this paper, of course, because it is freely available on the web - https://liebes.huji.ac.il/files/rida_baacademia.pdf). 

I cite Yehuda Liebes precisely because he is so divorced from the traditional conception of Kabbalah. He is convinced that the Zohar was written in the 13^th century, and even proposes (in the aforementioned paper) that although the Zohar was written by R’ Shimon Bar Yochai, its author was not the Tanna but another scholar (or group of scholars) living in 13th century Spain. I am not going to comment on his theory (nor am I sure that I thoroughly understand it), but RC’s ignorance is again showing.

The Zohar as a Malevolent Intruder

RC is at his most blasphemous and malevolent self when he discusses the Zohar (both of these adjectives he employs against the Zohar; this is merely his form of projection(. As a rule, I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to answer an argument by invoking received wisdom (X can’t be true because פלוני says its not true) but in this case I would like to make an exception. In RC’s unbridled fury he creates a cesspool of wild charges against the Zohar that is extremely distasteful to wade into. 

Therefore, perhaps the reader will forgive me for simply saying the following: No, the Zohar does not permit an אשת איש to be מזנה with the permission of her husband. The Zohar’s demand that the yud of the tefillin shel yad should touch the bayis, or it’s proscription to learn Torah SheB’Chsav at night, or its statement that Hoshana Rabbah is the final day of judgment etc. do not prove malevolent intent. No, the Zohar is not blasphemous, it is holy, and it part of the accepted corpus of Torah. The aforementioned pillars of Mesorah were aware that the Zohar says all those things (I don’t mean the first, they were aware that the Zohar does not say that) and found nothing objectionable. Quite the opposite, the Zohar and its halachic conclusions are part of normative Judaism. And let us please remember who has testified that the Zohar is part of normative Judaism – Rema, Maharal, Levush, Maharsha, R’ Dovid Ganz, Perisha (etc.), Taz, Shach, Be’er HaGoleh, Mogen Avroham, Eliah Rabbah, Pr”i Megadim, Gr”a, Chida, Machtzis HaShekel, R’ Akiva Eiger, R’ Ephraim Zalman Margolis, R’ Yaakov Etlinger, R’ Shamshon Refoel Hirsh, Chasam Sofer, R’ Yitzchok Elchonen Specter, R’ Chaim Volozner, R’ Itzel’e Volozner, the Netziv, the P’nei Yehoshua, the Ketzos, the Nesivos, the Nodeh B’Yehuda, R’ Menashe Ben Yisroel, Chavos Ya’ir, Chacham Tzvi, Teshuva Mai’Ahavah, Panim Me’iros, Seridei Aish, R’ Moshe Feinstein, R’ Chaim Schor, Maharam Schiff, Keren Orah, Mishne Berurah, Aruch HaShulchan, Chazon Ish, R’ Yoshe Ber Solovitzik of Boston (and his predecessor of Brisk) R’ Pinchos Horowitz, R’ Avroham HaKohen Kook, Ya’avetz, R’ Yehonasan Eibeschutz, the entire corpus of Chassidic thought, R’ Yisoel Salanter, Shnei Luchos HaBris… 

A man who claims that the Zohar is heretical (which RC explicitly does) may not go to Hell as a heretic, but he certainly will be reserved a seat of honor in the heaven reserved for Very Bad Theologians, and he should be careful that he is not seated next to Nosson HaAzasi. (Nosson HaAzasi himself, of course, was condemned to Hell, but after his charred remains were [or are] released I expect that his place is in the heaven for VBT). 

The Yaavetz

R’ Yaakov Emden (henceforth Yaavetz) presents several problems with the Zohar, which he says suggest that there were some later additions added to the main body of text. He doesn’t describe his questions the way RC does, as challenges to the authority of the Zohar, and at no point does he denigrate or diminish the centrality of the Zohar or of Kabbalalistic thought (a fact that annoys RC to no end). In fact, Yaavetz was a Kabbalist par excellence, and retained the highest reverence for the Zohar, a fact that he stresses in מטפחת ספרים. The inference that he draws from his questions have been disputed by later Kabbalists (among them the Chida), but this is beside the point. The point is that normative Judaism, its leaders, scholars and adherents, have unanimously accepted the Zohar as authentic.

Is it true, as the Chida contends, that the Yaavetz never truly believed in his limited attack of the Zohar, and that it was written as an anti-Shabbatean polemic? I have no idea, and it is dangerous to suggest that the works of a scholar do not represent his true beliefs. Nevertheless, it is worthy to note that the Yaavetz, when confronted with uncomfortable statements in the Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim, claimed that part of that book was written by later authors. Furthermore, in his battles against the Shabbateans he wrote the government a long, rather peculiar, and obviously insincere, defense of Jesus as a Good Orthodox Jew. 

However, the Yaavetz’s motives and true opinions are irrelevant, because he explicitly counts himself as one of the leaders, scholars and adherents of normative Judaism who have unanimously accepted the Zohar as authentic.

מסירת מודעה

I have found it impossible to respond point-by-point to everything that spouts from RC’s pen. I have therefore highlighted what I believe to be the cogent points of his thesis. I have not demolished them, but hopefully I have demonstrated that there is nothing there to demolish. If I had an infinite amount of time and patience, perhaps I would dissect every one of his sentences, but I’m mortal. However, I am afraid to stop, because the reader might suspect that there is an element of מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן, and I may be accused of allowing a mockery to be made of our history, our Rishonim, and our Mesorah. Therefore, I am hereby מוסר מודעה that verily I say unto you that not one jot or one tittle of his essay has any substance whatsoever.

1. In a follow-up email, Professor Chiloni made it clear that he does not mean that the entire Zohar was the work of רשב”י, but that whatever additions were made were authentic, as opposed to forgeries.