Zohar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rabbinical Eras
Zugot Tannaim Amoraim Savoraim Geonim Rishonim Acharonim

The Zohar (Hebrew זהר "Splendor, radiance") is widely considered the most important work of Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism. It is a mystical commentary on the Torah (the five books of Moses), written in medieval Aramaic and medieval Hebrew. It contains a mystical discussion of the nature of God, the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, sin, redemption, good and evil, and related topics.

The Zohar is not one book, but a group of books. These books include scriptural interpretations as well as material on theosophic theology, mythical cosmogony, mystical psychology, and what some would call anthropology.

1 Origin
2 Academic historical views
- 2.1 The Zohar's ditheistic theology
- 2.2 The Zohar's view of God as a trinity
3 Mysticism
4 Pardes and Biblical exegesis
5 Effects on Judaism
6 Influence on Christian mysticism
7 Appendices and additions
8 English translations
9 See also
10 Academic References
11 Articles and texts
12 Refrences

[edit] Origin

According to the 20th century religious historian, Gershom Scholem, most of the Zohar was written in an exalted, eccentric style of Aramaic, a language that was spoken in Israel during the Roman Period in the first centuries of the Common Era. The Zohar first appeared in Spain in the 13th century, and was published by a Jewish writer named Moses de Leon. Scholem, based on accounts from De Leon's contemporaries, and on evidence within the Zohar (Spanish idioms and syntax, for example), concluded De Leon is the actual author. However, more recent scholars, particularly Moshe Idel, have found aspects of Sholom's work problematic and claim that significant portions of the Zohar may in fact date back to Talmudic Times.

De Leon himself ascribed this work to a rabbi of the second century, Shimon bar Yochai.^[1] Jewish legend holds that during a time of Roman persecution, Rabbi Shimon hid in a cave for 13 years, studying the Torah with his son, Elazar^[2] ^[3]During this time he is said to have been inspired by God to write the Zohar.

The suspicion that the Zohar was found by one person, Moses de Leon, and that it refers to historical events of the post-Talmudical period, caused the authenticity of the work to be questioned from the outset.^[4] A story tells that after the death of Moses de Leon, a rich man of Avila named Joseph offered Moses' widow (who had been left without any means of supporting herself) a large sum of money for the original from which her husband had made the copy.^[5] She confessed that her husband himself was the author of the work. She had asked him several times, she said, why he had chosen to credit his own teachings to another, and he had always answered that doctrines put into the mouth of the miracle-working Shimon bar Yochai would be a rich source of profit.^[6] The story indicates that shortly after its appearance the work was believed by some to have been written by Moses de Leon.^[7]

Title page of first edition of the Zohar, Mantua, 1558. Library of Congress.

[edit] Acceptance of authenticity

Over time, the general view in the Jewish community came to be one of acceptance of Moses de Leon's claims; the Zohar was held to be an authentic book of mysticism passed down from the second century, though certain small groups (Baladi Yemenite, Andalusian [Western Sefardic] and some Italian communities) never accepted it as authentic. The Zohar spread among the Jews with remarkable swiftness.^[8] Scarcely fifty years had passed since its appearance in Spain before it was quoted by many Kabbalists, including the Italian mystical writer Menahem Recanati. ^[9] Its authority was so well established in Spain in the 15th century that Joseph ibn Shem-Tov drew from it arguments in his attacks against Maimonides.^[10] Even representatives of non-mysticism oriented Judaism began to regard it as a sacred book and to invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions.^[11] They were attracted by its glorification of man, its doctrine of immortality, and its ethical principles, which are more in keeping with the spirit of Talmudic Judaism than are those taught by the philosophers.^[12] While Maimonides and his followers regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect, the Zohar declared him to be the lord of the Creation, whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.^[13] According to the Zohar, the moral perfection of man influences the ideal world of the Sefirot; for although the Sefirot expect everything from the Ein Sof (Heb. אין סוף, infinity), the Ein Sof itself is dependent upon man: he alone can bring about the divine effusion.^[14] The dew that vivifies the universe flows from the just.^[15] By the practice of virtue and by moral perfection, man may increase the outpouring of heavenly grace.^[16] Even physical life is subservient to virtue.^[17] This, says the Zohar, is indicated in the words "for the Lord God had not caused it to rain" (Gen. 2:5), which means that there had not yet been beneficent action in heaven, because man had not yet been created to pray for it.^[18]

The Zohar was quoted by Todros Abulafia, by Menahem Recanati, and even by Isaac of Acco, in whose name the story of the confession of Moses de Leon's widow is related. ^[19]

Isaac evidently ignored the woman's alleged confession in favor of the testimony of Joseph ben Todros and of Jacob, a pupil of Moses de Leon, both of whom assured him on oath that the work was not written by Moses.^[20]

The only objection worthy of consideration by the believers in the authenticity of the Zohar was the lack of references to the work in Jewish literature; and to this they answered that Shimon ben Yochai did not commit his teachings to writing, but transmitted them orally to his disciples, who in turn confided them to their disciples, and these to their successors, until finally the doctrines were embodied in the Zohar.^[21] As to the references in the book to historical events of the post-Talmudic period, it was not deemed surprising that Shimon ben Yochai should have foretold future happenings. ^[22]

[edit] In Jewish thought today

Much, perhaps most, of Orthodox Judaism holds that the teachings of the Zohar were transmitted from teacher to teacher, in a long and continuous chain, from the Biblical era until its redaction by Shimon ben Yochai. Many (most?) accept fully the claims that the Zohar's teachings are in essence a revelation from God to the Biblical patriarch Abraham, Moses and other ancient figures, but were never printed and made publicly available until the time of the Zohar's medieval publication. The greatest acceptance of this sequence of events is held within Haredi Judaism.

Some in Modern Orthodox Judaism reject the above view as naive. Some Orthodox Jews accept the earlier rabbinic position that the Zohar was a work written in the middle medieval period by Moses de Leon, but argue that since it is obviously based on earlier materials, it can still be held to be authentic, but not as authoritative or without error as others within Orthodoxy might hold.

Jews in non-Orthodox Jewish denominations accept the conclusions of historical academic studies on the Zohar and other kabbalistic texts. As such, most non-Orthodox Jews have long viewed the Zohar as pseudepigraphy and apocrypha. Nonetheless, many accepted that some of its contents had meaning for modern Judaism. Siddurim edited by non-Orthodox Jews often have excerpts from the Zohar and other kabbalistic works, e.g. Siddur Sim Shalom edited by Jules Harlow, even though the editors are not kabbalists.

In recent years there has been a growing willingness of non-Orthodox Jews to study the Zohar, and a growing minority have a position that is similar to the Modern Orthodox position described above. This seems pronounced among Jews who follow the path of Jewish Renewal.

[edit] Rejection of authenticity

The first attack upon the accepted authorship of the Zohar was made by Elijah Delmedigo.^[23] Without expressing any opinion as to the real author of the work, he endeavored to show, in his Bechinat ha-Dat that it could not be attributed to Shimon bar Yochai.^[24] The objections were that:

If the Zohar was the work of Shimon bar Yochai, it would have been mentioned by the Talmud, as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period;^[25]
The Zohar contains names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of Simeon;^[26]
Were Shimon ben Yochai the father of the Kabbalah, knowing by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on Jewish law would have been adopted by the Talmud; but this has not been done;^[27]
Were the Kabbalah a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts (Bechinat ha-Dat ed. Vienna, 1833, p. 43).^[28]

These arguments and others of the same kind were used by Leon of Modena in his Ari Nohem.^[29] A work devoted to the criticism of the Zohar was written, Miṭpaḥat Sefarim, by Jacob Emden, who, waging war against the remaining adherents of the Sabbatai Zevi movement, endeavored to show that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery.^[30] Emden demonstrates that the Zohar misquotes passages of Scripture; misunderstands the Talmud; contains some ritual observances which were ordained by later rabbinical authorities; mentions the crusades against the Muslims (who did not exist in the second century); uses the expression esnoga, which is a Portuguese corruption of "synagogue,"; and gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew vowel-points, which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period.^[31]

There is a small group among the Orthodox who refuse to accept the Zohar, known as Dor Daim (דרדעים). They are mainly from the Jewish community in Yemen, and claim that the Zohar cannot be true because its ideas clash with the ideas of the Rambam (Maimonides), the great medieval rabbi and rationalist, Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, and other early representatives of the Jewish faith.

In the mid-20th century, the Jewish historian Gershom Scholem contended that de Leon himself was the most likely author of the Zohar. Among other things, Scholem noticed the Zohar's frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces of Spanish words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of the land of Israel. This finding is still disputed by many within Orthodox Judaism, although not because of any scholarly proofs, but rather because of tradition.

Yeshayahu Leibowitz, noted professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, claimed that "It is clear that the Zohar was written by de Leon as it is clear that Theodore Herzl wrote Medinat HaYehudim ("A State for the Jews")."

Other Jewish scholars have also suggested the possibility that the Zohar was written by a group of people, including de Leon. This theory generally presents de Leon as having been the leader of a mystical school, whose collective effort resulted in the Zohar.

Another theory as to the authorship of the Zohar is that it was transmitted like the Talmud before it was transcribed: as an oral tradition reapplied to changing conditions and eventually recorded. This view simultaneously believes that the Zohar was not written by Shimon bar Yochai, but was a holy work because it consisted of his principles.

Even if de Leon wrote the text, the entire contents of the book may not be fraudulent. Parts of it may be based on older works, and it was a common practice to ascribe the authorship of a document to an ancient rabbi in order to give the document more weight. It is possible that Moses de Leon considered himself inspired to write this text.

Another tradition holds that Rabbi Shimon wrote that the concealment of the Zohar would last for exactly 1200 years from the time of destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE and before revealing the Zohar in 1270, Moses De Leon uncovered the manuscripts in a cave in Israel.

[edit] Academic historical views

In "Zohar", the Encyclopaedia Judaica article written by the late Professor Gershom Scholem (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) there is an extensive discussion of the sources that the author of the Zohar drew upon. Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of the Kabbalah, but like all textual historical investigations, are not uncriticially accepted; many of the following conclusions are still accepted as accurate, but some current academic scholars of Kabbalah have differing ideas.

Scholem views the author of the Zohar as not writing a totally original work, but rather based the Zohar on a wide variety of Jewish sources that existed before him. The author, however, invents a number of fictious works that the Zohar supposedly quotes, e.g., the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others.

While many original ideas in the Zohar are presented as being from (fictitious) Jewish mystical works, many ancient and clearly rabbinic mystical teachings are presented without their real, identifiable sources being named. Academic studies of the Zohar show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works of midrash, and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:

The writer had expert knowledge of the early material and he often used it as a foundation for his expositions, putting into it variations of his own. His main sources were the Babylonian Talmud, the complete Midrash Rabbah, the Midrash Tanhuma, and the two Pesiktot (Pesikta De-Rav Kahana or Pesikta Rabbati), the Midrash on Psalms, the Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and the Targum Onkelos. Generally speaking they are not quoted exactly, but translated into the peculiar style of the Zohar and summarized....

... Less use is made of the halakhic Midrashim, the Jerusalem Talmud, and the other Targums, nor of the Midrashim like the Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim, the Midrash on Proverbs, and the Alfabet de-R. Akiva. It is not clear whether the author used the Yalkut Shimoni, or whether he knew the sources of its aggadah separately. Of the smaller Midrashim he used the Heikhalot Rabbati, the Alfabet de-Ben Sira, the Sefer Zerubabel, the Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit, [and many others]...

The author of the Zohar drew upon the Bible commentaries written by medieval Jewish rabbis, including Rashi, Abraham ibn Ezra, David Kimhi and even authorities as late as Nahmanides and Maimonides. Scholem gives a variety of examples of such borrowings. The Zohar draws upon early mystical texts such as the Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir, and the early medieval writings of the Hasidei Ashkenaz.

Scholem's studies concluded that the author of the Zohar "develops tendencies which appeared first in the writings of the circle of the Gnostics in Castile in the middle of the 13th century ." While this view is still widely accepted as plausible, it is currently being argued that perhaps Scholem has this conclusion backwards. Moshe Idel holds that the Gnostic views found within the Zohar developed indigenously within Judaism, and from there extended outwards towards adherents of Gnostic theology.

[edit] The Zohar's ditheistic theology

In Eros and Kabbalah, Moshe Idel (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, Hebrew University in Jerusalem) argues that the fundamental distinction between the rational-philosophic strain of Judaism and theosophic-mystical Judaism, as exemplified by the Zohar, is the mystical belief that the Godhead is complex, rather than simple, and that divinity is dynamic and incorporates gender, having both male and female dimensions. These polarities must be conjoined (have yihud, "union") to maintain the harmony of the cosmos. Idel characterizes this metaphysical point of view as "ditheism," holding that there are two aspects to God, and the process of union as "theoeroticism." This ditheism, the dynamics it entails, and its reverberations within creation is arguably the central interest of the Zohar,making up a huge proportion of its discourse (pp. 5-56).

[edit] The Zohar's view of God as a trinity

In Studies in the Zohar, Yehuda Liebes (Professor of Jewish Mysticism, Department of Jewish Thought, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) discusses the rarely mentioned Zoharic teachings which are influenced by the Christian concept of God as a Trinity. Liebes states that the Zohar's secret teaching of God as a trinity might be based on a passage from a midrash, Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, and thus opines that such a belief in the Trinity is within the realm of traditional Judaism.

It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism. (Studies in the Zohar, pg. 140)

The Zohar's idea of a trinity may derive from the earlier teachings of Hai Gaon; a responsa attributed to Hai Gaon states that:

above all emanated powers, there exist in "the root of all roots" three hidden lights which have no beginning, "for they are the name and essence of the root of all roots and are beyond the grasp of thought." As the "primeval inner light" spreads throughout the hidden root two other lights are kindled, called or mezuhzah and or zah ("sparkling light"). It is stressed that these three lights constitute one essence and one root which is "infinitely hidden" (ne'lam ad le-ein sof), forming a kind of kabbalistic trinity that precedes the emanation of the ten Sefirot. However, it is not sufficiently clear whether the reference is to three lights between the Emanator and the first emanation, or to three lights irradiating one another within the substance of the Emanator itself—both possibilities can be supported.

(Scholem, Kabbalah, Encyclopaedia Judaica)

Scholem states that the need to posit this hidden trinity is because rabbis wanted to reconcile the existence of ten sefirot ("emanation") with a rabbinic teaching that there are thirteen attributes of God. He concludes the matter by cautioning "It is hardly surprising that Christians later found an allusion to their own doctrine of the trinity in this theory, although it contains none of the personal hypostases characteristic of the Christian trinity." (ibid.)

Alan Unterman, Minister of the Yeshurun Synagogue and part-time Lecturer in Comparative Religion at the University of Manchester (UK), writes:

Liebes is also quite convincing in showing Christian parallels to the language and images of the Zohar. He argues that some of the more original Christological elements of the Zohar were censored by Jewish copyists and are preserved by Christian kabbalists. He even finds something of Jesus in the literary persona of Shimon ben Yochai in the Zohar.

The question he leaves unanswered, however, is why members of the Zohar group, who were antagonistic to Christianity, should have been so ambivalent towards Jesus and have used overtly Christian ideas in formulating their system. He merely remarks about "the spiritual affinity," between Judaism and Christianity, which was indeed "among the causes for the animosity between them."

(MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism; Reinterpreting Mysticism and Messianism)

David R. Blumenthal, Professor of Judaic Studies, Emory University, Georgia, USA, holds that the Zoharic version of trinitarianism is misunderstood, and is not the same as Christian trinitarianism.

The historical interlude of the Christian reception of the Zohar in counterreformation Italy aside, it seems to me that a more profound theological question has arisen: If God can, indeed, have personalist dimensions as part of God's own inner being, why should there be only three such dimensions? If God can, indeed, encompass different levels of being, all of which are equal within God's inner-ness, why should there not be as many such levels as necessary? To put it clearly: If God's being is plural, why only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Why not Ineffability, Knowability (Father), Intuition (Mother), Grace (male), Judgment (female), Compassion (Husband), Eternity, Awe, Fecundity (male), and Providence (Bride, Mother) -- all of which are equally integral to the divine whole? To put it in declarative form: The zoharic dialogue with the trinity leads to the statement: Three is not enough! God, in God's fullness, is more than three. God, in Whose Image humanity is created, has more than three dimensions. The awesome complexity of the human personality -- in which Image humanity is created -- suggests that there are many more than three basic dimensions to God's personhood. Indeed, if we, humans, are more than trinitarian, certainly God is more than three.

Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking

[edit] Mysticism

“	Woe unto the man, says Shimon ben Yochai, who asserts that this Torah intends to relate only commonplace things and secular narratives; for if this were so, then in the present times likewise a Torah might be written with more attractive narratives. In truth, however, the matter is thus: The upper world and the lower are established upon one and the same principle; in the lower world is Israel, in the upper world are the angels. When the angels wish to descend to the lower world, they have to don earthly garments. If this be true of the angels, how much more so of the Torah, for whose sake, indeed, the world and the angels were alike created and exist. The world could simply not have endured to look upon it. Now the narratives of the Torah are its garments. He who thinks that these garments are the Torah itself deserves to perish and have no share in the world to come. Woe unto the fools who look no further when they see an elegant robe! More valuable than the garment is the body which carries it, and more valuable even than that is the soul which animates the body. Fools see only the garment of the Torah, the more intelligent see the body, the wise see the soul, its proper being; and in the Messianic time the 'upper soul' of the Torah will stand revealed.	”
—Zohar

^[32]

[edit] Pardes and Biblical exegesis

The Zohar assumes four kinds of Biblical exegesis: Peshat ("simple/literal meaning"), Remez ("hint/allusion"), Derash ("interpretative/anagogical), and Sod ("secret/mystic").^[33] The initial letters of the words (P, R, D, S) form together the word PaRDeS ("paradise/orchard"), which became the designation for the fourfold meaning of which the mystical sense is the highest part.^[34]

The mystic allegory in the Zohar is based on the principle that all visible things, including natural phenomena, have both an exoteric reality and an esoteric reality, the latter of which instructs Man in that which is invisible.^[35] This principle is the necessary corollary of the fundamental doctrine of the Zohar.^[36] According to that doctrine, as the universe is a gradation of emanations, it follows that the human mind may recognize in each effect the supreme mark, and thus ascend to the cause of all causes. ^[37]

This ascension, however, can only be made gradually, after the mind has attained four various stages of knowledge; namely: (1) the knowledge of the exterior aspect of things, or, as the Zohar calls it (ii. 36b), "the vision through the mirror that projects an indirect light"; (2) the knowledge of the essence of things, or "the vision through the mirror that projects a direct light"; (3) the knowledge through intuitive representation; and (4) the knowledge through love, since the Law reveals its secrets only to those who love it (ii. 99b).^[38]

After the knowledge through love comes the ecstatic state which is applied to the most holy visions.^[39] To enter the state of ecstasy one had to remain motionless, with the head between the knees, absorbed in contemplation and murmuring prayers and hymns.^[40] There were seven ecstatic stages, each of which was marked by a vision of a different color.^[41] At each new stage the contemplative entered a heavenly hall (hekal) of a different hue, until he reached the seventh, which was colorless, and the appearance of which marked both the end of his contemplation and his lapse into unconsciousness.^[42] The Zohar gives the following illustration of an ecstatic state:

One of the most central parts of the Zohar is its interpretation of Biblical text. The Biblical exegesis of the Zohar has been described in the past as a "Mystical interpretation of Biblical verses," however this does not accurately describe the Zohar's relationship to the biblical text. As is often the case in mystical traditions, the author or authors of the Zohar are not satisfied examining anything from a superficial level. This is especially true regarding the Biblical text, where four different levels of increasingly secretive reading are presented. Collectively known as PaRDeS, they include Pshat (most simple) Remez , Drash and Sod (most secretive). Interestingly, unlike many philosophical books of its time, the Zohar works closely with the Biblical text. Its authors closely analyze verses from the Bible, trying to make sense of them without imposing any ideology on to them from the outside. Often, the most enigmatic verses can be understood only after the nuances in the biblical text have been sufficiently understood. Unlike many medieval commentators, the Zohar does not apply any sort of order to systematic thought when trying to understand the Bible. In his book Mishnat Hazohar, Isaiah Tishby describes the style of the Zohar as a "homiletical exegesis." Similarly the style is associative and many verses are explained multiple ways through a constructed dialogue. However Tishby also notes that this lack of structure also has its downsides. The reader who is unfamiliar with the internal logic of the Zohar will find it very difficult to decipher its message.

Perhaps most unique aspect of the Zohar's exegesis is its relationship to the Bible itself. Unlike most commentators who develop a subject-object relationship with the text, the Zohar describes a different sort of relationship, comparing the Torah to a lover. This sort of subject-subject relationship allows to the reader of the Torah (the author of the Zohar) to engage in a sort of playful dialogue with the text.

[edit] Effects on Judaism

On the one hand, the Zohar was lauded by many rabbis because it opposed religious formalism, stimulated one's imagination and emotions, and for many people helped reinvigorate the experience of prayer.^[43] In many places prayer had become a mere external religious exercise, while prayer was supposed to be a means of transcending earthly affairs and placing oneself in union with God.^[44]

On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many superstitious beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose overexcited imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences.^[45] Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of Judaic principles of faith.

Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to substitute mystic Judaism in the place of traditional rabbinic Judaism.^[46] For example, Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath, began to be looked upon as the embodiment of God in temporal life, and every ceremony performed on that day was considered to have an influence upon the superior world.^[47]

Elements of the Zohar crept into the liturgy of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the religious poets not only used the allegorism and symbolism of the Zohar in their compositions, but even adopted its style, e.g. the use of erotic terminology to illustrate the relations between man and God.^[48] Thus, in the language of some Jewish poets, the beloved one's curls indicate the mysteries of the Deity; sensuous pleasures, and especially intoxication, typify the highest degree of divine love as ecstatic contemplation; while the wine-room represents merely the state through which the human qualities merge or are exalted into those of God.^[49]

Originally, many held that only Jewish men who were at least 40 years old could study Kabbalah, and by extension read the Zohar, because they were believed to be too powerful for those less emotionally mature and experienced.

[edit] Influence on Christian mysticism

The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johann Reuchlin, Aegidius of Viterbo, etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of Christianity.^[50] They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the Zohar and certain Christian dogmas, such as the fall and redemption of man, and the dogma of the Trinity, which seems to be expressed in the Zohar in the following terms: "The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one.^[51] He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. ^[52][These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One.^[53] None knows what He contains; He is above all conception.^[54] He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [Ayin]"^[55] (Zohar, iii. 288b).

This and other similar doctrines found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity; but the Christian scholars who were led by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar.^[56] Shortly after the publication of the work (Mantua and Cremona, 1558) Joseph de Voisin translated extracts from it which deal with the soul.^[57] He was followed by many others. ^[58] The disastrous effects of the Sabbatai Zevi messianic movement on the Jewish community dampened the enthusiasm that had been felt for the book in the Jewish community.^[59] However, the Zohar is still held in great reverence by many Orthodox Jews, especially the Hasidim (Hasidic Jews).^[60]

[edit] Appendices and additions

The Zohar is not considered complete without the addition of certain appendixes, which are often attributed either to the same author, or to some of his immediate disciples. These supplementary portions are almost always printed as part of the text with separate titles, or in separate columns. They are as follows: ^[61]

Sifra di-Tsni`uta, consisting of five chapters, in which are chiefly discussed the questions involved in the Creation, such as the transition from the infinite to the finite, that from absolute unity to multifariousness, that from pure intelligence to matter, etc;^[62]
Idra Rabbah, in which the teachings of the preceding portion are enlarged upon and developed;^[63] and Idra Zuta, giving a résumé of the two preceding sections.^[64]

To the larger appendixes are added the following fragments:

Raza de Razin, ("Secret of Secrets") dealing with the connection of the soul with the body;^[65]
Sefer Hekalot, describing the seven heavenly halls, paradise, and hell;^[66]
Raya Mehemna, giving a conversation between Moses, the prophet Elijah, and Shimon ben Yochai on the allegorical import of the Mosaic commandments and prohibitions, as well as of the rabbinical injunctions.^[67]
Sitre Torah, on various topics;^[68]
Midrash ha-Ne'elam, explaining passages of Scripture mystically by way of hints and gematria (mystical numerology);^[69]
Saba, containing a conversation between the prophet Elijah and Shimon ben Yochai about the doctrine of metempsychosis;^[70]
Yanuḳa, on the importance of washing the hands before meals and on similar subjects, written in the name of a child of Hamnuna Saba, whence the title Yanuḳa ("child");^[71]
Tosefta and Matnitin, in which are sketched the doctrines of the Sefirot, the emanation of the primordial light, etc.

^[72]

[edit] English translations

Matt, Daniel C., trans. Zohar: Pritzker Edition (3 vols. to date). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004-2006. (The first three volumes of a projected 12-volume, comprehensively-annotated English translation)

____. Zohar: Annotated and Explained. Woodstock, Vt.: SkyLights Paths Publishing Co., 2002. (Selections)

____. Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. (Selections)

Scholem, Gershom, ed. Zohar: The Book of Splendor. New York: Schocken Books, 1963. (Selections)

Sperling, Harry and Maurice Simon, eds. The Zohar (5 vols.). London: Soncino Press, 1931-34. (The only complete English translation)

Tishby, Isaiah, ed. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts (3 vols.). Translated from the Hebrew by David Goldstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

[edit] See also

[edit] Academic References

Blumenthal, David R. Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking, in Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich, ed. T. Vial and M. Hadley (Providence, RI, Brown Judaic Studies: 2001) 181-95

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Trinity.html