Re: Authenticity of the Zohar

As Shimshon and Nachum have pointed out, there is quite a lot of scholarly debate about this issue, and in the past, there was some rabbinic debate about it too. But these days the prevailing Jewish view is that the Zohar is the work of R Shimon bar Yochai.

The question that Nachum seems to be posing -- if I understand "Comments?" to mean "When do you think the Zohar was written?" -- is interesting in itself and merits some attention. Given that there is such a strong agreement within current religious thinking about the origins of the Zohar, does it really matter if one could verify or disprove the Zohar through independent means?

Whether or not it was written by R' Shimon bar Yochai, the Zohar has become an integral part of our tradition (at least the tradition of the past thousand years). This was not just because the Zohar claims to be written by Rashbi. Rather, it's because what it teaches us is deep and true and mostly fits with the rest of our tradition. Any set of proofs one way or the other regarding the Zohar cannot change the fact that it was object of study of great rabbis from the Ramchal to the Vilna Gaon to R' Nachman. That fact alone is enough for us to pay attention to what it says.

I think there is a temptation here to see this as a conflict between mesorah and scientific/historical study. "Scholars might think one thing, but we have a mesorah that tells us something else." This is my speculation, but I don't think there really is a mesorah one way or another. Certainly there is no room for any Kuzari-proof-type mesorah regarding the Zohar. The rabbinic controversy over the Zohar suggests that there is no clear mesorah.

In this case, when the question is whether to consider the Zohar as a religious text, the primary question is not a question of origins, where you might see research and mesorah pitted against each other, but rather a question of what the text actually teaches. The content of the Zohar is what really determines its authenticity, and in this case the Zohar passes with flying colors.

An interesting modern example where there is a clash between the mesorah regarding a text and its content is the case of the Perush al ha-Torah of R' Yehuda heHasid. For a great summary and historical background by Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman, see here. The case involved a manuscript of a commentary on the Torah by R' Yehuda heHasid which contained several passages (3 or 4) deemed heretical. The question came to R' Moshe Feinstein as to whether to print the manuscript. The manuscript was verified to be authentic by a reputable scholar and talmid chacham. Moreover, several rishonim quote the problematic passages, attribute them to R' Yehuda heHasid, and do not consider them to be heretical.

The manuscript would appear to be perfectly authentic: scholars can vouch for its origins, there is a mesorah that it is the work of R' Yehuda heHasid, even its problematic passages, and other rishonim did not have a problem with passages we find problematic. R' Moshe Feinstein however forbade publishing any part of the manuscript, declaring it to be a forgery (IM YD 3:114-115). Addressing one rishon, the Tziuni (a mekubal by the way), who quotes the manuscript, R' Moshe declares that that entire sefer should also not sold:

ולא ידוע לנו בברור מי הוא ר' מנחם ציוני וכנראה שהעתיק מה שנמצא באיזה ספר על שם ריה"ח בלא עיון, ואני הייתי אומר שאסור למכור ולקנות גם ספר ציוני מאחר שנמצא דבר כפירה זו וטוב לכתוב זה לגדולי א"י

For R' Moshe, faced with the issue of content, the question of origins is irrelevant: heresy is heresy no matter where it comes from. Historical proofs should play no role in validating a sefer. Obviously there is much I find troubling in this approach: the disregard for careful historical research, the wanton accusations of forgery or scribal error, all for the sake of ideological purity... Nevertheless, the important point that I find very valuable, especially for a blog concerned with Jewish ideas, is that we should evaluate ideas based on their content, not based on their lineage.