The}oJlrnalol},wish Thought and Philosophy, Vol. 7, pp.

257-307 Reprints available directly from the publisher

Photocopying permitted by licence only

© 1998 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) Amsterdam B. V. Published under license under the Harwood Academic Publishers imprint, pad of The Gordon and Breach Publishing Group.

Printed in India.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred

V: and Holy Text: Changing Perspectives of the Book of Splendor between the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Centuries*

Boaz Huss

Ben Gurion University of the Negev

I

In every literate culture there are books that are perceived as more significant than others in their quality, authority or sanctity. Such privileged books are commonly described by the terms "canonical", "sacred", "classical", and so forth. This study offers a new typology of such books, which is based on a distinction between three major modes of reception of texts. I will suggest using the term "canonical text" to refer to texts that are regarded by a community as a source of authority, "sacred text" to refer to texts whose content is perceived as sacred, and "holy book" to refer to books whose non-semantic (i.e., phonetic, graphic and material) aspects are treated as such. In light of this distinction, I will examine the emergence of changing perspectives of Sefer ba-Zobar (The Book of Splendor) the central work of Kabbalah that became one of the most authoritative and

* The research for this study was conducted at Yale University and the Hebrew University, and was made possible through grants from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture, and a Fulbright and Golda Meir postdoctoral awards. Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at Yale University, Tel Aviv University and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America in N ew York. I would like to thank Dr. Daniel Abrams, Prof. Ya'akov Blidstein, Dr. Marc Bregman, Prof. Gad Freudental, Prof. Paul Griffiths, Ms. Ephrat Huss, Prof. Moshe Idel, Prof. Laurie Patton, Prof. Elliot Wolfson and Prof. Hava Tirosh-Rothschild who read an earlier draft of the paper and offered helpful observations and comments.

?C,7

258 Boaz

revered texts i~ th: history of Judaism. The study of the reception o~ ~he .Zohar 10 lighr of these terms is intended to clarify the distinction between the three types of privileged texts and to contribute to understanding the history of the reception of the Zohar.

***

In contemporary use, the terms "canon" and "canonical" text (whiih are derived ~ro~ the Greek word denoting a measuring rod) are prevalent 10 ltterary, cultural and religious studies. The mode.rn use of the term "canon" to denote privileged literary works <cnsciously adopts a term replete with religious connotations.2 In religious studies the term denotes authoritative texts while in literary and cultural studies it refers to texts that are a standard of

. literary excellence.:' In this study, I will use the term "canonical" to refer to an authoritative corpus of texts. I would like to emphasize that although such a definition is used to describe privileged religious books, it does not designate any "religious" element, such as the sanctity ascribed to a text or its use in ritual. 4

, " 1 On the history of the term canon see M. Metzger, The Canon of the New 1 estament (Oxford, 1987), pp. 289-293. J. Gorak, The Making of the Modern Canon (London, 1991), pp. 9-45 .

. 2 See J. Guillory, Cultural Capital, The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (ChlCago & London, 1993), pp. 6, 76; H. Bloom, The Western Canon (New York San Diego & London 1994), pp. 19-20.. '

3 Guy Stroumsa ("The Body of Truth and its Measures: New Testament CanOlllzatlon rn Context";, to appear in the Festschrift for Kurt Rudolf) suggests to distinguish between cultural canomzanon" and "religious canonization". Accor~1l1g t~, Strournsa, the reference to these two distinct phenomena by the term canon can be traced to the Alexandrians scholars' use of term, in the third-cenmry before the common era, to denote their collection of classical works, and to the use of the term by the Church fathers to denote the books of the New Testament. I am grateful to Prof. Stroumsa who made a copy of his paper available to me.

. 4 Sid Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Mtdrashzc Evzdence (New Haven, 1991), p. 127, differentiates between the notions of canon1Clty and of divine inspiration. See also W.W. Hallo, "Assyriology and the Canon", The American Scholar 59 (1990), pp. 105-108. Idem "The Concept ~f Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical _Literature: A Comp~rative AppraIsal , The Biblical Canon zn Comparattve Perspectzve ( = Scriptur'e in Context 4), eds: K.L Younger Jr., W.W. Hallo et al. (Lewiston, 1991), p. 6. The notion of ~IVl11e inspiration is absent from Jonathan Z. Smith's discussion of Canon,

Sacred PerSIstence: Towards a Redescription of Canon", Approaches to Ancient Judatsm I, ed. W.S. Green (Missoula, 1978), pp. 19-27.

ba-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 259

In order to refer to these aspects of a privileged text, I will use the terms "sacred text" and "holy book".

Some scholars emphasize the authority of canonical texts, 5 while others also emphasize the closure of such a corpus of writings.6 I believe that these two notions are closely related. The closure of a canonical corpus is a consequence of its role as a source of authority. As the notion of the authority of a text emerges, it is necessary to define the scope of the text, especially because most canonical texts were not created as defined literary units, but gained their literal form through a process of redaction.7 The notion of authority and closure are embedded in the primary meaning of "canon" as a measuring rod. In order for an object to function as a standard it must be both defined and immutable.

The authority of a text is expressed in a variety of ways in different cultures and historical periods. The authority of a text is always dependent upon its relation to other sources of authority (textual and human) in the community. The different functions of canonical texts depend also upon the domains in which their authority is exercised. Sid Leiman has emphasized the authority of

5 See Leiman's definition: "A canonical book was a book considered authoritative for religious practice and doctrine" (The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture, p. 127). H. Bloom, Poetry and Repression (New Haven & London, 1976), p. 29 observes that: "we also use it (i.e, the word canon) for authoritative lists of works, sacred or secular".

6 A.C. Sundberg'S, "Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon", Studia Evangelica 4 (1968), p. 454, makes a distinction between "Scripture" and "Canon": '" Scripture' is religious literature. that IS, appeale~ to for religious authority. Whereas 'Canon' is a closed collection of sc~~pture to which nothing is to be added, from which nothing IS to be subtracted . See also G.L Bruns, Hermeneutics Ancient and Modem (New Haven & London, 1992), p. 65. Smith, "Sacred Persistence", p. 23, observes that: "the only formal element that is lacking to transform a catalogue into a canon IS the e~ementof closure: that the list is held to be complete". Hallo, "The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature", p. 6, defines the criteria of canonicity as: "an authoritative text, a reasonably fixed number and sequence of individual compositions, and the grouping of these compositions into recogmzable books or subdivisions".

7 On the connection between the authority of the Mishnah and its literary stabilization see G.]. Blidsrein, "The Concept of Oral Torah in R. Scherira's Epistle" Daat 4 (1980), pp. 8-9.

260 Boaz Huss

a canonical book for religious practice and docrrine.f A text can also be ~efer~ed ~o as an authority in moral and legal questions as well as rn historical, political, or scientific issues. Canonical texts are regarded as containing true, authoritative information about the h~storical events described in them, as well as on future, sometimes eschatological events.

The receptio~ and .use of a text as canonical implies the development ~f exeges1s on rt. This is derived from the need to apply the authority of the text to diverse and changing circumstances. 9 Jonathan Z. Smith defines this phenomenon as follows: "Where there is a canon we can predict the necessary occurrence of a hermeneu.te, of an interpreter whose task it is to continually extend the domain of the closed canon over everything that is known or everythin~ that .is.,,10 The hermeneutics of the text is expressed not only rn wrrtten commentaries, but also in oral exegesis in sern:ons an~ in the teaching and study of the canonical texts.

Finally, I would like to note the endurance of canonical texts and their role in. the s~lf-definition of a community. Usually the word canon and 1tS derivatives are used in reference to books that w~re regar~ed as .authoritative by a community for several generanons, ~unng this period, the affiliation with the text functioned as a. mam. co~ponent in the self definition of the community. W~tle a rejection of a canonical text serves to dissociate a comm~nIty from other (past and present) groups who are affiliated with it, the adhere.nce t.o the. tex~ serves to enhance the community's sense of connnuanon with rts past. Paul Ricoeur observed that

8 See Leiman's definition of a canonical book note 5 above

. 9 ].A. Sanders, Canon as Paradigm: From Sacred Story to' Sacred Text (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 65~66, says: "It is the nature of canon to be both stable and adaptable. It is stable in the sense that once its contents determined, nothing was to be added to It or subtracted from it ... But it is also the nature of canon to be adaptable, that is, it is believed to speak to the communities generation after generation".

1~ Smith, "Sacred Persistence", p. 23. See also D. Stern "Sacred text and Canon, Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought, eds. A. Cohen &: P. Mendes-Flohr (New York, 1987) p. 841: "One can assume that from an early period the notion of a canonical text carried with It the idea that such a text required interpretatron, both for. Its mrrrnsic importance and because it had to be constantly reinterpreted in order to maintain its relevance".

Sefer ha-Zohar as a ~al) Sacred and Holy Text

261

"for the community to address itself to another text would be to make a decision concerning its social identity. A community which does that becomes another kind of community".l1 Even in cases of ideological change, a community prefers to provide a new interpretation for the canonical text (or sometimes to supplement it with an additional text) rather than discard it.

The endurance of a text as canonical, i.e. the persistence of its

perception as a source of authority in cha~ging .historical perio~s, should be distinguished from the process 111 whiCh a text loses Its canonical status but reserves its privileged status in the community. In such cases, a text that previously functioned as a source of authority comes to be regarded as a sacred text, or a holy bo~k. A different process happens when a (usually secular) commUnIty comes to regard its past canonical texts as literary classics, or historical documents, instead of as binding religious texts.

I would like to explicate my use of the terms "sacred text" and "holy book". A considerable amount of scholarly attention has been given to the notions of holy or sacred texts, as well as to that of "scripture" . Yet I have not been able to find agreement as to the definition of these terms.12 I would like to suggest that notions such as "scripture", "holy texts" or "sacred books" designate two distinct types of privileged texts, which I term "sacred

text" and "holy book". .

I will use the term "sacred text" to designate a text that IS

regarded as containing sacred information. While a canonical text is a text that is perceived of as more authoritative than other texts, a sacred text is a book whose content is perceived to be more sacred than that of other texts. I would like to emphasize that it

_--

11 P. Ricoeur, "The 'Sacred' Text And the Community", The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, ed. W.D. O'Flaherty (Berkeley, 1979), p. 274. See also Sanders, Canon as pat'adigm, pp. 4, 156; W.D. Mignolo, "Canons A(nd) Cross-Cultural Boundaries (Or, Whose Canon Are We Talking About?)", Poetics Today 12,

1991, p. 1; Stern, "Sacred Text and Canon", p. 844. . .

12 See Denny and Taylor'S introduction to The Holy Book In Comparative

Perspective, eds. F.M. Denny. & R.L. Taylor (Colombia, 1985), pp. 2:-9; W.A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word (Cambndge, 1987), yp. 1--6, Miriam Levering's introduction to Rethinking Scripture, Es.rays from a ComjJaratt1Je Perspec-

tive, ed. M. Levering (Albany, 1989), pp. 5~11.

262 Boaz

is the content of the text, the information it b .

stood as sacred S h b k . ears, that IS under-

. uc 00 s are perce d b I

rh di . rve to e c osely related to

e IVIne or transcendent realm usually as de' d i

h f: 'fIve 10 one way or

ano~, er ~om a supernatural source. Although the ter " . d

text designan-, d If m sacre

". a nrerent mode of reception than that of a

canonicn] text", the notion tha . d

origin sometimes a di . h t a sacr~ text has a supernatural

.' rvme aut or, conttlbutes to i hori

ItS perception as a closed literary unit.13 0 ItS aut Otlty and

A sacred text is believed to be a texutal condui

the community and the divine world 14 and on ulth beltween

. I' ,as sue pays a

major .ro e In the religious life of the communit Th

exegesi, of sacred texts has a ritualistic ch;~cte: s::1y;nd be~ome part of the community'S established rites Thi ay ~ative activity brings humans close to· the Di .: IS Interpre- 1nteraction between them.15 Th . vme and enables be describ db. e exegesis of sacred texts can

e y terms mystICal 0 . h

~~rms ~hat wefre us~d by Moshe Idel :;~n~~t::t~ ol;::e~:~~~:;

ISCUSSIon 0 vanous Jewish es eciall . .

meneutics 16 and b G ld '. p. . y KabbaltstlC, her-

H ., y era Bruns 111 his dIscussion of the Qu '

ermeneutlCs of al-Ghzali 17 S h . . ran believed to . h '. uc InterpretatIve activity is

. '. 1mprove uman beings, redeem them or endow th

OWrltthhrehg~oulS (sometimes mystical) experience, a~ well as magi~~ eurgica power.

13 I am indebted to P f Y , k l' .

14 W C S . h bro. a a ov B idstein for this observation

. . mit 0 served that: "To stud h B'b1 .

understand it as a channel who h . h b Y tel e must be to strive to

d ' lC It as 0 servably b b

an transcendence". W.e. Smith "Th S d . een, etween humankind

Bible~'5 Rethinking Scripture, p. 28: e tu y of ReligIOn and the Study of the

Such a notion of exegesis brings the t "h . "

etymologICal origin viz the n f' h erm. ermeneutlCs closer to its

16 .'" arne 0 t e messenger of the d H

Idel discussed the notion th 1 go S, errnes.

prerequisite for a deeper understand' at ~ t~red states of conSCIOusness were a Perspectives (New Haven, 1988), p Il1f3~_~: text, see:"M. Idel, Kabbalah, New nons on Kabbalistic Hermeneutic~: 9, Idem, PaRDeS: Some Refleceds.].]. Collins & M. Fishbane (Alba~eatt Ecstasy and Other Worldly journeys, Il1 hIS penetrating observations on ;;' st;9i\ pp. 254-255. EllIOt Wolfson, revelatory function of exegesis in Jewrsh c~ ermeneutlcs,. emphasized the rneneuncs of visionary experience i h Z ttlClsm, focusll1g on the herSpeculum that Shines (Princeton 1994) n t e3260 tar. E.R. Wolfson, Through A

17 B H .' , pp. -392; see also tbtd p 121 124

runs, ermeneutzcs Ancient and M do ,p. - .

o ern,pp. 132-136.

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 263

Whereas by the term "sacred text" I designate texts whose content is regarded as sacred, I will use the term "holy book" to refer to books whose non-semantic aspects are believed to be sacred. A holy book is not regarded only as a text - i.e. a written form of discourse - but also as a religious object. The sanctity of a holy book lies not only in its content but also in such features as the sound of its words, the form of its letters, as well as in the physical volume itself. The contact with these non-semantic aspects of the book carries religious significance and power. Holy books play a role in rituals and are often located in a sacred place (temple, synagogue, or church). In distinction from sacred texts, it is the non-discursive aspects of holy books, and not their content, .which are employed in the community'S rites.

The notion of the sanctity of the non-discursive features. of a book may be dependent upon its reception as a "sacred text". The idea of the supernatural origin of a text can invoke the notion that not only the content of the text but also its non-semantic features are endowed with sanctity. Yet not every sacred text is necessarily regarded and used as a holy book. Furthermore, a book can be regarded as holy without its semantic features being previously regarded as sacred. The emergence of the perception of a text as a holy book is dependent on specific socio-religious factors.18

As I have mentioned above, the authoritative status of a text, as well as the perception of it as a sacred text of supernatural origin, contribute to its being viewed as a closed literary unit. The notion that not only the meaning of the book, but also its concrete form is endowed with sanctity, places great significance on the exact spelling and pronunciation of its words and enhances its textual stabilization. 19

I have previously noted the importance of the hermeneutics of canonical and sacred texts, which depends upon their function as

18 I am grateful to Prof. Gad Freudenral, Prof. Paul. Griffiths and Prof.

Hava Tirosh-Rothschild for turning my attention to the relation between the perception of a text as sacred and its use as a holy book.

19 On the influence of kabbalistic notions of the sanctity of the Torah on the 1525 edition of the Biblia Rabbinica see ].S. Penkover, "Jacob Ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Biblia Rabbinica", Phd. Thesis (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 8-14 (in Hebrew).

264 Boaz

carriers of authoritative or sacred information. A holy book, on the ot~e~ hand, does not necessarily call for interpretation _ the rehgI~uS power of the text can be used without recourse to its mea~In~. Indeed the. ex~~ted and sanctified status of a text can restnc~ It.S hermeneutICs. .W~en a text that is perceived as a holy book IS Interpreted, the sIgnIficance given to its non-discursive features can influence the nature of its exegesis. The reception of a tex.t as a hO.ly book enhances interpretations that elucidate meanIng from Its linguistic components in isolation from their c.ontext and their grammatical role, as well as from its nonltnguistic features. 21

The .distinction I have been making is based upon different perCeptIOns of a text as a SOurce of authority (canonical text) or as a. source of sanctity (sacred text and holy book), and upon the differern features of the text that are perceived as such, i.e., the content. of the text (canonical text and sacred text) or its paras~m.ant~c fe~tures (holy book). Although I have not found such a ?lstInctIOn In scholarly literature, several scholars have offered ImpOrtant observations that have contributed to my f{)rmulation of these three typ~S of privileged literature. Before proceeding, let me ~urn to a bnef description of these observations and their relatior, to the typology offered above.

. In his .study of the canonization of Hebrew scripture, Sid Leiman dlf~er~n,~Iates bet:veen the notions of canonicity and divine inspirat.IO.n. A canonICal book was a book considered authoritative for relIgIOus practice and doctrine. An inspired book was a book

2,0 M. Idel, "Midr:sh ,versus other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics: Some ComparatJve Reflections, The Mzdrashtc Imagination:]ewish Exegesis Thought and ~st~ry, be~iMi Fishbane (Albany, 1993), p, 47, says concerning the perce~tjon o t e J JCa text In Heikhalot literature: "This exalted status of the text prevented, however a creative hermeneutics"

21 . ..

h . On the Mldrashic exegesis of linguistic components in isolation from

t err context and grammatIcal role, see I. Heinemann, The Methods of the Aggadah (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 96-130 (in Hebrew). For an extreme eccentric hermeneutlC notion, that allots significance to the white background of rh writren letters, see, M. Idel, "Preliminary Observations on the Variety o~ Kabbahs~1C Exegesis Variety of Kabbalistic Hermeneutics", Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift, ed. M. Bar-Asher (Jerusalem, 1992) pp. 778-783

(111 Hebrew). '

ba-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 265

believed to have been composed under divine inspiration". 22 Leiman's definition of the term canonical book is similar to the one I suggested above.23 His concept of an inspired book corresponds to a large extent to my notion of a sacred text, which, as I have observed, is usually believed to be derived from a supernatural source. But his notion of an inspired book includes also perceptions that I regard as pertaining to the notion of a "holy book". For instance, the idea that certain books "defile the hands" which according to Leiman relates to the inspired status of biblical books.f" pertains in my opinion to the notion of a holy book, whose non-semantic features carry religious power.

Several scholars make a distinction between the informative and ritualistic function of texts in religious societies, and note the importance given to the non-semantic aspects of privileged te~ts. Sam D. Gill suggests distinguishing between the perforrnative functions of scripture and their informative functions,25 and notes that scripture is religiously important as a religious object and not only for what is says.26 William S. Green differentiates between the concept of scripture in Rabbinic Judaism as a "sacred artifact", and as an "intelligible text".27 Moshe Idel, in his discussion of the concept of Torah in Heikhalot literature, points to the " ... trancensdence of the semantic nature of the text in favor of its parasemantic aspects,,28. James W. Boyd discerns between Zoroastrian concepts

22 Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture, p. 127. Ricoeur, "The 'Sacred' text And the Community", p. 272, also suggests to differentiate between the notions of authoritative text and sacred text.

2 3 Yet he does not include the notion of the closure of the text in his definition. S~e B. Childs critic of this point in his Introduction to the Old Testament as Canon (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 55-56.

24 Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, p. 111.

25 S.D. Gill, "Nonlirerate Traditions and Holy Books: Toward a New Model", The Holy Book in Compamtive Perspective, p. 234.

26 Ibid, 237.

27 W.S. Green, "Writing with Scripture, the Rabbinic Uses of the Hebrew Bible", Writing with Scripture, eds. J. Neusner & W.S. Green (Minneapolis, 1989), pp. 11-16; 21. According to R. Scherira Gaon, the distinction between the written and oral Torah, is the sanctity inherent in the preCJse language of the written Torah, and not only in its content. See Blidsrein, "The Concept of Oral Torah in R. Scherira's Epistle", p. 6.

28 Idel, "Midrash versus other Forms of Jewish Hermeneutics", p. 47.

266 Boaz

of the Av~sta as "holy doctrine" and as "holy rite". According to B~yd, w~de reform Zoroastrianism views the Avesta principally as a doctrinal text whose purpose is to convey cognitive meanings to the reader or speaker involved", the orthodox "initially approach the Avesta as holy words to be uttered in a liturgical or ritual context, not principally as a text meant for reflective-critical thinking". 29

Kendall W. Folkert uses the notion of "vector" to distinguish tw~ types of c~non. He defines a vector as "the means or mode by which something is carried". "Canon I denotes normative texts oral or written, that are present in a tradition principally by th; force of a vector or vectors. Canon II refers to normative texts that a.re more independently and distinctively present within a tradition, that is, as pieces of literature more or less as such are currently thought of, and which themselves often function as vectors ... !h~ most common vector of Canon I is ritual activity, but other slgmficant carriers are also to be found. Canon II most commonly serves as a vector of religious authority ... ,,30 I believe that Folkert's "Canon I" reflects the concept of a "holy book" while his "Canon II" corresponds to the use of a text as canonical and sacred.

Miriam Levering offers four modes of reception of scripture, based on her research on the reception of sacred texts in a Buddhist Ch~nes~ ~,onvent. Levering describes an "informative reception", which IS to read and listen in such a way as to allow oneself to be shaped by studying, and taking seriously, the authority and message of a text"; 31 "transformative reception" of texts in which "one Outcome of one's interaction with them will be personal transformation"; "transactive reception" of texts that "are understood to bring about certain changes in the experience of others or in ~he" circumstances affecting one's own practice"; "symboli~ reception of texts that can "come to symbolize, even to be an icon

29 J W B d "Z '.

. . . oy, oroastnamsrn Avestan Scripture and Rite", The Holy

Book in Comparatiue Pershective p 113

30 r 'l',..

KW. Folkert, "The 'Canons' of 'Scripture'" Rethinking Scripture,

pp. 173. '

31 M. Levering, Rethinking Scripture (Introduction), p. 13.

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 267

of the truth and power that comes through them". 32 While the notion of "informative reception" reflects the reception of a text as canonical 33 the notions of transformative and transactive reception of sacred texts reflect what I have termed "mystical hermeneutics". The belief in the sanctity of the non-informative features of a book comes to the fore in Levering's notion of the symbolic mode of reception: "Here texts are read and recited, or alluded to in representation, not so much with their content in mind".34

Before turning to an examination of the reception of the Zohar in light of the distinction between the three types of privileged texts which I have offered, I would like to emphasize that these terms do not refer to any inherent feature in the books, but rather to the attitude of a community towards rhern.i' 5 By the terms canonical text, sacred text and holy book I will always be referring to books that are perceived and treated by a community as such. Thus the three suggested categories can, and usually do, apply to the same texts. A text can be perceived and used as a canonical text, a sacred text, or a holy book in different historical periods, in different strata of the community, or by the same person in different contexts.

The different modes of reception of a text are connected to each other. The belief in the divine origin of a text can be used to

32 Ibid, p. 14. and see, Idem, "Scripture and Its Reception: A Buddhist

Case", Rethinking Scripture, pp. 68-90. .

33 Levering indicates the centrality of studying, writing commentancs and

preaching the texts received in the informative mode; Ibid, pp. 68-70. .

34 Ibid, p. 86. It is interesting to compare the symbolic mode of reception of Buddhist texts to Jewish concepts of the Torah, as described by Idel, "Midrash

versus other Jewish Hermeneutics", p. 47. .

35 Graham, Beyond the Written Word, p. 5, observes that "no text, wntten or oral or both, is sacred or authoritative in isolation from a community" and (ibid, p. 6): "Scripture is not a literary genre but a religi~~istorical one". w.e. Smith, What is Scripture, (London, 1993), p. IX says that .. ' bemg scnpture is not a quality inherent in a given text, or type of text, so much as an interactive relation between the text and a community of persons". See also p. 18. I. Even-Zohar, "Polysystem Theory", Poetics Today, 11 (1990), p. 16. n. 4, prefers the term "canonized" to "canonical": "While "canonical" may suggest ... the Idea that certain features are inherently "canonical" ... , "canonized" ... clearly emphasizes that such a state is a result of some acr(ivity) exercised on certain material"

268 Boaz HUSJ

enhance its authority and may influence its perception as a holy book. Yet different attitudes to a text emerge in specific historical periods and are consequent upon changing social and historical factors. In my overview of the reception of the Zohar I will delineate the historical and social context of the emergence of the perspectives of the Zohar as a canonical and sacred text, and as a holy book.

***

The Zohar, a collection of Kabbalistic texts written in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries in Spain, became the central text of Kabbalah and one of the most authoritative and venerated books in the history of Judaism. The emergence of the Zohar as a privileged text is a remarkable phenomenon - no other medieval text gained such status in Jewish culture. Gershom Scholem in his Major Trends inJewish Mysticism succinctly described the status of the Zohar: "Its place in the history of Kabbalism can be gauged from the fact that alone among the whole of postTalmudic rabbinical literature it became a canonical text which for a period of several centuries actually ranked with the Bible and the Talmud". 36

The emergence of the Zohar as a privileged text has been discussed by several scholars. According to Scholem, it took the Zohar two centuries to achieve its position as a canonical text, first amongst the Kabbalists, and later, particularly after the expulsion from Spain, among the entire Jewish people.37 Isaiah Tishby, in the Wisdom of the Zohar, dedicates a brief chapter to "the sanctity of the Zobar", Tishby speaks about the canonization of the Zohar as well as of the "aura of supreme sanctity" associated with it.38 According to Tishby, the canonization of the Zohar and its wider

36 G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1974), p. 156. See also Idem, On the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (New York 1965) p. 89: "The pseudo-epigraphic Zohar of R. Moses de Leon which becam~ a kind of Bible to the Kabbalists and for centuries enjoyed an unquestioned position as a sacred and authoritative text".

37 Scholem, Major Trends, p. 156.

38 I. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1989), p. 23.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text 269

------------~----

influence were consequent upon the expulsion from Spain.39 According to Roland Goetschel, it was only in Safed in the sixteenth-century Safed that the Zohar "fut veritablement canonise".4o

Different, even contrary, opinions as to the status of the Zohar have been voiced in recent years. Moshe Idel claims that the canonization of the Zohar occurred in the early fourteenth-century, shortly after its appearance.I ' Zc'ev Gries, in recently published articles denies Scholern's and Tishby's assertion that the Zohar became a third canonical text alongside the Bible and the Talmud.42 According to Gries, the Zohar did not receive itsprivileged status prior to the eighteenth-century. 43

The difference of opinions among the scholars calls for a new examination of the privileged status of the Zohar. I would like to use the three suggested categories of privileged texts in order to reexamine this question. I do not propose to present a comprehensive study of the history of the reception of the Zohar, but rather to survey the emergence of major perceptions of the Zohar from the

39 "The canonization of the Zohar and its wider influence were consequent upon the expulsion from Spain, which shook the very foundation of Judaism ... This hisrorico-spiritual transformation... raised the Zohar to a most exalted position and a wondrous light". Ibid, p. 25.

40 R. Goetschel, "Le 'Zohar' Dans La Mystique Juive Sepharade", D. Banon, ed. Inquisition et perennite, (Paris, 1992), p. 130. I am grateful to my friend Dr. Daniel Abrams for directing my attention to this article.

41 M. Idel, Kabbalah, New Perspectives, pp. 216-217; Idem, "On Symbolic Self-Interpretations in Thirteenth-Century Jewish Writings", Hebrew University Studies in Literature and the Arts 16 (1988), p. 95 (I am grateful to my friend Dr. Daniel Abrams for bringing this article to my attention): "The Zohar is an interesting example of a text which was redacted in the Middle Ages and immediately assumed the status of a canonical book which, like the Bibl;, was to be decoded symbolically. It is the first instance of such a canorusanon .

42 Ze'cv Gries "Between Literature and History: Introductions to a Discussion and Stud~ of Shivhei ha-Besht", Tura 3 (1994), pp. 156-157 (in Hebrew).

43 Idem, "The Copying and Printing of Kabbalistic Books as a Source for the Study of Kabbalah", Mabanaim 6 (1993), pp. 208-210 (Ill H.ebrew). Gries (p. 209) pronounces two criteria for a text being part of the JeWish canon: Its inclusion in the established educational system and Its inclusion-and influence on Jewish ritual. See also P. Giller, The Enlightened will Shine (Albany, 1993), p. 134, n. 1: "If this liturgical application is equal to Jewish canomClty, then the Tiqqunim themselves are canonical."

270 Boaz Huss

late thirteenth to the eighteenth-century. In this survey, I will concentrate on explicit formulations of the Zobar's privileged status. Such formulations reveal a self-awareness of the diverse perceptions of the Zohar and may indicate the contexts from which they emerge.

***

The Zohar is a collection of Kabbalistic texts, mostly homilies written in Aramaic, in which the figure of the second-century sage, R. Simeon bar Yohai (Rashbi), plays a central role. According to Scholem, most of the Zoharic corpus was written at the end of the thirteenth-century in Castile by the Kabbalist, R. Moses de Leon. Two units in the Zoharic corpus, called Tikkunei ha-Zohar and Ra'aya Meheimna were written, according to Scholem, by a different Kabbalist in the early fourteenth-century. 44 Recently, Yehudah Liebes has described a much more complex picture of the authorship of the Zohar. Without denying the centrality of R. Moses de Leon in the creation of the Zohar, he argues that the Zohar was a product of a group of Kabbalists, who produced the work on the basis of a common heritage and ancient texts. Liebes claims that not only Tikkunei ha-Zohar and Ra'aya Meheimna, but also the units called Midrash ha-Ne'elam, as well as other passages contained in the Zoharic corpus, were not written by R. Moses de Leon, but by other members of the "circle of the Zohar".45

Shortly after the appearance of the first Zoharic texts, several Kabbalists related to them as a central and authoritative source of Kabbalistic doctrine. As mentioned above, according to Idel the Zohar gained canonical status amongst these Kabbalists. The central role of the Zohar in the writings of these early fourteenthcentury Kabbalists (especially in the writings of R. David ben Judah ha-Hasid, R. Menahem Recanati, R. Joseph Angelit, and the anonymous author of Tikkunei ha-Zohar and Ra'aya Meheimna) is expressed in extensive citations of Zoharic materials (I use this

44 Scholem, Major Trends, pp. 156-204.

45 Y. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar (Albany, 1993), p. 88. Recently, 1. Ta-Shma Ha-Nigle She-Banistar, The Halacbic Residue in the Zobar, (Tel-Aviv, 1995), p. 52, suggested an earlier date for the composition of the Zohar, excluding Moses de Leon from any status of authorship.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text

_______ -:C

271

term in order to emphasize that a closed Zoharic corpus did n~t exist at that time),46 interpretation and translation .of Zoh;r;c portions, as well as in imitating the style of t~e Zohanc texts.

The first explicit formulations of the authonty of the Zohar and of its alleged author, R. Simeon bar Yohai, are found in late thirteenth and early fourteenth Kabbalistic writings. Elliot Wolfson has observed that in a Kabbalistic compilation found in JTS MS. 1768 (a compilation that, according to Wolfson, may ~e by R. M?sesde Leon) Zoharic interpretations are upheld agamst the View of Nahmanides. 48 In one passage the author of the compilation says:

And these matters are very deep, they are not as the words of Nahmanides of blessed memory. Rather one must ask questions from the mouth of the holy R. Simeon ben Y ohai, 49

Similarly, the early fourteenth-century kabbalist R. Joseph Angelit, in his commentary on R. Joseph Gikatilla's Sha 'arei Orah, says:

So it is demonstrated in the system of Midrash ha-Ne'elam50 in theldra51 even though Nahrnanides, of blessed memory, did not write so, nor did the other Kabbalists. But we only accept the words of the Tannaim who are the pillars of the world. 52

46 See C. Mopsik, "Le Corpus Zoharique ses Tires et ses Amplifications", Michael Tardieu, ed. La Formation des Canons Scrzpturazres, (Pans,. 1993) pp. 84-85 (I am grateful to my friend Dr. Daniel Abrams for bringing this

article to my attention). ".,. "

47 Itarnar Even-Zohars notion of a dynamic canorucrty can be used to

describe the role of the Zohar amongst early fourteenth-century kabbalists. According to Even-Zohar, Polysystem Theory, p. 19, in the case of a dynamiC canonicity: "a certain literary model manages to establish Itself as a producttve

principal in the system through the later's repertoire". , _

48 E. Wolfson "Hai Gaon Letter and Commentary of Aleynu: Further Evidence of Moses' de Leon's Pseudoepigraphic Activity", JOR 81 (1991),

p. 369-370, n. 19. . h .

49 MS. New YorkJTS Mic 1768, fo1. 105b. In fo1. 106a anotherZo anc

interpretation (of Lev. 16: 1) is brought, which again is upheld against the interpretation of the Nahmanides. The interpretation of Lev. 16: 1, wh~ch !S brought also on fo1. 102b, in the name of R. Eleazar ben Simeon bar Y ohai, corresponds to Zohar III, 60a. See Wolfson, Ibid, p. 369, n. 19.

50 By this term Angelit refers to the Zobar .

51 The Zoharic portion called the "Idra Rabba". 52 MS. Jerusalem, 8°144, fol. 34a.

272 Boaz Huss

Angelit's claim that the Zobar's opiruon is superior to that of N ahmanides, as well as the similar claim found in the ]TS manuscript, reflect an attempt to undermine contemporary Kabbalists' claim to authority based on their possessing oral traditions from Nahmanides. By the late thirteenth and early fourteenth-century, there existed several Kabbalistic trends and schools in Spain. Most prominent among them were the disciples of N ahmanides and his student R. Solomon ben Adret (Rashba), who based their doctrines on N ahmanides Kabbalistic interpretations in his Torah commentary as well as on traditions passed orally from Nahmanides. According to Nahmanides, the Kabbalistic clues included in his Torah commentary could be understood only by those in possession of oral traditions. 53 Thus, a Kabbalist using Nahrnanides commentary as an authoritative source for his Kabbalistic ideas should, according to the text he uses, be part of a specific Kabbalisric chain. The Zoharic materials, on the other hand, which present themselves as an ancient, lost and then rediscovered text, undermine such an exclusive claim. The authoritative Kabbalistic knowledge is to be found only in the text, which is the only survivor of past knowledge that disappeared with the death of its hero, R. Simeon bar Yohai. Thus the Zohar could furnish any Kabbalist using it with a source of authority. It is, indeed, especially in the writings of Kabbalists who did not belong to the Catalan school, that the Zohar played a dominant role. At least several of these Kabbalisrs lived in Castile, the area in which the Zoharic materials first

53 Perusb ha-Ramban 'al be-Torah, ed C. Cheval (Jerusalem, 1984) vol. 1, p. 7. See M. Idel, "We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This" Rabbi Moses Nahmanides: Explorations in His Religious and Literary Virtuosity, ed. 1. Twersky, (Cambridge & London, 1983), pp. 59-60. But see Wolfson's observati?n that "Nevertheless the simple fact that he did incorporate these kabbalistic Ideas and themes in his commentary proved to be monumental, for It both spurred widespread kabbalistic activity which attempted to explicate these allusions and It placed in the hands of the nonspecialist a document that assumed that the hidden meaning of Scripture and the inner dimension of Jewish tradition consisted of kabbalistic theosophy". E. Wolfson, By Way of Truth: Aspects of Nahmanides' Kabbalistic Hermeneutic, AjS Review 14 (1989), p. 105.

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 273

appeared, and where they were probably written. We can learn about the canonical status of the Zobar amongst the Castilian Kabbalists from the observation of R. Isaac of Acre:

The sages of Catalonia rely on a strong foundation, which is Sefer ha~Bahir, and the sages of Castile (Sepharad) on a firm foundation, which IS Sejer

ha_Zohar.54

R. Isaac of Acre, who was active in the early fourteenth-century, refers to the Zobar as the representative text of the Castilian

54 Cited by Scholem, Major trends, p. 394, n. 127. Although there is no explicit critic of the Zobar in the writings of the Catalan school, there are several indication of an opposition to the Zobar amongst this group. A. Goldreich, "Sefcr Me'irat Einayim by R. Isaac of Acre", Phd. Thesis (Jerusalem, 1981), p. 389 (in Hebrew), describes the Rashba's attitude to the Zohar as "probably unsympathetic disregard". C. Horowitz, The feu/isb Sermon in 14th Century Spain:

The Derasho: of R. joshua Ibn Shu'eib (Cambridge & London, 1989), pp ". 8-9, suggests that Rashba's remark on the decline of Kabbalistic knowledge in his time could be understood as a critique of some of his contemporary Kabbahsts, possibly in the context of the publication of the Zohar. Y. Liebes Sttldies in t~e Zobar, pp. 168-9, found a possible attack on the Zohar 111 R. Meir Abi Sahula s commentary on the Babir. M. Idel, "We Have No Kabbalistic Tradition on This", p. 68, suggests that the book Ma'arekhet ba-Elohut: "uses Nahmanides and some of his commentators in order to attack the mythical Kabbalah which had become so strong since the dissemination of the Zohar". Goldreich, "Sefer Me'irat Einayim" observed that the disciples of the Rashba did cite from the Zohar after the death of their master. Yet, R. Shem Tov Ibn Gaon, one of the Rashba's disciples (mentioned by Goldreich) who cites Zoharic passages in his latter work, Baddei ha-Aron ; does not mention the Zohar by its name. Neither does he mention the Zohar in his list of authoritative texts. See J. Dan, "The Kabbalistic Book Baddei Ha-Aron and Kabbalistic Pseudoepigraphy in the Thirteenth-Century" Studies in [eioisb Mysticism Philosophy and Ethical Literature, Presented to Isaiah Tisbby on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, eds. J. Dan & J. Hacker (Jerusalem, 1986), p. 136 (in Hebrew). An explicit critic on the Zobar was made by R. Joseph Ibn Waker (active in the middle of the fourteenth-century), who claimed that many errors had occurred in the copying of the book. See Scholem, Major Trends, p. 387, n. 124. Although Ibn Waker lived in Castile, I believe that he follows the attitude of the Catalan school to the Zohar. He emphaSizes the importance of oral kabbalistic traditions, and in his list of authoritative texts (which includes the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash ["Rabot"]), the Mekhtlta, Sifra and Sifri he mentions the Bahir, and Nahmanides, but not the Zohar. S~:

G. Scholem, "Joseph Ibn Waqar's Arabic work on Kabbalah and Philosophy, Kitjath Sepber 20 (1943), p. 155 (in Hebrew).

274 Boaz Huss

Kabbalisrs=' and juxtaposes the canonical status of the Zohar among the Castilians to that of the Bahir amongst the Catalan Kabbalists.

***

After the first half of the fourteenth-century, Zoharic literature did not exercise a strong influence for over a century. Although it was accepted by several writers as a genuine midrashic source, not many references to the Zohar as an authoritative source are to be found. This is no doubt related to the decline of Kabbalah in fourteenth and fifteenth-century Spain. 56 Towards the middle of the fifteenth-century, and especially towards its end, the Zohar again became more influential and prevalent, especially in Spain. The Zohar reemerged as an authoritative text amongst elite Sephardic circles, prior to, and especially after, the expulsion from ~pain. 5 7 I~1 :his period, references to the Zohar are found not only 10 Kabbalisric works but also in Biblical commentaries, homiletic writings, and Halakhic compilations.

One of the most influential formulations of the authority of the Zohar was made at the beginning of the sixteenth-century by R. Judah Hayyat, an exile from Spain who settled in Mantua. In the introduction to his commentary on the book Ma'rekhet

55 Elsewhere R. Isaa~ says: "That is the meaning of what the prophet may he rest in peace said: Many days to Israel without Torah and without a priest and without the true God' (2 Chronicles 15: 3) and the sages said the Torah will be forgotten from Israel (B. Shabat 138b). I have seen that all this came to past until the time of the advent of the believing (Ma'amin) Rabbi ... In Egypt (i.e Maimonides) and Rabbi Jacob Nazir and the Rabad in Provence and the faithful (Ne'ernan) Rabbi ... in Catalonia (i.e Nahmanides) and the Rabbi Jacob the Cohen and Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla in Segovia and the book Zohar of Rashbi of blessed memory in Spain" MS. Moscow-Gunzburg 775, fol. 183a.

56 S

ee G. Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 66; M. Idel, "Spanish

Kabbalah after the Expulsion", The Sephardi Legacy, ed. H. Beinart (Jerusalem, 1992), p. 167. Accordmg to Idel, the crisis of kabbalistic creativity in Spain in that period was dependent upon the acceptance of the authority of the Zohar and the exclusion of the ecstatic Kabbalah.

57 See M. Ide!, Sefer Tsafenat Pa'aneah, R. Yose] ben Moshe Alasbqar (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 26, 55 (in Hebrew).

ha-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 275

ba-Elobut entitled Minhat Yehudah, written at the request of his fellow Sephardic exiles, he says:

And we must force our hearts to accept what they [the authors of the Zohar] say, sincerely and wholeheartedly, and fashion their words into a crown for our heads and say: even jf my heart inclines to the right or to the left, 1 Will believe in whatever the divine saint - the candle of light, the glory of the Tannaim, and the crown of sages, who is higher than a prophet, R. Simeon ben Yohai, and his friends - believed58

R. Judah Hayyat's strong formulation regarding the authority of the Zohar should be understood as a response to his encounter with other forms of Kabbalah in Italy.59 At the end of the introduction to Minhat Yehudah he warns against Kabbalistic books that he encountered in Italy, which include R. Abraham Abulafia's books, as well as those of Kabbalists who combine Philosophy and Kabbalah.6o According to Moshe Idel, R. Judah

58 Ma'arekhet ba-Elobia (Mantua 1558), fo!' 2b. It is interesting to note, that R. Judah Hayyar's formulation of the authority of the Zobar is a paraphrase of R. Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi ha-Penini statement concernmg the authority of Maimonides: "Finally, even if my heart inclines to the left or to the right, I will believe in whatever the great teacher, Maimonides, believed, the last of the Geonim in time but the head of them in importance, such that none can be compared to him among the whole of the sages of Israel since the close of the Talmud" (Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi ha-Penini, Sefer Behinat Olam, part 11, chapter 1). In paraphrasing R. Jedaiah ha-Penini statement and substituting Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai for Maimonides, R. Judah's juxtaposes, implicitly, the Zobar's authority to that of Maimonides. Elsewhere (Ma'arekhet ha-Elohut, fo!' 159b), R. Judah criticizes the author of Ma'arekhet ba-Elobut for prefernng rational reasoning to the opinion of the Zohar, and says: "May the honorable Rabbi pardon me, but that is philosophical speculation, and not a true opl1110n of R. Simeon bar Yohai". See also the passage following the above cited passage from the introduction, which appears only in the Ferara edition (1557) of Ma'arekhet ha-Elohut.

59 On the intellectual controversies between Spanish and Italian Kabbalists in this period see M. Idel, "Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah Between 1560-1660", Italia Judaica 2 (Roma, 1986), p. 245.

60 R. Judah Hayyat refers to R. Reuben Zarefati's commentary on Ma'arekhet ha-Elohut (without mentioning the authors name), to the books of R. Isaac Ibn Latif and of R. Samuel Ibn Motor. On the assumption that Kabbalah can be understood in a philosophical way as a feature of late fifteenth-century and early sixteenth-century Italian Kabbalah, see Idel, "Major Currents in Italian Kabbalah", pp. 244-245.

276 Boaz Russ

Hayyat's attack was aimed to a large degree against the Italian ~~bbalist R. Y ohanan Alemanno, himself a resident of Mantua. In contrast to these books, Hayyat enumerates a list of :ecommended texts, including the Zohar, which represents mamsrrearn Spanish theosophical-theurgical Kabbalah.62

Another Spanish Kabbalisr, R. Isaac Mar-Hayyim, relies on the Zohar and emphasizes its authority in his epistles to R. Isaac of Pisa, written in Naples in 1491. In his first epistle, he states: "And we rely on R. Simeon [bar Yohai's opinions in the Zohar] more than on any other in this wisdom, because Elijah revealed himself to him every day". 63

R. Isaac Mar-Hayyim warns R. Isaac of Pisa of sages who interp~et KabbaI~h in a philosophical way.64 This attack is probably directed against the Kabbalistic approach of the same R. Yohanan

61 M. Idel, "The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno" Tarbiz 48 (1979) pp. 330-331 (in Hebrew); Idem, "Spanish Kabbalah after'the Expulsion", p. 169.

62 "And this are the books you should approach: Sefer Yezirah attributed to R. Akiva peace be on him, and Sefer ha-Bahir attributed to R. Nehunyaben Ha-kanah of blessed memory, you should make them into a crown for your head. And Sefer ha-Zohar should not cease from your from lips but recite it day and night (Joshua 1: 8) and the books of R. Joseph Gikatilla of blessed memory, and of R. Shem Tov de Leon bind them around your throat (Proverbs 6: 21) and the secrets of Nahmanides write them on the tablet of your mind (Proverbs 3: 3) and the book of R. Menahem the Recanati of blesse~ memory bind them as a sign on your hand (Deut. 6: 8) and Sefer ha-Ma arekh~: Wlt~ my commentary will serve as a symbol on your forehead (Deut. 6: 8) Ma arekhet ha-Elohut, fol. 4a-b. And see Idel "The Study

Program", p. 33l. '

. 63 Y. Nadav, "An Epistle of the Qabbalist Isaac Mar Hayyim Concern- 109 the Doctnne of Supernal Lights", Tarbiz 26 (1957) p. 455 (in Hebrew) and s~e p. 4.56. Mar.-Hayyi~? emphasizes the supernal source of the Zohar by referring ~o Its doctrines as Prophetic Kabbalah". Ibid, p. 458. The use of this term, which denotes usually the Kabbalah of Abraham Abulafia, in reference to the Zohar, may be an implicit polemic against Abulafian Kabbalah and the Italian Kabbalists who were influenced by it.

. 64 "Do not follow the sages who regard as fundamental that which derives from the intelligible (Muska!) and interpret the words of Kabbalah so as to agree with Philosophy, but rather regard as fundamental Kabbalah and try to reconcile the intelligence to it ... And you should prefer to it (the intelligence) prophetic Kabbalah, like the Kabbalah of R. Simeon bar Yohai" Ibid, p. 458.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text 277

Alemanno, whom R. Judah Hayyat may have encountered a

decade later in Mantua.6s ..

The strong formulations of the Zohar's au~hor~ty in the .wntlOgs

of Sephardic Kabbalists who wrote in Italy highlighrs the lOfl~ence of their encounter with other intellectual trends on the perceptlon of the Zohar as a canonical text. This explains the fact that although the Zohar exercised a strong influence on Spanish sages preVIOUS to the expulsion, most of the explicit dec~arations ~f the. ~obar's authority were written by Spanish sages outside of Spain. It IS mde.ed telling that R. Isaac Mar-Hayyim asserts that the Zohar .agrees Wl!~ his Kabbalistic doctrines and those of all the other Spamsh sages.

***

The Zohar was regarded not only as a source of author~t~ in matters of Kabbalistic doctrine, but also in matters of religious law and conduct. Several customs, which are based on the Zohar, such as the study vigil on the night of Pentecost (Ti~kun Lei!, Sbaou'ot), and the saying of the prayer "Blessed be HIS Name (Berikh Shemei) when the Torah is taken out from the. Ark, are widely practiced to this day. 6 7 The first evidence of circles th~t followed such practices under the impact of the Zohar appear m

65 M. Idel, "Vasi e Sefirot: sostanzialita e infinita ipersostanziale nelle teorie cabbalistiche del Rinascimento", [talia 3 (1982), pp. 89-90 (in Heb~;); H. Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, The Life and Thought 0/ Rabbi Dam en

Judah Messer Leon (Albany, 1991), p. 47.

66 "And I will ... interpret this passage (Zohar III, 288a) and other

(Zoharic) passages, including this one, which prove my Kabbalah and the Kabbalah of all the Spanish sages"; ibid, p. 458. As v.:e have s~en above, the perception of the Zobar as representing Spanish (i.e CastilIan) Kabbalah

appeared already in the writings of R. Isaac of Acre. cc r».» .' ." •

67 On Tikkun Leil Sbauu'ot see: YD. Wilhelm, Sidrei Tikkunirn , Aiel

Ayin _ Minhat Devarim, The S. Schoken jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1948-~2): pp. 125-130 (in Hebrew); Liebes, StudIes in the Zohar, pp'. 56-:,57, 74 82, E.R. Wolfson, "Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstauc Expenence, P. Schafer and J Dan eds Gershom Scbolem's Major Trends in je1l'1sh MystICIsm, 50 Years After, . (Tubingen', 1993) pp. 213-214, 11. 21; M. Hallamish, "Tikkun Lell Shavu'ot", Mehkarei Hag 5 (1994) pp. 62-78 (in Hebrew); B. Huss, The Life and Works of Rabbi Simeon Lavi, Am/ot 9 [Forthcommg, m Hebrew]. On the recitation of Berikh Sbemei see: 1. Elbogen,jeuoish Liturgy, A ComprehensIVe History, (Jerusalem, Philadelphia & New York, 1993), pp. 159-160.

278 Boaz Huss

the sixteen~h-c~nt.ury. 68 Although some reference to the Zohar in legal and ntuahst.1C issues appeared previous to the this period,69 the first declarations as to the authority of the Zohar in such matte~s are found in. texts written by Spanish sages after the expulsion. An emphattc formulation of the authority of the Zohar IS .found in "The Secret of the Tefillin", which was probably written b~ R. Abraham Saba, the Spanish sage who settled in North Afnca.70 After describing several religious customs which are mentioned in the Zohar, the author says:

That is what. is unde~stood from the words of R. Simeon bar Yohai of blessed rr;e~ory and It IS forbidden to deviate from his words because they are the wo d ~ t e Llvl~~ God, the. King of the Wodd, and they are sweeter than honey a~~

oneycom ew. This IS because R. Simeon bar Yohai has been given ermission

bfrlom adbbove, such as no other sage in the world has received, and the toly One esse e He, authorized him."! ,

68 Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot is described by R Solomon Alk b II b

R. Moses C I ..: a ez, as we as y

oroovero, R. Hayyim Vital, R. Simeon Lavi and other sixteenth-

~entury kabbalisrs. See, WIlhelm, "Sid rei Tikkunim" pp. 125-127' H II . h Tikkun Lei I Sh 'ot" 6 6. ,,' . ' a anus , . ." avu 0 '. pp. 3- 5, Huss, The Life and Works of Rabbi

Simeon Lavi . The description of Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot in the Zohar ma reflect a? ancient custom practiced III the circles in which the Zohar was written See

Liebes, Studies in the Zohar pp. 77-81 88 WOlf:S011 "F . f V' . A'

E' .,,' ,. ,orms 0 1SI0nary scent

as ~~at~c Expenence , pp'. 213-214, n. 21. Hallamish, "Tikkun Leil Shavu'ot"

pp. . - 3. R. HaYYlm Vital relates that R. Isaac Luria used to recite Berikh Shemet. on the Saturday mOf11lllg service. See, Sha'a« ha-Kavanot, The umtin J of Ha-A1t series; vol. 9, (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 92. The saying of Berikh Shem;i is recommended by R. Isaac ha-Ezovi in his Agudat Ezov, MS. Lehman 17, fol

93b. See also: A. Berlll1er, Selected Writings (Jerusalem 1945) vol 1 32 (.

Hebrew). ' ,., p. Il1

69 See I."Ta:Sh~a, "Rabbi Joseph Caro and his Beit Yosef: Between St-ain and Germany, lhe Sephardt Legacy, ed. H. Beinart, vol. 2 (Jerusalem 19~2) ~'b~~9h,,201-202;,J Katz,. "Post-Zoharic Relations Between Halakha and a a , Jewlsh Thought in the Sixteenth-CentU1J' ed B D C

(C brid I d . " ooperman

am n ge & "~n on, 1983), p. 294; M. Benayahu, "Kabbalah and Halakha--

A co~~ontatlOn , Daal 5 (1980) pp. 84-85 (in Hebrew).

". In MS. Moscow-Gunzburg, 775, fol. 120b the name of the author of

the secret of the Kedu~~a" and "the secret of the Tefillin" is rendered Abraham Zabah n::lI'\~ See also the secret of the Kedusha" in MS. London 0 10521 fol. 3b (n::t~). Moshe Hallamish ("The Kabbalists in Morocco" Daat ~6 (1986) k ~~ (I~ Hebrew» suggests that the passage in MS. Londo!; may be part of

. 7~a am Saba (y::tO) commentary on the prayer book.

(Mantua,~~6~0;~f~-;t~~z;aurg, 775, fol. 65b-66a. and see also Sefor ha-MuJar

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 279

Several of the exiled sages mention a rule, which probably originated in Spain prior to the expulsion,72 that declares the Zohar as more authoritative than any other source, as long as it does not contradict the Babylonian Talmud.73 In his discussion of the question of donning Tefillin during HoI ha-rno'ed (the intermediate days of the festivals Passover and Tabernacles), a matter that is strongly forbidden in a Zoharic passage, R. Joseph Caro says:

And in our time all the Sepharadim do not don Tefillin during HoI ha-mo'ed. And I heard that previously they had donned them during Hoi ba-mo'ed, according to the words of the Rosh, but later, they found that R. Simeon bar Y ohai wrote in one passage that it is forbidden to don them during HoI ba-mo'ed, and because of this they no longer don them during Hoi ba-mo'ed ... and since in our Talmud this law was not explicated, who would dare to actively go against the words of R. Simeon bar Yohai, who so strongly forbids one to don them74

The rule formulated by Caro and previous Sephardic sages posits the Zohar as more authoritative then the decisors (Posekim)." 5 R. Joseph Caro explicitly juxtaposes the Zohar and the great Ashkenazi authority, the Rosh (R. Asher ben Jehiel). Although it is doubtful whether Caro depicts accurately the history of the Sephardic custom, 7 6 his words reflect his conception of the Zohar

72 Katz, "Posr-Zoharic Relations", p. 290. Benayahu, "Kabbalah and Halakha", p. 64.

73 The rule is cited by R. Isaac Caro, R. Abraham Zacuto (see Katz, "Posr-Zoharic Relations", pp. 290-291; M. Benayahu, "Kabbalah and Halakha'', pp. 64-65), and R. Meir Ibn Gabbai (see]. Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah (jerusalem, 1984), p. 86 [in Hebrewj).

74 Beit Yosepb, OH 31. See also OH 141. On the use of the Zobar in Joseph Caro's rulings see Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah, pp. 301-304; Benayahu, "Kabbalah and Halakha", pp. 65, 69; M. Hallarnish, "Kabbalah in the Halakbic Rulings ofR. Joseph Caro" Daat 21 (988), pp. 85-102 (in Hebrew). Ta-Shrna, "Rabbi Joseph Caro", p. 198.

75 This is stated explicitly in Beit Yoseph, OH 141. According to Caro, the Zobar is also more authoritative than the Palestinian Talmud. Caro emphasizes that only "our Talmud", i.e. the Babylonian, exceeds the Zohar in its authority. See Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah, p. 304 (but see Hallamisb, "Kabbalah in the Halakhic Rulings ofR. Joseph Caro", p. 92, n. 43). The same emphasis is found also in Ibn Gabbai's Tola'at Ya'akov (Warsaw, 1876), fol. 16b.

76 See Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah, p. 106. Care's source is the respOl1sa of his uncle, R. Isaac Caro, Primed at the end of R. Joseph Cam's responsa, (Mantua, 1730), fo!' 65a.

280 Boaz Huss

as a source that counterbalances the authority of the Rosh. Other early sixteenth-century sages juxtapose the Zobar'e opinions to that of the Rosh and his son, R. Jacob, the author of the Halakhic code known as the Turim. In Tola'at Ya'akov, written in 1507, R. Meir Ibn Gabbai says (concerning the prohibition to recite the prayer in an audible voice):

Thus I have seen in the homily of Rashbi,77 peace be on him, and it is proven from his words that it is forbidden, whether in public or not in public, to let others hear one's prayer. And this is not as the opinion of R. Jacob the son of the Rosh 78 ... and in such matters that are not found in our Talmud, we should rely on the tradition of [Kabbalat] the holy light, Rashbi, peace be on him. 79

The emphatic formulations of the authority of the Zohar in matters of religious custom and law may be related to R. Joseph Caro's (and other) Sephardic sages' quest for dominance in the Jewish world after the expulsion.P" In the Zoharic texts they found an allegedly Tannaitic source that, as a text written in medieval Spain, reflected the Sephardic Halakha.81

***

77 Based on Zohar II, 202b; see also Beit Yosef, OH 101. On this Zoharic prohibition see Ta-Shrna, Ha-Nigle She-Banistar pp 42-43

78 ,. .

Tur OH, 101

79 Tola'at Ya'akov, fol. 16b. See also R. Isaac Caw's response (mentioned above, n. 76).

8~ On Care's desire to be acknowledged as the outstanding Halakhic authority of all Jews, and to render Halakhic decisions in accordance with the Sephardi tradition see Ta-Shma, "Rabbi Joseph Caw", p. 196.

81 See Ta-Shrna, Ha-Nigle Sbe-Banistar, pp. 35,41-50. On the influence of Ashkenazi customs on the Zohar, see Ibid, pp. 19-34; Katz, Halakha and Kabbalah, pp. 39-45; I. Ta-Shrna, "Miriam's Well- French Customs Relating to The Sabbath Third Meal", jerusalem Studies in jewish Thought 4 (1985), pp. 269-270. The considerable influence of Ashkenazi customs on the Zohar may explain the fact that although the rule that posits the Zohar as superior to the Poskim was rejected by Ashkenazi sages (See R. Solomon Luria (Maharshal) Responsa (Lublin, 1574), 98; Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, p. 26; R. Moses Isserles (Rama), Darkhei Moshe, OH, 59; 141), the Zohar gained an authoritative status in matters of religious conduct also by Ashkenazi sages. See Z. Gries, Conduct Literature (Regimen Vitae), Its History and Place in the Life of Besbtian Hasidism (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 71--80; J. Elbaum, OPenness And Insularity, Late Sixteenth-Century jewish Literature in Poland and Ashkenaz (Jerusalem, 1990) pp. 186-187.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text 281

The connection between the canonical status of a text and the development of its interpretation was noted previously. The perception of the Zohar as a canonical text since t~e late fifteenth-century is expressed in the abundance of Zohanc hermeneutic activity. Almost every Kabbalistic text written after the expulsion from Spain contains interpretations of Zoharic passages.82 The first running commentaries on the Zohar were composed during the sixteenth-century, among them R; Moses Cordovero's Or Yakar, written in Safed,83 R. Simeon Lavi's Ketem paz, written in North Africa,84 and the Zohar commentary of R. Moses Isserles (Rama) written in Poland.8 5 Exegesis of the Zohar played a central role in the development of R. Isaac Luria's Kabbalah, and most of Luria's own writings are commentaries on passages in the Zohar. Since the sixteenth-century, commentaries on the Zohar became one of the most prevalent genres of Kabbalistic literature. 86

As I have noted previously, the closure of a canonical corpus

is related to its role as a source of authority. As the notion of the authority of a text emerges, there is a need to define its scope, especially as many canonical texts, including the Zohar, were not created as defined literary units, but gained their literal form through a process of redaction. Until the sixteenthcentury Zoharic materials were disseminated in fragments,8 7 and Zoharic manuscripts contained diverse recensions of Zoharic

82 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, p. 104. .

83 On Or Yakar see B. Sack, The Kabbalah of Rabbi Moshe Cordouero

(Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 25-27 (In Hebrew).

84 On the Zohar hermeneutics of R. Simeon Lavi see "B. Huss, Kerern Paz,

The Kabbalistic Doctrine of Rabbi Simeon Lavi in his Commentary on the

Zohar", Phd. Dissertation, (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 51-128. .

85 On Rama's Zohar commentary see B. Richler, "From the collectIons of the institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts of the Jewish national and university Library in Jerusalem", Kiryat Sejer 58 (1983), pp. 196-197.

86 See G. Scholem, Bibliographia Kabbalistica, (Berlin, 1933), pp. 185-

210; 'I'ishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 103-105.. "

87 Isaac Mar Hayyim relates in his epistle to R. Isaac of Pisa (Nadav, An Epistle of the Qabbalist Isaac Mar Hayyim", p. 456) that the Zohar IS not found as a whole in one area (mahoz), but is dispersed in various provillces. See also R. Judah Hayyat evidence cited below.

282 Boaz Russ

materials.88 A survey of Zoharic manuscripts and Zoharic citations reveals that prior to the sixteenth-century there was no complete agreement as to which strata should be considered as part of the Zoharic corpus, and that several units were scarcely known.89 Although some manuscripts hold large portions of Zoharic materials, none of them contain all the materials included in the later printed editions of the Zohar.90 The definition of the Zoharic corpus was effected by the rise in its canonical status in the sixteenthcentury. Scribes, Kabbalists and Zobar commentators collected various Zoharic materials and created comprehensive recension~ of the

. 88 Only partial descriptions of the state of Zoharic manuscripts is available. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 99--101, described the state of Zoharic manuscripts based on Gershom Scholem's research. Ta-Shrna "Rabbi Joseph Caro", p. 205-206, cites Malachi Beit-Arie's remarks on th~ Zoharic manuscripts, according to the codiological database of the Institute for Hebrew Paleography. A description of many Zoharic manuscripts, as well as photocopies of 86 Zoharic manuscripts, can be found in the Zohar Project database, overseen by the late Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimcr, in the Gershom Scholem library at the National and University Library in Jerusalem. For a description of manuscripts of Tikkunei ha-Zohar see G. Sed-Rajna, "Manuscripts du Tiqquney Ha-Zohar", REj, 129 (1970), pp. 161-178.

. 89 I am not aware of any citation of the Ra'aya Meheimna previous to the

sixteenth-century; note R. Abraham ha-Levi account of how he encountered the Ra'aya Meheimna for the first time in the year 1518; G. Scholem, "The kabbalist R. Abraham ben Eliezer Ha-Levi (Tosefet)" Kirjath Sepher 2, (1925/6), p. 271 (In Hebrew). D. Abrams, "When was the Introduction to the Zohar Writtenl And Changes within the Different Copies of the Mantua Edition", Asufot 8, (1994) pp. 220-226 (In Hebrew), has shown that the pericopa called the "Inrroducrion to the Zobar" appears only in a few manuscripts, and is rarely cited before the printing of the Zobar.

90 See D. Abrams, "Critical and Post Critical Textual Scholarship of Jewish Mystical Literature: Notes on the History and Development of Modern Editing Techniques", Kabbalah 1, 1996, pp. 61--62. There are also Zoharic materials that were not included in the printed editions of the Zohar. See G. Scholem, "A New Passage from the Midrash ha-Ne'elam of the Zohar", Louis Ginzbergjubilee Volume, (New York, 1946) pp. 425-446 (in Hebrew); Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, p. 6; M. Idel,. "An Unknown Text from Midrash Ha-Nc'elam", The Age of the Zohar,. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of jewish Mysttclsm,jerusalem (1989), pp. 73-87 (In Hebrew). On Zoharic passages cited by R Menahem Recanati that are not found in the printed editions of the Zobar see Z. Rubin, The Zohar Citations in R. Menahem Recanati's Torah Commentary, (Jerusalem, 1992) p. 1 (in Hebrew); Abrams, "When was the Introduction to the Zohar Written?, p. 226, n. 69. On a Zoharic passage cited by the apostate Paul of Heredia, see Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, pp. 143-145.

ba-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 283

Zohar. R. Judah Hayyat in his introduction to Minhat Yehudah describes how he established his recension of the Zobar: "I resolved to seek wisdom ... gathering whatever [parts] of the aforementioned book [the Zohar] could be found. I co~lected .a bit here an~ a" b:~ there until most of what is extant of it was 111 my possesSlOn . The first printers of the Zobar in Mantua and Cremona cr~ated their recensions based on several manuscripts, and consulted with experts in determining the versions they printed.92 The definition of the Zoharic corpus was established by the printed editions of the Zohar in the sixteenth-century, which apart from the Mantua and Cremona editions include the Mantua edition of Tikkunei ha-Zobar (1558), the Thiengen edition of Midrash ha-Ne'elam to Ruth (1560), and the Salonici edition of Zohar Hadash (1597).93 Although the Zoharic corpus was not entirely closed by the sixteentb-century94 subsequent editions of the Zohar, to our day, contain the material

. d d" 95

published in the above mentione e mons.

***

91 Ma'arekhet ba-Elohta , fol. 2a; Ta-Shrna, "Rabbi Joseph Caro", p. 199. 92 On the Mantua and Cremona editions of the Zobar, see Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zobar, vol. 1, pp. 97-98; M. Benayahu, Hebrew Printing at Cremona its History and Bibliography, (Ramat Gan, 1971), pp. 121-1:'7 (111 Hebrew); Abrams, "When was the Introduction to the Zohar Written? , p. 213. Idem, "Critical and Post-Critical Textual Scholarship", p. 6l. On the controverSies surrounding the printing of the Zohar see, I. Tishby, Studies in Kabbalah and its Branches, (jerusalem, 1982), vol. 1, pp. 79-130 (111 Hebrew); J. Hacker, "A New Epistle from the Controversy Concerning the Printing of the Zohar in Italy" Massu'ot Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewzsh Phzlosophy In memory of Prof 'Epbraim 'Gottlieb, eds. M. Oron & A. Goldreich (jerusalem, 1994),

pp. 120-129 (in Hebrew). ,

93 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol 1, pp 97-99. For a

description of the various units included rn the Zohanc corpus see Scholem Major Trends, pp. 159-162; Tishby, The Wzsdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 1-7. These descriptions are based on the material included 111 the printed editions of

the Zobar. See Scholern, ibid, p. 386, n. 8. .

94 See Mopsik, "Le Corpus Zoharique", P: 79; Tishby, The Wzsdom of the

Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 97-99. .

95 Since the eighteenth-century, all the editions of the ma111 part of the

Zobar follow the format of the Mantua edition. tater editions of the Zohar follow the Constantinople edition of the main part of the Zohar (1736-37) the Orrakoi edition of Tikkunei ha-Zohar (1719) and the Venice edition of Zobar Hadasb (1658). See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 98-99.

284 Boaz Hz!sJ

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

285

The r~se of the status of the Zohar amongst elite circles of Spanish. evidence of Sabbatai Zevi's messianism and aposta~y, 99 and recornJews 1S consequent upon skeptical and anti-philosophical tenden- mended substituting the study of the Zohar and Midrash for that of cies in fifteenth-century Spanish Jewry and upon their preferencehalakhic literature.100 Nathan gives the halakhic rule formulated. by of revelation and tradition to rational reasoning.96 The absence of. the sixteenth-century Sephardic sages an interesting turn. According a dom~nant and authoritative Kabbalist in that period explains the to Nathan, the rule that the Zohar should be followed. in matt.ers reception of allegedly ancient Kabbalistic texts as authoritative which are not mentioned in the Talmud refers to. tnformatl~n sou~ces. The Spanish exiles' encounter with other inteUectual concerning the Messiah, Sabbarai Sevi, which is contained only m enVIronments stimulated the strong formulations of the Zohar's the Zohar. In eschatological matters, according to Nathan of Gaza, authoritative status, in doctrinal matters as well as in issues of the Zohar is more authoritative than the Talmud:

religious conduct. The strong influence of the Spanish exiles, and

later, the influence of the Kabbalistic center in Safed in which the Zoha~ played a central role, as well as the impact of print, contnbuted to the reception of the Zohar as a canonical text in Sephardic as well as Italian and Ashkenazi inteUectual circles during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 97

Before proceeding to the examination of the perception of the Zohar as a sacred text, I would like to mention the emphasis of the authoritative status of the Zohar in the Sabbatean movements of the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries.98 As I have mentioned above, canonical texts are sometimes regarded as containing authoritative information on future, eschatological events. Nathan of Gaza, the Sabbatean prophet, claimed to find in the Zohar

, 96 ,~ee H. Davidson, "Medieval Jewish Philosophy in the Sixteenth-

Century .lewisb Thought in the Sixteenth-Century, ed. B.D. Cooperman, (Cambndge & London, 1983), pp. 112-113; S. Regev, "Rationalism and Mysticism rn Fifteenth-Century Jewish Thought", Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, vo!' 5 (1986) pp. 156-157, 186~~189 (in Hebrew)' H. Tirosh Rothschild, "The POlitical Philosophy of Rabbi Abraham Shalom: ;fhe Platonic Tradition", Shlomo PillesJubilee Volume, On the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, Part II (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 423-424 (in Hebrew); B. Huss, "On the Status of Kabbalah in Spain after the Persecutions of 1391", Pe'amim 56 (1993), p. 28 (Ill Hebrew).

. 97 The Zohar was almost unknown amongst Ashkenazi Jewry before the

sIxteenth-century. See Ta-Shma, ':R. Joseph Caro", p. 199. Although Ashkenazy sages rejected the rule that POSIts the Zohar as more authoritative than the Poskirn, since the late sixteenth-century the Zohar exercised a strong influence III Ashkenaz, both III matters of doctrine and of religious conduct. See Elbaum Openn~f And Insularit!, p. 184, n. 3, and pp. 182-222, passim. '

See Tlshby, The Wtsdom 0/ the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 38-40.

And everywhere the Talmud does not explicitly contradict the Zohar we should rule according to the Zobar ... And the information concerning the exalted kmg Messiah was not explicitly revealed in the Talmud, lest people mlsunderst~nd It. Rather it has been concealed in Sefer ba-Zobar, which was hidden, anc It IS written in it that it would be revealed only shortly before the days of the

M . hlOI and for that reason we must bring evidence on such matters from

essla . . . d h d

the Zohar, and everything which is found in the Talmu t at seems contra JC-

[ai . I G d' id 102

tory we will exp am WIt lOS ai .

The preference for the Zohar over the Talmud which ~athan of Gaza expresses, received a radical expression amongst the eighteenthcentury followers of Jacob Frank, who called themselves the

99 See e.g. R. Nathan words in his epistle from Corfu in 1668, cited by A Freimann, Sammelband hleiner Scbriften uber Sabbatat Zebi und dessen Anhanger (Berlin, 1912), p. 59 (in Hebrew): "And we have found a deCISIVe evidence for it in what the holy faithful Shepherd (Ra'aya Meheirnna) revealed ll1 Parashat Naso (Zohar III, 125b) and it is known to everyone who had studied this book (i e the Zohar) several things concerning the true redeemer, that he ascribes them to him, that he is he (i.e, Sabbatai Zevi)." R. Moses Hagiz, probably referring to the Sabbareans of Salonici, tells of people who converted on the baSIS of interpretations of the Zohar. See E. Carlebach, The PU1JUtt 0/ Heresy (New

York, 1990) p. 76. . . 9 3)

100 G. Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi, The Mystical Messtah (Princeton, 1 7 ,

p. 69ftH See Tieeunei ha-Zohar (Jerusalem 1978), 69, fol. 111b. "

102 See G. Scholem, Studies and Texts Concerning the History 0/ Sabbattamsm and its Metamorphoses (Jerusalem, 1974), p. 241 (in Hebrew); C. WIr~ubs~l, Between The Lines (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 230-231 (111 Hebrew).. n t e

diti that R Nathan said that: "They should no longer deal WIth legal

tra ltlon . . . d h T"

matter, rather, it is better to study the Zohar and the Ttkkumm an orrunes ,

see Freiman, Sammelband kleiner Scbnften, p. 96.

286 Boaz Russ

ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 287

"Zoharites".103 Among the conditions the Frankists made for their campaign against the Zohar and the Kabbalah, the Zohar lost its conversion to Christianity, they asked to keep the Zohar (and other canonical status among wide Jewish circles that were influenced by Kabbalistic books) and promised to prove in a public debate that the Haskalah.

the Talmud is evil and must be destroyed. 104 While their rejection In the first part of this article, I discussed the role of the of the Talmud emphasized their wish to detach themselves from affiliation or the rejection of canonical texts as part of the process other contemporary Jewish groups, their adherence to the Zohar of self-definition of the community, and its relations to other functioned as a means of preserving their communal identity after groups, past and contemporary. The radical Sabbatean group's their conversion to Christianity. lOS rejection of the Talmud and adherence to the Zohar, as well as the

The centrality of the Zohar in the Sabbatean movements pro- de-canonization of the Zohar in the Haskalah movemel,lt, demonvoked a reaction against the text amongst their opposers. R.' Jacob strates the role that the acceptance and rejection of the canonical Emden, whose comprehensive criticism of the authenticity and status of the Zohar played in the self-definition of various early authority of the Zohar was published in his Mitpahat Sefarim modern Jewish communities.

(Altona, 1768), was exercised by the Sabbateans reliance on Zoharic literature. 106 As I have noted above, the formation of the Zoharic corpus and its perception as a literary unit are related to the emergence of its canonical status. It is interesting to note that Emden's critique of the canonical status of the Zohar is largely based upon proving that the Zohar is composed of distinct literary units.107 R. Jacob Emden's critique of the Zohar (as well as R. Leone Modena's previous critique published in Ari Nohem) were adopted by scholars of the Jewish enlightenment movement (Haskalah), whose strong rejection of the Zohar was related to their opposition to Eastern European Hasidism.108 As a result of their

103 See R. Jacob Emden, Mitpahat Sefarim (Lvov, 1871), p. 20; S. Werses, Haskala and Sabbatianism, The Story of Controoersy (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 147 (in Hebrew); G. Scholem, The Messianic Idea inJudaism (New York, 1978), pp. 173, 358, n. 19; Tishby, The Wzsdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, p. 28.

104 Tishby, ibid; M. Balaban, The History of the Frankist Movement (Tel Aviv, 1935), vol. 2, p. 207 (in Hebrew). Apart from keeping the Zohar, the Frankist demanded to be allowed to preserve their Jewish attire, to continue to grow their sidelocks, and to observe the Sabbath.

105 Scholern, The Messianic Idea, p. 358, notes that the Frankisrs used the name "Sohariten" in their dealing with the Polish and Church authorities. On the regard of the Polish clergy for the Zohar, see Balaban, Frankist Movement, voL 1, pp. 158--159.

106 See Mitpahat Sefarim, pp. 1, 4, 11. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 39-42.

107 See Mitpahat Sefarim, pp. 2, 6-7, 38--40.

108 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. 1, pp. 43-46; ldel, Kabbalah, New Perspectives, p. 10.

***

I would like now to examine the emergence of the perception of the Zohar as a sacred text. As defined above, a sacred text is a book whose content is regarded as a source of sanctity. A sacred text is perceived to be closely related to the divine or transcendent realm, usually derived in one way or another from a supernatural source.

The notion of the supernatural origin of the Zohar appears in the later strata of the Zobar, Tiheune: ba-Zohar, and Ra'aya Meheimna. This notion is emphasized in the introduction to Tikkunei ba-Zohar, where it is stated:

"The enlightened will shine like the brightness (zohar] of the firmament" (D~niel 12: 3): "The enlightened" are R. Simeon bar Yohai and his compamons, Will shine" when they gather together to write this work, permission was given to them and Elijah amongst them, and all the souls of the academy to descend amongst them ... and the most Transcendent gave permission to all the holy names and beings and all the signs to reveal to them hidden secrets ... and permission was given to the ten Sefirot to reveal to them hidden secrets that were not permitted to be revealed until the generation of the Messiah109

The notion that the Kabbalah of the Zohar originated in revelation was developed by several Kabbalists in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. R. Isaac Mar-Hayyim says that Elijah revealed himself

109 Tikkunei ha-Zohar, fo1. lao See Giller, The Enlightened Will Shine, p. 1; Wolfson, Through a SPeculum That Shines, p. 391.

288 Boaz Russ

to Rashbi every day and refers to the Kabbalah of the Zohar as prophetic Kabbalah.llo The notion that revelations of Elijah are the source of the Zobar'« Kabbalah appears in the Lurianic writings of R. Hayyim Vital: "Most of the words of Rashbi, peace be on him, in Sefer ba-Zobar and the Tikkunitn and in the homily on the Song of Songs were revealed to him by Elijah and the souls of saints" .111 Other Kabbalists emphasize the origin of the Zobar in authoritative tradition, as part of the oral Torah. According to R. Meir Ibn Gabbai, the Kabbalah, which consists of the secrets of the commandments, was received by Moses in Sinai and transmitted orally, until Rashbi wrote it down in the Zohar:

And the true wisdom received in Sinai together with the oral Torah was not lost, nor forgotten ... and in this way the Torah, which is called precept, which is the oral Torah and its reasons and secrets, which is the wisdom of Kabbalah, was transmitted, from Joshua to the elders, and the elders transmitted it all to the prophets ... and R. Akiva received from all of them, and R. Simeon ben Y ohai received from R. Akiva, and that was after the destruction of the temple, and this saint, peace be on him, is the author of the hidden homily which is called Sefer ha-Zohar_112

110 See supra note 63. The reference to the Kabbalah of the Zohar as prophetic Kabbalah appears also in R. Yehudah Hallewa's Zafena: Pa'aneab, see M. Idel, "R. Yehudah Hallewa and his Zafenat Pa'aneab" Shalem 4 (1984), pp. 128-129 (in Hebrew).

111 Ez-Hayyim, The ioritings of Ha-Ari series, vol. 1, p. 16 (the passage is from the introduction to the first edition (Mahadura kama) of Vital's Lurianic writings. See J. Avivi, Binyan Ariel, Jerusalem 1987, p. 34 (in Hebrew); R. Meroz, "Redemption in The Lurianic Teaching", Ph.D Thesis (Jerusalem 1988), p. 58 (in Hebrew). The notion that the Zohar was revealed by Elijah appears also in Sefer ha-Meshiv; M. Idel, "Inquiries into the Doctrine of Sefer ha-Meshiv", Sefanat, New Series 2 (1983), p. 240 (In Hebrew).R. Suliman Ibn Magera writes in his copy of Tikkunei ha-Zohar (written in North Africa in 1536):

"And I have received from my teachers that the souls of Elijah of blessed memory and Rashbi of blessed memory are from the same source ... and Elijah revealed himself to him, more so than to anyone else, to solve his doubts, (and they were) as two brothers that never part",' MS. Moscow-Gunzburg 130 fol 4a

112 ' , . .

Avodat ba-Kodesb (Jerusalem, 1954), part 3, chapter 18, fols. 80b-81a.

See also ibid, part 1, chapter 3. fol. 9a. See also Rama's comments, Torat ha-Olab (Tel Aviv, 1991), part 2, chapter 1, fol. 30a, that the words of the Zohar are words given at Sinai. In Sefer Brit Menuha (Jerusalem, 1979), fo!' 2a, Rabbi Simeon is described as the last person in the chain of tradition of "the name", that was used by Adam. On this book, and its intriguing connection with the Zohar see Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zobar, vol. 1, p. 25; Liebes, Studies ill the Zobar, p. 134.

ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 289

As a sacred text the content of the Zobar was assumed to refer always to the divine world. The Zoharic texts indeed deal to a large extent with the world of divine emanations. Yet, those Kabbalists who regarded the text as sacred tended to interpret Zoharic passages dealing with other subjects as referring to the Sefirot as well. This rendency is expressed in most sixteenth-century commentaries to the Zohar.113 The notion that the Zohar reflects the dynamic and infinite structure of the divine world (and, hence, can not be understood by ordinary human reasoning) is elaborated in

R. Hayyim Vital's Lurianic writings.1l4

Previously, I observed that a sacred text is perceived as a textual conduit between the divine and human realms. This notion comes to the fore in R. Moses Cordovero's perception of the content of the Zohar as divine light. According to Cordovero, this light (which explains the name of the book, the Book of Splendor) originates in the divine realm and is transmitted to the lower realms through the agency of the soul of Moses, which was impregnated in the soul of R. Simeon bar Y ohai:

... because this compilation [the Zohar] is composed from the attribute of Moses our rabbi, peace on him, that is the [Sefirah of] Tif'eretb, in the secret of Da'at and all its secrets flow from him ... and because the book is related to his attribute, he must help with all his might to draw down the secrets, and he has the ability to be impregnated in R. Simeon and make the secrets of the Torah flow in him ... and that is the reason it is called the Book of Splendor [zohar] as its light is in the secret of Da'at, the degree of Moses our rabbi, peace be on him, and no creature can draw from there, only through the agency of the soul of Moses our rabbi, peace be on him, to him the springs of wisdom are open, and he draws them and transmits them from the [divine] pipes through the soul of Rashbi, peace be on him.115

A sacred text, whose content is perceived as divine, enables human beings to interact with the divine realm through its knowledge and

113 See Huss, "Ketern Paz", pp. 85, 97, n. 69. On the different perceptions of R. Simeon Ibn Lavi and R. Hayyim Vital of the relation between the Zobar and the divine world see ibid, pp. 85-89.

114 See Sba'ar ha-Hakdamot, The Writings ofHa-Ari Series, vol. 5, pp. 3-4; Ez-Hayyim, 1,1,5, ibid, vol. 1, pp. 42-43; Idel, Kabbalah, New Perspectives, pp. 248-249.

115 Tikkunei ba-Zobar with Or Yakar Commentary, vol. 1, p. 90. And see

Sack, The Kabbalah of Moshe Cordovero, pp. 40-41.

290 Boaz Huss

study. As a sacred text, the knowledge, study and interpretation of t~e 2!0har wer: regarded as a central religious duty, carrying messiaruc, theurgic and mystical import.

A most i~fluential notion is that the study and interpretation of the Zohar will hasten the coming of the Messiah. The idea that the Zohar has a messianic role originates in the Zoharic texts themselves, especially in its later strata.116 In the early sixteenthce~tury, R. Judah Hayyat asserted that the study of the Zohar will bring about the coming of the Messiah:

And because of those who study and involve themselves with it [the Zohar] the Messiah will COme "because the land shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord" (Isaiah H ~ 9) because of It. And that shall be the immediate cause for his commg.

R. Judah Hayyat's notion of the messianic significance of the s~udy of the Zohar e~ercised a strong influence, and paraphrases of hIS words appear 111 the writings of many sixteenth-century Kabbalists. 118 Thi~ .notion may have stimulated the study of the Zohar, and the wnnng of Zohar commentaries in the sixteenthcentury, as well as in subsequent periods. R. Abraham Azulai quotes the words of an anonymous writer in his introduction to Or ha-Hamah, an anthology of sixteenth-century Zohar commentaries

116 S Y L' b "'Th

. ee .. Ie" es, e ~essia? of the Zohat·: On R. Simeon Bar Yohai

as a Messianic figure , ed. S. Re em, The Messzame Idea in Jewish Thought A Stud Conferenc~ In Honor of the Eig~tieth Birthday of Gershom Scholem (Jerusale~, 198~ ~p. /04 105 (Ill Hebrew). This part of Liebes' article is not included in the

ng Ish. translation III Liebes, Studies in the Zohar. The concept that secrets f:~de~ m the .Zohar will be reve~led close to the time of redemption appears in

ejer a-Meshw, G. Scholem, The Magid of R. Yosef Taitazak and the revelations attnbuted to him", Sefunot 11, Jerusalem (1971-77), pp. 76-78 (in ~eb,~w) and in Sefer ~af~a-Ketoret; M. Idel, "Neglected Writings by the Author o Sefer Kaf ha-Qetoret Pe amzm 83; pp. 79-81 (in Hebrew). According to Idel (p. 79), the notion that the revelation of kabbalistic books is a condition for the coml~170f the Messiah appears implicitly in Sefer Kaf ha-Ketoret

Ma'arekhet ha-Elohut [,01 2b .

118 .' . .

B See e.g. Ez Hayyzm, fol. 18a; Tishby, Studies in Kabbalah and its

ranches, vol. 1, 1982, p. 141; R. Elior, Galia Raza (Jerusalem 1981) p 64.

Avodat ha-Kodesh, Part 3, chapter 18, fo1. 81a; Huss, "Ketern Pa~", pp. '84:_85:

ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 291

which he compiled in the early seventeenth-century:

I have found it written that the heavenly decree prohibiting the study of Kabbalah in public was valid only until the end of the year 250 [1490]. Thereafter it would be called the last generation. The decree was abrogated and permission was granted to study the Zobar. From the year 300 [1540] onward it will be accounted of special merit to both old and young to study in public, as it is stated in the Ra' aya Meheimna. And since the messianic king will appear through these merits [of this study] and through none other, it behooves us not to be remiss. And the one whom God has blessed, who has toiled and found, who made an effort and merited to attain the portion of wisdom which can be attained in this world, merited tasting in this world some of the delights of the world to come. 119

According to Kabbalistic doctrine, the advent of the Messiah depends on the repair of the Divine realm. The concept that the study of the Zohar brings about the coming of the Messiah was related to the notion that human beings affect the divine realm through their religious activity. From the sixteenth-century, several Kabbalists regarded the study of the Zohar as such a theurgical practice. The notion that the homilies of Rashbi and his companions influence the upper realms plays an important role in the Zohar.120 The idea that the Zohar was written in order to unite the Sefirot and bring harmony to the divine world appears in the latter strata of the Zohar121 and was elaborated by several sixteenth and seventeenth-century Kabbalists.122 According to R. Moses Cordovero not only did the writing of the Zohar by Rashbi and his companions have a theurgical import, but its present day study can also bring benefit to the divine realm123 and draw down the

119 See Scholem, Sabbatai Se1Ji, p. 22.

120 See Liebes, Studies in the Zobar, pp. 55-63. 121 See Tikkunei ba-Zobar, fol. 3a.

122 See Meir Ibn Gabbai's introduction to Aoodat ba-Kodesb, fol. 4b and part 3, chapter 18, fo1. 80. See also in the addition to pseudo-Gikarilia's responsa found in MS. New York, JTS, 1737, fo!' 63a, and in Abraham Azulai's Hesed Le'Avraham 1, 24 (Jerusalem 1991) p. 23. See Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, pp. 374-375.

123 According to Cordovero: "This indicates that the greatest need (for the Zohar) is at the end of Israel's exile, when the Divine Presence (Shekhina) is at Her utmost downfall, in order that she should have a support in the end of our present exile" Tikkunei ha-Zohar with Or Yakar commentary, vol. 1, p. 24; see Sack, The Kabbalah of Ra.bbi Moshe Cordouero ; pp. 40, 277-278.

292 Boaz Hes:

Divine Presence upon the student:

As the exile and enslavement of Israel began after the second destruction of the Temple, and because the Divine Presence (Shekhina] was exiled with Israel, for this reason R. Simeon and his friends composed this book, in order that through the disclosure of the secrets the light of Tif'eretb would be revealed, and Malkhut (the last Sefirah, Shekhina) would have some delight in unification and restoration. And without any doubt, also in our own generation, when a person studies this wisdom, he makes a great benefit and the Divine Presence (Shekhina] dwells on him individually, if his ways are virtuous.124

The notion that the study of the Zohar can draw down divine power appears in Sefer Kaf ba-Ktorei, which may have influenced R. Moses Cordovero. According to the anonymous author of Kaf ba-Ktaret: "the one who studies125 the Zohar, attracts down upon earth the Divine Presence [Shekhina]".126

The mystical character of the exegesis of the Zohar was expressed in a striking manner in Lurianic Kabbalah. R. Isaac Luria (ha-Ari) used the study of the Zohar as a way of achieving supernatural, mystical experiences. R. Hayyim Vital relates of R. Isaac Luria's efforts in studying the Zohar. He portrays Luria's exegesis of the Zohar as a sort of a mystical technique:

And my teacher [R. Isaac Luria] answered me when I asked him how he gained all this wisdom, and said that he had exerted much effort in its study. I told him that also R. Moses Cordovero of blessed memory and 1, Hayyirn, exerted much effort in its study. He told me that indeed we exerted more effort than others, yet, we did not labor as he did, as he had stayed several nights without sleep, studying one passage of the Zohar. Sometimes he had spent the six nights of the week concentrating v' ' on the study of only one passage. 128

124 Tikkunei ha-Zohar with Or Yaea« commentary, vol. 2, p. 102; see also 'p.141. And see Sack, The Kabbalah of Rabbi MOJhe Cordouero, pp. 37-38.

. 125 The manuscript reads p1Yil. I believe the letter Ois missing and the word should read p01Yil.

126 MS. Paris, 845, fol. 54a. See: Idel, "Inquiries into the Doctrine ofSefer Ha-Meshiv", p. 237. The author of Kaf ba-Ketoret may have been influenced by the Muslim idea that when the Qura'n is recited, God's Sakinah descends brimsing with it comfort and power. See: F.M. Denny, "Islam: Qura'n and . Hadith" The Holy Book in Comparative Perspective, p. 97.

127 "Mitboded". On the mystical significance of this term see: M .. Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah (Albany, 1988), pp. 103-168.

128 Sha'ar Ruah ha-Kodesh, The Writings of Ha-Ari Series, vol. 10, p. 36.

Sefer ha-Zohar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text

Elsewhere R Hayyim Vital mentions instructions Luria recer

, . .' d 129

from supernatural beings during his mystical stu y:

And as to his comprehension he told me that in the beginning of hi~ s~d) would labor sometimes a whole week on one passage of the Zobar an h t ey not tell him its interpretation ... and when he exer~ed much effort t ey W(

II hi . "in this issue you studied and perceIved the truth, yet [l ~~terp~:~ti;n] needs some more depth". So~etimes they w~uld tell him th~ some matter he was wrong, partially or entirely. So he studIed It agatn unt

. d h h 130

perceIVe t e trur .

Yehudah Liebes suggests that the reason for Luria's in:migrat to Safed was his intention to communicate wit~ R. Slm~on Yohai who is buried near Safed, through a mystical rechnique devised, in order to understand fully the wisdom to the .Zohar:

A similar concept appears in R. Joseph Care's mystical di:

Magid Meisharim. The "Magid", Care's divine mentor, tells I that through the study of the Zohar near Rashbi's grave, the sc of its authors are revealed, and explain the secrets of the text:

And you should know that they [Rashbi and his son] are very happy when study Zobar near their grave, or in the proximate village. And If you should I on with your study they will reveal to you supreme secrets, all of them I~pht the Zohar yet people do not perceive them until they are revealed to tern: only then' they will realize the place in which they were implied, as in ttedZ you possess there are many supreme secrets, without measure, yet peop e. c perceive them, and when they will be revealed, only then they WIll perceIve

The perceptions of the Zohar as a sacred text are closely relater its emergence as a canonical text. Indeed, the ~oncepts of sanctity of the Zohar served to enhance its authonty. As we h seen above, R. Isaac Mar-Hayyim explicitly grounded the ~oh authority in its supernatural source: "And we rely on R. Sim

129 See Y. Liebes, "New Directions in the Study of the Kabbal

Pe'amim 50 (1992). p. 164 (in Hebrew).

130 Sba'ar Ruah ha-Kodesh, Ibid, p. 19. "

131 Liebes, "New Directions in the Study of the Kabbalah, p. 165.

132 Maggid Mesharim, Paras hat 'Emor, (Jerusalem, 1960), p .

R Moses Cordovero, Or Yakar, vol. 13 (Jerusalem, 1985), p. 175, also t~~1 secrets being revealed at the graves of Rashbi and his son. See Liebes, I Directions in the Study of the Kabbalah", P: 165, n. 50.

294 Boaz

more than on any other in this wisdom, because Elijah revealed ~imself to him every day".133 R. Judah Hayyat's strong formulation of the Zohar's authority follows immediately on his statement as to the messianic import of the study of the Zohar. Perceptions of the sacred . nature of the Zohar were emphasized especially amongst the sixteenth~century Kabbalistic communities in Safed in which the Zohar became the center of the religious life. Bracha Sack, in her study of R. Moses Cordovero's attitude to Zoharic literature, has argued that the Zohar served not only as a major source for the development of Cordoveros Kabbalah but also as a mythical m?~el fo~ Cordovero's Kabbalistic circle.134 Although R. Isaac LUrIa s attrtude to the Zohar differs in several major ~espects from that of Cordovero, 13 5 the Zohar played a similar role In the religious life of Luria and his circle. Brian Stock's notion of what he terms a "textual community" may be applied to these ~roups. Acco~d.ing to Stock, "textual communities" are interpretative communItles, as well as social units. Such microsocieties are organized around the common understanding of a script, which alter~ their behavioral norms, and supersedes the differing econorrnr and social backgrounds of the participants.136 The sixteenth-century Kabbalistic groups in Safed can therefore be best described as "Zoharic communities".

***

~;: Nadav, "An Epistle of the Qabbalist Isaac Mar Hayyim", p. 455. 135 Sack, The Kabbalah of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, pp. 11--54.

. I hope to elaborate on this Issue elsewhere. It will suffice here to say that while Cordovero regarded the Zohar as an "open" text, accessible to human mterpretatlon, In the Lurianic writings the Zohar is portrayed as a closed text that can be deciphere.] only by supernatural means. '

136 B. Stock, The !mplications of ltteracy (Princeron, 1983) pp. 90-91, 522.

Idem, Lzstenzng for the 1 ext: on the Uses of the Past (Baltimore & London, 1990), pp. 23, 150. Stock uses the term 111 his description of Medieval Christian heretic groups. Jacob Neusner, Canon and connection, Intertextuality in Judaism (Lanham New York & Lo_ndon 1987), adopts this term to refer to the sages of the MIshnah period. Elliot Wolfson uses Stock's notion of "textual communities" to descnbe the thlfteenth-century circle of Kabbalists in Catalonia and Castile in his forthc~mll1g study "Orality, Textuality, and Revelation as Modes of Education and FormatIOn ll1 jewish Mystical Circles of the High Middle Ages". I am grateful to Prof Wolfson who made a copy of his paper available to me.

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 295

I would like to conclude with a short examination of the perception of the Zohar as a holy book. As I have defined it above, a holy book is a book whose non-semantic aspects are perceived as a source of sanctity. In the case of the Zohar, it is especially the phonetic aspect of the text that is perceived ~s s~ch. Thus t~e recitation of the text, even without understanding ItS content, IS perceived as-religiously potent. The employment of .the Zohar as. a holy book is expressed in the inclusion of Zohanc .. passages. 10 liturgical books, and in its recitation, even without understanding its content, on special occasions, such as the eve of Shavu'ot and the night preceding a circumcision.137 Not only the pho_netic aspect of the text, but also its material aspect, 1.e. the ~rmted volumes of the Zohar, are perceived as bearers of sanctIty. In several communities volumes of the Zohar were (and still are) kept in a special place in the synagogue, usually near the holy ark. 13 8 In his study of the Zohar in Southern Morocco, Harvey Gol~berg recounts a special procession in. which a newly purchased printed set of Zohar volumes was brought into a synagogue.139 The possession of a Zohar volume was considered beneficial,. and in cases of difficult illness, a Zohar volume would be brought into the home.140 There is evidence that people used to take oaths while laying their hands on a Zohar volume.141

137 See A. Stahl, "Ritual reading of the Zobar", Pa'amim. 5 (1980) pp. 77-86 (in Hebrew) H.E. Goldberg, "The Zohar in Southern Morocco: A Study in the Ethnography of Texts", History of Religions 29 (1990), p. 250.

138 Ibid, pp. 247-250. A special shelf called Paliza for the Zobar, probably in the synagogue, is mentioned by R. Solomon, a disciple of R. ,!,h1l1ehas 0:

Korets. See A.J. Heschel, "On the history of R. Phinehas of Korers , Alez Aym. The Salman Schoken Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem 1948--1952), p. 236, n. 18 (1l1 Hebrew). Idem, The Circle of the Baal Shem Tou, studies in Hasidism, ed. S.H. Dresner (Chicago & London 1985), p. 5, n. 5. I have not been able to locate the manuscript cited by Hesche!. According to R. Phinehas disciple the world was maintained by the little volumes of the Zobar (Zoharlach) that were laying on a shelf (Paliza), even though nobody studied them!

139 Goldberg, "The Zohar in Southern Morocco", p. 249.

140 Ibid, pp. 250-251. ..

141 In the Responsa of R. Eleazar Fleckeles to Karl Fischer, the opiruon

that one should hold a Zohar volume while giving an oath to a gentile IS mentioned (and rejected by R. Eleazar): "The opinion of one person. is that. he (i.e. the person giving an oath to a gentile) should make the oath while holding

296 Boaz Huss

The distinction between a holy book and a sacred and canonical text underlines the fact that the perception of the Zohar as a holy book emerged later than its employment as a canonical and sacred text. Recitation of the Zohar in rituals, and the formulation of the idea of the holiness of the Zohar's non semantic aspects are exceptional before the seventeenth-century.V'< The perception of the Zohar as a holy book became widespread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and prevails to our day, especially amongst Hasidic and Sephardic Jewish communities. The notion that it is beneficial to recite and to possess the .Zobar, even without understanding it, contributed undoubtedly to the wider dispersion of the Zohar. As Ze'ev Gries has emphasized, there has been a considerable rise in the printing of the Zohar and its dispersion amongst a wider strata of the Jewish population since the

a volume of the Zohar in his hand, as the opinion of the pious of Israel is that the Zobar is holy and terrible, and the one who touches it in a vain or false oath will die in a few days" Responsa of R. Eleazar Fleckelcs 26 (Kassa, 1912), fol. 14b; Werses, Haskalah and Sabbatianism, p. 6S. I was informed that it is permissible to give an oath while holding a Zohar in Israeli rabbinical courts.

142 There may be evidence of a ritualistic, magical use of the Zobar in R. Joseph Care's Maggid Mesharim, Parashat 'Emor (p. lOS). Yet, it is not clear to what extant the reading of the Zohar was used in inducing rain, beyond the circumambulating of R. Elazar's grave. The study of the Zohar near Rashbi's grave, mentioned in the same passage (and discussed above) seems to have had a ritualistic, mystical character. R. Isaac Luria recommended'to one of his students to study Zobar as a way of achieving mystical understanding: "He should study the Zohar only by way of gaining familiarity with the text, without delving deeply into its study, forty or fifty pages every day, and he should read the Zohar many times". Sha'ar Ruah ha-Kodesh, p. 36. Ritualistic study of the Zohar was exercised by the Kabbalist of Safed during Tikkun Lei! Sbauu'ot . See Or Yakar, vol. 13, p. 159; Sha'ar ba-Kauanot, p. 203. Yet these sources speak abour the stu?y of the Zobar, and not its recitation. In several sixteenth-century sources the significance of the language of the Zohar, beyond its meaning, is mentioned. R. Hayyim Ovadiah says in his Be'er Mayim Hayyim (Saloniki, 1546), fol. 6b: "And in this compilation I will bring evidence from the hidden homily, Sefer ba-Zobar, in a few places. I will bring its words exactly as they are written because they have the quality to make an impression in the heart more so than if I would only paraphrase their meaning". R. Moses Cordovero says in his Or Ne'erav, part 5, chapter 2 : "For even the reading of the words of the Zohar will bring a man joy of the soul in the fear of God, as if he pursued his studies with the righteous in the Garden of Eden"; see Ira Robinson, Moses Cordovero's Introduction to Kabbalah, An Annotated Translation of His Or Ne'erau (Hoboken, 1994), p. 107.

Sefer ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and Holy Text 297

~----------~--------.

eighteenth-century.143 The wider dispersion of the Zohar in this period does not indicate, to my mind, a rise in the canonical status of the Zohar, but rather its use as a holy book. I also believe that the recommendation to study passages of the Zohar in the daily study period, which is prescribed in the po~~:~ b~ok "Hok le-.Israe~' ~printed for the first time in Egypt in 1740), indicates the ~ltuahstlCl~~age of the Zohar rather than its employment as a canonical text.

The view that it is beneficial to recite the Zohar, even without understanding its content was formulated by several seventeenthcentury Kabbalists. R. Aaron Berachiah of Modena says in his

Ma'avar Yabok:

And that is [the meaning of]: "one should recite" (B. Shabbat 63a) in this world and "return and understand" (ibid.) in the world to come. One should recite even if he does not understand what he says (B. Avodah Zarah 19a) because in the future he will understand. And they said146 that it is praiseworthy to try to understand, even if one does not succeed, because he who makes an effort, even though he cannot understand, will achieve and understand in the Garden of Eden. And because of this, it is recommended to recite the Zohar as we~~ ~s the Tikkunim and the Ra'aya Mehezmna, even Without understanding them.

According to the seventeenth-century Lurianic Kabbalist, Meir Poppers, it is recommended to study the Zohar at dawn, even for those who do not understand it, because the language of the Zohar refines the soul. 148 According to the famous Italian Kabbalist, R. Moses Zacuto, the recitation of the Zohar has theurgical as well as individual merit. In the Tikkun Leil Hosha'ana Rabba that he appended to R. Nathan Shapira's work Tuv ha-Arez (1655), he asserts:

Thereafter one should read from the Zohar, Parashat Ha'azinu. That is, particularly from a book of Kabbalah and not from some other text. And even

143 Gries, "The Copying and Printing of Kabbalistic Books", pp. 209-211. 144 Ibid, p. 210.

145 And see the reference to Hok le-Isme! in Hayyim Nahman Bialik's

story, cited by Gries, Ibid, p. 211.

146 Zohar, vol. 1, fol. 69b.

147 Ma'avat. Yabok, Ma'arnar Siftei Renanot, 3, 26 (Mantua, 1626), fol,

94b; see also Asbmoret Boker, (Mantua, 1624), fol. 267b.

148 Or Zaddikim, (Hamburg, 1690), Zman hashkamat Adam ba-boker, pp.

16-17.

298 Boaz Huss

if he does not know or understand what he says, nonetheless the recitation the language of the Zobar IS greatly beneficial to the Sbekbinab and to his soul more so than any other manner of Torah study. 149 '

R. Moses Zacuto, as well as R. Aaron Berachiah of Modena allude here to Raba's assertion in the Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah fol. 19a, that a person should always memorize the Torah, even if he does not kn~w what he says. This allusion appears in many t~e later asseruons as to the importance of reciting the Zohar without understanding its Content. I would like to emphasize that R. Moses Zacuto regards the recitation of the Zohar as more potent than. any other manner of Torah study. This notion cornes ro the fore in a qu~stion p~sed .to the eighteenth-century sage, R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida), which is discussed in his bibliographical work Shem ha-Gedolim:

~nddthat ;s the answer I gave to an enlightened one who asked concerning what t e ISClpes of the Ari wrote that the study of the Zobar is a great reparation which enlightens the soul and sanctifies it ... and it seems that this study has this merrt more so than the study of the Mishnah and the Talmud and the Bible ahndBltblls a wohnder how 1"fs~ch it is more powerful than all the Torah whether

tel e or t e Mishna. '

Different factors may have influenced the emergence and reception of th~ Zohar as a holy book. The emergence of the notion of the sanctity of the. Zohar's non-semantic features may depend upon the perception of the sanctity of its content. As I have noted abo~e, the idea of the supernatural origin of a text may invoke the notion .that not only the content of the text but also its nonsernannc features are endowed with sanctity. Indeed, the ritualistic use of the Zohar, as well as the notion that it is beneficial to recite the Zo~ar .even without understanding its meaning, was dispersed by Lurianic and Cordoverian Kabbalists. As we have seen above

,

149

,Tuv Ha-Aretz ,(Venice, 1655), fol. 76a. And see also Tikkun Lei!

Sha~u ot, zbzd, fol. 75b. These passages were reprinted in R. Nathan Hanover's Sba a~e;oZzon (Amsterdam, 1671) fols. 50b-51a.

. d' t~m ba-Gedolim, 33 (Babir). The Hida refers explicitly to a ritualistic

hrea m!S"o t e Zohar, using the Talmudic phrase "even if he does not know what e says.

ba-Zobar as a Canonical, Sacred and

Text 299

the perception of the Zohar as a sacred text was emphasized in the Kabbalah of R. Moses Cordovero and R. Isaac Luria. Yet, the notion of the sanctity of the non-discursive aspects of the Zohar was not formulated to my knowledge by Cordovero and Luria,151 nor by their immediate disciples. The perception of the Zohar as holy was formulated for the first in the seventeenth-century and became prevalent during the eighteenth.t ' 2 I would like to suggest that the dispersion of the idea of the Zobar as a holy book served to establish Lurianic Kabbalah as the authoritative, if you will canonical, trend of Kabbalah. The Kabbalists cited above, R. Meir Poppers, R. Nathan Shapira and R. Moses Zacuto were active in editing the Lurianic writings and dispersing Lurianic Kabbalah as the only authoritative form of Kabbalah.1s 3 As I have mentioned before, Lurianic Kabbalah was developed, and perceived, as an interpretation of the Zohar. R. Hayyim Vital, as well as later Lurianic kabbalists, posited Lurianic Kabbalah as the only correct interpretation of the Zohar, a text which is incomprehensible by ordinary human reason. 154 The notion of the sanctity of the Zobars non-discursive features motivated a wider dispersion of the text, and at the same time enhanced the esteem of Lurianic kabbalists as the only authoritative interpreters of this holy text. 155

151 An exception are the traditions cited above, n. 142. Yet, Cordovero and Luria do not say explicitly that one can merit from reciting the Zobar without understanding it.

152 On various formulation of this notion in the eighteenth-century see:

Tishby, The Wisdom of tbe Zohar, vol. 1, p. 137; Gries, Conduct Literature, pp. 13-14, n. 53. See also the many citations in Kuntres Mi Ha-'Ish be-Hafetz Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1990).

153 See Tishby, Studies in Kabbalab and its Branches, vol. 1, pp. 243, 252.

On the more complex attitude of R. Aaron Brachiah of Modena to Lurianic Kabbalah see pp. 185-254.

154 See Sha'ar ha-Halsdamot, pp. 3-4; R. Jacob Zemah introduction to Kol Ba-Ramah, published by G. Scholem, "Life and Works of R. Jacob Zemah", Kirjatb Sepber 26 (1950), p. 193.

155 Green, "Writing with Scripture", pp. 7-23, offers a similar view of the Sages' perspective of Scripture. According to Green, the Rabbinic concept of the Torah as a holy object, whose ownership was a religious obligation for every Jew, determined the Rabbis' sole mastery of the discourse of Scripture and justified their claim to leadership over Israel.

300 Boaz Russ

The reception of the notion of the sanctity of the non-semantic aspects of the Zohar enhanced the authority of Lurianic Kabbalah, but restricted direct approach to the Zohar as an authoritative source. The concept of the Zohar as a holy - and thus an inaccessible - text has been utilized against Sabbateans and others, who used the Zohar as an authoritative source, which posed a threat to Rabbinic tradition in the eighteenth-century. 156

The perception and use of the Zohar as a holy text which contributed to its distribution and circulation among wide strata of the Jewish community in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, diminished its role as a culturally influential and canonical text. While the way to benefit from the spiritual potential of the Zohar was open to any person possessing and reciting the Zohar, the way to understand its content was restricted to expert, Lurianic Kabbalists. As Rakefet Sheffy has observed: "The more we worship a text or the work of an author, the stronger the tendency to inhibit access to it for instance, through professionals". 15 7

The perception of the Zohar as a holy text restricted the approach to the text and subordinated its authority to that of Lurianic Kabbalah. The dissemination of this perception coincided with the rise of criticism against the Zohar's authenticity and its rejection amongst Jews belonging to, and influenced by, the Jewish enlightenment movement. The combination of these two phenomena - the rejection of the Zohar by certain groups in Jewish society, and the sanctification of its non-semantic aspects amongst other groups - diminished considerably the influence of the Zohar in modern Jewish culture.

156 See for instance the words of Hakham Sevi Ashkenazi against David Mendes da Silva reliance on the Zohar, cited by M. Goldish, "Halakhah, Kabbalah, and Heresy: A Controversy in Early Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam", JOR 84 (1994), p. 164. Hakham Zevi refers in his responsum against Da Silva to the Sabbatians use of the Zohar (pp. 164, 172).

157 R. Sheffy, "The Concept of Canonicity in Polysystem Theory", Poetics Today 11 (1990), p. 518.

Appendix

0,?:l1pr.ln 'XI!I 101 P :m:l x, '"t Y:1r.nnl!l !l"YX X'l'X:1 O'llm ~ipn ""'I!I:1 nx,) p .2 .0'1)1 '11Pll O'Xlnn ',:11 X'X 1)' 1'X 1)X1

302 Boaz Huss

'1!)tn n"'1 om' 1:) n'lnl 1'!)0 \!IIO' l'b 1mn 1!l01 :I\!1N1' n1\;>)1 n\!l)ln :n rupn P N>llnl O:ln:l r301n nmoi l'm1lil ~ Oil)! lIN'" 31\;> O\!l '131m '''t N"\;>N1"l '1 ')0" '1 31n m '\!I11'!) 0)1 n:>1)10n 1!l01 1i' ')I 01\!11'n n")1 '\;>Nl1"10 on»:) '1 31n '1!lPl 'P' nl' ')I

'N 0'::>0' l!lIN:1 n'31'n '1:1i O'\!I1!lm '::>\!Ir.m 10 \!I1\!1 o'\!Iwn O'r.l:>nn orn« Inin N' .10 "1nNO m\;>l' "N1 1:> ONI '" n"N 11'1In o'::>on, ,in\!lm n':1pn 10 \!I1\!1 n\!lvn ':1N .)l'lIn .'Nnl' 1:1 11110\!l ., n'3i'::> n'NI:1ln n':11'n 'N

0")1 1'r.ll 0"1) O""N '1:1i on ':> 1'1:1ir.l 110' 110Nl ;n '":1\!11 '1:1iO n'))In '":»1 .12

.1i> ~ o':>on rraprn lmr.l:>

"n:1 omN O'I)'lr.l 1m Oil1'r.l\!l 'n)lr.l\!l1 .illlr.ln 'In:1 on'ln' N7I!I Tl!lO ,::> Un) "\!!:l)l1 .13

P ')11 i)llr.ln '1n:1 Ol)'ln' 110N\!I inN 10Nr.l:1 ',,:!\!I1 :1nj\!l lN~O :>"nNl \!I"N1n '1:1i:> i1l1r.ln

303

n")\!1 noO nt, nn:lll n'N1 llN!jO 1:1:>1 .16 'r.l 7:>, )lill 1:1:ll N\!Il '!l Nlr.»nr.l N')l1 \!Ili1'n

("'))I] nlnl ...

m)l\;> 'i" DiN ":1 rn lNl:1' n,m' N'\!I l:>ln:1 ,:)1 "N O,),,)ll 1nm '0 '1l'TP n'N1 N'l"'

11ll ll""))I' 1mO\!l nN1W 11r.l'n:l N!jr.ll\!l no .n":! . mIN

o,Yil:l I1r.lNll ", \!I' 1:>" .. , 1)'\!Ir.lil n1r.>" :1111' ON ':>

Boaz Huss

11' nN'l' 1"');) ",, 1'nn "" )'\!I'i1' 1mJ\!I ", lin ::1m' 1'1" " n!7ll1 ... In''l'::I Nnnl, j}I 11' 1'11'1')' lin ::Im'nN Nn 1'1'Y.l" I'll )1' nNn, )1~0 1\W!) ::1m' Nnllnl ... )'1'00 )'11

.,. on '1'1 011'Y.lY.l )n>mY.l\!ll\!l inN ~n ''':1\!111 "I In>'N n!7llY.l 'nl::l1Y.l >n,::I1' "lI!1n ')Nl .21 .li1!ln' N~n omN 'l\!l:l m'llY.l 1m' l'mP!lO " " 1mn, "I ,""1'1 " nnnY.l (? n'nl)

... nY.llNn )Y.l ~'lI::1\!1 rmn Oll 'l'OY.l n~l1'Y.ln n>n'Y.lNn nY.l;)nn nn;)nl!ll 1'1" nUN N'\!I .22 nY.l;)n N>n\!l n'1nOl n'Y.lll", ~"Y::I\!I rmn Nln\!l nl!lY.l nN1Pln rmnn n~\!I) -rrm "' !7lIl 'Nnl' 1::1 11l1T.l'O '1 .N::I'PlI '1 ,::11' 0"Y.ll ... O'N':l)' "1'1 110Y.l 0"1'11 0"1'1' lI\!11n>Y.l nnpn 1!l0 N11'm o!7llm lniY.ln !7lI::I 1'111'1 n"Y \!Ilipn nil n'::In ):l1n 1nN 1'1'1'1 nil N::t'PlI '1Y.l n1'

.1::111'1 li> !7lIl 11'1111'1

O'lI~'Ol l'mil0 "' ,nllin il0::l n1N!ln ll"ni ,n"Y1Y.l n1Y.lY.l 1::11nY.l rnn 11::11'11'1 mm 'l!lY.l .23

1::1 ::1'0'1 nmon )'1lI 1''OY.ln' llll ,,::1 11l~ l'!7lI ""Y.l lniY.l !7lI N11'l 1!lOn\!l 11';)1 ... llY.lY.l 110l 1111'1 nl'I1' 1nlll1 1!l0 N11'l "," ... II mmn nrne lIl1) m>n" 'tI"1::1 11l1nn, I'll;) ,n"Y1Y.l nY.l'Ol 'i> !7lI 1'1'1'1 0'OY.l llN~ N1ll 01~ 1't1!lN 'I'll 11"Y 1111 n'OY.l m1'TY.l min 111'1

,nNIn nY.l'Om '1' 'll rmusn 111Y.l Oll'!l'OY.ll omN ::IN1\!1 Nlnl ,nY.l;)nn m)'lIY.l oml1!l) 1"1'1'0

305

N'1I1l Nn'N1;) 0')"1" O',n) O'l1l 1po))n'\!I 1nllY.ln )Y.l nl!lT.l 1'1" n'\!IY.ln 1'Y.l I'll' i>n)) m nl;)llll' 1nNl NlY.lmT.l N)lY.ll lIl" ,1'11'1

.:l'nlln

'(1Nl nl';)\!In 1'1;) i>11):) 1'7m 0'1!lO::l (l) 1'1)11'1 .28

306 Boaz HUH

i:l':I ,nH:I inN 'ONY.l 11'lI 'll :I~1'1 ii1:1110 rnn

" O"Y.l1N 1'11 11'1 nil" n>n '~N:l P" '" 1~lI'!l " O"Y.l1N 1'11 1'1" 1mN 1':111' 'i' '111lil " 0',011'1 1>11 0'Y.l1'!l" ,111' PY.l1)l I1!lP l"!l 1"ill ':IN I1Y.lNI1 'II l1iY.l1l1 11)"11 ll1'!l 1"ll:l

);'Y.l1111 01'11 on, 110lm '!l,:I 11'1 011'1IY.l ,1I ,nn ':ll1np:I iNO o'nY.l1!I 011 " lIil1 p:l1 .31

'):I~1n )1' "~)j 1'1'(7)1 I'll nY.l:l '1'0, ""l:li 'I1n '1'111:1 Nni )111' HO'i ,111'1 lI'!lO, 1)11'

'N'I!I' '1'on 1111i' '~N 11':1 'l1lln '!lonl!l:l 1mN 1'1:11!1' no» 1111'i '~N inN I!I'N .32

n"o:l N'P'1!I1 01' ":1 0"11 'l 11'1 'Y.l ,)1'11:1 P'Y.llll!I' ',:1 i:l':I mN'p:l -rrr ,nn:l i1Y.l~"~1 .33

.0':1, 0'Y.l1l!l

nO':I ,nlln '!l0 O')llil ~'iOY.l n'N' N':ln, l'''!lN ill '11:111:1 :l1n'NI!II!I nO:l~ '!l~" .34

)):1 O'p'1!ln Oll Pt)1)I "1'1' '11 111'1,':1 ~!ll:l nnY.l1!I OiNn '1'1 nN"l' ,nHI1 111!1' 11t)'l '''!IN "

307