Between Tradition and Critique: R' Yaakov Emden's Examination of the Zohar in 'Mitpachat Sefarim' - Pt.1
Emden on the Composition and Origin of the Zohar: Main Zohar; Ra'aya Mehemna and Tikunei Zohar; Idrot - Idra D’bei Mishkana; Idra Raba; Idra Zuta
Part of a series on “Proto-Scientific Jewish scholars, from Pre-Late Modern Period”. The next part will be about other aspects of the Zohar as we have it, according to Emden: Theologically and halachically problematic passages; contradictions between the Zohar and the Talmud; concealing the Zohar; and Kabbalah in general
The Zohar is the foundational work in Kabbalah. It purports to be stories and conversations of the circle of R’ Shimon bar Yochai, often referred to in Kabbalistic-inspired literature by the acronym ‘Rashbi’ (רשב”י). R’ Shimon bar Yochai was a 2nd-century tannaitic sage in Roman-era Eretz Yisrael, active after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. R’ Yaakov Emden was an 18th-century rabbi and Talmudist. This piece is about some of Emden’s major points regarding the authorship of the Zohar.
Jacob Emden - Wikipedia (with minor adjustments):
R’ Yaakov Emden, also known as Ya'avetz (June 4, 1697 – April 19, 1776), was a leading German rabbi and talmudist who championed Orthodox Judaism in the face of the growing influence of the Sabbatean movement [...]
Emden was the son of R’ Tzvi Ashkenazi, and a descendant of Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chełm. He lived most of his life in Altona (now a part of Hamburg, Germany), where he held no official rabbinic position and earned a living by printing books. His son was Meshullam Solomon, rabbi of the Hambro Synagogue in London who claimed authority as Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom from 1765 to 1780.
The acronym Ya'avetz (יעב"ץ, also written Yaavetz) stands for the words Yaakov (Emden) ben Tzvi (his father's name):
יעקב (עמדין) בן צבי
Seven of his 31 works were published posthumously.
The following is based on מטפחת ספרים – ויקיפדיה, see there for citations
Emden’s Mitpachat Sefarim is the first comprehensive critique addressing the composition of the Zohar. Emden argued that there is no obligation for a Jew to be bound by belief in every printed Zohar book, and it's permissible to doubt it. As mentioned earlier, this position was controversial. Following this opinion, Emden himself criticized the Zohar extensively. In his opinion, there are various literary strands in the Zohar that differ from each other in their creation time, their authors' identity, and their religious status.
Emden on the Composition and Origin of the Zohar
Emden believed that there are historical layers in the Zohar. According to him, there are parts in the Zohar that come from early traditions, starting with the early Tannaim for the path of the Prophets and ending with ‘Moses from Sinai’. He termed these parts the ‘body of the Zohar’ (גוף הזוהר). He believed these parts were written at the end of the Amoraic era or during the time of the Geonim based on even older traditions. However, he doubted whether traditions from the historical R’ Shimon Bar Yochai were even included.
R’ Emden claimed that many other things were added later from various sources. He claimed there were additions from Kuzari. For example, a passage in the Zohar parallels Kuzari's claim that ‘the Jewish people among other nations are like the heart among body parts’ (עם ישראל בין שאר האומות דומים ללב בין איברי הגוף).
R’ Yaakov Emden brought several additional pieces of evidence from the Zohar itself that it is not ancient:
Emden argued that Amoraim are mentioned in the Zohar, so it couldn't have been written by Tannaim.
The Zohar refers to a synagogue as ‘Eshnogah’ (אשנוגה). This word is of Spanish origin (esnoga) and does not appear in earlier sources like the Tanakh, Babylonian Talmud, Jerusalem Talmud, or Midrashim.
Ra'aya Mehemna and Tikunei Zohar
In the Zoharic literature, there are two additional major works that are separate entities: Ra'aya Mehemna (רעיא מהימנא) and Tikunei haZohar (תיקוני הזוהר). Emden attributed them to one author, a Sephardic scholar, who lived after the Zohar's original author, even after the Babylonian Talmud was finalized, in the late 13th or early 14th century. One of his proofs was that the Ra'aya Mehemna cited statements taken from the Babylonian Talmud.
R’ Yaakov Emden also claimed that the author incorporated many statements from non-Jewish scholars, who believed that nature exists without divine intervention. He also claimed that there are sections in the Ra'aya Mehemna from Kuzari. Additionally, Tikunei Zohar seems to have been written at a later time, given the debate on how to wear tefillin, a debate among later commentators and legal decisors.
Idrot - Idra D’bei Mishkana; Idra Raba; Idra Zuta
The Idrot sections in the Zohar make up three sections: Idra D’bei Mishkana which deals with the secrets of the Tabernacle made by Moses, Idra Raba which describes the gathering of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai's group, revealing Kabbalistic secrets that had not been revealed until then, and Idra Zuta which describes the gathering of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai's group around his deathbed.
Emden argued that these Idrot are based on Amoraim (Talmudic sages of the post-Mishnaic period) who lived several generations after the tanna R’ Shimon Bar Yochai, such as R’ Hamnuna Saba and R’ Yeiva Saba, who were students of Rav. Also mentioned is the son of R’ Safra.
Some claimed that there are also tannaim with the same name, but Emden rejected this claim arguing that the Talmud never mentions Tannaim by these names, only Amoraim, and it's hard to assume that in addition to the Amoraic generation, people with these exact names lived during the Tannaic period, a generation before R’ Shimon Bar Yochai, who could cite statements in their names, especially since we don't know of any Tannaim by these names from the literature of the Sages.
Following these claims, Emden came to two conclusions:
There were two sets of people named ‘R’ Shimon Ben Yochai’ who had a son named R’ Eliezer, one during the Amoraic period and one during the Tannaitic period, and the Zohar was written by the latter.
Rav Abba, the author of the Idrot, is not the Rav mentioned in the Talmud, as commonly believed, but someone who lived at the end of the Amoraic period after all these Amoraim.
Another possibility is that the R’ Shimon Ben Yochai, his son R’ Elazar, and their associates, were "souls from the Garden of Eden" (נשמות מגן עדן), as implied in several places in the Zohar. According to Yeshayahu Tishbi, these strange assumptions reflect Rabbi Emden's internal conflict between his critical truth and his reverence for the Zohar as a holy book. Due to the distance of these assumptions from the consensus, they were not even accepted by the defenders of the Zohar's antiquity. They argued that the later Amoraim mentioned in the Zohar indeed entered it at a later period, but there's no difference between this and the Babylonian Talmud into which statements of Savoraim, who lived after the Talmud's conclusion, were inserted.
Tishbi points that Emden’s stance is problematic, as it's not just a few isolated cases but many such statements.