View source for Zohar

{{short description|Foundational work in Kabbalah literature}}
{{Other uses}}
{{Infobox religious text|religion=[[Judaism]]|name=Zohar|image=Zohar.png|caption=Title page of the first printed edition of the Zohar, [[Mantua]], 1558|author=[[Moses de León]]|language=[[Aramaic]], [[Medieval Hebrew]]|orig_lang_code=he|native_wikisource=ספר הזהר|wikisource=Zohar|period=[[High medieval]]}}
{{italic title}}
{{Kabbalah}}
The '''''Zohar''''' ({{langx|he|{{Script/Hebr|זֹהַר}}|Zōhar}}, {{lit.}} 'Splendor' or 'Radiance'{{Efn|The [[Biblical Hebrew]] word {{tlit|hbo|zohar}} appears only in the vision of Ezekiel 8:2, "And I saw, and there was a figure with the appearance of fire [in [[Masoretic Text|MT]]; other versions, a man]; the appearance of his loins and below, fire; his loins and above, like the appearance of ''zohar'', like the look of ''[[Hashmal|hashmala]]''", and in Daniel 12:3, "The sages will ''yazhiru'' like the ''zohar'' of the sky, and those who make the masses righteous, like stars forever and ever."}}) is a [[Primary texts of Kabbalah|foundational work of Kabbalistic literature]].<ref>Scholem, Gershom and Melila Hellner-Eshed. "Zohar". ''Encyclopaedia Judaica''. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 21. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 647–664. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale.</ref> It is a group of books including commentary on the mystical aspects of the [[Torah]] and scriptural interpretations as well as material on [[mysticism]], mythical [[cosmogony]], and mystical [[psychology]]. The ''Zohar'' contains discussions of the nature of [[Names of God in Judaism|God]], the origin and structure of the universe, the nature of souls, redemption, the relationship of ego{{Citation needed|reason=Ego is a Freudian term from the 1920s|date=February 2024}} to darkness and "true self" to "the light of God".

The ''Zohar'' was first publicized by [[Moses de León]] (c. 1240 – 1305 CE), who claimed it was a [[Tannaim|Tannaitic]] work recording the teachings of [[Shimon bar Yochai|Simeon ben Yochai]]{{Efn|In the ''Zohar'' and later works which adopt its stylings, ben Yochai is usually called "bar Yochai" in the Aramaic fashion. However, as a Palestinian Tannaitic sage, he is properly called "ben Yochai," as he is in genuinely ancient texts without exception.}} ({{Circa|100 CE}}). This claim is universally rejected by modern scholars, most of whom believe de León, also an infamous forger of [[Geonim|Geonic]] material, wrote the book himself between 1280 and 1286. Some scholars argue that the ''Zohar'' is the work of multiple medieval authors and/or contains a small amount of genuinely antique novel material. Later additions to the ''Zohar'', including ''[[Tikunei haZohar|Tiqqune hazZohar]]'' and ''Ra'ya Meheimna'', were composed by a 14th century imitator.

==Language==

=== Zoharic Aramaic ===
According to [[Gershom Scholem]] and other modern scholars, Zoharic Aramaic is an artificial dialect largely based on a linguistic fusion of the [[Talmud|Babylonian Talmud]] and [[Targum Onkelos]], but confused by de León's simple and imperfect grammar, his limited vocabulary, and his reliance on loanwords, including from contemporaneous medieval languages.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |author=Scholem, Gershom Gerhard, (1897-1982) |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/949119809 |title=Major trends in Jewish mysticism. |date=1995 |publisher=Schocken Books |pages=163ff |oclc=949119809}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |first=Lily |last=Kahn |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1241800125 |title=Jewish languages in historical perspective |date=2018-07-10 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-37658-8 |oclc=1241800125}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=משנת הזוהר - כרך ראשון |url=https://www.bialik-publishing.co.il/index.php?dir=site&page=catalog&op=item&cs=416 |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.bialik-publishing.co.il |pages=77–8}}</ref> The author further confused his text with occasional strings of Aramaic-seeming [[gibberish]], in order to give the impression of obscure knowledge.<ref name=":7" />

=== Zoharic Hebrew ===
The original text of the ''Zohar'', as cited by various early [[Kabbalah|Kabbalists]] beginning around the 14th century (e.g. [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre|Isaac b. Samuel of Acre]], David b. Judah the Pious, [[Israel Alnaqua]], [[Alfonso de Zamora]]) was partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic.{{Efn|According to the view of Isaiah Tishby, the text was always in Aramaic but early Kabbalists sometimes translated quotations into Hebrew.}} By the time of the first edition (1558) the text was entirely in Aramaic,<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last=Neubauer |first=A. |date=1892 |title=The Bahir and the Zohar |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1450272 |journal=The Jewish Quarterly Review |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=357–368 |doi=10.2307/1450272 |jstor=1450272 |issn=0021-6682|url-access=subscription }}</ref> with the exception of the ''Midrash haNe'elam'', where Hebrew words and phrases are often employed as in the [[Babylonian Talmud]]. "The Hebrew of the ''Midrash haNe'elam'' is similar in its overall form to the language of the early midrashim, but its specific vocabulary, idioms, and stylistic characteristics bear the imprint of [[medieval Hebrew]], and its midrashic manner is clearly that of a later imitation."<ref name=":7" />

==Authorship==

===Initial view===
Authorship of the ''Zohar'' was questioned from the outset, due to the claim that it was discovered by one person and referred to historical events of the post-[[Rabbinic period|Talmudic period]] while purporting to be from an earlier date.<ref name="jewcyclo">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Zohar |encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia |publisher=Funk & Wagnalls Company |url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406 |last=Jacobs |first=Joseph |author2=Broydé, Isaac}}</ref> [[Abraham Zacuto]]'s 1504 work ''Sefer Yuhasin'' (first printed 1566) quotes from the Kabbalist [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre]]'s 13th century memoir ''Divre hayYamim'' (lost), which claims that the widow and daughter of de León revealed that he had written it himself and only ascribed the authorship to Simeon ben Yochai for personal profit:
{{blockquote|And [Isaac] went to Spain, to investigate how it happened in his time that the Book of the Zohar was found, which Simeon ben Yochai and [[Eleazar ben Simeon|his son Elazar]] had made in the cave . . . and some say that [de Leon] forged it among his forgeries,{{efn|For discussion of de Leon's other forgeries, see Elliot R. Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on Aleynu: Further Evidence of Moses de León’s Pseudepigraphic Activity,” JQR 81 (1991), pp. 365-409; and the sources cited by Shmuel Glick, Eshnav le-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (New York, 2012), pp. 237-238.}} but [Isaac later] said that the [[Western Aramaic languages|Palestinian Aramaic]]{{efn|Modern scholars have shown that the ''Zohar'' contains no Palestinian Aramaic at all, instead relying on [[Jewish Babylonian Aramaic|Babylonian sources]] for its grammar and vocabulary.}} sections were genuinely written by Simeon b. Yochai{{efn|In his ''Otzar haChayyim''. Ed. Yehuda Ohad Turgeman (2019). p. 230.}} . . . And [Isaac] wrote:
:Because I had seen that these words were wonderous, that they ran from a well high above which is beyond those uninitiated into the secrets of the divine, I chased after it and I asked the scholars . . . and some said it had fallen into the hand of the sage Moses de Leon, whom they call Moses of Guadalajara, and some said Simeon ben Yochai had never written this book, but that Moses had written these wonderous words and falsely ascribed them to Simeon ben Yochai and his son Elazar in order to sell them for huge sums of money. And I went to Spain, to the capital city of Valladolid, and presented myself to Moses, and was received favorably, and he swore to me by the Lord that the ancient book of Simeon ben Yochai was that day in his house in Ávila, and that he would show it to me when I visited him, and Moses parted from me to return home, but he sickened in [[Arévalo]] on the way, and he died there, and when I heard of this I was mortally pained, and I took to the road, and I came to Ávila, and I found a great old sage there named David de [[Pancorbo]],{{efn|In MSS and printings corrupted to "Defan Corpo" and first read this way by [[Yitzhak Baer]]; cf. Scholem, "Did Moses de Leon write the Zohar?" [Hebrew] (1926)}} and he received me favorably, and I demanded he explain to me the secrets of the Book of the Zohar, about which men were disputing, and about which Moses himself had sworn beyond doubt until his death, but about which I did not know upon whom to rely or whom to trust,  and he told me, "Know in truth that it is clear to me beyond doubt that it never came to the hand of this Moses, and that there is no Book of the Zohar except that of which Moses himself wrote every word. Know that this Moses was a great spendthrift; one day his house was filled with treasures that the wealthy mystics had given him in exchange for excerpts, and the next his wife and children were starving naked in the street. So when we heard that he had died in Arévalo, I went to the house of the richest man in the city, Joseph de Ávila,{{efn|"Don Jucaf de Ávila" is mentioned in period Spanish documents according to [[Yitzhak Baer]]; see Scholem, ''Did Moses de Leon write the Zohar?'' [Hebrew] (1926), p. 18 n. 8.}} and said to him, 'Now the time has come for you to earn the priceless Zohar if you will do what I advise', and he followed my advice, and he sent his wife to the house of Moses' widow, and she said to her, 'Know that my wish is to marry your daughter to my son, and I ask nothing from you except the Book of the Zohar from which your husband excerpted for many people,' and Moses' widow swore to Joseph's wife, 'By the Lord, my husband never had such a book except in his mind, and everything he wrote came from his own intellect. When I saw him writing, I asked him why he claimed to be excerpting from a book I knew he did not have, and he told me that it was because, while for his own words they would not give a penny, for the divinely inspired work of Simeon ben Yochai they will pay in blood.' And Moses' daughter said exactly the same." Can you ask for better proof than this?}}

Isaac goes on to say that he obtained mixed evidence of Zohar's authenticity from other Spanish Kabbalists, but the fragment ends abruptly, mid-sentence, without any conclusion. Though Isaac is willing to quote it in his ''Otzar haChayyim''<ref name=":1" /> and his ''Meirat Einayim'',<ref name=":5" />  he does so rarely.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Huss |first=Boaz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHJvEAAAQBAJ |title=The Zohar: Reception and Impact |date=2016-05-12 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-78962-486-1 |language=en}}</ref> Isaac's testimony was censored from the second edition (1580)<ref>[http://hebrewbooks.org/5900 ''The Complete Yuchsin Book'', third edition (5723)], p. [http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=5900&pgnum=29 XXII] "ובדף קל"ג השמיט המוציא לאור את המאמר על דבר ספר הזהר." (English: "And on page 133 the publisher erased the essay concerning the matter of the book of the Zohar.")</ref> and remained absent from all editions thereafter until its restoration nearly 300 years later in the 1857 edition.<ref>Available at [http://hebrewbooks.org/46738 HebrewBooks.org: ספר יוחסין השלם], p. [http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46738&st=&pgnum=92 88]-[http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46738&st=&pgnum=93 89] / [http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46738&pgnum=99 95]-[http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46738&st=&pgnum=100 96] (Hebrew).</ref><ref>Dan Rabinowitz in ''Hakirah, The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought'', [http://www.hakirah.org/Volume%202.htm volume 2 (fall 2015)], ''Nekkudot: The Dots that Connect Us'', p. [https://web.archive.org/web/20060108140004/http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Rabinowitz.pdf#page%3D16 64].</ref> In 1243 a different Jew had reportedly found a different ancient mystical book in a cave near [[Toledo, Spain|Toledo]], which may have been de Leon's inspiration.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Wolff |first=Johannes Christoph |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sDTEDybHAlkC |title=Bibliotheca Hebraea |date=1721 |publisher=Felgineri Viduam |pages=1121 |language=la}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Penkower |first=Jordan S. |title=S.D. Luzzatto, vowels and accents, and the date of the Zohar |url=https://www.nli.org.il/en/articles/RAMBI990004236870705171/NLI |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.nli.org.il |language=en}}</ref>

Within fifty years of its appearance in Spain it was quoted by Kabbalists, including the [[Italian people|Italian]] mystical writer [[Menahem Recanati]] and [[Todros ben Joseph Abulafia]]. However, [[Joseph ben Waqar]] harshly attacked the ''Zohar'',<ref>{{Cite book |last=ה-14. |first=אבן וקאר, יוסף בן אברהם, המאה |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/58404406 |title=ספר שרשי הקבלה |date=2004 |publisher=Hotsaʼat Keruv |isbn=0-9747505-6-5 |oclc=58404406}}</ref> which he considered inauthentic,<ref>Moritz Steinschneider, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1, Berlin, 1925, p. 171</ref> and some Jewish communities, such as the [[Dor Daim]] from Yemen, [[Andalusia]]n (Western Sefardic or [[Spanish and Portuguese Jews]]), and some Italian communities, never accepted it as authentic.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> Other early Kabbalists, such as [[David ben Judah the Pious|David b. Judah the Pious]] (fl. c. 1300), [[Abraham ben Isaac of Granada|Abraham b. Isaac of Granada]], (fl. c. 1300), and [[David ben Amram Adani|David b. Amram of Aden]] (fl. c. 1350), so readily imitate its pseudepigraphy by ascribing contemporaries' statements to Zoharic sages that it is obvious they understood its nature.<ref name=":7">{{Cite book |last=Tishby |first=Isaiah |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VG1vEAAAQBAJ |title=The Wisdom of the Zohar: Anthology of Texts |date=1989-09-01 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-909821-82-8 |pages= |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Schechter |first=Solomon |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=68U2AQAAMAAJ |title=מדרש הגדול: על המשה חומשי תורה, ספר בראשית,הוצא לאור... |date=1902 |publisher=at the University Press |pages=XIII |language=he}}</ref> The manuscripts of the ''Zohar'' are from the 14th-16th centuries.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Zohar, volume 1, by Daniel C. Matt|quote=[...] but upon examining many of the original manuscripts of the ''Zohar'' dating from the fourteenth through sixteenth centuries [...]}}</ref>

===Late Middle Ages===
By the 15th century, the ''Zohar''<nowiki/>'s authority in the [[Iberian Peninsula|Iberian]] Jewish community was such that [[Joseph ibn Shem-Tov]] drew arguments from it in his attacks against [[Maimonides]], and even representatives of non-mystical Jewish thought began to assert its sacredness and invoke its authority in the decision of some ritual questions. In Jacobs' and Broyde's view, they were attracted by its [[glory (religion)|glorification]] of man, its doctrine of [[immortality]], and its ethical principles, which they saw as more in keeping with the spirit of [[Rabbinic Judaism|Talmudic Judaism]] than are those taught by the [[Jewish philosophy|philosophers]], and which was held in contrast to the view of Maimonides and his followers, who regarded man as a fragment of the universe whose immortality is dependent upon the degree of development of his active intellect. The ''Zohar'' instead declared Man to be [[Genesis creation narrative|the lord of creation]], whose immortality is solely dependent upon his morality.<ref name="jewcyclo" />

Conversely, [[Elia del Medigo]] ({{Circa|1458|1493}}), in his ''Beḥinat ha-Dat'', endeavored to show that the ''Zohar'' could not be attributed to Simeon ben Yochai, by a number of arguments. He claims that if it were his work, the ''Zohar'' would have been mentioned by the [[Talmud]], as has been the case with other works of the Talmudic period; he claims that had ben Yochai known by divine revelation the hidden meaning of the precepts, his decisions on [[Halakha|Jewish law]] from the Talmudic period would have been adopted by the Talmud, that it would not contain the names of rabbis who lived at a later period than that of ben Yochai; he claims that if the Kabbalah were a revealed doctrine, there would have been no divergence of opinion among the Kabbalists concerning the mystic interpretation of the precepts.<ref name="jewcyclo" /><ref>''Bechinat ha-Dat'' ed. Vienna, 1833, p.&nbsp;43, in the Jacobs and Broyde, "The Zohar", ''Jewish Encyclopedia''</ref>

Believers in the authenticity of the ''Zohar'' countered that the lack of references to the work in Jewish literature was because ben Yochai did not commit his teachings to writing but transmitted them orally to his disciples over generations until finally the doctrines were embodied in the ''Zohar''. They found it unsurprising that ben Yochai should have foretold future happenings or made references to historical events of the post-Talmudic period.<ref name="jewcyclo" />

By the late 16th century, the ''Zohar'' was present in one-tenth of all private Jewish libraries in Mantua.<ref>Shifra Baruchson, ''Sefarim ve-korim: tarbut ha-keriah shel Yehude Italyah be-shilhe haRenesans'' (Ramat Gan: Bar–Ilan University Press, 1993), 160.</ref> The authenticity of the ''Zohar'' was accepted by such 16th century Jewish luminaries as [[Joseph Karo]] (d. 1575), and [[Solomon Luria]] (d. 1574), who wrote nonetheless that Jewish law does not follow the ''Zohar'' when it is contradicted by the Babylonian Talmud.<ref>See also [[Menachem Mendel Schneersohn]], ''[[Likkutei Sichos]]'', Vol. 33, p. 98, which argues that where there is an argument between Kabbalah and [[Posek|poskim]], the ''former'' should be followed. This view is explicitly rejected by most modern authorities, including the ''[[Aruch HaShulchan]]'' (OC 25:29) and the ''[[Mishnah Berurah]]'' (25:42). See also [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra]] (Chelek 4, Siman 1,111) and [[Tzvi Ashkenazi]] (Siman 36) (cited in [[Yonah Gerondi]]'s ''Shaarei Teshuva'' 25:14). See also the [[Responsa]] of Menachem Schneerson (''Responsa Tzemach Tzedek A.H. Siman'' 18,4) and Divrei Nechemia (Responsa Divrei Nechemia O.H. 21). The views of the [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra|Radvaz]] and of the [[Tzvi Ashkenazi|Chacham Tzvi]] are that one should follow the opinion of the ''Zohar'' only where a conclusive statement has not been made by the legal authorities ([[Gemara]] or Poskim), or when an argument is found between the Poskim.</ref>

Luria writes that the ''Zohar'' cannot even override a [[minhag]].<ref>[https://www.sefaria.org.il/Teshuvot_Maharshal.98.2?lang=he Responsa #98]. Luria says, "ודע אהו' שכל רבותיי ואבותיי הקדושים ששמשו גאוני עולם ראיתי מהם שלא נהגו כך אלא כדברי התלמוד והפוסקים ואם היה רשב"י עומד לפנינו ונוח לשנות המנהג שנהגו הקדמונים לא אשגחינן ביה כי ברוב דבריו אין הלכה כמותו, Know, my dear, that I witnessed all of my holy teachers and ancestors, who serve the great masters of yore, go against this practice, instead acting according to the Talmud and the [[Posek|decisors]]. And were Simeon ben Yohai himself to stand before us and set about changing the custom of the ancients, we would pay him no mind, because most of his teachings are contrary to the Law". [[Nota bene|N.b.]] that Simon Hurwitz's English edition of Luria's responsa (1938), available on [[Sefaria]], is a paraphrase which should only be used with extreme caution. See Jacob Menkes, "The Maharshal", ''Journal of Jewish Bibliography'' 1:3 (April 1939) p. 86-93.</ref> [[Moses Isserles]] (d. 1572) writes that he "heard" that the author of the ''Zohar'' is ben Yochai.<ref>[https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/טור_יורה_דעה_סה#fn_(יב) Tur, Yoreh Deah, Siman 65, note 12 of Isserles's Darkhei Moshe]. Hebrew original: שמעתי כי בעל ספר הזוהר הוא סתם ר' שמעון המוזכר בתלמוד שהוא ר"ש בן יוחאי.</ref> [[Elia Levita|Elijah Levita]] (d. 1559) did not believe in its antiquity,<ref>Jordan S. Penkower, ''A Renewed Inquiry into Massoret Ha-Massoret of Elijah Levita: Lateness of Vocalization and Criticism of the Zohar'' (in Hebrew) pg. 35</ref> nor did [[Joseph Justus Scaliger|Joseph Scaliger]] (d. 1609)<ref>François Secret'', Le Zôhar chez les kabbalistes chrétiens de la Renaissance'' (Paris: Mouton, 1964), 99–102</ref> or [[Louis Cappel]] (d. 1658) or [[Johannes van den Driesche|Johannes Drusius]] (d. 1616).<ref>Drusius discussed the lateness of the ''Zohar'' and pointed to the importance of ''Sefer Yuhasin'' by Zacut in 1616 letter. See Anthony Grafton and Joanna Weinberg, ''“I have always loved the Holy Tongue”: Isaac Casaubon, the Jews, and a Forgotten Chapter in Renaissance Scholarship'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011), 325, n. 62.</ref> [[David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra|David ibn abi Zimra]] (d. 1573) held that one can follow the ''Zohar'' only when it does not conflict with any other source<ref>''Responsa'' IV:1,111</ref> and records that "You asked me about scribes modifying [[torah scroll]]s to accord with the ''Zohar'' ... and I was shocked, for how can they consider the ''Zohar'' better than the Talmud Bavli, which has come down to us?{{Efn|Similar discrepancies exist between scribal practice in torah scrolls and the Talmud.}} ... So I went myself to the house of the scribe and I found three scrolls which he had edited, and I fixed them, and I restored the Torah to its proper glory."<ref>''Responsa'' IV:1,172</ref>

===Enlightenment Period===
Debate continued over the generations; del Medigo's arguments were echoed by [[Leon of Modena]] (d. 1648) in his ''Ari Nohem'', by [[Jean Morin (theologian)|Jean Morin]] (d. 1659), and by [[Jacob Emden]] (d. 1776).

Emden—who may have been familiar with Modena through Morin's arguments<ref name="jewcyclo" />—devoted a book to the criticism of the ''Zohar'', called ''Mitpachas Sefarim'' (מטפחת ספרים), in an effort against the remaining adherents of the [[Sabbateans|Sabbatean]] movement (in which [[Sabbatai Zevi]], a [[Apostasy in Judaism|Jewish apostate]], cited Messianic prophecies from the ''Zohar'' as proof of his legitimacy). Emden argued that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery, arguing that the ''Zohar'':

* misquotes passages of Scripture 
* misunderstands the Talmud
* contains some ritual observances that were ordained by later rabbinical authorities
* mentions the [[Crusades]] against Muslims (who did not exist in the 2nd century)
* uses the expression ''esnoga'', a [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] term for the [[synagogue]]
* gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew [[Niqqud|vowel points]], which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period.<ref name="jewcyclo" />

[[Saul Berlin]] (d. 1794) argued that the presence of an introduction in the ''Zohar'', unknown to the Talmudic literary genre, itself indicates a medieval date.<ref>''Besamim Rosh'' (1793), 4th unnumbered page. All reprints of this work, including that listed as the 1793 on HebrewBooks, excise Berlin's introduction.</ref>

In the [[Ashkenazi Jews|Ashkenazi]] community of Eastern Europe, religious authorities including [[Vilna Gaon|Elijah of Vilna]] (d. 1797) and [[Shneur Zalman of Liadi]] (d. 1812) believed in the authenticity of the ''Zohar'', while [[Yechezkel Landau|Ezekiel Landau]] (d. 1793), in his [[Sefer (Hebrew)|sefer]] ''Derushei HaTzlach'' (דרושי הצל"ח),<ref>In ''derush'' 25 which "had previously only appeared in a censored form" (Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro, ''[https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters]'') in [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/22242 ''Derushei HaTzlach''], Warsaw 1886 (Shapiro in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120416154417/http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1861/ Milin Havivin Volume 5] [2011], Is there an obligation to believe that Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai wrote the ''Zohar''?, p. ה [PDF page 126], footnote 13 [Hebrew]).</ref> argued that the ''Zohar'' is to be considered unreliable as it was made public many hundreds of years after Ben Yochai's death and lacks an unbroken tradition of authenticity, among other reasons.<ref>In a portion of ''derush'' 25 first published by [[Yehoshua Mondshine]] in [https://www.otzar.org/wotzar/Book.aspx?26376&lang=eng ''Or Yisrael'', Nisan 5766], [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723111741/http://www.shturem.net/index.php?section=blog_new&article_id=132 על חיבור הזוה"ק ותוספות מאוחרות שנשתרבבו לתוכו] (Hebrew), [https://web.archive.org/web/20140101063924/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Mg_T6ybeMg/UD2NrHEs7hI/AAAAAAAAAcM/RqysMEidlHQ/s1600/Mondshine.jpg p. 202] (highlighted by Shapiro in ''[https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters]''). This portion (along with the remainder) was later published, from manuscript, by Dr. Maoz Kahana and Michael K. Silber in ''[https://www.academia.edu/18006793/_Deists_Sabbatians_and_Kabbalists_in_Prague_A_Censored_Sermon_of_R._Ezekiel_Landau_1770_in_Hebrew_Kabbalah_21_2010_349-384 Deists, Sabbatians and Kabbalists in Prague: A Censored Sermon of R. Ezekiel Landau, 1770]'', Kabbalah 21 (2010), p. 355 (Hebrew).</ref>

[[Isaac Satanow]] accepted Emden's arguments and referred to the ''Zohar'' as a forgery,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Huss |first=Boaz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHJvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA269 |title=The Zohar: Reception and Impact |date=2016-05-12 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-78962-486-1 |language=en}}</ref> also offering new evidence.<ref name=":4" /> By 1813 [[Samuel David Luzzatto]] had concluded that "these books [the Zohar and the Tiqqunei Zohar] are utter forgeries," in part because they repeatedly discuss the [[Hebrew cantillation]] marks, which were not invented until the 9th century.<ref name=":4" /> In 1817 Luzzatto published these arguments, and in 1825 he penned a fuller treatise, giving many reasons why the ''Zohar'' could not be ancient. However, he did not publish this until 1852, when he felt it justified by the rise of [[Hasidic Judaism|Hasidism]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Luzzatto |first=Samuel David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0GU-AAAAYAAJ |title=ויכוח על חוכמת הכבלה: ועל קדמות ספר הזוהר וקדמות הנקודות והטעמים |date=1852 |publisher=Imprimerie de J.B. Seitz |language=he}}</ref><ref name=":4" /> Moses Landau (d. 1852), Ezekiel's grandson, published the same conclusion in 1822.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Landau |first=Moses Israel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zo5AAAAAYAAJ |title=Geist und Sprache der Hebräer nach dem zweyten Tempelbau |date=1822 |publisher=Gedruckt in der Schollischen Buchdruckerey |pages=13–31 |language=de}}</ref> Isaac Haver (d. 1852) admits the vast majority of content comes from the 13th century but argues that there was a genuine core.<ref>מגן וצינה ch. 21</ref> [[Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport]] (d. 1867) spoke against the ''Zohar''<nowiki/>'s antiquity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=29 August 2012 |title=Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters – The Seforim Blog |url=https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ |access-date=2022-07-04}}</ref> [[Eliakim ha-Milzahgi]] (d. 1854) accepted Emden's arguments.<ref>{{Cite web |title=HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: ספר ראביה -- מילזהגי, אליקים בן יהודה |url=https://www.hebrewbooks.org/43935 |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.hebrewbooks.org |page=30c-33a}}</ref>

The influence of the ''Zohar'' in Yemen contributed to the formation of the [[Dor Daim|Dor Deah]] movement, led by [[Yiḥyah Qafiḥ]] in the later part of the 19th century. Among its objects was the opposition of the influence of the ''Zohar'', as presented in Qafiḥ's ''Milhamoth Hashem'' (Wars of the Lord)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahadut.org.il/ZOHAR/MILHAMOT-HASHEM.PDF|title=ספר מלחמות ה'}}</ref> and ''Da'at Elohim''.

Shlomo Zalman Geiger (d. 1878), in his book ''Divrei Kehilot'' on the liturgical practice of [[Frankfurter Judengasse|Frankfurt am Main]], records that "We do not say ''brikh shmei'' in Frankfurt, because its source is in the ''Zohar'', and the sages of Frankfurt refused to accept Qabbalah."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Geiger |first=Shlomo Zalman |title=HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: דברי קהלת -- גיגר, שלמה זלמן בן אהרן יחיאל מיכל |url=https://hebrewbooks.org/6822 |access-date=2023-05-21 |website=hebrewbooks.org |page=60}}</ref>

===Modern religious views===

In 1892, [[Adolf Neubauer]] called on the [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox]] rabbinate to reject the ''Zohar'' as a forgery and to remove Zoharic prayers from the liturgy.<ref name=":6" /> However, [[Yechiel Michel Epstein]] (d. 1908) and [[Yisrael Meir Kagan]] (d. 1933) both believed in the authenticity of the ''Zohar'', as did [[Menachem Mendel Kasher]] (d. 1983), [[Aryeh Kaplan]] (d. 1983),<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Kaplan |first=Aryeh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q3uc8zB5FRoC |title=Meditation and Kabbalah |date=1985-01-01 |publisher=Weiser Books |isbn=978-0-87728-616-5 |pages=28 |language=en}}</ref> [[David Luria]] (d. 1855),<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/sinay/hazohar-2.htm |title=Sinai |publisher=Daat.ac.il |access-date=2012-06-06}}</ref> and [[Chaim Kanievsky]] (d. 2022).<ref name=":3" /> The foremost halachik authority of the 20th Century, Moshe Feinstein, stated unequivocally that the ''Zohar'' and ''Tikkunim'' are words of the Tannaim.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=5|title=אגרות משה - חלק ו (או"ח ח"ד, יו"ד ח"ג) - פיינשטיין, משה בן דוד, 1895-1986 (page 5 of 559)|website=www.hebrewbooks.org}}</ref> [[Aryeh Carmell]] (d. 2006) did not, and [[Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler|Eliyahu Dessler]] (d. 1953) accepted the possibility that it was composed in the 13th century. [[Gedaliah Nadel]] (d. 2004) was unsure if the ''Zohar'' were genuine but was sure that it is acceptable to believe that it is not.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20140830135654/http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ZoharEnglish.pdf#page=39 An Analysis of the Authenticity of the Zohar] (2005), p. 39, with "Rav E" and "Rav G" later identified by the author as Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler and Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel, respectively (Rabbi Dr. [[Marc Shapiro]] in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120416154417/http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1861/ Milin Havivin Volume 5] [2011], Is there an obligation to believe that Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai wrote the ''Zohar''?, p. יב [PDF page 133]):
<br />"I approached Rav A [Aryeh Carmell] with some of the questions on the ''Zohar'', and he responded to me - 'and what about [[Niqqud|nikud]]? Nikud is also mentioned in the Zohar despite the fact that it [is] from [[Geonim|Geonic]] times!' he said. I later found this comment in the Mitpachas Seforim. I would just add that not only is nikud mentioned, but only the [[Tiberian vocalization|Tiberian Nikkud]] - the norm in Europe of the middle ages - is mentioned and not the [[Palestinian vocalization|Yerushalmi nikud]] or [[Babylonian vocalization|the Babylonian one]] — which was used then in the Middle East, and is still used by [[Yemenite Jews|Yemenites]] today. Also the [[Hebrew cantillation|Taamay Hamikrah]] - the trop - are referred to in the Zohar - only by their [[Sephardic Jews|Sefardi]] Names. Rav A told me a remarkable piece of testimony: 'My rebbe (this is how he generally refers to Rav E [Elijah Dessler]) accepted the possibility that the Zohar was written sometime in the 13th century.{{' "}}
<br />"Rav G [Gedaliah Nadel] told me that he was still unsure as to the origin and status of the Zohar, but told me it was my absolute right to draw any conclusions I saw fit regarding both the Zohar and the [[Isaac Luria|Ari]]."</ref> [[Ovadia Yosef]] (d. 2013) held that Orthodox Jews should accept the ''Zohar''<nowiki/>'s antiquity in practice based on medieval precedent, but agreed that rejecting it is rational and religiously valid.<ref name=":3">Shapiro, Marc (2010). "האם יש חיוב להאמין שהזוהר נכתב על ידי שמעון בן יוחאי?". [https://web.archive.org/web/20120416154417/http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1861/ ''מילין חביבין'' (5)]: 1–20.</ref> [[Joseph Hertz]] (d. 1946) called the claim of ben Yochai's authorship "untenable", citing [[Gershom Scholem]]'s evidence.<ref>''Sermons, Addresses and Studies,'' vol. 3 p. 308.</ref> [[Samuel Belkin]] (d. 1976) argued that the Mystical Midrash section, specifically, predated de León.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Belkin |first=Samuel |date=1956 |title=haMidrash haNeelam uMKorotav |journal=Sura |volume= |issue=3 |pages=25ff}}</ref> [[Joseph B. Soloveitchik]] (d. 1993) apparently dismissed the ''Zohar''<nowiki/>'s antiquity.<ref name=":3" /> [[Moses Gaster]] (d. 1939) wrote that the claim of ben Yochai's authorship was "untenable" but that Moses de León had compiled earlier material.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gaster |first=Moses |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.500005/page/n884/ |title=Encyclopaedia Of Religion And Ethics Vol.12 |date=1921 |editor-last=Hastings |editor-first=James |editor-link=James Hastings |pages=858ff |language= |chapter=Zohar |author-link=Moses Gaster}}</ref> [[Meir Mazuz]] (d. 2025) accepts Emden's arguments.<ref name=":3" /> [[Yeshayahu Leibowitz]] wrote (1990) that "Moses de León composed the ''Zohar'' in the 1270s as certainly as [[Theodor Herzl]] composed ''[[Der Judenstaat]]'' in the 1890s ... the ''Zohar'' was influential because in every generation the idolatrous influence outpowers the true faith".<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Leibowitz |first1=Yeshayahu |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IY3XAAAAMAAJ |title=רציתי לשאול אותך, פרופ׳ ליבוביץ־־: מכתבים אל ישעיהו ליבוביץ וממנו |last2=ליבוביץ |first2=ישעיהו |date=1999 |publisher=כתר |isbn=978-965-07-0807-8 |pages=59–60 |language=he}}</ref>

===Modern critical views===
Early attempts included [[M. H. Landauer]]'s ''Vorläufiger Bericht über meine Entdeckung in Ansehung des Sohar'' (1845), which fingered [[Abraham Abulafia]] as the author, and [[Samuel David Luzzatto]]'s ''ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה'' (1852), but the first systematic and critical academic proof for the authorship of Moses de León was given by [[Adolf Jellinek]] in his 1851 monograph "Moses ben Shem-tob de León und sein Verhältnis zum Sohar". Jellinek's proofs, which combined previous analyses with [[Isaac ben Samuel of Acre|Isaac of Acre]]'s testimony and comparison of the ''Zohar'' to de Leon's Hebrew works, were accepted by every other major scholar in the field, including [[Heinrich Graetz]] (''History of the Jews'', vol. 7), [[Moritz Steinschneider]], [[Bernhard Beer]], [[Leopold Zunz]], and [[Christian David Ginsburg]]. Ginsburg summarized Jellinek's, Graetz's, and other scholars' proofs for the English-reading world in 1865, also introducing several novel proofs, including that the ''Zohar'' includes a translation of a poem by [[Solomon ibn Gabirol]] (d. 1058) and that it includes a mystical explanation of a [[mezuzah]] style only introduced in the 13th century.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ginsburg |first=Christian David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GZ5eAAAAcAAJ |title=The Kabbalah: Its Doctrines, Development, and Literature. An Essay, Etc |date=1865 |language=en}}</ref> [[Adolf Neubauer]] and [[Samuel Rolles Driver]] were convinced by these arguments, but [[Edward Bouverie Pusey]] held to a [[Tannaim|Tannaitic]] date.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Neubauer |first1=Adolf |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxdbAAAAQAAJ |title=The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters: Translations, by S.R. Driver and A. Naubauer |last2=Driver |first2=Samuel Rolles |date=1877 |publisher= Рипол Классик|isbn=978-5-88085-233-8 |pages=iv |language=en}}</ref>

By 1913, the critical view had apparently lost some support: [[Israel Abrahams]] recalls that "Zunz, like Graetz, had little patience with the Zohar . . . at this date we are much more inclined to treat the Kabbalah with respect."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Abrahams |first=Israel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_HNWVJgV7BsC |title=By-Paths in Hebraic Bookland |date=1920 |pages=119 |language=en}}</ref>

[[Gershom Scholem]], who was to found modern academic study of [[Kabbalah]], began his career at the [[Hebrew University of Jerusalem]] in 1925 with a lecture in which he promised to refute Graetz and Jellinek.<ref name=":5">Scholem, Gershon. "Ha-im Hibber R. Mosheh de Leon et Sefer ha-Zohar," Mad'ei ha-Yahadut I (1926), p. 16-29</ref> However, after years of research, he came to conclusions similar to theirs by 1938, when he argued again that de León was the most likely author. Scholem noted the ''Zohar's'' frequent errors in Aramaic grammar, its suspicious traces of [[Arabic]] and [[Spanish language|Spanish]] words and sentence patterns, and its lack of knowledge of the [[Land of Israel]], among other proofs.<ref name=":0" />

Scholem's views are widely held as accurate among historians of Kabbalah, but they are not uncritically accepted. Scholars who continue to research the background of the ''Zohar'' include [[Yehuda Liebes]] (who wrote his doctorate thesis for Scholem on the subject, ''Dictionary of the Vocabulary of the Zohar'' in 1976), and [[Daniel C. Matt]], a student of Scholem's who has published a [[critical edition]] of the ''Zohar''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Webmaster |title=The Zohar: Pritzker Edition |url=https://www.sup.org/zohar/?d=&f=Aramaic_Texts.htm |access-date=2023-09-04 |website=www.sup.org |language=en}}</ref>

==== Influences ====
Academic studies of the ''Zohar'' show that many of its ideas are based in the Talmud, various works of [[midrash]], and earlier Jewish mystical works. Scholem writes:<ref name=":0" />

:The writer had expert knowledge of the early material and he often used it as a foundation for his expositions, putting into it variations of his own. His main sources were the [[Talmud#Babylonian Talmud|Babylonian Talmud]], the complete [[Midrash Rabba|Midrash Rabbah]], the [[Midrash Tanhuma]], and the two Pesiktot ([[Pesikta de-Rav Kahana|Pesikta De-Rav Kahana]] or [[Pesikta Rabbati]]), the [[Midrash Tehillim|Midrash on Psalms]], the [[Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer|Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer]], and the [[Targum Onkelos]]. Generally speaking, they are not quoted exactly, but translated into the peculiar style of the ''Zohar'' and summarized. [...]
:Less use is made of the [[Midrash halakha|halakhic Midrashim]], the [[Jerusalem Talmud]], and the other [[Targum]]s, nor of the Midrashim like the [[Shir HaShirim Rabbah|Aggadat Shir ha-Shirim]], the [[Midrash Proverbs|Midrash on Proverbs]], and the [[Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva|Alfabet de-R. Akiva]]. It is not clear whether the author used the [[Yalkut Shimoni|Yalkut Simeoni]], or whether he knew the sources of its [[aggadah]] separately. Of the smaller Midrashim he used the [[Hekhalot literature|Heikhalot Rabbati]], the [[Alphabet of Sirach|Alfabet de-Ben Sira]], the [[Apocalypse of Zerubbabel|Sefer Zerubabel]], the [[Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit]], [and many others] [...]
At the same time, Scholem says, the author "invent[ed] a number of fictitious works that the ''Zohar'' supposedly quotes, ''e.g.'', the Sifra de-Adam, the Sifra de-Hanokh, the Sifra di-Shelomo Malka, the Sifra de-Rav Hamnuna Sava, the Sifra de-Rav Yeiva Sava, the Sifra de-Aggadeta, the Raza de-Razin and many others."

The ''Zohar'' also draws from the [[Jewish commentaries on the Bible|Bible commentaries]] written by medieval rabbis, including [[Rashi]], [[Abraham ibn Ezra]], [[David Kimhi]] and even authorities as late as [[Nachmanides]] and [[Maimonides]], and earlier mystical texts such as the ''[[Sefer Yetzirah]]'' and the ''[[Bahir]]'' and the medieval writings of the [[Ashkenazi Hasidim|Hasidei Ashkenaz]].

Another influence that Scholem, and scholars like Yehudah Liebes and Ronit Meroz have identified<ref name="bostonglobe.com">{{cite web |title=A mysterious medieval text, decrypted - The Boston Globe |website=[[The Boston Globe]] |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/06/25/glinter-kabbalah/cz5YaC9jDc3ZVwTB6L7e7L/story.html}}</ref> was a circle of Spanish Kabbalists in [[Kingdom of Castile|Castile]] who dealt with the appearance of an evil side emanating from within the world of the [[sefirot]]. Scholem saw this [[Dualism in cosmology|dualism]] of good and evil within the Godhead as a kind of [[Gnosticism|gnostic]] inclination within Kabbalah, and as a predecessor of the ''[[Qlippoth|Sitra Ahra]]'' (the other, evil side) in the ''Zohar''. The main text of the Castile circle, the ''[[Treatise on the Left Emanation]]'', was written by [[Jacob ha-Cohen]] around 1265.<ref>[[Joseph Dan|Dan, Joseph]] ''Kabbalah: a Very Short Introduction'', Oxford University Press, 2006, p 22</ref>

==Contents==
===Printings, editions, and indexing===
''Tikunei haZohar'' was first printed in [[Mantua]] in 1557. The main body of the ''Zohar'' was printed in [[Cremona]] in 1558 (a one-volume edition), in Mantua in 1558-1560 (a three-volume edition), and in [[Thessaloniki|Salonika]] in 1597 (a two-volume edition). Each of these editions included somewhat different texts.<ref name="editions">{{cite journal | last2 = Bendowska | first2 = Magda | last1 = Doktór | first1 = Jan | title = Sefer haZohar – the Battle for Editio Princeps | journal = Jewish History Quarterly | volume = 2 | issue = 242 | pages = 141–161 | year = 2012 | url = http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=581b3dcbc6a54d9980d90ddf7c38edfa | access-date = 30 January 2014 | archive-date = 2 February 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140202095552/http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=581b3dcbc6a54d9980d90ddf7c38edfa | url-status = dead }}</ref> When they were printed there were many partial manuscripts in circulation that were not available to the first printers. These were later printed as ''Zohar Chadash'' ({{lit|New Radiance}}), but ''Zohar Chadash'' actually contains parts that pertain to the ''Zohar'', as well as ''Tikunim'' (plural of ''Tikun'', "Repair", see also ''[[Tikkun olam]]'') that are akin to ''[[Tikunei haZohar]]'', as described below. The term ''Zohar'', in usage, may refer to just the first ''Zohar'' collection, with or without the applicable sections of ''Zohar Chadash'', or to the entire ''Zohar'' and Tikunim.
Citations referring to the ''Zohar'' conventionally follow the volume and page numbers of the Mantua edition, while citations referring to ''Tikkunei haZohar'' follow the edition of Ortakoy (Constantinople) 1719 whose text and pagination became the basis for most subsequent editions. Volumes II and III begin their numbering anew, so citation can be made by ''parashah'' and page number (e.g. ''Zohar: Nasso'' 127a), or by volume and page number (e.g. ''Zohar'' III:127a).{{citation needed|date=February 2015}}[[File:POLIN 11.jpg|thumb|An 1809 edition of the ''Zohar'', printed in [[Slavuta]], as seen in [[POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews]]]]

===The ''New Zohar'' (זוהר חדש)===
After the book of the ''Zohar'' had been printed (in Mantua and in Cremona, in the Jewish years 5318–5320 or 1558–1560? CE), many more manuscripts were found that included paragraphs pertaining to the ''Zohar'' which had not been included in printed editions. The manuscripts pertained also to all parts of the ''Zohar''; some were similar to ''Zohar'' on the Torah, some were similar to the inner parts of the ''Zohar'' (''Midrash haNe'elam, Sitrei Otiyot'' and more), and some pertained to ''[[Tikunei haZohar]]''. Some thirty years after the first edition of the ''Zohar'' was printed, the manuscripts were gathered and arranged according to the ''parashiyot'' of the Torah and the [[Five Megillot|megillot]] (apparently the arrangement was done by the Kabbalist, Avraham haLevi of [[Safed|Tsfat]]), and were printed first in Salonika in Jewish year 5357 (1587? CE), and then in Kraków (5363), and afterwards in various editions.<ref name="ohrz">Much of the information on contents and sections of the ''Zohar'' is found in the book ''Ohr haZohar''(אור הזוהר) by Rabbi Yehuda Shalom Gross, in Hebrew, published by Mifal Zohar Hoilumi, Ramat Beth Shemesh, Israel, Heb. year 5761 (2001 CE); also available at http://israel613.com/HA-ZOHAR/OR_HAZOHAR_2.htm {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120410194128/http://israel613.com/HA-ZOHAR/OR_HAZOHAR_2.htm |date=2012-04-10}}, accessed March 1, 2012; explicit permission is given in both the printed and electronic book "to whoever desires to print paragraphs from this book, or the entire book, in any language, in any country, in order to increase Torah and fear of Heaven in the world and to awaken hearts our brothers the children of Yisrael in complete ''[[Repentance in Judaism|teshuvah]]''".</ref>

=== Structure ===
According to Scholem, the ''Zohar'' can be divided into 21 types of content, of which the first 18 (a.–s.) are the work of the original author (probably de Leon) and the final 3 (t.–v.) are the work of a later imitator.

'''a. Untitled Torah commentary'''

A "bulky part" which is "wholly composed of discursive commentaries on various passages from the Torah".<ref name=":0" />

'''b. Book of Concealment (ספרא דצניעותא)'''

A short part of only six pages, containing a commentary to the first six chapters of [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]]. It is "highly oracular and obscure," citing no authorities and explaining nothing.

'''c. Greater Assembly (אדרא רבא)'''

This part contains an explanation of the oracular hints in the previous section. Ben Yochai's friends gather together to discuss secrets of Kabbalah. After the opening of the discussion by ben Yochai, the sages rise, one after the other, and lecture on the secret of Divinity, while ben Yochai adds to and responds to their words. The sages become steadily more ecstatic until three of them die. Scholem calls this part "architecturally perfect."

'''d. Lesser Assembly (אדרא זוטא)'''

Ben Yochai dies and a speech is quoted in which he explains the previous section.

'''e. Assembly of the Tabernacle (אדרא דמשכנא)'''

This part has the same structure as '''c.''' but discusses instead the mysticism of [[Jewish prayer|prayer]].

'''f. Palaces (היכלות)'''

Seven palaces of light are described, which are perceived by the devout in death. This description appears again in another passage, heavily embellished.

'''g. Secretum Secretorum (רזא דרזין)'''

An anonymous discourse on [[physiognomy]] and a discourse on [[chiromancy]] by ben Yochai.

'''h. Old Man (סבא)'''

An elaborate narrative about a speech by an old Kabbalist.

'''i. Child (ינוקא)'''

A story of a prodigy and his Kabbalistic speech.

'''k. Head of the Academy (רב מתיבתא)'''

A [[Pardes (legend)|Pardes]] narrative in which a head of the celestial academy reveals secrets about the destinies of the soul.

'''l. Secrets of Torah (סתרי תורה)'''

Allegorical and mystical interpretations of Torah passages.

'''m. [[Mishnah|Mishnas]] (מתניתין)'''

Imitations of the [[Mishnaic Hebrew|Mishnaic]] style, designed to introduce longer commentaries in the style of the Talmud.

'''n. Zohar to the Song of Songs'''

Kabbalistic commentary to the [[Song of Songs]].

'''o. Standard of Measure (קו המידה)'''

Profound interpretation of [[Shema Yisrael|Deut. 6:4]].

'''p. Secrets of Letters (סתרי אותיות)'''

A monologue by ben Yochai on the letters in the [[Names of God in Judaism|names of God]] and their use in creation.

'''q. Commentary to the [[Merkabah mysticism|Merkabah]]'''

'''r. Mystical Midrash (מדרש הנעלם)'''

A Kabbalistic commentary on the Torah, citing a wide variety of Talmudic sages. According to [[Moses ben Mordecai Zacuto|Ramaz]], it is fit to be called ''Midrash haNe'elam'' because "its topic is mostly the ''neshamah'' (an upper level of soul), the source of which is in ''[[Beri'ah]]'', which is the place of the upper [[Garden of Eden|Gan Eden]]; and it is written in the ''[[Pardes Rimonim|Pardes]]'' that [[midrash|drash]] is in ''Beri'ah''...&nbsp;and the revealed midrash is the secret of externality, and ''Midrash haNe'elam'' is the secret of internality, which is the neshamah. And this [[midrash|derush]] is founded on the neshamah; its name befits it—''Midrash haNe'elam''.<ref>the Ramaz, brought in ''Mikdash Melekh laZohar, parashat Vayeira'', Zalkova edition, p. 100</ref>

The language of ''Midrash haNe'elam'' is sometimes [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]], sometimes Aramaic, and sometimes both mixed. Unlike the body of the ''Zohar'', its ''drashot'' are short and not long. Also, the topics it discusses—the work of Creation, the nature of the soul, the days of [[Messiah in Judaism|Mashiach]], and ''[[Olam Haba]]''—are not of the type found in the ''Zohar'', which are the nature of God, the [[Emanationism|emanation of worlds]], the "forces" of evil, and more.

'''s. Mystic Midrash on Ruth'''

A commentary on the [[Book of Ruth]] in the same style.

'''t. Faithful Shepherd (רעיא מהימנא)'''

By far the largest "book" included in the ''Zohar'', this is a Kabbalistic commentary on [[Moses]]' teachings revealed to ben Yochai and his friends.<ref name="ohrz" /> [[Moses ben Jacob Cordovero|Moshe Cordovero]] said, "Know that this book, which is called ''Ra'aya Meheimna'', which ben Yochai made with the [[tzadik]]im who are in Gan Eden, was a repair of the [[Shekhinah]], and an aid and support for it in the exile, for there is no aid or support for the Shekhinah besides the secrets of the Torah... And everything that he says here of the secrets and the concepts—it is all with the intention of unifying the Shekhinah and aiding it during the exile.<ref>''Ohr haChamah laZohar'', part 2, p. 115b, in the name of the Ramak</ref>

'''u. Rectifications of the Zohar (תקוני זוהר)'''
{{Main|Tikunei haZohar}}

''Tikunei haZohar'', which was printed as a separate book, includes seventy commentaries called ''Tikunim'' ({{lit|Repairs}}) and an additional eleven ''Tikunim''. In some editions, ''Tikunim'' are printed that were already printed in the ''Zohar Chadash'', which in their content and style also pertain to ''Tikunei haZohar''.<ref name="ohrz" />

Each of the seventy ''Tikunim'' of ''Tikunei haZohar'' begins by explaining the word ''Bereshit'' (בראשית), and continues by explaining other verses, mainly in ''[[Bereshit (parashah)|parashat Bereshit]]'', and also from the rest of [[Tanakh]]. And all this is in the way of ''[[Pardes (Jewish exegesis)|Sod]]'', in commentaries that reveal the hidden and mystical aspects of the Torah.

''Tikunei haZohar'' and ''Ra'aya Meheimna'' are similar in style, language, and concepts, and are different from the rest of the ''Zohar''. For example, the idea of the [[Four Worlds]] is found in ''Tikunei haZohar'' and ''Ra'aya Meheimna'' but not elsewhere, as is true of the very use of the term "Kabbalah". In terminology, what is called Kabbalah in ''Tikunei haZohar'' and ''Ra'aya Meheimna'' is simply called ''razin'' (clues or hints) in the rest of the ''Zohar''.<ref name="rys">According to Rabbi Yaakov Siegel, in an email dated February 29, 2012, to ~~Nissimnanach</ref> In ''Tikunei haZohar'' there are many references to ''chibura kadma'ah'' (meaning "the earlier book"). This refers to the main body of the ''Zohar''.<ref name="rys" />

'''v. Further Additions'''

These include later ''Tikkunim'' and other texts in the same style.

==Influence==
===Judaism===
On the one hand, the ''Zohar'' was lauded by many rabbis because it opposed religious formalism, stimulated one's imagination and emotions, and for many people helped reinvigorate the experience of prayer.<ref name="jewcyclo" /> In many places [[Jewish prayer|prayer]] had become a mere external religious exercise, while prayer was supposed to be a means of transcending earthly affairs and placing oneself in union with God.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>

According to the ''Jewish Encyclopedia'', "On the other hand, the Zohar was censured by many rabbis because it propagated many [[Superstition|superstitious]] beliefs, and produced a host of mystical dreamers, whose overexcited imaginations peopled the world with spirits, demons, and all kinds of good and bad influences."<ref name="jewcyclo"/> Many classical rabbis, especially Maimonides, viewed all such beliefs as a violation of [[Jewish principles of faith]]. Its mystic mode of explaining some commandments was applied by its commentators to all religious observances, and produced a strong tendency to substitute mystic Judaism in the place of traditional [[Rabbinic Judaism]].<ref name="jewcyclo"/> For example, [[Shabbat]], the Jewish [[Sabbath]], began to be looked upon as the embodiment of God in temporal life, and every ceremony performed on that day was considered to have an influence upon the superior world.<ref name="jewcyclo"/>

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

The ''Zohar'' is also credited with popularizing de Leon's [[Pardes (exegesis)|PaRDeS]] codification of biblical exegesis.{{Citation needed|date=July 2024}}

===Christian mysticism===
According to the ''Jewish Encyclopedia'', "The enthusiasm felt for the Zohar was shared by many Christian scholars, such as [[Giovanni Pico della Mirandola]], [[Johann Reuchlin]], [[Giles of Viterbo|Aegidius of Viterbo]], etc., all of whom believed that the book contained proofs of the truth of [[Christianity]].<ref name="jewcyclo406">{{cite encyclopedia|last=Jacobs|first=Joseph|author2=Broydé, Isaac|encyclopedia=Jewish Encyclopedia|title=Zohar|url=http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=Z#406|publisher=Funk & Wagnalls Company}}</ref> They were led to this belief by the analogies existing between some of the teachings of the ''Zohar'' and certain Christian dogmas, such as the [[Fall of man|fall]] and redemption of man, and the dogma of the [[Trinity]], which seems to be expressed in the ''Zohar'' in the following terms:
<blockquote>
The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden 'Wisdom'; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man 'Non-Existing' [''Ayin'']<ref name="jewcyclo406"/> (Zohar, iii. 288b).
</blockquote>

According to the ''Jewish Encyclopedia'', "This and other similar doctrines found in the Zohar are now known to be much older than Christianity, but the Christian scholars who were led by the similarity of these teachings to certain Christian dogmas deemed it their duty to propagate the Zohar."<ref name="jewcyclo406"/>

== Commentaries ==
* The first known commentary on the book of ''Zohar'', ''Ketem Paz'', was written by [[Shimon Lavi|Simeon Lavi]] of Libya.
* Another important and influential commentary on ''Zohar'', 22-volume ''Or Yakar'', was written by [[Moses ben Jacob Cordovero|Moshe Cordovero]] of the Tzfat (i.e. [[Safed]]) kabbalistic school in the 16th century.
* The [[Vilna Gaon]] authored a commentary on the ''Zohar''.
* [[Tzvi Hirsh of Zidichov|Tzvi Hirsch of Zidichov]] wrote a commentary on the ''Zohar'' entitled ''Ateres Tzvi''.
* A major commentary on the ''Zohar'' is the ''Sulam'' written by [[Yehuda Ashlag]].
* A full translation of the ''Zohar'' into Hebrew was made by the late Daniel Frish of Jerusalem under the title ''Masok MiDvash''.

==English translations==
* Berg, Michael: Zohar 23 Volume Set- The Kabbalah Centre International. Full 23 Volumes English translation with commentary and annotations.
* [[Daniel C. Matt|Matt, Daniel C.]], Nathan Wolski, & Joel Hecker, trans. ''The Zohar: Pritzker Edition'' (12 vols.) Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004–2017.
* Matt, Daniel C. ''Zohar: Annotated and Explained''. Woodstock, Vt.: SkyLights Paths Publishing Co., 2002. (Selections)
* Matt, Daniel C. ''Zohar: The Book of Enlightenment''. New York: Paulist Press, 1983. (Selections)
* [[Gershom Scholem|Scholem, Gershom]], ed. ''Zohar: The Book of Splendor''. New York: Schocken Books, 1963. (Selections)
* Sperling, Harry and Maurice Simon, eds. ''The Zohar'' (5 vols.). London: Soncino Press.
* Tishby, Isaiah, ed. ''The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts'' (3 vols.). Translated from the Hebrew by David Goldstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
* Simeon Ben Yochai. ''Sefer ha Zohar (Vol. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 English)''. [[Createspace]], 2015

==See also==
{{Portal|Judaism}}
*[[Baqashot]]

==Notes==
{{Notelist}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
*Beyer, Klaus. "Aramaic language, its distribution and subdivisions". 1986. (from reference 2 above)
*Tenen, Stan, [http://www.meru.org/Newsletter/eTORUS40.pdf Zohar, "B'reshit, and the Meru Hypothesis: Scholars debate the origins of Zohar"], ''Meru Foundation eTorus Newsletter'' #40, July 2007
*Blumenthal, David R. [http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Trinity.html "Three is not enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061208175548/http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Trinity.html |date=2006-12-08 }}, in ''Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich'', ed. T. Vial and M. Hadley (Providence, RI), Brown Judaic Studies:
*''The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic, and Mysticism'', Geoffrey Dennis, Llewellyn Worldwide, 2007
*''Studies in the Zohar'', [[Yehuda Liebes]] (Author), SUNY Press, SUNY series in Judaica: Hermeneutics, Mysticism, and Religion, 1993
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20061213041317/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Kabbalah_and_Mysticism/Overview_Modern_Times/The_Academic_Study_Of_Mysticism/Mysticism_IdelSch_Oden.htm "Challenging the Master: Moshe Idel's critique of Gershom Scholem"] Micha Odenheimer, MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070629142438/http://www.radicaltorahthought.com/Info%20Zohar.htm Scholem, Gershom, ''Zohar'' in ''Encyclopadeia Judaica'', Keter Publishing]
*Scholem, Gershom, "Kabbalah" in ''Encyclopadeia Judaica'', Keter Publishing
*[[Reuvein Margolies|Margolies, Reuvein]] "Peninim U' Margolies" and "Nitzotzei Zohar" (Heb.), Mossad R' Kook
*[[David Luria|Luria, David]] "Kadmus Sefer Ha'Zohar" (Heb.)
*Unterman, Alan ''Reinterpreting Mysticism and Messianism'', MyJewishLearning.Com, Kabbalah and Mysticism
*[[Jeremy Adler|Adler, Jeremy]], [http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Kabbalah_and_Mysticism/Overview_Modern_Times/The_Academic_Study_Of_Mysticism/Mysticism_Liebes.htm "Beyond the Law: the artistry and enduring counter-cultural power of the kabbala"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070104154557/http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Kabbalah_and_Mysticism/Overview_Modern_Times/The_Academic_Study_Of_Mysticism/Mysticism_Liebes.htm |date=2007-01-04 }}, ''Times Literary Supplement'' 24 February 2006, reviewing: Daniel C Matt, translator ''The Zohar''; [[Arthur Green]] ''A Guide to the Zohar''; [[Moshe Idel]] ''Kabbalah and Eros''.

==External links==
{{external links|date=September 2022}}
{{commons category}}

===Zohar texts===
{{wikiquote}}
* [[File:Wikisource-logo.svg|25px|The current Wikisource logo]][https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%96%D7%94%D7%A8 ספר הזהר, Sefer haZohar, Zohar text in original Aramaic]
* [[File:Wikisource-logo.svg|25px|The current Wikisource logo]][https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Zohar Translation:Zohar at English Wikisource]
*[http://ha-zohar.net/ZOHAR_ENGLISH.htm Zohar Pages in English, at ha-zohar.net, including the Introduction translated in English, and ''The Importance of Study of the Zohar'', and more]
*[http://ha-zohar.net/ZOHAR_LHK_MACHULAK.htm Complete Zohar, Tikkunim, and Zohar Chadash in Aramaic with Hebrew translation, in 10 volumes of PDF, divided for yearly or 3-year learning]
*[http://zohar.altervista.org/ A four-pages-per-sheet PDF arrangement of the above, allowing for printing on 3 reams of Letter paper duplex] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122193009/http://zohar.altervista.org/ |date=2021-01-22 }}
*[http://ha-zohar.net/ZOHAR_SEFORIM.htm ''Zohar and Related Booklets'' in various formats in PDF files, at ha-zohar.net]
*[http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001073457.html ''Sefer haZohar''], [[Mantua]] edition (1558), at the National Library of Israel, DjVu file
*[http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/books/bk001103391.html ''Sefer haZohar''], [[Cremona]] edition (1559), at the National Library of Israel, DjVu file
*[http://hebrew.grimoar.cz/ Zohar text files (TXT HTML) among grimoar.cz Hebrew Kabbalistic texts collection]
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/zdm/index.htm The Zohar in English: Bereshith to Lekh Lekha]
*[http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/tku/index.htm The Zohar in English: some mystical sections]
*[http://www.zohar.com/ The Kabbalah Center translation of the Zohar]
*[http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/the-zohar/download-the-zohar Original Zohar with Sulam Commentary]
*[http://www.dailyzohar.com/ Daily Zohar study of Tikunei Zohar in English]
*[https://www.ha-zohar.info/?p=21331 Tikkunei Zohar in English, Partial (Intro and Tikkun 1-17) at ha-zohar.info]; [https://archive.today/20220119055149/https://www.ha-zohar.info/?p=21331 permanent link]
*[https://archive.org/details/TheZoharAramaicEnglishShimonBarYohaiMosesDeLen Copy of the Zohar]

===Links about the Zohar===
*[http://aramaiczohar.wordpress.com/ The Aramaic Language of the Zohar]
*[http://enterthezohar.com/ 7 brief video lectures about The Zohar from Kabbalah Education & Research Institute]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chapters_on_Jewish_Literature/Chapter_XVII|The Zohar and Later Mysticism, a short essay by Israel Abrahams]
*[http://www.digital-brilliance.com/contributed/Karr/Biblios/zie.pdf Notes on the Zohar in English: An Extensive Bibliography]
*[https://www.scribd.com/doc/253819964/The-Zohar-Code-The-Temple-Calendar-of-King-Solomon The Zohar Code: The Temple Calendar of King Solomon]{{Dead link|date=February 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
*[https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/judaism/jewish-bookshelf/zohar The Zohar on the website of the National Library of Israel]

{{Jews and Judaism}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:1280s books]]
[[Category:Apocalyptic literature]]
[[Category:Hebrew-language names]]
[[Category:Jewish texts in Aramaic]]
[[Category:Kabbalah texts]]
[[Category:Visionary literature]]