On the Origins and Authenticity of Zohar

Overview: The evidence for late Zohar authorship, Moshe DeLeon as the prime candidate, responses to the issues raised, and why it’s all irrelevant to the authenticity of Zohar.

Many pages of ink have been splashed on this subject and one article will not suffice to cover the immense topic adequately. We will, however, attempt to give an overall presentation of both sides on the issue of who authored the Zohar, regarded as the greatest work in all of the Kabbalistic literature. We will then conclude with a description of why the authorship of Zohar is less relevant than the more important question on the authenticity of Zohar as a reliable document for philosophy, theology, history, Torah Law, etc. As an amateur on this subject, I will only bring ideas that I’ve seen by the researchers who have looked into the matter much more at length and summarize.

A true rationalist doesn’t pick sides in a scholarly debate. Instead, they objectively weigh the evidence for and against and view all the possibilities as such even if one is less likely than the other. In this article, we will not pick sides. Instead, we will provide a picture of both sides of the spectrum allowing each person to weigh the evidence for themselves.

The Zohar controversy

What’s the whole controversy surrounding Zohar? The Zohar was largely absent from the Jewish scene until the 13^th-century when it was introduced by a Sephardic Kabbalist named Moshe DeLeon from Guadalajara, Spain. In the few decades before his grand revelation of the Zohar, a new popular genre swept through Jewish literature – called Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism). Moshe DeLeon began selling manuscripts of the Zohar which he claimed are from the famed Talmudic scholar Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (from hereon called by his acronym Rashbi). Moshe DeLeon was a famed Kabbalist in his own merit and has written several works on Jewish mysticism in his early years. It is important to note that the question is concerning the authorship and credibility of Zohar – not Kabbalah as a whole. In fact, Kabbalah predates the release of Zohar by Moshe DeLeon. Here we will be dealing with Zohar alone.

Is believing in Zohar essential to the Jewish tradition?

It has recently become mainstream thought that Zohar is a cemented part of the Orthodox tradition and that denying its authorship by Rashbi or denying its authenticity is almost regarded as heretical. Some may be surprised to hear that Zohar’s credibility was long at question even among many revered rabbis and certainly among academics. The question of Zohar’s authorship hasn’t been settled academically – only culturally has the Orthodox community by and large accepted the Zohar as an authentic work of Rashbi.^[1]

Perhaps the earliest book to address the origins of the Zohar is Sefer Yuhasin. In this work, Rabbi Abraham Zacuttu (1450-1515) quotes from an earlier letter from a kabbalist names Rabbi Issac of Acre, a contemporary of Moshe DeLeon. Rabbi Issac sought to investigate the origins of the Zohar and he entertains the idea that Moshe DeLeon wrote at least parts of it. We will discuss this more at length later. The only point to be made now is that contemporary rabbis of DeLeon were already doubting the authenticity of his manuscripts.

In a book titled mitpachat seforim, the famed Rabbi Yaakov Emden (1697-1776, known by the acronym Yaavetz) goes at length to debunk the authenticity of Zohar and its claimed antiquity.^[2] He ultimately goes on to accept parts of Zohar while rejecting others as straight-up forgeries by Moshe DeLeon and perhaps others.

The Chasam Sofer was largely quiet about this issue, yet in a letter he hints that he accepts what Rabbi Yaakov Emden lays out in mitpachat seforim.^[A]

It is clear that many revered early sages rejected basic kabbalistic concepts and ideas expressed in Zohar. Examples of such are Rambam’s rejection of spirits, superstitions, and sorcery, and the rejection of reincarnation by many early sages predating the Zohar’s release.^[3]

For more on the discussion of whether we must accept the traditional authorship of Zohar, see here.

So who did write the Zohar?

It is overwhelming consensus of scholars, academics, and rabbis who looked into the subject, that Rashbi – or his disciples – couldn’t have written the entirety of Zohar. Some will argue that Rashbi or his disciples wrote parts of it – but there’s no way of knowing if that is the case or not. What we do know, however, is that many parts of it were written in medieval period when Kabbalah became a popular genre in Jewish thought. Some of these parts were written and innocently added to the Zohar, while others are clear forgeries attempting to make it the sayings of Rashbi to his disciples when they are, in fact, the invention of a medieval writer. We will get into the evidence for this later on.

While it is clear that parts were written well after Rashbi, it is not clear if Moshe DeLeon was the one to write/add to the Zohar or if it was people who preceded him. There are arguments for and against that we will address.

The writing of Zohar suggests more than one writer. Parts are written in Hebrew, parts in Aramaic, parts richly articulated and parts poorly written. Rabbi Yaakov Emden, mentioned earlier, splits the work of Zohar into parts – accepting the authenticity of some and regarding the other parts as later add-ons or even forgeries. He believes that the zohar al hatorah section is the original authentic Zohar – written by Talmudic sages, perhaps the students of Rashbi.^[4] Other parts, like midrash hanelam, tikunei zohar, pikudin, and raayeh mehemna were written by much later writers, including forgers who attempted to authenticate their works by attributing its authorship to the revered Rashbi.^[B]

It should be noted that it was the ancient custom to add and edit works from previous generations, even long after the original author would have put the quill to rest. This wasn’t seen as infringing on the works of the original writer. For example, the Talmud is traditionally said to have been written by Rav Ashi and Ravina – although parts were added in later generations and major editing was done to the series attributed to Rav Ashi and Ravina. Similarly, many parts were added to what is traditionally regarded as the Five Books of Moses (see here). Same goes with the prayer book we have nowadays (siddur) and the Haggadah recited on Passover. The same may be said about the Zohar – possibly written by the students of Rashbi with major additions and editing in later generations.

Another important element to highlight is the idea of pseudepigrapha. Pseudepigrapha is when someone writes a book and attributes its authorship to an ancient revered figure, in attempt to give credibility to the book. This was quite a common practice in ancient times, including in Jewish society. Examples include books like Daniel to a Babylonian exile figure,^[C] Sefer Raziel to Adam the first man, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliazer to the Tanaic sage Rabbi Elazer ben Hurkonus, Sefer Yetzirah to Abraham, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Noah (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) to those early-biblical figures, and many more. It is possible that that Zohar, just like all these examples, was entirely a later writing and was deceptively attributed to Rashbi. Bottom line is that we cannot know if Rashbi or his disciples wrote any parts of Zohar and how much. It’s also hard to know which parts, if at all.

As for when and by whom was Zohar written, there are essentially five options:

1. Rashbi’s disciples wrote all of Zohar.^[D] This is baseless and the evidence is stacked against this.
2. Rashbi’s disciples wrote part of it, while others were innocently added over the years. There is some evidence for this.
3. Rashbi’s disciples wrote part of it, while other parts were innocently added and parts were even forged and attributed to Rashbi. There is some evidence for this.
4. The entirety of Zohar is a late work written in the medieval period. There is some indication for this, although less likely than options 2 and 3.
5. The entire Zohar was forged by Moshe DeLeon. This is possible though less likely than option 2 and 3.

Some believed that the Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman c. 1194-1270), himself a renowned Kabbalist, had sent them from Israel by ship to his son in Catalonia, but the ship had been diverted and the texts ended up in the hands of Rabbi Moshe de Leon.^[E] Others explained that these manuscripts had been hidden in a vault for a thousand years and had been discovered by an Arabian king who sent them to Toledo to be deciphered. Some maintained that Spanish conquistadors had discovered the manuscripts of the Zohar among many others in an academy in Heidelberg.^[F] Other explanations have also been offered. How exactly the Zohar came to be in the possession of Rabbi Moshe de Leon is thus not clear.

The arguments for a DeLeon authorship and the responses

For our convenience, the arguments in favor of a DeLeon authorship, or at least a late authorship, was beautifully summarized by Israel Drazin into 17 points.^[G] We will quote his arguments and respond with counter arguments when applicable. We don’t take a stand here; instead, we will attempt to portray both sides and let the reader make their own judgment.

1. A renowned person visited Moses d’ Leon to see the ancient documents that d’ Leon claimed he used to copy the Zohar. Moses d’ Leon kept putting him off and later asserted that the documents had strangely disappeared. After his death, d’ Leon’s wife admitted that the documents never existed.^[H]

These incidents are third-hand accounts recorded in sefer yuhasin quoting from the manuscripts of Rabbi Issac of Acre who is who is recording what he heard from locals. This is hardly trustworthy evidence.

2. The ideas in the Zohar are a later development of earlier mystical notions, showing that they were composed after these earlier works, and not in 130, as d’ Leon claimed.

True, this does show late authorship of some parts of Zohar. But it doesn’t show that the entire Zohar is a later writing or that DeLeon, specifically, was the author.

3. Neither the rabbis nor anyone else knew about the Zohar until d’ Leon introduced it.

While it is true that no one referenced a book of Rashbi’s disciples or a book called “Zohar,” there were references to some secretive writings that some of the greatest sages had access to. For example, the Talmud often speaks of the secrets of Creation and the Chariots of Ezekiel (maaseh bereshis and maaseh merkava). The Talmud says these secrets shouldn’t be taught to the public.^[I] It also speaks of Talmudic sages who entered the secrets of the pardes and were deeply affected by the experience of these (apparently) deep secrets.^[J]

Prior to DeLeon’s times, there are mentions of secret Kabbalistic works, for example sefer habahir (which also mentions a book of “big secrets” – raza raba^[K]) and sefer yetzirah which the Talmud relates was used to magically create a calf.^[L]

4. Moses d’ Leon had no sense of history; he describes the alleged second century author conversing with people who lived long after his death.^[5]

This may be scribal errors in some cases. In others, it is likely the writing of a later writer for Zohar who was ignorant in Jewish history and exposed his forgery attempts. However, this doesn’t discredit the entirety of Zohar, since as explained earlier there are multiple layers to Zohar with various writers for different parts.

5. The Zohar author knew of the existence of vowels and accent marks used in the Torah books and gave them mystical interpretations. However, these items were not invented until the ninth century, seven centuries after the alleged composition date of the Zohar.

According to the Talmud (written in the 6^th century), these vowels and vocalizations may have already existed by Ezra’s times.^[M] Be as it may, parts of Zohar were later additions so this is no issue.

6. The terms “master of dikduk [grammar]” and “tenuah gedola” (long vowel) are used in the Zohar even though they were not coined until the tenth and eleventh centuries, respectively.^[6]
7. The author inserted terms from Jewish philosophy that was not developed until the Middle Ages.
8. The book contains ideas copied from the eleventh-century Kuzari of Yehudah Halevi.
9. The author introduces Maimonides’ twelfth-century concept about physics.

Parts of Zohar were later additions.

10. The volume mentions putting on two pairs of tefillin, a practice that arose in the twelfth century.

Parts of Zohar were later additions. Moreover, the concept of two pairs of Tefillin may have gone way back into the Second Temple era. In fact, different types of tefillins were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.^[N]

11. The Zohar discusses the Kol Nidre prayer of Yom Kippur, a ceremony that began in the eleventh century.

Parts of Zohar were later additions.

12. The language of the Zohar is later than its alleged date of composition.

This is only true for parts of Zohar, while others are identical to the Aramaic of the Talmud and the Aramaic of the Targum.^[O] It can be argued that a late author used his minimal knowledge of Aramaic, borrowing from terms of the Talmud and Targum. But it can also be argued that the author was a contemporary and therefore used the same phraseology as these early authors of the Talmud and Targum.

13. There are many incorrect quotations from the Bible and the Talmud. The latter did not exist in 130.^[7]

Misquotations of biblical verses might even be used as evidence for early authorship. At the later points, the text of Torah was standardized by the Masoretes (6^th-10^th centuries) so that a later author of Zohar likely wouldn’t use a version of the text that is different than the standardized Masoretic version we now have. In fact, the Talmud has some verses of the Torah that are different than the version we have today – and yet no one questions the antiquity of the Talmud as a result.

As for quotes from Talmudic passages, we know that many parts of Zohar were later additions.

14. Prophecies in the volume inform the reader that the Zohar will be revealed around 1300 C.E., a blatant attempt to justify its late appearance.^[P]

This is indeed from the most suspicious-looking parts of Zohar. It is likely a forgery by a later editor of Zohar. Similarly, there are Zohar passages that predict Moshiach’s arrival in the 13^th century – seemingly written by a contemporary in the hopes that Moshiach will actually arrive in the near future from his times. It would be strange for Rashbi to predict Moshiach’s arrival in the 13^th century – some 1000 years after his existence.^[8] This is not to even address the failed element in this prediction (more on this later).^[Q]

15. There are parallel passages between the Zohar and other books that were indisputably composed by Moses d’ Leon, including mistakes in the original books that d’ Leon copied into his Zohar.

Precisely because he had the Zohar did DeLeon copy-and-paste from there the mistakes into his works. The actual mistakes in Zohar can be the result of a typist or an error by the actual writer. But in no way does this indicate that DeLeon wrote the Zohar.

Differences of opinion – including significant ones – between the kabbalistic opinion of Moshe DeLeon in his seforim and Zohar are indicative of his limited tampering with Zohar, if at all.^[R] For example, the Zohar considers keter to be a sefira while DeLeon considers keter to be synonymous with the ein-sof, De Leon also regards other basic concepts such as the nature of the spiritual worlds atzilut, beriah, yetzirah, and asiyah fundamentally differently than the Zohar does.

16. There is no mention in the Talmud or Midrashim that the alleged author of the Zohar, Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai, was interested in mysticism. Thus, d’ Leon took the wrong hero for his work.

While there is no mention of Rashbi’s interest in mysticism, there is reference to his great spiritual status among the rest of his peers. He and his son (Elazar) are described as the two greatest spiritual characters of the generation and he is described a miracle-doer.^[S]

17. The famous mystic Rabbi Jacob Emden (born 1697) recorded 280 contradictions, anachronisms and incorrect statements and concluded that the book is a forgery of the thirteenth-century with some later additions.

Rabbi Yakov Emden did, however, differentiate between earlier layers of Zohar (e.g. zohar al hatorah) to later parts he viewed as add-ons and even forgeries (e.g. rayeh mehemna, tikkunim, midrash hanelam, and pikudin).

In summary, we have demonstrated that at least many parts of Zohar are late writings and are filled with mistakes. There may be parts of Zohar that date to antiquity, perhaps to Rashbi’s disciples, and we will make the case for that now.

Arguments against a DeLeon authorship

Perhaps the best of defenses of Zohar’s antiquity is by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, can be found here (Hebrew). We will go through some of his main points as well as good points raised by others.

Even the early skeptics of Zohar recognized that there were different layers to Zohar, some of which parts were possibly from Rashbi’s disciples.^[T] Here is a quote from sefer yuhasin which discusses the investigation of the first known skeptic of Zohar, Rabbi Issac of Acre:

“He [R. Isaac] went to Spain to investigate how the book of the Zohar, written by R. Shimon and R.Eleazar in the cave, came to be discovered in his time. Happy are those who have merited its truth; in its light may they see light. He said ‘its truth’ because part of it was forged by the forger. And he said that he had been taught that one should believe whatever is written in the Jerusalemite tongue [Aramaic] for those were the words of R.Shimon, but as to what was written in the holy tongue [Hebrew], they were not his words, but the words of the forger; for the real book was written entirely in the Jerusalemite tongue.”

(Sefer Yuchasin Hashalem p. 88 quoted in Huss, The Zohar p. 241)

Similarly, as stated earlier, Rabbi Yaakov Emden also recognized different layers of Zohar, each written by different people at different time-periods. This view is shared by Rabbi Chayim Vital, the famed student of Arizal, as written in his hakdama to the hakdamot of the Zohar.

Early sources state that the composition of the Zohar extended over the period of Rashbi, his disciples and their disciples² who recorded many of the teachings passed on orally from Rabbi Shimon to his close associates and disciples. Thus its authorship spanned several generations. This view is substantiated by the Zohar itself, as stated in Idra Zuta:

[Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said,] “The holy matters that I did not reveal until now, I wish to reveal in the presence of the Shechina, so that no one will say that I left the world without fulfilling my task and that I concealed [these secrets] in my heart until now so that they would come with me to the World to Come. I will present them to you; Rabbi Abba shall write, and Rabbi Elazar my son will review them, and the remaining circle of disciples must whisper them in their hearts.” ^[U]

There are early references to secret (mystical) works and topics predating DeLeon’s times, including maaseh bereshit, maaseh merkava, sefer habahir, sefer raza raba, heichalot, the book of Enoch, and pardes. Thus it is very possible that the Zohar, consisting of manuscripts under different names, was circulating around some of the great Jewish thinkers. Some of these works may have been the forebears of Zohar before it was expounded upon and written by Rashbi’s disciples.

According to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher,^[V] the wording of the early kabbalistic works of Moshe DeLeon are significantly different than that of Zohar. Had DeLeon written the entire Zohar, we’d expect to find his language to be very similar to that of Zohar – which isn’t the case.

Differences of opinion – including significant ones – between the kabbalistic opinion of Moshe DeLeon in his seforim and Zohar are indicative of his limited tampering with Zohar, if at all.^[W] For example, the Zohar considers keter to be a sefira while DeLeon considers keter to be synonymous with the ein-sof, De Leon also regards other basic concepts such as the nature of the spiritual worlds atzilut, beriah, yetzirah, and asiyah fundamentally differently than the Zohar does.^[X]

Ironically, not once in his books did Moshe DeLeon mistakenly attribute a Zohar concept to himself – something we’d expect had he forged the Zohar from scratch.^[Y] This shows that he merely collected the Zohar manuscripts, read some of them, not others, wrote his kabbalistic works and towards the end of his life started selling the manuscripts to pay for his bills.

Quotes from the Zohar of “the Midrash of Rashbi” can be found in a contemporary or earlier work than Moses DeLeon’s times. These quotes are not found in our Zohar that was collected by Moshe DeLeon. Apparently, there were manuscripts that Moshe DeLeon couldn’t obtain. These are quoted in the sefer bris menucha by rabbi Avraham Rimon HaSefardi. This would indicate that DeLeon hasn’t forged the entire Zohar that we have today, if at all.

Authenticity is more important than authorship

What we conclude is that some parts of Zohar are later add-ons and even forgeries attempting to attribute later writings in the name of Rashbi. Some claim that DeLeon wrote the whole, or most of the, Zohar, but there is room for skepticism on that and perhaps some evidence for the antiquity of at least parts of Zohar. But all this is secondary to the bigger issue at hand. Namely, if Zohar is a credible work for reliable history, theology, philosophy, etc.

Even if we are to grant Rashbi the authorship of the entire Zohar, that wouldn’t mean that we must suddenly throw our hands in the air and accept everything written in the book of Rashbi. Zohar is staunchly anti-rationalist, making grand extraordinary claims. However that doesn’t mean that it isn’t true, just that we cannot know and should be highly skeptical to extraordinary claims. We must bear in mind that even Orthodox Jews are not bound to the theology of the early Talmudic sages. Many later Jewish thinkers felt the liberty to argue with Chazal on non-Halachic matters. See here for sources for the fact that we are allowed to disagree with the Talmudic sages. In fact, Zohar itself argues with the Talmud on several issues – thus we are sometimes forced between choosing the Talmud or Zohar – but we cannot accept both simultaneously since they are at odds with each other.^[9]

There are also clear mistakes in Zohar in its history, and misquotations from biblical verses, as brought earlier.

Moreover, there are predictions in the Zohar that failed to materialize. Mainly, predictions of Moshiach’s arrival in the 14^th-century – something which hasn’t happened. There are also claims of the Crusade war between Christians and Muslims continuing into the 14^th century – something which hasn’t either happened.

“And they who are wise shall shine as the brightness (zohar) of the firmament” (Daniel 12:3). “They who are wise” are Rabbi Simeon and his companions. “Shine” — when they began to compose this work, permission was given to them and to Elijah with them, and to all the souls of the academies to descend among them…and (the celestial power) gave permission to the ten sefirot to reveal hidden secrets to them, but not to divulge them publicly until the generation of the Messiah-king.”

(Tikkunei haZohar, beginning of the introduction)

“Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai said, “It is true that the Holy One, blessed be He, has agreed that the upper and the lower worlds should be with us in this book. Happy is the generation in which this is revealed; and all this will be renewed by the hand of Moses, at the end of days, in the final generation.”

(ibid., Tikkun 69)

Similarly, the Zohar describes a war between the Christian armies and the Muslim (Arab) armies in their struggle for Israel and how the Messiah will get caught up between them. This was projected to happen in the 70^th year of the 6^th millennium in the Jewish calendar (1309 C.E.).[Z] This was shortly after the Zohar was publicized by Moshe DeLeon. The writer of this failed prediction was clearly influenced by the Crusade wars that have spanned over 200 years before him. Ironically, these wars ended in 1291 rendering this Zohar prediction a failed prophecy made by a contemporary of the Crusades who thought he can make a good bet on the ongoing Crusade wars.

Some may give apologetic, spiritual answers to these failed predictions^[AA] – but by doing so the Zohar loses all credibility as a reliable document for physical facts and predictions. This is besides for the general weakness in these apologetic answers.

Such a document can hardly be reliable as a definitive fact source. If one wishes to put faith and trust in the Zohar, that is fine so long as they realize that it is a leap of faith to believe that Rashbi wrote it all and an even greater leap of faith to believe all the opinions of Rashbi. The Zohar, and Kabbalah in general, is a great genre in Jewish thought and profoundly changed the spiritual outlook of Judaism. It has a profound truth as a book of meaning and inspiration – but that shouldn’t confuse us to believe in it as a reliable book for science, history, or factual spiritual realities.

The Chassidic Rebbe Pinchas of Koretz is known to have said; “The Zohar has kept me Jewish.” Pinchas of Koretz is far from the only person whom this holds true to. Zohar gives a warmth for countless religious Jews, and therefore the entire question of the authenticity of the Zohar is somewhat irrelevant. Following the Mishnah and Gemara, Zohar is arguably the next most influential book in Jewish literature. The inspiration from Zohar is what gives it the most credibility – not as a fact-book but as a component to religious warmth for many people. It is for this reason that I admire Zohar and regard it with tremendous respect, since I don’t view it as a fact-book but as a source of paradigm shift, to see the world from a spiritual perspective.