24

Is one a heretic if he does not believe in Kabbalah? Not necessarily that the Rashbi authored the Zohar, but in the general tenets of kabbalah including but not limited to: tzimtzum, sefirot, partzufim etc.

If a person believes that the ideas found in seforim such as the zohar, kitvei arizal, sefer yetzirah and others are not Jewish (meaning they stem from outside Judaism) are they halachically considered a heretic?

Isaac Moses
  • 48,026
  • 13
  • 119
  • 333
  • 1
    related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/22487/759 and http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17223/759 – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 20:35
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/12759/759 – Double AA Jan 06 '13 at 00:36
  • also related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8925/why-is-the-idea-of-sefirot-not-shituf –  Jan 07 '13 at 17:00
  • see the extensive comments to this post http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/part-i-gra-arizal-disagreed-r-michael.html and Rabbi Leff's comments on the zohar specifically [will open an audio download] http://onthemainline.googlepages.com/R.LeffontheZohar.m4a –  Jan 10 '13 at 21:35
  • 3
    Comprehensive article on the topic: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9qDT_J6e1NHZjFiOTIzMDUtNDg0Zi00NTY3LWJhYjItOGViZDBmMzMxNWQ2/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1 (by Marc Shapiro) – הנער הזה Jul 16 '14 at 13:24
  • Unlikely, unless the Rambam was an apikorus. – pcoz Aug 11 '21 at 04:44
  • The Zohar is a literary fraud and anyone who adhers to is commits at least one average because Zohar seeks to add to Torah words not found in Torah. Moreover, there are no aidim to Zohar. The manner of de Leon's death also suggests Ha Kadosh Barukh Hu did not approve of him. – TzGaBeR Jul 06 '23 at 18:25

12 Answers12

22

In Shu"t Mei'ein Omer pg 274 (not sure what volume, but it isn't volume 6, 7 or 8), a close student of Rav Ovadiah Yosef reports that a man once asked him if he needs to destroy a building he bought because it used to contain a synagogue of Dor De'im, a sect of Temani Jews who stick to strict Maimonidian philosophy and practice, and reject most if not all of Kabbalah. Rav Ovadiah Yosef responded that אי אפשר לדונם ככופרים it is not possible to judge them as heretics.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
  • 4
    Worth noting as well that R Ovadiah Yosef sat on a Beit Din for many years with R Yosef Kappach. – Double AA Jan 03 '13 at 23:07
  • See http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2010/10/rav-ovadiah-yosef-on-zohar.html - it does appear that Rav Ovadiah does not consent to their understanding of the Zohar as problematic – not-allowed to change my name Jan 04 '13 at 02:56
  • I have now confirmed that the teshuva is not in Volumes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 or 11 so process of elimination says it's in Volume 1. That said, I will wait to confirm before editing the answer. – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 04:42
  • 11
    @DoubleAA - Amazing how fast you can read volumes of responsa. – Fred Jan 04 '13 at 04:54
  • @Fred :-) I knew it was on page 274. Volume 1 and 8 were not on the shelf. (Although I had already checked 8 on hebrewbooks.) – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 05:01
  • 1
    Poll: Who thinks the title of the book is Mei'ein Omer and who thinks it is Ma'ayan Omer? – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 07:22
  • 1
    @DoubleAA, In the introduction, the author explains the name as an acronym for "מו"ר עובדיה יוסף נר"ו" or the name of the author himself "מאת ע"ה יהודה נקי". That said, the educated guess would be "Ma'ayan Omer", judging from R' Ovadia's approbations on the front page: "נר ישראל מעין המתגבר עמוד העולם". – jake Jan 04 '13 at 07:36
  • How did you find that page, and how do you know it's not either a forgery or (at least the page number) a misprint? – Seth J Jan 04 '13 at 19:11
  • @SethJ I don't. But those can happen on Hebrewbooks too. – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 21:18
  • @DoubleAA According to the forum post here( last few lines of the post), it is in vol. 1. Also, the fact that your original source didn't give a volume number suggests that it's the first, as often only subsequent volumes are numbered. – Tamir Evan Jan 05 '13 at 18:17
  • @DoubleAA Re: the poll: I'd say Me'ein Omer, following the style used for Yabi'a Omer, though the pun with Ma'ayan probably is also intended. – Tamir Evan Jan 05 '13 at 18:40
  • @TamirEvan But that forum says it's on page 221 when it's really on page 274 so I don't know if we can trust them. – Double AA Jan 05 '13 at 23:50
  • @DoubleAA Point taken. My bad. On the other hand, ichangedmyid's link to the rationalistjudaism.com article also gives it( from the email sender there) as being in vol. 1 p. 221, which makes me wonder if it really is on p. 274. In the end, I have to concede that only finding the actual book, and checking inside will resolve the issue. – Tamir Evan Jan 06 '13 at 04:48
  • other gedolim pasken the opposite http://maharitz.com/hordot/kanyevski.jpg http://www.maharitz.co.il/?CategoryID=369&ArticleID=3163&Page=1 – not-allowed to change my name Jan 14 '13 at 02:08
  • @ichangedmyid Good for them. – Double AA Jan 14 '13 at 02:59
  • did Rav Ovadia give a reason for this? perhaps it was so they dont go off even more. could be for other types of people who do this out of rebellion, he would consider them heretics – ray Jun 04 '15 at 11:12
  • 1
    @ray Perhaps. Perhaps also he didn't want to or feel qualified to condemn the Rambam to an eternity in hell. I guess we'll never know. – Double AA Jun 04 '15 at 14:48
  • http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1380&pgnum=86 – Double AA Sep 21 '16 at 20:06
  • http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45626&st=&pgnum=14 – Double AA Jan 18 '17 at 17:01
  • 3
    rav ovadiah did not say they are not heretics, just that it is impossible to judge them as heretics. perhaps he means they are just ignorant. not malicious – ray Feb 07 '17 at 07:07
  • I wonder how these gedolim can reconcile in their minds this idea with the fact that the Chatam Sofer was also skeptical about the authorship of the Zohar (and this did not prevent him from quoting it often in his drashos). I hope they won't consider him a heretic! – Binyomin May 20 '20 at 03:29
  • https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=55555&st=&pgnum=135 – Double AA Jun 16 '21 at 16:16
  • https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAGUqZtAlc those weeks shiur 146:30 – Dr. Shmuel Dec 19 '21 at 00:30
  • 1
    @Binyomin Questioning the authorship of the Zohar does not equate to questioning the veracity of its contents. Apparently the Chasam Sofer learned Kabbalah under R' Nosson Adler. Denying the veracity of Kabbalah altogether is clearly a very different story. – Yehuda Oct 17 '23 at 02:31
16

My Rebbe Rav Avigdor Nevenzahl Shlit"a told me that his Rebbe ybcl'c Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l when serving as mesader kiddushin at a wedding, upon hearing that one of the witnesses under the chuppa did not believe in Kabbalah or that Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai authored the Zohar, had him replaced as a witness.

The explanation I was given was that although the beliefs in themselves are not heretical per se', nevertheless such beliefs are a red flag as to general kashrus of the person, and such a person is not fit to be relied upon for the effectiveness of the marriage. For a person to be willing to deny and argue with chachamim of great stature which professed belief in something for hundreds of years, is able to deny and argue other things in the Torah as well.

So based off this maaseh Rav the belief itself is not heresy, but it's not a good path to follow.

A version of this story is recorded by R. Hanoch Teller in And from Jerusalem his Word p. 231:

enter image description here

Another version of this story is recorded in this blog comment:

Interesting story with R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: One of his talmidim was a Yeminite bochur. Upon the bochur's engagement R' Sholomo Zalman was asked to be mesader kiddushin. Looking into the Eidim, R' Shlomo Zalman found out that one of them was a Baladi Rav of the bochur's family's shul, and someone who did not accept the Zohar etc. Worried that the rav might be posul for eidus, R' Shlomo Zalman called him up and asked him to be m'sedar kiddushin instead - telling the Rav that as longtime figure in the bochur's family life, it was more fitting that he have the kibud . . .

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
Shoel U'Meishiv
  • 15,505
  • 1
  • 37
  • 80
  • 3
    " did not believe in Kabbalah or that Rebbe Shimon Bar Yochai authored the Zohar"... That's two different things. The חתם סופר also denied that Rashbi wrote the Zohar, and he was a mekubal. – Ephraim Jun 05 '15 at 08:03
  • 1
    @Ephraim, of course they're two different things. Hence, Mefaresh said both of them, separated by "or that". If they were the same thing, such phrasing wouldn't make sense. – msh210 Sep 18 '15 at 19:49
  • @Ephraim What do you mean by "was a mekubal" and how do you know he was that? – Double AA May 03 '16 at 05:35
  • 1
    @Ephraim and he never denied that Rabbi Shimon wrote the Zohar. – ertert3terte May 03 '16 at 07:34
  • @Mefaresh According to your 'Maaseh Rav', Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l replaced the witness who said he didn't believe in Kabbalah or that the Rashbi wrote the Zohar. That means Rav Shlomo accepted these things and considered such a person as being potentially disqualified as a valid witness in Halacha. That doesn't jive with your conclusion that Kabbalah "is not heresy, but it's not a good path to follow." The 'red flag about the general kashrut of a person' is if they deny these things. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '16 at 14:58
  • 1
    @YaacovDeane no they way it was explained to me what that it is a red flag in that if the person is unconcerned with denying the Zohar, surely they denier even more serious things. – Shoel U'Meishiv Sep 11 '16 at 15:00
  • @Mefaresh You know what your Rebbe said. But based on the story, I suggest you might want to contact him again on this subject for clarification. It sounds like you are misunderstanding something. He would probably love to hear from you and know that you were sharing what he taught. – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '16 at 15:06
  • 3
    @YaacovDeane confirmed this is what he meant. From Rav Avigdor Nevenzahl – Shoel U'Meishiv Sep 11 '16 at 15:34
  • @Mefaresh As an interesting aside, Rav Auerbach's father shared in the leadership of the Sha'ar HaShamayim Yeshivah in Jerusalem. This was one of the leading yeshivot for learning Kabbalah in Israel. It's very difficult to imagine Rav Shlomo Zalman having a negative view of kabbalistic teachings. See pages 202-204. https://books.google.com/books?id=mIGMsLiol7EC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=shlomo+zalman+auerbach+kabbalah&source=bl&ots=CafZ2tIFtL&sig=yveGArVfk7TkuNbMoc9uM3duHps&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIq5uM3ofPAhXBdSYKHeGbAaIQ6AEIXDAR#v=onepage&q=shlomo%20zalman%20auerbach%20kabbalah&f=false – Yaacov Deane Sep 11 '16 at 16:50
  • @YaacovDeane of course. – Shoel U'Meishiv Sep 11 '16 at 16:51
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane Even without a negative view he can realize that one isn't a invalid as a witness for denying or questioning them. In fact, most Jews ever in history never even knew any of that stuff existed in order to believe in it. You have no reason to question the conclusion of the story based on thinking that RSZA (must have agreed with his father who) didn't have negative view of kabbalistic teachings. – Double AA Sep 15 '16 at 15:50
  • 2
    @YaacovDeane excellent point, I was about to make the same, Shoel - I have heard (not necessarily a reliable source) that in this story, the witness was Rav Kapach, and that in order to avoid embarrassing him and making an awkward situation, he told the Baalei Hasimcha "How can I be Mesader Kiddushin when there is such a great Gadol here? Let him be Mesader Kiddushin, and I'll be the Eid". (The story was told to illustrate R SZA's Middos and sensitivity, BTW). – רבות מחשבות Feb 11 '18 at 03:19
  • 2
    @רבותמחשבות That's how I heard the story as well. See also the version recorded here (p. 231) which is similar but does not name the rabbi. – Alex Jun 26 '18 at 13:13
10

The Bach in Siman 5 of Teshuvos Yeshanos writes this of someone who, among other problems, was כופר in תורת נסתר.

וכל שכן המלעיג על דברי חכמים ומדבר דופי על חכמת הקבלה שהוא מקור התורה ועיקרה וכולה יראת שמים דפשיטא דחייב נידוי דאין לך מזלזל בד"ת דחייב נידוי גדול מזה ועוד דהלא נמשך אחר הפילוסופיא היא המינות בעצמה ואשה הזרה שהזהיר עליה שלמה כמ"ש הר"מ גבאי בספר מראות אלקים ולא זו בלבד אלא ממשיך אליו גם אחרים ועובר על לאו לפני עיור לא תתן מכשול דחייב נדוי ומאחר דמשליך חכמת הקבלה ודברי רז"ל המקובלי׳ אחרי גיוו ראוי להחמיר עליו ביתר עוז להחרימו ככל החומרות החרם מכל מה שהפה יוכל לדבר וזה אין צריך פנים

HaLeiVi
  • 4,993
  • 16
  • 27
  • 2
    He never even says the words תורת נסתר – Double AA May 29 '15 at 19:57
  • That's a big problem. Think he didn't believe in it either? – HaLeiVi May 29 '15 at 20:06
  • 1
    I don't know, but the bigger problem is your misrepresenting what he wrote. מדבר שקר תרחק. Why not stop lying and edit your post to faithfully represent your source? – Double AA May 29 '15 at 20:10
  • 2
    Can you please explain the difference between the terms תורת נסתר and חכמת הקבלה? What about חכמה האמת, תורת חן and סוד? These terms are synonyms. – HaLeiVi May 29 '15 at 20:28
  • They are only synonymous to certain people in certain times and places in certain contexts. I would never refer to what is popularly nowadays called kabbalah as תורת חן, for instance, nor would I interpret חכמה האמת as referring to it. Certainty I can't imagine all Rishonim used those words in the same way. – Double AA May 29 '15 at 20:32
  • 4
    @Double being that he juxtaposed whatever he means by kabbala against philosophy, I'm willing to bet he means what the OP assumes he meant. Back then, Kabbala and philosophy were held at two ends off the stick. It went till the chassidim (esp Tanya) came and mashed it all up and pretended Rambam's philosophy can jive with Kabbala. For instance Maharal was into kabbala and anti philosophy. But I'm curious why you are certain he doesn't mean that? – user6591 May 29 '15 at 21:18
  • 3
    After reading this inside, I wonder if the Bach would have thrown that doctor under the bus had he simply said he doesn't take the agadata in chazzal at fave value, or accept the kabbala. It seems part of the issue was his mocking of them and his declaration that he only believes in philosophy. It reminds me of the Gal Shel Atzamos story. There is a way to not believe, and there is a way not to not believe. – user6591 Jun 08 '15 at 14:25
8

R. Meir Mazuz Shlita was asked the following question:

אני רוצה לשאול בפרט על ה"דורדעים" שאינם מאמינים בחכמת הקבלה כל עיקר, אלא בדברי הגמרא, רב סעדיה גאון, הרמב"ם, וכדומה. איך יש להתיחס להם? האם הם כשרים לעדות?

"I want to specifically ask about the "Dor-Deim" who don't believe in Kabbalah at all, but only in the Talmud, Rav Saadya Gaon, the Rambam, and the like, how should we relate to them? Are they qualified to testify as witnesses?"

He responded:

אם מכבדים את דעת זולתם ואינם מקנטרים ומזלזלים בהם והם שומרים תומ"צ כשרים לעדות

"If they respect opinion(s) other than their own, and they don't provoke and denigrate [those who disagree with them] and they observe the Torah and mitzvot they are qualified to testify as witnesses."

As noted by @doubleaa this was the opinion of R. Ovadiah Yosef as well.

Furthermore, as noted, the Rivash (157) discusses whether kaballah itself is heresy. He certainly implies that belief in it is not mandatory. Similarly, those rabbis who were opposed to kabbalah (such as R. Yachyah Kapah who authored a polemical work, Milhamot Hashem, against kabbalah) and those who did not believe in it, obviously hold that the belief is not mandatory. (For a few sources against kabbalah, see this answer: Sources in Rishonim on the Authenticity of the Zohar).

Community
  • 1
mevaqesh
  • 35,599
  • 2
  • 98
  • 176
  • Why would anyone possibly downvote respected sources that directly answer the question? – mevaqesh May 18 '17 at 20:21
  • 1
    If they respect opinion(s) other than their own, and they don't provoke and denigrate [those who disagree with them] Why does Rabbi Mazuz think that this has anything to do with Kefira? – ertert3terte Feb 09 '18 at 05:03
  • @ShmuelBrin Seemingly, that's the only difference between מכחיש מגידיה and any ordinary מחלוקת. – Double AA Feb 09 '18 at 14:43
  • @DoubleAA I thought Machish Magideha is about being a Bar Plugta – ertert3terte Feb 09 '18 at 17:49
6

A few points in answer to the question.

1

Definition of heresy might differ from definition of truth. Can one be a heretic for denying a false belief? I think so. Muslims would deem a heretic one who denies Muhammed as a true prophet, and a person might be correctly deemed a heretic under these rules. Similarly, perhaps a person can be deemed a heretic in Judaism for denying kabbalah, even if kabbalah was made up. If so, a person should be brave enough to be a technical heretic yet intellectually honest.

2

A person might have a wrong-headed belief that is not shared by any major Gadol, but that might make him a misguided soul or a fool, rather than a heretic. I might believe in UFOs or that the government is controlling me via microwave radiation, but that doesn't make me a heretic.

3

The purported shalshelet hakabbalah, establishing the masorah, seems to be messed up or fictionalized. See here. Disallowing someone who has the methodology to realize this from concluding this under heresy, because major Gedolim would not have similar methodology to reach the same conclusion, is an effective way of bolstering a problematic masorah. This may not be the intent, but it is an effect.

4

Masechet Horayot addresses the possibility of all Israelites following a mistaken ruling by the Sanhedrin. One is forbidden from following a ruling he knows to be wrong, under an incorrect application of lo tasur.

5

The Rambam did not include kabbalah in his list of required beliefs. However, R’ Tzadok haKohen writes in his Sefer Zichronos, citing a tshuvah of the Bach:

עתה שנתפרסמה חכמת האמת בעולם מוסכם בפי חכמי ישראל האמיתים וכל הכופר בה הוא מכלל האפיקורסים ...דהמלעיג על דברי חכמים ומדבר דופי על דברי הקבלה שהיא מקור התורה ועיקרה וכולה יראת שמים פשיטא שאין לך מזלזל בדברי חכמים גדול מזה

6

Adding to Ikarei Emunah is not something new. The Divrei Chaim made the belief, that the Ohr HaChaim commentary on Chumash was written with ruach hakodesh, mandatory. As well as following Shulchan Aruch, since it was written with Ruach Hakodesh. The משנה הלכות in 7:160 extended this to Mishna Berura:

It is obvious that someone who lacks ruach hakodesh is not able to composes a holy work such as the Mishne Berura. If he doesn’t believe that the Mishne Berura was written with ruach hakodesh then he is an apikorus and denier of God’s Torah.

But that does not mean that everyone agrees to this position, that there is an extension of ikkarei emunah.

Community
  • 1
josh waxman
  • 20,700
  • 44
  • 86
  • what's the specific source for number four? – Orion Jun 27 '18 at 04:19
  • 1
    The expression of it from Horayot 2b is this: אלא היכי משכחת לה כגון דידע דאסור וקא טעי במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי' לדידי נמי דטעו במצוה לשמוע דברי חכמי': – josh waxman Jun 27 '18 at 13:42
  • And the idea expressed by Yerushalmi Horayot, saying only follow if they are correct, is as follows (in a marked difference from the opposite made famous by Rashi on the pasuk): "יכול אפילו יאמרו לך על ימין שהיא שמאל ועל שמאל שהיא ימין שתשמע להם ת"ל ללכת ימין ושמאל עד שיאמרו לך על ימין שהוא ימין ועל שמאל שהוא שמאל" – josh waxman Jun 27 '18 at 13:45
5

Harav Meir Eliyahu says that one who doesn't believe in the Kabala would be considered a Kofer.

Hacham Gabriel
  • 16,613
  • 61
  • 84
3

Regarding one who is unsure of the veracity of the Qabbalah and its multi-faceted tradition, and therefore chooses to live a Jewish life devoid of Qabbalistic influence, Rabbi Dawidh (David) Bar-Hayim told me that such a person has done nothing wrong.

In our conversation, Rabbi Bar-Hayim also mentioned a tremendous Talmid Hakhamim who completely rejects the Qabbalah; but, nevertheless holds that it is "counterproductive" to actively fight against the Qabbalah. Rabbi Bar-Hayim by no means considers said Talmid Hakhamim a heretic (nor does said Talmid Hakhamim consider himself a heretic).

Not having asked Rabbi Bar-Hayim about sharing the name of this Talmid Hakhamim, I will abstain from doing so.

Lee
  • 7,462
  • 1
  • 25
  • 57
  • 3
    This is pretty obvious since for most of Jewish history at least nearly all Jews lived such lives – Double AA Jul 30 '17 at 01:36
  • @DoubleAA Perhaps this is nevertheless a hiddush nowadays since a great swath of the Torah-observant world stands by and/or incorporates Qabbalistic teachings and hence my related question. – Lee Jul 30 '17 at 16:04
2

The better question to ask is if one is a heretic if they "believe" in Kabbalah. See T'shuvos HaRivash #157 who says (in the name of a Philosopher) that the Christians believe in 3 (trinity) while the Mekubalim believe in 10 (Sefiros). See the same T'shuvah where he says that the RaN told him in private that the Ramban forced himself too much to believe in Kabbalah. He end the T'shuvah saying not to accept Kabbalah unless its from an accepted Chacham... and then only MAYBE (Adyan Ulay). See the T'shuvah from the Nodeh B'Yehudah and from the T'shvas MeAhava (his Talmid) on L'Shem Yichud to name just a few...

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
TorahTruth
  • 77
  • 1
  • 3
    TorahTruth You are welcome to ask that as a separate question, but for this question I think this is more of a comment. – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 18:49
  • 1
    Actually, maybe it's an answer if you are saying the the Rivash thinks that you are not a heretic if you don't believe in Kabbalah. – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 18:50
  • 2
    @DoubleAA, I think that implication is clear, although this answer could probably be rephrased to more directly address the question at hand. – Isaac Moses Jan 04 '13 at 19:00
  • 1
    That was the answer... unless the person asking believes that the Rivash, RaN and Nodeah Beyehuda are heretics. – TorahTruth Jan 04 '13 at 19:17
  • @HodofHod How do you define a god? (It's harder to do properly than you'd expect.) If you think God's hand is separate in some way from Him, then that too might be problematic (seemingly as Shittuf). For the record, this poster never said the 10 sefiros were 10 gods. Have you read the Rivash inside? I don't know to what extent you have studied Kabbalah (though it is probably more than I have) but I assume a Gadol and Baal Hamesora like the Rivash wouldn't condemn a certain belief unless he had looked into it first. Others may, of course, disagree with him. – Double AA Jan 04 '13 at 21:20
  • @HodofHod If you say one can't define 'god' then why would you ask, and why would you be so sure that defining "God's hand" isn't Shittuf? God doesn't have a hand. If you say he does it is different then himself. So he overall is a collection of two entities == Shittuf. (BTW not only does God not have hands, He doesn't have emotions, feelings, character traits or toenails.) And I know people argue on both sides of this (sometimes more about the metziut of what Kabbalah actually claims), but your comment above reads with more...'levity' than I expected from you when discussing Rishonim. – Double AA Jan 05 '13 at 23:14
  • related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/8925/759 – Double AA Jan 05 '13 at 23:17
  • on the nature of the sephirot and whether they are Elohut or Keilim Nivraim (as well as to see the Teshuvat HaRivash) see here http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/05/authenticity-of-kabbalah-pt-xxiii.html and here http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/05/authenticity-of-kabbalah-pt-xxiv.html for a start – josh waxman Jan 06 '13 at 03:28
  • @josh Thank you for that! If it weren't for you I probably never would have read further in the teshuva and would've missed his next points. – HodofHod Jan 06 '13 at 04:15
  • @joshwaxman It's quite convenient that you've included in each post links to the previous segment of the series in case we decide to read it backwards :-) Is there any easy way to find the next segment if we read it forwards? – Double AA Jan 06 '13 at 04:51
  • @DoubleAA I'm not sure if I copied all of it, and I left off from translation in general when I reached the Jewish philosophy portion, but here it is: https://sites.google.com/site/vikuach/first-night – josh waxman Jan 06 '13 at 21:31
  • 5
    TorahTruth, I hope you were kidding when you mentioned the Noda Beyehuda. He famously was well versed in Kabballa. He only had something against having everyone recite something which they won't understand. He had nothing against the contents. In fact, no mainstream Gadol spoke against Kabballa after a certain point. They would be pitted against the Beis Yosef, Bach, Magen Avraham, Ramban, Rashba, ibn Ezra, Raavad, Chassam Sofer, Baal Shem Tov, Gra, Ketzos, Mishna Brura... A far cry from Torah truth. – HaLeiVi May 29 '15 at 18:25
  • 1
    I don't really get the idea of quoting those who were not at all acquainted with something as an authoritative opinion on the matter. – HaLeiVi May 29 '15 at 18:26
  • 2
    @HaLeiVi "pitted against" Let's not go pretending Machloket is not a natural part of our Mesorah. It's not heretical to argue with Torah luminaries and still respect them immensely. – Double AA May 29 '15 at 20:13
2

Rabbi Zev Leff, a well known Posek in Israel, says in his website:

Question No. 1106 Category Halacha (General Jewish Law) Date Posted 26 Oct 2005 The Question Is a person who does not believe that the zohar was revealed to shomon bar yochai counted as a heretic? —David, Bet Shemesh

ANSWER: http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/answers/1000-1249/1106.mp3

(Basically, if one does not believe the tenets of kabala as brought down in the Zohar is, yes, a heretic. This is because it has been accepted by the vast majority of the gedolei hador as authentic, i.e. part of the chain from Sinai)

(I assume this psak refers to a learned person who should know better not some average ignorant person who doesn't know his right from his left)

Harel13
  • 25,676
  • 4
  • 58
  • 136
ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • yes, that would match point 5 in my answer -- עתה שנתפרסמה חכמת האמת בעולם מוסכם בפי חכמי ישראל האמיתים. an interesting follow-up question to this is whether the Chasam Sofer is now a heretic. see here that he holds the Zohar is a forgery. http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/06/chasam-sofers-position-that-zohar-is.html and whether rabbi leff holds one can learn the Chasam Sofer. – josh waxman Mar 11 '13 at 10:40
  • 4
    I have heard that Rabbi Leff retracted or modified this statement –  Mar 11 '13 at 13:33
  • 5
    Interesting that minority opinions can't ever exist by this logic. – Double AA Mar 11 '13 at 13:40
  • 3
    @user2110 http://www.rabbileff.net/shiurim/answers/1750-1999/1776.mp3 IAE I've never heard of this Rabbi Leff outside of this context, and while he may be a Talmid Chacham, I don't think his rulings are necessarily conclusive for everyone. – Double AA Mar 20 '13 at 16:25
  • Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin quotes extensively from the zohar in the nefesh hachaim. the vilna gaon wrote extensive commentaries on the zohar as did the arizal and the ramchal. come on. how do you explain that? – ray May 20 '13 at 21:29
  • @DoubleAA i was told by Rabbi Reuven Lauffer who has been paskening for people in ask the rabbi at ohr somayach for over 15 years regarding a difficult shayla i had: "I think that the question should be asked to an Adam Gadol. Rav Leff is a possibility or Rav Usher Weiss - both are Poskim of the highest caliber" – ray May 20 '13 at 21:32
  • 2
    @R.S. I see he is held in high esteem. Odd then that you would misrepresent him by not noting his complete position in your answer. – Double AA May 20 '13 at 21:36
  • 2
    IIRC the Hatam Sofer doesn't disregard Kabala rather he holds that certain parts of the Zohar were added later. – Hacham Gabriel Sep 18 '13 at 03:52
  • 1
    @HachamGabriel But that doesn't answer Josh's question since this answer discusses "a person who does not believe that the zohar was revealed to shomon bar yochai" which definitely includes the HS. – Double AA May 02 '16 at 22:44
2

Shomer Emunim HaKadmon - Vikuach Shenia, Hatzaa Rishona quotes Rabbi Moshe Kordevoro zt'l in Pardes Rimonim 1:9 - "The second group are those which have been taught the matter of the Sefirot and their existence but they deny this due to their evil interior. For they have habituated themselves in gentile wisdoms 'and with children of gentiles they please themselves' (Isaiah 2:2). These are certainly called Kofrim (heretics), because they are denying the Oral Law, the explanation of Torah sh'Baal Peh (oral law)"...

update: note that "called heretics" does not necessarily mean halachically, although the gemora brought by the shomer emunim speaks of a case where a certain denier of chazal was turned into a pile of bones.

ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 2
    Note that by this reasoning, any disagreement about almost anything in halakha or outside of it, renders one or both or parties heretics for denying the Oral Torah of the other. The reductio ad absurdum of such a claim, is demonstrated here. | Every question about the veracity or authenticity about any halakhic work, ought to constitute a denial of the Oral Law. – mevaqesh Feb 07 '17 at 06:29
  • @mevaqesh well that's what he says and he was a very holy and wise man. so i believe he knows what he's talking about. btw, the shomer emunim then brings support from the talmud for what he said http://dafyomireview.com/456 – ray Feb 07 '17 at 06:31
  • @mevaqesh and the kabala is not just "any halachic work". it is clear he holds the sefirot etc is part of the oral law, i.e. from sinai – ray Feb 07 '17 at 06:40
  • Even great and holy people can make mistakes. In Judaism, if not in Catholicism. If a great and holy person seems to contradict all traditional Jewish sources, that should certainly be noted. The possibility that even he was writing in a polemical context attempting to justify new beliefs that seemed to fly in the face of traditional Judaism, in the long traditional of forged kabbalistic literature, etc. etc. should also be considered. – mevaqesh Feb 07 '17 at 06:42
  • Just about every area of Jewish belief has dispute around it. And while the idea that deniers of certain ideas, or subscribers to certain ideas mat be wrong, even heretically so, is not uncommon, the idea that the right ideas must be Sinaic, and those who don't hold them are deniers of the Oral Law, has no precedent in Jeish literature AFAIK. And for good reason. Certainly halakhic details of mitzvot are part of the Oral Law, this is true even outside of Ramak's redefinition of the term. Nevertheless, every Tannaic dispute, doesnt render the wrong side a heretic. – mevaqesh Feb 07 '17 at 06:46
  • 1
    I don't want to get sidetracked with the questions of whether not kabbalah is heresy, who is a gadol, whether or not someone who disagrees with your position is conveniently automatically disqualified, whether or not historical questions such as the authorship of different works can be settled with a vote. Many of these questions have already received the well deserved complexity that they deserve. Lets keep comments focused on the question at hand. While I therefore will not the veracity your claims at length, one useful resource, is this. – mevaqesh Feb 07 '17 at 07:12
  • The OP stated "are they halachically considered a heretic?" You state "note that "called heretics" does not necessarily mean halachically". In that case, this is not necessarily an answer. – mevaqesh Feb 07 '17 at 08:45
  • "because they are denying the Oral Law, the explanation of Torah sh'Baal Peh (oral law)"..." How is the Oral law the explanation of Torah Sheb'al Peh? Do you mean the explanation of Torah Shebikhtav? Where did you get this translation from? Is it your own? – mevaqesh Jul 30 '17 at 16:34
1

There are three issues:

  1. Did Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai write the Zohar.
  2. Even if not, is it a holy work?
  3. Even if not, what about other Kabbalah works?

Rabbi Yaakov Emden (The Yaavetz) writes (at least what I was able to read on wikisource):

הנה כל עצם ספר הזוהר, קדוש הוא כעצם השמים לטוהר, דבריו נכוחים למבין (במקום שמדבר בסודות התורה בחידות עמוקות וברמזים של רזים עליונים, לשונו סתום וחתום באלף עזקאין, לא איתי אנש על יבשתא די מלת מלכא דעלמ"א (שהעלים מבריותיו) יכול להמרה, אלהן די רוח אלהין קדישין גביה).

The Zohar is holy...

אך מאחר שנכשלו בו פושעים, ושבו אבני שיש טהור בקצת מקומות, לאבני נגף אל העקשים החטאים ומתנקשים בנפשותם לילך אחר ההבל, לקשור חבל (חבלי יולדה יבואו להם) בחבל, לדלות מים מכזבים מי המרים המאררים מבאר זרה נכריה, להשקות מהם ע"ץ (עוון צבי) פר"א אדם לעשות ממנו בית יד גרזן לכרות עצי לבנון ולברוא משחית לחבל, כאשר הראית לדעת בספר שבט לגו כסילים, ובספר הקנאות הראינוך כמו כן, שכל טעותם תולין באילן גדול רעיא מהימנא (עם שבאמת הוא להם משענת קנה רצוץ - לרצץ מוחם ובא בכפם ונקבם, וקורע סגור לבם - כתולעת לקיקיון, וכחורב בציון). ששב להם רועה רוח ר"ל - כאשר החל להיות גבור ציד באר"ש נכריה - ש"ץ שר"י שהמריד את כל העולם על בוראו, ומלא דבריו נביאו, השקרן העז פנים העזתי שר"י.

However, since it was abused by Shabtai Tzvi and others ...

עתה אמרתי לא טוב הוא ספר הזהר מנחש הנחושה שעשה מרע"ה, להביט על ידו אל האלהים, ואחר שראה חזקיהו המלך שיצאה ממנו תקלה לדורות, שהביטו לנחש מוחש מוכחש, עמד וכתתו להפיק רצון מאת ה', והודו לו.

It's as holy as Moshe's copper serpent. A good thing but a danger to the masses.

אבל אין ספק אצלי כלל, שעם כל שבחו של ספר הזוהר, הנה לא נמלט מבוא אל קרבו דברים אשר אין להם שחר, אולי הסופרים מעתיקי הספר בחשאי, המה שתו עליו נוספות, סיגים מצופות, על חר"ס (ולא יזרח) וירח הקבלה לא יגיה אורו, ונקראים ע"ש ספר הזוהר בזיוף, ובאמרי שהן מזויפות, אין כוונתי לומר שהן פסולות לבוא בקהל ה', כמטבע מזויף בשקר מוחלט, חלילה לי מה' מחדל ללמד על כל הנמצא בו זכות, ככל אשר תשיג יד האפשרות, (חוץ משנים שלשה גרגרים פרט בלשון ומלה - שלא מצאת ידי די התנצלות ואמתלא, אחר שחזרתי על כל צדדים למצוא פשר דבר, להסכימם עם המותר בפינו ובלבבנו, ולא מצאתי לישרם בשכל ובמבטא, אותם בלבד הסכמתי שראוי להסירם מן הספר, ולא לעיולי פילא בקופא דמחטא, כדי להניח התקלה בפני כל איש שוגה ופתי, כי לא רבים יחכמו, וגם אשר נשיא יחטא, כאשר ארשום אותם במקומם כשאפגע בהם, בעברי בין בתרי הספר הקדוש), רק רצוני לומר שאינם דברי המחבר העצמי למבראשונה, כי אמנם ממקור ישראל היו כולנה, אלא שהן מאוחרים בזמן ובמעלה, ולא נודע מתי ועל ידי מי חוברו יחדו הנה. אשר על כן אין חיוב החלטי להיות משועבד האיש הישראלי (בן חורין העוסק בתורה לשמה הנאמן לאלהיו, ומובטח שמגלין לו רזי תורה אמתיים) לקבל עליו אחריותם, לגזור היותם כולם אמיתיים מוחלטים כנים ונאמנים בלי הרהור ופקפוק בעולם.

And also part of it was a forgery, at which time it's not known (he doesn't think it was Rabbi Moshe De Leon, as he will say later).

שאפילו חבור הזוהר עצמו, כל עיקר לא חברו רשב"י התנא אע"פ שמיוחס אחריו ובשמו יכונה, (כמו שארע בכמה ספרים קדמי קדמונים ואת אחרונים לרוב), אלא תלמידי תלמידי תלמידיו עשאוהו קבצוהו וחברוהו בלי ספק, כמו שהרגיש כבר בספר יוחסין הדווקן (ומ"ש שם, שחיברם שנה אחר מותו של רשב"י - נ"ל טעות הדפוס הוא, וצ"ל ש' (במקום ס') ור"ל שלש מאות שנה אחר זמנו של רשב"י האמיתי תנא דמתניתין. זה מוכרח וברור אצלי בס"ד.

The Zohar wasn't written by Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, just that the traditions go back to him (I guess kind of like the Mishna, which (at least according to Rashi) wasn't written by Rebbi Yehuda HaNasi).

עיינתי עוד בספר יוחסין והבנתי שאין כוונתו בהודעת זמן הנ"ל, רק על חבורי המשנה ספרא וספרי, על אלו החבורים בכלל אמר שנעשו ש' שנה אחר מותו של ר"ע, וזהו האמת לכן א"צ תיקון).

מכל מקום הרי היא כאילו עשהו רשב"י, מאחר שממנו יצאו כבושים הללו בתחילה, ונשתלשלו ונתגלגלו ליד האחרונים, כדין נקרא על שמו (וכך הם ודאי כמה ספרים קדמונים שלנו, נקראים באופן זה על שם האיש, שהיה סבה רחוקה להם, כמו שנראה מפרקי ר"א וזולתו).

Or the Pirkei DeRabbi Elazar ...

או הוא על דרך שאמר ר"ע לרשב"י בקשת להחנק, התלה באילן גדול, כך אולי ראה מחברו זכות לעצמו שרשאי לתלותם ברשב"י כי היכי דלקבלוהו מניה. ועל דרך שמצינו עוד בתלמוד ראה רבי דבריו של פלוני ושנאן בלשון רבים. וסתם מתניתין ר' מאיר.

Possibly it was written by someone else but "borrowed" Rabbi Shimon's name.

והנה בענין שורש קבלת חכמה האמת, חלילה לאדם מישראל להיות מסופק באמתתה, שהיא נשמת התורה בלי שום הרהור ספק בעולם.

Regarding Kabbalah (in general), G-d forbid for one to doubt its authenticity, as it's the soul of the Torah without a doubt.

גם כבר הובא שלשלת קבלתה בספרים שונים, שהיא ודאי מסורת גאונים קדמונים, אמוראים ותנאים בעלי התלמוד ז"ל, גם הרב המובהק מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה, ופילוסוף בקי בכל חכמות חיצוניות, ורופא מומחה לגופות ונפשות, הוא הרמב"ן ז"ל, היה מקובל אלהי נאמן רוח, איש קדוש ונורא, וקדמון הוא, זה קרוב לשש מאות שנה עד זמננו, אישרה קיימה קבלה, ויסדה בפירושו על התורה כמפורסם ונודע בעולם.

Even the Ramban agreed to the existence of Kaballah.

(עם שהרמב"ם ז"ל, הסמוך אליו מלפניו, לא זכה אליה, ואם שמעה אזנו שמץ מנהו, החזיקו למינות, כמו שיראה בספר מורה נבוכים, אם שלו הוא, הספר.

The Rambam, however, didn't hold of it (assuming he wrote the Moreh Nevuchim).

Here, he writes that while the Rambam generally agrees with Kabalah (even though he personally wasn't Mekabel it), his Moreh Nevuchim doesn't. But (according to R' Yaakov Emden, he didn't write the Moreh, so it all works out).

גם ספר הזהר הוא נזר המקובלים בלי ספק בעולם, בשגם העיד עליו האר"י ז"ל שהיה איש קדוש אלהי ורוח הקדש שורה עליו, הלא עליו בנויה כל חכמתו, הנשגבה והנוראה. חלילה להרהר אחר דבריו.

The Zohar is without a doubt the crown of the Mekubalim, and the Arizal (who was holy and had Ruach HaKodesh) testified that [it was true], G-d Forbid to doubt it.

אך יש בספר הלז שבדפוס, בר ותבן מעורב בו, ודברי מדרש הנעלם, נראה ונרגש לכל שאינו מענין החיבור, וכן כמה מאמרים מוכנסים גם בעצם ספר הזהר, והם לשון ארמי מקולקל, כמו בפרשת ויחי שגם המדפיס העיר עליו, כי הרגיש בזיוף לשון הכותב, שרצה להדמות לזוהר כקוף בפני אדם, ולשונו מגומגם זר מאד, בלעגי שפה ידבר דומה לצפצוף. אבל מלבד אלה, גם במקומות מעצמות הספר שלשונו נקי וצח, יש לי ראיות חזקות, ששלטו בו ידי אחרון בזמן, אף אם אולי לא נופל הוא במעלה, כאשר אבאר בעזרת ה'.

However, there were forgeries inserted into the printed Zohar, so not all of it is of the same quality.

גם הרב בחיי שהיה תלמידו של הרשב"א, כידוע, גם מזכירו בשם רבו כמה פעמים הוא ראה ס' הזוהר, ומביא לשון ממנו פ' משפטים עה"פ "וכי ינצו אנשים", ומכנה אותו מדרשו של רשב"י (כדרך שרגיל לקרותו בעל עבודת הקודש), נראה שהיה כבר נקרא שמו כספר ידוע בימיו, ואי אפשר שיכזב הבחיי בכן ליחסו לרשב"י כדבר פשוט בשקר מוחלט ח"ו, שהוא היה כמו בדור אחד עם ר"מ דיליאון, [לכ]ן אני אומר ודאי המוציא לעז על עיקר ספר הזהר המכונה מדרשו של רשב"י לא ינקה ועתיד לתן את הדין.

Moreover, the Bechaye says that his teacher (the Rashba) quoted the Zohar as "the Midrash of the Rashbi", and the Bechaye won't say utter lies attributing the Zohar to one it's not.

Therefore, one who spreads lies on the Zohar will not be cleansed from his sin and will have to give judgement.

גם ח"ו לחשוד ר"מ דיליאון (שהיה עכ"פ אדם גדול לדברי הכל ומקובל נאמן) שיעשה דבר כזה, לבדות דברי סודות מלבו לגמרי, גם לכתוב ספורי מעשיות ארוכים מופלאים אשר לא היו ולא נבראו, ולתלותן ברשב"י וחבריו בכזב גמור, והוא דבר נמנע ואפילו הרהור אסור, כי לא יעשה בישראל.

Even to G-d forbid accuse Rabbi Moshe De Leon of making up fantastic stories, and attributing them to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is outlandish, and even thinking this is forbidden.

[מי]הו האי לישנא בישא למיחש ליה מיבעי, ונראה לי לא רחוק הוא למצוא בו פשר דבר כמש"ל, איתא להא ואיתא להא, וכבר אמרתי שניתי ושלשתי כי בעצם ספר הזהר אין אומר ואין דברים כי ממקום קדוש יתהלך וממקור ישראל חוצב, ואם רשב"י בעצמו לא עשאו, רק תלמידי תלמידיו, מ"מ כדין נקרא על שמו, כיוצא בו ימצאו ספרים רבים מתיחסים אחר מקורם הראשון, אע"פ שלא נתחברו אלא בדור אחרון, אך אין אדם נחשד בדבר (היכא דליכא אויבים דמפקי לקלא) אלא א"כ עשאו מקצתו לפחות.

ככה הוא בענין חבור ספר הזהר, יש לי הוכחות גמורות ואומדנות נאמנות וידים מוכיחות, ורגלים לדבר, שעל כל פנים איזה חכם ספרדי דווקא, השית עליו נוספות, בלשון זוהר נקי ומלת ארמיות צחות ויפות, והמה דרשות ופשטים נאים במקראות ואגדות, על דרך הנסתר שהוסיף משה (דיליאון) מדעתו וראה זכות לעצמו לתלותן באילן גדול, וכמש"ל יותר בס"ד.

The only thing is that some Sefardi Chacham added appendages to it, saying Kabbalistic expositions, and blamed it on Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.

tl;dr

  1. Parts of the Zohar was a tradition from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Though it could have been written by someone else but attributed to him.
  2. Even if not, it's a holy work which the Arizal (who had Ruach HaKodesh) held of.
  3. There were other Mekubalim who everyone agrees were holy people (The Ramban, who was before the Zohar's publication).

Either way, it is definitely a holy work and one is forbidden to disparage it.

Community
  • 1
ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
0

Well known vort from the Chasam Sofer:

Those who deny nistar bnigla also deny nigla bnisatr

(Those who openly deny the secret parts of Torah, secretly deny the open parts of Torah)

Schmerel
  • 5,160
  • 8
  • 13