Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 169

Sunday, February 21 1999

• Re: Zohar and Halacha
• Re: Avodah V2 #167
• Zohar and Emunah
• Re: Avodah V2 #168
• men's clothing
• Canonization of Esther; ain navi rashai l'chadesh
• Textual Variants in nach
• Edah Conference
• Re: Zohar
• Re: men's clothing
• RE: ketuba
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Textual Variants in nach
• OLD MATZAH; OLD ESROG
• Re: Avodah V2 #168

In a message dated 2/19/99 11:29:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< Along those lines: Is this not the claim of those who state that no all
 Torah is me'Sinai - that the authorities until the 18th-19th centuries had
 "incomplete information", that, when subsequently "completed", led them to
 their rejection? >>

Actually, upon reflection, I realized that my own argument led me to the same
conclusion as you did. The only difference being that we have a better idea of
who wrote the Zohar, based, in fact, on the work of people like Scholem, than
we do of who wrote the Torah. Which makes sense, because we believe absolutely
that the Torah was given at Sinai by God to B'nai Yisrael, and for that, we
are not going to find proof in the typical way that scholars do. 
I guess what I am really getting at, is the idea current in some parts of our
community that not believeing in certain things is somehow a blemish on our
emunah, even if those things are not listed as Ikkarei Emunah. I perceived an
implied rebuke in the original post of Elie's to that effect, which is to say
that the suggestion on my part that the Zohar cannot be considered a tannaitic
text is something that Mr. Ginsparg cannot allow for, and if in fact I do
believe that, I have no leg to stand on, since the GRA and the ARI don't agree
with me. It is Mr. Ginsparg's right not to agree with me, and to follow those
two Gedolim. However, we must all be very careful with how we quantify the
beleifs of others, where they do not undermine the basic principles of our
faith. 

Jordan   

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:25:11 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: BD Seiruv
> 
> I said:>>> Question:  do you think THAT landlord - based upon THAT
> perception - 
> was > motivated to use the local beis din in a dispute with his tenants?<<
> 
> Zvi Weiss===> If he cannot verify that the perception was accurate, then
> I would
> say he was NOT justified to go to a different B"D.<<
> 
> OK, how would YOU behave if you were summoned to a BD that you KNEW to be 
> unfair?

===> I would request a ZBL"A instead (something that is perfectly
legitimate to do under halacha).

--Zvi



> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:01:14 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: BD & Agunot
> 
> I said:> 
> > I'll concede the Aguna case following the shoaa as a horoas sho'o. And
> > their the
> > perpetrator was AH YS.
> 
> Zvi Weiss says:===> I think that it is not difficult to make a similar
> arguement
> in our time.<<
> 
> Indeed one can.  Just realize that if a ball is MIA due to a war or a pogroma 
> it's one thing.  A recalcitrant husband feels justified based upon some
> motive. 
> I am saying, it is WRONG to prejudge that motive, because we are no privy
> to all
> the facts of the case. Period.  In a holocaust there is the lieklihood
> that no 
> ball is alive to be injured.

===> I am not prejudging anything -- only asserting that these matters be
settled in B"D and not by one side (or the other!) trying to "force" the
matter.



> 
> Re: Assault and batter, are you syain BD is going to prevent this?  I believe 
> the possuk distinguishes between SHOFTIM and SHOTRIM. 

===> B"D must be prepared to provide for the adjudication of such matters
-- otherwise, people will feel free to batter as they please.  Also, I
believe that the Sanhedrin ultimately had a responsiblity for the setting
up of Shotrim (and please note carefully how meforshim tended to define
"Shotrim").



> 
> Chzazl tell us that Pinchos could be mekane when he saw the chillul Hashem in 
> action.  BUT doing the same act to Zimri a day later (even an hour later)
> would 
> have been shefichus domim.
> 
> So Please udnerstand me.  Unless we SEE the Baal beating his wife, we cannot
> lay
> a hand on him without "due process"; otherwise we have vigilanti'ism.

==> That is correct BUT we can provide a mechanism where a woman dos not
lose her Kesubsa simply because she feels that she needs an "order of
protection" from her husband.  I do NOT expect the B"D to prejudge
anything.


> 
> I accept your premise that the DB is objective; I just want everyone to realize 
> the potential harm if the DB is not PERCEIVED as objective.  RYGB's comments
> re:
> a so-called BD are exactly the point; a BD that is not perceived as on the up 
> and up will be dismissed.  No matter how reliable the sources are that they 
> cite, lack of objectivity will create 'ir'ur.

===> No disagreement about THAT!

--Zvi


> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:53:17 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: BD adn objectivity
> 
> I said:> Let me tell you a story.  A landlord in a certain community told me the
> > REPUTATION (lav davko the reality) of the local Beis Din was to favor
> > tennats in
> > their litigations with landlords.
> 
> Ziv Weiss says ==>Maybe that is because the reality is that the landlords
> really
> WERE in the wrong.  Historically, it is not a secret that Rabbonim were
> forced 
> from their communities when they "stood up" against the "rich and
> powerful" who just happened not to be in the halachic "right".  I would 
> actually draw the opposite conclusion from the above story -- that the 
> landloreds are so corrupt that the B"D is actually PROTECTING the ones who 
> rent. <<
> 
> Well Put. I think this is great illustration of a prejudice that serves to 
> justify WHY some landlords are mesareiv.  I.E. they see their side being 
> re-interpreted to portray them as the villains -   So why bother to go to a 
> Beis Din that will only stereotype them anyway?


===> I am not trying to reinterpret anything.  My point is that the fact
that decisions went against the landlords does not IN ITSELF show anything
one way or the other.  And, to refuse to go to a B"D simply because
*other* landlords have lost (without attempting to analyse the reasons for
the losses) is simply wrong.

--Zvi




> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 

> From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
> Subject: Re: Zohar
> 

> chol hamoed. Assertions made by Rav Yaakov Emden - which have been widely
> rejected need to be accompanied by that fact that they have been rejected.
> For example he asserted that the Moreh Nevuchim could not have been
> written by the Rambam because it is so full of apikorsus. He also looked
> favorably upon committing suicide as a means of atonement. [see Igros
> Moshe C.M. II 69.s page 300]. Do any of you seriously hold that these
> positions are "yeish al mi lismoch"? 
> 

> The Chida (Shem HaGedolim) writes in his discussion of the Zohar. "I
> recently came across the sefer Matpachas Seforim.  I noticed - after a
> brief examination - his astounding assessment that it was not from a Tanna
> but from later sources and he questions the greatness and awesomeness of
> the Zohar. I was extremely astonished at his words in general and in
> particular because of our masters Rav Moshe Kordevero and the Arizal who
> had ruach hakodesh as well as giloi Eliyahu and knowledge of everything in
> the world was open to them. Therefore it appears to me that the rav
> [Yaavetz] knew in truth the nature of the holy Zohar. However in his
> zealousness against the cursed cult who transgress kares and misasa beis
> din and who base themselves on phrases from the Zohar he felt a need to
> destroy their basis and to say these criticisms because of Ais La'asos and
> his intent was pure. G-d in His mercy should judge him favorably." 
> 

I thank R' Daniel for the learned response, most of which I deleted, which
indicates clearly that the preponderance of expert opinion held as to the
veracity of the bulk of the Zohar, which leads me to R' Jordan's note:


> From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Zohar and Halacha
> 
> In a message dated 2/19/99 11:29:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes: 
> 
> Actually, upon reflection, I realized that my own argument led me to the
> same conclusion as you did. The only difference being that we have a
> better idea of who wrote the Zohar, based, in fact, on the work of people
> like Scholem, than we do of who wrote the Torah. Which makes sense,

Let me try to save you from a precarious perch :-):

What I think you should have written is that, from *your* perspective,
since: 1. the public tradition on the Zohar only extends back to the
thirteenth century, and, 2. since its acceptance is not an ikkar emunah,
you therefore have no chiyuv, either logical or theological, to accept the
veracity of the Zohar.

I would be forced to agree with these statements, however could continue
to express incredulity that you accept the view of a minority of dubious
scholars over a majority of kabbalistic experts (to understate the
matter), conceding that as this is not an ikkar emunah, you are not bound
to accept it, however logical. 

> because we believe absolutely that the Torah was given at Sinai by God to
> B'nai Yisrael, and for that, we are not going to find proof in the typical
> way that scholars do. I guess what I am really getting at, is the idea
>

I have presented the above possible line of thought for you to consider in
order to draw a sharp distinction between the authenticity of the Zohar,
that is logical, but not necessarily as compelling as the unbroken public
tradition and ikkar emunah of Torah me'Sinai is.

Nevertheless, I find it illogical to rely on Scholem et al, when towering
figures over them say distinctly differently.

I have a similar problem with the separate issue of the discrepancy in
chronologies between our Talmudic tradition of a 420 year Bayis Sheni vs.
the secular chronology...

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:48:07 -0500
> From: "Lawrence M. Reisman" <LMReisman@email.msn.com>
> Subject: Edah Conference - Impressions from an attendee
> 
> Dear Reb Yosef (and other list subscribers):
> 
>     I  was at the conference.  Reserving final judgment until I hear the
> tapes and go over them, I feel there was much to be optimistic about.  A
> good deal of Rabbi Berman's opening speech would not have been out of place
> at an Agudah convention.  Try his comments that a good part  of what is on
> TV shouldn't be shown in Jewish homes.  The Jewish Press had a guardedly
> favorable review of the conference.  Unless a review of the tapes changes my
> mind, I would say that the Press got it right.
> 
> Best wishes as ever,
> 
> Levi Reisman
> 
> No, I have not changed my ideology one iota!  I am not quitting the Agudah,
> nor am I joining Edah!

I did not address that conference, but what is as important as what the 
Jewish Press reports is what is reported in the general press as that is 
what is read by numerous Jews from all walks of life, and even 
misstatements are given a life and truth of their own. ( A good example 
is the LA Times mistatement that the Agudat Harabonim said the 
Conservative and Reform Jews are not Jew, is still being quoted by 
reprsenatives of those movements as a true quote

In today's Sacramento Bee there was an Associated Press Report authored 
by Julia Lieblich entitled "Modern life offers Orthodox Jewish women a 
tough challenge."   There was a photo of a Lisa Lehmann dressed in Talis 
and Tefilin.   While the latter part of the article says she was the only 
one there in Talis and Tefilin and "barely caused a stir"  such a photo 
will be what is remembered by many.

							BS"D

	Back on February 4th -- how I envy those who can pounce immediately 
upon any posting that catches their attention -- HoRav HaGaon Yosef Gavriel 
Bechhofer Sh'lita reported that his "former Mashgiach, R' Tzuriel of 
Sha'alvim, [said] that the first several hundred/thousand *men* to wear 
short jackets transgressed chukkos ha'goyim", and HoRav Bechhofer added 
that, "One is still encouraged to wear frocks/tisch bekeshes on Shabbos 
:-)!"  

	Query whether the first several hundred/thousand men to wear 
frocks/tisch bekeshes transgressed chukkos hagoyim.  Should men be 
encouraged to wear togas on Shabbos?  Then again, did the first several 
hundred/thousand men to wear togas etc.?  :-)

Jeff Zuckerman

On the sugya debating whether Esther has the din of kitvei kodesh (Meg. 7) the
Maharasha cites a kashe of the Yerushalmi not brought in the Bavli - "ain navi
rashai l'chadesh davar".  I'm perplexed - by that token no sifrei Nach should
exist as they were all chiddushim of the respective nevi'im who authored them!
(B'dochak perhaps the sugya is discussing the status of megilla viz. a chalos
d'orayata like as a text usable for a kiyum of zecher amalek, but see Ritva
there).

On another note: the fact that Shmuel takes the position that Esther is not
metamei et hayadayim is indicative that the canon of Nach was not closed even
to the relatively late historical period of Shmuel.  This is historically
difficult, no?  I do not have S. Leiman's book at home, but maybe someone can
shed light on this.  It seems a dochak to read the sugya as a debate limited
to the din of tumat yadayim divorced from the canonization issue, esp. note
the lashon "nitan l'kros vlo likatev".  Perhaps Esther alone enjoyed a longer
period of debate on its canonical status (note that Esther is, I believe, the
only Biblical text of which nothing has been recoved from the Dead Sea Scrolls
of Qumran.  Interesting.)

-Chaim

I don't want to rehash this discussion (esp. since the RYE/Zohar debate is
being rehashed already <sic>) but for those interested in another interesting
makor re: textual variants in Nach take a look at Ibn Ezra 25:29 and Ramban's
response.  I believe the composition of Divrei haYamim was discussed on Bais
tefilla (where are its archives?) but in any event it may be different then
other sefarim.

-Chaim

I would like to add a note to Rabbi Broyde's post.  Since my initial
posting, I read the Jewish Week's reporting and it is very slanted; the
conference was far less radical than the Week would have you believe.  Just
for samplers, Rabbi Berman, in his opening remarks made any number of
statements, some "right wing" and some "left wing."  The Week chose to quote
not only the most "left wing" statement but the one most likely to raise and
Agudist's blood pressure.  Hard as it is to believe, the Jewish Press was
far more objective and accurate.

From RYGB:
> 1. (Sarcastic): Lucky RYE was not fooled, considering all those Gedolei
> Torah who were.

He was the first to actually undertake the analysis.  See below.

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
>assertion of whether he wore tefilin during chol hamoed. Assertions made by Rav
>Yaakov Emden - which have been widely rejected need to be accompanied
>by that fact > that they have been rejected. For example he asserted that
>the Moreh Nevuchim could > not have been written by the Rambam because
>it is so full of apikorsus. He also > looked favorably upon committing
>suicide as a means of atonement. [see Igros Moshe > C.M. II 69.s page
>300]. Do any of you seriously hold that  these positions are > "yeish
>al mi lismoch"?

And R' Moshe also has a number of opinions that are largely rejected in
practice.  Does that make his other opinions unreliable?

> nonsense and faith on the Zohar. There is no doubt that if it wasn't for the
> problem of Sabbateans which had  been renewed again in his day and
> locale the Gaon > would not have published the sefer at all As he himself
> testifies  [page 16] that > he had written these comments 40 years prior
> to publication and he had not wanted > to publish them except for the
> renewed manifestation of Sabbateans and therefore he > was forced to
> reveals his claims against the Zohar in order to weaken their > foundations. 
> This is a answer to the question of how all the sages prior to the >
> Yaavetz over a period of hundreds of years apparently didn't notice
> these claims.  > They obviously were aware of these issues but felt there
> was no compelling reason > to make public comment on them and they
> obviously resolved them to their own > satisfaction."

Sorry, don't buy it any more than I do from R' Bechhoffer.  How many of them
undertook detailed philological and textual analyses of the Zohar to determine
its authorship?  Certainly such analyses were conducted by the Amoraim on 
the text of the Mishnah, and we generally accept their results as to who
said which mishnah under the influence of which teacher.

AFAIK, only R' Emden and Gershom Scholem undertook such analyses, and both
were rejected because of the rabbis' preconceived notions.  See below.
 
> The Chida (Shem HaGedolim) writes in his discussion of the Zohar. "I
> recently came > across the sefer Matpachas Seforim.  I noticed - after
> a brief examination - his > astounding assessment that it was not from
> a Tanna but from later sources and he > questions the greatness and
> awesomeness of the Zohar. I was extremely astonished at > his words  in
> general and in particular because of  our masters Rav Moshe Kordevero >
> and the Arizal who had ruach hakodesh as well as giloi Eliyahu and knowledge
> of > everything in the world was open to them. Therefore it appears to
> me that the rav > [Yaavetz] knew in truth the nature of the holy Zohar.
> However in his zealousness > against the cursed cult who transgress kares
> and misasa beis din and who base > themselves on phrases from the Zohar
> he felt a need to destroy their basis and to > say these criticisms
> because of Ais La'asos and his intent was pure. G-d in His > mercy
> should judge him favorably."

In other words, the very idea of late authorship of the Zohar conflicted
with his preconceived notions of its early authorship, so he pretends that
the Yaavetz agreed with early authorship, but lied in his work about late
authorship so as to undermine the Sabbateans.  Either Yaavetz is lying,
or Chida is deluding himself, and from your earlier attempt to ab initio
discredit Yaavetz, it's clear where your sympathies lie.  Unfortunately,
there doesn't seem to be a way to get out of this without being in some
way motzi laaz al gedolim.

> Of relevance to us is what exactly did the Yaavetz actually conclude?
> Contrary to > the impression created by various postings he did not
> summarily reject the Zohar > but did divide it into various categories.
> He starts his sefer with "The essential

I didn't see that any postings told us that Yaavetz "summarily rejected the
Zohar", or that even "secondary and tertiary sources" alleged this.  You are
just stating in more detail what the various other posts did: that some 
parts were ancient, and other parts were late.

> It has been pointed out to me by talmidei chachomim who are experts
> in Kabbala that > both the Arizal - who was not only an outstanding
> kabbalist but also a student of > the Shita Mekubetzes and was well
> acquainted with ancient manuscripts and textual > analysis  - and the
> Gra - who spent much energy in correcting texts of the gemora > etc -
> did not treat the Zohar or its subdivisions according to the classification
> of authenticity suggested by the Yaavetz. They made comments on the
> parts that the > Yaavetz held to be not from the Rashbi as readily as
> the other parts. They gave no > indication that there was any variation
> in authenticity.

Which simply indicates that they didn't do the analysis, or felt that the
holiness of the Zohar transcended the analysis.  Or maybe, like the Chida,
they just rejected it ab initio, without paying attention to the details
of the analysis.  From the summary in Tishby of the philological and 
textual arguments used by Emden (Scholem never wrote up his critique in
detail), I find it persuasive: anachronistic use of words, derivation
of concepts from philosophical literature, etc.  Does that mean I'm going
to look at every halachic practice I do and excise the ones derived from
kabbalah?  No.  Whether the text is fully Tannaitic or fully Rishonic
(which I don't think anyone here is claiming), it still has had at least
rishonic influence on halacha in many areas.

As for others accepting the idea of late redaction or of late composition,
Tishby cites:

R' Abraham Galante, Sefer Zoharei Chamah (Venice 1655), p152b, and see
    Sefer Yuchasin haShalem, p. 45.

R' Moses Hagiz, Sefer Mishnat Chachamim (Wannseebeck, 1733), nos. 332, 334.

I do know a rav or two who avoid kabbalistic practices as much as
possible, e.g. not saying Kabbalat Shabbat before Mizmor Shir.

By the way, could you please try to keep your lines down under 75 or so 
characters?  It's rather disconcerting to read on an 80-column screen.

JEFFREY ZUCKERMAN wrote:

>         Back on February 4th -- how I envy those who can pounce immediately
> upon any posting that catches their attention -- HoRav HaGaon Yosef Gavriel
> Bechhofer Sh'lita reported that his "former Mashgiach, R' Tzuriel of
> Sha'alvim, [said] that the first several hundred/thousand *men* to wear
> short jackets transgressed chukkos ha'goyim", and HoRav Bechhofer added
> that, "One is still encouraged to wear frocks/tisch bekeshes on Shabbos
> :-)!"

For those who are still bothered by this issue, Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe Y.D. I
#81 page 142) has an analysis in which chukas akum was never violated. Chukas
Akum is one of those - "in the eyes of the beholder" - rules. One recently
discussed rav prohibits having *Vienesse* Tables or kosher *Chinese*
restaurants. Some prohibit having watches that tell the same time as the rest
of the world. A simple summary of the opposing positions  is that there are
those 1) who say one can not be like the goyim - even if it serves a practical
purpose while others say 2) one should not do things which are motivated by a
drive to imitate the goyim - however whatever is done for practical reasons -
such a desire to be clothed or avoiding ridicule is o.k..

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

Subject: Re: destruction of documents

Rav Eliyahu Teitz wrote:
[del]
>About the kesuba, there is alot to be said, and I don't have the time now.
>Suffice it that if a woman got a secular settlement, she is getting much more
>than the kesuba would have given her, and there is a mechila of the kesuba in
>favor of the settlement.  Some batei din even state this explicitly.

I heard from Rav Mordechai Eliyahu Shlit"a, that there is an issue of reparations 
that a woman can sue her husband for, besides the Ketuba (to compensate for her 
contribution toward the growth of the marital assets etc.).

He stated that at times the sum she would be awarded could be greater than what she 
would have gotten under a secular settlement.

Does anyone know of this issue coming up in Batei Din outside Israel?

Shoshana
-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil (nee Skaist)
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 21/02/99
Time: 05:43:20 PM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> He was the first to actually undertake the analysis.  See below.
>

This is incorrect, so the rest of the post falls away as well. I refer you
to "Meditation and Kabbalah" by R' Aryeh Kaplan, pp. 147-154, where he
proves that a Kabbalist contemporaneous with the Zohar's publication, R'
Yitzchok of Acco, investigated and accepted the Zohar's authenticity.

But, I question the a priori assumption as well - why should you assume
that the Arizal and Gra - particularly the latter, who did not hesitate to
question Rishonim, emend Talmudic texts, etc. -accepted the Zohar blindly?
To boot, he was younfer than RYE, and likely was aware of the latter's
"research"... I do not even understand how the Chida, the quintessential
expert on authorship, is assumed by you to be in the wrong - or worse -
and RYE in the right.
 
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

For the lazy among us, can you please summarize? Thanks!

On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> I don't want to rehash this discussion (esp. since the RYE/Zohar debate is
> being rehashed already <sic>) but for those interested in another interesting
> makor re: textual variants in Nach take a look at Ibn Ezra 25:29 and Ramban's
> response.  I believe the composition of Divrei haYamim was discussed on Bais
> tefilla (where are its archives?) but in any event it may be different then
> other sefarim.
> 
> -Chaim
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I seek citations as to validity of using old matzah for achilas matzah lail
pesach and old esrog on succos. Comments as to shratzim, fungi, etc. by
those knowledgeable would also be appreciated. (I wonder if this can be done
w/o bad jokes, puns, etc.) This is a serious request.

Noach Witty

D. Eidensohn raises some valid points, but a few comments:

 >>>Assertions made by Rav Yaakov Emden - which have been widely rejected...Do
any of you seriously hold that  these positions are "yeish al mi lismoch"?<<<

Bar samcut is a halachic status; the authorship of the Zohar is a historical
one.  It is not outside the realm of possibility that the Zohar be treated as
a valid halachic source (like GR"A) but treated (at least parts of it) as
historically of non-Tannitic authorship.  

>>>It is a fact that Rav Yaakov Emden wrote a analysis of the Zohar. It is a
fact that
he did not publish it until 40 years later when he perceived that certain
elements
were using the Zohar to justify unacceptable behavior. The publisher writes
"The
sefer which is before us starts with the issues of Shabtsi Tzvi and ends with
it.<<<

Of course you recognize that we have no way of knowing to what degree this
statement by the publisher agrees with the true intention of RYE.  The very
fact that the work was composed many years before its publication indicates
that it is not merely a polemic against Shabti Tzvi (much the way some choose
to treat material of Ramban in the Vikuach as more polemical then halachically
accurate) but a serious work.  Also note: could RYE not have advanced a
criticism of the Shabtai Tzi movement in a way short of expressing serious
qualms about the Zohar's authorship?  

>>>The Chida (Shem HaGedolim) writes in his discussion of the Zohar. "I
recently came
across the sefer Matpachas Seforim.  I noticed - after a brief examination -
his
astounding assessment that it was not from a Tanna but from later sources and
he
questions the greatness and awesomeness of the Zohar...Therefore it appears to
me that the rav [Yaavetz] knew in truth the nature of the holy Zohar. <<<

Again - what you are citing is speculation as to the motives of RYE, not
historical proof.  The fact that the Chida finds RYE's position untenable
doesn't necessarily mean RYE didn't seriously mean what he wrote!

>>>It has been pointed out to me by talmidei chachomim who are experts in
Kabbala that
both the Arizal... and the Gra...made comments on the parts that the
Yaavetz held to be not from the Rashbi as readily as the other parts. They
gave no
indication that there was any variation in authenticity.<<<

They never addressed the question of authorship, v'lo rainu aino ra'aya.  What
is certain is that they took the work seriously - whoever and whenever it was
written - and felt it worthy of peirush and study.  

>>> Before anyone can assert that the Yaavetz is a valid minority opinion - it
is first necessary to cite those post Yaavetz gedolim who agree with him.
<<<[Tishby and Scholem don't count] <<<

The issue is validity viz a viz what? You are conflating a historical
question, where the likes of Scholem etc. are very relavent, with a halachic
question, where indeed, RYE is a minority opinion (nonetheless, he needs no
help from other achronim to be validated!).  

We are very much in the position of Chida - we are faced with a difficult
opinion and are left to *speculate* as to authorial intent, etc. to explain it
..  I have no  take on these questions other then to note that what must be
borne in mind is that there is a great leap from speculation to proof, as well
as a great risk in assuming that we we find incomprehensible was indeed not
the original intent.    

-Chaim
                                             

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]