Why Should the Zohar be Considered a Halachic Source?

I recently wrote a paper that addressed the question of whether the halachah can follow the Zohar when it contradicts the halachah as determined by the poskim. My basic thesis was that it depends on who wrote the Zohar: The earlier the Zohar's author lived, then the more authoritative it would be.

In truth, though I couldn't find the source, this isn't my own idea. It comes from a quote from somewhere or other to the effect that: כדאי רשב"י לסמוך עליו, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is worthy to rely upon. This is a clever argument because it means that if you don't follow the Zohar, you are denying Rashbi's greatness.

However, there is a serious problem with this whole idea, and that is: Why? In the klalei halachah, it is a rule that יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים, majority rules no matter who the minority is. The best illustration of this, I think, is the machlokes somewhere in Bava Metzia regarding some obscure law of tzoraas. If I remember correctly, an Amora met Eliyahu HaNavi, who said that the Heavenly Yeshivah was studying the same law, and HaShem held one way while the Academy held the other. Unsurprisingly, the halacha follows the Academy, not HaShem. The point of the story is clear: appeals to authority aren't going to help you. So what difference does it make who wrote the Zohar? He's at best a daas yachid?*

The problem is compounded by the GRA's statement that the Zohar never, ever, contradicts the Gemara. Whenever we see such a contradiction, it is either due to a misunderstanding of the halachah or the Zohar. If Rashbi wrote the Zohar, how can we say that? The Gemara clearly does not follow Rashbi all the time!

Another question is that regardless of who wrote the Zohar, if we want to give it quasi-Talmudic stature, it needs to gain it. How would that happen? How did the Talmud get to be halachically binding? According to the Rambam's introduction to Mishneh Torah, this happened because all the Jews accepted the Talmud as binding. Its halachic authority only exists because everybody gave it that authority. But in the case of the Zohar, clearly there were many communities which did not give the Zohar this authority, even if they in theory believed that the Zohar was "genuine" in some sense. A good example would be the Yekkes; despite the fact that Rabbi Samason Raphael Hirsch did respect the Zohar, he did not say "Berich Shemei." (This is an interesting contrast to Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovitz, who had nothng but contempt for the Zohar but did say "Berich Shemei.")

So why does anyone at all consider the Zohar a force to be reckoned with?
*I've noticed that there is no punctuation for the yeshivah "Ay...kashye" construct. Maybe I should use the ArtScrollian "-?-".

U-V'nei Yisrael Yotzim Be-Yad Rema?

Although I don't like to comment about other people's blogs, I'm going to because...well, because I'm irritated. Although he is somewhat vague on the point, a post on Hirhurim seems to imply that there is no mitzvah to get drunk on Purim.
I won't be the first to point out the following:

רמב"ם הלכות מגילה וחנוכה פרק ב הלכה טו

כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו, ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרות.

טור אורח חיים סימן תרצה

מצוה להרבות בסעודת פורים וצריך שישתכר עד שלא ידע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תרצה סעיף ב

* <א> חייב אינש לבסומי בפוריא * עד דלא ידע (ד) בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי. הגה: <ב> וי"א דא"צ להשתכר כל כך, אלא שישתה יותר מלימודו (כל בו) (ה) וישן, ומתוך שישן אינו יודע בין ארור המן לברוך מרדכי. (מהרי"ל). ואחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, ובלבד שיכוין לבו לשמים.

משנה ברורה סימן תרצה ס"ק ה

(ה) וישן ומתוך שישן וכו' - וכן ראוי לעשות [פמ"ג]:

What comes out from the following sources is not that there is no mitzvah to get drunk; rather, the question is how much one must drink. I doubt that the Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, or Rema would tell me that if I got drunk as a skunk on Purim, I was not yotze the mitzvah.

Compare this interpretation of the Rambam with that of the Aruch HaShulchan:

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים סימן תרצה סעיף ג

אך אינו מובן לפ"ז למה היה לה להש"ס לומר בלשון משונה עד דלא וכו' לימא חייב לבסומי עד שירדם ולכן יותר נראה דאין כוונת הרמב"ם לפרש הגמ' כן אלא שדחה מאמר זה מהלכה כמ"ש הר"ן בשם רבינו אפרים שכיון דמבואר בגמ' שאירע סיבה ע"י זה ע"ש נדחה זה מהלכה אבל הטור והש"ע כתבו ממש כלשון הגמ' עד דלא ידע וכו' והיא תמוה ויש שכתבו שהיה אצלם זמר שהיה מסיים בארור המן וברוך מרדכי והיה זמר ארוך וכשהוא מבוסם מעט לא יוכל לאמרו כולו ויש שכתבו לעניין המספר דבמספר שניהם שוה וכשהוא מבוסם קצת לא יוכל לחשוב והתוס' [ד"ה דלא ידע] כתבו דהכוונה כפי הירושלמי ארור וכו' ארורה זרש וכו' ארורים כל הרשעים ברוכים כל הצדיקים ע"ש וכוונתם דבזה יש אריכות קצת וכשהוא מבוסם קשה לאמרו כולו [ב"ח]:

The question on this approach is obvious: Why would the Rambam mention that there is a mitzvah to get drunk at all if he doesn't hold of ad-d'lo-yada? I would say that the Rambam really DOES hold that one must drink on Purim; however, he holds that the shiur is that of the Maharil: enough to fall asleep.

Of course, the sources I've brought only represent a fraction of the discussion. I believe the Chasam Sofer holds that there is, in fact, no mitzvah to get drunk on Purim. That's ok. I'm not arguing that there IS definitely a mitzvah. I just find it interesting that someone who constantly battles the marginilization of traditional opinions regarding "Science, Cosmology & Evolution" has no problem marginilizing (and misquoting) the Shulchan Aruch, Rema, possibly the Rambam, et al regarding ad-d'lo-yada.

A Politically Incorrect Post.

At the risk of completely discrediting my mission statement, which specifies that this blog will discuss PDFs, I'd like to devote a post to the new, supposedly yearly, sefer Yerushaseinu. This volume is published by Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, the same people responsible for theשרשי מנהג אשכנז. The part of the book which interests me here is the Luach of Minhagim in the back of the sefer.

Shacharis for the First Day of Sukkos
"Adon Olam" is said in the Sukkos tune.
"Baruch Sheamar" is said in the Yom-Tov tune.
[...]
The end of the Ofan [piyyut preceding והאופנים in יוצר אור. SC] from פוצחים is said in the tune for רחם מצוקים, in the piyyut for Mussaf Rosh HaShanah.
[...]
Kaddish Tiskabel is recited in the tune for days with Megillah reading. [In א"י, when there is no Shabbos Chol HaMoed, Koheles or Shir HaShirim is read on the first day of Yom-Tov, rather than the last. SC]

The truth is that this is a bad example. The minhagim for Simchas Torah would be better because the niggunim are "The same as XYZ that is said when Chanukah falls on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh" or some such. However, my Hebrew typing skills just aren't up to it.

Suffice it to say that if the Luach is an indicator of anything, these Ashkenazites are very particular that the correct tune be sung at exactly the correct time. To me, it seems unbelievable that a person would remember to say this, that, or the other in the precise time at the precise occasion.

I mentioned this to my mother, who reminded me that once upon a time, Yom-Tov davening was all the entertainment people got. I think it's absolutely true in this context. The המון עם may not have had much of a Jewish education; they may not be able to understand what they were saying in regular davening, let alone all the obscure piyyutim that even a person who knows kol haTorah Kulah wouldn't be able to translate. They may not have known how to work their way from the top to the bottom of a page of Gemara, but by God, they knew what רחם מצוקים sounded like and God help you if you said פוצחים any other way.

מי יתן ותהיה לי אמונה זו

I found this interesting

There is a discussion concerning the use of the Zohar. A point is missing
that seems to me quite important. The issue is "what is one using the
Zohar for."

1. One school of thought uses the Zohar as a talmudic source.

2. One school of thought uses it as a rishon.

3. One school of thought uses it as a source of minhagim.

It is much more important to determine what it is used for, than to
determine how many times it is used. It is my view that except for one
famouse use in the BY (EH 25) all the uses are in category 2. Magen
Avraham uses them as a category 3. Some of the discussion about tefellin
on chol hamoad use them as a category 1.

Michael J. Broyde
Emory University School of Law

What Are the Ten Commandments?

We're all familiar with the concept of Ten Commandments. Can you list them?

This exciting exercise was the subject of one of my classes in school. Let's see what we can come up with.

The basic text, as it appears in the Mesorah, is as follows:

וידבר אלהים, את כל-הדברים האלה לאמר. {ס}
אנכי יהוה אלהיך, אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים: לא-יהיה לך אלהים אחרים, על-פני. לא-תעשה לך פסל, וכל-תמונה, אשר בשמים ממעל, ואשר בארץ מתחת--ואשר במים, מתחת לארץ. לא-תשתחוה להם, ולא תעבדם: כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך, אל קנא--פקד עון אבת על-בנים על-שלשים ועל-רבעים, לשנאי. ועשה חסד, לאלפים--לאהבי, ולשמרי מצותי. {ס}
לא תשא את-שם-יהוה אלהיך, לשוא: כי לא ינקה יהוה, את אשר-ישא את-שמו לשוא. {פ}
זכור את-יום השבת, לקדשו. ששת ימים תעבד, ועשית כל-מלאכתך. ויום, השביעי--שבת, ליהוה אלהיך: לא-תעשה כל-מלאכה אתה ובנך ובתך, עבדך ואמתך ובהמתך, וגרך, אשר בשעריך. כי ששת-ימים עשה יהוה את-השמים ואת-הארץ, את-הים ואת-כל-אשר-בם, וינח, ביום השביעי; על-כן, ברך יהוה את-יום השבת--ויקדשהו. {ס}
כבד את-אביך, ואת-אמך--למען, יארכון ימיך, על האדמה, אשר-יהוה אלהיך נתן לך. {ס}
לא תרצח, {ס} לא תנאף; {ס} לא תגנב, {ס} לא-תענה ברעך עד שקר. {ס}
לא תחמד, בית רעך; {ס} לא-תחמד אשת רעך, ועבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמרו, וכל, אשר לרעך.

These, then, are the Big Ten. The basic problem, though, is: how do we count these Ten Commandments?

Let's see. The first problem lies with the phrase
אנכי יהוה אלהיך, אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים. It doesn't read as a commandment per se; it sounds more like an introduction. So that doesn't count.

However, if we start from לא-יהיה לך, we run into the problem of there being only nine commandments. Count them.

I believe it is Protestants who run into this problem. Therefore, they have no choice but to cut what should be the tenth commandment into parts: לא תחמד, בית רעך; {ס} לא-תחמד אשת רעך, ועבדו ואמתו ושורו וחמרו, וכל, אשר לרעך.

From the original Masorah, this may make a bit of sense because there is a space break where they want to cut the commandment. However, logically there is no difference between telling me not to covet my neighbor's home and not to covet my neighbors wife and/or livestock.

The Catholics have another count, which to me sounds like the most logical, if you insist on breaking down the Commandments to ten:
אנכי יהוה אלהיך, אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים: לא-יהיה לך אלהים אחרים, על-פני לא-תעשה לך פסל, וכל-תמונה, אשר בשמים ממעל, ואשר בארץ מתחת--ואשר במים, מתחת לארץ. לא-תשתחוה להם, ולא תעבדם: כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך, אל קנא--פקד עון אבת על-בנים על-שלשים ועל-רבעים, לשנאי. ועשה חסד, לאלפים--לאהבי, ולשמרי מצותי.

This reads well: "I am the Lord your God Who took you out of Egypt; [therefore] there shall be no other gods unto thee upon My face." The next Commandment would read: "Thou shall not make an engraving [or] any image etc." This suffers from criticism because the two Commandments can be seen as dealing with the same topic of idolatry. On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe the prohibition against graven images has nothing to do with worshipping them.

The Samaritans have an interesting solution to the 9/10 problem: They simply add a tenth Commandment, to worship on Mt. Gerizim.



The generally accepted Orthodox Jewish solution is to say that the option we discounted originally is in fact true: יהוה אלהיך, אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים: is its own commandment, namely, to believe that there is a God. This runs into the sticky problem of how a person can be commanded to believe something.

Personally, I don't see the issue to begin with. The source for there being Ten Commandments is in Devarim: יב וידבר יהוה אליכם, מתוך האש: קול דברים אתם שמעים, ותמונה אינכם ראים זולתי קול. יג ויגד לכם את-בריתו, אשר צוה אתכם לעשות--עשרת, הדברים; ויכתבם, על-שני לחות אבנים.
Now, Asseres HaDvarim does not mean Ten Commandments. More accurately, it means the Ten Things. These Things do not necessarily have to be Commandments.
Following that approach, we can say אנכי is the first Thing, but not necessarily a Commandment.