Skip to main content

Full text of "The Bahir and the Zohar"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 

Read more about Early Journal Content at 
journal-content . 

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 357 


Professor Bacher is rather optimistic when he says 
{Revue des Etudes Juives, xxii., p. 33) that the question of 
the origin and the date of the Zohar has been settled long 
ago, and that it is only in catalogues of second-hand books 
that the name of R. Simeon ben Yohai appears as the 
author of the work. The fact is that the orthodox rabbis 
of all countries, and among them are many who have had 
a university training, do not yet dare to proclaim from the 
pulpit that prayers consisting of Zohar texts (usually recited 
during the Feast of Tabernacles on the eve of the Hoshanah 
Rabba) ought to be discontinued, since it is now proved 
that the Zohar is a compilation of the end of the thirteenth 
century, and was very probably made by Moses of 
Leon. The Bahir, which lost its popularity through the ap- 
pearance of the Zohar, is still considered in the orthodox 
schools as a work written by R. Nehonj'ah ben haq-Qanah, 
in spite of a document published fourteen years ago, from 
which it can be seen that a synod of rabbis of Provence, 
(and amongst them the great Meshullam of Beziers,) 
assembled in 1245, and declared that since the Bahir was 
composed by a contemporary, who was also the author of 
a Kabbalistical commentary on Canticles, it should not be 
considered a book of authority. The name of the author was 
either Ezra or Azriel (perhaps the two names represent one 
person); the latter was the teacher of the famous Moses 
ben Nahman. 

This document having appeared in the Israelitische Letter- 
bode, III. (1877), p. 20 (see also Dr. Gross, op. cit., 
p. 299), which had not a great circulation, we shall give it 
here (revised by Dr. L. Modona, of the Parma Library), 
with an English translation ; the latter is necessary for the 

358 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

benefit of those who know the Bahir only from the En- 
cyclopaedia, Britannica, vol. xvi., p. 287, where the following 
statement was made in the year 1883 : — " Some have pro- 
nounced the Bahir a late fabrication, but others, who have 
thoroughly studied it, justly describe it as ' old in sub- 
stance if not in form.' " 

Towards the end (fol. xxxi., 2316 to 2326) of the MS. 
De Rossi, No. 155 in the Library of Parma, a manuscript 
which is of a controversial character (see Sistoire Littiraire 
de la France, t. xxvii., pp. 558 to 562, and Dr. H. Gross 
Monatsschri/t fur Qeschichte und Wissenscha/t des Judenthums, 
1881, pp. 295 sqq.), by Meir ben Simeon of Narbonne, who 
lived about 1245, the Bahir is thus referred to in the 
following passage: — 

^3 ddV n&6 "vyi "vy Vsac? irnm oa^ m b>3 mm rum 
mi div^k D'omnn iynn -k?k nu^nnn »jsd «kt »a m«n ona-m 
Dm i»nn vbv nstn -pun 'oano '*nn momm ia"Tfc* vh name' 
ninto -yon 1 ? dutd nam nxam onnnx pxn 'cjkd dot wo* p 
nHn rMn • non un» now p now p« uksd rtoaro mm ua 
uyot?i • ^toem riNta «nn *6 vbn nwon nan nns niD^> ycno 
itn *6 m • nhyzh imroTfiB* Tna ioc itop -ibd nn^x nan mat? 
p twina m imx i^nt? u utrcoi uh^> ibd wik yun mai ms 
dwib nto pnx im« ia Waa t6i tnaa t6i mn t6 diWi on napn 
rrn t6a> b»kd n>n *a dwsio va^ay bi tonn -iaon jieoi nana t6 
vnioipo nsnm m'aai nwo nan cm • use? now naD naty ynv 
* nta'm m»v* nam on^n te> k>itb dh^« iiy mn »a iayoe> oai 
«m • anaD -ikbm mnp twai oma'o mm onan dc lanaai 
npiab> oa!? n»n> s6i pxn jo im« nya oaaipa on qni 3tJ»n npm 
voma Dipom ua-ipa owvoan unat< mya p '3 onnnx loom 
DnipsD ioy anpo tdm • ^kicm n-nm nwaa pp>i • V«ia ia^> rbvn 
nt « uana • onnx ^>y am a!?i o^a hv max a^> a»K>m onianoi 
irnan 3in p d!?b>d n iamo b>&oe» na Snan am uaia noaDna 
nt^N I'jyn t5nB> nywa iyTE> onspo pxn 'nan ikpi to nco n 

; "3i n>nr D^'atwni aina^ w«*an 

1 On fol. 230J the book is spoken of as follows :— '"SDD 1I1K3 13KVO "J3 

Tna idb' intk* oniyo. > Ms. m^w*m. 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 359 

" Behold ! all this we have written to the Rabbis of all towns, in order 
to make you know what is going on ; because we feared the influence of 
signatures, many of which are falsified, as we are told. They boast that 
in the land of learning they fotfnd strength (in the Kabbalah). God 
forbid that a heresy of this kind should take place in Israel ! We have 
heard that a book with the name of Bahir, which we have already men- 
tioned above, has been published, in whioh no light can be seen (allusion 
to Bahir — " light "). This book has now reached us, and we find it attri- 
buted to R. Nehonya ben haq-Qanah. Q-od forbid ! Such a work of his 
has never existed. This pious man has never stumbled upon it, and he 
was not numbered with the transgressors (Isaiah liii. 12). The style and 
the contents of this book show that the author did not know the pure 
language, not to say that it often contains the grossest heresy. We have 
heard that the author of it has composed also commentaries on Canticles, 
Ecclesiastes, on the books of the Creation, and on that of the heavenly 
palaces and other books, which all savour of heresy. Do investigate if 
these books are found among you, and, if so, make them disappear from 
your conntry, as we did in ours, so .that they should not become a 
stumbling-block to you. May God, in his mercy, send us the Redeemer, 
who will gather the dispersed of Judah and Israel. May he take away 
from the midst of his people all doubts and perplexities, and turn the 
heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their 
fathers (Malachi iv. 6). All this was written with the consent of our 
master, the great Rabbi, the light of Israel, our teacher, R. Meshullam, 
son of the great Rabbi, R. Moses, and of other wise men of our country, 
who knew secretly the object of our writing the present epistle. ' And 
they that be wise shall shine,' etc. (Daniel xii. 3)." 

This epistle was written about 1245 a.d. Baymundus 
Martini, who composed his Pugio Mdei in 1278, does not 
quote from the Zohar, which, if in existence then, would 
have been of great importance for the purpose of his con- 
troversy. (See The Expositor, February, 1888, p. 103, sqq.) 
The title Zohar, brilliancy, looks like an imitation of that 
of Bahir, and the chief theory of the Endless (r\T> ]>«) 
found in it was most probably borrowed from the Bahir. 
The forger tried to compose or to compile it in the Aramaic 
language, a dialect of which R. Simeon ben Yohai, of the 
second century A.D., spoke as having been Galilean. We 
shall see that the original part of the book was not written 
entirely in this dialect, but that many passages were in 
Hebrew. That the Aramaic of the Zohar cannot be 
genuine in its style and grammar was shown beyond 

360 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

dispute by the late S. D. Luzzatto. The statement that 
this book, as the adherents of its authenticity pretend, 
was hidden in a cave of Galilee for nearly one thousand 
years, it having been discovered as is asserted by Moses 
ben Nahman, who resided at Accho in the thirteenth 
century, speaks against its antiquity. It is, indeed, im- 
possible that any document written on leather, parchment, 
paper or papyrus could be preserved for one thousand 
years in the damp climate of Palestine. Our readers will 
remember the fate of the famous MS. of Deuteronomy, 
brought to this country by the late Mr. Shapira, who also 
maintained that it was lying buried in a cave in Moab 
during several thousand years. The only country in which 
written documents of old date can be preserved is Egypt. 

But putting aside this undoubted argument against the 
antiquity of the Zohar, and admitting a miraculous preser- 
vation of the book, a miracle which the forger never 
brought forward, we possess similar documentary evi- 
dence as in the case of the Bahir against the supposition 
of an early composition of the Zohar. It is the great 
Kabbalist, Isaac of Accho, disciple of the famous Moses ben 
Nahman, who expresses his doubts concerning the anti- 
quity of the book. His words, which are to be found in 
the last edition of the Tohasin by Moses Zakkutho 
(London, 1867, p. 59), and are reproduced by Professor 
Graetz in his History of the Jetcs (T. vii., second edition, 
p. 420), we shall give here, according to another MS- 
of the Tohasin, lately acquired by the Bodleian Library 
(MS. Hebrew d. 16). The publication of it, with an 
English translation, is needed, since the English trans- 
lation of Professor Graetz's History gives no original 
documents at all, and will, therefore, not help much 
towards showing what was said by a staunch orthodox 
believer at the end of the thirteenth century concern- 
ing the Zohar. Perhaps those who make use of the 
Encyclopedia Britannica will not blindly follow the enig- 
matical statement there (vol. xvi., p. 286) to the effect that 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 861 

" a nucleus of the Zohar is of Mishnaic time, and R. Simeon 
ben Yohai was the author of the book in the same sense 
that R. Yohanan was the author of the Palestinian Tal- 
mud — i.e., he gave the first impulse to the composition of 
the book. But R. Mosheh, of Leon, on the other hand, 
was the first not only to copy and to disseminate the Zohar 
in Europe, but also to disfigure it by sundry explanatory 

The following is the text of Isaac of Accho's letter, 
according to the above-mentioned manuscript: — 

pra oSa uk>31 taj? won rmme> isy ton prw n naD3 vinvd 
-iisoh ibr\ Nim V't D3Dnn p annas p nin n total tzfirih h& m p 
nty^>N m pyDe> n nvy new nnnn nsD i3Dta nvd3 nirs mpn^ 
s^tt? *3B» mriDN^ noNi ~»ik int mso mn*DN^ o»ai?n ne>N nnyoa 

'O^BMT pe6a N¥03t? HD ^3B> ^3pC 1DN1 S|"t X« «|"TOn WSp» 

pn man ds'N »a pxn enpn pss^a nNnn oni py»e> n nan on »a 
: I3ie6 nn • fo »D^n» pt^o Nin wdnr ibd-ip '3bd «|«r»n nan 
ys'twn pyon p^yn nipoo ONE" D'n^bud man »a *niNn *3B»i 
o'NVDJn DH'o^nn nN n>Ne>Ni mn« *nenn ifeca ^3po *n^3 
hbd o^aipo D'n^bid mnio onb Na pnd mod ohm nnan DTa 
n^i nso amp ^ nnNiao aw ixxd3 ana^ wn* n^> ns?N na "?» 
now nn naa noiN nt mno nxt onW ^>y on'mawn 'hnvd 
^ok» pKD miN n^ V't poiiT t»N3n 3nn n onoiN »nyoe> • n33 
T3 ^331 o:pbvb onoiN e>n tunx pal? nnn W3ni 133b N^tap 1 ? 
N'i mN3'n Vin n ne>o n i^>y anoiNt? Nin jin>"? h n^o n oann 
m33i sniDn dp ynv nt nro n ^>3N nt nsD osn nt3 n3n n^> o^iyo^ 
eio3 ^na Tno dh3 np» jyo^i n^N d^bid onsn nt n&»D n sma* nt 
pyo2» n isn ns?N naDn n,mD nos6 unsn ^>b>N3 msn nSw 31 3nn 
waa »3N1 1W nnsn D3^> p*nyo »3N in<am 133 nrj^N ni *Nnv p 
nr two "h db> nxoni dk> n.'jDn n^N n^n^Ni iv bx nsni msD 
o^n^N ' ^ nBT>' ns nDN 1 ? ^ y3B»M ^ tvi 'oy nsn^i V3»y3 )n nxoni 
Nin n^N »Nnv p pyow n nsn ncN ponpn nsD.n n^ on »j*di* nsi 
• : n,NnN db> n,NU3 n^iN N^n ww n3nD3 'nus ovn 
Ty •?« nt nt^o n 1^> t,^m *30» ma3 n^Nn onsnn nnN *n»i 
v mica 'yocD * no'i ^N3nK3 n"?nn h^in!? inn W 31c 1 ? i*?N3nN 

1 MS. ^>1. 

vol. iv. a B 

362 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

♦nxvoi n^w W xaKi 'ays ynh o*b*ki ^ kvki mo ly >b mn ao'n 
my'3PKi iwjn in kvdki 'nnipjKB h *m 'n ins^i jpr Sm nan dp 

naa noiK nr D'pta dik *33p nmrn nsD mnio )h marun noK^> 
ym* *3W nop ny p'son x^>i ♦*? tto iow np» m • no3 noiK nn 
paD K^a "h man3 *a n»Ka yn noK'1 pdkk 'o nan^i -jiddk ♦» ^y 
np» n n»n pn inn nsD D^>iy3 pKi nr npo n ^>p n*b to n^> oSyop 
'K3 K3 yop nnyi nrn nBD3 3nap no ^>a 3n3 inssi sman dp bvi 
hb' pys k'vidi bm iTBD n»n nr npra n 'a yn^ von3 tit nr 
D'3'3on Dn^pyn i^> un'P 3nn spa n^>d m*3 nrn Dvnp ny 13100 
ipnn' nnoi anisn DP3 D'sina Dn^> |jv npx n^K n'Sna mniDa 
DiTy3 K»V31 3yn3 nvinp nioiny nan W3i mPK 3ryp ny ftia 
Mian Tpyn ^>k "£>ki dipki i^tona n»ya no 'a i3y»ppsi ^>a nomai 
npK nyn y»3n nny ii? noixi n!?'3Kn epi* n tr\p:n nxrn Tya npK 
ipk nx npyn dk • n'aian anr uany k^> nc^N nmrn nsD^> nam 
nnao X3 »np n^> n»x»i mpx^> nr epi* n xnp'p nxr x\n »nxyi nxyx 
: }3 pyni npo n npx^> nnix »nWi nnnap Ta »K3 

♦yn n^> noxi npo 'n npx nnu K3 'aS n^> my nnx'i nnnoo wi 
nsai ^>iax^> on 1 ? nom x^> t^>ni 'ia^ nna n« N'^n^ Kin 'jixt »a 
tb>k nmrn nsD pn n^iya nan npo n^pao 'jk j^ni -j'D' b na^ 
nai> m^ noxn n^K Dnan onx 'iaS inm udd p'nyo n^'K n'n 
dk D'iiiao nxn nxnii nauy ntw onnan rw 'yo^m na^> ina'ji 
na n»K^ sjov n ne*< ^yat^ni nco n nt?K jym * p koti ^ni • t6 
it^no !?at« 't^'K ay n'n nr nsD n^iyo dk si'dv nai D'n^K nt^y' 
ania mix onixna 1^> moi«i 3na -vx ^>a ana i^a^i myno 13^1 
nsD i^ px nnai nsDD p'nyo nnK^ noxn yno i^a!? nsn ny^ao 
nnvi ania nnx i^at^o *a noi^ i? n«: N^n ania nnx -jcmo n^>« 
*3K ^annaB* nr hid Dn^> ymx i^k n»N'i ■ba jy*i • n!? n»n* maa 
«in ia^o »a nos' 'a ntana Dmaya un» k^>i nana in'3B» k^> ama 
jiyotf n nan n^K nnirn nsD ■pnoe' lyoB'' nt^Ka nny ^>aK DKma 
yyy ntfKa Dnp» D'ona DniK lap* p'nyo 'jk tfnpn nna 'Knv p 
onann nK ne>» n ^ ma Dy nr hdv n n^K nnan p nnK • niKn 
n^> jyni n^Dd on^> .nDK^> nn^i nja^ nK'B'n^ noK Dy nnan n^K 
'yot^a iro mina niny nvnnn • nnv k^>i nma k^> noK nnjy ne>Ka 
pn naD dp n'n k^> »a rK pdkki nKD 'n^naii 'noompj n^>K man 
fy i«oki n^aKo yDKi • on« '33^> jnwi ania n»n anian o^a 
fpv n ioe* py 31D1 a^> anj k^>bid hm Dan dp kxoki nnuK^KB 
jy*i nrn nsDn niniK by udo mpnKi Vaipnn Dinmra n ^>p 133 »iSn 

1 Or lamp. » so. 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 363 

;vn »«nv p xww "i nan ib>k nnitn nsDn »a jo«ni jn ^« notn 
: wya aits -it^6 in»i pv\y uddi nt ne>o n *?w n»a 
i2D -|in» on ne>» '"6 rnana nt?K n^nna nrna tu ntn nnyi 
but d*d*b> nn»n nvnani • aina* aman db> naa is p*ny» ponp 
vjs riN Vn&o »3DO nax v b mow n^na DWiaip ^ lama nnx 
;ve*m wsb xtt Dmaip nnnx to *»nn ^>k -i»tn n^e> i^> ip^nyn^ 
"(? nax new pB*na abv "^ mp^nys *jki inns to* mm Dmaip 
pE>tnn ny mnoxi pnyw Dmaipn ^ tna d»dj?id d*b* nnx p e>yxi 
n^i pay >iac *6 ny-oo t^>i nsmn *6 ^a tnan orvra pt< *a *n«i 
D'dtuipd oruip pnyin i^kd nnnx nnam nm nw ^ax nnan nas? 

t nto prn jvdji itd nVm na^na pn\n 
bs naD by -\)?rb spDW nta^n -vy nxuxi n-pa^no nyDXi 
now nn nna noix nt nt n»pi^n d^kxd pnyi on'TD^m D^Dsnn 
nt p«B> ^ nox natan epv n oann na^na onS *msD -itPtoi roa 
mp»ny» anian De>no Dmaip Dit6 lania mot?' noi 1 ? *>au *a n^n 
p*ny»a jn^i p»ny» jn^i pw ^>ax woo jpnn* tb cbwb) iovy^ n^nn 
pt e»x ikte> DH^oSn ^ noK »a pay *V ennna nans ponp nsDo 
n»nK> waaa Unix .Tn mm nt ne'e n ^ pnaio -vo^n apy* n iob>i 
; pyoe> n nan new nmtn new? pxi dw i ,( ?y n*yo 
n*a n^>y n» »n»^D «^ nt mayai ne> t^y non n»n naDn ntoi 

: nt ^3» 

I found in the book of R. Isaac of Aceho, which town was destroyed 
in his time, and all were made prisoners in the time of the grandson of 
Nahmanides, and in that of R. David, son of Abraham, son of Maimonides, 
that Isaac went to Spain in order to investigate how the Zohar, composed 
by R. Simeon and R. Eleazar in a cave, was found in Isaac's time. Blessed 
are those who reach to the truth of it, in its light they will see lights 
(Psalms xxxvi. 9) ; and for the truth, he said (there are, indeed, some 
falsifications), that he received that all which is found in it written in 
the Jerusalem dialect (Aramaic) is by R. Simeon ; whatever is written in 
Hebrew are not words of Simeon, but by a forger, for the true book was 
entirely composed in the Aramaic dialect. Isaac says : 

" Since I saw that the wonderful words are drawn from a high source, I 
followed it up and asked the disciples whence they had obtained these 
mysterious words which are only handed on from mouth to mouth, 
and never written. Their answers did not agree together. I heard that 
Nahmanides sent the Zohar from the Holy Land to his son in Catalonia and 
the spirit 1 brought it to Aragon, and according to others, to Alicante, 
where it fell into the hands of Moses of Leon, who is also called Moses of 
Guadalaxara. Others say that Moses never composed the book, but he 

Or, the wind, i.e., an angel (Psalm civ. 4). 


364 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

wrote it with the name of the writer, 1 and in order to gain money by it, 
he attributed it to Simeon ben Yohai, to his son Eleazar, and their com- 
panions, saying that he copied it from their writing. When I came to 
Spain, I went to Valladolid and met there R. Moses ; I found grace in his 
eyes, and he assured me with an oath that the old book which R. Simeon 
b. Yohai had composed is now in his house at Avila, adding, I will show 
it to you when we arrive there. 

" He then separated from me, going towards Arivalo on his way home, 
where he fell ill and died ; when I heard these tidings, I was very 
grieved. I then went to Avila, where I found R. David, 2 whom I urgently 
asked to tell me about the mystery concerning the Zohar, about which 
opinions are so divided. I told him that Moses of Leon promised me that 
he would clear up the mystery, when he suddenly died ; thus I do not 
know whom to believe. R. David said : I am sure that Moses never had 
the book (which never existed), but he wrote it with the name of the 
writer. Now listen how I shall get at the truth j Moses was in the habit 
of spending a great deal of money, which rich people lavished upon him 
for the communication of his mysteries ; so prodigal was he that he 
left his wife and his daughter entirely unprovided for. And when we 
heard that he died at Arivalo, I said to Joseph of Avila, a very 
rich man, as follows : Now is the time to get hold of the 
precious book, if you will follow my advice, as follows : — ' Send your 
wife with a present to the wife of Moses, as well as to her daughter, 
telling the former that you are willing to marry your son to her 
daughter, and provide for both, for which you ask only the original of 
the Zohar, out of which Moses made his copies. The same proposal should 
be made separately to Moses' daughter ; you will then see if they agree in 
their answers.' The wife of Moses affirmed on oath that her husband 
never had such a book, but he wrote all out of his brain, adding that she 
told him often, Why do you say that you copy from a book instead of 
avowing that you are the author of it, which would be more to your 
oredit ; to which his answer was, If I said so no one will care for it, and 
consequently not give a penny for it, but being the copy of the Zohar, 
composed by Simeon ben Yochai, and inspired by the Holy Ghost, they 
buy it, as you see, for a heavy sum. The same was said independently by 
Moses' daughter. Joseph said to Isaac, Do you want a clearer statement 
than that ? Isaac continues : — When I heard these words I was astonished 
and perplexed, so that I believed that the Zohar never existed, and that 
Moses wrote the book with the help of the name of the writer, and sold 
it to various persons. I then left Avila and went to Talavera, where I 

1 A Kabbalistic term for " by the help of a holy name." According to 
a passage in a MS. given by Herr Senior Sachs (Kerem Hemed, VIII., 
p. 105), it was Joseph ben Todros hal-Levi, who was in possession 
of this wonderful name. No wonder then that Moses de Leon could have 
made use of it. 

* The next words are still uncertain. 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 365 

found the great and noble R. Joseph hal Levi, son of the Kabbalist R. 
Todros ; from him I also inquired concerning the Zohar. He said to me : 
— I believe that Moses possessed the origiual of the Zohar, composed by 
Simeon ben Yohai, from which he made copies and gave them to whom 
he pleased. Now I can give you a proof that Moses copied from an old 
book, viz., when he gave me a great part of his copies, and I pretended to 
have lost them, and when I asked him to make for me a second copy he 
replied, Show me the end of the quatrain which preceded the lost one, as 
well as the beginning of the next which follows, so that I may copy the 
missing one as perfectly as it was before. I did as he asked me, and after 
a few days he brought me another copy, which I compared with the one 
I had pretended was lost, and I saw no difference between the two ; there 
was nothing more and nothing less, no variations as to the contents as 
well as to the words. Can there be a stronger proof than this 1 

" Then I left Talavera and came to Toledo, where I continued my 
investigations concerning the Zohar, and here I also found that opinions 
differed concerning it ; and when I told them of R. Joseph's proof, 
which I have mentioned above, they said, That proves nothing, because 
Moses might have copied the quatrain for himself before he gave it to 
anyone, and this copy he kept always, which served him as the model. 
There is also a new fact concerning this book, viz., disciples told me that 
they saw an old man whose name was R. Jacob, a favourite pupil of Moses, 
who confirmed on oath that the Zohar was composed by R. Simeon. . . ." 

Zakkutho says : " Isaac's book was defective in this place, 
and consequently I cannot give his further statements con- 
cerning the Zohar." 

From this document we may conclude that the Zohar 
was, at the time of Isaac of Accho, written partly in 
Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. It seems that this 
was still the case in the copy of the book out of which 
R. Israel al-Naqawah (died 1391) took his quotations, 
which are to be found in his ethico-theological work 
~nson Jnwa, " Lamp of the Light " (not to be confounded 
with a similar work of the same title by Isaac Aboab), a 
MS. of which is in the Bodleian, (See concerning his work 
Mr. S. Schechter's article in the Monatsschrift fur Oeschichte 
und Literatur, 1885, pp. 114 and 234 sqq.). Israel gives 
some quotations in Aramaic from a Midrash T1H TP (he 
never uses the title of Zohar, the Yohasin mentions both 
titles), which agree verbatim with our editions of the Zohar, 
and other passages in Hebrew, which are to be found in the 

366 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Zohar in Aramaic. We shall give two instances only, from 
which it can be seen that Israel did not translate the 
Zohar, but quoted from a Hebrew original. Israel, how- 
ever, never attributes the ~>1H TP to R. Simeon ben Yohai. 

1. Pol. 246 in the chapter on Prayers, he quotes the following passages: 

p toe »ko w tk ipan p imp nbiy dk hn vr Bnio3 »diji 
»aa into mx bab xbt* r6i»b epyn pi nbiyb i«xn pi nbiyb ipan 
ixb dni • |«x anpo ixb dsi • anp» ipa snpnb bis* dn • it nacn 
by nnoo w»« none naeo it p«i ton bi Dto 3»nai spy anpo 
nm Kown nmB> no »aa irybx n idk • inba»o inv 3npnb din 
jtren jo anpo ow»a • ipan p anpo vbv dj ube Tey pipn anpo 

• spyn Kine ban p bpn anpo nbar mm i»by dj iab ^nc oao 
va« wnv |a pyoe -b irybx n bat? • into inx ba p p .ram 
D"jya p»ixo p»N nuiyi d!?ij6 sa ayn nnuy ebe by ww lb ioto 
Kenipi naioj Dnne' *ab D"ivo pw • arvby dj Dabe> on'^ya «btt 
ayna D»no won t<be> D"jyn yno • ton xba ton Tay t<b sin *pi3 
na D*no dm< N3 aynn Dbiy3B> nimy ebe by nave Dn»e>yni 
i3t<bi D'ytnn p yia»b nxn 3'nea ib ion ? web toonb ibwb> 
eoneo none o^ba nxn toa naion on 1 ? yaeo mo obiyn p onix 
by ay-in prmi obiyb to mivaeai naiii latso ab nn no 'ana 
ttbi nra «b n oe jnban yoiei n*an »jab pym pan jn to o«jyn 
ajnnea mayi • nnoaai opens one D»yeib onb »in »jy nuy ppe 
pyoe n t'n n^ayae o»pns be jbipa on^yae DU"nb Dnb *i« to 
la • D'omn mo wi pin mo n^nbx mar niaeo nn D\ibt< »n3T 
mo by Q'nmn mo naj'i pin mo yjio ton niae>j nm nsirn 
mi3 non *:ab D'n3? anpn lbto m3C3 nn3 bbanon ns ♦ pin 
oipo3 on nibann »3 * D»omn mo by pin mo i3Jn» rnaw 

: nu3ipni D'nsrn 

Compare with Zohar fcOpM, f ol. 8 J of the editio princeps. 

2. Fol. 396— NOT TEton }i13i1 DN pns» TN 11X W tni03 '»DHJ1 

• t*on n Nvoji mnyb iosy nx ppnne ins nt • oyn nocNb 
iti None re 1313 Nxra n»by pa'DDi pawb »i »nd oyn noexb 
»3ab pacv vn N3s m itybx n • n*by pa'DDi pyxb »i na»nn ^ab 
dim nswi exi Din N3t<b »n»Ni itybx n ion pyoe ia itybx 
mob mip D»D» nebc ioy dn sbx nban yioeb nn xbc oniaan 
laano obiyn mip mix moo ok& nav n<be nbana idin n»ni mm 

The Bahir and the Zohar. 367 

im oan rrne> use vbx naiB> »»ie> rvn vbw -tern nrpm e»"3i 

5 nirpna DJJD31 iaie>n 

Compare Zohar, ibidem f ol. 18. 

It is perhaps worthy of mention that the convert, 
Alfonso de Zamora, the coadujutor of Cardinal Ximenez 
quotes, in his controversial treatise, with other hooks, also 
passages of the Zohar in pure Hebrew. 1 

Modern critics like Landauer, Graetz, Jellinek, and 
others have shown from the mention of the crusades in the 
Zohar, from the word eshnogah (ruiatPN) for synagogue 
(already observed by the great orthodox rabbi, Jacob 
Emden, who utterly condemned the Zohar on literary 
grounds), and from other passages that the Zohar could 
not have been written by R. Simeon ben Yohai. They 
have done the same in the case of the Bahir. But 
critical arguments are of no account among the 
orthodox school. Will it awaken to its senses after 
having read the judgment of the Provence Rabbis 
upon the Bahir, and the doubts thrown by Isaac of Accho 
on the Zohar, or will anyone dare to pronounce these MS. 
documents to be spurious? If R. Meir ben Simeon of 
Narbonne forged the signature of the Great Meshullam, 
and Abraham Zakkutho interpolated Isaac of Accho's 
work, there remains indeed no further argument to pro- 

A. Neubauer. 

The editio princeps of the J'DnV (Constantinople, 1566, quaterna 36, 2i) 
has also this letter in some shortened and inaccurate recensions ; the 
second edition (Cracovie, 1588) omits it for obvious reasons. The edition 
of London, 1857, gives it according to the MS. of the Bodleian Library 
(Catalogue 2202, fol. 199 J), which text is reproduced by Prof. Graetz {Oe- 
schichte der Juden, t. vii., p. 470 of the 2nd edition). The editor, the late 
Filipowski (fol. 8$i seqq.), has the following misreadings : Graetz, p. 470, 
1. 3 (1. XI) vb ''K"Dn instead of D'E^DII, thus Graetz's emendation is con- 
firmed by the new MS. ; 1. 4, MS. N"tae»K3 (Estella) , instead of N^>KD'N3 ; 

1 See Archives des Missions Scienti/iques et Litteraires, Second Series, 
t. v., p. 428 (Paris, 1868). 

368 The Jewish Quarterly Review. 

the emendation of Prof. Graetz is consequently unnecessary ; I. 9, JDNH 

for posn ; 1. 10, \mn vnpn pc^a nsin dki instead of natem* peto 

PONH ; L 11, ^OpO »n!?3 JJ'SK^n pj»n ; 1. 13, PNI for PKO, which is 
a right emendation; 1. 13, 1KVDJ for 1KXDJ1 ; 1. 16, mnn for linn, 
which is a right emendation ; 1. 16, B3pfa6 for "<0:pW? ; 1. 17, "TO H 

mtunta; 1. 17, Dan nta for "3'en; 1. 19, iid*6 for now; 1. 25, db> 

is not in the MS. ; 1. 26, 13Tip t«3n in "I. Page 471, 1. iSilK for 
^>13TK ; 1. 3, n^3NT «|W 1 ; 1. 4, H2^n IB* ; 1. 13, "£ HW 1133 tnVI; 
1. 20, MS. has nT3*6tD ; 1. 84, p^nj?D3 for pVWOn.