Date: 2004-05-28 09:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ymarkov.livejournal.com
Correction: the Zohar itself apparently doesn't explicitly claim to be the work of Rashbi (although its working title was, at one early point, "Midrash de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai"). But its adherents do so attribute it. It's this claim that I don't subscribe to.

As for the Gaon miVilna, he did battle at least some masses, as you know. I'm not sure about his personal predilections; he did, apparently, have affinity to certain concepts thereof. But what did he think of the Zohar? He did comment on the Sefer Yetzira, but that is a much earlier work, and doesn't by itself develop in the direction he was afraid of re: hasidim.

As for R' Karo and Magen Avraham, I don't understand your statement re: universal acceptance. Where do you see that even for the Shulhan Arukh, never mind M"A? The Jews accepted the idea and layout of a code, but the code itself never won universal acceptance, as witness all the glosses thereof.

Bli neder and IY"H I'll post something on that on my LJ.

(BTW, why are we using English here?)

Date: 2004-06-01 10:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] malenkiy-scot.livejournal.com
As for R' Karo and Magen Avraham, I don't understand your statement re: universal acceptance. Where do you see that even for the Shulhan Arukh, never mind M"A?

Сефарды приняли Мехабера, ашкеназим - М"А (поэтому я привел обоих). Это не значит, что все со всем согласны, а то, что их приняли за базу. Таким образом, тот, кто изначально напрочь отвергает Зо'ар, как 'алахический аргумент, спорит с одним из базовых положений.

Я перешел на английский, когда писал из университета, и было лень возиться с транслитом.

Profile

malenkiyscot

September 2020

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
1314 1516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 27th, 2026 12:10 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios