Editing Zohar (section)

===Enlightenment Period===
Debate continued over the generations; del Medigo's arguments were echoed by [[Leon of Modena]] (d. 1648) in his ''Ari Nohem'', by [[Jean Morin (theologian)|Jean Morin]] (d. 1659), and by [[Jacob Emden]] (d. 1776).

Emden—who may have been familiar with Modena through Morin's arguments<ref name="jewcyclo" />—devoted a book to the criticism of the ''Zohar'', called ''Mitpachas Sefarim'' (מטפחת ספרים), in an effort against the remaining adherents of the [[Sabbateans|Sabbatean]] movement (in which [[Sabbatai Zevi]], a [[Apostasy in Judaism|Jewish apostate]], cited Messianic prophecies from the ''Zohar'' as proof of his legitimacy). Emden argued that the book on which Zevi based his doctrines was a forgery, arguing that the ''Zohar'':

* misquotes passages of Scripture 
* misunderstands the Talmud
* contains some ritual observances that were ordained by later rabbinical authorities
* mentions the [[Crusades]] against Muslims (who did not exist in the 2nd century)
* uses the expression ''esnoga'', a [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] term for the [[synagogue]]
* gives a mystical explanation of the Hebrew [[Niqqud|vowel points]], which were not introduced until long after the Talmudic period.<ref name="jewcyclo" />

[[Saul Berlin]] (d. 1794) argued that the presence of an introduction in the ''Zohar'', unknown to the Talmudic literary genre, itself indicates a medieval date.<ref>''Besamim Rosh'' (1793), 4th unnumbered page. All reprints of this work, including that listed as the 1793 on HebrewBooks, excise Berlin's introduction.</ref>

In the [[Ashkenazi Jews|Ashkenazi]] community of Eastern Europe, religious authorities including [[Vilna Gaon|Elijah of Vilna]] (d. 1797) and [[Shneur Zalman of Liadi]] (d. 1812) believed in the authenticity of the ''Zohar'', while [[Yechezkel Landau|Ezekiel Landau]] (d. 1793), in his [[Sefer (Hebrew)|sefer]] ''Derushei HaTzlach'' (דרושי הצל"ח),<ref>In ''derush'' 25 which "had previously only appeared in a censored form" (Rabbi Dr. Marc Shapiro, ''[https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters]'') in [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/22242 ''Derushei HaTzlach''], Warsaw 1886 (Shapiro in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120416154417/http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,1861/ Milin Havivin Volume 5] [2011], Is there an obligation to believe that Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai wrote the ''Zohar''?, p. ה [PDF page 126], footnote 13 [Hebrew]).</ref> argued that the ''Zohar'' is to be considered unreliable as it was made public many hundreds of years after Ben Yochai's death and lacks an unbroken tradition of authenticity, among other reasons.<ref>In a portion of ''derush'' 25 first published by [[Yehoshua Mondshine]] in [https://www.otzar.org/wotzar/Book.aspx?26376&lang=eng ''Or Yisrael'', Nisan 5766], [https://web.archive.org/web/20150723111741/http://www.shturem.net/index.php?section=blog_new&article_id=132 על חיבור הזוה"ק ותוספות מאוחרות שנשתרבבו לתוכו] (Hebrew), [https://web.archive.org/web/20140101063924/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0Mg_T6ybeMg/UD2NrHEs7hI/AAAAAAAAAcM/RqysMEidlHQ/s1600/Mondshine.jpg p. 202] (highlighted by Shapiro in ''[https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters]''). This portion (along with the remainder) was later published, from manuscript, by Dr. Maoz Kahana and Michael K. Silber in ''[https://www.academia.edu/18006793/_Deists_Sabbatians_and_Kabbalists_in_Prague_A_Censored_Sermon_of_R._Ezekiel_Landau_1770_in_Hebrew_Kabbalah_21_2010_349-384 Deists, Sabbatians and Kabbalists in Prague: A Censored Sermon of R. Ezekiel Landau, 1770]'', Kabbalah 21 (2010), p. 355 (Hebrew).</ref>

[[Isaac Satanow]] accepted Emden's arguments and referred to the ''Zohar'' as a forgery,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Huss |first=Boaz |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHJvEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA269 |title=The Zohar: Reception and Impact |date=2016-05-12 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-1-78962-486-1 |language=en}}</ref> also offering new evidence.<ref name=":4" /> By 1813 [[Samuel David Luzzatto]] had concluded that "these books [the Zohar and the Tiqqunei Zohar] are utter forgeries," in part because they repeatedly discuss the [[Hebrew cantillation]] marks, which were not invented until the 9th century.<ref name=":4" /> In 1817 Luzzatto published these arguments, and in 1825 he penned a fuller treatise, giving many reasons why the ''Zohar'' could not be ancient. However, he did not publish this until 1852, when he felt it justified by the rise of [[Hasidic Judaism|Hasidism]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Luzzatto |first=Samuel David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0GU-AAAAYAAJ |title=ויכוח על חוכמת הכבלה: ועל קדמות ספר הזוהר וקדמות הנקודות והטעמים |date=1852 |publisher=Imprimerie de J.B. Seitz |language=he}}</ref><ref name=":4" /> Moses Landau (d. 1852), Ezekiel's grandson, published the same conclusion in 1822.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Landau |first=Moses Israel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Zo5AAAAAYAAJ |title=Geist und Sprache der Hebräer nach dem zweyten Tempelbau |date=1822 |publisher=Gedruckt in der Schollischen Buchdruckerey |pages=13–31 |language=de}}</ref> Isaac Haver (d. 1852) admits the vast majority of content comes from the 13th century but argues that there was a genuine core.<ref>מגן וצינה ch. 21</ref> [[Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport]] (d. 1867) spoke against the ''Zohar''<nowiki/>'s antiquity.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=29 August 2012 |title=Concerning the Zohar and Other Matters – The Seforim Blog |url=https://seforimblog.com/2012/08/concerning-zohar-and-other-matters/ |access-date=2022-07-04}}</ref> [[Eliakim ha-Milzahgi]] (d. 1854) accepted Emden's arguments.<ref>{{Cite web |title=HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: ספר ראביה -- מילזהגי, אליקים בן יהודה |url=https://www.hebrewbooks.org/43935 |access-date=2023-11-14 |website=www.hebrewbooks.org |page=30c-33a}}</ref>

The influence of the ''Zohar'' in Yemen contributed to the formation of the [[Dor Daim|Dor Deah]] movement, led by [[Yiḥyah Qafiḥ]] in the later part of the 19th century. Among its objects was the opposition of the influence of the ''Zohar'', as presented in Qafiḥ's ''Milhamoth Hashem'' (Wars of the Lord)<ref>[https://www.yahadut.org.il/ZOHAR/MILHAMOT-HASHEM.PDF ספר מלחמות ה']</ref> and ''Da'at Elohim''.

Shlomo Zalman Geiger (d. 1878), in his book ''Divrei Kehilot'' on the liturgical practice of [[Frankfurter Judengasse|Frankfurt am Main]], records that "We do not say ''brikh shmei'' in Frankfurt, because its source is in the ''Zohar'', and the sages of Frankfurt refused to accept Qabbalah."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Geiger |first=Shlomo Zalman |title=HebrewBooks.org Sefer Detail: דברי קהלת -- גיגר, שלמה זלמן בן אהרן יחיאל מיכל |url=https://hebrewbooks.org/6822 |access-date=2023-05-21 |website=hebrewbooks.org |page=60}}</ref>