Robin Baugus

May 2, 2012
2nd Exam
Responses to questions 1 and 2
Question One: The Controversy Over Zoharic Authorship
While it is traditional for scholars (especially Zoharic schollars) to assign the creation of
the Zohar to the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and his disciples of the 2nd century, some
issues have been raised which suggest the actual authorship to be credited to Rabbi Moshe de
Leone of 13th century Spain instead. There are various reasons for this: the text is the only
Aramaic text of its kind which contains more-or-less invented Spanish words (ie: eshnogah as
synagogue) along with various parallels to Leones other Hebrew writings. Some might claim
that Leone is someone fortunate enough to discover the text of the Zohar, or arrogant enough
to forge it, but despite indications, there is no certain proof of either process.
This proves unfortunate for the various parties affected by the emergence (or reemergence) of Zoharic texts. The idea of a Kabbalistic text being created in the 13th century is
just as appalling to Kabbalists in general as it is appeasing for anti-Kabbalistic rabbis. As is the
case with most modern texts and practices, antiquity lends authority. Text proven to be old is
proven to be at least worthy of consideration it allows for vindication. Naturally, Kabbalists of
the 13th century would rally around the idea of the Zohar being a 2nd century text because it
creates legitimacy within and for the movement as a whole. Yet, the notion of the Zohar being a
(for them) modern revolutionary texts does the opposite. Anti-Kabbalistic rabbis find the
modernity of the Zohar a valuable asset in maintaining their leading position. In this instance,
new is never better and it is logical that they would seek to prove the youth of the texts which so
challenges their position.

Robin Baugus
May 2, 2012
2nd Exam
Responses to questions 1 and 2
Question Two: The Sefirot
As esoteric practices have evolved throughout Jewish history (whether or not these may
all be deemed mystical is another topic), we find a few common themes. Amoung which is the
concept of Sefirot. They are mentioned extensively in the Sefer Yetzira, and there represent a
key element of creation. The Sefirot (of which there are 10) are said to correspond to the speech
of G-d as he created the heavens and earth (that is, in the Genesis account there are 10 instances
where G-d speaks Let there be of which there immediately was.) This has been linked to
the 10 fingers of a pair of hands (whether or not this is related to the hands being the most crucial
element in creation by man is relatively unknown).
Within Kabbalistic thought these notions have not been dismissed. Yet in addition to
what is known as the 10 creative utterances and the fingers of the hands, the 10 Sefirot have
also been linked to 10 miracles on the first Sabbath, 10 covenantal utterances, and even the
plagues of Egypt. Quite central to Kabbalistic thought is the arrangement of these Sefirot.
While many explanations exist (and here we will only touch on a few), there is a generalized, set
structure.
Many have likened the order of Sefirot to the primordial man with correspondences
between the Head, shoulders, elbows/arms, hands, stomach, groin, and legs/feet (or a similar
arrangement). In this we have a deeper meaning, the Sefirot (and thereby their corresponding
points) are given characteristics. Left vs. right side, upper vs. lower, and male vs. female. The
sides represent cosmological balance with the left and right indicating judgment, compassion,
good, and evil. Upper and lower mirror the macro- micro-cosmic relationships wherein an

Robin Baugus
May 2, 2012
2nd Exam
Responses to questions 1 and 2
arousal below arouses an arousal above. Male and female attributes of Sefirot have been seen,
in some ways, to represent the marriage of a King (G-d?) to his Matron (primordial Wisdom?)
Yet Sefirot are not merely an indication of balance, but may also serve as a reminder. We
mentioned the relationship made between the 10 Sefirot and 10 commandments given at Sinai.
There are those who claim it goes deeper than this. In the Torah it is an established belief that
there are 613 commandments which Jew are commanded to follow (generally by either doing, or
not doing, a specific act). It has been deemed by some that in the text of the 10 commandments,
there are 613 letters each of which is to correspond with a commandment listed in the Torah as
a whole. Thereby Sefirot corresponds not just to the 10 commandments given on stone tablets at
Sinai, but to all commandments.
Finally, before ending this (rather lengthy) discussion, I wish to return briefly to the upper
and lower (macro- and micro-cosmic) associations of Sefirot. Sefirot are not merely believed to
be points of reference, but are also conduits conducting the Sefirotic energies from above to
below, below to above, and everywhere in between. This energy is constantly moving in all
directions at once, but it can be blocked. Naturally, the source of this otherwise free-flowing
energy is the heavens above and G-d who may be cut off from the reciprocal energies returned
from lower earthly Sefirot, but certainly has a supply of his own. Lower Sefirot rely on higher
Sefirot and if there is a chink (for lack of better term), then lower Sefirot will cease to receive
the energies still flowing through and between their higher counterparts.

Robin Baugus
May 2, 2012
2nd Exam
Responses to questions 1 and 2

Response from Professor:

Robin: As you indicated, your first response was a bit "off". One problem might be a tendency to
collapse the term "Zoharic scholars." There are students of the Zohar who are essentially tied to
the Kabbalistic tradition itself for insights into the meaning of the text, while others draw on the
interpretive traditions of academic historical thought. Usually, these two groups rarely
communnicate with each other, because each denies the authority of the scholarly traditions of
the other. But historical scholarship has shown how the battle over "authority" goes back into the
origins of the Zohar itself. To make things more complicated, there are also "anti-kabbalistic"
rabbis who were threatened by the "prophetic" authority claimed by Kabbalists, even though
they believed that the Oral Torah went back to Sinaitic tradition.
In short, I think the problem you couldnt' overcome was the degree to which the argument over
the "authenticity" of the Zohar takes on different shape in inner-rabbinic controversy as well as
in controversy between "historians" and "believers."
I thought your discussion of the Sefirot was on the whole very strong, although you might have
mentioned that SY's model of the sefirot diverges in important ways from the main Kabbalistic
model (sefirot as "tools" vs. sefirto as "emanations")
Grade: 3.6
MJ