Talk:Shimon bar Yochai

Untitled

Yerushalmi Shevuot 9 38d - There is no such thing. Pages are A or B 38A etc. What is 9? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.83 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote

Can we move the page to the more common English spelling - 'Shimeon bar Yochai'? The current Simeon is not representative of the Hebrew name pronounced Sheem'on and the 'h' in Yohai is usually spelt 'ch' or 'kh'. --Shuki 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes- I think this would be more productive. he was condemned by "Varna" -??? this is a town in Bulgaria. Maybe it was Varus?--Bo Basil 18:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why "Shimeon", not "Shimon"? It's not pronounced SHIME ON or SHIMMY ON, so why the need for an "e"? I'd support a move to Shimon bar Yochai --Dweller 18:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Look at what links to this article and you see that many articles use shimon bar yochai. Jon513 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one seems to be too bothered. Be bold. --Dweller 09:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not Shimeon. it is entirely irregular in the religious lterature, english or German. It must be either Shimon or Simon--Bo Basil 10:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

NOT BAR

It is Shimon BEN Yohai. 203.206.248.147 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, as he's dead. But nitpicking aside, why do you think his name was "ben", not "bar"? --Dweller 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He was an Israeli not a Babylonian. 203.206.248.147 17:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The new-age kabbalists site is able to get it correct in the external links. 203.206.248.147 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are very clear on this matter. Naming follow what is most commonly recognized not what he himself might have called himself. He is commonly referred to as Shimon Bar Yohai both in talmudic writing and most contemporary writings.Jon513 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No he isn't! RSRH never refers to him as bar. The Talmud uses ben. The only ones who use bar are Modona and the song "bar yohai." The Chabad.org website even uses ben. [1] 203.217.94.62 04:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Both are acceptable forms, and both are even used on the Chabad website. [2] Also, kabbalah.com and the Kabbalah Centre use 'bar' almost exclusively. Msteven1 13:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic editors

Could stop please tell the idiotic editors to stop making Rabbi Shimon look like a fool. He was a hakham he should be treated as one. 217.132.111.171 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Eliyak T·C 09:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Rabbi Shimon" most certainly was foolish in many regards. Perhaps his curse on those who believed in Enoch came back to bite. And one who truly understands should wonder why 20,000 of Akiba's disciples all died in a plague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.106.7 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

proof none - just a fables — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yochai or Yohai ?

I entered this quest for correctness from a casual reading of the article Lag BaOmer. In there I came to this statement:

"After the death of Rabbi Akiva's 24,000 students, he taught just five students, among them Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The latter went on to become the greatest teacher of Torah in his generation. The day of Lag BaOmer is also celebrated as the Hillula or Yahrzeit, the anniversary of the death, of bar Yohai ..."

From that statement, I just wasn't clear if this bar Yohai was the same as bar Yochai. Please come to consensus for the enlightenment of gentiles such as myself.

Request for addition

This article says there is an ongoing dispute regarding the grave, but I don't see it in the article. Can someone with a good source or two add it? Zero^talk 03:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Shimon bar Yochai → Simeon bar Yochai — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC) While the Hebrew form "Shimon" is much more common, propose rename to match all other early rabbis called "Shimon" but called "Simeon" on wiki. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support Chesdovi (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oy vey! Oppose. I guess I'll wait for the next round. --Shuki (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hillula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai is proposed to be merged into Tomb of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. You can participate at Talk:Tomb of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai#Merger proposal. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

bar/ben

@Duponiuex Just an addendum to what I said in my edit summary, which was The gemara consistently uses ben to refer to Tannaim, and it never, ever, uses bar to refer to ben Yochai except in modern printings which have in a few places incorrectly expanded RaSHBY: I was referring to the Steinzaltz edition, which is now hosted by Sefaria. I contacted Sefaria/Steinsaltz immediately after posting that to see if they'd correct, and they responded within minutes, "Thanks for pointing this out! We've now corrected a total of four occurrences of בר יוחאי throughout Bavli." So in future hopefully no one will be confused. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Shimon bar Yochai → Shimon ben Yochai – (Background: A previous discussion on this page led to a move to Simeon bar Yochai, which has apparently now been undone. A previous discussion of ben/bar ended without consensus.) Genuine Talmudic texts universally, without exception, refer to our subject as Shimon ben Yochai. The Steinsaltz edition of the Bavli incorrectly read "bar Yochai" in some places but, due to my efforts of a few hours ago, that has now been fixed. Our page on the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai also referred to the book as of "bar Yochai," even though it has never been called that, which I have fixed. This is a case of popular error occasioned by the forged Zohar which, in its pretense to have been composed by Aramaic-speaking sages, but without Palestinian Aramaic grammatical knowledge, referred to him in the wrong style, and it has sometimes broken into even scholastic spaces. Nonetheless it is obvious what his real name was, and the vast majority of scholastic references are aware of this. Ngram shows that despite the overwhelming popularity of "bar Yochai" among internet posts, the two are equally popular in books: here. A closer examination reveals that Kabbalistic titles refer to him as "bar Yochai" and wiki-reliable academic works, unless they are specifically referring to him in a Zoharic context, refer to him as "ben Yochai". GordonGlottal (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. I initially wasn't going to propose this, but I really think there's only one encyclopedic option. I don't expect many editors to get involved so if you prefer a third option (ben Yohai, Simeon, etc.) let's switch to a different process. Tagging @Vegaswikian and @Shuki and @Ricgal and @Duponiuex from previous discussions. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Bar Yochai" is the more common modern usage. See for instance the 150,000+ results searching for "Shimon bar Yochai" on Google versus the under 5,000 results for "Shimon ben Yochai". Results are similar for variations like "Shimon ben Yohai"; the once-prevalent spelling "Simeon ben Yohai" yields only about 16,000 results. Ngram supports this: [3]. –Ploni (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Ploni I really don't think we need to use a name that is popular on the internet even though it is discouraged in academic sources. Our encyclopedia is based on reliable academic sources, not popular opinion. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @GordonGlottal: As per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used "as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (even if not the subject's "official" name). Again, Ngram shows "bar Yohai" to be the most common spelling in modern printed sources. As of today (6 July 2022), "Bar Yohai" and "Bar Yochai" yield 477 and 157 results on JSTOR, respectively, versus 301 and 61 for "Ben Yohai" and "Ben Yochai". On the Wikipedia Library, "Bar Yohai" and "Bar Yochai" yield 1,238 and 906 results, while "Ben Yohai" and "Ben Yochai" yield 505 and 100. I could go on. Could you point me to academic sources that explicitly discourage the use of "bar"? If they exist, it is evidently not the consensus view. –Ploni (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously not all printed books are reliable sources. Secondly, many reliable sources will use bar Yochai when discussing the character bar Yochai of the Zohar or any of its offshoots (the song Bar Yochai, for example), while the historical figure is the subject of this page. This is an extremely modern phenomenon. Almost no one called him "bar Yochai" on purpose until recently. A search turned up even Zohar-friendly rabbis who are troubled by this, and actually blamed it on the song Bar Yochai, for example, Isaac Ratzabi, who is a prominent defender of the Zohar's authenticity and the premier Yemenite religious authority alive today: here. Anyway for one, Jacob Neusner says this in the preface to his edition of the Yerushalmi. See also here for another example. That Israeli Tannaim are called "ben" -- ben Yochai is just one example -- is universally understood. You will not find him listed under "bar Yochai" in any major academic reference works. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: The Rashbi is known as Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai - and is therefore the recognizable name. Regardless of the authenticity of the Zohar, Rashbi is arguably known as Bar Yochai due to his purported authorship of the book. Whether or not the Talmud refers to hime as BAR or BEN Yochai seems less important than what he is actually known as. | MK17b | (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  By whom? This encyclopedia is based on reliable scholarly sources. It's not going to confuse anybody who searches for "bar". GordonGlottal (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources - see any coverage of the stampede - for one. 1, 2, 3 | MK17b | (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources which are reliable for reporting news are not therefore reliable for obscure academic subjects. We don't use normally reliable newspapers for medical information or any other subject like this. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: We should continue to follow the Wikipedia:Criteria for article names. The method and data shown by @Ploni, above, is the proper approach. The proposal is well-intended but based on religious rather than "independent, reliable" English sources. Academic sources also support the "bar" Yochai wording. ProfGray (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray I absolutely do not base anything I said on "religious" sources. On the contrary, you can see from other comments here that "bar" has the backing of religious Orthodoxy, because religious authorities accept the authenticity of the Zohar. In stark contrast, every academic reference work lists him as ben Yochai. Which academic source argues for the bar Yochai wording? GordonGlottal (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which academic sources?

  Google scholar: "Shimon bar Yochai" = 1,010 hits, "Shimon ben Yochai" = 174 hits,

  JSTOR: "Shimon bar Yochai" = 89, "Shimon ben Yochai" = 15 hits

  In terms of academic reference works, here's the listing from Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is the most respected tertiary source n English for Jews and Judaism: "SIMEON BAR YOḤAI (mid-second century C.E.), tanna." Source: Burgansky, Israel, and Stephen G. Wald. "Simeon Bar Yoḥai." Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, 2nd ed., vol. 18, Macmillan Reference USA, 2007, pp. 593-594. ProfGray (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Judaica says "He is almost universally called R. Simeon without any patronymic, whereas in the midrashei halakhah belonging to the school of R. Ishmael he is consistently called by his full name, R. Simeon ben Yohai" and gives no examples of "bar Yohai." So clearly the fault of an editor, the author of the article knows. Comparable to our policy of never citing headlines even in the NYT. See here and here and here and here and here and here, as I've said elsewhere. On JStor "Simeon ben Yohai" turns up 227 results. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  And JSTOR has 253 results for Simeon BAR Yohai. | MK17b | (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The full quote, in context: "In the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and those midrashei halakhah belonging to the school of R. Akiva, he is almost universally called R. Simeon without any patronymic, whereas in the midrashei halakhah belonging to the school of R. Ishmael he is consistently called by his full name, R. Simeon ben Yoḥai." This is not an editorial error; the author is simply noting (and explaining) alternative names. I once again point you to WP:COMMONNAME. –Ploni (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  One difficulty, @GordonGlottal, is that you are arguing with the following concerns: "genuine" or "wrong" or "incorrect" or "real name" or "fault" or a "popular error." However, Wikipedia is not trying to fix the "true" name of the rabbi. Our goal is to follow WP policy to use the commonly recognizable, i.e., popular name, whether or not it is an "error" in your or others' opinion. Maybe he ought to be called by another name, but that's not what is actually happening in the English-speaking world, which is using S "bar" Yochai regardless of whether the Zohar is "forged" or in the "wrong style" as you say. ProfGray (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Searching the Wikimedia Library confirms the evidence above (from Google, Google Scholar, and JSTOR):

  Shimon bar Yochai: 621 -- "bar" is about 10 times as much as "ben"

  "Simeon ben Yochai" = 64

  Simeon bar Yochai: 58

  "Simeon ben Yochai" = 6 ProfGray (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray COMMONNAME says "Inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". There is no potential for confusion, and "ben Yochai" obviously satisfies the requirement for recognizability, so why wouldn't we use the more correct name? GordonGlottal (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Ploni, The author never once mentions "Simeon bar Yohai." The article authors obviously don't do the indexing themselves, and they are the reliable sources. COMMONNAME says "Inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". There is no potential for confusion, and "ben Yochai" obviously satisfies the requirement for recognizability, so why wouldn't we use the more correct name? I have no interest in wasting anyone's time, I'm just trying to improve this encyclopedia in good faith. Policy dictates that we use the accurate/non-problematic name if it is popular enough to be recognizable, even if it isn't the most popular name. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. Neither Shimon bar Yochai nor ben Yochai is "inaccurate."

  Both names ben and bar mean the same thing (i.e., son of) and refer to the same person. bar Yochai is so much more recognizable and I don't see it as a problem.

  @GordonGlottal you seem to see "bar Y" as a problem because somehow you think that Zohar name is "wrong" or "forged" and while "the historical figure is the subject of this page."

  Is there a "historical figure" whose "genuine" name we are trying to use? No, because this misses the role of the encyclopedia. We don't know how much is legend or folk tale, etc. The page talks about mystical celebrations and a purported tomb. It even has "legends" in his so-called "biography." We aren't trying to find the historical kernel of Rashby (like the historical Jesus) and name him accurately. Instead, we need to use the commonly recognizable name and the empirical evidence is clear on that score. ProfGray (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray So some important background is that in Talmudic literature they are not synonymous. The word "ben" identifies a (Palestinian) Tannitic sage, and "bar" is used for Amoraic sages or sages from Babylonia. Genuine talmudic texts are extremely careful about this distinction because it immediately signals that crucial biographical data to the reader (simplistically: a "ben" carries more weight than a "bar"), which is why ben Yochai is never, even once, called "bar Yochai" until the 13th century. That's why it is incorrect to use "bar", as the sources I pointed to say. It has nothing to do with rejecting the Zohar as a text, except in that the Zohar provides no evidence to the contrary because it is so late. Ben Yochai is a historical figure about whom legends are told, like many historical figures. In this case he's largely famous for (1) his Talmudic teachings, which were mostly recorded within his lifetime, (2) Talmudic legends about him, which are about ben Yochai, (3) the Zohar, in which context it may be appropriate to refer to "bar Yochai" as the medieval legendary character. Also pointing to a new source: Shlomo Aviner says the same here: "Question: Why is Bar Yochai not called Ben Yochai like the rest of the Tannaitic sages? Answer: He is called Ben Yochai in the sources." And here on Talmudic name style consistency. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not "incorrect" to use "bar Yochai." You just undermine your proposal everytime you assert this.

  You happen to favor Talmudic over later uses of the name. You made your point, stop repeating it. I have a PhD in Judaism, so I'm familiar with the use of ben/bar in J discourse, but that is not relevant to our decision as WP editors. Bar Yochai is not like the "rest of the Tannaitic sages," he is a unique character in Jewish literature.

  ben and bar = both translated as "son of" = synonymous meaning

  If anything, "bar" should be used to highlight that he is unique and different vs. all other Tannaitic characters, since only "bar Yochai" is the attributed author of the Zohar, the most important work of Kabbalah.

  If he is a "historical figure," why doesn't our article include the corroborating evidence of his life? ProfGray (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray He's a historical figure in the same way anyone discussed by multiple contemporary texts in the 2nd century is. I don't think any RS has ever denied that such a person existed. Jesus (who almost all scholars believe existed) isn't definitely mentioned until more than a century after his death. Like 15 people total from that period left behind physical evidence. My point is that he wasn't unique or different until the 13th century, 1,000 years after the texts that give him his fame were completed. Did you read the sources I linked too? They literally say that it is incorrect. It is not my opinion. As we say on the page (unless you want to change it?) He "was a 2nd-century tannaitic sage in ancient Judea, said to be active after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. He was one of the most eminent disciples of Rabbi Akiva." Ngram shows it wasn't normal to say "bar Yochai" in English until the nineteen-seventies.GordonGlottal (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The Zohar is barely mentioned on this page (through no fault of mine) because scholars don't consider it nearly as important as the Talmudic texts of the 2nd-7th century. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  The whole commemoration section devoted to the annual celebration on Lag BaOmer is directly tied to the figure of Shimon BAR Yochai, purported author of the Zohar. You don't find any annual celebration at Rabbi Akiva's grave, even though he was arguably a more noteworthy sage from a Tannaic standpoint. I think it's pretty clear from everything written above and below that Shimon BAR Yochai is the common name in the year 2022 - even if it is not how he was referred to in his era. | MK17b | (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, it's too bad there isn't more about Zohar here. Maybe because WP editors are not familiar with the Zohar? The Zohar article itself has so little under "Content." Anyway, this article does have "Teachings" section that could be expanded for his Zohar content, which might rival his extensive Tannaitic content. It also has the Commemoration section, as noted by MK17b. It could benefit from something about his use in Contemporary or popular culture.

  But which is more "important" to scholars or other audiences? @GordonGlottal, you're convinced it's the Talmudic. But the data might indicate that the English-speaking world cares more about his impact through Zohar and Kabbalah. ProfGray (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Still travelling, but from rather quickly skimming the page down to this point, I can see that I agree with most, if not all points made by Prof. Gray above. שבוע טוב. warshy ^(¥¥) 13:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hope everyone had a good shabbas. No, I don't think it indicates that, because now everyone uses "bar Yochai" even to refer to his Talmudic teachings. You get more results on JSTOR for "bar yochai" "talmud" than for "bar yochai" "zohar". The name thing is weird, but it probably has to do with Bar Yochai (song) crossing over from the relatively small population of mystics who care about the Zohar to everyone else. How many people do you really think open a Zohar more often than a Talmud? Like 0.001% of people who open each at least occasionally, right? By the way I'll point everybody to a new source: Heinrich Guggenheimer says in his commentary to y. Sheviit (where there's one erroneous "bar Yochai" added to the margin of the Leiden manuscript by a post-Zoharic scribe) that "The spelling 'bar Yoḥai' is a clear Babylonism" and should be replaced with [ben Yoḥai]. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mk17b Sidenote but the celebrations as we know them are a couple centuries old. In the medieval period many graves and purported graves were pilgrimage destinations, but not this one. I'm not sure exactly why, but I agree that Zohar is probably a great deal of it, though the Zohar certainly doesn't say anything about Lag BaOmer or his grave or any connection between them. The traditional connection of Yochai to Lag BaOmer comes from other Rishonim, citing Geonic sources, and the attachment to his grave is as I said modern. In terms of Lag Baomer, not historically true. There were Lag Baomer pilgrimages to other graves at Meron long before anyone claimed to have identified Yochai's grave there. We don't know where Rabbi Akiva's grave is. In the medieval period there was a strong tradition of visiting Hillel's grave in Meron on Lag BaOmer, but the tradition of its location was broken by the crusades. Possibly it's the same exact location but it was attributed to Yochai after the Zohar made him more famous among mystics. BTW I'm not sure I've been clear about this, but even the Zohar only uses "bar" about half the time. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  BTW those early Meron pilgrims -- they called him "ben Yochai". Even Zohar fans used ben Yochai a lot more often than bar Yochai until the late 19th century. I looked in Elijah of Vilna's works, for example, and only found it within Zoharic quotes. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. You’re still arguing which name is more “correct” even though the criteria are common & recognizable.

  (And pls don’t repeat yr points about the criteria. You really don’t need to comment heavily on each opinion here. You come across a bit inflexible and dug in, to the point I worry if it will influence your editing. Are you going to be comfortable with the outcome here if it goes against you? Fwiw, I will probably now remember to call him “ben” next time he comes up in a Talmudic conversation or class lecture. You have lots of knowledge and could be editing the main space with some of it. Like your side note about graves at Meron. Or why not contribute to the content on Zohar? If you’re not feeling resentful, that’s a big gap to fill.) ProfGray (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray Of course I'm comfortable. I'll point out that we use Hillel the Elder even though "Rabbi Hillel" is twice as common on Google, twice as common on Ngram, twice as common on JSTOR, and more recognizable, because he is never called "Rabbi Hillel" by classical texts. An extensive 2016 discussion on Hillel's talk page (in which I did not participate) apparently concluded that the current title should stay, and even that "Rabbi Hillel" should not be mentioned except quite low in its own section. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hi. You really don't need to comment further under my view here.

  For "Rabbi Hillel" on JSTOR and elsewhere, did you subtract hits for Rabbi Goldberg, Abba Silver, etc? (rhetorical question) ProfGray (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  @ProfGray Fine, but the answer is "of course". Took an extremely long scroll to find a JSTOR result referring to anyone else. It's not a very common name and it's not normal to refer to contemporary rabbis by their titles in academic publications. Try yourself. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  You really don't need to comment further in the section with my view here.

  With Hillel, there are 1000s of references to Hillel the Elder with the name "Hillel" and no honorific (rabbi), which can be found in JSTOR through an advanced search (e.g., avoiding Hillel in au field). It's a much higher number (by 1000s) than "Rabbi Hillel."

  The same result can be achieved through careful search of Google Scholar, more than 10:1 ratio, such as https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&as_epq=Hillel&as_oq=Talmud+Mishnah+&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21 compared to https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=Talmud+OR+Mishnah+%22Rabbi+Hillel%22&btnG=

  The advance search in regular Google appears to yield similar results, but the numbers are so high (100,000s more for HilIel and Hillel the Elder) it's hard to spot check. ProfGray (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Bar Yochai is the common name among Jews throughout the generations.--Duponiuex (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Which generation? A simple search of any religious database will show you that that isn't true. No Talmudic sources use it. No Rishonim use it. No achronim used it regularly until very recently. Isaac Ratzabi (a major Yemenite posek who has made a career project of attacking ant-Zohar rabbis) admits here that it is very recent and probably more an effect of the zemer than anything else: https://www.maharitz.co.il/?CategoryID=292&ArticleID=1938. In any case not an appropriate wiki argument. 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  The song might be what popularized the name as Bar Yochai. It doesn't change the fact though, that misguided or otherwise that is the common name that he is referred to as currently and therefore should remain as per WP:COMMONNAME. | MK17b | (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately I am currently travelling, and so I won't be able to do some research of my own on this subject, which I would lly like to do, as I believe the issue is important and it is definitely worth discussing in depth. But, for the current discussion above and for my particular circumstances at the moment, I believe I agree with Ploni's positions and arguments above. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 07:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"the authenticity of this claim has been refuted..." edit proposal

This line in the article, along with its paragraph and the rest, is clearly not NPOV, is sourced with low quality* primary sources, and is offensive to many devout believers and devotees (and possibly some secular scholars and amateurs) who believe to a large degree in the chief and major contribution of Rashbi (Rabbi Shimon) to the Zohar's composition.

• Low quality sources, having present numbers [62] - talkreason.org - a rationalist i.e. anti Zohar and anti mystical website, [63] machonshilo.org - one article by one Rabbi from an institution that's obviously non-kabbalah and non-chassidic oriented, and [64] chayas.org - something from Yihyah Qafih (1850–1931) a notorious, vehement and innovative Zohar detractor.

Despite this, my efforts to edit it towards NPOV and so that it better represents the wide range and spectrum of views regarding how much of the Zohar is attributable to Rashbi have been reverted. Please see the edits from within the past day, and here is the latest: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shimon_bar_Yochai&oldid=1115768121

I would like to credit @@GordonGlottal: - who reverted my latest edit - for agreeing that JewishEncyclopedia is a high quality source.

But in this context I would like to open his notes for discussion:

Jewish Encyclopedia is a high quality source but it is more than a century old. It's important to understand that modern Zohar scholarship starts with Scholem's work in the 1940s. No reliable source from (roughly) then on frames the debate in the same way.

Questions:

• Should this article have overtones biased toward and chiefly reflecting the views of "modern Zohar scholarship?"
• Wasn't Scholem, although a great scholar, of secular and non-kabbalah oriented views, and thus clearly more liable to that bias against Rashbi's authorship?
• A vast percentage of Chasidim do not pursue secular education and are thus rarely found among the ranks of academia, "modern scholarship," etc. There's an information blindspot if we restrict only to the latter.
• Is Thomas Jefferson not "the author" of the Declaration of Independence because his drafts may have included lines and sources from earlier works, contributions and edits by peers, or it was edited into modern English and spelling and language in modern editions? No to get into the details of that, just take it hypothetically - but just illustrating that being the author of something is not so simple and black and white.
• "No reliable source from (roughly) then on frames the debate in the same way."

• - So "reliable sources" can only include powerful academic and non-kabbalistic, non-Chassidic, sources who are authorized somehow to "frame the debate?" Could you please tell me what other sources are allowed to "frame the debate" besides Scholem and powerful academia, and non-kabbalistic, non-chassidic sources? And isn't Scholem a primary source regarding that view (and did Scholem base on Qafih?) and isn't it Wikipedia's guideline to prefer already tertiary sources?
• Large, visible groups I can think of, that might be well known to people, and therefore have sources that are easily verifiable, and that are definitely of the view that Rashbi is the chief author of the Zohar, include:

• Chasidim: Chabad, Breslov, Satmar, you name it (there may be some "rare" exceptions). And these groups generally do not refer to themselves or consider themselves "Kabbalists" as the line in the article limits those of this view to. Many would even take some affront to being called that.
• Kabbalah Center
• Other religious and secular individuals or groups that I might not know about regarding this
• Obviously these groups are biased just like anyone else is - and reciprocally they probably discredit "modern Zohar scholarship" just as well due to the latter's bias and the forces that are behind it.

Although these cannot be most preferred sources, I would like to mention them here as examples of support from sources beside from the abovementioned groups.

• https://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/204/Q5/ - Ohr Sameach - a well known and respected Yeshivah not known as a Chassidic or Kabbalistic one at all - Ask the Rabbi Q&A: Universal Jewish tradition maintains that the Zohar was in fact authored by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his students around 170-200 CE. Rabbi Moses de Leon merely published the already existent work. (unsigned answer)
• https://www.haaretz.com/2008-07-31/ty-article/the-secrets-of-the-messiah/0000017f-ebb0-dc91-a17f-ffbdea400000 - Article from a newspaper not know as a religious one: To this day, the author's true identity remains unknown. ... The Zohar is revealed to be a litmus test, and people's attitudes toward it reflect the values they hold dear

• litmus test - not unlike the "litmus test" of "safe and effective" regarding masks and Covid vaccines where "modern" "scholarly" "official" "academic" etc. etc. all appeared to be in unison in one voice - did they "refute" the "authenticity" of opposing and dissenting views that masks and vaccines/experimental gene therapy injections were in fact not effective or safe? These words and tone are just not appropriate, non-offensive, and are not NPOV in that discussion, nor here.

But here is actually another perfect tertiary source I've just found, and it's very recent:

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sefer-ha-zohar - Article added by the Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Jul 20, 1998: Though the text names Simeon as the author, modern scholars are convinced that the major portion of the Zohar should be credited to Moses de León (1250–1305) of Spain. They do not rule out the possibility, however, that earlier mystic materials were used or incorporated into the present text.

• So the text and tone of the article should be much more in this direction.

Move to Propose: Reinstate my edits, and add Brittanica as a source.

Support, Oppose, Thoughts? (I'm not sure if I've followed the right protocol here) Nissimnanach (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

---

By opening this discussion here you have followed protocol so far. So this is a good, positive move. I think this discussion is good and interesting, though I agree that it needs to start from Scholem's scholarship on the subject of the authorship of the Zohar and forward from there. Wikipedia is a secular, non-religious encyclopedia and so the sensitivities and beliefs of religious groups do not count as reliable sources for it. The Britannica source you mention is interesting, and we should pursue the academic reliable secondary sources and literature that were used to produce that summary. The first source I would look into to begin my own research on the matter will be the Encylopaedia Judaica (Second edition, online, 2007). Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks warshy, agreed on all. Background on the EJ2 article is that it's heavily based on Scholem's EJ1 article, which is heavily based on Major Trends "Zohar I" and "Zohar II". IIRC not much changes about the core, just a lot of new interesting stuff added in, so it might benefit a beginner more to start with the original because that's much shorter and simpler and then skim the EJ2 to check for relevant updates. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff here but basically the purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect mainstream modern scholarship, not the opinions of eminent rabbis and major religious institutions, however much we value their opinions in other spaces. So that's not a bias, its our mission. Sidenote it's worth reading Marc (Melech) Shapiro's article and follow-up on the acceptability of Zohar-denial in Orthodoxy. I don't want to get bogged down on one person or source, but Scholem isn't "non-Kabbalah" or "a primary source" or "based on Qafih". It's worth reading his original 1938 lectures as published in Modern Trends, which total 20 or so English pages. Scholem was a great proponent of mysticism and as big a Zohar fan as there ever was but he was also a scholar who ultimately had to accept the result of his researches. It would be impossible to read Sabbetai Sevi and think Scholem preferred anti-Kabbalists to mystics. The Britannica is a reasonably good tertiary source, but I'm not sure it means to say anything about any part of it dating to Tannaitic times. BTW no one thinks literally all of the Zohar is by de Leon, because some parts are clearly even later, by imitators, but it's a standard shorthand. The reference here might be to Liebes' Hata'o shel Elisha and related work, which argue that it incorporated slightly earlier medieval Qabbalistic works, not unknown Tannaitic material. Much more extensive tertiary summaries of modern scholarship can be found in Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd Ed) by Melila Hellner-Eshed or The Columbia History of Western Philosophy by Allison Coudert, or recent articles by Eliot Wolfson, etc. These or other sources should in fact replace the current sources, which are in fact below Wiki standards. Would "disproven" be better than "refuted"? GordonGlottal (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Scholem was a great proponent of mysticism" - sus, that was his bread and butter as an academic

"and as big a Zohar fan as there ever was" - No. Ask any religious Chassid or Kabbalist. Scholem was not religious.

"BTW no one thinks literally all of the Zohar is by de Leon" - thank you.

Nissimnanach (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Read his books! I promise you he was huge Zohar fan. His passion for its holiness and wisdom is inspiring. For Scholem (and for many medieval Qabbalists) the mysticism of the Zohar is opposed to the halakhic rigor of the mainstream Rabbinate. So he was a Zohar fan because he wasn't religiously Orthodox, or vice versa. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And I didn't state my Thomas Jefferson parable well, so please allow me to comment and try to clarify. Let's say Joe Schmoe has collected and anthologized the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, along with a Document received by his Forefather, with the teachings of his predecessors and compatriots and the ones following after - and his parchments and notes on it were later discovered and published as "The Declaration" [by Joe Shmoe, ed. - per modern recorded history and "scholars" and academia and debated etc.].

By parable so too this is the way of the Torah, that the Israelite people have received, carried on, and believe with full tradition and faith, that the Torah was given to Moshe on Sinai, and with the crucual initial witness and testimony of all the Israelite people and the Exodus (somewhat analogous but with the advantage of writing and recording being permitted - the American people and the Independence), as they have been commanded by the Almighty through Moshe, to learn - learn and "make a fence" around it (Pirkei Avot 1:1).

So too, by parable, with the rest of the Oral Torah including the Zohar - my view and the view of traditional Judaism and b'nei Torah (children of the Torah), that throughout back to Moshe Rabbeinu and Matan Torah (the giving of the Torah, an entire body, both the revealed and hidden) along with the rest of the Oral Torah (hidden) that it was not permitted to be written down, per Torah law - except that the rabbinic Sages started to make the monumental exception and rule that because of the conditions of history that the Torah (with its Oral, unwritten explanation that's needed to understand, explain and practice the Law) might be lost (and it was in fact Rabbi Shimon who retorted and replied to his friend in the Talmud who was lamenting that the Torah will be forgotten from Yisrael! - Rashbi citing (Deut. 31:21), "No, it will not be forgotten from his seed!" - this is the story and the tradition as brought in the Talmud, Shabbat 138b) and then the Mishnah and the rest of the Oral Torah started be written down, centuries after the start of the Common Era.

So too by parable, would Thomas Jefferson not be the author of "The Declaration" - so discern, this kind of parable. Authorship is not so simple. Nissimnanach (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

And of course all the more so with the "Kabbalah," and inner parts of the Torah - that they were not permitted to be written, and were transmitted to a select few in order to ensure its transmission. Nissimnanach (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Unfortunately this is not really a wiki-appropriate topic. I would encourage you to read some scholarly works on the subject to better understand how everyone reached the conclusion that de Leon wrote it. The Zohar can be dated by its language and ideas to the late 13th century, whether or not one man came up with every word entirely by himself, but as it happens it's perfectly unified in its style. If there were obvious divisions or evidence of multiple authors/styles it would be different. In general mainstream scholarship says that oral traditions of the type you propose are only possible for limited periods of time and given very specific parameters, and therefore not a plausible explanation for a 13th century text with 13th century ideas and 13th century language. I recommend Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong for a start. But this talk page isn't for general discussion of yours or my opinions. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"everyone reached the conclusion" - not at all NPOV or factual my friend, all the Chassidim do not have that view.

And BTW I forgot to mention since I've already cited the verse - (Deut. 31:21), "No, it will not be forgotten from his seed!" - spells end letters (YOChAI) - his own patronym - in Hebrew Nissimnanach (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

YOYCHAI, maybe? I meant, all RS and those who rely on them (like Wiki). I'm unlikely to respond here again unless you make a wiki-appropriate argument with sources. You won't win any argument here with near-spelling Bible Codes. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Move to simplify and alter the argument For: - and I think this will satisfy everybody: All that can be factually stated or published by any "modern scholarship," academia etc. - is that the manuscripts were discovered from De Leon's estate. And especially in such as case as the Oral Torah and where the material was not allowed to be written until the Sages out of emergency allowed it to then be recorded - and all the more so regarding Hidden Torah that was kept in secret to a selected few per the holders of it - and with similarly to other things from before written history. The rest, regarding true "authorship" and nature thereof, is a matter of various evidences but mainly from even a secular, scientific, objective view - of faiths and beliefs - which the former can have no say in except to mention that those are people's views. Therefore it precludes the article's current charged, non-NPOV, and offensive-to-others language of "refuted by scholars" etc. which is just over the top. After stating the factual, modern scholarship etc. aspect that the manuscripts were discovered from De Leon's, it's then afterwards incumbent on the article to state the range of views and beliefs that people hold, from a faith aspect, cultural aspect, identity aspect etc. This is sourced by the quality tertiary sources JE, Brittanica - and permissibly to temper that with the "EJ" - which is ridiculous with its "without doubt" etc. but that's beside the argument - just simply "has been refuted" cannot stand as it is. Nissimnanach (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Your parable about Jefferson and the declaration is your opinion only, and opinions of editors do not count as reliable sources for WP articles. If you have reliable academic sources that use this type of argument you could try and use them, but I doubt they exist. Thank you, 18:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We should only make blanket statements about an opinion being universal, or near universal, if we have a reliable source saying that. However, the opinion that bar Yochai did not write the Zohar, or at least did not write the majority of it, is pretty universal among scholars and that can be said if the sources explicitly state it. Regarding the Jewish Encyclopedia, I agree that it should give way to more modern sources. A modern equivalent is the very scholarly Encyclopedia Judaica which has a 16-page article on the Zohar. It reflects the majority opinion: "the Zohar with its various strata was without doubt composed in the years that immediately preceded its publication, since it is impossible to uncover any section that was written before 1270." And it justifies that position at length. Zero^talk 00:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually think a reliable academic publisher has ever put out a defense of b. Yochai's authorship. A much more extreme claim than someone-at-some-earlier-period, which a few were making into the 20th century -- even the 1908 source discussed above calls it pseudepigraphic in its opening line. You can see a 1921 encyclopedia article here, calling b. Yochai's claim "untenable". B. Yochai lived 1,200 years before de Leon, so there's room for a wide range of dates without anyone getting close to his antiquity. Happy to change to "overwhelmingly" or something if you can point to one. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

not sure why my Move to simplify... appeared up there in the middle, I replied to my own OP just now and meant to have it at the bottom here Nissimnanach (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you very strongly to read some of the modern scholarship in question. You will find that "all that can be factually stated or published is that the manuscripts were discovered from De Leon's estate" is not true at all. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

There's also quite a good summary at Zohar of the history of religious disputes over its authorship, starting with de Leon's contemporaries (the modern scholarship section, in contrast, needs work). One could also say that it was "refuted" within his own lifetime -- this isn't really a scholars-v.s.-tradition. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I came across quite an absolute formulation today in Studies in Maimonides and his Interpreters by Marc B. Shapiro (University of Scranton Press, 2008): "Obviously, this view [that the Zohar predated the Mishneh Torah (c. 1180)] is not a position that any academic scholar could take seriously . . . only a 'true believer' will be reluctant to conclude that, in reality, it is the Zohar that has incorporated Maimonides' formulation". GordonGlottal (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Kindly please do not "very strongly ... encourage me to" read or find anything, and keep out of my reading material and beliefs which I guard very carefully and am free to believe what I want. You can say Source A says such and such, addressed to the Talk thread or in reply to me, but don't tell me what to do or proselytize. Thank you. Nissimnanach (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

I respect your desire to limit your reading but if you're not willing to read the sources Wiki uses you won't be able to contribute here. I wish I had the time to write out extended summaries, but I don't. Read the Encyclopedia Judaica article, at least. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Ya'avetz's book would also be a good start: https://hebrewbooks.org/33319 Or this interesting summary of some arguments by an anonymous Haredi rabbi: https://web.archive.org/web/20140830135654/http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ZoharEnglish.pdf#page=39 GordonGlottal (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The most important 13th-century source is Yitzchak de-min Acco's memoir, which is quoted here: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=46738&st=&pgnum=92/ GordonGlottal (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It was actually more your tone, italics, speed and perceived aggression and proselytizing that bothered me in your statements and edits. But thank you for hearing what I requested there. Now that we're past that (I hope), I don't mind mentioning I've actually read Scholem - but so what. Again the basic and simple thing is to follow the preferred tertiary sources, amirite? - and to be NPOV, and to mention what are the range of beliefs and opinions people hold without being unnecessarily offensive and over the top - to get back to the main argument For. Yaavetz, zoorabbi - individual rationalists and Zohar detractors - how is that relevant to the Proposal, aren't you off topic? Nissimnanach (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Have you located any source endorsing Yochai as the author of the Zohar? GordonGlottal (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you used the recommended edit-request format: What exactly should be changed, and from what to what? Relying on which sources? I don't object to more input obviously, but especially if you're going to ask for new editors we need to be really clear on the nature of our dispute. I was trying to suggest sources that would clarify what the arguments are without actually reading modern scholarship. I used italics because I'd already made the same request before. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Move to request Wikipedia:Third_opinion It's been a week and while others have made input, I don't see Supports or Opposes, and my impression is that it's clear that neither will there be any compromise reached between myself and @GordonGlottal. I think we're both strongly opinionated, and I just want to draw third opinion and some outside eyes and attention and views from, I hope, objective "outsiders" and some Supports/Opposes/(Alters?) so we can resolve this. Gordon if that's OK with you, I extend you the courtesy if you want to go and open the 3O, otherwise I'll do it soon-ish, approx. 24hrs? Nissimnanach (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Response to third opinion request:

This is not a discussion that merits a third opinion, as more than two editors are involved. Since I read the discussion, I can say that early, rough consensus is that the current article statement is essentially correct, though the exact wording could perhaps be softened and the sourcing strengthened. Since Nissinmnanach is holding the minority position here, I'd second GordonGlottal's suggestion that further comments come in "change x to y, based on sources 1, 2, 3" format. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)