D-0009 · The Zohar's date

Tradition's date is primary — Rashbi and his talmidim, ~3880–3920. The academic date (R' Moshe de Leon and his circle, ~5040–5060) is stored beside it, and Sefaria's 1100–1400 range is not used for it. For who could quote it, the date it became known (~5050) is used.

The options on the table

• Tradition's date primary, the academic date beside it; quotable from when it became known (chosen)
• Tradition's date only
• Sefaria's range, as D-0007 would give it (1100–1400)
• The academic date (1280s) primary

Why it needed its own ruling

D-0007 dates the books after Tanach by Sefaria's recorded range. For the Zohar, Sefaria records 1100–1400, "medieval Spain", with the Rishonim — applied as it stands, that would quietly give the Zohar a medieval date. This ruling keeps it the same way as D-0002: tradition primary, the academic view stored beside it, the disagreement shown.

                        written                          became known      printed
Tradition       Rashbi and his talmidim, ~3880–3920      ~5050 (1290s),    5318 (1558, Mantua)
                (120–160 CE); hidden for generations     R' Moshe de Leon
Academic        R' Moshe de Leon and his circle, Spain, ~5040–5060 (1280s–1300)
Sefaria         1100–1400, "medieval Spain"

Within the Torah world, R' Yaakov Emden (Mitpachas Sefarim, 1768) argued that parts are later additions.

A third clock: when a book became known

Whichever date is right, nobody could quote the Zohar before it became known, around 5050. A Rishon writing in 5000 who shares words with the Zohar was not quoting it. So the check "a book cannot quote a book written after it" uses, for the Zohar, the date it became known.

The dates in this entry, apart from Sefaria's record (read on the day), are standard references not yet checked line by line.

Generated from the register (docs/decisions/0009-zohar.md). A changed value is recorded as a new entry; the old one is never overwritten.