As Zoharic texts became more prevalent and familiar and the
scope of the Zohar more defined the cultural capital of those in possession of
Zoharic manuscript diminished considerably. Cultural power was no longer in the
hands of those who had exclusive access to the Zoharic texts, but in the hands
of those who claimed to have access to its understanding. Hence, the emergence
of Zohar hermeneutics as a central kabalistic practice and the production of the
first wide scale Zohar commentaries in the two decades that followed the first
printing of the Zohar.
Basola's statement concerning rich people, who
accumulate Zohar manuscripts, without understanding their content, is probably
an exaggeration. Yet, it reflects his awareness that prior to the printing of
the Zohar, cultural power was anchored in the possession of the Zohar, and not
in its comprehension. The shift from collecting Zoharic manuscripts and
establishing the form of Zohar compilations, to interpreting the Zohar and to
determining its meaning, is reflected in the writings of two of the first
commentators of the Zohar, R. Moshe Cordovero and R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi. Both
Kabbalists had in their possession Zoharic collections that they had created
themselves, previous to the printing of the Zohar. Both wrote their commentaries
after the printing of the Zohar (although they also had engaged in Zohar
hermeneutics previously).
That is not to say that the publication of the
Zohar ended the debate over the form and content of the Zoharic corpus
immediately. Both R. Shimo'n Ibn Lavi, and R. Moshe Cordovero wrote
interpretations to their own Zoharic compilations and criticized the printed
editions of the Zohar. This criticism reflects the struggle over the control of
the shape and form of the Zohar, which characterized Kabbalistic practice prior
to its printing. Yet the fact that both Kabbalists turned to write commentaries
to the Zohar after its printing indicates an attempt to establish their own
cultural power as interpreters of the Zohar - i.e., as controlling the meaning
of the sacred and authoritative text.
The cultural power of controlling the
form and scope of the Zohar did not entirely disappear after the first printing
of the Zohar. Additional Zoharic texts were added to the Zoharic corpus with the
publication of Zohar Hadash in the late 16th century, and corrections and
amendments were added to later printed editions of the Zohar. Yet, as I have
shown in this paper, the focus of Kabbalistic cultural production turned to the
production of Zohar commentaries, and the arena in which Kabbalists struggled
for cultural dominancy was the hermeneutical one. As Zohar exegesis became a
central cultural practice in the Kabbalistic production field, the struggle for
hegemony depended upon the composition of authoritative interpretations to the
Zohar.