Whoever does not accept the Zohar is a heretic [apekores], even if he is neutral, neither rejecting or accepting.

So, a person can be a heretic [apekores] even if he is not a wise scholar of the Torah [talmid hhakham]? (This goes contrary to common understanding that only very learned individuals can truly be classified as apekores.)  In any case, Rav Sa'adyah Gaon was a renownly wise scholar of the Torah, whom no one would call a heretic.

But Rav Sa'adyah Gaon didn't know about the teachings of the Zohar, such as gilgul [reincarnation].

Then why would he see a need to mention his opinion on the issue of reincarnation to the Jewish community if he was unaware of people in the Jewish community being taught about reincarnation?  If Jews believed in reincarnation at his time, then certainly someone was teaching it.  If R' Sa'adyah Gaon [R'SG] wrote concerning it, then it must have had a connection to the observant community.  If the observant Jews were believing it, were there no rabbis teaching it?  And in any case, he most certainly was NOT even neutral on the issue, to say the least.  R' Sa'adyah Gaon [R'SG] lived around 1400 years ago. No one calls him a heretic, yet he taught that a Jew who believes in gilgul [reincarnation] has a belief from idolaters.  Can someone have an opinion about something of which he is unaware?

Rav Mosha ben Maimon [RAMBAM] was likewise a renownly wise scholar of the Torah.

But RAMBAM didn't know about 'Kabbalah.'

Rav Mosha ben Maimon [RAMBAM], who lived in the 1100's, knew of the 'kabbalistic' book Shi'ur Komah, which is widely accepted by kabbalists even today.  He once believed this book to be authentic, but after he studied it, he rejected, even though it was already accepted by so many major rabbis of his own time.  He rejected this book because he considered it to contain pagan Greek ideas which are completely antithetical to fundamental Jewish teachings concerning the Oneness of the Almighty, etc...  So much for RAMBAM accepting non-Jewish ideas.  He quoted and referred to non-Jewish philosophers where he understood their words to be in support of concepts that he considered to have already been Jewish concepts, before the philosophers adopted or realized them.  Only in regard to scientific or medical knowledge did he possibly adopt new concepts from non-Jews -- as orthodox Jews continue to do today.  This is completely acceptable according to Jewish Law [the Torah], to accept scientific findings from non-Jews.  If something can be proved as true, or very likely true - as long as it doesn't contradict Torah, it most certainly does not matter who revealed the matter.  "Take the wisdom of the nations, but their 'torah' do not take."  See also Rambam's comment in Hilkhoth Shekhitah 10:13 concerning when new scientific knowledge seems to contradict Torah.

So R' Sa'adyah Gaon and RAMBAM are heretics [apicorsim]?  No one in the orthodox community would claim such an outrageous thing.

Everyone MUST accept the Zohar because 'all' the great Torah scholars accept it.

At what point did all the great Torah scholars accept it?  Are you automatically excluding all the rabbis who do not accept the Zohar from being included among the 'great Torah scholars [gadolei haDor]?'  With this same logic I or someone else could exclude all scholars who do accept the Zohar from being included among the great Torah scholars [gadolei haDor].  RAMBAM wrote in the beginning of Yesodei haTorah that all Jewish communities must be made to accept the Talmud. (This is since the Talmud contains the legal decisions of the sages who were members of the Sanhedrin - which the Torah commands us to obey, and the clarification of these rulings by the immediate students of the sages of the Sanhedrin, immediately after the Sanhedrin was disbanded by the Romans.)  RAMBAM codified in his Mishneh Torah that the individual courts, which are not a part of the Sanhedrin, do not have authority that extends over all the Jewish people.  He wrote that their rulings cannot be forced or enforced upon all the Jewish people.  He wrote in a number of places that the majority of the great rabbis, the great Torah scholars of his time [reshonim], did things, which, from his understanding, violated the Torah, violated Jewish law.  RAMBAM did not accept these practices or ideas of the majority of the great rabbis of his age simply because it was the 'accepted practice' and 'majority opinion' among the great rabbis of his time.  Neither did he imply that anyone, Jew or non-Jew, man or woman, big or small, should follow the majority when it is clear to that individual that the majority is wrong.  To the contrary, he taught the opposite idea throughout all his texts.  It is better to be alone in truth than with many in falsehood - even if the many includes great Torah scholars.  After all, if the people of Israel at their highest spiritual level in history could be horribly mislead under the leadership of the very first court of sages, even the majority, to make the golden calf and be lead to idolatry, during the time of people like Aharon, Joshua, and Moses [not that the 3 mentioned agreed with their folly], then HOW MUCH MORE SO is it possible for the majority to be mislead today, or at other times, whether the majority be mislead to a lesser or greater degree than the golden calf. It makes no difference how great the amount of Torah knowledge which leaders may possess; This does not affect whether or not they might be mislead, or inadvertently mislead others.  Knowledge is extremely important, but the greater the knowledge the more deadly when the knowledge is misapplied - used without consistent objectiveness, logic, or honesty.  RAMBAM even implied that most, if not all, other major rabbis in his age had no place in the world to come for having used the Torah as a source of income - receiving money for learning Torah without having any other occupation.  In this same place he is even so bold for what he understood to be the truth, even though it was completely against the majority of big rabbis, that he wrote that those other big rabbis of his time were knowingly deceptive in how they taught Jews regarding the issue of receiving money for learning Torah.  This is written in his commentary on Perkei Avoth.  Many of the practices that he condemned, that the majority followed in his day, continue unto our own day.  RAMBAM most certainly held that the majority opinion of rabbis (whatever makes someone a Rabi without smeekhah) apart from the Sanhedrin has no authority over all the Jewish people.  All the more so is such an opinion without authority when it is contrary to the rulings of the Sanhedrin, or could be found questionable by logic and reason.  "A logical argument is like law."

If Jewish law [halakhah] simply goes with the majority opinion of rabbis, even outside the Sanhedrin, then why all the disagreement among Jews over unclear points of Jewish law in the Talmud, when we could just take a poll of the opinions of the majority of Rabbis?  The outcome of the poll would tell us which opinion is to be Jewish law [halakhah].  We wouldn't even need the Sanhedrin if this were acceptable -- but such an idea as this goes straight against the Torah [5 Books of Moses], which plainly teach concerning the establishment of the Sanhedrin (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). 

Whatever knowledge the Sanhedrin may secretly know, I assume to be true, even if I don't know what it is, but whatever they decree to Israel as a ruling of judgment, I follow - for this is what the Torah [5 books of Moses] specifically command we do.  Whether the Zohar is true or not, the Sanhedrin is never recorded as proclaiming a decree that all Israel accept it as valid and live according to it, or whatever else.  Whatever the Sanhedrin decrees in accordance with the Torah which it received from it's predecessors (this is real Kabbalah), this I receive to follow, neither adding to that decree or taking away - turning neither to the right or left from what they revealed.  THIS is what the Torah commands in Deuteronomy 17:11-13.

Where did RAMBAM write that if some 'secret text' which had been hidden and lost for 1000 years is one day to be revealed to the public WITHOUT a proclamation of confirmation from the Sanhedrin, that this text is authoritative, that one who views it with suspicion is to be considered a heretic [apekores]?  As stated, RAMBAM himself was suspicious concerning the widely accepted text of Shi'ur Koma.  He even rejected it.  I guess RAMBAM forgot to include this in his explanation of what makes a person a heretic according to Jewish law from the Talmud when he was writing the Mishneh Torah.  I guess he forgot to include this 'essential' - foundational - possibility when organizing the essential 13 principles of our faith.  Is RAMBAM a heretic for not including such essentials of Judaism in the 13 principles of our faith, or anywhere else in his codification of the rulings from the Talmud and laws of the Torah?!! 

Even concerning the metaphorical parts of the Talmud, which hopefully we ALL accept, the Rishon Rabbi Shmuel haNagid wrote, as included in the 'AIDING TALMUD STUDY' by Aryeh Carmell, from Feldheim Publishers:

Aggada [Aramaic: agadata]:  everything mentioned in the Gemara [Talmud] , which is not directly connected with the halakhic aspect of the commandment.  One should learn from such statements ONLY those things which our minds can grasp.  It is important to know that ALL MATTERS which our Sages established as LAW, in connection with the commandment transmitted by Moshe Rabbenu [Moses our teacher] who received it from the Almighty [**this is real Kabbalah, which means 'reception/to receive'--webmaster**], CANNOT be augmented or diminished in any way. [This last statement refers to Deuteronomy 17:11-13]  HOWEVER, the [aggadic] explanations they rendered of biblical verses were in accordance with their INDIVIDUAL VIEWS and the ideas WHICH OCCURRED to them.  We should learn from them insofar as our minds can grasp them;  but otherwise we SHOULD NOT build upon them. (Since we have not succeeded in understanding the deeper meaning of their words, we should NOT attempt to use them as the BASIS of our thinking.) 

If this is true for the Talmud, how much more so is it true for Midrashim outside of the Talmud, and even much more true would this be for midrash which was supposedly lost for a thousand or so years, that was outside of Jewish hands during all that time, in addition to being outside of the Talmud, much less mentioned in the Talmud.  Certainly, if certain things in the Talmud itself should not be the 'basis for our thinking,' which of course means that such things should not be made into a foundation of our faith, then without doubt this can be applied to texts outside of the Talmud.

Was Rav Yosef Caro [Author of the Shulhhan Arukh] mislead when he wrote that those who hold according to RAMBAM should be allowed to continue keeping Jewish law according to RAMBAM's codification of the Talmud, despite whether most other communities adopt the Shulhhan Arukh (or something else?  Did RAMBAM and Rav Yosef Caro forget to codify / write down the law that halakhah [Jewish law] on new issues go according to the majority even apart from and outside of the Sanhedrin?  Was RAMBAM lying when he wrote that the Mishna Torah contains all of the essential Torah, oral Torah included?  Was Israel's greatest codifier of the Talmud heretical - he who dedicated the first chapters of his codification to the absolute Oneness of the Creator and elaborated on the very definitions of what makes one a heretic or a non-believer?  Heaven forbid!  "Do not follow the majority to do evil." - Exodus 23:2; See last part of Rashi's comments on this verse.

It is Forbidden to read or associate with the Rabbi Mori Yosef Gafahh [Qafahh/Kafahh/Kapach].  Whoever does so is a heretic [apecoros].

(Mori Yosef Gafahh is the grandson of Mori Ye'hheeyeh Gafahh.  Mori Ye'hheeyeh Gafahh is the author of the book Milhhamoth haShem/Wars of the L-rd.  This book addresses the major contradictions between the Zoharistic texts and the teachings of the Torah and Talmudic texts, as he understood it.)

Are the rabbis of England and all other major rabbis heretical [apecorsim] for not protesting, but rather allowing, the reading and publication of Mori Gafahh's books?  Are the rabbis who are members of the publishing company of haRav Kook, which publishes some of Mori Gafahh's books, also heretical [apercorsim]?  Are all the many rabbis great and small and their students who read and study Mori Gafahh's writings and commentaries and translations all heretics?  Are all the rabbis who are members of the publishing company headed by Rav Rasson/Ratzon Arusi all heretics for publishing Mori Gafahh's commentary on the Mishneh Torah of RAMBAM and for continuing to publish new books based on Mori Gafahh's teachings?    And if Rav Rasson Arusi is heretical, is then Rav Ovadyah Yosef also heretical [apekores] for associating with Rav Rasson Arusi in rabbinical councils?  And IF one wants to speculate that Rav Ovadyah Yosef might have only realized that Rav Arusi is a 'heretic' only after already having him to join the rabbinical council, and that Rav Arusi only remains on the council due to political reasons, then one must wonder why R' Ovadyah Yosef and others subject themselves more to politics than to the halakhah in Hilkhoth Sanhedrin that one who knowingly sets on a council with heretics are themselves considered like heretics.  I find it very hard to believe such things about Rav Ovadyah Yosef.  Who in the orthodox community would make such an outlandish claim?!  Many, or even most, many not agree with all the things we hold - people who keep Jewish law strictly as RAMBAM codified it in the Mishneh Torah, and/or who have problems accepting the Zohar, but who in their right mind would make such outlandish claims that individuals who firmly base their faith and practice on the Torah [the 5 books of Moses] and the Talmudic texts, who fully uphold the 13 principles of our faith (which RAMBAM organized) are heretical??  The very reason why we have problems accepting the Zohar is because, from our understanding, the Zohar seems to conflict with very fundamental points of Jewish law -- most importantly the Unity of the Almighty [Yeehhud haShem].

If one chooses to accept the speculation that R' Ovadyah would not have accepted R' Gafahh onto the council had he known that R' Gafahh does not accept the Zohar (assuming he didn't know this about R' Gafahh), then this could serve to demonstrate how 'mass acceptance' of the Zohar spread among rabbis, after around 800 years;  If non-acceptance of the Zohar would mean not being included on rabbinical councils, it's easy to see how rabbis could be coerced into some kind of acceptance of the Zohar; Otherwise they would be alienating themselves from the majority recognized rabbinic authority of the time. All it would take is one giant influential rabbi who does accept it, to enforce its acceptance upon those who desire to sit on a council with him.  After all, Rambam writes in his commentary to Perqei Avoth, that he was reluctant to write against the majority, if not all, of the rabbis of his time, on a particular issue.  Yet Rambam himself was a giant of his own time.  How much less likely is it that more moderately great rabbis would have been fearful or pressured not to speak up against things they considered wrong, if Rambam, who was very likely the greatest rabbi of his period, was himself reluctant?

One should not talk to whoever does not accept the Zohar.

What happened to the idea / halakhah of being kind to the poor ignorant souls that have fallen prey to deceptive teachings of truly heretical sages/wise men, like the descendents of the original Karats who deny that there is Oral Torah completely?  RAMBAM writes that although Karaite belief against the Oral Law is a heretical belief, that the descendents of the original Karaites, having been raised in Karaite belief, not having learned enough to make a real choice in the matter, are therefore to be treated kindly by observant Jews.  How much more loving should a Jew be to a fellow Jew who happens to not embrace the Zohar with arms wide open but who fully accepts all the Talmudic texts which have continually been in the hands of the Jewish people since the time of the Talmud's compilation, and who uphold the 13 principles of the faith of Israel as Rambam organized in his commentary on the Mishnah?  Not only is it allowed to be kind to such Jews, but also it is a command to love and be kind to those Jews who uphold the 13 principles of our faith.

But you are not ignorant.

So why do you disregard anything I say, even if you see that what I say makes sense?  I do not mean to say that one must doubt the Zohar in order to have a place in the Olam haBah [the World to come / eternal life].  Certainly, however, if one accepts the Zohar, he has a great task at hand if/as he begins to learn the Zohar.  The manner in which he accepts it must be settled in his own mind as usurping or nullifying none of the laws in the Torah or in the Talmudic texts.  He must find a way to make the Zohar fit with the Torah and Talmud, and not make the Torah and Talmud fit the Zohar.  He must fit the extreme anthropomorphisms of the Zohar to an absolute knowledge of the ONE Creator Who transcends all time, space, division, and change - Whose Oneness is incomparable to all other types of unities, with Whom there is no multiplicity, and to Whom no image or form can ever truly apply - whether a physical form or an invisible or even metaphorical form.  He must understand all such metaphors as referring to the Almighty ONLY through our imperfect perception of the revelation of His Will in the finite realm of created things.  This realm includes all things, which have a beginning - whatever exists in time or space, whether visible, or invisible, all created things.  To the Infinitely Transcendent Creator ALONE should be directed all the highest praise and honor.  No requests or supplication should be made to anything unseen but He; And to this Author of all compassion and guidance be given the greatest of trust, reliance, confidence, and submission.  Blessed be He Who is known by His mighty acts, justice and grace - the expressions of His Glorious Will which fill all space, which relate the honor of His Honor’s sake.  [See the Aramaic commentary which immediately follows of the phrase, "Holy, Holy, Holy.." as it appears in Kiddusha within the Shimoneh Esreh/Amidah.  See also Rambam's explanation of the phrase 'Ayn Od Meylvado' in his book Yesodei haTorah.  See also R' Avraham the son of Rambam's explanation in his book Meylhhamot haShem.]   See also the pages on use of the words 'fill' and 'place,' in reference to the Almighty.