[Avodah] R. Eybeschutz and ST

[Prof. Levine]

At 06:24 PM 3/24/2021, micha at aishdas.org wrote:
>I grew up living around the corner from the home of R SZ Leiman. He davened
>(davens?) in the shteibl where my father sheyichyeh was president. I kind of
>heard this story before, in a lot more detail. Which is why my post got
>written to begin with.
>
>You are mistaken. The RYE vs RYE fight was one of many.

Keep in mind that Rabbi Eybeschutz was born in 
1690,  long after Shabbatai Tzvi converted to 
Islam. Indeed ST died in 1676. Hence he could not 
have been involved in any discussion about ST 
being Moshiach when ST was alive.  Rabbi Yaakov 
Emden was born in 1697, so he also could not have 
been involved in any discussions about ST being Moshiach when ST was alive.

The following is from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz

Already in Prague 1724, he was suspected of being 
a 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatean>Sabbatean. 
He even got up on 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur>Yom 
Kippur to denounce the Sabbatean movement, but he 
remained 
suspected.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-ReferenceA-2>[2] 
Therefore, In 1736, Rav Eybeschutz was only 
appointed 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayan_(rabbinic_judge)>dayan 
of Prague and not chief rabbi. He became rabbi of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metz>Metz in 1741. 
In 1750, he was elected rabbi of the "Three 
Communities:" 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altona,_Hamburg>Altona, 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburg>Hamburg, 
and <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandsbek>Wandsbek.

In July 1725, the Ashkenazic beit din of 
Amsterdam issued a ban of excommunication on the 
entire Sabbatian sect (kat ha-ma’aminim). 
Writings of Sabbatian nature found by the beit 
Din at that time were attributed to Rav 
Eybeschutz 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-3>[3] 
In early September, similar excommunication 
proclamations were issued by the batei din of 
Frankfurt and the triple community of Altona, 
Hamburg, and Wandsbeck. The three bans were 
printed and circulated in other Jewish 
communities throughout 
Europe.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-4>[4] 
Rabbi Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen, the chief rabbi 
of the Triple Community 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-5>[5] 
was unwilling to attack Rav Eybeschütz publicly, 
mentioning that ‘greater than him have fallen and 
crumbled’ and that ‘there is nothing we can do to 
him’ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-6>[6] 
However, Rabbi Katzenelenbogen stated that one of 
the texts found by the Amsterdam beit din "Va-Avo 
ha-Yom el ha-Ayyin” was authored by Rav Jonathan 
Eybeschütz and declared that the all copies of 
the work that were in circulation should be 
immediately burned. 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-7>[7]As 
a result of Rav Eybeschutz and other rabbis in 
Prague formulating a new (and different) ban 
against Sabbatianism shortly after the other bans 
were published, his reputation was restored and 
Rav Eybeschutz was regarded as having been 
totally 
vindicated.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-8>[8] 
The issue was to arise again, albeit 
tangentially, in the 1751 dispute between Rav Emden and Rav Eybeschutz.


Sabbatian controversy

Rav Eybeschütz again became suspected of 
harboring secret Sabbatean beliefs because of a 
dispute that arose concerning the 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amulet>amulets 
which he was suspected of issuing. It was alleged 
that these amulets recognized the Messianic 
claims of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi>Sabbatai 
Zevi.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-EB1911-9>[9] 
The controversy started when Rav Yaakov Emden 
found serious connections between the Kabbalistic 
and homiletic writings of Rav Eybeschutz with 
those of the known Sabbatean 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Leib_Prossnitz>Judah 
Leib Prossnitz, whom Rav Eybeschütz knew from his 
days in 
Prossnitz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-ReferenceA-2>[2] 
Rabbi 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Emden>Jacob 
Emden accused him of 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy>heresy.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-EB1911-9>[9] 
The majority of the rabbis in Poland, Moravia, 
and Bohemia, as well as the leaders of the Three 
Communities supported Rav Eybeschütz: the 
accusation was "utterly incredible"­in 1725, Rav 
Eybeschütz was among the Prague rabbis who 
excommunicated the 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatean>Sabbateans. 
Others suggest that the Rabbis issued this ruling 
because they feared the repercussions if their 
leading figure, Rav Eybeschütz, was found to be a 
Sabbatean. Rabbi Jacob Emden suggests that the 
rabbis decided against attacking Eybeschutz out 
of a reluctance to offend his powerful family and 
a fear of rich supporters of his living in their 
communities 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-10>[10] 
The recent discovery of notarial copies of the 
actual amulets found in Metz and copying the 
amulets written by Rav Eyebeschutz support Rav 
Emden's view that these are Sabbatean 
writings.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-11>[11]

In 1752, the controversy between Rav Emden and 
Rav Eybeschütz raged.Clashes between opposing 
supporters occurred in the streets drawing the 
attention of the secular 
authorities.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-12>[12] 
Rav Emden fled. The controversy was heard by both 
the Senate of Hamburg and by the Royal Court of 
Denmark. The Hamburg Senate quickly found in 
favour of Rav 
Eybeschutz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-13>[13] 
The King of Denmark asked Rav Eybeschutz to 
answer a number of questions about the 
amulets.Conflicting testimony was put forward and 
the matter remained officially 
unresolved<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-14>[14] 
although the court imposed fines on both parties 
for civil unrest and ordered that Rav Emden be 
allowed to return to 
Altona.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-15>[15] 
At this point Rav Eybeschutz was defended by Carl 
Anton, a convert to Christianity, but a former 
disciple of Rav 
Eybeschütz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-16>[16] 
Rav Emden refused to accept the outcome and sent 
out vicious pamphlets attacking Rav 
Eybeschutz.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Eybeschutz#cite_note-17>[17] 
Rav Eyebeschutz was re-elected as Chief Rabbi. In 
December of that year, the Hamburg Senate 
rejected both the King's decision and the 
election result. The Senate of Hamburg started an 
intricate process to determine the powers of Rav 
Eybeschütz, and many members of that congregation 
demanded that he should submit his case to rabbinical authorities.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20210324/97ed2647/attachment-0003.htm>