 |
| One of Segulot disributed by R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz (1690-1764) |
INTRODUCTION:
We have
dealt with the issue of Segulot (religious amulets) on a number of
previous occasions, particularly in relation to the Emden-Eybeschuetz
controversies (see links provided below).
In this
article, based extensively on the research of Shai A. Alleson-Gerberg[1],
we shall examine the strange world of Segulot which was rife within some
quarters of rabbinic leadership during the eighteenth century.
EMDEN-EIBESCHUETZ
CONTROVERSY:
Around
1750, one of the most bitter rabbinical conflicts erupted, probably since the
Maimonidean controversies of the thirteenth century. R. Yakov Emden (1697-1776)
accused the prestigious R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz (1690 – 1764), who had just been elected to lead
the important triple community of Altona-Hamburg-Wandsbek, of being a secret
follower of Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676), the false messiah who converted to
Islam.
Matters
came to a head when Segulot written and prescribed by R. Eibeschuetz,
which had been distributed to pregnant women to aid in childbirth, were opened
and found to contain the name of Shabbatai Tzvi. Apparently, people became
suspicious of these Segulot when some of these women died in childbirth.
A short
while later, R. Emden publicly declared the Segulot of the esteemed R.
Eibeschuetz to be tainted with Sabbatian heresy.
R.
EIBESCHUETZ RESPONDS:
After being
openly humiliated by R. Emden, R. Eibeschuetz felt compelled to defend his
actions by producing two commentaries in defense of his Segulot.
Essentially, he claimed that the Segulot were incorrectly read as a unit
and not as the single entities he had intended.
He gave his
first commentary/response to R. Shalom Buzaglo. This was concerning the Segulah
he had given to the wife of the beadle of the Synagogue, Michal Halberstadt
Segal.
His second
commentary was published under the title Luchot Eidut, and was in
response to the Segulah he had written for the wife of Moredchai Levi of
Metz. In this work, R. Eibeschuetz described the process of gestation and
birth. However, as Alleson-Gerberg explains, he also alluded to something else:
“Eibeschütz does not simply
describe birth, but the birth of the messiah. The question of the messiah’s
identity in Luhot ‘edut is fundamental, touching on Eibeschütz’s Sabbatianism”
LUCHOT EIDUT:
In his
Luchot Eidut, R.
Eibeschuetz tried to exonerate himself by deliberating on Kabbalistic
concepts surrounding the angel called Metatron. He explained the difference
between two distinct aspects of the same angel who can manifest as both Mitatron
and Metatron. Mitatron has the extra letter “yod”, which
as the Safed Kabbalist R. Moshe Cordovero explains, represents the Shechina
manifesting through Ten Sefirot (G-dly emanations).[2]
R.
Eibeschuetz suggested that the biblical Yakov wanted his beloved son Binyamin
to be associated with Mitatron. This was because Mitatron was, in fact, the Shechina
(G-d’s presence). This made Mitatron - according to Kabbalah the
feminine aspect of G-d - a perfect being with only good and no evil. This was
opposed to Metatron who was a mixture of good and evil. For this reason, Yakov
called his youngest son Ben Yamin (son of right-hand side) which, in the Kabbalistic
model, contains no evil. The left-hand side is always associated with severity
or evil.
R.
Eibeschuetz continues that Moshe, similarly wanted to be associated with Mitatron
and that’s why, in Pharaoh’s palace, he fled from the snake who is associated
with Metatron. Metatron represents:
“the secret of birth by the bite
of the serpent…the pain of birth pangs”
Moshe, instead, wanted to bring about the messianic redemption
through the all-good Mitatron, the Shechina with no admixture of
evil.[3]
R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ’ SON, WOLF BINYAMIN AS MASHIACH:
At this
stage, things start to get interesting. Alleson-Gerberg maintains
that R. Eibeschuetz’ reference to the Messiah, is actually a reference to his
youngest son, Wolf Binyamin Eibeschuetz!
This view
is based on an account by R. Emden in his Sefer Hitavkut, produced in 1769,
where he records that Wolf Binyamin Eibeschuetz amassed a large following and
they referred to him as Yemini ben David and Yemini Kadosh - both
titles emphasizing the yamin, the right-hand side - a concept the
mystical followers would have been familiar with: Mashiach had to be
drawn down from Mitatron, not Metatron.
Wolf
Binyamin Eibeschuetz also seemed to emphasize the name Binyamin when
referring to himself. He carved the name Binyamin on the walls of his estate in
Altona (he won a lot of money in a lottery); and he wrote a book entitled Darga
Yemini (the grade of right-hand-side) which resembled the style of
the Zohar.
According
to an account by Issachar Beer, Wolf Binyamin wrote another book, which was not
printed, entitled Gevul Binyamin (the border of Binyamin):
“Being still very young he
travelled to Vienna and there he joined wanton men and showed desire to rule.
And he made himself the messiah and wore Turkish robes and went to Hungary. And
many followed him.”[4]
Alleson-Gerberg continues to show how R. Emden recorded that Wolf Binyamin even composed
gematrias (numerology) about himself, such as niglah kevod and ki
pi (Hashem)[5] which
add up to 120, the gematria of Yemini. He also referred to himself by
the verse shev le’yemini (sit at my right-hand-side)[6]
and keitz ha’yamin (the end of days)[7].
This use of
gematria was not lost on R. Emden who made up his own counter gematria
where kesil (fool) also adds up to yamini![8]
WOLF
BINYAMIN AS SUCCESSOR TO SHABBATAI TZVI:
The
messianic overtones are again emphasized by R. Emden who reports that around 1757/8
R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz sent his son for whom he had messianic ambitions, to
Sabbatian communities in Turkey, Hungary and Moravia in order to establish
himself as the successor of Shabbatai Tzvi.[9]
R. Emden
records:
“For in the year 5515 [1755] … It
so happened that when Eibeschütz saw that all his evil business was succeeding
… he wanted to fulfill the vow that he made to Sabbatai Zvi through his prophet
Leible Prostiz [Prosnitz][10],
to establish the faith of Sabbatai with all his power and might.…
[See Kotzk
Blog: 131) R. YEHUDAH LEIB PROSSNITZ - ANOTHER FALSE MESSIAH:]
And when he [i.e., R. Yonatan
Eibeschuetz][11]
saw that he had aged and failed to accomplish his plots, he decided to set up
his boorish son and crown him as his successor … and he let it be known that
his son, the boorish lad who lacked all goodness, had won a large sum of money
in a lottery and was traveling to distant lands to see the world. And before he
left, the spirit of impurity had already sprouted in him and he had secretly
revealed hints of Sabbatai’s faith, may his name rot.”[12]
LUCHOT
EIDUT AS
MESSIANIC PROPAGANDA, NOT EXONERATION:
R. Yonatan
Eibeschuetz’ work Luchot Edut, which he wrote to exonerate himself and
explain the Segulot he had distributed, now seem to be less apologetics and
more Sabbatain propagandist with special attention given to the future
messianic mission of his son Wolf Binyamin.
R.
Eibeschuetz did the same thing when he issued his token anti-Sabbatian ban and
also used the opportunity to allude to Sabbatian ideology [See Kotzk Blog: 298) UNIMAGINABLE WRITINGS OF R.
YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ :].
R. EMDEN’S
RESPONSE TO LUCHOT EIDUT:
Alleson-Gerberg
points out that it did not take long for R. Emden to respond to R. Eibeschuetz’
Luchot Edut. R. Emden was quick to compose his Shevirat
Luchot haAven (the breaking of the evil tablets) which dealt with each
of his opponent’s points one at a time.
Towards the
end of R. Emden’s response[13]
he makes the most astounding claim: R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz wrote the Segulot,
not to aid in childbirth but rather for nefarious purposes.
Alleson-Gerberg writes:
“Emden’s version follows
Eibeschütz’s commentary in a stepwise fashion, yet describes a reverse process
of turning the fetus to stillborn.”
R. Emden writes in the harshest of language:
לעשות מן ילד, דלי, דליו שוקים מפסח ומשל בפי כסילים
“And now hear the charm of his deeds, to make the
child [yeled] weak [dali - limp][14]…
And know that he was not content
until he spilt his blood.”
The Segulot had depictions of the Magen David
(Star of David). A whole discussion ensues over the significance of this symbol
in the Segulot.
According to R. Eibeschuetz:
“Magen David
which is a charm and the best talisman of all for every misfortune … especially
for those in childbirth, has 7 points [including the hexagon in the middle] …
and 7 times 7 equals mem tet [49] which is Metatron…
… and in this
picture of Magen David there are 7 openings [zayin nekavim], and the middle one
is the “mouth,” and the “lower mouth” [peh de-lematah] is against the upper
mouth [peh de-lema‘alah, which whispers the magical names into a woman’s ear],
as is known, and therefore these names come as a cure, to open the ‘lower
mouth.’”[15]
Alleson-Gerberg continues:
“In order to
press the point that Eibeschütz caused the deaths of children yet to be born
with his amulets, he evokes the myth of Kronos-Saturnus, the terrible god who
devoured his sons, which appears in his description as the planet Saturn
“swallowing” Aquarius (דלי), one of its zodiac
constellations and an anagram of the Hebrew word yeled (ילד), ‘child’.”
Here again the Sabbatian imagery
is evoked because Shabbatai Tzvi was connected to Shabbatai or Saturn
which was often depicted in Renaissance iconography as a six-pointed star.[16]
And R. Emden wrote:
“In this
amulet, he had distributed the verse ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a
son is given’ in five of the [Magen David’s] corners.”[17]
This way, R. Eibeschuetz was perhaps
accused of trying to block the energy from the “upper mouth” to the “lower
mouth” and cause fatalities through these Segulot.
ANALYSIS:
According to these accounts, we see that not only was R. Eibeschuetz accused of distributing Sabbatian Segulot to aid in childbirth, but another stratum of the controversy is now revealed where he is also accused of “turning the fetus to stillborn”. This seems to have been what prompted people to open up the Segulot and check what was written inside.
Even for those who today still persist in the belief in the efficacy of Segulot, this imagery and these accusations, claims and counter-accusations are astonishing and shocking to say the least. Nevertheless, this was all taking place within the rabbinical world of the eighteenth century and reveals the astounding belief in Segulot held by both protagonists and antagonists in the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy.
FURTHER READING:
Kotzk
Blog: 294) WHAT HAPPENED TO WOLF, SON OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUTZ?
Kotzk
Blog: 181) WHY THE NODA BE’YEHUDAH WANTED TO BAN THE STUDY OF KABBALAH:
Kotzk
Blog: 298) UNIMAGINABLE WRITINGS OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ :
[1] Shai A. Alleson-Gerberg, The
Sabbatian Who Devoured his Son; Jacob Emden’s Anti-Sabbatian Polemics of
Cannibalism.
[2]
See Moses Cordovero, Pardes Rimonim, Sha‘ar ’ABI‘A, chap. 4 (Kraków,
1592), 93b–94a:
“[T]his Angel is known by two names:
sometimes he is called Metatron [מטטרון], and sometimes
Mitatron [מיטטרון] with a [letter] yod.
And the meaning is that, when this Angel is the garment [levush] of the
Shekhinah, and the Shekhinah conceals herself within him and demonstrates her
actions through his agency, then his name becomes Mitatron with a yod
[gematria: 10], to indicate the Shekhinah that is constituted of ten
[sefirot].” (Translation by Alleson-Gerberg.)
[3]
See Luchot Eidut 65b:
“Jacob wanted to place his
son [Benjamin] with Mitatron, since he is the Shekhinah [‘the divine presence,’
i.e., the feminine aspect of the Godhead], all holy and good, not Metatron who
is both good and evil … therefore he called him Ben Yamin, ‘son of the right
side.’ Even Moses, when he wanted to bring about the redemption, which is the
secret of birth by the bite of the serpent, who is Metatron, the pain of birth
pangs—changed from a serpent to a rod, towards hesed [the divine mercy]; as was
told in the Tikkunim, he flees from before it because he wanted to bring about
the redemption through the Shekhinah.” (Translation by Alleson-Gerberg.)
[4] Published
in Emmanuel Bondi, Mikhtave Sefat Kodesh (Prague, 1857), 78.
[5] Isaiah 40:5.
[6] Psalms 110:1.
[7] Daniel 12:3.
[8] Sefer Hitakvut 27b.
[9] Sefer Hitakvut 51a, 23b.
[10] Leibele Prosnitz was another
messianic claimant. R. Eibeschuetz would have had to go 'through' Leibelle Prosnitz because Shabbatai Tzvi died in 1676, and R. Eibeschuetz was born in 1690.
[11] Parentheses mine.
[12] Sefer
Hitakvut 51a, 23b, 18a, 19b.
[13] Shevirat Luchot haAven pp. 53a-54b.
[14] Parenthesis mine.
[15] Luchot
Eidut 71a.
[16] Klibansky
et al., Saturn and Melancholy, plates 30, 37, 38, 40, 47.
[17] Sefat
Emet veLashon Zehorit 6a, 15a.
No comments:
Post a Comment