276) MAGICAL PAPYRI TEXTS AND EARLY JEWISH MYSTICISM:

A Greek magical papyrus text.

- A SHARED MAGICAL TRADITION -

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we will explore some ancient non-Jewish (pagan) papyrus magical texts which are, surprisingly, interwoven with early rabbinical magic themes. We will see how some obscure magical spells in these pagan papyri texts – ironically – can only be understood through a knowledge of corresponding themes in early Jewish mystical[1] literature.

I have drawn from Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber[2] who is a Talmud professor at Bar Ilan University, who gives us a window into the 3^rd-century world of Jewish mysticism.

PAGAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY JEWISH MYSTICAL LITERATURE:

A number of Greek, Coptic and Gnostic papyrus texts dealing with magical charms and incantations have been discovered. The interesting thing about this discovery is that Jewish names and rabbinic themes were interwoven with pagan names and themes - as if a common magical culture existed.

Sperber writes:

“One of the outstanding features of this material is the welter of Jewish and pagan names which are used almost interchangeably, indicating the degree to which Jews and pagans were profoundly influencing one another...

[Furthermore] elements of Hellenistic magical lore penetrated the Jewish world, leaving their traces in Rabbinic literature, most especially in the early Jewish mystical literature.”

This interwovenness, according to Sperber, is so profound that clearer pagan texts can sometimes explain difficult and unclear rabbinic mystical texts – as can these rabbinic texts elaborate on obscure pagan texts. This leads one to the conclusion that Jews and non-Jews shared the same cultural magic and mystical tradition. 

Not only did they apparently share mystical traditions but Sperber even maintains he may have uncovered some 'lost' rabbinic writings scattered within these pagan texts! We will analyse two such examples in Part 1 and 2 which follow.

PART 1:

INTERCONNECTEDNESS BETWEEN RABBINIC TEXTS AND POPULAR MAGICAL TEXTS:

Here is one example of how an existing rabbinic text can shed light on one of these difficult popular magical texts dealing with various spells. In the collection of papyri housed in the Paris Library[3] there is a spell which reads:

“For I adjure thee by him that revealed the hundred and forty tongues and divided them by his command.”

Secular scholars were at a loss to explain this text. 

They assumed it referred to 140 languages which were somehow divided by G-d’s command. They assumed, based on a reading of Genesis Ch. 10, that after the flood, the generation of Noah’s descendants numbered seventy and spoke seventy languages becoming the 'Seventy Nations of the World'. But why not just say 70 instead of 140 being divided by 2?

Fascinatingly, there is a rabbinic text which can explain this obscure papyrus text. A rabbinic textual tradition in the Sifre[4], dating back to the second century CE, maintains that there were 140 nations of the world (not 70 as commonly understood)!

This Sifre is later discussed in Shir haShirim Rabba[5]:

“Seventy of them [i.e., the nations of the world] know their paternal ancestry but not their maternal ancestry, and seventy of them know their maternal ancestry but not their paternal ancestry...”

This is why 140 is divided by 2 to make 70. Evidently, the Shir haShirim Rabba text is an attempt at reconciling the common understanding that there are 70 nations of the world with the earlier Sifre claiming that there are 140.

A LOST RABBINIC TEXT?

Sperber suggests that this Paris text may, in fact, be a lost rabbinic text:

“It would appear that our passage from the Paris papyrus is based upon a (lost) homily which similarly grappled with the apparent contradiction between the two sets of numbers.”

Amazingly, this papyrus text seems to be dealing with exactly the same problem as, and presents the same solution to, that expressed in the Shir haShirim Rabba.

If this text is indeed a lost piece of rabbinic magical tradition, it is interesting that it comfortably formed part of the general pagan magical literature. This shows just how interconnected some of these early Jewish and non-Jewish magical texts were. There does appear to have been a common mystical tradition or certainly one which overlapped in multiple areas.

PART 2:

ANOTHER LOST MIDRASH?

Following similar patterns, Sperber continues with the suggestion that we can trace another lost rabbinic statement, in another spell mentioned in the Paris texts.

THE ‘SEAL’ ON THE TONGUE:

The same section of our magical papyrus text contains the following spell which also confounded the scholars:

“For I adjure thee by the seal which Solomon laid upon the tongue of Jeremiah and he spake.”

One scholar, Adolf Deissmann (d. 1937), a German Protestant theologian who specialized in the ancient Greek language writes:

“I do not know what this refers to. The tradition is probably connected with the LXX Jer. 1:6-10."[6]

[The LXX is a reference to the Septuagint, which means ‘seventy’ or in Roman numerals LXX, after the 70 (or 72) scholars who translated the Torah into Greek.]

Sperber explains that it does indeed correspond to a reference in the Book of Jeremiah (although not to the Septuagint version[7]). The reference is to the prophet Jeremiah’s inauguration into the world of prophecy, where a ‘seal’ of some sort was placed on his tongue.

According to rabbinic tradition, this ‘seal’ or 'signet ring' alludes to the renowned ‘seal of Solomon’[9] which is alleged to have had the power to produce prophetic oracles.

Sperber writes:

“If our reconstruction be correct, we have here the traces of a lost Midrash...”

Sperber, interestingly, goes on to suggest that while the verse in Jeremiah 1:9 actually states:

"Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my [i.e., Jeremiah’s] mouth."

However, there were rabbis who were uncomfortable with the anthropomorphic innuendo that G-d has a ‘hand’ and, instead, explained that G-d had sent an angel to touch the mouth of Jeremiah. This was quite a common technique whereby the rabbis often reworked uncomfortable anthropomorphic texts.

[See Reading Rabbinic Texts through Modern ‘Filters’ and The Notion that G-d has a Body.]

The Paris papyrus text may be an example of this very trend. Hence the concept of the ‘seal of Solomon’ placed in Jeremiah's mouth, possibly brought by an angel (or by Solomon[8] as the text implies) but certainly with no reference to  G-d’s hand, is a better alternative. Sperber suggests that this papyrus text, therefore, may indeed be a lost Midrash from the anti-anthropomorphic rabbinic school.

THE ARRAY OF RABBINIC REFERENCES TO A MAGICAL ITEM PLACED IN THE MOUTH:

As further support for Sperber's interpretation, we will now look at an array of parallel rabbinic teachings concerning the placing of ‘magical’ items on the tongue to produce some form of prophecy or supernatural outcome.

1) PLACING AMULETS ON (OR UNDER) THE TONGUE:

Placing amulets on (or under) the tongue to achieve certain required outcomes became a common custom in the Jewish mystical world.

In one instance we read about a practice to send dreams to one's neighbour by writing a spell “upon a plate of silver” and placing in the mouth of a rooster.[10]

2) PLACING A RING IN THE MOUTH:

According to Sefer haRazim, sometimes a special ring was placed in a person’s mouth to achieve certain results.[11]

3) HOW TO MAKE ‘TERAFIM’:

When Yakov and Rachel (Leah, Bilah and Zilpah) left Lavan’s house to return to Canaan, Rachel took (stole) her father’s (Lavan’s) terafim[12] while he was out. These terafim, also referred to as ‘household goods’ were in fact idols. The common reason given for taking her father’s idols is that she didn’t want him to worship them.[13]

The Midrash Tanchuma[14] describes how these terafim were made:

“And how did they make [them]? They would bring a first-born man, slaughter him, and salt him with salt and oils. Then they wrote on a golden plate the name of an unclean spirit, and placed the plate with magic under his tongue. Then they placed him in (a niche in?) a wall, and lit before him candles, and prostrated themselves before him, and he would speak with them in oracles – (or: in a magical manner).”

The Targum Yerushalmi[15] states that the golden plate which was placed under the tongue was endowed with ‘kismin’ or ‘magic powers’.  

This Midrash and Targum, again, indicate the widespread and common belief held by Jews and non-Jews that golden and silver plates and certain ‘seals’ or rings placed in the mouth can produce supernatural outcomes.

4) NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S AMULET:

According to Shir haShirim Rabba[16], Nebuchadnezzar who destroyed the First Temple, also used a similar technique:

“What did that wicked man (Nebuchadnezzar) do? He took the diadem [headpiece] of the High Priest and placed it into the mouth (of the idol - cf. Daniel 3:1), and it began to speak [saying]: I am the Lord, thy God...”

The Zohar[17] writes similarly:

“[Nebuchadnezzar] took a vessel of the Temple vessels on which was engraved the Holy Name, and placed it in the mouth of the idol, and from that moment it began to speak wondrous things...”

As does the Tikkunei Zohar[18]:

 “[A]nd afterwards they would place the Ineffable Name (Shem haMeforash) in the mouths of the images (of the zodiacal constellations-the Mazzalot), and they would speak...”

From all these sources it is clear that it was commonly believed that placing a ‘magic item’ in the mouth could cause a person or object to speak in an oracular or prophetic manner. 

However, based on the Paris papyri, we now know that this was not just a rabbinic idea but one held to be similarly true by the general non-Jewish mystical culture at that time.

Thus Sperber is able to speculatively reconstruct two lost rabbinic homilies positioned comfortably within a general papyrus text of pagan magic.

ANALYSIS:

Sperber’s research is fascinating although even he admits that he has not conclusively shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he discovered lost rabbinic teachings.

Nevertheless, regardless of how one chooses to read Sperber, what we do see and what is abundantly evident is that there were large swathes of common areas of overlap between the early rabbinic position on magic and that of the Greek, Coptic and Gnostic pagan world. 

This muddies the waters and makes it extremely difficult to know the difference between an original Jewish idea and that stemming from the outside pagan magical and mystical community.

Jewish mysticism, as presented today, is a far cry from the original style of mysticism and magic as presented in the older Jewish texts. Today’s mysticism is portrayed as a clean and sophisticated philosophical system of lofty spiritual ideas and concepts - but this wasn’t always the case.

At some point, the system was radically changed from a very raw and folk-rooted magical and superstitious tradition common to the non-Jewish world, to the well-polished theosophy which we find today.

Rambam (1135-1204) was against mysticism and, as we know, presented an alternate system of spiritual rationalism. This began a series of religious controversies which still continue to this day because, despite the theological makeover, we still see an unwillingness to let go of elements of basic theurgy (magic) as was practiced in earlier times.

Thus, for example, the manner in which we teach our children about angels in our contemporary Torah schools, stands in sharp contradistinction to way Rambam understood them. In his view, angels did not manifest as supernatural beings but were rather states of human perception.

Rambam did not believe that the Jewish mystical tradition (as practiced in his day and by extension, certainly thereafter) went all the way back to Sinai. This was to become one of the main points of mystical contention between Maimonides and Nachmanides who did believe that the mystical roots originated at Sinai. [See Who Owned the Early Kabbalah?]

Rambam believed that he knew the origins of Jewish mysticism and that he understood that, to a large extent, it simply reflected some of the common superstitions of the ancient world.

One of the great ironies of the Maimonidean controversies is that it is Rambam himself who the mystics accuse of misrepresenting Judaism by incorporating an overly Greek (Aristotelian) worldview.

FURTHER READING:

Angels in Rabbinic Literature.

Mutually Exclusive Attitudes Towards Kabbalah.

Chasidei Ashkenaz – These Are Not Superstitions.

---

[1] I intentionally use the terms ‘magical’ and ‘mystical’ interchangeably with reference to earlier theosophy.  Today the separation between ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’ mysticism is said to be somewhat more distinct. One could argue, however, that even today, when (innocent) attempts are made to manipulate mystical knowledge or ‘direct’ it, it is no longer in the category of theoretical theosophy but has technically crossed back over to theurgy (magic).

[2] Daniel Sperber, Some Rabbinic Themes in Magical Papyri.

[3] Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. grec. no. 574.11.

[4] Sifre Devarim, 311.

[5] Shir haShirim Rabba, 6:8.

[6] Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, transl. Strachan (London, 1927), pp. 255-66.

[7] The Septuagint verses read in English translation: “And the Lord stretched out his hand to me and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have given my words to your mouth.”

[8] Sperber also suggests that the original text had been corrupted and should read the “by the seal of Solomon” and not “by the seal which Solomon laid...”

[9] See Gittin 68a. In Arabic lore "Bism Illâh" (=in the name of God) is both on the tongue of Jesus and on the seal of Solomon.  E. A. Wallis Budge, Amulets and Talismans (1961 ed.), p. 70. It is possible that the Muslims begin their sermons with this reference in order to take advantage of the ‘seal’ and thus speak in ‘prophecy’. The 'seal' is known as Khātam Sulaymān and refers to the signet ring of King Solomon.

[10] M. Gaster , The Sword of Moses, (London 1898), p. 39 no. 70.

[11] Sefer ha-Razim, ed. M. Margalioth (Jerusalem 1966), pp. 105-06.

[12] Similar objects are also referenced in Judges 17:5, 2 Kings 23:24 and Zecharia 10:2.

[13] Other reasons are that by possessing these terafim, she could claim her father’s inheritance and also use them as fertility amulets.

[14] Tanchuma, Vayetzei 12.

[15] Bereishit, 31:19.

[16] Shir haShirim, Rabba 7:9.

[17] Zohar, Terumah 2, fol. 175b. 

[18] Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 66, fol. 97b.

272) THE DISCOVERY OF NOTARIZED AMULETS OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ INTENDED TO BE USED IN A CIVIL CASE AGAINST HIM:

The original notarized copy of the Eibeschutz amulets. Metz, 17 March 1751.

BACKGROUND:

The controversy between R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) and R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz (1690-1764) shook the Jewish community to its core as it involved two well-known and highly respected rabbis.

R. Eibeschuetz started out as the Chief Rabbi of Metz in north-eastern France bordering on Germany, and later after 1750, he assumed the position of Chief Rabbi of the triple community of Altona[1], Hamburg and Wandsbeck[2]. He was, arguably, one of the most powerful rabbis serving in the most prestigious communities at that time.

This did not prevent R. Yaakov Emden from attacking the Chief Rabbi alleging he was a secret follower of the false Messiah, Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676). The vast network of underground and secret followers of Shabbatai Tzvi, were known as Sabbateans - and now a famous rabbi was suspected of being one of them.

At the heart of the controversy were a number of amulets, particularly for childbirth, written by R. Eibeschuetz which were said to contain references to Shabbatai Tzvi.

The stage was now set for the most aggressive and bitter rabbinical conflict to erupt in many centuries.

Besides R. Emden, other prominent rabbis weighed in, including R. Yechezkel Landau (the Nodah beYehudah) and the Vilna Gaon. Even Christian scholars and foreign governments got involved. The matter was widely reported on by the newspapers of the day.

In this article, I have drawn extensively from the research and writing of Rabbi Professor Sid Leiman and Professor Simon Schwarzfuchs.[3]

THE COPY OF SOME OF THE AMULETS IS PUBLISHED IN SEFAT EMET (7152):

In 1752, about a year after the controversy reached a feverish peak, a copy of some of the notorious amulets distributed by R. Eibeschuetz were printed and published in a book entitled Sefat Emet.[4] (This work is often ascribed to R. Emden but the author is unknown. Some suggest it may have been Nechemia Reischer.)

THE DISCOVERY OF THE ORIGINAL NOTARIZED COPIES OF THE AMULETS:

Over two-hundred years later - around the 1980’s - in a fascinating turn of events, the original four-page documents[5] containing copies of five of the Eibeschuetz amulets, were found quite by accident. As we shall see later, these matched almost perfectly with the printed version in Sefat Emet. What made this find even more interesting was the fact that they were notarized and authorized as authentic copies.

This surprising discovery occurred when an independent researcher was looking for Jewish marriage contracts in the Moselle region of France bordering on Germany. He was not looking for anything to do with the Eibeschuetz amulets and, as he didn’t know what they were, he handed these strange documents over to the head of the Departmental Archives who duly contacted Professors Leiman and Schwarzfuchs (henceforth, for brevity simply referred to as Leiman).

They immediately realized that these documents were related the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy over the nature of the healing amulets and clearly, they were notarized so as to be valid for use as evidence against R. Eibeschuetz in a civil lawsuit.

Interestingly, the documents were first notarized just by the officials of the Jewish community of Metz (on 17 March 1751), and then notarized again by the same officials exactly eight months later (17 November 1751) but this time under the authority of the French King’s attorney general.

This following Hebrew text appears on the fourth page, next to the copy of the amulets. It contains the names and signatures of the two official notaries for the Jewish community of Metz (who, to complicate matters further, happened to be supporters of R. Eibeschuetz and were just fulfilling their civic duties as notaries):

English translation of the text:

The original text follows with the signatures of the two notaries:

COMPARING THE NOTARIZED VERSION TO THE PRINTED VERSION IN SEFAT EMET: 

The discovery of the original notarized version of the amulets matches almost perfectly with the printed version as found in Sefat Emet[15]. As can be seen, the differences are minor and insignificant and today would pass as common ‘typos’:

R. EIBESCHUETZ THE KABBALIST:

According to Chassidic tradition[6] seven early Masters are referred to by the honorific Rebbe Reb. One of them is the Rebbe Reb Yonatan Eibeschuetz. He was a respected Kabbalist and he wrote amulets, or Segulot, to allegedly ward off evil spirits from sick people and pregnant women. He was even known as a Baal Shem[7], or spiritual healer who knew and practised the secrets of mysticism. As part of his healing mission, he wrote and sold amulets.

HIS ARRIVAL IN HAMBURG IN 1750:

R. Eibeschuetz left Metz to take on his new position in Germany. However, rumours were already rife about R. Eibeschuetz’ suspected Sabbatean activities. On the day that he arrived to serve as Chief Rabbi in Hamburg[8] in September 1750, he was challenged by charges of his alleged association with the Sabbateans and questioned about his amulets referencing Shabbatai Tzvi.

The leadership of the Hamburg Jewish community immediately became wary of their new Chief Rabbi, and it wasn’t long before they found one of these amulets. They consulted with R. Emden who confirmed their Sabbatean character.

DENIAL OF ALL ACCUSATIONS:

R. Eibeschuetz, as was to become a pattern, immediately denied the accusations as he had done even going back as far thirty years earlier in the 1720s.

The allegation was that R. Eibeschuetz had written into the amulets the name of Shabbatai Tzvi in coded form, typical of the tactics of many of the secret Sabbateans. 

R. Eibeschuetz responded that the ‘code’ was simply an acrostic for a verse in the Torah.

Upon further questioning, he claimed that the ‘code’ was simply the format he had received from another Baal Shem and that he didn’t know its meaning or significance.

Upon even further questioning, he denied he had even written the particular amulet.

R. EMDEN GETS OFFICIALLY INVOLVED:

On February 2, 1751, R. Emden was called to meet with the Jewish leadership of the German triple community in Altona. That was a Tuesday. A further meeting was scheduled for the Thursday of that same week but it never took place because R. Emden immediately realized that he was up against a stone wall and no matter what, his evidence and representations would fall on deaf ears. The leadership was at that stage in full support of their new Chief Rabbi.

Instead, that same Thursday morning, R. Emden decided to fight his battle in public and not behind closed doors. In retaliation, the Jewish council prohibited R. Emden from maintaining his private synagogue services which he had been operating from his house in Altona for the past twenty years.

Then, the situation became more intense when R. Emden was placed under house arrest and no one was permitted to have any social contact with him. He was given six months to leave Altona and to never come back.

R. EMDEN REACHES OUT FOR SUPPORT:

That Friday, R. Emden managed to quickly send some letters off to three leading rabbis who were his allies in this battle - namely, R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk of Frankfurt, R. Shmuel Hilman of Metz and R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam to whom he looked for support. In those times it generally took fifteen days or more for letters to be delivered from Altona to Metz or Amsterdam.

R. HILMAN RESPONDS:

R. Hilman of Metz had already been collecting evidence of R. Eibeschuetz’ amulets for some time, as he had always suspected him of being a secret Sabbatean.

He responded to R. Emden’s letter on 21 February 1751[9]:

It didn’t take long for R. Hilman to realize that in order to protect themselves it would be prudent to notarize the copies of the Metz amulets because he knew that R. Eibeschuetz would certainly deny that he had written them and he would claim they were forgeries.

In another letter[10], R. Emden had already stated that this denial had always been a part of R. Eibeschuetz’ strategy.

THE FIRST NOTARIZATION OF THE METZ AMULETS (17 MARCH 1751):

Acting swiftly, R. Hilman had five Metz amulets notarized by the two official communal notaries - Isaac Itzik Koblentz and Mordechai Gumprecht Biriet – whose services were always used to verify documents in that city.  As mentioned, these notaries happened to be supporters of R. Eibeschuetz but they were faithful to their official communal duties.

In their presence, a scribe copied the five amulets written by R. Eibeschuetz. A border was drawn closely around the texts of the amulets in order to prevent tampering.

As it happens, R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam had written to R. Hilman of Metz urging him to notarize the copies of the amulets:

R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam wrote on 8 March 1751[11]:

Amazingly, at the same time R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk of Frankfurt similarly wrote to R. Hilman on 31 March 1751:

THE SECOND NOTARIZATION OF THE METZ AMULETS (17 NOVEMBER 1751):

After R. Hilman of Metz had the documents notarized, it became apparent that the matter was not going to be a simple one and that this whole debacle would end up not just in a Jewish court but in the civil courts. Therefore it became necessary to have the amulets notarized again, eight months later, under the civil authorities in order to prepare for civil litigation. Because of the gravity of the situation, it was believed that not just rabbis but the governments of Denmark, Germany and France would get involved.

R. Eibeschuetz had already had opportunities to present his case to the Jewish courts, but he had declined the opportunity of such a forum.

For this second notarization, the same two notaries were again used in their official capacity, only this time it was with oversight from the Kings attorney general. Also the signing was now done on “stamped paper”. 

R. Emden’s warnings - although he was still under house arrest - could no longer be swept under the carpet due to the foresight of R. Hilman of Metz and his colleagues R. Falk of Frankfurt and R. Aryeh Leib of Amsterdam. The evidence was now officially notarized.

THE SUGGESTION THAT THE NOTARIES WERE ‘FORCED’ TO SIGN:

R. Eibeschuetz claimed that the two official notaries of the Metz Jewish community were forced against their will to sign the documents.

However, according to Leiner:

“Emden...correctly noted that the notaries were admires of R. Eibeschuetz who certainly wished him no harm...They understood fully the import of the Metz amulets...They did not tamper with the texts of the amulets...They simply followed the orders of the Chief Rabbi (of Metz)[12] and the officials of the Jewish Council of Metz and notarized the amulets. They did so honestly and accurately.”

This is borne out by a previously unpublished letter of one of the notaries, R. Mordechai Gumprecht, who wrote:

“This is to inform all regarding my signature and that of my colleague R. Itzik, notary [of the Jewish community of Metz]...that appeared on the amulets that were copied at the behest of the Jewish council of Metz and by their scribe.

I just saw a letter by the Gaon R. Jacob Joshua [Falk] Chief Rabbi of Frankfurt...He saw a letter from Hamburg that stated that ‘R. Gumprecht...wrote to the Jewish community of Hamburg and indicated that he was forced to sign his name on the above amulets.’

I therefore wish to indicate that my recollection is that I wrote to a student in Hamburg...as follows:  ‘I have heard that my master and Rabbi [Eibeschuetz] was angry at me for signing the amulets. I cannot believe this is true. For surely he knows that I am the notary of the Jewish community [of Metz]. Whatever they order me to do, I must do.’ 

I certainly never wrote that I was forced to sign...”

THE PIVOTAL ROLE OF R. YAAKOV YEHOSHUA FALK:

Although R. Yaakov Emden is generally regarded as the main protagonist in the conflict - which is even known as the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy - the fiercest opponent was, in fact, R. Emden’s colleague R. Yaakov Yehoshua Falk of Frankfurt. He was the main strategist and leader of the campaign against R. Eibeschuetz.

R. Falk tried, again and again, to bring R. Eibeschuetz to the Jewish courts but without any success. In this regard, R. Falk was actually quite fair. He said that in the event that R. Eibeschuetz be found guilty, he could, in Leiner’s words, be ‘rehabilitated’ or be given an opportunity to repent and his status quo may be perpetuated.

However, when he saw that he was getting nowhere with that approach, R. Falk threatened to ‘defrock’ R. Eibeschuetz which he eventually did on 12 March 1753.

R. EIBESCHUETZ RETALLIATES:

Some of R. Falk’s views expressed in his many letters were reproduced in Sefat Emet[13]. R. Eibeschuetz retaliated by publishing his only work on the controversy, Luchot Edut in Altona.

In it, he admits that he wrote what became known as the ‘Metz amulets’ but he steadfastly denied any Sabbataen references.

He continues to explain that at the time of their writing he was subject to an eye infection which didn’t allow him to see clearly what he was writing. 

Furthermore, the script he used - square Hebrew lettering – was something he was not used to. 

R. Eibeschuetz also complained that some of the letters in wording the amulets had been intentionally distorted.[14]

Interestingly, by referencing some of the distorted letters in the Metz amulets, he essentially admitted to the authenticity and accuracy of the essential documents themselves.

Leiner writes:

“In effect, they prove that, for the most part, the notarized Metz amulets accurately reflect what Eibeschuetz wrote.”

But R. Eibeschuetz persisted that some of the distortions of letters that look similar to each other were deliberate.

The differences are as follows:

KABBALISTIC SECRETS:

R. Eibeschuetz was pressed by R. Falk to explain the meaning of all the amulets, but he chose only to explain one, which was amulet 5. He said he could not explain the others because that would amount to revealing secrets of Kabbalah to the uninitiated.

Nevertheless, for amulet 5 he provided his own copy (which is, incidentally, virtually identical to the notarized version!) as well as a sixteen-page explanation for the fourteen words of the amulet.

R. Eibeschuetz explained that it would be wrong to read the amulets as a connected text because each word was a Shem Kadosh or Holy Name of G-d and therefore had to be read individually. 

And anyway, their true meaning could, again, only be known to those initiated into the secrets of Kabbalah. R. Eibeschuetz claimed that those who read the texts as a unit and thought it was a prayer to G-d and mentioned His Messiah Shabbatai Tzvi, were misconstruing the text and ignorant of true Kabbalah.

ANALYSIS:

Unfortunately, the discovery of the notarized version of the Metz amulets does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that R. Eibeschuetz was a secret Sabbatean. This, despite the fact that they reflect accurately the version as printed in Sefat Emet and despite the fact that there are only minor discrepancies which would have been common in a pre-photocopying age. And despite the fact that R. Eibescheutz’ own copy which he presented of amulet 5 is virtually identical to the notarized version.

The only way to prove R. Eibeschuetz’ guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt would be to find the original amulets written in his own hand. These, sadly, are no longer extant.

However, were we to follow the principle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ we can say that the discovery of the notarized documents certainly favour the camp of R. Emden.

For more on related matters, see:

[Shabbatai Tzvi - Roots Run Deep:]

[ Why the Noda beYehudah wanted to Ban the Study of Kabbalah:]

[R. Yaakov Emden – a Traditionalist who Shattered the Parameters of Convention:]

[R. Yaakov Emden’s ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ with regard to Maimonides:]

[R. Yaakov Emden’s Surprising views on Christianity:]

APPENDIX:

I have incorporated a letter from the fascinating 300 controversial Cherson Letters - which I have translated into English for the first time - which deals with the Emden-Eibeschuetz controversy:

DOCUMENT 8:

Letter from the Baal Shem Tov to R. Dovber of Mezeritch warning him not to take sides or interfere in the Emden/Eybeschutz controversy (where, amongst other accusations, R. Yaakov Enden accused R. Yehonatan Eybeschutz of being a secret follower of the false messiah Shabbatai Tzvi and of having Sabbatean amulets).

B”H

Erev Shabbat. 3 Menachem Av 5515 (1755).

To my student the rabbi and holy genius, an officer of the Torah, a man of G-d etc., our teacher the rabbi, Rabbi Berenish[11], may you live:

Since I have (already) heard that you are sticking your head into the controversy between these two geniuses and pillars of the earth, namely: the holy Gaon Mr. Yaakov (Emden), son of the holy Gaon Mr Tzvi[12] n‎‎’y, and the holy Gaon Mr. Yehonatan (Eybeschutz) n‎’y.

I warn you now not to interfere in a controversy that is not yours. (This is because of) a hidden reason. And only let your eyes look at (be concerned with) your teacher. Enough said.

From your rabbi and teacher who always requests your well-being;

Yisrael, son of our teacher the rabbi, Rabbi Eliezer Baal Shem from Medzebuzh.

(P.S.) I have also written (a similar letter with a similar warning) to the holy Gaon Mr...(yud “ yud...missing text...)[13] n’y.

---

[1] There were severe restrictions on the number of Jews who were allowed to live in Hamburg (until 1864) so a major Jewish community was established in Altona from 1611. From 1640 to 1864 Altona was under the administration of the Danish monarchy. Altona is just seven miles away from Hamburg.

[2] Wandsbeck is about six miles from Hamburg.

[3] Sid Z. Leiman – Simon Schwarfuchs, New Evidence on the Emden-Eibeschuetz Controversy: The Amulets from Metz. 

[4] The full title is Sefat Emet veLashon Zehorit, or True Speech and Crimson Language.

[5] Dated 17 March 1751.

[6] As I learned from one of the secretaries to the Gerer Rebbe.

[7] See Sippurei Dibbuk beSifrut Yisrael where he is referred to as a Baal Shem, p. 108-9.

[8] He served as Chief Rabbi of the triple community of Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbeck.

[9] Translations are all from Leiman.

[10] Sefat Emet pp. 37-38.

[11] Sefat Emet p. 42.

[12] Parenthesis mine.

[13] Sefat Emet pp. 56-58.

[14] Luchot Edut pp. 1,3, 6 and 17.

[15] This is after consultation with the corrigenda in Sefat Emet.