 |
| 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:
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.
