304) THE DISCOVERY OF RABBI AVRAHAM ROVIGO’S NOTEBOOK OF ASSOCIATES:

 

 - A WINDOW INTO THE RABBINIC WORLD AROUND THE TURN OF THE 18^th CENTURY

 

The Tikkun Chatzot ritual to be recited during the Three Weeks as instituted by the preeminent Italian Kabbalist, R. Moshe Zacuto (1620-1697), the teacher of R. Avraham Rovigo.

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Avraham Rovigo (c.1650-1714) was a Talmudist, Kabbalist, patron of Torah scholarship and promotor of Jewish settlement in Palestine. He associated with a wide range of Torah personalities who were active around the turn of the eighteenth century. Like so many other rabbis of that period, he also kept the fact that he was a believer in Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676) a secret.

This article, based extensively on the research of Professor Matt Goldish[1] deals with the fascinating discovery of a document of R. Avraham Rovigo. It was found by historian and bibliographer Professor Isaiah Sonne (1887-1960) and published in 1961. Goldish dedicated this research to the memory of Isaiah Sonne.

298) UNIMAGINABLE WRITINGS OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ :

    ואבוא היום אל העין

                                                           VA AVO HAYOM EL HAAYIN

Woe upon the eyes that see it and the ears that hear it and those who keep silent   - R. Yechezkel Landau, the Nodah beYehuda, after reading the mystical treatise VaAvo haYom el haAyin.^[1]

INTRODUCTION:

In 1724, the itinerant Polish-Lithuanian traveller and bookdealer, Moshe Meir Kamenker must have known about the explosive nature of one of the books he peddling. The book was entitled VaAvo haYom el haAyin (And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, Gen. 24:42) whose authorship has been traced to R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz, arguably the most respected and prestigious rabbi of that era.

R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz was embroiled in one of the most vitriolic rabbinic controversies - probably since the time of Maimonides (1135-1204) - with R. Yakov Emden, after being accused of his secret involvement in the Sabbatian messianic movement of the false messiah Shabbatai Tzvi (1626-1676).

[For more background to the controversies see The Discovery of Notarized Amulets of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz and follow the links provided there.]

In this article, based extensively on the research of Professor Pawel Maciejko[2], we explore the story and some of the content of the book found in the satchel of this book pedlar, which shocked the rabbinic world and exposed the nature of Sabbatian ideology and R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz’s alleged connection to it.  

NOTE TO READER:

This article may upset sensitive readers although I have made every effort to leave out the unimaginable and extremely graphic details while still attempting to capture the essence of the work.

THE STORY:

THE BEIT MIDRASH OF ZOLKIEW:

The bookseller Moshe Meir Kamenker was associated with the kabbalistic Beit Midrash of Żółkiew. R. Chaim Malach had taught there and it became an important centre for the dissemination of secret Sabbatian mystical literature. This was a time when Sabbatians had well infiltrated the ranks of mainstream religious Jewry and it was difficult to know who was who. It was also the time when the Chassidic movement was beginning to emerge.

In 1724, one of R. Chaim Malach’s students, R. Feishel of Złoczów (Zolotchov) caused a stir when he announced that he was a follower of Shabbatai Tzvi. This was even more surprising as R. Feishel was a prominent Torah scholar who knew the Talmud by heart. R. Feishel also happened to be the bookseller, Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother-in-law. And Moshe Meir Kamenker’s brother was Leib Buchbinder, who two years later was to become the father of Jacob Frank (1726-1791) the founder of another messianic movement whose followers were known as the Frankists (a more radical branch of the Sabbatians).

THE ‘CHASSIDIM SCHULLE’ OF MANNHEIM:

There is no doubt of Moshe Meir Kamenker’s subversive Sabbatian credentials and leanings. Moshe Meir Kamenker’s travels led him through Prossnitz (the centre for followers of another Sabbatian, and another messianic claimant, R. Leibelle of Prossnitz) and then eventually on to Mannheim. The reason why Moshe Meir Kamenker went to Mannheim was to bring books and be associated with the Sabbatian Beit Midrash in that city, which was known as the Chassidim Schule headed by R. Isaiah Chassid. R. Isaiah Chasid had been previously associated with R. Avraham Rovigo and his kabbalistic yeshiva established in Jerusalem around 1701. Moshe Meir Kamenker and R. Isaiah Chassid wanted to proclaim R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz as the Messiah.

Maciejko’s (2014:iii) research reveals that in all likelihood, on Moshe Meir Kamenker’s arrival in Mannheim, he mistakenly thought he had made contact with a Sabbatian colleague but instead, he met up with an opponent the Sabbatian movement. This person duly reported him to the community authorities who detained him, searched his bags and found a number of manuscripts which were subsequently seized.[3]

EX-COMMUNICATING MOSHE MEIR KAMENKER:

The rabbinic courts of Frankfurt and Mannheim investigated the matter and after threatening some members of the Chassidim Schulle with ex-communication, it became clear that Moshe Meir Kamenker had supplied its rabbi, Isaiah Chassid, with some Sabbatian material from R. Leibelle Prossnitz and, more damningly, with material from none other than R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz![4] These findings proved to be the first known writings of R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz to be publicised. A signed letter from R. Eibeschuetz to R. Isiah Chassid was also discovered amongst the texts in the satchel, ironically, telling him not to publicise any of these writings.[5]

Sometime later, the  Beit Din of Frankfurt ex-communicated Moshe Meir Kamenker and the entire sect of Sabbatians, who, because of their numbers, called themselves the believers (kat haMa’aminim). The mainstream opponents were labelled as deniers or Kofrim. This case highlighted the extent of the vast network of secret Sabbatians operating across Europe.

‘REPENTANT’ SABBATIANS:

Of interest, is that this ban of ex-communication stressed that Sabbatians must be identified and prosecuted no matter the status or religious scholarship exhibited by the members of this group. This was obviously a problem and great concern at that time. Many important rabbis continued to believe in Shabbatai Tzvi even after his death in 1676 and well into the next century. Furthermore, there was little trust in repentant Sabbatians as they generally remained secretive and subversive. The bans of ex-communication made it clear that they could only be rehabilitated back within the community after producing a written affidavit signed by three reliable rabbinical authorities.

The rabbinic courts were wary of repentant Sabbatians because R. Isaiah Chassid who headed the Mannheim Beit Midrash had already denounced Sabbatiansm only to openly return to it later.

In all, three bans were issued simultaneously by three prominent Jewish communities in three different countries. These bans were an attempt to present a united front against the Sabbatians.

R. YONATAN EIBESCHUETZ AS AUTHOR OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN?

According to R. Yakov Emden[6], when R. Isaiah Chassid read the writings which were brought by Moshe Meir Kamenker (and which were attributed to, although not all signed by, R. Yonatan Eibeschuetz) he knew they were from him and he declared that R. Eibeschuetz certainly had the holy spirit resting on him as he revealed secrets far deeper than the Ari had through his Lurianic Kabbalah during the sixteenth century.

These writings in the satchel, as we shall see, were so explosive and shocking, that R. Yechezkel Katzenellenbogen - who was the main signatory of these bans issued from the three Battei Din -wrote to the famous ‘Sabbatian hunter’, R. Moshe Chagiz, to ask for his help in eradicating these texts of the ‘sect of believers’ which were found on Moshe Meir Kamenker. Particularly, what they considered to be R. Eibeschuetz’s work, VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

While R. Moshe Chagiz identified the work as emanating from R. Eibeschuetz, R. Katzenellenbogen was not willing to single him out in person because of his prestige in the community.                             

According to R. Yakov Emden, the three courts that issued the bans, also knew that some of the manuscripts distributed by Moshe Meir Kamenker had been written by R. Eibescheutz but were reluctant to publicise the matter for fear of upsetting his wealthy supporters.[7]

Thus R. Eibeschuetz’s name does not appear on the bans, but Moshe Meir Kamenker’s name does and he unfairly bears the brunt of the attack becoming its scapegoat. This was a classical case of ‘shooting the messenger’.

R. Katzenellenbogen then requested of the rabbi of Frankfurt, Yakov Cohen Poppers to contact R. Eibeschuetz’s brother in Prague, and get him to speak to R. Yonatan to ascertain whether these allegations of Sabbatian involvement were true or not. The brother reported back stating that R. Yonatan was indeed involved with the movement, but only in the sense of infiltrating it to gather strategic information.

So far, because everyone was gently, if not fearfully, skirting around the issue, no official mention was made of the ‘elephant in the room’, the text of VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

However, Maciejko’s outstanding and meticulous research has allowed him to reconstruct the events, and from letters and other writings relating to this investigation, it became clear that various witnesses did make reference to this explosive work.

Maciejko (2014:vii) explains that during the investigations of the Batei Din, a past student of R. Eibeschuetz by the name of Binyamin Chassid, had sent a copy of VaAvo haYom el haAyin to his father R. Michael Chassid who was the rabbi of Berlin.

R. Michael Chassid was of the view that Sabbatians were not just mistaken in their beliefs (as R. Akiva was, thinking that Bar Kochba was the Messiah) but instead, they were acutely aware that their teachings were at variance with Torah values, and they were intent on subverting Judaism. When he received the copy of VaAvo haYom el haAyin it proved to be the last straw for him and he was determined to expose R. Eibeschuetz.

 CLOSING RANKS TO PROTECT R. EIBESCHUETZ:

The problem now was that R. Eibeschuetz was protected by many leading rabbis including Chief Rabbi David Oppenheim of Prague, who it was believed had threatened to take any Jew who spoke badly of R. Eibeschuetz to the Christian authorities.

An aura of secrecy and protection thus prevailed hindering any true investigation of the Sabbatians and their ideologues who were so deeply entrenched within the mainstream community.

ONLY TO RABBIS SPEAK OUT:

Amazingly, notwithstanding a golden age of rabbinic leadership, only two rabbis were prepared to speak out publically against the Sabbatians calling for their exposure, no matter their standing in rabbinic circles. They were R. Moshe Chagiz and R. Michael Chassid. R. Moshe Chagiz boldly called for the drastic step to ex-communicate all the students who had studied under R. Eibeschuetz. Even R. Yakov Emden, who was later to become the greatest Sabbatain exposer, felt that at that time it was better not to draw attention to works like VaAvo haYom el haAyin. This, even after reading the work and proclaiming that: “Nothing like this was ever seen or known from any heretic or disbeliever of this world.”[8]

To confuse matters even further, the supporters of R. Eibeschuetz claimed that the three abovementioned bans of ex-communication were forgeries. This was given momentum by R. Eibeschuetz’s wealthy father-in-law, R. Yitzchak Spira who sent letters to other Jewish communities supporting the notion that the bans were fraudulent.

R. EIBESCHUETZ’S ANTI-SABBATIAN BAN:

Then on September 16, 1725, in what many believe was a disingenuous strategic move, R. Eibeschuetz issued a ban against the Sabbatians. The ban also called on all to distance themselves from the book dealer Moshe Meir Kamenker and his ‘false writings’, who had again become a scapegoat, this time for the (alleged) Sabbatians.[9]

Most rabbis were prepared to accept and believe that R. Eibeschuetz’s ban was genuine, and for the next twenty-five years, he remained vindicated until the issues of the Sabbatian amulets surfaced around 1750.

THE CODED WORDING OF R. EIBESCHUETZ’S ANTI-SABBATIAN BAN:

Maciejko (2014:xi) draws our attention to the fact that most rabbinic bans of ex-communication use a relatively standard form of verbiage, especially when their target is the same entity. However, R. Eibescheutz’s ban against the Sabbatians did not follow the template of the three earlier West European anti-Sabbatian bans.

R. Eibeschuetz’s ban referred Shabbatai Tzvi who had “raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe”, “descended into the abyss of the Sheol”  and “took upon himself everlasting infamy”.

While on a cursory reading of this ban it would appear that R. Eibeschuetz was sharply condemning the evil Sabbatians, a deeper reading reveals something most unusual: 

No self-respecting Sabbatian wold have found these expressions offensive in the least. After all, their leader Shabbatai Tzvi proudly abolished Torat Moshe and replaced it with a Torah Chadasha, or new Torah which was to be relevant to the messianic era. 

Similarly, he did indeed descend into the depths of evil Kelipot, or husks in order to ‘elevate’ them in mystical preparation for messianic redemption. 

Furthermore, he took on “everlasting infamy” as a badge of honour as he suffered in his cosmic and messianic mission.

And even when R. Eibeschuetz wrote: “…everyone who believes in Shabbatai Tzvi denies the God of Israel and His Torah”, that too didn’t bother Sabbatians because Sabbatian Kabbalah, with its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah [see Root Causes of the Sabbatian Movement] distinguished between Ein Sof and Elokei Yisrael (see How are we Supposed to Pray?]. According to some models of Kabbalah and certainly according to Sabbatain Kabbalah, Ein Sof is so removed from the “God of Israel and His Torah” that they found justification to reject that lower level of Elokei Yisrael, as their aim was to reach a 'higher' level of G-d.

Accordingly, seasoned Sabbatain kabbalists would not have found R. Eibeschuetz’s ban objectionable. On the contrary, it would have resonated with them as if it were some form of code. Sabbatians were known to have used codes similar to this - hidden within seemingly benign writings - in their communications with each other.

And even when R. Eibeschuetz wrote what seemed to be an insulting phrase referring to Shabbatai Tzvi as a “dead dog”, a Sabbatian well-versed in his Kabbalah would know that the Zohar (Raya Mehemna)[10] has Moshe Rabbeinu speaking of the Messiah as a “dead dog”.

Another suspicious element evident in R. Eibeschuetz’s ban is the matter of the signatories. For example, while it claims to represent the elders of the Prague community, two elders out of four are missing. The Chief Rabbi of Prague, R. David Oppenheim did not sign the ban but R. Simcha Poppers signed the ban and he was a known Sabbatian.[11] Another rabbi who signed the ban was Avraham Fesseburg and he is known to have made the statement that if R. Eibeschuetz believed in Shabbatai Tzvi, so would he.[12] And yet another rabbi, Yakov Hamburger would go on to support R. Eibeschuetz twenty-five years later during the amulet controversy.

MORE EVIDENCE ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:

R. Eibeschutz’s ban against the Sabbatians in 1725, nevertheless, proved to be effective as it put paid to any real discussion on his suspected authorship of VaAvo haYom el haAyin.

However, Maciejko’s (2014:xvi) research reveals that:

All the testimonies from the 1720s that do attribute the work to a concrete author, without a single exception, identify this author as Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschütz.

Contemporary scholarship^[13] also concurs the R. Eibeschutz was the author.

Maciejko continues:

Doubts concerning the attribution of Va-Avo to Jonathan Eibeschütz arose for the first time only during the amulet controversy of the 1750s, when the purported author made a halfhearted and highly ambiguous statement which was interpreted by some as a denial of his authorship.[14]

However, based on the earlier evidence from 1725:

Some of the testimonies allow us to trace the paths of dissemination of concrete copies of the manuscript that originated from Eibeschütz’s yeshivah in Prague and were brought to Mannheim (by Moses Meir Kamenker), Berlin (by Binyamin Hasid), or Lissa (by an anonymous former student of Rabbi Jonathan)…. and no attempt to attribute the book to someone else was made.

Interestingly, in trying to deflect authorship of the explosive document away from R. Eibeschutz, it was purported that Jacob Frank was the true author. This was clearly not possible as Frank, born in 1726, would have been just one year old at the time.

THE THEOLOGY OF VA’AVO HA’YOM EL HA’AYIN:

Like much Kabalistic literature, VaAvo haYom el haAyin calls G-d the Ein Sof, the Infinite or literally the One with no End. The work begins with a question: If G-d is Infinite, then why is He called the One with no End, and not the Ein Reshit or the One with no Beginning?

The answer is that it all depends on the perspective. From G-d’s perspective, He is conscious of beginnings. In the beginning, G-d created. From our perspective, we are conscious of endings.

We can only know G-d by working from the end or the bottom upwards.

This type of theology led the Sabbatians to indulge in sin and promiscuous activity as they wanted to know G-d from the ‘End’ in order to get closer to the ‘Beginning’. And because He is Ein Sof, there is no place devoid of G-d.  G-d, according to them (and other mystics), can be found even (or especially) in sin.

The author of VaAvo haYom el haAyin writes:

[E]verything that is prohibited in the lower worlds… is the force of unification and construction in the upper realms.^[15]

This is similar to the concept of ‘veNahfoch hu’ where the physical and spiritual realms are said to be inverted relative to each other.

For us, it seems as if the cosmos is the most important thing, but instead, VaAvo haYom el haAyin describes it as insignificant and as a G-ldy ‘waste product’ (to use a euphemism). I have seen similar descriptions even within the writings of later Chassidut.

But in VaAvo haYom el haAyin, G-d’s ‘physiology’ is depicted very graphically to the extent that it would be considered blasphemous. It takes the well-known concept of corporeality (that G-d has some form of body - a popular mystical concept that Rambam was opposed to) [see The Notion that G-d has a ‘Body’ - In Early and Modern Rabbinical writings] to the next unimaginable level.

Earlier works like the Shiur Komah, depict G-d as having sexual organs, and later mystical works like Lurianic Kabbalah describe dynamic relationships between various aspects of the Godhead. Although there is a large body of apologetic literature, both written and oral, that explains that these images are not to be taken literally, some depictions are so graphic that they transcend the boundaries of poetic licence or descriptive analogies. In VaAvo haYom el haAyin, the imagery has gone too far for a theological discussion to remain within respectable parameters.

Maciejko (2014:xxvi) describes how VaAvo haYom el haAyin depicts:

the various stages of creation as a series of sexual acts, but it argues that the exploration (in thought and deed) of various aspects of sexuality is in itself a redemptive act of mending the world (tikkun olam).

During the act of creation, VaAvo haYom el haAyin describes G-d losing consciousness (a state known as tardema) and it is the duty of the Jewish people, and humanity in general, to restore that G-dly consciousness, through the kabbalistic notion of tikkun (Maciejko 2014:xxix).

Maciejko (2014:xxxiv) writes that in VaAvo haYom el haAyin:

Eibeschütz draws upon the Lurianic teachings, yet he strips the myth of all of its pathos and grandeur…

[After the act of creation t]he Holy Ancient One…has removed himself from the lower worlds and folded into himself. The God of Israel…loses both his virile powers and any interest in his creations.

According to this, G-d is now in exile. Exile is a central theme of Lurianic Kabbalah and seized upon by Sabbatianism - and because G-d is in exile, He is alienated from His creation. The Messiah is the only being who can redeem and restore both G-d and creation.

I have only shared, in the broadest terms, a minuscule amount of the content and lewd imagery of VaAvo haYom el haAyin as I am unable to repeat or write further about such matters.

REACTION TO THE WORK:

Whoever read VaAvo haYom el haAyin, whether they were for it or against it, agreed that it was unlike anything they had ever seen before.

The Sabbatian kabbalists believed that VaAvo haYom el haAyin revealed deeper secrets than both the Zohar and Lurianic Kabbalah. But the mainstream readers like R. Moshe Charif of Pressburg referred to it as “bizarre and appalling”[16] and R. Yakov Emden said it was  “obscene”[17].  R. Moshe Chagiz said that such vile ideas had not ever even come into the minds of the “ancient idolaters”[18]. R. Yechezkel Landau, also known as the Nodah beYehuda, wrote:

This book is that of a complete heretic, who does not merely deny a particular tenet of belief [kotsets be-neti’ot], but who uproots and destroys the very fundaments of Jewish faith… I did not find such heresy even among all the religions of the Gentiles that ever existed…and [it] denie[s] the providence of the Ein Sof.[19]

The work VaAvo haYom el haAyin shocked everyone one way or another. For some Sabbatians, it was a masterful mystical work that surpassed any previous Kabbalah, while for the opponents it was just vile, appalling and basely pornographic. It was felt that a line had been crossed, even for those who follow the mystical tradition.

As Maciejko puts it:

[I]t is blatantly pornographic..in fact, it is possibly the only truly pornographic text ever written in the rabbinic idiom.[20]

ANALYSIS:

Granted, VaAvo haYom el haAyin is an extreme example of an otherwise common mystical theology that was prevalent during the eighteenth century. While the content of the treatise is unimaginable, what strikes one even more so is the respected personalities who were involved and implicated in perpetuating such ideas.

It also shows that the common distinction made between ‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’ Kabbalah - where it is said that the former is dangerous while the latter is just theosophy at best, or theurgy at worst - is not entirely true. Theoretical Kabbalah is not always just inspirational and benign.

---

[1] Quoted in Yakov Emden, Petach Einayim, 8v . 

[2] Coitus interruptus in And I Came this Day unto the Fountain, by Pawel Maciejko (2014). There was a revised edition in 2016.

[3] Yakov Emden, Torat haKenaot, p. 74.

[4] Yakov Emden, Edut beYakov, fol. 66r ; see Me’ir Benayahu, Ha-Havurah ha-Kedoshah shel Rabbi Yehudah Hasid ve-Aliyata le-Erets Yisra’el, Sefunot 3-4 (1960), pp. 131- 179.

[5] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, Vol. I, fol. 67r.

[6] Yakov Emden, Beit Yehonatan haSofer, fol. 4v.

[7] Yakov Emden, Sefer Hitabbkut, fos. 1v-2r .

[8]Yakov Emden, Megillat Sefer, p. 89.

[9] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, fol. 121v .

[10] Zohar III, 125b.

[11] Yakov Emden, Torat haKena’ot, p. 121.

[12] Yakov Emden, Beit Yehonatan haSofer, 3r.

[13] See Moshe Aryeh Perlmuter, Rabbi Yehonatan Aybeshits, pp. 131-146, and Yehudah Liebes Sod ha-Emunah ha-Shabbeta’it, Jerusalem 1995, p. 344 n. 85.

[14] See R. Eibescutz’s Luhot Edut, Altona 1755, fos. 3r -4v.

[15] VaAvo haYom el haAyin, 5r.

[16] Yakov Emden, Megillat Sefer, p. 89.

[17] Yakov Emden, Torat haKena’ot, p. 85.

[18] [Prager] Gachalei Eish, Vol. I, fol. 60v.

[19] Yakov Emden, Petach Einayim, 8v . 

[20] See Yehudah Liebes, ‘Ketavim Hadashim beKabbalah ha-Shabbeta’it mi-Hugo shel Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeschits’ in: Sod haEmunah, pp. 103-237.

294) WHAT HAPPENED TO WOLF, SON OF R. YONATAN EIBESCHUTZ?

INTRODUCTION:

The great controversy between R. Yaakov Emden (1697-1776) and R. Yonatan Eibeschutz (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 after 1750 he assumed the position of Chief Rabbi[1] of the triple community of Altona, Hamburg and Wandsbeck. He was, arguably, one of the most powerful rabbis serving in the most prestigious communities at that time. His popularity is evidenced by the great number of his portraits, making his image the most widely disseminated Jewish icon in the eighteenth century.[2] 

The Chassidim have a tradition that seven Rebbes are referred to by the double honorific Rebbe-Reb and R. Eibeschutz was one of them, even though he wasn’t a technically a Rebbe.

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

At the heart of the controversy was the matter of a number of amulets, particularly for childbirth, written by R. Eibeschutz which were said to contain references to Shabbatai Tzvi and pointed to his associations with members of the Sabbbatian movement.

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

WOLF BENJAMIN EIBESCHUTZ (1740–1806):

We have dealt with the Emden-Eibeschutz controversy in The Discovery of Notarized Amulets of R. Yonatan Eibeschutz Intended to be Used in a Civil Case Against him and Why the Noda BeYehudah Wanted to Ban the Study of Kabbalah. 

In this article, based extensively on the research of Professor Pawel Maciejko[3], we will deal with the question of what happened to Wolf Benjamin (1740-1806), the youngest son of R. Yonatan Eibeschutz and see whether it has any bearing on the accusations of Sabbatianism levelled against his illustrious father. 

Many Sabbattians and particularly Frankists[4] were known to have eventually converted to Christianity. Where did Wolf position himself in this regard?

WOLF AND HIS CHRISTMAS MIRACLE:

Maciejko begins with an extract from R. Yaakov Emden’s writing, describing the events of one winter’s evening in the late 1750s when Wolf experienced a ‘miracle’:

“At the time of...Hanukkah Wolf pointed to eight lights against the firmament, and when Christmas Eve [leil kuti] arrived, he said: ‘Lo and behold! The entire world, even the great sages tell us to play cards[5] on this night, but we will not do so. We will be destroying his [Jesus’] kelippah[6]!’

And he went and took a violin and started to sing songs and cried a great cry. And the said Wolf told the people who were there with him to look through the window, and they saw a pillar of fire [amuda de-nura] coming from the heavens to the earth.

And he also told them: when I call you, fall on your faces, because the power of destruction is great and you might be destroyed. And there were also sounds and lightning.”[7]

According to the Zohar[8], a pillar of fire is one of the first signs that the Messiah has arrived.

Maciejko writes:

“Wolf Eibeschutz [was][9] trying to establish himself as a Sabbatian leader by demonstrating that the Shekhinah had descended upon him in the form of the pillar of fire....

Wolf Eibeschutz was one of the two most important Sabbatian leaders in mid-eighteenth century East-Central Europe. The other was Jacob Frank, who established himself as a leader of a large group of Sabbatians and convinced a significant number of Jews to convert to Christianity in Lwów in 1759.”

HALLEY’S COMET?

Interestingly, Maciejko is of the opinion that the ‘pillar of fire’ that Wolf saw may have been Halley’s Comet which appeared in 1758 on the 25 of December which also coincided with the first day of Chanukah. In fact, that year was the first time this event had been accurately predicted (by Halley) and many in Europe were filled with messianic expectations. 

The anticipated appearance of the Comet was well-known as it was publicised and written about in the non-Jewish newspapers of the day. It is possible that Wolf used his foreknowledge of this event to mislead those more gullible and less aware of current events within the community.

WOLF ACQUIRES GREAT WEALTH:

R. Yaakov Emden continues his account of Wolf who had suddenly become very wealthy:

“[H]e bought a large house and estate, a field and a garden full of exquisite and fine fruit trees. And he hired many painters and artisans and ordered them to rebuild the external wall from the side of the street, which was old, crooked, and crumbling. And he had it built tall and beautiful, with decorations made of precious stones and images of lion and wolf and his name gvul benyamin[10] carved upon the wall. 

Inside the garden he had a wall of glass built; all the trees and plants were eradicated, and parterres made with arrangements of coloured porcelain taken from broken china. He also had a wine cellar carved, inside of which there was a basin of water with engravings representing scales of sea creatures and conches, as it is customary among great lords. In the house he had figures of naked courtesans dancing with lovers and hunting scenes of the priests of the goddess of the ancient Greeks, Venus. 

In his room (where, as he claimed, the Shekhinah had descended on him), he hung a painting of a young man and woman embracing each other. In the garden he also placed costly sculptures of marble and alabaster, statuettes of [the Virgin] feeding the child and of other known [Christian] saints. 

And he had a great chronograph [keli shaot], which is called Wanduhr [wall clock] ... and which was decorated with the images of all the deeds of Jesus [kol ma’ase talui].”[11]

These comments by R. Emden need to be seen against the backdrop of sanctioned and even sanctified promiscuity as practised by the Sabbatians, who used and abused Lurianic Kabbalah to intentionally 'go into the sin' and become more 'elevated' as a result of mystically 'rectifying' it. This prepared the world, they claimed, for the arrival of Mashiach.

WOLF EIBESCHUTZ’S BEIT MIDRASH:

In his house, he held lavish parties and according to R. Emden, he even established a study centre headed by the Sabbatian Kabbalist R. Moshe ben David of Podhajce.[12]

WOLF LEAVES ALTONA:

Wolf was soon to lose his newly acquired wealth, and his property and possessions were auctioned off. Those who came to observe the auction discovered a Sabbatian manuscript[13] which was a type of manifesto. This seemed to corroborate his possible role as a leader of the movement and caused great embarrassment to Wolf’s father, Chief Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschutz, who had already been accused of Sabbatianism himself some nine years earlier. After being persuaded by R. Landau - the Noda beYehudahn - R. Eibeschutz sent his son away.

In 1762, Wolf left Altona in a gold-leafed carriage to the sounds of trumpets and in front of a large crowd[14].

HIS ASSOCIATION WITH THE EMPRESS:

 After reconnecting with other Sabbatians in Moravia, he ended up in Vienna where he began to associate with high society and royalty including Empress Maria Theresa. He re-established his art collection and assumed the title ‘Baron von Eibeschutz,’ as well as ‘Baron von Aldersthal.’

HIS ASSOCIATION WITH JACOB FRANK:

At around the same time, Jacob Frank - another messianic claimant and the leader of the Frankist movement - also put in a request to become part of the nobility which was made easier due to his conversion to Christianity. Many Frankists were later to convert to Christianity. As soon as they did, they donned the long colourful flowing gowns of the Polish nobility, known as zupans. Polish Jews wore black zupans.

Jacob Frank, or as he now called himself, ‘Count von Frank,’  was very conscious of his perceived rank and his clothing played a large part in the image he wanted to portray. He also rode in a carriage pulled by six horses, which was an honour reserved only for the Pope and the Emperor. He wore a ceremonial sword and was accompanied by a uniformed guard.

Frank promised his followers he would turn ‘all Israelites into knights’and give them ‘respect in the eyes of all Polish magnates.’

Wolf Eybeschutz and Jacob Frank collaborated and had a lot in common. There are also accounts of rivalry between them over the leadership of  Sabbatain/Frankist movement.

WOLF RETURNS TO ALTONA AND ‘MAKES MONEY’:

Eventually, Wolf returned to Altona and faced a wall of debts from his previous escapades there. But now he claimed he could literally make his own money.

Incredulously, R. Emden describes how:

“[Wolf] tried to ward off creditors by resorting to a ‘supernatural’ means of making money. He took a bag of gold coins and had the coins smelted and the gold refined. Then he began to spread the rumour that he had mastered the science of alchemy and knew how to change copper into gold; the high quality gold in his possession was reported to have been obtained through the alchemical process of sublimation. 

Altona’s moneychangers thought they had got wind of easy money and provided Wolf with funding, hoping to receive pure gold in exchange in the future. Indeed, a few days later they were given bars of ‘gold’, which were actually bars of copper plated with a layer of gold. 

When the moneychangers realised something was wrong, they were told that the alchemical process was slow, the gold was still in almost spiritual state, and for a period of time it should be locked in a chest without being exposed to air until it fully materialised. Meanwhile, Wolf demanded more credit, and it was extended to him.”[15]

JACOB FRANK ALSO ‘MAKES MONEY’:

Jacob Frank also resorted to Alchemy and he set up a special laboratory at his estate for such purposes. He claimed to have invented  ‘Drops of Gold’, also known as the ‘Elixir of Life’  which he claimed could cure any ailment. 

One account records how one of his followers died from imbibing the drops. He seems to have given these ‘treatments’ to some of his needy and poorer followers.

Frank derided his allies, the Sabbatians for not engaging in the art of Alchemy which was sweeping through Europe at that time.

ALCHEMY BECOMES THE VOGUE:

Maciejko writes:

“In the second half of the eighteenth century, alchemy enjoyed a special vogue and became a favourite pastime of both rich and poor. It was practiced in all European capitals and major cities. It attracted the attention of the crowned heads and the nobility, but it was also widespread among the lower strata of society. According to Georg Forster, around 1785 in Warsaw alone there were 2000 active alchemists, ‘the number simply stunning for one city, even a large one.’”

Stanislaus Augustus, the King of Poland, even wanted to replenish the coffers of his kingdom through the efforts of Alchemists.

THE ‘AROMA OF MYSTERY’:

Thus we see that Wolf Eibeschutz and Jacob Frank simply reflected the norms of the age and used it to their advantage. They were aided by the perception that they, as Maciejko puts it “were said to have mysterious connections,” or as Stefan Zweig puts it, had “the aroma of mystery.”[16]

CHRISTIAN INTEREST IN KABBALAH:

Elisheva Carlebach[17] explains that from medieval times, the non-Jewish world had the perception of Jews being involved in secrets and mystery. This accounted for the Christian interest in Kabbalah which became very popular during the eighteenth century. We find people like Count Heinrich Bruhl who was instrumental in the development of early  Frankism, for example, who was known to have had one of the largest Kabbalistic Libraries in Europe.

A GLIMPSE INTO 18^th-CENTURY MESSIANISM PRESENTING ITSELF AS MAINSTREAM JUDAISM:

To say that Sabbatian messianism was rife during that time is an understatement. To illustrate: R. Meir Eisenstadt (1670-1744) was the rabbi of Prosnitz (a town saturated by Sabbatians) and although he was from a well-known rabbinic family and he himself was regarded as a great Halachic authority,  he worked together with his brother R. Moredecahi Eisenstadt, who called himself the real Messiah and Shabbatai Tzi only the Mashiah ben David. 

Gravestone of R. Meir  Eisenstadt (1670-1744), the teacher of R. Yonatan Eibeschutz. The headstone reads:  "Head of the Beit Din of the holy community of Ash (Eisenstadt) and surrounding areas." 

R. Eisenstadt, known as the Maharam Ash, wrote responsa literature, such as Or haGanuz on marriage, as well as Panim Meirot. He served as Rosh yeshiva in Worms, and one of his students was Wolf's father, Yonatan Eibeschutz. According to some accounts, R. Eibeschutz became R. Eisenstadt's adopted son.

Another false messiah, R. Leibelle Prossnitz (who claimed to have been instructed by the Ari) was also very close to R. Yonatan Eibeschutz.

[See: R. Yehudah Leib Prossnitz – Another False Messiah.]

This was the world of the eighteenth century; filled with messianism, charlatanry, alchemy, Sabbatianism and mysticism. It was not easy to tell one from the other, particularly when Sabbatians masquerade as Halachists and messiahs as Kabbalists.

If R. Yaakov Emden was right, and it is true that Chief Rabbi Yonatan Eibeschutz was involved in the mystical Sabbatian movement - then his son Wolf Benjamin Eibeschutz was just another example of the fallout that always follows when promised and immanent messianic expectations cannot be met.

FURTHER READING:

What Happened to Moshe, Son of the Baal HaTanya?

The Search for R. Nachman’s Unlikely Descendants.

---

[1] In some accounts, he is only considered a Dayan or Judge and not Chief Rabbi because of the cloud of Sabbatianism  hanging over him.

[2] Yivo Encyclopeadia. Eybeschütz Yonatan.

[3] Pawel Maciejko 2010. Sabbatian Charlatans: The First Jewish Cosmopolitans. Department of Jewish Thought, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

[4] Frankism was a more intense form of Sabbatianism involving the followers of another messianic claimant, Jacob Frank (1726-1791) who claimed to be the reincarnation of Shabbatai Tzvi. Frank was born 100 years after Shabbatai Tzi was born and fifty years after he died.

[5] There is a custom to play cards or chess on this evening, rather than study Torah which, it is said, will give spiritual energy to Jesus (Darchei Teshuva 147:7).

[6] Kelippah means shells or husks which represent Kabbalistic negative energies.

[7] Emden, Sefer Hitabkut, 40r-v, see also 48v.

[8] Zohar II. 7b. Sefer ha-Zohar (Zołkiew, 1756)

[9] Parenthesis mine.

[10] Gvul Benyamin was the title of Wolf’s lost book on Kabbalah. See Liebes, Hibbur, 80.

[11] Emden, Sefer Hitabkut, 19v.

[12] Emden, Megilat Sefer, 201.

[13] Sefer Hitabkut, 26r-v, 27v, 33v. See also Yehudah Liebes, Hibbur, pp.77–102.

[14] Emden, Sefer Hitabkut, 21v, 30v-31r.

[15] Emden, Sefer Hitabkut, 20r.

[16] Stefan Zweig, Casanova, pp.31-32.

[17] Elisheva Carlebach, Attributions of Secrecy and Perceptions of Jewry, 128-9.